1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, July 14, 2008
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
coo
'O
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
July 14, 2008
--- Visitors' Comments
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding cattle guards across roads in Kerr
County and adjoining counties
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
amend the variance given on proposed plat for
Live Springs Ranch, Court Order #30856
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding resolution signed in support of Hill
Country County Coalition, Court Order # 30877
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt a resolution honoring the lives of Ross
and Clarabelle Snodgrass and their service to
the people of Kerr County on the occasion of
their 75th wedding anniversary
1.4 Consider/discuss, approve the appointment of
election judges and alternates for term of one
year in accordance with Texas Election Code
1.5 Consider/discuss approving polling locations in
accordance with Chapter 43 of Texas Election Code
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
obtain required recertification by Texas Juvenile
Probation Commission for Kevin Stanton as Juvenile
Detention/Probation Officer; allow County Judge to
authorize such request for recertification
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
concerning Kerr County policy for emergency
response on non-maintained roads
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
concerning use of Schreiner Trust Fund for
projects in Pct. 1 & Pct. 4
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
concerning the renewal of Letter of Escrow
for BTEX RANCH, L.P., Pct. 3
PAGE
6
9
11
47
48
54
59
60
61
61
105
111
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)
July 14, 2008
PAGE
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
request from Texas Parks and Wildlife to use
office space at one of the Kerr County facilities 113
l.ll Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve service contract for the plat scanner/
plotter for another year; authorize County Judge
to sign contract 122
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
review and acknowledge quarterly report from
Patterson & Associates 123
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
provide funding for the cost of transfer of
volunteer fire department dispatch from police
department to Kerr County Sheriff's Office as
requested by Kerrville Police Department 124
1.14 Consider/discuss, approve deletion of one
sergeant position and addition of one patrol
deputy position 126
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding long range plan for Kerr County Jail
and radio system 128
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding proposal from second healthcare
provider for inmate health care and possible
impact on budget 161
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve contingency agreement Between Kerrville
State Hospital, Kerrville I.S.D. and Kerr County;
allow County Judge to sign same 165
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
formulate a general public records retention
policy for county documents and communications 166
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve resolution in support of federal funding
for construction phase of new facility to house
Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insect Research
Laboratory 173
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
July 14, 2008
1.20	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	on
	Russ Reid Company proposal to work on behalf of
	Kerr County to obtain funding for various	study
	and road construction projects	
1.22	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	to
	approve order from Judge Ables appointing	a
	part-time Assistant Auditor position	
4.1	Pay Bills	
4.2	Budget Amendments	
4.3	Late Bills	
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
	Assignments	
5.2	Reports from Elected Officials/Department	Heads
5.3	Reports from others	
---	Adjourned	
PAGE
177
180
183
188
189
190
191
197
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, July 14, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the
Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled and posted for this
time and date, Monday, July 14th, 2008, at 9 a.m. It is that
time now. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. If you would join me
with a word of prayer, and followed by the pledge of
allegiance?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be
heard on any item that is not a listed agenda item, feel free
to come forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind.
If you wish to speak on an agenda item, we would ask that you
fill out a participation form. They're located at the back
of the room, or should be. It's not essential that you do
that, but it helps me to be sure that I know that there's
someone who wishes to be heard on an agenda item from the
audience. If you haven't filled out a participation form and
7-19-08
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
wish to be heard on an agenda item, get my attention when we
are at that agenda item, and I'll see that you have the
opportunity to be heard. But right now, if there's any
member of the audience or the public that wishes to be heard
on any matter that is not listed as an agenda item, please
come forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind.
Mr. Evans? If you'll come forward and give us your name and
address, please, sir.
MR. EVANS: All right. I'm Von Evans; I live at
211 Von Trail in Kerrville Country Estates just north of
Interstate 10. One of the things that I wanted to bring up
today is the fact that my nonagricultural use property values
last year went up 20 percent. This year they went up
80 percent. I don't know what authority you people have over
the Appraisal District, but I called the Appraisal
District -- I didn't even make a formal complaint to them
because I knew that it would be worthless, a waste of time.
And the fellow that I talked to said, "You're exactly right.
People come in and they pay exorbitant prices for a piece of
property next to you, and then your property value becomes
what they paid for it, regardless of how stupid they may have
been." And he said, "But that's the law, and we have to go
by the law."
Well, something's got to be done about this. And I
don't know what effect you people can have on it, but he
7-14-08
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
said, "Well, you don't have to worry; you're over 65." And I
think that's obvious. But -- but the -- the whole point is,
one of these days I'm going to get hit in the face with a
shovel, and then my kids are going to end up with that
property. Then they're going to end up paying the property
taxes that they have so joyously placed upon me with an
80 percent increase. I have people calling me complaining
about the fact that their property value had gone up
15 percent, and I said, "Don't cry. Try 80." And they
couldn't believe it till I showed them. Anyway, but -- okay.
Now, another thing, too, is the -- our community --
Under state law right now, the J.P. has
the right to enforce community restrictions in an
unincorporated area. And I know you're going to talk about
community restrictions in unincorporated areas, and I'm
interested to hear what you have to say about that, because
we already have a legal leg, you might say, that can govern
activities in that area. But one of the things that I'm most
greatly concerned about is that I paid a lot of money to
drill my well. Then a neighbor of mine who did likewise, his
well went dry back in -- in 2006 when we had that long
drought, and he had to have a 50-foot extension put on.
That's at the time that they were talking about putting that
golf course right across Highway 16 from our community.
7-19-08
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
And so now they're -- I've heard talk about they're
somebody to come put a meter on my well, if that meter
breaks, are they going to pay for it, or are they going to
charge me to install the meter, or what in the heck are they
going to do? And that's my private well, and without any
recourse whatsoever, they're going to come put a meter on my
well? And then they're going to charge me for using excess
water, in their opinion, while they -- we've got more golf
courses in this community per capita than any other city in
the state of Texas. My son looked that up on the computer --
you know, on the e-mail, or what do you call it? I'm not
computer friendly by a long shot. But, anyway, he said,
"Man, I can't believe y'all got all those golf courses." I
said, "Well, we have a lot of visitors." But we also have a
lot of people moving here. And when you're running this
short on water, then sooner or later somebody's going to have
to say, "Come visit the beautiful Hill Country, but don't
move here unless you bring your own water." Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Evans.
7-14-08
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
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: If there's any other member of the
public or the audience that wishes to be heard on any matter
that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward
at this time. Seeing no one else coming forward, we will
move on with our agenda. Commissioner Oehler, what do you
have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not really anything. I just
hope people don't -- don't try to burn anything right now,
with as dry as it is. I think we got through 4th of July
pretty well. Anyway, nothing else.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All clear, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a quick comment.
Mr. Evans, I share your concerns about water, and I hope you
and everyone else that applauded goes to Headwaters meetings,
'cause they're the ones that govern the body of underground
water in this county. We have nothing to do with it. I
personally believe we have all the water underground that we
need for a long, long time, and I think that Headwaters needs
to hear from the citizens of this county, because they kind
of go awry sometimes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me add a caveat to
that. They talked about some rule changes at their last
7-14-08
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
meeting, and they were postponed because some members of the
public were there and said, "We didn't know you were
proposing rule changes," and so they were postponed, I think,
till the next meeting. It would behoove the public who's
interested in these issues to be there, because you don't
know what they're going to do if you're not there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
MR. ROESCH: Mr. Williams, if I might add, it has
been postponed till October.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. It's been
postponed till October.
JUDGE TINLEY: With regard to the Appraisal
I District issue, the degree of control we have, we participate
i
to a small degree in approving or disapproving the budget for
the Appraisal District. Once that budget is approved, we pay
our pro rata part. Beyond that, we use their values, because
we're mandated by law to use their values. That's pretty
much it in a nutshell.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I might also add, Judge, that
we voted against that budget because of our displeasure with
that Appraisal District and the way they've done things
recently. I think the last two years, we have been the only
entity to vote against their budget, and it has been passed
over our objection.
7-14-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- I don't know if there
were others that -- that joined us. We asked them to join us
last year, as I recall, but the budget was approved. It's
weighted by -- by either the amount of valuation or the
amount of tax, I'm not sure. I think it's the amount of tax.
The school district has the largest degree of participation
in approving that budget, and then I think it's probably -- I
don't know whether it's us or the City. One or the other.
Whichever one it isn't, that's the third one, and then it
scales down with others. But we -- we certainly don't
control it. Obviously, we don't, or it would have been
disapproved last year. But that's pretty much our
participation.
Let's get on with our agenda, if we might. The
first item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action regarding cattle guards across roads in
Kerr County and adjoining counties. This agenda item was
placed on the agenda at the request of Mr. Richard Bohnert.
Mr. Bohnert, if you'll come forward and give us your name and
address?
MR. BOHNERT: I'm Richard Bohnert, 200 Weston Road,
Comfort, and I'm wanting to talk about cattle guards on
Wilson Creek Road and other roads in the area. And I have a
few pictures. I want to make a few statements and ask a few
questions.
7-14-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could I ask you one quick
question?
MR. BOHNERT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to -- excuse
me. Are you going to get outside the county -- a county
road?
MR. BOHNERT: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Strictly county roads, not
state highways?
MR. BOHNERT: Well, I'm not going to ask questions
about state highways, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because we don't have
anything to do with that.
MR. BOHNERT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I just wanted to make
sure. There's some folks in the room that live on a state
highway with cattle -- cattle guards, and I didn't know if
you were going to address that or not.
MR. BOHNERT: Okay. So, Kerr County has strict
specs most developers have to follow to put in roads, whether
they're private or county-maintained. There should not be a
double standard, in my opinion. County employees should have
to follow their own specs. Commissioners and Road Engineer
or Administrator should make sure all road repair and
construction meets county specs. Cattle guards that were
7-19-08
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
Not only do I think this is a safety hazard by not installing
them properly; it also shows how corrupt the County is by
placing different standards for different people. The
different standards are set for the county than for the
developers, which is a violation of state standard for roads
and subdivision, which the County shall follow 232.001
under Section 232.003, a higher standard for streets or roads
in a subdivision than the County imposes on itself for the
construction of streets or roads with a similar type and
amount of traffic. Therefore, I am requesting the cattle
guards be installed properly as they were before Road and
Bridge Department unlawfully removed them on Wilson Creek
Road.
On Dally Road, Lasso Ranch has 19 lots which are
all fenced off of the road, but there is a new cattle guard
installed where Dally Road enters Hasenwinkel. Their cattle
guard is not just set on top of the road. Why can a new
cattle guard be put in on Dally Road, and on Wilson Creek
Road, y'all are wanting to take out cattle guards which have
been in since the county got the easement? I'm wondering, is
this because of certain developers or something, or why is
7-19-08
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
this allowed when we're talking about taking cattle guards
out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know anything -- I
don't know what you're talking about. You're looking at me.
I don't -- Road and Bridge is here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What precinct are you
talking about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're in Precinct 3.
MR. BOHNERT: Precinct 3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I -- I have no backup in my
agenda. You didn't provide us anything to look at.
MR. BOHNERT: Should I have to? I mean, they had
to be approved to be put in. It's going across a county
road, coming off of one county road, going to another road.
Why should I be the one that has to provide that information?
I wasn't allowed to provide information on why my cattle
I guards shouldn't be ripped out. They were ripped out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You put the agenda item on.
The backup, anything you wanted us to look at ahead of time,
you should have provided us, or told us at least. I have no
idea what your agenda item is about, other than county policy
for cattle guards. So, if you want to get -- you know, I'm
glad to look with you, and I'll be glad to meet with you with
Road and Bridge.
MR. BOHNERT: Okay, we can do that. I'm just
7-14-08
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
wanting answers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
MR. BOHNERT: I also feel like that Jonathan Letz
and Leonard Odom do not want to remove cattle guards
throughout the county, or they would not allow more new
cattle guards and would be removing every cattle guard as
soon as the properties between the cattle guards are fenced.
South Fork Road has a severely damaged cattle guard, only
12 feet wide with no side fencing. All property is fenced on
both sides of the road. This has been so for years. Other
cattle guards that were in the same or similar situation I
know of are one on Hasenwinkel Road, one on Allerkamp Road
where Cypress Creek -- where Allerkamp Road meets Cypress
Creek Road, two on Stoneleigh Road, one by the schoolhouse
I and the other by Leonard Balkman properties. These are just
a few cattle guards I know of from roads I travel while on
business calls. I feel safe to say there are many more
cattle guards that are not in service and have not been
removed. This is how I know there is some other reason that
Letz, Odom, and Koennecke want to take out three cattle
guards on Wilson Creek Road.
Letz made a false statement in the property, saying
I was the only one against removal of cattle guards; all
other property owners affected by the cattle guards do not
want them removed. They were all here at the March '08
7-19-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
Commissioners Court and voiced their opinions very strong.
They want the cattle guards to stay. Jay Colvin, if he had
anything to say about that, he is not an owner affected by
any of his property. He has plenty access from Highway 27 if
he has any problem with those cattle guards. He does not
need to use that road; he can use Highway 27, which is where
he has access to his property. The situation is no different
than the property shown on the picture in the July 5 and 6,
2008 Daily Times paper. There's a cattle guard with a fence
on one side of Fall Creek Road. How does Mr. Holekamp feel
This is not considered open range, as each property
owner owns the property all the way across the road on Wilson
Creek Road. That means the entire easement is on one
property -- in one person's property, from property line to
property line. There is still open range in Texas. Examples
of this are in Falling Waters, The Reserve, Tierra Linda, and
Y.O. Ranch, where property is being sold and they are not
allowed to fence. If we don't have open range in Texas, then
those need to be addressed also, and those people can start
paying their property taxes on their property which could not
be ag exempt. They cannot fence it, so that is open range.
Open range -- my understanding of the law is, open range is
when you're grazing from one property owner's property to
7-19-08
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
another, and not going across a road that goes through your
property. That is not open range. That property is fenced;
it's just that it has a county road going through it.
If we're going to do where we're not going to have
grazing on the right-of-ways, then everybody that has
property where that county road goes through, they have to
fence on both sides of the road, not -- not just one or two
people. If the County has additional funds that need to be
gotten rid of by taking out cattle guards, why don't you just
take that additional money and return that to the taxpayers?
Is there anything -- any answers to this? Why would we want
to have some people fencing off their property and others
not, when we have cattle guards on county roads that are
already fenced off? The cattle guards are not in service.
They have no side fencing to them, and they've been in there
like that for years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're working on a policy right
now, county-wide.
MR. BOHNERT: Okay. Why are we going to take
cattle guards out that are in service before we take out any
other cattle guards or come up with any kind of a policy?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That road was under
construction, was being rebuilt.
MR. BOHNERT: There's other roads that have had
construction on them, too. And if they're in service, it
7-14-08
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
shouldn't matter. They've all been -- other roads have been
repaired with cattle guards on them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Bohnert, I know you're
taking an adverse -- or you feel like this is an adverse
issue here, and please don't take me that way, 'cause I'm
', trying to figure out --
MR. BOHNERT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- what the hell you're
talking about. Back to this issue of Mr. Colvin being able
to access his property from somewhere else, he doesn't need
to drive down your road, is that not a public road?
MR. BOHNERT: All I'm saying is -- yeah, he can
drive down -- I'm not trying to keep him from driving down --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I'm trying to figure
out -- do you think that you own that road?
MR. BOHNERT: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where the cattle guards --
okay.
MR. BOHNERT:
COMMISSIONER
MR. BOHNERT:
about there is someone
those cattle guards be
them out of there. In
COMMISSIONER
No. No.
BALDWIN: Okay.
My -- my con -- what I'm talking
that is not adversely affected by
ing able to say something about getting
other words, what I'm saying is --
BALDWIN: Yeah. He would have the
7-14-08
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
right to voice his concern to get -- leave them in or take
them out, though. He's a -- he's a -- he's a taxpayer. He
owns that road just like you do. So, I mean, that's beside
the point. That's a silly issue. But I'm just trying to
figure out where you're coming from. I want to take your
side.
MR. BOHNERT: I don't know who is behind this
getting those cattle guards taken out. That's what my point
is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it was -- it's --
MR. BOHNERT: And I understand and I appreciate
your comments in the paper, because I feel like you do
understand. This is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm trying to --
MR. BOHNERT: Some people are using cattle guards
to maintain or control their livestock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me talk. I'm trying to
figure out -- we've been told that it's a safety issue. Now,
I've kind of come to the place to where -- how did we make
that decision? What -- what criteria did we use to decide
that it's safe or unsafe? And that's where I'm going to go
with this thing. If it's -- if it's -- you know, if the
County Engineer says it's unsafe, and somebody that's a lot
smarter than I am, which the room's full of people, like the
County Attorney, as an example, or somebody that says, "Yes,
7-14-08
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
this cattle guard's unsafe," that thing needs to go. It is
simple as that. People's safety -- the driving public's
safety is a lot more important than your cow, where your cow
eats. But if we can't deem that it's unsafe, we can't prove
that it's unsafe, my god, how -- are we going to do this the
rest of our lives? It reminds me of Bill sitting there and
the septic tanks 20 years ago. This thing's going to take us
to the grave if we're not careful. But, anyway, that's all
I've got to say. Thank you for your comments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With respect to Fall Creek
Road, there is no issue on Fall Creek Road. I've spoken with
Mr. Holekamp, and I know the other landowner where there is
cattle guards and he has cattle roaming. There is no issue
on Fall Creek Road. There may be one or two on Fall Creek
Road early up on the road that could stand to be removed, but
there is no issue with respect to people who have cattle --
who have property on both sides of the road, one side being
unfenced. So, let's just take Fall Creek Road out of the
equation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Richard, you and I have talked,
I don't know, an untold number of times on the issue of --
you know, the cattle guards were taken out. They were taken
out incorrectly from the standpoint notice was not given to
you ahead of time, or not -- actually shouldn't have been
given to you; it should have been given to Mr. Williamson,
7-14-08
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
the Simpkins, and some other people. You don't own that land
where the cattle guards were removed.
MR. BOHNERT: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other portion of it is that
where -- where ownership has changed, fences have been built,
a lot has changed on that road, and we were doing a
rehabilitation of that road. That's why those three cattle
guards came out. You're aware of that. The request came
from the landowners -- property owners to put them back in.
They were done; they were put back in. And I believe all the
property owners have received notice of the County's intent
to take those out in six months. We're working on a
county-wide policy which is going to address the ones -- I
agree with you; the one on South Fork, that needs to come
out. There's other ones. If there is no reason for the
cattle guard to be there, they're not in service, in other
words, they're not holding cattle anywhere or livestock
anywhere, they need to come out. That's all I've ever said.
And Road and Bridge came up with a policy at our last meeting
and I think we rejected it, said it was too broad, and we
were waiting for a new policy to be drafted again. I
recommend that you look at the agenda, as you do, on a
regular basis. When that comes back, give us your input on
it, 'cause I think we need to address a standard policy as to
what cattle guards need to come out in this policy if they're
7-14-08
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
needed, if they're controlling livestock, there's no fences
on both sides of the road, yeah.
MR. BOHNERT: Well, now that you brought that up
about that fencing, the fencing was not there when those
cattle guards were taken out. When Bryant Williamson was
putting in -- started to put in fencing, Doug Koennecke came
over there took it on him -- on his own self to go over there
and tell him where he needs to put his fence, and he set the
fence out farther than what the easement is, an additional
10 feet. And the traffic on that road that you've made
comments about, the subdivision that's going in up there at
that 250 acres; that's only ten lots, max. There may be
people that buy double lots out there. There has been no
additional traffic put in there. And at that point, the
road -- the minimum on that road is 40 feet wide.
Immediately past my cattle guards, my last cattle guard
there, it drops down to 30 feet. Over by Doug Koennecke's,
it is 30 feet from fence to fence.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has he subdivided his property?
MR. BOHNERT: Wait a minute. Right next to him,
just east of him, there is a subdivision that has eight
houses -- seven or eight houses out on Sakewitz Lane. And
right across from that is Harmony Lane, which has six or
seven houses on there, and I believe there's 10 or 11 lots in
that subdivision. Anywhere those people go, where there is
7-19-08
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
already a lot of traffic coming onto Wilson Creek Road, they
have a 30-foot-wide easement. Doesn't matter whether they go
east on Wilson Creek Road or west on Wilson Creek Road; they
have a 30-foot-wide easement till they got to our property,
and our property is the one that's being targeted. It
already has the widest easement and has the straightest part
of a road there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you feel that we should
leave the easements as narrow as they are and not try to
improve county roads?
MR. BOHNERT: I'm saying when you want to make them
wider, you should go to the narrowest part and start there.
Don't start with the people that already have the greatest
easement there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can require it when someone
plats their property, and that's what we did on your road.
We required Sunset Ridges to give the County additional
right-of-way.
MR. BOHNERT: I did not plat that property. I did
not have to plat the property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sunset Ridges platted. That's
where the easement got wider. That's where the easement went
to 60 feet.
MR. BOHNERT: I do not have to make my road 60 feet
because of that subdivision going in. If I would have to,
7-14-08
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
then why doesn't Douglas Koennecke or anyone else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't.
MR. BOHNERT: When the subdivision went in, they
got a 60-feet-wide road there on Harmony Lane.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bohnert --
MR. BOHNERT: And it's 30 feet going there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bohnert, you mentioned about a
fence being offset 10 foot. Was that in the area where you
reserved an additional 10-foot easement outside of the county
right-of-way?
MR. BOHNERT: That was my own. It was not an
additional 10 feet. I was advised by Road and Bridge
Department to make that a 60-foot wide easement. All I
wanted to do was to reserve an easement for myself, that I
could be guaranteed access to my property back in the back.
That's all I was wanting to do. And there --
JUDGE TINLEY: You and -- I just want to be clear
about this.
MR. BOHNERT: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: When you -- when you sold off that
property in the area that we're talking about -- let's talk
about the Williamsons, for example.
MR. BOHNERT: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's the one you were
7-14-08
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
referring to. It was already burdened by an easement to Kerr
County, correct?
MR. BOHNERT: No, sir -- 40 feet, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But outside of that 40 feet,
on the Williamson side of the road, you reserved unto
yourself individually --
MR. BOHNERT: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- an additional 10 feet.
MR. BOHNERT: It was 20 feet, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, 20 feet on the Williamson
side, or 10 on the Williamson and 10 on the other side?
MR. BOHNERT: 20 feet on the Williamson -- it was
60 feet wide across that road.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So you reserved, in addition
to the -- in your conveyance to Williamson, you reserved an
additional 20 feet outside of the County's right-of-way when
you conveyed to Williamson?
MR. BOHNERT: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that reservation, according to
what you just indicated to me, I believe, was for access
purposes?
MR. BOHNERT: If so necessary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if it was or wasn't, it was
still for access purposes, wasn't it?
MR. BOHNERT: Well, yeah, you could say that, I
7-14-08
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
guess.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOHNERT: But that was under the direction of
Road and Bridge Department. I didn't want 60 feet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did it -- well, you reserved it to
yourself. You didn't reserve it to the County, did you?
MR. BOHNERT: No, I didn't reserve it to anyone.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOHNERT: It was a private easement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And in connection with that
conveyance, you did not plat that property either, as I
recall.
MR. BOHNERT: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOHNERT: Road and Bridge Department told me I
didn't have to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's talk about -- you mentioned
something about Tierra Linda not being fenced, their roadways
not being lane fenced. Did it occur to you that those
roadways are not even public roadways, but are rather private
roadways within that subdivision?
MR. BOHNERT: Well, they're talking about not being
able to have open range. That's the statement I'm referring
to there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my point to you, sir, is it
7-14-08
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
really applicable when you're talking about cattle guards on
county or public roadways, and using, as an example, private
roadways over which the County has no control?
MR. BOHNERT: I don't know if all of those roads
are public. Isn't that main road going in there a state
road?
JUDGE TINLEY: Trust me, they are. They are
private. They have been since the inception in about 1971.
MR. BOHNERT: All right. And I know those are
private roads in Falling Waters and in The Reserve. But they
still have to build those roads to meet county specs. Any
time you do a development, it has to be done to meet county
specs. That's what I was told.
JUDGE TINLEY: At the time platting occurs.
MR. BOHNERT: And that's what this book says.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's at the time platting a
property occurs. That's what triggered that requirement --
the requirements in the subdivision rules.
MR. BOHNERT: And the reasoning I was told about
that is that road does not have to remain private. They can
turn that over to the County anytime they so desire. That's
why it's supposed to meet county specs, if the County will
approve it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. That's essentially correct.
MR. BOHNERT: And the County will take it over.
7-14-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Roads in Falling Water were
built under -- currently, Falling Water's roads could not be
turned over, 'cause they don't meet county specs right now.
They were built under a prior set of rules. The Reserve does
meet county specs. That's those two subdivisions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then, even so, it's a
determination. On The Reserve, those roads are now -- I
don't know, five years old. That means they're not up to
county specs, so they have to be brought up to current county
specs, resurfaced; then they would be accepted. That's the
County's policy on accepting roads.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mr. Bohnert, for my part of
this thing, I think we're getting off the agenda item a
little bit. We're talking about cattle guards, and it only
makes sense to me, from having the experience that I've had
in the past, once you have a lane -- or you have a roadway
lane with fences on both sides, cattle guards become
irrelevant and unnecessary.
MR. BOHNERT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Until that occurs, the cattle
guards need to remain. If they're a safety issue, we need to
upgrade them. And I don't believe that any of us on this
Court want to try to force people to fence their property on
both sides of a road just so that livestock can be taken away
7-19-08
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
from the roadway. Now, we do have other roadways in the --
in this county and other counties that are not county roads
that have cattle guards; they're state highways, and put
these livestock up. But that's even fine with me, but in my
mind, I would never ask an owner to spend money to fence
property just so we can take a cattle guard out. That makes
no sense. That's too expensive. Makes no sense at all. But
over a course of time, when we have people coming in buying
property, in their mind, a lot of them, especially new ones,
use a fence for security to keep people from accessing their
property from county roads and things and driving around.
But until that fence occurs, I would not be in favor of
pulling cattle guards out and trying to force land owners to
fence. That's wrong.
MR. BOHNERT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's all I got to say about
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with Commissioner
Oehler on that. That's exactly where I am on the issue.
MR. BOHNERT: Well, that, and those cattle guards
were being used. I had to round up my cattle. The cattle
guards were taken up; my cattle were out there. I had to
round up my cattle and put them in another pasture, and I had
to start feeding additional feed to my cattle because of
that. That's why I am so upset. Because there's other
7-14-08
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
cattle guards that have been fenced out, and they have not
been removed. This was the starting point with removal of
cattle guards, and they were in service at the time.
That's -- I have no problem with that. If they're fenced,
and cattle cannot get onto the county roads, no problem at
all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Bohnert, let's be truthful
on this. Exactly, there was a 950-foot stretch of fence that
had not been put in by the Williamsons. I've talked to the
Williamsons and said if they want to leave their fence open,
the cattle guards can stay. There's other cattle guards.
All of the rest of that property is fenced. The Williamsons
have fenced all about but 950 feet. Last time I was there,
it still was unfenced; I presume it is. And that was their
call. It's not your call. You don't own that property.
That's the Williamsons' property.
MR. BOHNERT: That's correct. I don't own that
property there, but have I the -- the cattle lease or the
livestock grazing rights on that property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I've told the Williamsons
that if they want to leave those two cattle guards there,
they can. The other one's coming out.
MR. BOHNERT: Right. And that other one up at the
top was on my property.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, sir?
7-14-08
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
MR. BOHNERT: No, I guess that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any member of the Court
have anything additional on that?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Judge Tinley, can I say something?
JUDGE TINLEY: You'll have to come forward, Mr.
Williamson. Give us your name and address.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah. I'm Bryant Williamson; I
live at 375 Wilson Creek Road. Buster was talking about the
safety of the cattle guards, and I was just wondering, just
our cattle guards there at our house, has there ever been a
wreck there? Or do you have any idea?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd have to go back and look.
I don't know of one offhand, and it would be a long time.
I'd have to check on that.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's been in place since 1947, and
it doesn't seem like it's unsafe. My problem is the economic
utility of my property. I do have a lease with Richard for
running his cows, and I have the cows coming up there and
moving them down the road to his other pastures. If you put
the cattle guard in -- take it out, excuse me -- and I have
my fences set further back than where they're supposed to be
for being a lane, I'm losing a good bit of utility of that
property. And even if I bring the fence forward, the -- the
property itself becomes more of a value to the County than to
me. And it seems like if I'm losing the value of that
7-14-08
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
property, except for the obligation to pay taxes, I think I
should be compensated for that. There's -- if I lose the
economic utility.
MR. EMERSON: The only comment I want to make,
Mr. Williamson, is that under Chapter 143 of the Agricultural
Code, it's very specific about, "Thou shalt not graze your
livestock on a county road right-of-way."
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right. Okay, fine. Fine. I
bought that piece of property. We had cattle grazing on the
road. Now what you're doing is, you're coming to me saying,
"You can't do that."
MR. EMERSON: That's a state statute; it's not a
county statute.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, here in 140 -- Subsection
143.104 says you can herd along a highway. So, I can move
the cattle down the highway, down my road, right?
MR. EMERSON: Mm-hmm.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. I just don't understand the
whole purpose of the County being able to take the utility
away from my property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Williamson, if you did not
have any fences along your property right there --
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you know, except you have a
unique situation.
7-14-08
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
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your kind of north boundary,
the County owns that right -- or half that right-of-way.
MR. WILLIAMSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we own all of that
right-of-way.
', MR. WILLIAMSON: The whole thing is my property.
You have an easement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Sunset Ridges, the County --
in Sunset --
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, let's talk about from the
cattle guards south.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- I want to talk about the
cattle guards north.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying we own that
property, so there is no right for you to graze cattle on
County-owned property, any more than you have a right to take
them to the Ag Barn and graze them there.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's correct. But part of the
purpose of the cattle guards is as part of my fencing. And
the purpose of the fences is to control the cattle, so the
cattle will not go to the north; they will go to the south.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, if you take down
all the fences, if you don't have any fences, if there's no
7-14-08
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
fencing on that side, we'll leave those two cattle guards.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's a
safety --
~~, MR. WILLIAMSON: What it is, my fence is sitting so
far back, I've got, like, a half an acre of land that I could
graze on it. I'd like to be able to use that. And if we put
"Loose Cattle" signs up --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And --
JUDGE TINLEY: How far back is your fence sitting?
MR. WILLIAMSON: From the center of the road, it's
40 feet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 feet for the county
right-of-way. 20 feet for the county right-of-way.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And 20 feet for Mr. Bohnert's
private easement that he reserved?
MR. WILLIAMSON: That easement doesn't exist. It's
gone.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm confused, then. He just told me
that he reserved that easement --
MR. WILLIAMSON: Wasn't that removed?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- privately to himself.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It was removed.
7-14-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The plot thickens, Judge.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm confused. When was that
removed?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I think two months ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Was there an instrument
filed?
MR. BOHNERT: My understanding was you're asking me
when we sold that property, not what is there now. At the
Commissioners Court in March --
MR. WILLIAMSON: March 10th.
MR. BOHNERT: -- is when I said that I would remove
that easement, when Buster Baldwin says, "Well, we'll put the
cattle guards back. You remove your easement. We'll be --
everybody will be happy, and we'll get on down the road."
And I've been working on getting that easement removed. I
mean, that -- not -- I'm sorry, not the easement. That --
well, yeah, my private easement, on getting that removed.
And I've got all of the instruments done, but I have not
filed it at the courthouse yet. But it is -- I have the
documents on it from the attorney, that all of that has been
taken care of.
JUDGE TINLEY: How long have you had those
documents, Mr. Bohnert?
MR. BOHNERT: I just received them about two weeks
7-14-08
1
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
ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The private easement, 20 feet
in width, that you mentioned to me a little while ago when we
were talking, what do those instruments propose to do with
that 20 feet? Where's it going to go?
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's retainable to me.
MR. BOHNERT: It's the property owner's.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You're conveying that to
Mr. Williamson as it -- insofar as it abuts his property,
then?
MR. BOHNERT: Right. All that -- all we're doing
is going to remove that easement. We have no need for it any
more, because the properties there have sold. And our other
property, we can access that to our own property. So, if the
County wants to do anything with that road and cut us off
from going there and having to take a different route to get
up there, it's not going to affect us any more.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that we're trying to do
anything. I'm just trying to find out what happened to this
private 20-foot easement that you retained.
MR. BOHNERT: Those --
JUDGE TINLEY: And right now, you haven't done
anything? You're just thinking about it?
MR. BOHNERT: No, I've got all the -- I have not
recorded it yet. I've got the drafts on it. The surveyor
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
went ahead and got all of the information, got to it my
attorney, and the attorney has got the drafts up, and I've
got the draft for each piece of property.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you're --
MR. BOHNERT: All I need do is review that and
approve it, go to the attorney, and he can file it.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're telling us now that your
intent is to convey that 20-foot easement that you retained
to each of the property owners you sold to, under which you
retained it, that portion of easement which abuts each of
those property owners that purchased from you?
MR. BOHNERT: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And all you have to do is to go sign
the documents, and then let them be recorded?
MR. BOHNERT: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
MR. BOHNERT: I'm not going back on my word, what I
told y'all in March.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're -- I mean, I'm
agreeing with what Commissioner Oehler said. I think
Commissioner Williams said the same thing, and Commissioner
Baldwin's earlier statement. I mean, I think we're all in
agreement. When cattle guards are no longer needed for
service, they need to be removed. If they're needed for
service, and there's no fences fencing the lane, they stay.
7-14-08
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It's that simple.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's how -- you know, but --
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's the only thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- there's fences on that lane
right now, so the fences all need to be removed between the
cattle guards, and then they'll stay.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Now, what gives you that
right to say -- what if, 50 years from now, I wanted to
change something on my property?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We get a county road; we've
I'I given you notice now. I mean, I think --
MR. WILLIAMSON: Let me read you one thing out of
the Transportation Code.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Rex is there; he can
listen if you read more law.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It has to do with Section 251 of
the Transportation Code, and it deals with third-class roads,
which I believe -- Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: There's no third-class roads.
MR. WILLIAMSON: No third-class roads. So this is
just considered a lane?
MR. ODOM: It's considered a second class, or first
class; not much difference between them.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Well, here it describes a
7-14-08
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
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And a causeway is considered to be
16 feet.
MR. ODOM: I don't know about causeway.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Causeway sounds like water to me.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Something on the water, right.
But what it is, it's just a raised piece of earth that you
have a road on top of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're way off cattle
guards.
MR. WILLIAMSON: No, we're not, because what I'm
getting to -- what I'm getting to is, if you removed the
cattle guards, you're removing part of my fence. I have a
right to put up a gate. Or I need -- I have a right to
replace that fencing. That's the purpose of the six
months -- or the intent of the law says you have to give six
months notice so that the person who's had the fence removed,
you can do something about it. So, if you take out my cattle
guard, those cows can still go to the north. What am I
supposed to do? Get rid of the cows?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Under closed range under the
ag code, what you're required to do now -- 'cause that
section is closed range. You have -- as the landowner,
7-19-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
40
you're required to fence your animals in. Nobody's required
to fence them out.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And the liability part is,
since that is closed, if anybody does hit your cows or
anything else on that county road, --
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- cattle guards or not, you
are totally liable for every bit of damage or injury.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I talked to my insurance agent --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're required to fence them
in your property.
MR. WILLIAMSON: My property goes -- it's already
been fenced in, because the cattle guard was part of the
fencing. Now I'm supposed to put in another fence so that
y'all can do whatever you want to with the road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just told you, if there's no
fencing on that segment of the road, we'll leave the cattle
guards in.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. I have -- okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your neighbor next to you has
fence there too.
MR. WILLIAMSON: His -- his fence is set back
further than --
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's still fencing the lane.
7-14-08
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
You're still -- I mean, whether --
MR. WILLIAMSON: So you're saying I can't. You and
I talked about this before. I'm still missing the utility of
that part of the property that's not fenced correctly,
because I was told to fence it in a certain manner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I used to live on a quarter
acre lot, and the government made me put in an aerobic sewer
system, and that caused me not to be able to do anything with
my property.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I couldn't add a bedroom,
couldn't do anything.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because of the way the thing
was laid out. It's an absolute -- that's a taking by
government. So, I sold the goddern thing, went off did
something else.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah. Well, that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're all happy.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And these Yankees that came
down there and bought that house are happy. (Laughter.)
MR. WILLIAMSON: So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're happy?
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm happy.
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, so I guess I'm supposed to
sell my place?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You need to be happy. We
want you happy.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I can't get -- the whole thing --
I'd like to be happy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You look happy.
MR. WILLIAMSON: But I can't -- the whole thing is,
I'm missing part of my property.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe when Mr. Bohnert conveys that
to you, you can get it back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go.
MR. WILLIAMS: No. Okay. Well, maybe this isn't
the right court to talk about this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe not.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It might not be. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But just stand by; I think
Mr. Bohnert's going to give you the use of that property
back.
MR. BOHNERT: I'm Richard Bohnert, 200 Weston Road.
The thing is, where he was told to put that fence, it's off
neither line. It's not on the 40-foot easement line. It's
not on the line of the property that we had reserved, the
easement that we had. It's in between there, and Road and
Bridge Department is the one who came and told him where to
7-19-08
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
put his fence when he was wanting to put his fence on the
40-foot easement line.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe he shouldn't have listened.
MR. BOHNERT: Well, that's exactly right.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, that's a good point. How do
I know what's right? I mean, really.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's up to you to check it out to
know what your property rights are.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Exactly. And it takes a while to
do it. I'm getting down to the nitty-gritty of it right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: You keep working on it,
Mr. Williamson, and maybe you'll get it right.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. But what about y'all?
JUDGE TINLEY: What about us?
MR. WILLIAMSON: So y'all can just go -- just going
to fence in the lanes and take their property. Isn't that
adverse possession or something?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We put you on notice. On this
agenda, we haven't done anything. We just -- we're trying to
develop a county policy is all we're trying to do.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're working on cattle guards, and
we'll continue to work on this.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. I would just like to have
25 ~ my cattle guard stay.
7-14-08
1
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you have no fencing, that's
no problem.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Along that segment.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Along that segment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You will have to fence them out
of the part the County owns, which is --
MR. WILLIAMSON: Why?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sunset Ridges, where the County
owns the right-of-way, you're obligated to fence your --
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's private.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- cattle off.
MR. WILLIAMSON: To the north part, right?
I', COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think you'd put the
fence in the middle of the roadway.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've beat that fence about
as far as we're going to beat it.
MR. BOHNERT: I've got two questions that have came
~ up now .
JUDGE TINLEY: Are they the same questions you
asked earlier?
MR. BOHNERT: Well, I didn't get an answer on it.
I wanted to know where cattle guards are going to stay, are
they going to be put in properly?
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you get a notice from -- from --
7-14-08
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. BOHNERT: No, I have not.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Road and Bridge about the removal
of those cattle guards?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I did know.
MR. BOHNERT: No, sir, I have not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. When's the last time you
checked your mail, Mr. Bohnert?
MR. BOHNERT: Saturday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were mailed on the 11th, I
believe. They may not --
MR. BOHNERT: Friday or Saturday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were mailed on the 11th of
July, I believe.
II MR. BOHNERT: And another thing is, if we have to
give up our right-of-way and cannot graze on there, how about
the rest of the people in the county that are grazing on that
county road? That is a right-of-way, and they are allowed to
graze on that road, but we're not supposed to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bohnert, what I'm hearing from
you is that you're willing to comply with the law once you're
assured that everybody else similarly affected in the entire
county has already been required to comply with the law, and
you get to be last.
MR. BOHNERT: No, sir. I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm hearing. I'm sorry.
7-14-08
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BOHNERT: Well, if that's what you're hearing,
then you're not hearing what I'm saying. What I am hearing
from the Court is that I am the only one that has to follow
this set of rules in all of Kerr County. Mr. Williamson just
said earlier that it's not going to affect anyone out in that
area where Fall Creek Road is, or Fall -- whatever that is.
Other people are not having to follow that. It's just going
', to affect us on Wilson Creek Road. That's what I'm trying to
say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bohnert? Mr. Bohnert? We are
in the process of developing a policy on cattle guards, and
once that policy is developed and approved by the Court, it
will then be implemented and executed with respect to all
cattle guards in the county. And where it will start and
where it will end, I can't give you that information, because
we don't have the policy yet, but we're working on it.
MR. BOHNERT: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. WILLIAMSON: One thing. So, we received our
letter that you're going to pull our cattle guards out within
six months, without even having the policy set. I mean, our
the cattle guards -- my cattle guard doesn't pose any hazard
that I know of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to give six months
notice.
7-14-08
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WILLIAMSON: I know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't mean it's coming out.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right, exactly. Okay. So, we can
still be in contention --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six months notice of
intent.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's why they were put back in.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 2, if we might;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to amend
variance given on proposed plat for Live Springs Ranch under
Court Order 30856. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The information I have
received recently tells me that there is not going to be a
replat done. There's no need for a variance; that we just
need to rescind the court order on the variance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It is a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the Court --
JUDGE TINLEY: To rescind Court Order Number 30856.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir.
7-14-08
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 3; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
regarding a resolution signed in support of Hill Country
County Coalition, Court Order Number 30877. Commissioner
Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we've all taken some
-- some abuse over joining the County Coalition by
resolution, and I think there's a big misunderstanding in the
community of what we're trying to accomplish by being part of
the County Coalition, which is nothing more really than a
round-table discussion, trying to maybe solve problems and
air concerns amongst county leaders and officials, trying to
come up with solutions or resolutions to problems that may
occur sometime in the future. There has been some feeling in
the community that -- that this Hill Country Coalition is the
same thing as the County Coalition, and it is not. And I
don't know -- we have not gotten the Times, I believe, to do
much of a reporting job on that issue, but we are getting the
letters to the editor that are trying to accuse the County of
7-14-08
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
taking all kinds of rights away from our constituents and
wanting to be kind of dictators, I believe, and that's not
the issue. I don't want us to be perceived as being in --
being, basically, in bed with this Hill Country Coalition --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hill Country Alliance.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Hill Country Alliance, I'm
sorry. I've got my terminology mixed up. I do not want them
to be able to use the County Coalition as a springboard to
get	what they	want	done	through the Legislature.	It's --	I
don'	t believe	it's	-- I	don't believe any of us	support a	lot
of what they believe in and what they are promoting, and I
just want to try to make it clear from my perspective that --
that these discussions that are taking place county to
county, they're nothing more than that. And that every
individual county who would like to see legislation passed,
for whatever reason they need it, would be doing that on
their own. They would not be -- the whole coalition would
not -- or the County Coalition would not basically all stand
up and say, "Yeah, we want that, and we want it for us too,"
because there are different needs in different counties, and
for different reasons. And I just -- I really am concerned
that -- that this Hill Country Alliance may try to use us to
push forward their ideas and ideals for future legislation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me interject
7-14-08
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
something, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me, Commissioner
Oehler, that there have been some individuals or
organizations that have used some assertive -- or alleged
collaboration or connection with this so-called Hill Country
Alliance, painting it as an ultra-liberal rights-grabbing
organization by asserting it is connected, when, in truth and
in fact, it's not connected at all. And, therefore, that any
effort that this Hill Country Coalition of Counties would
take is destined to be whatever the agenda of that asserted
ultra-liberal rights-grabbing organization is. All we've got
out there is a single resolution, and the devil's in the
details. When legislation is introduced in Austin before the
Legislature, we will carefully analyze that legislation, and
to the extent that we feel it is appropriate for Kerr County,
the needs of Kerr County and its citizens, we will support
that legislation. If we deem it not to be, we will voice our
opposition against it. And what we want may be vastly
different from what, say, Comal County or Hays County wants,
and those -- those areas within what they calm MSA's,
metropolitan service areas. They're carried differently,
anyway, because of their proximity to -- to major
metropolitan areas. And there traditionally, in the last
couple of decades, at least, has been legislation which
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
__ __
focuses solely on those particular counties. They don't
affect us.
What I want everyone to understand is the meat and
potatoes of the resolution. This is all this Court has done,
I! is passed a resolution, and the operative words of the
resolution are, Now, therefore, be it resolved that the
Commissioners Court of Kerr County supports -- excuse me --
the mission of the Hill Country County Coalition to, quote,
"endorse, pursue, and use current and future legislative
authority in order to diversify our availability of revenue
resources, to protect our budget from state and federal
unfunded and/or under-funded mandates, and to protect our
quality of life, public safety, natural resources, and
economic future," unquote. Now, if there's anybody in this
audience that can legitimately take issue with those goals, I
would appreciate them stepping forward and telling us about
why they object to that particular operative language.
'Cause I think, insofar as objective goals, it very clearly
states what's in the best interests of this county and its
citizens. But that's all we've done in the way of official
action by this Court. Beyond that, there have been
discussions among county officials. So, I don't know what
the hubbub is all about.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a little bit of an update.
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
I think the hubbub probably started by a local organization.
The president of that organization, Justin McDonald, wrote
the first letter to the editor, and Heinz is here as
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Commissioner Williams and I
going to come up with proposed changes in the law that will
be supported both by the -- certainly, the Hill Country Home
Builders Association and us two Commissioners, and probably
the whole	Court.	It --	you know,	I think	everything the
Judge and	Bruce	said is	accurate.	It was	unfortunate we got
painted with this broad brush. I don't know how it happened,
but that's neither here nor there. And I think that a lot of
good can come from the counties speaking together, because,
clearly, the Legislature have told us that if we can come up
with something that more than one county wants, that 15
counties want, it's a good chance they're going to get
support for it. And if we can get the home builders to
support it, both locally and statewide, there's a real good
chance something will happen. The current subdivision
rules -- anyone that's read all of Chapter 232 knows it's a
horrible piece of legislation the way it's currently written.
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
It's confusing. It doesn't make a lot of sense. There's all
kinds of exemptions, and the biggest thing we're trying to do
is simplify and clarify the state law. And there are a few
things we'd like to add, and if we can do that, you know,
it'd be great; it would be good for the state. And that's
just where we are right now. And I'm sure we'll -- if
there's ever -- if we ever, either locally or Hill Country
County Coalition, agree on something that we really want to
pursue, it will be before the Court and we'll hash it out at
that time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our focus is Kerr County,
and we -- in our discussions with the home builders
association, we understand clearly that their concern has to
do with the magnitude that might slop over statewide and be
detrimental. We clearly understand that, but I believe as a
result of these discussions, they understand our focus is
Kerr County. There may be things that are beneficial for
Kerr County out of this coalition that other hill country
counties can likewise benefit from. And we also understand
the home builders need to have stopgaps so that if we go
about tweaking 232, that we do not let this get out of hand.
So, if we all understand that our focus is Kerr County, and
not statewide and not Hays County or Comal County or any
other I-35 corridor county, then I think we have a better
understanding, as the Judge quoted, of what it's all about.
7-14-08
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
the Judge has said, what takes place within the framework of
the Hill Country Alliance is not what's taking place within
the framework of the Coalition of Counties, which are hill
country counties. We understand their agenda. Their agenda
doesn't drive us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've been attending these
counties, and when they start talking about regulating people
cutting cedar off their own property, or putting meters on a
private pump, those kinds of things, I get up and leave the
table. Simple as that. Don't have anything to do with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where it's at.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's all I know. I just
Maybe we can get some press. Maybe not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me extend my offer again.
Anybody that wants to take issue with any of those operative
words of that resolution, tell us -- tell us why they do so.
Let's move to Item 7, if we might. Consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action to adopt a resolution honoring the
7-14-08
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
lives of Ross and Clarabelle Snodgrass and their service to
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. It's
been my privilege and pleasure to be a part of the 75th
wedding anniversary celebration of Ross and Clarabelle
Snodgrass, and we do -- we have a resolution that's been
prepared. It was read originally at the celebration on the
6th of July, I believe, at the Elks Club Lodge, which I guess
100 or 150 of Clarabelle's closest -- and Ross' closest
friends assembled, and today I think it's appropriate that we
honor them in Commissioners Court and read into the record a
resolution honoring their life and service, and if the Court
will indulge me, I will do that. This is a resolution of
Kerr County Commissioners Court honoring the life and service
of Clarabelle and Ross Snodgrass. Hang back, guys; it's
going to take a couple minutes to get through this.
Whereas, Clarabelle Barton, a fifth generation
native of Kerr County, and Ross Snodgrass, celebrating their
75th wedding anniversary, are the oldest couple native to the
area living in Kerr County; and whereas, Clarabelle, age 94,
was raised in the Turtle Creek community, and Ross, age 105,
was born and grew up in the Divide community. As a teenager,
Clarabelle and friends visited the community theatre building
in Comfort, which had a dance floor, motion picture screen,
7-14-08
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
his racehorse Joker to victory at the Rock Springs Rodeo. I
can only imagine that Clarabelle was in the stands cheering
for that horse to cross the finish line first. Dancing
became a large part of their lives, and Ross didn't stop
dancing until turning 103. They still belong to the German
Dance Club, the oldest social organization in Kerr County.
Ross was a drover on the last cattle drive from the Divide to
the railhead in Kerrville. Whereas, Clarabelle and Ross
children, Jeri and David, raised sheep, goats, cattle and
horses. Clarabelle and her children lived in Kerrville
during their school years. Ross retired from ranching in
1968, and they settled in Kerrville. Ross was honored for
his 80 years of membership in the Masonic Lodge of Texas.
Whereas, Clarabelle has been the driving force for the
preservation of Kerr County history since her initial
involvement as historian for the Divide community, and her
tireless efforts continue until present. Ross served as her
willing chauffeur until he passed 90 years of age.
And whereas, in 1977, Clarabelle was appointed to
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
Commission for her Tivy restoration efforts. She was named
Kerr County's outstanding citizen of the year in 1986. And
whereas, Clarabelle has received numerous "Woman of the Year"
awards from local organizations, and the American Legion, in
presenting an award, cited her as the individual -- quote, as
the individual who contributed most in the area to the Kerr
County Historical Commission, unquote. And the Sons of
Hermann Lodge honored her for humanitarian deeds and
outstanding service. And whereas, in 1956, Clarabelle served
on the committee planning the celebration of Kerr County's
100th anniversary, and in 1976, she produced a
well-remembered historical pageant in Antler Stadium
celebrating the nation's bicentennial, and in 1986 she was
vice chairman of Kerr County's celebration of the Texas
Sesquicentennial, including the compilation of the now scarce
Kerr County Album, and in 2006 she worked with the committee
in planning the Kerr County Sesquicentennial celebration.
She and Ross were named grand marshals of the parade.
7-14-08
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And whereas, Clarabelle and Ross have lived through
depression, floods, droughts, deaths, and other tribulations
with faith and hope for 75 years, and through it all,
provided music for the pleasure of countless Kerr County
residents. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Kerr County
Commissioners Court honors and pays tribute to Ross and
Clarabelle Snodgrass for their years of unselfish service to
the citizens of Kerr County; and be it further resolved that
this resolution was read to Clarabelle and Ross on the
occasion of their 75th wedding anniversary celebration at
Elks Hall, Kerrville, Texas, on July 6th, 2008, and presented
to them in Kerr County Commissioners Court, after formal
adoption of this resolution, on July 14th, 2008. Judge, I
move the approval of the resolution.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second for
approval of the resolution. All in favor, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Unanimously carried. Ross and
Clarabelle Snodgrass, it's my privilege to present to you the
original of this resolution as read into the record. Thank
7-14-08
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
~ you so much --
MS. SNODGRASS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for all both of you have done for
Kerr County.
MR. SNODGRASS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
MS. SNODGRASS: I've been through six centennials,
'46, '56, '76, '86, '89, and 2006.
JUDGE TINLEY: Great. Thank you so much for all
you've done.
MS. SNODGRASS: Thank you.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 4 on the agenda,
if we might. Consider, discuss, and approve the appointment
i
of election judges and alternates for the term of one year in
accordance with Texas Election Code, Section 32. Ms. Alford?
MS. ALFORD: Good morning. We do this every year.
We get a list from the Republican people and the Democrat
people to appoint alternate -- judges and alternate judges
for one term.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval of the list as
~ presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
7-14-08
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
approval of the list as presented. Question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll go to
Item 5; consider and discuss approving of the polling
locations in accordance with Chapter 43 of the Texas Election
Code.
MS. ALFORD: These are the polling places for the
November 4th, 2008 general election. We need to change
Trinity Baptist in Precinct 119 -- they no longer want to be
a polling place -- to Foursquare Gospel Fellowship on 915
Bluebell. And we will be changing early voting to the
Cailloux Center, because the Ag Barn is booked for that --
those two weeks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval as presented. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Trinity Baptist served us
for many years, and we appreciate that very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
7-14-08
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
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
MS. ALFORD: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 6; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to obtain required
recertification by Texas Juvenile Probation Commission for
Kevin Stanton as Juvenile Detention/Probation Officer and
allow County Judge to authorize request for recertification.
I put this on the agenda. It's an annual requirement that
he's required by the Juvenile Probation Commission.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 8, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action concerning the Kerr County policy for
emergency response on non-maintained roads. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge. Attached
7-14-OS
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
is a policy adopted by the Court August the 8th, 2005. We're
having a real problem with this policy and the homeowners on
Primrose and Tierra Grande and others -- just not those two
4 on the policy states that we will correct the situation on
a one-time basis. However, as you can see from the letters
and complaints, we've been called back numerous times, and
the homeowners have done nothing to correct the problems they
have with the road. Last year during the extended period of
rainfall, we worked on several private roads, but the most
extensive one was Tierra Grande. We foresee the same
problems with this neighborhood as we have with Primrose.
These homeowners have made no attempts to correct the
problems with their roads, and these calls continue to cost
not only us, but the Sheriff's Department lots of time and
tax dollars. They're called out to take a look at it, and
various times they will tell the people it's not a -- a
safety hazard. At this time, we're asking that you firm up
the policy in some way that states that we will not return
unless the homeowners have made an attempt to help
themselves.
I do not have a solution. I mean, there's
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
the people -- I think the law says that they are to pay for
those deals. But under an emergency, like 2002, that was a
federal disaster. Of course, we go in there and do it. But
because your tires on your cars, you have the wrong thread
and you can't get up or it slips, it should not be an issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understood it to be that
the Sheriff goes out and investigates and makes the
determination whether it's passable or not.
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For ambulance, for those
services. And if it's impassable, we want to make sure that
an ambulance or a police car can get -- a fire truck can get
in and out of there, so we fix it one time. That's what I've
always understood, and that's what I tell people. And I --
if I'm wrong there, I need to get my verbiage corrected. But
we fix it one time so that it's passable. We don't pave and
stripe it and curb and gutters and pecan trees and all that,
but we make it passable one time. Is that incorrect?
MR. ODOM: That is not -- well, theoretically,
you're correct. But if the Sheriff's Department calls us and
says that Primrose is non-passable, then it puts him in a
precarious position that I have a call; I have to go do it.
My interpretation of "one time" is one time. You go out, and
there's an emergency; you take care of it. We have done
that. And -- and yet, when they're in pretty good shape, if
7-14-08
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
they did a sealcoat -- part of Primrose is done, the top
maybe 300 feet, 200 feet. And the reason, because it's dust,
is my understanding from years ago. But you've got several
hills, and if I get a call and the Sheriff's Department calls
us, Buster, I -- I don't delineate that one time, other than
they say it's impassable; we go out there. And -- and then
you let it rain or you let L.C.R.A. go through there and beat
it up, up those hills, and then they call the Sheriff's
Department. They call us. We go out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When I read that, I mean, I
hinge more off of up in the title part. I mean, it says
potential threat to life and safety exists due to flooding or
other current natural disasters. It doesn't mean if a road
gets in bad shape over time, we got to go fix it. It's only
after a natural disaster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A hard rain that washes
things out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We get a flood and a road's
washed out, I think we're obligated to fix it one time to
make it passable, and that's it.
MR. ODOM: So, you're saying if it's not a natural
disaster, we shouldn't do it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't have to be a --
yeah, natural disaster. Doesn't have to be a declaration by
the governor and all this stuff. But I think if we have a
7-19-08
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
flood that washes out a road, I don't have a problem with
fixing it on a one-time --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the next flood?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the next flood --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Rusty goes out there and
says, "This thing's impassable, and an ambulance cannot get
in and out of here."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At the next flood, I don't have
a problem.
MR. ODOM: What happens if it's several times in a
year?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the fact of the
matter is, you're concerned with public safety, and if you
can't get a fire vehicle in there, you can't get an emergency
vehicle in there or an ambulance in there because you've had
repeated floods every year or every other year, I frankly
don't have any problem with that. I'm concerned with public
safety, getting a vehicle in to rescue people or take them to
the hospital or do what's necessary to do, or law
enforcement.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I also have an issue --
and I agree totally with Len. I think some of these are
getting a little bit out of control, 'cause officers are
going out there week -- last week we had just a little bit of
rain. Portions of Primrose became impassable, okay? We had
7-14-08
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
calls out there and had to get -- had to handle them over the
phone, because our officers couldn't get up it. That's in
our car. Primrose is that bad, okay? Just over the last
week. But that is not a county road. And I'm like Len. Do
we call every single time it becomes impassable, and the
County has to go out there, or do we finally say, "Sorry, we
can't make that location"?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's a -- that's
an Attorney General question, or Rex.
MR. ODOM: May I elaborate a little bit on that,
Commissioner Williams? Last year, we had about five to seven
different private roads. And if you remember, I came to the
Court and said I need till the middle of November so I can
spend my preventive maintenance money, because I took all
this time and a lot of resources to do these things, and to
do it right, so they could get up and down and we could make
it right. Other than just halfway do it, try to fix it
decent. I was over there next budget year trying to get it.
Already I'm behind on that. I'm already out of money; that's
another issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last year was a unique year.
MR. ODOM: It was. But the point is that weather
is not going to -- we're going back through a weather cycle
1931 through 1963. That's from FEMA.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do they know? (Laughter.)
7-14-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Len -- Len, I don't think
you want to be standing up there sometime after a flood, or
after having taken care of a road -- or not taken care of a
road, I don't think you want to be standing up there telling
us we -- that an emergency vehicle was unable to get into a
place and it burned down, or somebody died because they
couldn't get to the hospital. I don't think you want to
stand there telling us that.
MR. ODOM: I don't think that I'm here doing that.
I'm just saying --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, Bill and Buster. But
that's a -- we have a lot of -- I have a lot of people in my
precinct, and I've been real adamant, we're not fixing their
roads. You can't get a car on some of those roads down there
around Oil Well and Snake. I've said, "Form a road
district." And, I mean, you know, people have an obligation
to -- you know, to look at where they buy property, one, and
then to maintain the roads to access it, if they're privately
maintained roads, and I don't think it's the County's
responsibility. If -- you know, I think that's a real
slippery slope if we start saying, "well, an ambulance can't
get down that road," 'cause you look at Kerrville Fire
Department, they're not going to send their stuff hardly
anywhere because it's not made for it. It's not made for
off-road terrain.
7-14-08
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
I2
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't misunderstand what I
said. I don't -- I don't want any policy of Kerr County to
be a policy that fixes the problems developers made and
didn't take care of when they subdivided the property.
~ That's not my intention at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's very narrow, having to
do with public safety.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you're in a Banged if you
do, Banged if you don't situation. If -- if, every time
there's adverse weather conditions, and maybe the -- the
roadway, because of just a slight rain, becomes slick because
of the -- the amount of grade, and without a four-wheel drive
or some sort of tracked vehicle or something of that nature,
you can't get in and out. I don't classify that as a natural
disaster. But if, every time that condition exists,
Leonard's required to go out there because the folks who have
the most interest and concern are just kicking back and
saying, "You know, if I do nothing, the County's going to
save me." Even though the County's got no obligation. On
the other hand, if we go out there every single time, the
impression is going to be gained that this is a, quote,
county-maintained road. In fact, that impression already
exists out there because of the number of times that Leonard
has gone out on an emergency basis, that we've got us a
7-14-08
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
county-maintained road, so we don't have to do anything.
MR. ODOM: Just call.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's the County's problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By prescription. You
maintain it on a regular basis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought that was the
reason why we -- in our policy that exists today, that we
said we would send a Sheriff's vehicle out there to determine
whether or not you can get through. I thought that's the
reason why we did that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- it is, but if it's a
road like they're talking about Primrose, that is in such bad
shape on a continuous basis, that every time the Sheriff
can't get up the road, does that mean -- because that road's
so bad, you know, it's going to be county-maintained?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'm not saying that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but that's what I mean.
I'm saying our policy probably needs some adjustments. And
Len's right; I think "one-time basis" needs to be defined a
little bit more clearly, and I think when it -- the whole
policy is implied -- I was always under the impression this
was after a major flood, you know. And it's hard to define
that, 'cause, I mean, a major flood is -- you know, can be
one thing in one part of the county, one road versus another
25 I road.
7-14-08
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, 2002 is a pretty good
example. We had rain for two solid weeks, maybe close to
three, and there were a lot of roads like Primrose. I had
some in my -- Tierra Grande is one of them, where they just
became absolutely impassable. But that's an extreme. We
don't get rain for three weeks at a time very often.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's lot of --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At some point in time, people
have to take responsibility for where they live and fix their
roads if they want to get in and out. If an emergency
occurs, that's one thing, but to just have it that way all
the time, and then expect the County to fix it is just not
right.
22 me.
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's a lot of --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I subscribe to that service.
MR. ODOM: I do too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's lots -- I mean, gosh,
how many people --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I fix my road if I want to
get in and out. It's a private road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do mine.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, I don't -- I don't
feel like the County's obligated to come in there and get me
out. If I need to get out, the helicopter needs to come get
7-14-08
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: There's a lot of property where
you can't get in and out on -- on county roads after a flood,
!, much less a private road that we're not obligated. I think
the -- the county roads are a priority.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we -- what you're saying,
if we were mean, which we're not mean, --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- you would say something
like, "Hey, you bought the property. We didn't buy the
property. We didn't cause you to live there. You bought the
property knowing that it -- you didn't have a public road in
there." Ms. Carey's here, if y'all wanted to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's written numerous
letters through the years, and --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're good, hard-working
people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good, hard-working people.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Carey? Come forward and give us
your name and address, please.
MS. CAREY: Thank you. I'm Kim Carey that has
written many letters. And I'm also a Yankee, Mr. Baldwin, so
I apologize for that.
', COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't apologize. We all
have to be somewhere.
7-14-08
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. CAREY: That's right. And I prefer to be in
Texas and Kerr County. We moved here in 2004. We bought a
place -- I'm sorry, moved here in 2003. And we rented a
place for a while, and then we bought a place at the bottom
of Primrose Lane. And at the time we bought it, the road was
not horrible, so we assumed that it would remain not
horrible, but over the years it has gotten increasingly
worse. There were not only rains in 2002, but if you
remember, last year we had torrential rains for quite some
time, and a tropical depression that came through and washed
out the road considerably. We did have a man die of a heart
attack -- was that last summer, Michelle? -- okay, die of a
heart attack. It took the ambulance about 45 to 50 minutes
just to reach us because the road was so bad. I'm a retired
nurse. I felt that there wasn't a chance of resuscitation,
fortunately for EMS; otherwise, it could have been a really,
really difficult situation.
Mr. Odom? Is this -- okay. You need to stand
corrected, sir. As far as the people that have put money out
of their own wallets, out of their own pockets, Mr. Sirianni,
Mr. Kermit, who is now deceased, Mr. Guzardo, Bernie Simmons,
and Benny Whitaker have all dedicated their time and their
money to renting equipment, using their own equipment, using
their own funds and trying to improve the road inasmuch as
they can with the equipment that we have. We don't have
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
graders. We are a working class population. We are not --
you're not going to drive down Primrose Lane and see a
Saddlewood or Horizon setting, or a Las Colinas setting. I
could go on and on about the beautiful ranches and
subdivisions on the roads that get absolute attention on a
regular basis that don't even need it. If you go back in
your records, Mr. Odom, I would really love to see how many
times you have resurfaced Sheppard Rees Road since 2004 when
I moved to Primrose Lane. I would like to see how many times
Freedom Trail has been resurfaced. I would like to see what
was wrong with Sierra Road and Gabe Road, when you went in
and widened it, dug down about 6 to 8 inches and added all of
this wonderful material for a road that didn't even need it.
We are residents of a working class community. There are
elderly and disabled people that live down there. We have
the right to county maintenance because we are citizens of
this county. We pay taxes in this county. And any other
road that's in bad condition. Maybe it is the result of a
poor developer or whatever happened 30 years ago. You're all
talking about change. You're all talking about ripping out
cattle guards for public safety and doing all these things
because change is coming. Well, change is coming on Primrose
Lane also, and we need the County's help. We can't afford to
do it on our own. We just can't. Bernie's mother-in-law
paid out of her pocket -- how much did that cost?
7-14-08
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
MR. SIMMONS: 46.
MS. CAREY: $4,600 for 400 feet of pavement. We're
just asking for maybe every six weeks, to have the County
come out and keep those hills graded, put some road base on
it. We're not even asking for pavement. We just want to be
able to get in and out. It's a 2-mile stretch of road. It
is horrible. It is absolutely horrible. It's dangerous.
Michelle's mother went off the road. She's not a young
woman, and she went off the road. Her car slipped when she
was going up that hill. Fortunately, she wasn't hurt.
Marty's not here today -- Marty Benson. He went off the
road. His whole truck went off. It was in the shop for over
a week. We haven't had any fatal or serious injuries because
of this, but we have had some accidents, and one of these
days the accident is going to be fatal, and then all of you
that sit back here and say, "You should fix your own road" --
well, hey, we can't. We are -- my husband and I are
woodworkers. Trust me when I tell you we don't make a big
living. I live in an 800-square-foot cabin, and I'm
deliriously happy here, but I feel that the County needs to
step up to the plate, not only for the wealthy, but for the
people that are working class, the people that are disabled,
and for the elderly. We need your help. We can't do it on
our own. We don't have any recourse. We don't have any
special funds or -- we're just -- we're just a small
7-14-08
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
community of people that need your help. And I thank you for
hearing me out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple comments. You do not
have a right to have the County fix private property.
MS. CAREY: Why not? Why don't I have that right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because state law prohibits it.
MS. CAREY: State law prohibits that? I can't feel
that I have a right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can -- you may think you
have the right, but you don't have that right.
MS. CAREY: Well, I feel -- I don't think I said I
have -- maybe I did say it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You did say it.
MS. CAREY: I feel like -- let me stand corrected.
I feel I have the right, okay?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But --
MS. CAREY: I am a citizen. You work for me. You
are government officials.
it COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the state law says we don't
have the right to do that, what you're asking us to do.
MS. CAREY: Aren't you here to mend things or to
propose things?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We follow state law.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't make state law; we
25 I follow it.
7-14-08
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
MS. CAREY: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have the ability to
send the county Road and Bridge Department onto private
MS. CAREY: What I heard -- first of all, L.C.R.A.
clearly stated to me -- they're taking most of my property,
by the way, for the power lines. That's okay. It's part of
progress; it's part of change. I'm not happy about it, but
it's got to happen. We are one of those people that moved to
this area for a better life. So there's other people that
want to move here. I've seen letters to the editor lately
that people are mad because they moved here and they don't
want to change Kerrville. Well, I'm sure the people before
them didn't want the changes either, but we have to move
forward. Okay? My argument is, I'm listening to this man
here state how he resents having to go out there, and I'm
sitting there and I'm flabbergasted by that statement.
Aren't we all here as a community? Aren't we one? Aren't we
I supposed to be helping each other, and get things done for
the betterment of the community? When you can segregate out
and say, "I only want to fix the roads that don't need
fixing, because that's easier for us," you can't tell me that
it's cheaper to go out there and resurface Sheppard Rees and
~'i Bear Creek and Freedom Trail and Sierra and Gabe, and God
I, knows how many other roads that I don't know about, than it
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~~
is to send that grader out a couple times, maybe every six
weeks or so, and grade the road for our safety?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ma'am, but you understand --
you are not listening to me.
MS. CAREY: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have the ability to do
it. State law prohibits it. We will all go to jail.
MS. CAREY: Why is Primrose listed on the county
website as a county-maintained road?
AUDIENCE: It's not.
MS. CAREY: Oh, yes, it is. Oh, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Carey?
~ MS. CAREY: You go on the website.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Carey, there can be a public
road --
MS . CAREY : Mm-hmm .
JUDGE TINLEY: There can be a public road which is
not county-maintained. We have numerous of them in this
county.
MS. CAREY: But its says it's maintained on the
~ website, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A portion of it is.
MR. ODOM: Primrose? A portion, yes, that's
sealcoated.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very small portion.
7-14-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 800 feet.
MS. CAREY: So, why is 800 feet included?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, because it was -- it was put
up to standards, and --
MS. CAREY: But why?
JUDGE TINLEY: Why? Because whoever put in the
cost of that wanted the road maintenance to be assumed by the
County, and expended the funds. And presumably the lots that
abut that, that cost was rolled into what those people paid
for their lot.
MS. CAREY: But that's an "allegedly"? We're not
sure that that happened?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you know, the --
MS. CAREY: We don't have any facts, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: What if a frog had wings? I don't
think it -- sit down, please, sir. I don't think he'd bump
his tail, but I don't know that as a matter of fact. What
I'm trying to explain to you is, it is unlawful for the
County to use taxpayer funds to maintain a road that the
County is not obligated to maintain.
MS. CAREY: So, how do we change that obligation?
JUDGE TINLEY: Public or otherwise.
MS. CAREY: How do we change that obligation?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you get the Legislature to
change the state law, which prohibits us from doing that.
7-14-08
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
MS. CAREY: How do we get the County to become
obligated to assume the maintenance of that road?
j JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Bring the road up to county
standards.
MS. CAREY: We already went through that. We don't
have that kind of money; it's never going to happen.
JUDGE TINLEY: You have two ways to do that. You
can either bring it up to county standards immediately
through some voluntary basis, or you have the ability under
state law, the property owners there can form what is known
as a road district. I believe that's been suggested to you
in prior communications. What that does, it allows the
property owners to voluntarily agree, over a period of time,
to repay bonds which are sold, the proceeds of which are used
to bring the road up to county standards, and then over the
period of time that those bonds are outstanding, whoever
purchased them, you repay them by a tax or assessment on your
property, just like your county taxes, your school taxes and
so forth.
MS. CAREY: Okay. So, L.C.R.A. is coming in and
they're telling us that it is an absolute county road. Now,
wouldn't they know?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not necessarily.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a road in the county
7-14-08
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
that's dedicated for public use.
MS. CAREY: So, how can that be? That seems like
an oxymoron to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. That's
the way it are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's state law.
MS. CAREY: Okay. We can't -- I don't think that
we can push this off on the state, since there is no one here
from the state to speak up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's one sitting right
'~ there, with the white shirt on.
MS. CAREY: I'm sorry, I don't know him.
MR. EMERSON: I'm Rex Emerson, the County Attorney.
MS. CAREY: Nice to meet you. I've talked to you
on the phone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's the County Attorney.
That makes him an arm of the state of Texas.
MS. CAREY: Okay. So, you're saying that it's
against the law to help the citizens of this county with
their road.
MR. EMERSON: No, ma'am. I'm saying it's against
the law to expend public funds on a private property issue.
MS. CAREY: But I'm hearing from L.C.R.A. that that
is a public --
7-14-08
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
MR. EMERSON: I don't know what L.C.R.A. told you.
MS. CAREY: They told me it's a county road.
MR. EMERSON: What the Judge told you is entirely
accurate. They are forbidden by statute from expending
public funds to improve a road that is not publicly
maintained.
MS. CAREY: So, if it's not publicly -- if it's not
maintained and it's not a county road, then can we not charge
L.C.R.A. for coming down -- do we have to allow public
vehicles on that road?
JUDGE TINLEY: It is a public road.
MS. CAREY: Okay. This is not clear.
MR. EMERSON: It's a -- there are two issues, okay?
Whether a road's public or whether it's private, that's the
first issue.
MS. CAREY: All right.
MR. EMERSON: This is public, open access to
', anybody that wants to drive down it.
MS. CAREY: Deemed by who? Who deems it public?
MR. EMERSON: Well, I could assume it's back in the
original subdivision documents, because that's generally
where it's declared.
MS. CAREY: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: Okay? But the second issue is who
maintains that road.
7-14-08
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
MS. CAREY: Mm-hmm.
MR. EMERSON: A road is not automatically
maintained by the County just because it's public. It's only
maintained by the County if it's accepted for maintenance by
the County.
MS. CAREY: Mm-hmm.
MR. EMERSON: And the County only accepts roads for
I~ maintenance by the County that are built to county standards.
MS. CAREY: Okay. So, on that note, how do we get
you, as the County, to accept the road?
JUDGE TINLEY: Bring it up to county standards. I
just told you.
MS. CAREY: I understand that. How do we change
I that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't.
MS. CAREY: Why? Why can't that be changed?
Aren't we all about change? Aren't we all about improving
Kerr County? How do we do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: If you want to change the
requirement that the road must be brought to county
standards --
MS. CAREY: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- before the County will accept
maintenance, --
MS. CAREY: Yes.
7-14-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you'll have to address that to
the Texas Legislature. They'll be meeting in January of next
year.
MS. CAREY: Okay. Why does it have to go through
the Legislature? Aren't you the county?
JUDGE TINLEY: Because the state law says we can
not expend public funds on private --
MS. CAREY: Okay. I'm not asking for that law to
be changed. I'm asking for you, as the county, to change
your rule. That --
AUDIENCE: That isn't a rule; it's a state law.
MS. CAREY: No, I'm asking that you, the county,
change -- excuse me. If you were up here, I would give you
the same consideration of being quiet. I would ask you that.
You're saying the State is preventing you from -- from taking
care of the road 'cause it's a private road. I'm asking you
to assume responsibility by saying it is now a county road.
Why can't you change the fact?
JUDGE TINLEY: It is a county road. It is a county
public road; it is not a county-maintained road.
MS. CAREY: Okay. It's a county public road. The
state says you can't put improvements on private roads.
JUDGE TINLEY: To benefit private owners.
MS. CAREY: But you're telling me it's a county
public road.
7-14-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Public access.
MS. CAREY: And the difference is? Isn't every
public road public access?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your neighbors can have
people coming and going all the time.
MS. CAREY: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's no gate down at the
bottom that prohibits people or vehicles or anybody from
entering.
MS. CAREY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay?
MS. CAREY: So, it's a county public road. That's
what I'm hearing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Public access.
MS. CAREY: What's the difference between public or
public access?
JUDGE TINLEY: Under current law, you have two
routes to follow. You can voluntarily bring the road up to
county standards and request the Court to assume maintenance.
MS. CAREY: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or you can form a road district to
do that.
MS. CAREY: Okay. But I'm -- you still haven't
answered my question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, I have.
7-14-08
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
MS. CAREY: Well, I don't think you have. I'm not
satisfied with your answer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm sorry. I'm not going to
explain it to you for a fourth time. We have other issues.
MS. CAREY: But you didn't answer the public access
road, the county public access road. You did not define that
to me. It's not defined. All you're saying --
JUDGE TINLEY: The public has the roads.
MS. CAREY: The road's not paved. It's not going
to get county maintenance.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can explain it to you, but I can't
understand it for you.
MS. CAREY: I'm pretty good at understanding.
JUDGE TINLEY: It is a public access road. The
County has not assumed the maintenance obligation.
Therefore --
MS. CAREY: Because why?
JUDGE TINLEY: Because the road was not brought up
to county specs.
MS. CAREY: By the developer?
JUDGE TINLEY: By anybody. If it met current
specs, and a request was made for the County to assume
maintenance, --
MS. CAREY: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the Court would take that issue
7-14-08
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
up. And if it met specs, I strongly suspect this Court would
say yeah, we'll assume maintenance. But we will not do that
until it is brought up to those specs.
MS. CAREY: So, the public safety issue is really a
facade, then. The County really isn't concerned with public
safety. They just say it for the benefit of the court
stenographer.
JUDGE TINLEY: We want you to be concerned about
your own safety also.
MS. CAREY: Mm-hmm. Well, I am concerned about my
safety. That's why I'm standing up here right now, and
~~ that's why I'm making all this noise, is 'cause I feel that
I
Ili the County has a responsibility to step up to the plate, not
only for the wealthy in this town, but for the working class
and the disabled and the elderly. Those are the people that
live on that road.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they need to be concerned for
their own safety.
MS. CAREY: So, should we stand out in the court --
JUDGE TINLEY: The folks that are getting roads
maintained by the County have paid for that right by virtue
of the property that they bought abutting a county-maintained
road. That cost was rolled into the cost of their property.
MS. CAREY: It's a case of discrimination on the
part of the County. And you're a rude man.
7-14-08
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AUDIENCE: I know. I work at it.
MS. CAREY: You're good at it. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: You wish to be heard, sir? All
right. Come forward and give us your name and address,
please.
MR. CHAPA: My name is Carlos Chapa. I live on
Primrose Road. And the reason I was raising my hand was
maybe to try to save a little time. I just wanted to explain
to Ms. Carey -- I believe that's her name -- that the
county-maintained part of Primrose starts at Bear Creek and
runs about 880 feet, and I own three parcels of land that I
bought there. And that land was not part of Bear Creek
Estates when Lehmann and Monroe subdivided it. That's why --
and I built part of that road, and then the County came in
and finished it, because the County at one time thought that
that strip of property had never been deeded to the County,
but I dug up county records proving otherwise, and then they
went in and finished it when Mr. Holland was county
commissioner. And Mr. Odom finished the road and, the
following year, paved it, as -- as he had given me his word
that he would. So, that is -- that's why that part of
Primrose is paved and county-maintained.
At the end of my property is where Bear Creek
Estates begins, and those roads are horrible. But -- and I
feel bad for all of the people that bought property there,
7-14-08
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
because at the time, Lehmann and Monroe were not obligated by
any standards, I believe, to bring the roads up to county
specs. I believe some of the deeds that I read one time by
stop and they were on their own. So, it's a bad situation
for everybody that lives back there, and it doesn't take a
quarter inch of rain to make the roads impassable. Actually,
a drought like we've had, I have people going up the road and
just spinning their tires in -- in dry dust and gravel and
tearing up their cars. And -- and my son has just built a
brand-new home, and you can't sit outside because of the dust
that's caused by the road -- the cars going up and down the
hill, including wrecker trucks or U.G.R.A., whoever goes up
there, L.C.R.A. trucks. But I believe that not this court,
but maybe the court that was in session, or the commissioners
that were in charge when Lehmann and Monroe subdivided that
maybe have a little responsibility in not having implemented
the standards that the County has now. Of course, I believe
maybe they weren't -- maybe they weren't looking far ahead
enough as to what problems this would cause. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot of that -- a lot of
what you talk about is true, but it took place before Kerr
County had subdivision rules in place, and that's the reason
7-14-08
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
why those standards were not imposed on that developer at
that time.
MR. CHAPA: Right. That's what I'm saying. The
Court at that time wasn't looking far enough ahead and didn't
have those policies in place. But what we have now is a bad
situation. What I think all these people want to know is,
how can their representatives help them? I understand the --
the privacy laws where the County can't spend public funds on
a private subdivision like Tierra Linda or whatever. But --
and I understand Mr. Odom's point of view. I think we have
to look at everybody here, not just one party. Mr. Odom
probably gets frustrated because we, as a county, ask him to
do more than he can with the money that we give him. My
taxes went up drastically when my road was paved. I don't
mind it a bit, 'cause I can go out there and cook a ribeye
steak on my barbecue pit and have grandkids and family sit
there and enjoy it without getting covered in a cloud of
dust. And it is a cloud of dust. I mean, you can turn on a
fan and throw 5 gallons of talc powder in front of it; that's
how bad that dust gets, it's so fine. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back in those days -- and
I'm not -- I'm not singling out Lehmann and Monroe, but a lot
of developers --
MR. CHAPA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- back in those days, --
7-14-08
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
'~~ MR. CHAPA: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- they would sell you --
they'd show you this plat.
MR. CHAPA: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they would -- they would
have the words on the plat, "These roads are dedicated to the
county."
MR. CHAPA: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you buy it thinking that
these are county roads. Well, you can dedicate stuff all day
long; that doesn't make it a reality, until the Commissioners
Court accepts them -- officially, by vote, accepts them. So,
they're just roads out there that are -- sure, they're
dedicated to the county, but they're not county-maintained
roads.
MR. CHAPA: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I think something similar
to that is what happened way back then.
MR. CHAPA: Well, sure, that's exactly what
happened. And I don't own property adjacent to Primrose
that's unpaved, but it affects my family anyway. And I'm not
against spending some of my own money to improve 800 or 900
more feet of it, and then have the County take it over. But
I think we need -- you know, I think that the people in Bear
Creek Estates need suggestions, maybe, written down, or
7-14-08
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
options that they can pursue. If -- if a transmission line
is going through Bear Creek Estates, maybe they can apply for
a grant from L.C.R.A. since they're going to have trucks in
there; L.C.R.A. has been known to make benevolent grants in
large amounts to different organizations. That's a
possibility. I mean, I wouldn't discount any possibility.
I'm -- I like to get something started, like to get it done,
and I like to pursue all options. Maybe U.G.R.A. -- they
could say, "Hey, your trucks are going to be coming in here
to maintain this transmission line, and you're going to be
tearing our roads up worse. It's a public safety issue.
Would y'all contribute to our street association and help us
pave at least maybe the main trunk line of that?" Who knows?
You know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're -- that's a very
good idea. And I think if you talk with L.C.R.A., there's a
pretty good likelihood of -- they're going to be using that
road substantially.
MR. CHAPA: There a huge organization.
MR. ODOM: They're already doing --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can do something. But,
I mean, it's -- I think if you can do all you need to, you
know --
MR. CHAPA: You know, they buy power from U.G.R.A.
-- I mean from L.C.R.A., so there's lots of options. But I
7-19-08
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
think that we need suggestions in writing as to what options
that -- that the people can follow, and how to go about
forming that organization about the streets -- street
department.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe Ms. Carey should have that
information. I'm looking at a communication from Mr. Emerson
to Ms. Carey. This is way back in the latter part of May of
this year, suggesting that she contact Road and Bridge to get
an explanation of the statutory authority on how they become
county-maintained, how public roads become county-maintained.
And in the event there's interest in forming a road district,
there was a reference by the County Attorney to the
appropriate provisions of the Constitution and the -- and the
chapter of the Transportation Code by which that can be
accomplished.
MR. CHAPA: And I think maybe having in writing a
copy of what designates a brought-up-to-spec road. Would
that include paving on the hard surface, or just -- or just
the -- you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's found in our --
MR. CHAPA: So that --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in our subdivision regulations,
and Mr. Odom is very well-acquainted with all of those
requirements.
MR. CHAPA: Right. 'Cause I've --
7-14-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: He can certainly provide that
information to you --
MR. CHAPA: 'Cause I've heard before that if it
just --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- on Primrose or -- or whatever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tierra Grande.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tierra Grande or any other others
that are similarly affected.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got some out there on Elm
Pass the same way.
MR. CHAPA: 'Cause I have heard before, just rumor,
that if you brought in 6 inches of crushed base and culverts,
put it in and all that, the County would take it over and
pave it. I didn't know if that was correct or not.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't believe it is, but you can
check with Mr. Odom. He certainly has -- has the knowledge
about that.
MR. CHAPA: Okay. Well, that's my -- I just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The formation of a road
district is certainly an option, and it's a viable option. I
do know that there are some folks on Primrose Lane who do not
want a road district, 'cause I had a telephone call from one
of them.
MR. CHAPA: Really? Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It takes a majority vote of the
7-14-08
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
registered voters within the district.
MR. ODOM: Of the district, voting landowners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Registered landowners.
MR. CHAPA: I also want to thank the County for
taking out the cattle guards on Bear Creek Road. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why didn't you get up and
speak earlier?
MR. CHAPA: Well, they told me to sit down. I
moved here in October of '74, and both sides of Bear Creek
were fenced, some of it high fence. And I think a couple of
months ago, they took the cattle guards out. But that was
ownership pressure that kept the County, I think, from taking
them out. They thought they were speed bumps, but it never
slowed me down. So... (Laughter.) Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate your candor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I want to make a
point here. On our -- the present Kerr County policy on
impassable roads, the fourth item, it says Road and Bridge
Department may dispatch appropriate manpower and equipment to
make a road minimally passable for emergency services,
thereby correcting the situation on a one-time basis only.
Now, I don't know how you do that. I don't know if we need
to change the "one-time" basis only. I think that that's a
Rex Emerson call. I just -- I can't -- you know, I just --
this fear thing comes when I think about if we go out there
7-14-08
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 fix it one time, then we're not ever coming back, and
somebody's house burns down, somebody gets hurt. That scares
me a whole lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Me too.
JUDGE TINLEY: As it should.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As it should. And so that's
the only thing I know of that I would even consider changing.
Otherwise, we need to stay off of private property. I will
not go to jail for these folks, at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you suggesting maybe the County
Attorney needs to review that and possibly bring us some
options?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good idea. Boy,
you're good. Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on this particular
agenda item? We -- Mr. Simmons? You wish to be heard?
Could give us your name and address, please, sir.
MR. SIMMONS: I my name's Bernie Simmons. I live
at 701 Primrose; I've been there for about 12 years. When I
bought the property, I knew it was a private road. I've done
a lot of work on it. A few of the neighbors close to me has
paid money for some gravel, and I have a small tractor which
I grade with, but it can't, obviously, do a very good job
like the county does. But I've really appreciated the County
7-14-08
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coming in and grading the hills that they've done. They
didn't do the one in front of my house, because it was
passable enough and was good. You know, I really know that
put more money out than I really had to put out a few times.
My mother-in-law paid for 400 feet to keep the dust down at
her house. But I just want to thank the County for coming
and grading it when it was necessary. And I know the law
says one time a year or one time for a disaster, but a lot of
the hills, when it rains, it gets really bad really quick.
Even if -- even if I've put a lot of fill on it and stuff, it
still washes it out, because I can't get it shaped the way it
should be to start with. And I appreciate the County coming
and doing what they can do. I would like to maybe get it --
you know, if they just came and graded it twice a year, even
if it didn't wash it out, would help a lot. Okay? The
roads -- I'm not talking about the -- I'm talking about the
hills, not the whole road. But if it rains, it does get
really bad and it does need some attention, and that's all I
have to say. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Simmons.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Let's take --
7-14-08
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. SIRIANNI:	Can I	just add one	thing?
JUDGE TINLEY:	Come	forward; give	us your name and
address.
MS. SIRIANNI: Sure. I'm Lezlie Sirianni. I live
at 1101 Primrose. And I think one of the other major
concerns -- Bernie has done a lot. We've put in a lot of
money to pave -- to putting a lot of the material on it.
There's a lot of people that own property out there that
don't live there, and I think that's one of our biggest
concerns too, is that we're putting in a lot of money for the
area that we live on, but there's area past that where nobody
lives on that property that can help maintain that, and that
is the pieces of the road that are not being maintained,
especially past our house. Bernie helps us keep it to our
house where we can get our cars up there, but it's past that.
I think to get down to y'all's house is the really bad, bad
hill, and most of the people who own that property don't live
here. And I think that's just another issue that needs to be
pondered.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just -- that is the
reason a road district is a pretty good option lots of times,
because those people will pay part of the cost. If they
don't live there, they don't vote there. If they're not a
registered voter, they don't get to vote.
MS. SIRIANNI: That was my other question, is,
7-19-08
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
like, they're not going to want to vote to -- to have that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't have a vote. If
you're not registered to vote within the area that you draw,
they have to -- they'll have to pay the additional tax if
it's assessed. But it's only those that are registered
voters of the area, as drawn up by the people that choose the
road district. They vote, and if it's a majority of those
people, everyone has to pay.
MS. SIRIANNI: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else? Yes, sir?
MR. CHAPA, III: Carlos Chapa, III, 301 Primrose.
That's my father sitting there. So, from what I've -- the
information I've gathered today is y'all are not going to
come out there, do anything, 'cause it's private property.
So, if I pave it, the section, you know, from the bottom to
my house, then do I need to get with him, and they come and
say, "Okay, this is the right pavement," or, "This is wrong"?
Or are they going to send somebody that's an engineer or
smart about that? 'Cause I know nothing about paving roads.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He does.
MR. CHAPA, III: Are they going to send somebody to
say, "This is what you need to do, and this is how it needs
to be done"?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be the wise thing
to do before you start fixing the road.
7-14-08
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
MR. CHAPA, III: Right, 'cause that's just telling
I me -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any of the local contractors --
if you were to use a local contractor, you hand them our
subdivision rules on road specifications, and that would make
sense to them, and they could talk to Leonard to make sure.
Leonard will inspect the work.
MR. CHAPA, III: I want somebody to sign off,
because then if they show up and say, "This ain't the right
kind of gravel," you know, or, "This ain't the right kind of
culvert" --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You don't want that.
MR. CHAPA, III: Do you know what I'm saying?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. CHAPA, III: So, that's just all I want. Thank
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chapa.
MR. CHAPA: Another quick question. Let's say that
-- let's say that we bring 800 more feet of road up to county
specs and pave it according to the county specs, and would
the County then take increments? Like, would they take that
800 feet, or would they say, "Well, it's still in a private
subdivision, and we're not going to maintain it." I just
want to make it clear.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Generally, we take --
~-14-os
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 BALDWIN: As your Commissioner, I will
vote to accept that.
MR. CHAPA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know the
recommendation of the County Engineer or not, but I --
MR. CHAPA: What I'm thinking is, maybe -- maybe
the road district that is formed might not have $1.2 million
to do the whole subdivision, but maybe they could do
increments, 800 feet a year. You know, five years, you'd
have a bunch of road done. And if the County would adopt,
you know, increments of 400 feet or 800 feet if it was
brought up to county specs, that would be good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back in the olden days, even
before Bill Williams was born, if you could even imagine life
then, -- (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hard to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that's how they did it.
They just -- the County, I mean, just fixed a mile at a time
until they finally got it all done.
MR. CHAPA: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back in the olden days,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hard to remember that far
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it's hard to remember.
though.
back.
7-19-08
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
any enforcement ability of requiring anybody to put anything
in the hat. And if there's enough money in the hat to hire
somebody to bring the road up to county standards -- here,
again, we'd suggest you check with Mr. Odom and make sure
that your plans are going to be satisfactory and comply with
subdivision regs, and you can do that on a voluntarily basis,
bring it back and ask us to do whatever you fixed, to assume
maintenance for. The other route you have is to form
yourself a road district under the appropriate state statutes
in which you hold an election, you approve or disapprove the
formation of a road district to improve the road, and that
way, you have the legal authority to impose a tax on those
within the district to pay their portion, as specified in
that statutory authority.
MR. McGRATH: That would include nonresidents as
well as residents?
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. As long as they own the
property.
MR. McGRATH: Y'all are going to stand by it and
say, "Oh, these people aren't paying their share; we're going
to take their property"?
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, what happens is, our Tax
Assessor enters into a contract to collect those taxes for
I You.
MR. McGRATH: But y'all are going to stand by doing
7-14-08
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, taking people's property if they don't pay their road
taxes?
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the remedies for delinquent
taxes in a road district, so far as I know, are the very same
as the county, the school, city, wherever.
MR. McGRATH: As long as it's binding. 'Cause
there's a lot of people up there that don't want to put a
road there, and there's a lot more that do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then they would vote
against the issue.
MR. McGRATH: So, y'all are willing to take the
heat for that? 'Cause it's going to be a lot of heat when
everybody starts saying --
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't form the road district.
You folks form it by your election.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have other road districts in
the county. Mr. Evans?
MR. EVANS: My name's Von Evans, 211 Von Trail. I
want to commend Mr. Odom. Our roads in our community are
county roads. At one time, they were not. Now, under our
bylaws as a community, we, as a board, were allowed to say
we're going to make our roads acceptable to the County and
then convert that to county roads to be maintained by the
county. And our roads are absolutely exceptional.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
7-14-08
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's in Precinct 1.
(Laughter.) Attaboy.
MR. ODOM: May I -- now, another option is -- is
not for the County to maintain it, but to get a sealcoat,
just like they did on top of the hill, where it's 14 feet or
where it's 16 feet wide, and get a surface up those hills so
that they would have an all-weather road. That's the way to
do it. That's the cheaper way to do it. It's -- it's a
private -- it is their road. We don't maintain it.
JUDGE TINLEY: But they -- they use their own
private pooled funds for that purpose.
MR. ODOM: If they're talking about 800 feet this
year, then that's what they do. The next year, like that,
and they get up the hills or they do where the money runs
out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that way, those roads will
not become county-maintained?
MR. ODOM: They will not be county-maintained, but
they will be accessible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Passable?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unless they're brought up to
county standards.
MR. ODOM: Unless they're brought up to county
standards and they want to be county-maintained.
7-14-08
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
recess.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's take about a 15-minute
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
(Recess taken from 11:06 a.m. to 11:22 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if
we might. We were in recess for a moment or two. Let's go
to Item 9, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action concerning use of Schreiner Trust Fund for
projects in Precinct 1 and Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good to see a lot of wonderful,
smiling, happy, friendly faces in here.
MR. ODOM: That just shows I have less hair after
that one there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Couldn't get much less.
MR. ODOM: I know; it's getting close.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Look who's talking down
there. (Laughter.) The glare.
JUDGE TINLEY: You and I need to keep our mouths
shut.
MR. ODOM: The only thing that keeps it up is that
hairspray that covers it right there. Trent Lott, II, right
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
106
severe budget problems for our department, as it has everyone
else. Besides the fuel products, some of the other issues
that hurt the department's budget are the additional cost
passed on from all the vendors now. The T.C.E.Q. pulled our
travel to the wastewater treatment plant instead of using a
water source near the job site, as we've always done.
Unexpected bleeding on Sheppard Rees required extra funds to
repair that. The annual bids for cold mix came in at $5.56
more per ton over the last year, and black base increased
$3.56 a ton. That increases every truckload to at least
$139. TexDOT's off-site bridge report that I recently --
that we just completed required that we spend over $12,000 on
bridge repairs for gabions. And we still have the following
projects that were planned in the '07-'08 budget that we do
not have the funds yet, and that's -- now that we've reached
-- we had the bleeding problem on Sheppard Rees, I need to
restrip Sheppard Rees, sealcoat 3.2 miles of Fisher Road,
level up material that I'm completely out of, and base
material I'm completely out of on line items. We ask that
you allow us to use $36,000 from the Schreiner Trust Fund to
do this work in Precinct 1 and 4, which it is dedicated for.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What is the balance of the
7-14-08
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
MR. ODOM: 200 and --
MS. HARGIS: 63,000.
MR. ODOM: $263,000.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: See? I was close, wasn't I,
Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, you were. I can't
believe you was off $12,000 like that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, I was off 3,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
MR. ODOM: It is something that's viable, and it's
there, and it's for Precinct 1 and 4, and I can use it for
those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
The Fisher Road thing, I thought -- or did I dream this or
did I hear it through the grapevine? -- that the family may
want to take the road over and them fix it themselves.
MR. ODOM: No, I don't think so. I think that they
i
are -- had approached -- or suggested that they would -- if
we did complete our sealcoat program, that they would ask for
3.2 miles to be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: -- taken off maintenance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. All right. I just --
MR. ODOM: That's all. And if Fisher Road was
there, and then I had a mile in there programmed for that up
7-14-08
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
above this point, but they've come to us and said that they
would like to take it over themselves for maintenance, if we
would do that portion for sealcoat on that portion, instead
of the mile that I had in front of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do want to fix it and then
take it --
MR. ODOM: That's right. And they would buy the
ag -- the oil. They would furnish the oil.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the project?
MR. ODOM: For this project. This 10,000 is for my
-- the money I have for this is for aggregate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Doesn't include the oil?
MR. ODOM: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So they would already be
participating.
MR. ODOM: That's right. And, legally, they can do
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: By statute.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's roughly the cost of the oil
for that?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Approximately 16,000, I
I believe.
MR. ODOM:	I want	to say	something	like	that.	It'	s
a buck 74 a gallon,	and I'm	sorry,	Judge, I	don't	know.	It'	s
7-14-08
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3.2 miles, about 14 feet on the average. I don't have my
calculator on me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Significant participation.
MR. ODOM: A significant participation, more than
what I have, and more than I would have spent on that one
mile of Fisher Road, which I doubt if I could have probably
'~~, done anyway, the way that my money is going.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want y'all to notice, and
do not forget this; that a measly $8,000 is in my precinct.
The rest of it's off out yonder in Louisville, where nobody
cares.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, yeah, but you know
what? You've got something in the past, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I might tell you also that
Precincts 2 and 3 don't participate in this pot of gold.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I'm quiet. It's up
to y'all if you want to fight.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Captain Schreiner had
I vision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just wanted to keep it away
from Comfort.
7-14-08
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe next time you'll get
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's exactly my
MR. ODOM: That is very possible.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is very likely,
actually. But, Leonard, I think -- I personally think that
you need to come visit with us, and privately, before we get
this thing out in the public next time, please.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir. I thought this was a
public forum, so I wasn't ashamed to bring it up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was a simple request.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't have to -- did
you --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you have a problem with
what I just requested?
MR. ODOM: No, sir, I sure didn't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I second it.
I
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second as
indicated. 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.
7-14-08
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's go to
Item 10; consider, discuss, take appropriate action
concerning the renewal of the letter of escrow G.F.No.070721k
for BTEX Ranch, L.P., located in Precinct 3.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The letter of credit for
Privilege Creek expires July the 24th, 2008. At the time of
this memo, we had not received the new letter of credit. It
is here today; we received it on the 9th. It's in the front
of my notebook here. I don't know if she passed on anything
else, but I do have that for y'all if you wish to see it.
Does the Court wish to accept it and extend the final plat
for one year? Privilege Creek is the one that's had problems
from Kendall County and all the legal things, so they wish to
pursue a -- start Privilege Creek up, Phase 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we do not extend this, that money
is returned to them unrestricted, and away they go under the
terms of --
MR. ODOM: Well, my terms, that would be correct,
but I believe that they have sold one lot. I don't know.
But this -- I believe that there's one lot that's been sold.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did they come in in the
right time frame or not?
MR. ODOM: Sir? I'm sorry. What, now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You made a comment a little
7-14-08
112
1 bit E
2 date.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
today?
MR. ODOM: July the 24th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they came in with it
MR. ODOM: Well, the 9th. When was that, Friday?
When we wrote this letter, we had not received it. And
that's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's dated the 10th, and
today's the 14th. It was due on the 24th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, they're in
I before.
MR. ODOM: They're doing it before, right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're in compliance.
MR. ODOM: They're in compliance. And what they're
asking is for an extension, 'cause we normally have one year,
which is what we normally do. It has been the policy of the
Court to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that includes acceptance of this
new letter of credit to run through July 24th, 2009?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second as indicated.
7-14-08
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Oehler voted
in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Abstain. I abstain.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let the record reflect
that Commissioner Letz neither participated in the discussion
and abstained from the voting thereon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Chicken.
JUDGE TINLEY: Leonard, if -- yeah, we need to go
to Item 21. It is an 11:30 timed item. I indicated to
Mr. McCoy that I thought we may not get to it till after
lunch. I forgot at that time it was a timed item. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on request from the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to use office space at
one of the Kerr County facilities. Mr. Evan McCoy with Parks
and Wildlife.
MR. McCOY: I want to thank y'all for allowing me
to be on the agenda and hearing any request. I am with the
Texas Parks and Wildlife department. My exact title is a
private lands biologist. Basically, what that is, the bulk
of my work is providing technical guidance to landowners of
7-14-08
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
__
~ Kerr County and surrounding counties. Really, the hill
country area, all the way from Crockett County, Val Verde,
McCulloch County, just quite a few counties. I cover about
200,000 acres under that management. And what I do is -- is
provide wildlife management assistance, range and wildlife
management so landowners -- it's a free service. I also deal
a lot with deer permits. M.L.D., managed land deer permits,
is a program we offer landowners. It's kind of an incentive
program for them to do management practices. We provide
these permits free of service.
I actually office at the Kerr Wildlife Management
area. I'm sure many of y'all are familiar with that area.
It's about 25 miles west of here. I've been officing there
for about two years, a little over two years, until recently.
We had some changes in our state vehicle policy as far as use
as far as commuting goes. We're no -- we're no longer
allowed to commute in our state vehicles, as well as it's
budgetary reasons, of course, with the high fuel prices. We
did not -- when they -- I think when they were coming with
our budget for this year, they figured in gas at 2.85 a
gallon. Of course, we're well above that. So, I live here
personally; I live here in Kerrville, and so, like I say,
commuting is a problem. What we were wanting to see if there
was any office space available closer to Kerrville, closer to
my house, within the -- within the Kerrville area --
7-19-08
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ingram/Kerrville area, if there was any county facilities
that I'd be able to office at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would it be fair to assume
that there is no space available at U.G.R.A. where Texas
Parks and Wildlife has its other offices?
MR. McCOY: We've checked on those. There may be
some areas I still have yet to check. The Parks and Wildlife
office, they -- Mike Krueger, who's the division -- the
director there, said that there was really no space
available. There was a small little closet that they have a
copy machine in, and that they didn't think it would be
possible. My supervisor, Donnie Frels, talked with U.G.R.A.,
and they said the same thing, that it was pretty limited.
And so I -- again, I'm here with a request for county
facilities.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The program that you work with
is an excellent program, and it's a -- the Parks and Wildlife
has done a great job in allowing landowners a whole lot more
flexibility on managing their deer population, and have made
it a lot easier to harvest a large number of does by
landowners. So, I mean, it's a great program. The only spot
that I can think of is out at our Ag Barn. We have three
offices that are down there that are certainly not luxurious,
but they're not being used right now. They have, at one
point or another, been used by Maintenance or leasing of that
7-14-08
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
facility, which is not -- which we just don't use those. So,
if that's available --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That small little office.
You know, you got the main one. You walk in the last door;
there's another one down that hall on the left.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's the one --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the one I would be
thinking about. It's big enough. You're not going to be in
the office a whole lot, probably.
MR. McCOY: It really depends on the time of year.
Now, the summer, you know, it's fairly slow, not a lot going
on. But in about August, surveys start picking up, and, you
know, people start demanding or requesting permits. That's
when I'll be out of the office quite a bit. No, I don't need
a huge space. I don't have -- you know, just a computer, you
know, filing cabinet, desk, that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be enough for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I presume there's probably no
budget in y'all's funds to lease it, so --
MR. McCOY: Well, that -- I guess we need to
discuss that. Of course, it would have to -- our fiscal year
starts September; they would have to know the dollar amount
and be able to see if they could budget that in. If --
certainly, you know, if there's any utilities, things as far
as utilities or Internet -- I do require Internet, of course,
7-14-08
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
being in the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's internet out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's been wired.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's wired for computer
and --
MR. McCOY: And telephone and everything.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Telephone. It's all there,
available.
MR. McCOY: Telephone and internet is really what I
need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- I'm certainly
interested in pursuing it. I mean, right now it's unused
space. I just don't see that we're going to use it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe that space is
used at all any more since Alyce left.
MS. PIEPER: It's used for elections.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Little bitty office in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about where
you walk through the glass part, or are you talking about
where you turn to the right --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: To the right, and then the
office door.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where Mr. Holekamp
used to be.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
7-14-08
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: You said that is used for elections?
MS. PIEPER: We used it last time. They can use
the maintenance office, the big office. They don't have to
use the smaller office.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's the one as you just
come through the glass doors?
MS. PIEPER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. McCOY: I haven't seen that office already. I
haven't -- I'm not familiar.
JUDGE TINLEY: You may want to go out there during
the lunch hour and take a look.
MR. McCOY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: See what that consists of. The
Auditor had a question.
MS. HARGIS: No. I know that the Fair Association
uses that when the they count money and stuff during the
fair, that little office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That doesn't seem fair.
MS. HARGIS: Once a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can use the other office,
too.
MS. HARGIS: They'll just have to find another
place.
7-14-08
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they can use that main portion
behind the counter there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the elections could.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Especially if we can make a
little bit of money off of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stock show also uses it.
Stock show also uses that space during stock show.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, it's used at
times.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mostly use the upstairs
office for that stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if that -- anyone who's
using that office space could make adjustments; they can use
other space available out there and not cause any problems in
their operations, in my opinion. We need to figure out
something, what a fair --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How about $100 a month?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something like that, a pretty
nominal amount. Just enough, basically, to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Offset our utility costs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Utilities, maintenance,
cleanup.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something like that. Maybe --
7-14-08
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I was thinking probably more like $200 a month, whatever.
Something. It's not a large amount.
MR. EMERSON: Just a discussion issue, but I think
you need to clarify whether he's talking about the office is
already wired for Internet and telephone, or it already has
services available and hooked up and activated. There's a
difference between being wired and being active.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he -- they would be
responsible for -- for their own cost of telephone and -- and
Internet access. That certainly would be their expense. And
he understands that, I'm sure.
MR. McCOY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, 'cause it's wired for
it, but not -- I agree with you. We're not going to be
responsible for paying for the service.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like we do D.P.S. so much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway --
MR. McCOY: So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you go out there; that --
those double glass doors, if you open kind of right in the
middle of the old part of the building, if you go through the
doors, turn to the right, go through the doorway, it's just
to the left. That's where the office is. And it's --
MS. PIEPER: Judge? There was a router for the
Internet in the main office, and then when we used the
7-14-08
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
smaller office, we used the wireless.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know it was wired, though,
because Alyce had it wired for her computer. She was working
out there.
MS. HYDE: Right, there was a computer out there
for her.
MR. TROLINGER: Alyce had dial-up, and we now have
Internet service for the general public available. It's not
on the county network, but it does have Internet access.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So go look at it, see if you
think it would work. Talk to whoever, and see if they think
somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 a month is reasonable
and come back, I guess.
MR. McCOY: Okay. And it's -- I just need to get
with Maintenance?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Get with Jody and she
can get you with Tim Bollier, our Maintenance Director. She
can show you the spot.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's probably locked.
MR. McCOY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You'll need a key to get in.
MR. McCOY: I guess that's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. McCOY: Thank you.
7-14-08
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to Item 11,
it looks like; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
approve the service contract for the plat scanner and plotter
for another year, authorize Judge Tinley to sign the same.
Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: This is basically just a renewal of
the contract. However, there is a slight increase of 16
cents per linear feet on the plotter/scanner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that one more time?
Sixteen cents what?
MS. PIEPER: Well, it's half a cent for each linear
foot that we print out on the plats.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's now 16; it's going to 16 and a
half. Have you reviewed the contract -- or the previous
contract?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it all right?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
7-19-08
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll go to
Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
review and acknowledge the quarterly report from Patterson
and Associates, that being the quarter ending June 30th,
12008. Ms. Williams?
MS. WILLIAMS: Morning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Morning.
MS. WILLIAMS: I hope you -- I think that y'all
each have a copy of the quarterly investment report. I
didn't know if you had any questions. I'll try to answer
them as best as I can if do you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Things are not too good in
the money market, are they?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir. Not good anywhere right
now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need to accept this, or
is this just for informational purposes?
MS. WILLIAMS: I think it needs to be reviewed and
acknowledged. Is that right?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Acknowledged or accepted?
MS. HARGIS: You don't -- just acknowledged. You
don't have to accept it, just acknowledge it.
7-14-08
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Acknowledge receipt?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
acknowledge receipt of the investment report from Patterson
and Associates -- quarterly investment report.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on that motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 13, if we might.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See what this is going to
cost.
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to provide funding for the cost of
transfer of volunteer fire department dispatch from the
police department -- I assume that's Kerrville Police
Department -- to Kerr County Sheriff's Office, as requested
by Kerrville Police Department. I don't see anybody here
from city of Kerrville Police Department with that request.
Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Let's say it was just told by
7-14-08
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Kerrville Police Department that they will --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a mandate.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A mandate.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's one of them unfunded
mandates. $3,006.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe that copy is in
there, but where does it come from?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Sheriff's salary.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Of course, this is exactly
what we should be doing, anyway. The city police department
shouldn't be dispatching our -- our fire departments anyway.
Do you have any money left in your Jailer Salary line item?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There probably is a little
bit.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe we can fund it out of
that. You wouldn't get all mad about it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As long as the Appraisal
District doesn't get another 21,000 out of it, I guess we
can.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
7-14-08
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 14; consider, discuss, and approve the deletion of one
sergeant position and addition of one patrol deputy position.
Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm doing a little bit of
in-house restructuring. I'm not -- I am combining a current
lieutenant's position and a sergeant's position into one
administrative lieutenant's position, which does away with
the sergeant one. Doesn't change the lieutenant's salary at
all. It's just combining it and trying to do away with quite
so many chiefs and add a few more Indians, cause I need the
patrolmen.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about budgetary impact?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Budgetary impact, it will go
down about a thousand, something like that, about a thousand
a year because of the salary difference between a patrolman
and a sergeant. It drops.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- it doesn't change --
7-14-08
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't know what you're doing here, but just as an example,
it doesn't change the drug task force type thing, or any
other department inside your department?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does change?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In a way, it does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're still going to chase
bad guys?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, yeah. I'm changing the --
what is currently the lieutenant over the -- just the
narcotics --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- guys, okay? Changing him
to an administrative lieutenant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which will be training and
administration and day stuff, and putting the narcotics guys
under the regular criminal investigative captain and doing
that, so it's kind of streamlining things. I don't need a
lieutenant that supervises two or three people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't mean to get into
your business at all, and I won't, but I am interested in
your --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm doing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in your team. Okay,
7-14-08
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thank you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Still keeps the same amount of
guys actually working narcotics.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
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: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 15; consider, discuss, take appropriate action
regarding the long-range plan for Kerr County jail and radio
system.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think this is something that
we need to start at least formulating and paying some very
serious attention to. If you look at our average daily
inmate population, this one, the last page will give you the
totals on it. It was July of 2006 to July of 2007. The
second one's July of 2007 to today -- yesterday, the 14th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many copies do you
have?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We made one right now that you
can -- just mainly it's the numbers at the bottom that you
can look at, two different records.
7-14-08
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What, do you need some more
money for your copy machine or what?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Needs paper.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He made one for us? Is that
what he's saying?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Y'all can get online, since
you got the capability now, and print your own.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have never been treated
like this in my life.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What it --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can print your own money
and come back, then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At least put it on as
backup. Then we have it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What that shows is last year,
a year ago, the average daily population was 150. For the
last year, this average daily population is now 163. Okay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's right at where
you're supposed to be?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 153. I'm ten over. I'm ten
over where I'm supposed to be. The peculiar part about that,
if you look at it, is the actual number of arrests has not
really changed that much. The number of people coming into
that jail is not changing; it's the amount of days they're
staying. A lot of them are being prosecuted now, as you
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
now they're getting sentenced to county jail time. Or when
they violate their probation, they're getting sentenced to
county jail time. That's increasing our average daily. It's
one of those unfunded state mandates to keep the state jails
from getting overcrowded. Bottom line is, we're going to be
hurting, obviously, with the jail situation very quickly. I
think we've been headed there. We've talked about it in the
past, and I think it's time that we form a committee and
start letting the public know and start looking at either
some alternatives somehow, which I don't know of any right
now, or we're going to have to start looking at expanding
that jail. And that creates a whole 'pother set of issues,
'cause once you go over the 200 bed capacity, then a lot of
things change, kind of like the population going over 50,000;
it changes a lot of the deals.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, I don't -- I agree with
what you're saying, but I also -- I'd like to defer a little
bit, or at least probably go with a different committee than
you're probably thinking. And my -- what I'm thinking is, we
have a new District Judge coming on board first of the year.
We have a new District Attorney coming on first of the year.
I would like to -- to have Rex and a few others, and
probably, you know, a representative from the County Court at
7-14-08
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Law and the two District Judges, District Attorney's office
to meet and look at if there's something we can do, even
think you'll agree, see what kind of cooperation we're going
to get. And then proceed with what you're -- you know, we're
looking at, but yours is more of a citizens' task force than
what I was looking at.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm just bringing it to you.
We need -- whether it's that or a citizens' task force or
whatever, I think we definitely have to -- I think we're past
the point of -- we really need to take this serious and start
looking or it's going to hit us bad.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, I've had a number of
questions and comments and concerns from citizens about how
we can house and care for these prisoners in your jail. Most
of them, I think, arise out of the notoriety that Sheriff
Arpaio has gotten out of Arizona, and the tents, all the
work -- work details, all this other stuff. And I would like
to see a representative from the Jail Standards Commission
come down here and, in a public forum, give us an explanation
of what we can lawfully do or can't lawfully do in detaining
these prisoners, keeping them incarcerated. Because,
frankly, a lot of citizens that I've talked to say that jails
7-19-08
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And, yes, we can have tents, as long as they have solid
floors and air conditioning and heating and running water and
showers and all that, so you've changed everything. But then
you got your security issue. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the only
problem I have, and what is not brought out by most of your
newscasts and your media -- and I've even done some research,
because I would like to be able to do some of the things he's
done. But I'm afraid if I do, this county's going to run me
out of the county on the next train because of a couple of
things. Quote, Sheriff Arpaio is the most sued sheriff in
the United States, costing county taxpayers a whopping 41.4
million in lawsuit-related money because of the inhumane
conditions in his jail and the numerous in-custody deaths
occurring in there. For the period of January '93 to
November 2007, the county's paid $30,039,928.75 in lost
lawsuits. Okay? Their -- their insurance policy is -- from
'95 to '08, was premiums of 11,345,000 in premiums. The --
from '95 to '08, the amount paid each year was 328,894, with
a one million dollar deductible. And I don't think this
county can afford any of those. You know, 11 million for
7-14-08
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
policies would break us all. It certainly would break my
budget, and it's never been anywhere near that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, the other issue I have --
requirements are constitutional, as prescribed, say, by
federal judges that we can't do anything about, we're
probably stuck with it. But if that's not the basis for
those requirements, if it's because the Legislature has
authorized those sort of regulations, and pursuant to that,
the Jail Standards Commission has promulgated some sort of
regulations, then we may have another issue to come before
the Legislature, because it perturbs the hell out of me when
I see some of the second-class citizens and convicted
felons -- and jailbirds, in my mind, are second-class
citizens -- who are out there enjoying the comforts of home,
getting fed their meals, cooling their heels, watching a
little TV, not hitting a lick at a snake, and we've got boys
in Iraq that are out in the field, and we got them right up
here at Fort Hood that are out in the field that soon will be
deployed to Iraq, I'm sure, and they are living in much worse
conditions. They're sacrificing a whole bunch more, and
your jail --
7-14-08
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You use my language, Judge.
Let me explain something.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to excite him
now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Number one is, the Legislature
created the Jail Commission back in the early '70's. I don't
have a choice. If we want to keep a jail open, we have to
abide by those deals. If -- if the citizens of Texas can get
that changed, more power to them. I've got a certain set of
rules and laws that I have to run that jail by.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? Number two, it not only
perturbs you, it does perturb me too, that I have my own kids
that can't afford -- or their job doesn't offer them health
insurance, but yet they can't afford it on their own, and
they get bills and have to work out some kind of payment plan
like most of us for the hospital to get our bills paid. But
if they want to come out to my jail and sit there for a week,
we can take care of all those medical problems, and you and I
as taxpayers are going to pay theirs totally, all right?
Where we can't pay our own. And having a son that has fought
in Afghanistan, I understand that, and I appreciate exactly
what you're saying. But, Judge, unfortunately, I don't have
a choice, all right? I don't want to see this county get --
7-14-08
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm already named in lawsuits regularly as it is, all right?
And I have lawsuits now, and we had one that went all the way
to a jury trial and cost this county a lot because I add an
inmate fall out of a bunk, all right? The state laws don't
change the federal laws, and the lawsuits are in federal
court on how we treat our inmates. And you and I, as far as
I know, can't get that changed. If you can, I'll get on that
band wagon with you and we'll try and get it changed. I'd
love to see it changed; I'd love to see inmates pay a lot
more than what they have to pay, instead of you and I paying
for their medical bills, but that doesn't change my issues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me -- let me weigh in
just a little bit here. Number one, isn't it Justice --
William Wayne Justice that is the problem? This federal
judge that has made all these rulings?
JUDGE TINLEY: He had control over the
penitentiary.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He did state -- now, the other
issue that we do have, real quick, Buster, and then I'll let
you finish your deal, is the one thing we do have to
remember, this is a county jail; it's not a penitentiary
system. And most of the people in my jail are still presumed
innocent and not found guilty.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sorry. But, you know,
7-14-08
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reality, that's the way it is. So, what freedoms --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I happen to know the guy,
one of my dear friends -- what's his name, Rusty? That jail
standards guy?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Adan Munoz.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's been in this courtroom
before several times. And I do know him a little bit; we
visit. And I will invite him down here. I don't know -- I
may settle for one of his lieutenants or something like that,
but we really want him, the head guy, to come here to this
courtroom. And what -- the way I personally would like to do
it is, you -- you rattle off some interesting questions, the
issues, like -- and one thing you forget is the lighting in
those rooms. What can we do, from the pink underwear to air
conditioning and all those issues. Make a list of those and
send them to him before he comes down here so he will be
prepared to answer our questions. Y'all want to do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a lot of what -- what I
think the Judge was saying is that we need public awareness.
Also, we need to know, is it our responsibility or is it the
State's responsibility or the feds?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. That's what
we're going to do.
7-14-08
137
1
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: Who's causing us to do it this
way? If we can change it ourselves, if we have the ability
to make some changes, then it's our responsibility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think our desire is to see
them out there in pink underwear and out in a tent, and worse
shape than what he -- he described. Because --
JUDGE TINLEY: They're out there growing their own
food.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Growing their own food and
working their butts off every day.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Number one --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's our desire.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some of that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we can do it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some of that, growing their
own food is a real possibility. We could do that. It's
going to cost the county in guards, okay, and equipment. I'd
have to have the guards to be able to guard them. Having a
chain gang out on the interstate picking up trash, and on any
county road, I can definitely do that. I would love to do
that. We have a small group because I can have one guard
with it. Now, I'd love to have a lot more of that type of
stuff, and I think it -- it should be that way. But, again,
you're talking employees. You're talking guards to guard
these people. They have to be guarded. And, unfortunately,
7-14-08
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you know, a lot of it is the classification of the inmates we
get. The type of people that are in county jails now, a lot
of them would not qualify, or I would not want to put outside
those confines of the walls to work unless we had a good
enough set of guards to be able to guard them all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, let me break in here, if I
might. A couple members of the Court have a commitment for a
meeting in ten minutes, and I know you've got some more items
to talk about here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Go to lunch and come back,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're going to turn them loose
to go where they need to go, and we'll come back at 1:45, and
we'll finish up this agenda.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Court is recessed until 1:45.
(Recess taken from 12:01 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.)
(Commissioner Baldwin not present.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if
we might. It's now quarter till 2:00, and we're back from
lunch, and -- some of us are. Some of us are engaged in
wholesale discussion that has no relevance to what we're
doing here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And not listening.
7-14-08
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move on to the next
item, then, as the Sheriff is participating in other things.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I'm not.
(Commissioner Baldwin entered the courtroom.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Commissioner Baldwin wasn't
here; I had to delay until he could get here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We were on Item 15; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action regarding the long-range
plan for Kerr County Jail and radio system. Translated, that
means M-O-N-E-Y.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For all of us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why? Because we love you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As you know, in the -- I think
we probably talked about the jail end of that. And we just
need to get something done on it, but we also, at the same
time, have the issue with converting everything over to
digital radios. I have put, several weeks ago, a month ago,
a copy of a kind of bid letter I got from Dailey Wells and
what it would cost to convert over, which is 1 to 1.2 or
3 million, to convert us over, and we're required to do that,
I believe, by 2015, which is the end of -- December of 2014.
So, my issue -- my deal is, if we end up having to expand the
jail and having to -- after a committee of however y'all want
to do it sits and looks at it, I don't know if it's better
7-14-08
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for us to try and do a bond issue on the jail and the radio
system at one time, or if we just need to at least get
something rolling on it, 'cause that's going to come pretty
soon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you, 2015,
required by law that you be changed over with a different
system, et cetera.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about between now and
then, communicating with those people that are already
changed over? Or have they already changed over? What do
you do about that? They will between now and 2015.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We lose communication, okay?
Now, the City is ready to totally convert over. I think
that's really part of the reason we're getting the volunteer
fire departments back, because they aren't digital and they
could go digital at any time. The City is capable of doing
it. I'm not ready; our department can't do that. The -- I
sent y'all one -- and it's currently in the budget. We can
discuss it during the budget considerations. There's a bid
of $181,000 just to change out our radios in our cars. Not
our infrastructure of our radio system, but just our in-car
radios to digital, which would give us the capability of
being able to hear the City when they switch, on their
channel, by us switching over to their channel, 'cause our
7-14-08
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
radio itself would be a digital.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can they hear you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And they could -- now, they
can hear us either way. If we do not go to digital radios
and we stay with our analog, the city system will give
them -- or does give them the capability of hearing us, even
though we're analog. We can't hear them. And that's part of
the dilemma, why I have an issue and don't understand part of
what they're doing, even though I've had a couple meetings
with their captain, is that the officers on the street, to
me, have to be able to communicate with each other. That's
the most important part. If you look at who benefits more
from communicating with each other, there's no ands, ifs or
buts, in my opinion. The city benefits more from us being
able to hear them than them being able to hear us, because we
back them up on a whole lot more calls inside the city than
they ever run out in the county and give us backup when we
need it, 'cause they just don't do that. And so it really
benefits them for us to be able to hear. And it's going to
be an interesting budget year, I know, and there's some other
issues I think the County has to look at. So, we have
applied for a grant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, would the possibility be
-- would you say that it's a possibility that you backing up
the city police department may dwindle some or stop?
7-14-08
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I hope it never ever stops. I
don't want it to stop. It could be that I have to settle it
first with us being able to convert radios, since it is such
a large cost. Converting maybe one or two of my cars on each
shift, and then at that point, we would at least have one or
two cars that could monitor them all the time. They could
then tell the other units.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So that we could still do it,
but yeah, it could hamper it some. But I just -- I'll be
honest; I don't see how the County can totally afford that
kind of switch-over on this short of notice, and that kind of
expense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think the County needs to --
personal opinion, and I think y'all will hear it from most of
the department heads, and you've even told it to me -- really
concentrate on getting the County's employees' salaries up
equivalent with other areas that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Rusty, the -- you
know, where is the -- where's the major cost in the radio
system? I mean, by taking -- let's say you have three or
four guys working, your guys working the county, and you have
the -- have your sergeant or lieutenant or whatever the guy
is that swings around --
7-14-08
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and goes wherever he's
', needed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's say that he's the guy.
Let's change his radio in his car to the analog, and then he
can pass out the information to the other guys out in the
field. That's not the expense, to change out that vehicle.
The expense is the towers and all that, isn't it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You -- okay, you got two
different issues. The radios themselves in the car, the
current conventional radios that we purchase every year for
our patrol cars average between $400 and $500. That's for
the car.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The portable radio that the
officer carries with him so that he can hear everything when
he's outside the car is another $300 to $400, okay? So,
we're spending less than $1,000 per set. Now, for a portable
and a car radio for each officer, digital, that costs, for
both of those -- for a car radio is $1,700, and for a
portable is $1,800.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wow.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? So, then -- and then
you talk installation, so we're talking $3,600 per set.
7-14-08
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As opposed to $1,000.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Compared to $800, $900.
That's the big difference. That's a major difference
converting our radio system over to digital, is because of
the county's terrain. And back when the County went with
recall, we had times with the other radio system -- and at
that time, there was deputy, now J.P., David Billeiter, who
was out by the airport and could not even get on the radio
when he was jumped by several people he had stopped, and --
and like to got hurt, and we couldn't break a tower. Because
we had approximately 50 percent coverage with car radios and
about 40 percent coverage throughout the county with
hand-held radios, so we did not have the coverage. For the
County to get the coverage throughout the county, back then,
the County elected to go with a simulcast system, which,
instead of just having one tower, has four towers throughout
the county, the main part, and they're all linked together.
And what they call "simulcast," if a guy's out by Garven
Store, out by Mountain Home, he keys his mic; it hits the
tower out on Highway 41, and within milliseconds, it will hit
the tower out on Elm Pass, okay? So that it all converts at
the same time so that everybody can hear everyone.
Otherwise, we would have had to go to a system like S.A.P.D.
where the guys west could never hear the guys east and all
7-14-08
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
At that time, we also had the option of going to
the -- what they call APCO 25, the digital system. This
system that the County went with cost 900-something thousand.
The APCO 25 was going to add onto that another 1.3 million
because of the digital equipment instead of just the analog,
was sure what was happening. There were meetings constantly
on it. You know, some of this still is going to change. And
so I also supported just the 900,000 expenditure, and not the
1.2 or 1.3 million. Now the State is coming back and saying,
actually, by January 1st, 2015, which would be December of
2014, everybody has to be digital. So, by December of 2014,
you know, we have to spend that other 1.2 or 1.3, whatever it
comes in at, million dollars to go to digital. It's kind of
like our TV's; now everybody's got to be digital. Maybe
we're running out of bandwidth in areas; I don't know.
Trolinger may be able to understand that a lot more. But
that's where we're at. But the other issue is, by
January 1st, 2013, which is December of 2012, we have to be
narrow band. If we just go narrow band, that's another
7-14-08
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50,000, okay? Dailey Wells and everybody else that I have
talked to says, "Don't go narrow band without going digital."
You're spending 50,000 that you're going to redo anyhow two
years later.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, if we're required to do it
by 2013, and we don't spend the 50,000 that we have to redo,
it means we have to go digital by December 31st, 2012, which
is not very far away, and we're looking at 1.2 or 1.3 million
to do that. And by that time, our jail situation is going to
be critical and we're going to have to be looking at that.
So my suggestion, in trying to look forward, is we need to
start preparing for both of those now, whether it's through
committees, whether it's through Jonathan's way of finding a
different way to divert some of the jail population, whatever
it takes, that we need to seriously start planning for these
expenses that are going to hit us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When does this -- is the radio
system paid for? Is Jeannie here?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jeannie's not in here. I
thought it was 2010 or something like that. Is that what she
said?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we had one more
payment on it.
(Ms. Hargis entered the courtroom.)
7-14-08
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it would be -- when is the
communication system paid off?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Radio system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you remember?
MS. HARGIS: Which one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 980,000, I think, something
like that.
MS. HARGIS: There's one that's coming off this
year, and I -- what was it called? I know it by the name.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Dailey Wells simulcast radio
system, Sheriff's Office.
MS. HARGIS: The issue date was in 2005. The --
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the juvenile facility, the
2005, 1.2 million.
MS. HARGIS: There's one that comes off this year.
And it -- it doesn't really tell me what it was for, 'cause I
haven't been here long enough --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be it. So, it's --
this is the last year, or we have one more next year?
MS. HARGIS: No, this is the last year. We have
one that's retiring every year now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Until 2011, I believe it is.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. HARGIS: 2011, and that's our last one. And
7-14-08
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be right; eight
years, I think.
MS. HARGIS: If you did the radio system in 2000.
I don't think that's the one that's coming off this year.
Let me call the auditor.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 2000, 2001. I think it was
late 2000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But those are two great big
issues that were
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, my point -- if the first
one's coming off, a similar amount, it can be financed the
same way. It's a --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do a tax anticipation?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. You'd have to
tie the jail problem with communication. I'd rather separate
the two.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. I'm just saying those
are the -- whether you try and do it together or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's coming off this
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Here's your -- this is your '05
~-i4-os
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
juvenile facility, 'cause it's coming down by about 475 a
year. This is just titled Fund 59, General Contractual
Obligation. I made a note here. There's courthouse
improvements; that's off. There's the jail bond.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comes off in 2012. Yeah, I
think it's that other one. I think it's only other one,
i
'cause the only ones we had were the courthouse renovation,
communications system, and then the computer system.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's computer right here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bank of America, '07 capital
financing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It comes off this year right
now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This year? It might.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think -- I don't
think you'd want to lump the two together, because we can
limp around now on the jail issue. We could limp around a
little bit, or we can send them to Fort Worth or -- you know,
you can do that. But on the radio systems, you can't. We
got to get her done. Don't you agree with that, Rusty? And
if they were lumped together and the bond issue failed, then
you've lost the radios.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I -- I agree with a portion of
that. As far as housing inmates --
7-14-08
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What part do you not agree
with?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Housing inmates out of county,
I do not agree with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we'll send them out to
west Kerr County.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oehler's got a ranch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just using that as an
example. There are things you can do with the jail, where
you can't do with the radio.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
MS. HARGIS: Okay, we actually already paid that
one off. The last payment on that one was February the 15th,
2008.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was --
MS. HARGIS: That was for 900,000; it was -- and it
was the Series 2001.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's paid off?
MS. HARGIS: It's paid off.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, there's the bandaid to
retirement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think he knew that all
along.
7-14-08
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, honestly didn't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't you want to lump a few
cars in there, too?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm like you, Buster. This
year I'm going to fight for employees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think that's what we got to
look at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think on the jail issue, I
mean, we need to start looking at it. I think we need to
look at it internally through the courts, the District
Attorneys and that whole area. I think we need to look at
other alternatives over housing them, what our other options
may be and what we can do with them, you know, what our
requirements are under state law. We have to kind of look at
all three of them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I'm open to all that. I'm
just bringing it up that something has to start moving.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't think at this
point a task force is of benefit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of the community citizens. If
we decided on a direction, I think we need to try to get that
task force maybe to buy into it and help sell it. But at
this point, I think we're still in the basic research mode.
7-14-08
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think it's going to take a year or so to get that done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty, did you have a
number for the improvement of the communication system to get
us up to current --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What Dailey Wells sent then
was the cost to convert your two-channel, four-site simulcast
system, B25, will run somewhere between 1 to 1.3 million
dollars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That's in 2008
dollars?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we delay by two or
three years, that number's going to go up.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I have on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The jail issue, the only thing
I would like to see is -- we talked about this several years
ago. It goes up. I've even seen it this year. Each year at
times, I've seen our population over 200, okay? It's causing
you know, some issues in the jail when you crowd it like
that, or when I can't classify -- yes, we have a few beds,
but when you can't classify, you start having more and more
problems. The only issue I'd like to see us do, and we
7-14-08
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
talked about it last year, we did some RFQ's; we did a few
things, and then it kind of got shelved. I just think if we
don't start at least taking steps constantly and looking at
it constantly, we're going to end up in a situation that is
going to cost us all a whole lot more, and a lot quicker,
'cause even if it were a bond issue -- you know, I'm not
promoting that right now, but if it were, we all know it
would be a couple years or three before it ever opened, that
portion of it, the addition. And it's just where we're at
and what we are going to look at, I'd like to see some kind
of movement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm going to move
forward with asking Adan to come down here and do that part
of it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Find out what's legal and
what's not legal for us if we're going to -- if we build one.
So --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I think that -- and then
Jonathan's deal; let's get with the prosecutors and judges
and see if they can --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's very wise,
'cause you have two new guys coming in, a D.A. and a District
Judge. You got to catch them while they're fresh, before
they learn how to tell us to go to hell.
7-14-08
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the D.A.'s already
learned that he can prosecute and punish under misdemeanor
and put them a year in the county jail. He did that last
week. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: A nice sleight-of-hand movement by
the State to authorize that so that they don't end up with
felons in the penitentiary. They'll just stick them in our
jail.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You got it. Okay. But those
are -- that's the main thing. I just need some direction.
I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Need some direction? (Hand
~ motion.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. I figured you'd say
that, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anything else I can help you
I with?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At what point do you think
the City will have its conversion complete and you will be
incommunicado?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My understanding is they're
ready any time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're ready to start?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's already there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Already -- it's already
finished?
7-14-08
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Already finished, it's my
understanding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They just haven't cut over?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That tells me we need to
think about it a little more quickly than we might otherwise.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. Like, next meeting,
make a decision. Let's pretend that we -- we're going to
make -- we're going to try to make a final decision two weeks
from today. What all -- what all do you need to have to
convince us that we need to do it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would need to, one, get
authority to probably go out for bids for the conversion,
whether it be Dailey Wells, even though we have maintenance
contracts with them, or Motorola; let them see exactly what
our system specs are now. And because of the cost of that,
and you're talking a million dollars, is us bid it like we
did when we originally got the system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You need to write the
specs. Somebody needs to write the specs.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And at that time -- I'm not
that well-versed in any of that type of .language or stuff. I
know last time the Court had a company called Trott
Communications, I think out of Dallas or somewhere, that came
in, --
7-14-08
156
1
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: They wrote the specs.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- did the specs and did all
that. And I don't know if -- if we need to -- to see about
somebody like that for professional services, or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Possibly so.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- or what it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More than likely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But Dailey Wells should have
a pretty clear understanding of a lot of that information.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They would. But with the
cost, I think we still would be obligated to have to do bids
on it. And if we're going to bid against them, I don't think
they're going to do the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't want the fox in the
henhouse.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's the problem.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what you're going to
have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they end up being a
bidder, I don't want them writing the specs.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because there are some --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What's next, satellite?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They wouldn't want to do it,
'cause they could get --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There are some issues that I
7-14-08
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think we ought to look at and all when we do it. We do have
four tower sites, okay, and y'all will remember back then
they were about the only four that would give us appropriate
coverage we needed, but we're paying leases on those tower
sites. And back then, two of them weren't costing us a dime,
and we didn't have a lease. They allowed the County to have
those. Well, since that time, now they have enforced lease
stuff, and we're having to pay them. The other two tower
sites, one's not costing us, but the other one is costing a
rental or a lease on that site, and it goes up by a few
percentage points every year. So that it may be something --
you know, I don't know. That could be more expensive to move
that stuff. But there's a lot more -- a lot more tower sites
out there now than what there were, and it may be that the
County could get a better deal on some of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Answer his question.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Satellite.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is satellite coming next
after eight years or seven years of this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or five.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're going to have satellite
next, and we're going to mandate change again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be. It might. You
never know; you might get -- the price may be cheaper.
7-14-08
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But when we go with --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Technology just changes, and
that also mandates that -- that mandates get passed down to
this group.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and there's other things
that need to be looked at in this digital, is that our -- I
know it's a public safety issue on going digital, and that at
least our group is under, but I don't know enough to know,
you know, whether our volunteer fire departments -- are they
going to be required to go digital by that same date? You
know, communications -- or, I mean, I don't know where all
this is going to go, and it's going to take somebody a lot
smarter than I am to tell us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why we probably need
to have --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Smarter than you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot smarter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty, that's probably why
we need to have a third party come over and talk to everybody
before they try to write the specs. If we write specs
ourselves, we're going to get in trouble.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Judge said that it won't be
hard to find someone smarter than you. Won't have a problem.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. I don't doubt that
7-14-08
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at all. Boy, I know law enforcement; I don't know radios.
I'm kind of like everybody else -- or most people. I pick it
up, push a button, and hope I can talk.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of like -- I think both
of you down there said we probably need to get this on the
next agenda to go out for -- at least determine how we're
going to write the specs. If we're going to use Trott, how
we're going to do that process. We might want to get with
the Auditor and go over -- get into an RFQ process for this.
We probably ought to get that done so we have a good number
when we hit budget.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know how we did it
with Trott; how the County came up with Trott, even. Did we
do it --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we searched to find
out who could write specs, and we settled on that one.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you have to do an RFQ to
get that person or that company, or do you just -- is that a
professional service deal? Or what do you do to even get to
that point of getting them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it was professional
services, but I'm not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think it was too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know Trott
7-14-08
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Communications.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were pretty helpful, I
remember.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- I'll see if we can come up
with something on -- some recommendation for the next court
on who, at least, we can get to help advise the County and us
and do specs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably call Trott and say,
"How did we find y'all the first time?" They'd probably tell
us.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no problem with that.
That's a good possibility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Rusty, you're going to
come in here next meeting with these companies, or -- or at
least come in with a recommendation, "This is the company I
think that we need to go with," so that we can vote on
something? Let's get down the road.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. I'll come in with
something. I don't know what yet, Buster. It's going to
take some thinking.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can see it coming now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through kicking that
one around?
7-14-08
161
1
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: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to 16; consider, discuss,
take appropriate action regarding proposal from second health
care provider for inmate health care and possible impact on
budget.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I like the word "possible."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Better than "probable."
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Depends on where we go. After
the last time I came to y'all with the health care company
that wanted to provide a total turnkey inmate health care to
our jail, they had, I think -- I believe I told y'all, like,
13 other states that they do it in, but they have never done
it in Texas yet. We would be the first one. We did run
across that there is a company that is doing it in Texas.
They currently have Ellis County and they have Smith County,
which is Tyler. And Waxahachie area, Ellis County, wouldn't
trade them for the world. They know how Texas works. They
know the Texas indigent laws, the H.R. way of figuring out
solutions, way of figuring indigent expenses. And they came
in and gave us a proposal. They have looked at their
contract and their proposal and their history.
At this point, I would almost rather see us go to
them, because, number one, where the auditor has an employee
7-14-08
162
1
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 has to go in and program in all the inmate bills and
pharmacy bill and all that to get the computation to pay the
indigent, this company will do that for us, so that would
turn total inmate medical over to this company. The cost is
298,000 a year and some change. The other deal is, if you
look at my employees, the cost of the five employees, with
what the County's portion is of paying the FICA and health
insurance and everything else, adds up to a little over
400,000, up to about 412,000. So, this would cut that down
to 298.
Now, the other cost that I have currently -- and
inmate medical in the budget. I think we're currently at
about 150,000, 140-something thousand, and it's going up,
'cause I know we had a helicopter bill that hasn't even come
in yet, so it's going to be close to another 170,000 by the
end of the year, at least, on top of where we are. For the
incidentals, or the stuff that is not covered by this
company, as far as the out-of-pocket -- now, some of the
specialty stuff we have to do, such as there may be a
helicopter trip that they wouldn't pay for; we'd have to. I
would recommend the 298,000 for their contract, and then
7-14-08
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
another 30,000 in the upcoming budget to help cover these
incidentals. Talking to their people and that, that should
be all that we would ever require, 'cause they have all their
own specialists and doctors that come in and do everything,
which would hopefully give the County a cost savings of
anywhere between 60,000 and 90,000 a year to go with this
company.
I didn't put this on the agenda to vote on today
for one reason. They have sent me an agreement -- a
contract. I looked at it and I rejected part of it, just
some of the stuff I could see -- or I didn't reject it; I
called them. They changed all the things I requested. This
morning I got it back. I gave Rex a copy when we started
Commissioners Court this morning. He needs to review it
before we ever enter into it. But for budget purposes, my
recommendation is going to be that we go with this $298,000
contract for inmate health care, put 30,000 incidental into
the medical line item. Actually, it cuts six employees,
'cause we cut out our doctor too, but he's paid out of a
different line item. And that is -- we start all that
effective October 1 budget year, and that's what this
agreement would be. And then we cut the five medical
positions that I have in the jail.
The one clerical position I have that does mainly
medical, I still need, because this company's not going to
7-14-08
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enter a lot of our stuff into our current computer system,
which is where I try and recoup some of our costs from our
inmates. So, next budget -- or next Commissioners Court, I
probably will bring that back to see if we can go ahead and
approve that, so for budget purposes, in preparing
everybody's budget, budget hearing, everybody knows where
we're going to stand on that issue.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that not an issue that
would have to be bid out, just kind of like our other
contract services?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, we went through that last
time. It falls under the professional services, and doesn't
have to be. And the Court approved doing it; I'm just
changing it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A limited number of people
that can provide this service, and the only provider --
there's only one provider in the state, from what I
understand. Other providers out of state?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're both technically out
of state. One's stationed in Colorado and one's in
Tennessee. This one does have two contracts in the state.
The other one does not have any contracts in the state.
They're trying to get some. But what the issue is, health
care is more of a professional service than -- than equipment
or anything else. And under the -- the Local Government Code
7-14-08
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or Government Code which Rex had pulled up, the County has
the authority to do the -- the contracts with them without
going through a bidding. It's just, in looking at it, I
think this one is a little bit more expensive, but it's a
better service.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? But that's more for
information purposes, and I'll bring it back next time.
That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have
anything else on that agenda item? Let's move to Item 17;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve
contingency agreement between Kerrville State Hospital,
Kerrville Independent School District, and Kerr County,
authorize County Judge to sign same. I put this on the
agenda at the request of the Kerrville State Hospital. It's
what I would classify as a general feel-good eyewash
agreement. It's hard to figure out what it really means.
We're supposed to cooperate in times of need with K.I.S.D.
and Kerrville State Hospital. Seems like the only real
specific item deals with transportation, and that's primarily
a K.I.S.D. problem, isn't it, Rex?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
7-14-08
166
1
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: That's what I saw here. I
didn't see much. K.I.S.D. is going to provide buses if
they're available. Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll go to
Item 18; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
formulate a general public records retention policy for
county documents and communications. Policy will address
public information not specifically addressed by individual
elected officials' departmental policies. Mr. Emerson?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. And the reason it's worded
that way is because most of your elected officials have
records retention plans; they're mandatorily filed with the
State Library Archives Commission. We're looking at -- we're
missing a records retention policy for the departments that
report directly to y'all, to the County themselves. What I
was able to find out -- and Cheryl helped me extensively
trying to research the old records -- it looks like in April
of 1993, the Court approved a committee to put together a
7-14-08
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
records retention policy, and it died. There's no record of
a records retention policy ever being presented to the Court
after that point of adopting. I think the idea of a
committee is a good idea. You know, my recommendation would
be one of the Commissioners, the Auditor, John with I.T., and
then probably somebody from my office to make sure it
conforms to the legal requirements, and present it to y'all.
The original committee consisted of an Assistant County
Attorney, the Auditor, the District Clerk, County Clerk.
District Clerk and County Clerk already have their retention
policies. Now, like I said, where we're looking is that hole
in between.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the idea of your -- the
members that you cited for a committee. I think that makes
sense. That's where our void is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with Commissioner
Letz, for the first time in three or four minutes. And --
but what is it -- what is it we do? What is it records
management retention does? Is that how we store --
MR. EMERSON: That determines which records we keep
and for how long we keep them. There's a recommended plan
for the Library and Archives Commission. This is how thick
their general schedule is. I put the reference in my
letterhead. I didn't print it for you, because it's 56 pages
long.
7-19-08
168
1
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: You guys are really getting
cheap, you and the Sheriff. So -- but I thought records
were -- as outlined in the law, that certain kind of records
you keep 10 years, and certain kind of records you keep 20
years, and some kind you keep forever. Right or wrong?
MR. EMERSON: Yes and no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. EMERSON: The presumption is that all the
documents created in the government are public record, are
open record -- subject to open record requests.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: And subject to public inquiry. The
problem you get into is that for the County to store every
single record that we developed for an unlimited amount of
time, we'd have to buy a warehouse somewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: Which may not be a bad use for the
old juvenile facilities building. But, anyway, on a
different note, -- (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm getting a "hurray" on
that.
MR. EMERSON: -- we need a schedule. And if we
adopt a schedule that's in substantial compliance with the
Library and Archives Commission recommendation, so long as we
file that schedule with them, we can dispose of documents
7-14-08
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
legally. I don't know this, but I strongly suspect that
there's multiple documents that are, as a normal course of
business, being destroyed, that technically there's no legal
authorization to do that. This is why we're looking at this
right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So your committee will
cipher what's right -- what's to keep and what's not to keep?
MR. EMERSON: They will cipher the types of
documents and the recommended retention period, and then
bring that recommendation back to the Court for y'all to pick
apart and improve upon, and then hopefully adopt.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rex?
MR. EMERSON: Sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you say that the
previous Court looked at this issue, but didn't adopt a
policy?
MR. EMERSON: Well, the previous Court appointed a
committee, looked at all the different issues associated with
keeping records, appointed a records management program, with
a committee to put it together. And then I can't find any
record that the committee ever brought it back to the
Commissioners Court and the Court adopted any order.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't name names, 'cause
mine may be on there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why I'm looking at
7-14-08
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this Court Order Number 21392, April 13th, 1993. It says,
"Approval of Kerr County Records Management Program and
Authorization for County Judge's Signature."
MR. EMERSON: Sure, but there's no program. If you
go through and you read this document, it instructs everybody
how to find the answer and to put together a program, but
there's no actual records retention program in here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need -- only other
person I think maybe we should add to that committee, just
as -- kind of 'cause she's going to be intimately responsible
for a lot of this, is Ms. Grinstead.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Being she's not in the room
at the time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And she's going to be the one
to keep them all, figuring out a system. So, Judge, are you
just going to appoint members? I'll just let you do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'd first look for a volunteer
as the Commissioners Court rep.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. No saben English on
this end of the table, sorry.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No entiendo.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hey, that's a good thing.
We may not have too many records that way.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've heard disclaimers from all but
7-14-08
171
1
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'm not available. I'm
going to be busy that week.
JUDGE TINLEY: They've let me know that they will
graciously postpone it until the following week. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll do it if you do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't need two of us on there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who was you recommending?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You might need one and an
alternate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A member of the Court. Bill
will do it, and then who else?
MR. EMERSON: I.T. Manager. A lot of it's going to
be electronically recorded. We need to make sure we have the
technical capabilities to do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a no-brainer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You got Bill and John.
MR. EMERSON: You need the Auditor, because a lot
of it will be financial documents.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She doesn't mind that at
all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can ask that. We can't
appoint; we can just ask.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You guys are running a hell
of a railroad here.
7-14-08
172
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: Somebody from my office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, would you keep it
down? We're trying to take care of county business here.
MR. EMERSON: Somebody from my office to make sure
it comports to the statute.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect you can handle that.
MR. EMERSON: I can handle it, or I can find
somebody who will handle it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I meant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then Ms. Grinstead, ex officio,
to kind of keep track of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jody's available.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's going to chair this?
You?
MR. EMERSON: If you want me to, sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See how government works?
Nothing to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I'll make a motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Mr. Evans, did you want to serve on this
committee?
7-14-08
173
1
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. EVANS: No. I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Or were you just scratching back
there?
MR. EVANS: -- have something before you adjourn.
I must have been dozing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Were you scratching because of this
issue or some other?
MR. EVANS: Another issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Letz, and Oehler voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Williams voted against the motion.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You were outvoted.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 19; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
approve resolution in support of federal funding for the
construction phase of a new facility to house the
Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insect Research Laboratory.
As most of you know, we have been working for a number of
years to try and get a new facility for them. The
feasibility study has been approved and funded and
7-19-08
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
accomplished, with a recommendation to go forward. The most
recent action by the Congress was to approve funding for the
design and engineering phase. That was approved this past
year and is underway now, or about to get underway, and
that's going to run us to the construction phase of that
facility. And the KEDF, who has secured property to be
utilized by that facility out on Peterson Farm Road, in
anticipation that we'll get the appropriate congressional
funding and approval, has asked us to consider a resolution
in support of the construction and funding for that
construction, and that's what the resolution, which was so
expertly drafted by Commissioner Williams, provides.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I always thought that that
place -- I was looking at some of the things that they've
accomplished out there, and I thought that they were, like,
the eradicators of the screw worm issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: They are responsible for the
original screw worm eradication program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why doesn't it say that?
7-19-08
175
1
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: In connection with the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does say it.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the facility down in --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cattle fever tick? Is that
the same thing as screw worm?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, cattle fever tick.
But what this does say, too, is that there is a resurgence of
that cattle fever tick, and there's over a million acres in
Texas that are under quarantine right now, and so that's kind
of where we tweaked it a little bit to say that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think cattle fever tick
is screw worm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see how it can be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause a screw worm is a fly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Used to be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let's see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a fly that lays a little
egg in an open wound, and it turns into a worm, which is
called screw worm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and that was part of
the eradication too. They dropped those boxes of sterile
flies. That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sterile flies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
7-14-08
176
1
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: But I don't think -- the worm
doesn't turn into a tick. I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See how things are changing?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, I think you're
right. I don't think you can be wrong on that one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, do you think our
Congress is going to know that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I doubt it, but we have -- if
we can add screw worm in here, maybe we should.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, this may be the
only place on earth that this conversation could be had.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now, try this one,
Commissioner. Did you ever stop and think about how they
sterilized all those flies?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One at a time.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Patience.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Patience.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's going downhill fast.
JUDGE TINLEY: A little slippage. Okay. We have a
vote on that?
MS. PIEPER: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: No. We need a vote. All in favor,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
7-14-08
177
1
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 carries. Item 20, I
believe Commissioner Williams asked to be passed. Is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. We'll think
about bringing it back another day.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll move to Item 22;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve order
from Judge Ables appointing part-time assistant auditor
position. Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: I should have enough there; I made 12.
I set it up as a temporary position to go to the end of the
year, and then I want the Court to approve whether or not
that position would be approved as a part-time position again
with the budget. This is the gentleman that's been helping
us to -- with our computers and the program, and he is the
one who did the internal audits for me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have that 6,250 in our
budget?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, I already have it in my budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
7-14-08
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approval. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Question. What
happens -- what happens at the end of September 30?
MS. HARGIS: Well, it's my understanding I need to
come to the Court and ask whether or not I can have that
temporary part-time position in my office, 'cause it's --
that's a new position.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're coming at that time
to ask --
MS. HARGIS: During the budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for this renewed like
this? Or are you talking about a full-blown employee?
MS. HARGIS: No. No, only a part-time. He will
only do part-time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Full-blown part-time.
MS. HARGIS: He would prefer doing part-time. He's
doing contract just because it would provide him with, you
know, a little bit of extra benefit by having Social Security
paid.
SHERIFF HIERI
MS. HARGIS:
COMMISSIONER
might should have been
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
iOLZER: Permanent part-time.
Permanent part-time.
OEHLER: It seems to me like this
done long before now.
BALDWIN: Yeah.
OEHLER: We have had a contract
7-14-08
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
employee who has access to everything in this county who is
not a county employee.
JUDGE TINLEY: An employee, as such. He's an
independent contractor working under contract.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Independent contractor with
all kind of access that a lot of people don't have around
here. I think this is fine. Wonder what's going happen to
your other part-time position I understand that you have in
there.
MS. HARGIS: My other part-time is not a part-time
position; it's also a contract worker. She's doing filing
and so forth, and she will probably be gone within the next
couple of weeks. It's just a --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll talk about that at
another time.
MS. HARGIS: Just a very temporary position.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do that another time. I
don't agree with it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we vote or not?
MS. PIEPER: No, we haven't voted.
JUDGE TINLEY: We haven't? All right. All in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
7-14-08
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Okay. I guess
we're now we're down to paying the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't have bills on here,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Say what?
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got the bills right here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think I had one question.
I think -- yeah. I know I've seen this -- let's see.
Commissioners Court, Page 3. I've seen this before, but I --
I apologize. I can't remember what this is all about, that
last one. Texas Association of Counties, professional
services, Patterson. 3,160. What is -- tell me what that
is.
MS. HARGIS: Well, the description is not right,
for one thing. Texas Association of Counties, it's part of
our insurance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Now that makes a
little sense.
MS. HARGIS: The description is incorrect.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Professional services is
incorrect?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What should it be,
7-14-08
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
insurance?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All-righty. See how much
fun this is?
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. WILLIAMS: Remember the Patterson lawsuit? And
we had -- they paid the attorney -- what's her name? This is
the deductible on that case.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The jury one was Frigerio.
MS. WILLIAMS: Frigerio. This was on a --
MS. HARGIS: I don't know about that.
MS. WILLIAMS: -- on a jail lawsuit, I believe.
And --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is the lawsuit that went
all the way through federal trial.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. And then there was a check
for $3,160, I think, that was sent to the attorney. She held
a check. Margo --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Frazier, expert witness.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. She held a check for so
long, billed again, got paid, so this check got returned to
us, and we, in turn, have to pay TAC because they, in turn,
paid Ms. Frazier.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: That's what that was. I'm sorry. I
7-14-08
182
1
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 -- I remember Nona mentioning it to me the other day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This Patterson, is that a
lawyer?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, Patterson is the name of
the inmate that sued us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We were successful in that
lawsuit. But that's the one that went to a jury trial in
federal court. Margo Frazier, who y'all all recall was a
former Sheriff of Travis County, is also now a for-hire
expert witness in jails and things like that, and making a
lot more money than she ever made as sheriff, and she came in
and testified on the County's behalf during that trial.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have you thought about doing that,
Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd love to. Y'all finish
paying for my doctorate and my lawyer degree and all that.
I'd have to, you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, did the county finish paying
for hers over there in Travis County?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, but she is one, so I'm
sure Travis County paid her a lot better as sheriff than Kerr
County pays me, so she probably could afford to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure glad we asked.
JUDGE TINLEY: I gather you're unhappy with the
7-19-08
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
salary?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I didn't say that. I'm
sitting down, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's talk about Margo.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, let's talk about Margo.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's it. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the bills.
JUDGE TINLEY: You made a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Budget
amendments.
MS. HARGIS: There's a lot more this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we're getting towards the end
of the year. There's a summary of, looks like, 20 of them.
MS. HARGIS: Again, these are mostly line item
moves.
7-14-OS
184
1
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: Within --
MS. HARGIS: Within that department.
JUDGE TINLEY: Within the same department.
MS. HARGIS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: There are a few of them that are
outside.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I don't see any that
are capital outlay, so -- that aren't explained.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion that the budget
amendments, as shown by the summary provided by the Auditor,
be approved?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
or discussion on the motion? Number 11 on there --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good question.
JUDGE TINLEY: If I'm not mistaken, both of those
travel allowances were just increased this current budget
year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They were.
MS. HARGIS: Due to the cost of gasoline. The --
he went over because of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We haven't had a stock show
since January, have we?
MS. HARGIS: These are -- he has some more that are
7-14-08
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coming up in August. This is -- he's asking that this be
approved before he expends the funds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we did the increase because of
the increased fuel cost last year.
MS. HARGIS: One of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going from $6,000 to $8,000,
effectively. We had 1,996, effectively $2,000. Just went up
significantly to $4,800 on the 4-H, and now we're going to
add another grand to it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, the -- I don't -- I
share the concern, but I also think if we're going to -- if
he's going to go to stock shows, we have to pay for them.
But it's at a point where it may be better to buy a county
vehicle than pay reimbursements.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what they're trying
to drive us to. The travel allowances that they have out at
Extension are different from the travel allowances that we
have for county employees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: These travel accounts are charged
for in-county mileage, the slippery slope that we have talked
so many times about.
MS. HARGIS: Not any --
JUDGE TINLEY: And they -- their explanation was,
7-14-08
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
well, they were given travel allowance in lieu of, quote,
salary increases a few years ago, and so that was okay. So,
effectively, what they're asking to do now is give themselves
a raise, as I see it.
MS. HARGIS: Judge, I don't think they've taken any
in-county mileage in this year. They did at the end of last
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: I beg to differ with you. I've seen
the reports, and I've seen where they've shown it.
MS. HARGIS: Okay, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was that anger just then?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We get that report, and he goes out
to Mountain Home and he charges off, you know, 90 miles worth
and he gets paid for it out of -- he gets the money anyway, I
guess. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, several years ago we
took in-county travel, which was kind of a salary thing
anyway -- it's kind of a pay thing anyway, so we took that
and rolled it into the salary. Did that for -- did that for
I me .
JUDGE TINLEY: For elected officials. Is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
7-14-08
187
1
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: J.P.'s, constables and so forth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And for them as well? The
Extension Service people?
JUDGE TINLEY: They have always had separate travel
accounts. And I raised a ruckus last year --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually have two travel
accounts; they have a stock show account and a travel account
they use to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now they got the 4-H travel
account.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They got multiple travel
accounts.
JUDGE TINLEY: And they asked for mileage
reimbursement on in-county, and I said we're not doing that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I agree with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: But they have these travel accounts,
and their explanation to me as to why they needed these is
because, well, they were effectively -- they weren't
consolidated like elected officials were years ago, and these
were really just, quote, part of their salary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see what you're
saying, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if they're part of their salary,
quote, unquote, I don't want to look too kindly on giving
them a salary increase in the middle of the budget year and
7-14-08
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
calling it something else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pass on it? Have Mr. Walston
come in?
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Especially as he hasn't spent
the money yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: He spent some of it. The 4-H is
overdrawn almost $700.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, I'll withdraw --
I'll pull this one bill till next meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Do you have any
late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Monthly reports? I've been
presented with monthly reports for Constable, Precinct l;
Constable, Precinct 4; Constable, Precinct 3; County Clerk,
7-14-08
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
both general and trust funds; J.P., Precinct 3; J.P. 3, an
amended report; J.P. 4; District Clerk; and J.P. 2. Do I
hear a motion that those reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, indicate by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Any reports from
Commissioners in connection with their committee or liaison
assignments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Airport Board, 3 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought y'all just did
that at noon.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Library Board tomorrow
afternoon at 4:00.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought you did that
yesterday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Take that as a no. Any reports from
I elected officials?
7-14-08
190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: Just -- I'm going to give y'all one
brief word. Working closely with Jannett's staff and Judge
III Brown's staff, we've got our movement in County Court at Law
up to 110 percent here to date, so we're eating up all the
old cases and staying up with our docket.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good for you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the corollary to that is, on
the issue of jail overcrowding, it may be we need to look
elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Maybe you can -- maybe
you can enlighten some of those on the district level to
follow the same procedures and processes that y'all are doing
to move these cases through.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One big difference with County
Court, one day a month to one day a week.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just talking about
processes and procedures that may be able to be used
upstairs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And related to that, the
court collections, it looks like -- of course, you can't get
a real live report out of this computer program, but the best
they can, it looks like about a 10 percent increase for the
two months.
7-14-08
191
1
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: I'm glad you're staying on
top of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not staying on top
of it, but I do kind of take a peek at it every once in a
while. They're doing very well. Very well.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All they needed was some
training and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tender loving care.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any department heads have any
reports? We have a citizen's report from Mr. Von Evans.
MR. EVANS: I am Von Evans again, 211 Von Trail. I
-- about three years ago, there was a very interesting
article that came out in the Texas Monthly magazine about a
fellow and his family that moved here from somewhere else.
Not knowing Texas very well, obviously, he bought some land.
He put an 8-foot fence around 5 acres, and then called the Ag
Extension Service and asked them how many cattle he could run
on his ranch. That's rather humorous to us, but it doesn't
take them long to figure out that all they've got to do is
get sheep or goats or some other domestic livestock and put
on that land and then apply for, after a five-year period,
and receive agricultural exemption. Now, the fact about
agricultural exemption is the tax appraisal district doesn't
follow -- they -- they've satisfied the need; they get their
exemption and that's a done deal. Now, the way they do
7-14-08
192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
follow-up is they send them a questionnaire every other year
to fill out, to ask them if they're still in agricultural
endeavors, and if they say yes, okay, that's fine.
The -- the exemption is thereby also sold with the
property, so if a person obtains an agricultural exemption
and they sell it, then they sell it. And they sell it --
such as the property nearby that's been sold four times had
an agricultural exemption when I moved there, and each of the
subsequent owners of the property have had an agricultural
exemption and never had an animal on the property. So,
again, this is sort of overlooked, and obviously somebody is
fudging on the little record that they're supposed to file
every other year. I -- you know, my property, I'm paying
$1,300 approximately in school taxes, and $400, $450 in
county taxes, and I've only got 15 acres of land, no fence,
no agricultural exemption or anything. But according to
public records -- I looked it up and found that there's one
piece of property here locally that's worth a million and a
half dollars. $1.5 million, and they're paying about --
approximately $300 a year in total county and school taxes.
This doesn't seem quite right, unless they're involved in
agricultural endeavors. I agree with that; I have no quarrel
whatsoever with people who are actually involved in
agricultural endeavors, because I know it's an iffy thing at
best. But those people who have agricultural exemptions and
7-14-08
193
1
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 -- and reportedly, there's another piece of property
that's worth, like, two and a half million dollars, and
they're paying less than $1,000 a year in total taxes. This
doesn't -- doesn't seem right to me somehow or another.
Okay.
So, I have told the -- the fellow at the appraisal
district, I said, "You may be complicit in tax fraud." And
he said, "What do you mean?" I said, "If you are in
agricultural endeavors, if you're in an agricultural
business, thereby being eligible for this agricultural
exemption, then you must file a profit and loss statement
with the Internal Revenue Service, and if you do not do so,
you're in violation of I.R.S. laws. And if you're not
requiring him or them, whoever, to file with you a profit and
loss statement to insure that they are actually in
agricultural endeavors, then, in my opinion, you're complicit
in tax fraud and could be charged with such." So, I think
that the County is -- in a sense, there are tax dollars that
belong to this county that are being stolen by people who are
involved in what I consider to be tax fraud, okay? The --
the guy like to have choked when I told him that. "Well, we
send out the questionnaire." I said, "I don't think that's
quite appropriate." So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you report to -- to the
appraisal district this neighbor that you mentioned that
7-14-08
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hadn't had an animal on the property for the last four
owners?
MR. EVANS: No, sir, I did not report them. But I
know where they live.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why not?
MR. EVANS: Well, good question. I could do that.
In fact, there's several people in my community that have
agricultural exemptions because they have a fence around
their property. Say, you know, you've got a fence -- a
4-foot fence around your property, and you've got domestic
animals. After a period of five years, you can get an
agricultural exemption. Then after a five-year period, you
could change the agricultural exemption -- you can convert
that into a wildlife exemption, and do away with your
livestock and simply put deer feeders out there. Well, who
in Kerr County doesn't have a deer feeder? You know? I
mean, everybody does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have one.
MR. EVANS: Well, I've got five. I made up for you
guys. But the -- but the thing is -- no, I did not report
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got to go.
MR. EVANS: I tell you what, I could put on my
little Sherlock Holmes outfit, and that little piece of
property there is only -- only 10 acres, okay? But, you
7-14-08
195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, it's a matter of public record. I could turn things
upside down with cases such as that.
(Commissioners Letz and Williams left the
courtroom.)
JUDGE TINLEY: When they did away with the 50
percent income requirement -- generate more than 50 percent
of your livelihood from agricultural or livestock-type
pursuits, I think that's when the abuse started with the --
with the ag exemption. But --
MR. EVANS: Right. Well, at one time -- at one
time here in Kerr County, you had to have a minimum of
20 acres. And I found out -- my son had a ranch up there in
Johnson County, and -- and I helped him go about getting his
ag exemption up there, because he was raising livestock. And
-- and I found out that in Johnson County, you had to have
5 acres. So, okay. I called and asked them -- I think it's
5 acres in Kerr County that you can actually obtain an
agricultural exemption.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know.
MR. EVANS: With 5 acres, I believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the wildlife
exemption, it's a little more than just a deer feeder. You
have to provide coverage and water and --
MR. EVANS: You would -- you have to have water and
tree feeders where they're not just on a timer, but where
7-14-08
196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they can come in there and feed at any time they want.
But -- but, yeah, that's the -- I mean, the wildlife
exemption requirement. But should I, as a citizen, go about
my merry little way of finding out all these people that are
doing that? And they're taking our money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Causing your share and my share to
be greater because they're not paying their fair share.
MR. EVANS: Absolutely. Absolutely are. So, I --
I don't know what oversight you have of that, but I think
that --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all done through appraisal
district, as I mentioned earlier.
MR. EVANS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: We participate as a minority
~ participant.
MR. EVANS: Yeah. I thought maybe --
JUDGE TINLEY: In establishment of their budget.
We're obligated to use their figures.
MR. EVANS: I thought maybe you'd have some
oversight to see to it that they were going about -- making
all their ducks in a row, so to speak.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. EMERSON: Not that I know of.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you aware of any general
oversight authority that we have?
7-14-08
197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: I believe they're independent, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Last I knew.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They have a board of
directors.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. EVANS: Okay. Well, that's what I -- that's
all I had to say. That's what I wanted to volunteer to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Evans. Anything
else, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just wanted to say
if you ever wanted to talk track and field, that guy right
there knows more than anybody in town.
MR. EVANS: I can tell you things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't get started.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:55 p.m.)
7-14-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
198
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 21st day of July, 2008.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY • ____ __ __ 4~__________
Kathy Ban k, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
7-14-08
ORDER NO. 30903
Live Springs Ranch Subdivision
Came to be heard this the 14'x' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 to rescind court order # 30856, concerning Live Springs Ranch Subdivision.
ORDI~R NO. 30904
Resolution Honoring Ross and Clarabelle Snodgrass
Came to be heard this the 14t~' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 the Resolution honoring the lives of Ross and Clarabelle Snodgrass.
ORDF,R NO. 30905
ELECTION JUDGES AND ALTERNATES
Came to be heard this the 14r~' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 the Election Judges and Alternates for a term of 1 year as submitted.
ORDER NO. 30906
POLLING LOCA"PIONS
Came to be heard this the 14`" day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 the election polling locations as follows:
Pct.
#	- - - ---
Polling Place	
Location
101
107
109	Southern Oaks Baptist Church
Thunder Hills Biker Church
Northwest Hills Comm. Ctr.	112 Valley View Kerrville, TX
111 Camino Real Kerrville, TX
200 Northwest Hills Dr Kerrville, TX

113	
rch
St. Pauls Methodist Ch
u	135 Methodist Encampment Kerrville,
TX

118	_
_
River Hills Mall	_
200 Sidney Baker South Kerrville TX_ _
119	_ _ _ _
Fours uare Gos el Fellowship ___ __ _ _ _	_
915 Bluebell Rd Kerrville, TX __
202	American Legion Hall	300 FM 480 Center Point, TX 78010
211	Union Church	Memorial Blvd & Travis St Kerrville, TX
215	Hosanna Lutheran Church	134 Camp Meeting Rd_Kerrville, TX
303	C dress Creek Community Center	1530 Stone Le~ci h Rd Comfort, TX

308	Calvary Temple Church-Center Point
/Comfort	
6650 Hwy 27 Comfort, TX
312	Zion Lutheran Church	624 Barnett St. Kerrville, TX
314	Kerr Count~ourthouse	700 Main St. Kerrville, TX
320	Calvary Temple Church- __
_	3000_Loop 534 Kerrville, TX
--- --
404	Mt Home Fire Deft	5551 Hwy 27 Mt. Home, TX
405
406
410
416	Hunt School
Inc ram Presbyterian Church
First Presbyterian. Church
Kerrville KOA Community Center	155 Hunt School Rd. Hunt, TX
101. Webb Ave Ingram, TX
121 Divide School Rd Mt Home, TX
2400 Goat Creek Rd Kerrville, TX
417	Western Hill Baptist Church	2010 Goat Creek Rd. Kerrville, TX
Early Voting at the Callioux Center
ORDER NO. 30907
Rc-Certification of Kevin Stanton
Came to be heard this the 14`x' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 approved the request for recertification by the Texas Juvenile Probation
Commission for Kevin Stanton as the Juvenile Detention/Probation Officer and allow the
County Judge to sign.
ORDER NO. 30908
SCHREINER TRUST FUND
Came to be heard this the 14t~' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 the use of $36,000 from the Schreiner Trust fund for road maintenance in
precinct 1 & 4.
ORDER NO 30909
BTEX RANCH, L.P.
Came to be heard this the 14`x' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-1 (Commissioner Letz abstained) to accept and extend the Letter of Escrow
renewal for 1 year on G.F.N0.070721k.
ORDER NO 30910
PLAT SCANNI?R SI?RVICF AURELMENT
Came to be heard this the 14`x' day of July. 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 the service agreement with Cad Supplies Specialty for the County Clerk's Plat
Scanner/plotter.
ORDER NO 30911
Quarterly Report
Came to be heard this the 14"' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to acknowledge receipt of the Investment Report from Patterson & Associates for
the period ending Tune 30, 2008.
ORDI~,R NO 30912
VOLUNTEER FIIZE DEPAR"TMENT DISPATCH
Came to be heard this the 14`x' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 to take $3006.00 from the jailer salary line item to fiord the cost of transferring
of the volunteer fire department dispatch from the police department to the Kerr County
Sheriffs Office.
ORDER NO 30913
KERR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the I4`~' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court Lulanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to approve the deletion of 1 sergeant and I patrol deputy position in the Kerr
County Sheriffs Department.
ORDER NO 30914
Contingency Agreement
Came to be heard this the 14`x' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 the contingency agreement between Kerrville State Hospital, Kerrville Independent
School District and Kerr County and authorize the County JLidge to sign.
ORDER NO. 30915
Public Records Retention Policy Committee
Came to be heard this the 14`x' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-1-0 to appoint the following person to the committee to formulate a general publio-
records retention policy for County documents and communication not specifically
address by the State's retention for individual elected officials.
Rex Emerson, County Attorney
Bill Williams, Commissioner Pct. 2
Jeannie Hargis, County Auditor
Jody Grinstead, Court Coordinator
John Trolinger, IT Tech
ORDER NO 30916
KNIPLING-BUSHLAND U.S. LIVESTOCK INSECT RESEARCH LABORATORY
Came to be heard this the 14t" day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 the resolution in support of Iederal funding for the construction phase of a new
facility to house the Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insect Research Laboratory.
ORDER NO. 30917
PAR"h 'T'IME, ASSIS'T'AN 1' AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the T4t~' day of JLily, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 the Order from Judge Ables appointing a part time Assistant Auditor position.
ORDTR NO 30918
CLAIMS AND ACCOUN'T'S
Came to be heard this the 14r~' day of July, 2008 the Claims and Accounts were
considered:
Accounts Amount
10- General Fund	$307,606.71
14- Fire Protection	$19,721.49
15-Road & Bridge	$109,880.07
16-2008 Capital Improvemen	t $335.00
T 8-County Law Library	$3,944.20
19-Public Library	$36,972.25
26-JP Technology	$2,82.00
29-Courthouse Security	$24,801.00
41-Records Archival	$5.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$6,164.39
70-Permanent Improvement	$4.000.00
76-Juvenile Detention	$17,882.85
Total $534,038.86
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
Order No 30919
Budget Amendments Nos 1-20
Came to be heard this the 14°i day of July, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court wlanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-
0 to:
Approve the Budget Amendments except number 11 as per the summary presented.
ORDER NO 30920
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 14~' day of July, 2008 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 the monthly reports from the following offices:
Constable # 1
Constable #3
Constable #4
County Clerk -General and Trust Fund
JP #3
JP #1
JP # 1 -amended Report
JP #2
District Clerk -June, 2008 and Amended Report