1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, March 10, 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
do
O
M
Q
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
March 10, 2008
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept of revision of plat for Tract 3,
Theodore & Dorothea Oehler Estate; set public
hearing for same
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
purchase Case 800 Series motor grader
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
pursuing election for county-wide livestock
open range law
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
enforcing Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations on several property subdivisions
along Wilson Creek Road; discussion of related
issues concerning right-of-way along Wilson Creek
Road
PAGE
5
8
9
10
22
1.3	Presentation from Committee concerning		
	incorporation of the community of Comfort,	and	
	consider/discuss, take appropriate action	on	
	support of same		49
1.4	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	on	
	request from Kerr County Democratic Party	to	
	request and seek formal approval for the		
	purpose of holding Kerr County Democratic		
	Party Convention		58
1.5	Public Hearing for final plat of Infamous	1169	
	Ranch		66
1.6	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	to	
	accept final plat of Infamous 1169 Ranch		67
1.1	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	on	
	request from Jon Cradit, Facility Director of	
	International Congress of Speleology, to rent	
	Union Church Building at a reduced rate		68
1.2	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	to	
	approve electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest	
	control contracts		73
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
	I N D E X (Continued)	
	March 10, 2008	
		PAGE
l.ll	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	reappoint three commissioners for ESD #1	
	for 1-year terms	76
4.1	Pay Bills	~~
4.2	Budget Amendments	85
4.3	Late Bills	--
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	93
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	93
1.16	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	approve consolidating polling locations for the	
	Democratic run-off into four locations	106
1.12	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	determining interest in real estate acquisitions	
	(Executive Session)	---
1.13	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	extend the position of Interim Chief Deputy	
	(Executive Session)	---
1.14	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	coordination and work redistribution for	
	administration of elections (Executive Session)	---
1.15	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	internal posting of the department head for	
	Court Compliance Department (Executive Session)	109
3.1	Action as may be required on matters discussed	
	in executive session	112
---	Adjourned	118
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, March 10, 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 regular meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this date and
time, Monday, March 10, 2008, at 9 a.m. It is that time now.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. If you'd stand
and join me in a word of prayer, please, and then we'll do
the pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, if there's any member
of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is
not a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this
time and tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to be
heard on a listed agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a
participation form. They're located at the back of the room.
It's not essential that you do that; it just helps me to be
sure that when we get to that item, that I'm aware that there
is someone that wishes to be heard from the public. So, if
3-10-08
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
we get to an item and you haven't filled out a participation
form and you want to be heard, get my attention in some way,
and I'll see that you're heard. But right now, if there's
any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any
matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come
forward at this time. Seeing no one coming forward, we'll
move on. What do you have for us this morning, Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not a thing. Well, just
glad it's rained. I lifted my burn ban this morning until
6:00 this evening. If I don't, my phone will be ringing off
the wall, so I might as well do it and get it over with. But
it's kind of -- it's kind of moist out there, and I think
there's enough moisture to last us through the day. And
the -- locally, it is track season, and the County Attorney
and I are spending our lives on the weekends with the
children, and it's a good thing. It's a good thing. I'm
just proud to be here and be a part of this group. You're
good men. Good men.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hard to beat that. I echo
all of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thanks for the rain, and
3-10-08
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
let's move on. We got a big agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I probably may want to
bring up right now -- I don't know if everyone heard, but
general Bill Bacon passed away Saturday evening. General
Bacon was a close friend of mine, great friend of Kerr County
and Kendall County, the community of Comfort. He had quite a
long illness, and he's been living in Texarkana most
recently. But the -- his service will be held in Schaetter
Funeral Home Wednesday at 1 o'clock. Visitation is tomorrow
evening. But Bill is a phenomenal man, one of the most
un-general-like generals I think I've ever come across, and
probably one of the most powerful generals the community has
ever had around. Very instrumental in Hill Country Veterans
Council, that forum. He was very high up in the Johnson
administration, probably the youngest brigadier general up to
that point in his career, and disagreed with the policy of
the Johnson administration and Secretary of Defense McNamara,
and resigned during that period because of that. But, a
phenomenal man. We'll miss him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good man.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the only thing I have
is the same thing -- Commissioner Baldwin and I, I think,
both lifted our burn bans for today, and today only. It
appears that we're going to have enough moisture to get
3-10-08
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
through the day, but I don't think -- I won't extend mine
unless we get more rain tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On burn ban, mine is lifted. I
think Bill lifted his, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did too. They're lifted
in all four.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm going to check around. I
know the -- at our place, we had over -- almost an inch and a
half, but north of Comfort --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now you're bragging.
Stepping over the line.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know why you get more
rain down there. It's -- I know it's not because of clean
living.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because he's on the hill;
it's higher.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know what the deal
is, but we can't get any out west.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But north of Comfort it didn't
rain much, so I'm probably with y'all, until 6 o'clock today
for the time being.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's it for me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on with our agenda, if we
might. Is Mr. Cradit available? I got an indication he
3-10-08
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
might be running a little bit late. That being the case,
we'll go on with some other items that we have. Let's move
to Item Number 7, if we might. Mr. Odom? Consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action for concept of revision of plat
for Tract 3, Theodore and Dorothea Oehler Estate, set forth
in Volume 4, Page 27, Plat Records, and set a public hearing
for the same.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This revision will be done
under the alternate plat process. It divides one 57.68-acre
lot into two lots, one of 32.07 acres and the other
26.6 acres. At this time, we ask that you set a public
hearing for April the 14th, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: April 8th? What's the
date?
MR. ODOM: April 14th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: April 14th.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a
public hearing for April 14th, 2008 -- did you say 9:00 or
10 a.m.?
MR. ODOM: 9:30.
JUDGE TINLEY: 9:30. You didn't say either, did
you? 9:30 a.m. Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me just say, this has
3-10-08
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
nothing to do with me or anything I have an interest in. It
was part of the old Oehler family estate, which one of my
aunts or uncles may have some interest in, but nothing that I
have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion
on that motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
purchase a Case 800 series motor grader.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. We have leased or been
allowed to use several motor graders on demos since we talked
last time. It is the consensus of the operators that the
Case 800 series would best serve the county. At this time,
we ask that you allow us to purchase the one shown in your
packet with the H.G.A.C. contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is within the budget?
MR. ODOM: Within my budget. It may be a little
bit over, but I have to live within that budget. I mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much over?
MR. ODOM: 13,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a little.
3-10-08
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
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the 13 going to come
from?
MR. ODOM: Out of the 400.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out of your equipment purchase
budget?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same line item.
MR. ODOM: Same deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 9, which is consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on pursuing election for county-wide livestock open
range law. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda,
mainly because this -- we're having a bit of a mess in our
county when it comes to open range law. Best I can tell,
3-10-08
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
we've conducted seven elections from 1893 through 1940. Most
of those have been held in Precinct 4, which are
contradictory elections. There are -- based on what I can
look at going through the -- the laws, there are areas of the
county that are still -- do have open range for some animals.
Hogs are allowed open range still in most of the county,
~I sheep and goats in much of the county. It's a bit of a
strange bunch of -- but interesting reading, I should say.
The -- the elections have taken place over the past almost --
well, 80 years, and I think that it would be beneficial to
all of our residents, and also to law enforcement and the
County Attorney's office, if we would do what most counties
have done, hold a more current open range law, and basically
declare all animals -- or there's no open range for any
livestock in Kerr County. I believe it has to be done by
precinct. I don't think we can do a county-wide election,
per se, but we could do simultaneous, four precinct
elections.
And one of the other problems is, these other
elections have all been by precinct; the boundaries have all
changed, so it's very likely there are areas of the county
that don't have any. I suspect that's why Precinct 4 has
been contradictory, because they are -- their boundaries have
changed, and one of the elections was handled on the common
school district boundary, whatever that happened to be. I'm
3-10-08
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
not sure what that was, but anyway... So, basically, I'm
asking that Rex look into this, with the goal of getting this
on our November ballot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner? What
triggered this? Did you just wake up one morning and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a lot about these
things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- start thinking about the
Open Range Act, or did you run over somebody's sheep, or what
happened?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you share that with us?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. Sure. For some reason,
my constituents -- this may not surprise you -- bring this
issue up a lot to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it started out, I guess,
when I first became a commissioner. There was some -- over
in part of the Faltin ranch, some of those people had a
subdivision over there. They were up in arms about who is to
fence in and fence out, and there was -- most recently, it
came up on another -- related to another agenda item on
Wilson Creek. There was some discussion about it there. And
it just seems to me that it's a -- and at that -- in this
recent one, I talked to both Rex and Rusty -- I think I
3-10-08
13
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
talked to Rex; I know I talked to Rusty. And it would be
beneficial in their minds if they had one set of rules,
because going back and researching, no one knows what the law
actually is, because all the boundaries keep changing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't tell by reading
this where we're -- where we're at. But I guess -- I guess
we could just do it like a -- a county-wide rule. You have
to do it by precinct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. And then
just clean it up? I mean, do you really have that problem
out there?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I --
MR. EMERSON: You -- you first. You can go
county-wide, or you can go by precinct, either way. But it
does take the signature of 50 landholders.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Freeholders.
MR. EMERSON: Freeholders.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait just a second.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right. You have to have 35 for
cattle. For cattle.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You have to have different --
you have to have different amendments on the election.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
3-10-08
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One covers a certain type of
animal; sheep, goats, jennets, all that. The other one
covers cattle, and turkeys somehow got together in the same
deal. And then there's another one that covers the other
part, the hogs. But this is something that has been talked
about since even -- I guess Gary Chapman and I started
looking at this 15 years ago, that it needed to be set.
Because the -- the -- as Jonathan said, and I provided him
with copies of those elections, they're -- you can't tell
what's what in this county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 90 percent of it is closed
where you have to fence out. But --
MR. WILLIAMSON: Here's a copy of the statute.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- but it does need to be
cleaned up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I just --
MR. WILLIAMSON: Have you got a copy?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not saying that I get up
in the morning and worry about it, but I --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, our problem is, if we do
estrays -- okay, if you have loose cattle or loose livestock
running around and you have to estray it, are you estraying
that animal from a fence-in location or a fence-out location?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If it's loose, it's loose,
3-10-08
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
right?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, but -- but if it's a
fence -- if it's a fence-out location, that animal can run
free anywhere except on a state highway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you run across a lot of
jennets out there that are running loose? Turkeys and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wait until you get to the
issue that now exotics are considered exotic livestock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Livestock.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's -- anyway, it would
just make, I think, everyone's life a little bit easier if we
just went ahead and do it, and I'll --
MR. WILLIAMSON: But how are you going to approach
it? Are you going to --
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll identify yourself -- if
you're going to participate, we'd appreciate it if you gave
your name and address.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Sorry, Judge. I'm Bryant
Williamson, and I live at 375 Wilson Creek Road in Comfort.
Yeah, we were looking into this on Wilson Creek Road, because
it sort of came out on the agenda above our other part. And
to me, reading 143.071, the Petition for Election, the -- the
petition to have an election has to be brought forward by 35
freeholders. It's not -- unless that's what you intend to
do, is go out and campaign to have --
3-10-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The agenda item is to --
basically, it says the word "pursue," and to pursue, to me,
means putting this in the County Attorney's hands to come
back to us at a future date and tell us what needs to be
done.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How we do it, what needs to be
worded exactly like that, because it is very confusing as to
the livestock law as a separate piece of law, and be very
specific as to how things need to be done and which animals
and along that line. That's why. The agenda item is really
for the Court to request the County Attorney to come back to
the Court at such time as we can then get this on the
November ballot.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right. But nobody's come forward;
it was just brought up to be looked into, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, that's all I want to know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One of the things that -- I
didn't spend a lot of time on this thing, but I did read some
of it, and it -- and it appeared that at times, when the
public was voting on this issue, my understanding is they
were voting whether I should fence my livestock in or you
fence my livestock out. That's the issue. But it looked
like that the ballot read something like these lawyers do to
3-10-08
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
us these days; you're voting for to be against something. It
was -- is that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All of them are that way, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Will we continue with that?
MR. EMERSON: Would you like me to make it as
confusing as possible?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
MR. EMERSON: Or straightforward?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, just --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Straightforward.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we're going to go out --
if I'm going to go out in public and try to sell this thing,
to do one thing or another, I need to know how it's going to
be worded. Is it -- you vote for to be against?
MR. EMERSON: I'll give you the basic statutory
information, and you can present it any way you want to
present it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And another interesting point
on this --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's confusing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- related a little bit to
Wilson Creek is that the fact that whether you fence in or
fence out, you're still liable for what your livestock does.
Doesn't make any difference. You can be in an open range
3-10-08
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
area. If your livestock -- your cow goes up and/or your
jennet goes up and eats your neighbor's rose bush, you're
liable for that damage to that rose bush. If you hit it,
then you get in a little bit of gray area. You're probably
liable for that either way. I mean, even if it's in an area
that's marked. I mean, it's not a -- anything about -- it's
who puts up the fence, like you said. That's all that's
really at issue. It's no liability. It's not saying that
your grass can be eaten by someone else's animals or any of
that. So, that's where you get into a lot of confusion. And
I -- my research shows that -- and I only gave you, I think,
one or two of the election laws; there's quite a few of the
other ones, but they're all pretty similar. We're one of the
~ few counties that has not done this, maybe the only county
that hasn't done this in the state. So, that's why it's on
the agenda. I'll make a motion that we authorize the County
Attorney to pursue county-wide open range law, with the goal
of having it done by the November -- or on the November
ballot.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And a second. Any question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just want to say, you know,
what he was saying where you're liable, it's kind of like
3-10-08
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
19
your Jersey bull getting in with the purebred Brangus.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They call that war.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Could be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Somebody wants to participate. Come
forward and give us your name and address, please.
MR. BOHNERT: I'm Henry Bohnert, and I have
co-ownership on some property on Wilson Creek Road, but I'm
also -- we also have property in Brazoria County, which is
down on the coast of Texas. And I talked to the County Judge
in Brazoria County on this very issue, and they are one of
the larger populated counties in the state, and they still --
to his knowledge, they still have four county roads that are
in this same situation, where there is -- they do not have
any fence requirements, and it's basically considered as the
state was in the 1800's, where it's open range. Most of the
roads are fenced off, but they're not required to be. And
that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a different issue,
Henry, related to -- and I'll defer to the County Attorney on
this. A county road can -- if it's going through someone's
property, and you own both sides of the road, this doesn't
say I have to put up a fence on both sides, necessarily. I
still have a county road going through your property. 'Cause
3-10-08
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
you own all this property; the road's just going through it.
And lots of our roads are fenced anyway. But, anyway, that's
something the County Attorney needs to look at. It doesn't
necessarily say that.
MR. BOHNERT: Basically, that is the situation down
there, where they have properties where they have -- maybe
have property on both sides of the road, or else have the
lease rights -- the cattle grazing rights to both sides of
the road. Maybe don't lease it, but the cattle grazing rates
on both sides of the road. But the -- the issue is still
that they're not required, or if they -- if the State or the
County requires them to fence it off, the County compensates
them for that -- that right, you know, for that fencing
there. Because they're making changes that affects their
land value, their property, the way they can use it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's a different --
that's something -- a different issue. That's not --
MR. BOHNERT: Well, I'm just saying, he was telling
me that's what their situation was there.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only if there's two different
landowners that are on both sides of the road. If it's the
same owner on both sides of the road, it has nothing --
JUDGE TINLEY: Ma'am, you wanted to be recognized
and say something? If you'll come to the podium, give us
3-10-08
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
21
your name and address?
MS. COOK: Sorry. Linda Cook. I live on Wilson
Creek Road. And just listening to the discussion, I was just
saying, I think what you're trying to do as far as the -- the
election, it's going to end up being same thing as he's
talking about in Brazoria, where you're going to force people
to change their land structure and value.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MS. COOK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I'm just saying, if the
road goes through, if the -- and I think it's -- Precinct 4
has the most. There's a majority of the roads out there --
not many of the roads out there are county roads going
through properties where they don't fence in both sides. It
has nothing to do with the road. It's -- you have to fence
off from your neighbors, not off the road.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
MR. BOHNERT: The property that we own over there
on Wilson Creek Road, we --
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we talking about the Wilson
Creek issue here? If so, we want to do this on the next
agenda item.
MR. BOHNERT: I'm getting back to this thing -- we
do own property on both sides of that Wilson Creek Road, the
property that we own out there. That's what we're -- the
3-10-08
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
concern is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. BOHNERT: So, what he's talking about, we
own -- you know, if you own property on both sides of the
road. And that's what I'm saying; we do own property on both
sides of that road.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Any other question
or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 10, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
on enforcing Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations on
several property subdivisions along Wilson Creek Road
concerning properties sold by Richard Bohnert, et al, to
various individuals, and some remaining unsold tracts, and
discussion of related issues concerning the right-of-way
along Wilson Creek Road. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the backup somewhat --
I mean, pretty much explains this, but this was before the
Court once before, and the issue -- it came before the Court
when Hill Country Co-Op went to Road and Bridge to get an
easement for a fiberoptic line under the right-of-way of
3-10-08
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
Wilson Creek Road. When we looked at that document -- or
plus an additional either 10 or 20 foot, depending on where
it is. Laying out -- laying out that road, even though the
road may not be built now, triggers platting, and -- and
that's kind of where we are.
They disagree with that, and asked to be put on the
agenda, 'cause we sent them a letter -- Road and Bridge sent
them a letter and gave them till February lst to come in and
begin the platting process. I've visited with them and
Mr. Williamson, the Cooks. They live on that road and have
bought tracts from Mr. Bohnert, and their tracts -- all
tracts are over 20, or over -- over 10 acres, so there's --
if they didn't have the easement, it would be exempt from
platting, but the easement triggers platting. And that's
kind of the County Attorney; he's the one that made that
determination. Anyway, I told Mr. Bohnert that if they
wanted to get on the agenda, we can look at it one more time,
and that's what we're doing.
The related issue about the open range, why it's
3-10-08
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
tied in here, there were cattle guards still -- there were a
total of five cattle guards from Highway 27 for the first, I
don't know, mile or so of Wilson Creek Road. The County's in
the process of upgrading that road, and we took out three of
the cattle guards. And I don't really understand why, but
they would like -- they have told me at one time or another
they would like some of those put back. And my -- and after
consulting with Leonard, he and I are in agreement; no, those
cattle guards are not necessary. They're dangerous, and
we're trying to get rid of them. And the reason the work is
all being done on this portion of Wilson Creek Road right now
is because of the development there, the Sunset Ridges
Subdivision, which is part of -- Mr. Bohnert sold that land
to the developer, and more homes are being built, and it's
just a general road upgrade, which I would have thought would
have made everybody happy, but that wasn't the case. So, I
don't know if Henry Bohnert or Richard Bohnert wants to
address this, and --
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: I'm Richard Bohnert. I live
off of Weston Road, which is next to Wilson Creek Road, and I
also have some property on Wilson Creek Road. And when we
laid out that easement, we went to County Road and Bridge
Department and wanted to find out whether this road was going
to be there, or if there's a possibility of this road being
moved, Wilson Creek Road, which was formerly Roane Road. And
3-10-08
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
Truby Hardin told me that, "We cannot tell you that road will
not be changed or moved." As we were selling some of this
property, we wanted to guarantee ourselves the right to go --
or access to our other property beyond what we were selling.
If this county road were ever abandoned or rerouted, that
property on both sides of this road would go back to the
original -- I mean, the current landowners, which would deny
us access through that property to get to our other property.
And when I discussed that with Truby Hardin, she told me --
we wanted to just maintain the easement over the existing
county road, and she says, "Well, you should go 60 feet."
And there's another man in here that can verify that I was
told that, because he was told the same thing, and he's the
one that did the surveying. We went to our attorney and had
this written up. This was in 2004 when we started this, and
in 2005, in March is when this surveying was completed, and I
have the documentation for that.
Everything was fine as it was done, and County Road
and Bridge Department was aware of what was going on there.
And now, when the easement issue comes up for the phone
company to put in a fiberoptic line, County Road and Bridge
tells them where they should put that line. Us, as being the
landowners, feel like that -- that should be up to us where
this fiberoptic line is put. The County should not have the
authority to give a permit on our property for any kind of
3-10-08
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
easements to anybody. We -- that should be for us to give
those easements, and we should be approached for that. If
I'm out of line about feeling that way, then we're not in a
free country any more. We purchased that property. We feel
like we should be the ones to give any kind of easements that
are on that property to anyone else. The book that I
purchased in May of 2004 says nothing about easements to
require platting. Nowhere in this book can I find anything
that says you cannot retain an easement on a piece of
or if we want to stop here, and then I will read a letter a
little bit later on some other issues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Richard, let me make one point,
issue is	not anything	to	do with Hill	Country	Co-Op.	The
County -	- once we saw	the	easement, we	haven't	talked	to Hill
Country Co-Op again. And I would -- I don't disagree with
you that if I were Hill Country Co-Op, I would probably want
to go to you and the other people that own that property, but
that's a whole separate issue. That's not even on the table,
anything about that easement.
That's
3-10-08
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
agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's on the -- I said the
County became aware of the easement you retained when Hill
Country Co-Op came to us. We haven't done anything with Hill
Country Co-Op anyway, and I'll turn it over to Rex with
regard to the language in our subdivision rules.
MR. EMERSON: Subdivision Rules, I think, Mr.
Bohnert, if you look under 1.02.C, that's where your
limitation is going to come in.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That's 2007.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: I don't want to look at that
one. I want to look at the one that I brought. What does it
say there?
MR. EMERSON: Under 1.02.C, what it says is that --
and I'm going to have to start at the top so that it makes
sense, but a "subdivision plat, as defined by 232.001 of the
Local Government Code, shall be required to be prepared by
the owner if a tract of land is subject to the jurisdiction
of the Commissioners Court set forth above, and is divided
into two or more parts to lay out" -- and you drop to C, and
it's "streets, including right-of-ways or easements, alleys,
squares, parks, or other parts of the tract, intended to be
dedicated to the public use or for the use of the purchasers
or owners of the lots fronting on or adjacent to the streets,
alleys, squares, parks or other parts." And anytime that you
3-10-08
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
28
have an easement laid out for the use of the owners or the
purchasers or the public, if you drop down to 1.03, which is
where you were looking for your exemption, 1.02.C knocks it
out of the exemption.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: Well, sir, mine does not say
that. This one that you have was after the fact. This here
was June the 10th of 2002. This is the one that I purchased
in 2004.
MR. EMERSON: Will you please read 1.02.C?
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: "Subdivision plat as defined
by Section 232.001 of the Local Government Code shall be
required to be prepared by the owner if a tract of land is
subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioners Court set
forth above and is divided into two or more parts to lay out:
A, a subdivision of a tract, including an addition; B, lots;
or C, streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of the
tract intended to be dedicated to public use or for the use
of purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent to
the streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts. A
division of a tract includes a division regardless of whether
it is made by using a metes and bounds description in a deed
of conveyance or in a contract for a deed, by using a
contract of sale or other executory contract to convey, or by
using any other method."
MR. EMERSON: Okay. And did you or did you not lay
3-10-08
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
29
out 60 foot to be used as a street for a right-of-way?
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: That is over the existing
road.
MR. EMERSON: That's not the question. The
question is, did you or did you not do that? And I think the
answer is, you did, 'cause that's what shows up on the -- the
deeds that are filed.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: That's an easement. If that
county road --
MR. EMERSON: For a street.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: If that road is abandoned.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And I think the --
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: The road's already there.
MR. EMERSON: Let me address something. I think
part of your understanding -- or part of the issue is a
miscommunication of the statutes, okay? Because for the
County to abandon that road or move that road, what the
statutes say in 251 of the Transportation Code is that every
abutting property owner has a property right in that road and
has a right to an objection to any change in the road. So,
the County can't just unilaterally walk in there and jerk
your road out from underneath of you.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: Then that should have been
addressed to me, I feel like, when I talked to the County
Road and Bridge. That's who I was directed to go and talk
3-10-08
30
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
to, and that is why it was done. That was not intentional on
our part.
MR. EMERSON: Well, and I don't think anybody has
said it was.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: I didn't know about that.
MR. EMERSON: I haven't received any information
that says it was. This was brought to me a couple weeks ago
to say, "Does it or does it not fall within the rules?"
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, and the issue on this is
-- and I don't -- I think everyone's -- no one's --
everyone's telling the truth. The question -- it depends on
what question was asked to Road and Bridge. The question you
said was asked was, "Could it be done?" And the answer is,
"Yes, it can be done," but the next step as to how it's done
was never addressed.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: It was addressed that we did
not have to plat that property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't know about that.
I mean, that's -- I'm not sure about that. I don't know what
II was told about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't recall hearing that part of
the statement earlier. What I recall you saying was you were
directed to Road and Bridge and you said, "I want to be
guaranteed that this county road will be there." Answer, "We
cannot guarantee you that." Next question, "Well, how do I
3-10-08
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
31
protect myself if you can't guarantee me that?" Answer,
"Reserve a roadway width of 60 feet." And you did that,
correct?
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, the issue -- I didn't hear
platting, yes, no, or the issue even being raised.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: That was the reason we were
there talking to them. We were going to keep -- this is when
we were selling this property, and that's how come I got this
book.
', JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: And Truby Hardin went over
this book with me. She knew what we were doing. I showed
her some -- they weren't actual surveys at that time. It was
surveys that we had made on the computer off of the original
survey from when we purchased that property.
', JUDGE TINLEY: Did the discussion with Truby Hardin
as I detailed just a bit ago -- is that the way it occurred?
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: It did involve whether or not
we had to plat the property or not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tell me exactly what was said, how
it involved whether we had to plat the property. What did
you say to her with reference to platting?
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: Sir, that's been a long time
ago to remember exactly what I said. But I do know that we
3-10-08
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
32
talked about whether this property had to be platted or not,
and she said as long as have you 200 feet or more on this
county road or public road, it did not require platting. And
that's when I was asking, "Is this road always going to be
there? Can it not be moved?" And she says, "We cannot tell
you that road will always be there."
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: And so then I says, well, in
order for these landowners to have access -- or for us to
have access through -- through these landowners' property to
our property back in the back, which we still own some of
that property, that we would have access to it. And I asked
.her, "Can we keep an easement over there?" We would like to
keep an easement over the county road, just the width that
was there. And that's when she said, "You should make that
60 feet."
JUDGE TINLEY: And that was the end of the
', discussion?
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
~' COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I mean, trying to
move along, I've talked to Mr. Bohnert numerous times about
this, and I've told him -- I said, "The solution is simple."
In my mind. He can either abandon the easement, or he can
plat it. And by abandoning the easement -- or the third
3-10-08
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
I, option is he can transfer the easement to the County, and
that's the option that I told him the County would prefer.
We would love to have a 60-foot right-of-way along the road,
'cause it's only 40 foot, and it's a pretty heavily traveled
road. That's what we would like. But I said we can't --
we're not going to -- we can't make you. We aren't going to
do anything along those lines. You can abandon the easement,
and in which case, you're going to fall under the
Transportation Code, and you're protected, or you can plat
it. I mean, those are the three options. And, you know, I
have a preference for one from the County standpoint, but
that's your decision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happens if he abandons
the easement? What happens to the issue of ingress and
egress to his property that's way back?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a county road.
', COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the county road goes
~~ all the way to your property?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reserve piece in the
back?
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just a moment.
(Discussion off the record.)
3-10-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Mr. Bohnert?
You had a question, ma'am?
MS. COOK: Yeah. It's not just Henry. It's not
just Henry's issue any more. I mean, the easement that
you're asking us to just turn over to the County is our land.
It's him and Bryant's land; it's Gary and Marybeth's land.
This is -- you know, you're just asking us to -- "Hey, here,
take 60 foot." I don't think that's quite right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then, don't do it.
MS. COOK: I don't intend to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean -- but I also want
the people to be aware that -- how we maintain that road, and
you're very concerned about drainage. Drainage is greatly
affected by how much right-of-way we have. So --
MS. COOK: Make it private.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a county road; you can't
make it -- well, we could make it private.
MS. COOK: We own it, the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't own the road, ma'am.
You own the property under the road. It's a county road.
MS. COOK: Okay, but I'm not going to give you the
property under the road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That part was pleasant.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: I'd like to read a letter, or
3-10-08
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
some comments that we have here. I'm representing a case
concerning improvements in changes to Wilson Creek Road from
State Highway 27 to the west property line of Leroy Bohnert.
The improvements and changes in concern are across the
properties owned by Richard Bohnert, Henry Bohnert, John and
Katherine Merritt, Jesse and Linda Cook, Gary and Marybeth
Simpkins, and Bryant and Kim Williamson. None of the
property owners were notified by County officials of the
The change
cattle guards. These cattle guards were used in conjunction
with existing fences to separate grazing rights between
property owners. Other improvements were made to redirect
the flow of runoff water. In order to obtain these
improvements, changes were made on adjacent private property
without notification or consent of the owners. We believe
there is a motive to these changes other than normal road
maintenance or improvements. We have not been given any
reason as to why the cattle guards were removed, and we
initially were told by phone -- or I was initially told by
phone conversation with Commissioner Jonathan Letz they would
be reinstalled. We have all since been notified via e-mail
there are no plans to reinstall cattle guards. Our
properties have been adversely affected, and we believe we
should be fairly compensated for the changes we are forced to
3-10-08
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we will consider counteroffers, provided the property owners
will be fairly compensated for the use of their land.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only -- Richard, and I
think really Mr. Williamson -- I think the only piece of
property that's not fenced currently is the piece that
Mr. Williamson owns. That's about 100 feet Mr. Williamson
has.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
MR. WILLIAMSON: What I'm going to have to do is,
instead of at my leisure, I've got to go ahead and fence it,
because we've got, like, 20 head of cows coming out to the
road, and they're going to wander up to the subdivision now,
so I have to do it immediately. It's not like -- I was
planning on doing it in the spring, later.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You've got to fence them anyway
under the current law for Kerr County. In Precinct 3, cattle
3-10-08
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
have to be fenced in.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I thought cattle guards was
considered part of fencing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You own the property on the
other side?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, we do. It goes all the way
to that fence. That goes up to Jay Colvin's property. It's
actually on my land.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're saying you have --
you want your cows to be on the county road?
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's an easement. I can't graze
on the easement?
MR. EMERSON: I couldn't answer that without
looking at the statute. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't want the liability,
but that's a question for Rex to look at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, when we first came
out there years ago looking at the property, we were standing
out there with the cows in the middle of the road. People
would drive slowly down the road, and it made a nice,
I~ leisurely -- nice little place to live. Now, since we've
I
taken the cattle guards out, those three, people are zipping
up and down the road, people are throwing beer cans all over
the place, and it's not one of those things where people have
to really -- you know, when you hit a cattle guard, you sort
3-10-08
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
of -- "This is somebody's property." You got to respect it.
They just think it's a county road; they just throw trash
everywhere, you know. It's really inconvenient for us all.
It is --
MS. COOK: Trashy.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's making it a different way of
life.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The subdivision that Mr. --
that Sunset Ridges is what's changed the property, not the
cattle guards. It's the increased traffic.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It's increased traffic, but
there's -- nobody lives up there. It hasn't been developed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a lot of trucks going
~ up there.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Not any more. I mean, when they
were working on it. When they were working on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This issue is, unfortunately,
about subdivision rules, and I think the options I laid out
are what we --
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. If we take back the 60-foot
easement, we can just go back to the 40-foot and the
50-foot-wide easement, and we go back to the status-quo,
right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll get my cattle guard back?
3-10-08
39
1
2
3 yard.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
probably.
fence.
MS. COOK: Where are the cattle guards?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably at the Road and Bridge
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Road and Bridge yard,
MR. WILLIAMSON: I could use that pipe to make my
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You didn't own it. I think
probably the County probably put that cattle guard there.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It was in my dirt, so...
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nice try, Bryant.
JUDGE TINLEY: Am I just hearing this is all about
the world's common denominator, m-o-n-e-y? Is that --
MR. WILLIAMSON: No. No. No, honestly, it's not.
It deals with the way I like to live my life. I like having
the cows being able to go out and grazing up and down the --
the side of the road. I don't have to worry about people
running up and down the road a million miles an hour and
endangering me, or the cows. And they've been there, you
know, since I don't know when. Long before I was born.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which of those three options gets
you back closest to where you were?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Restoring the cattle guards,
whatever it takes to do that. So -- which would be,
3-10-08
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
probably --
JUDGE TINLEY: That was not one of the three
options.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. It would probably be going
to -- dismissing the 60-foot easement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. WILLIAMSON: And that's just my opinion. I
mean, there's other people involved.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's a matter between you
and your neighbors, then, I guess.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So, y'all will leave it up to us
to make that decision?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can say -- I mean, the road
itself, I defer to Road and Bridge Department and safety
issues. Those are paramount to me.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And having livestock on that
road, with the increased traffic in the subdivision, is a
safety risk.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that it's a --
that's -- safety is my number one concern.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Well, can we do this? Can
we at least put up speed limit signs?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
3-10-08
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
25
MR. WILLIAMSON: And put -- like, we ride horses up
and down the road -- "Cattle Crossing," just to make sure
that people are aware that it is still an agricultural area?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can put a cattle crossing
sign up, 'cause I understand Mr. Bohnert runs cattle on some
of these -- on some of y'all's properties for ag reasons. I
think we can do that. And there are various -- many areas in
the county where -- you know, I don't know whether it's a
I good idea or bad, but cows or livestock are moved down county
roads from one property to another.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That happens on Fall Creek
Road all the time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that's fine. We can put
speed limit, we can put cattle crossing.
MS. COOK: Slow them down, really running up that
road.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: We won't have a problem with
removing that easement, but the reasoning for moving those
cattle guards, to me, that is not justified, that it is a
safety concern. I have a letter here -- or an act, Senate
Bill Number 66, that took effect in September of 2007.
Unless Kerr County does not fall under Texas state law.
Relating to cattle guards constructed on county roads. Be it
enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas. Section 1,
the heading to Section 251.009, Transportation Code, is
3-10-08
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
amended to read follows: Construction of a -- of cattle
county may authorize the construction of cattle guards on a
county road of any class. A cattle guard authorized under
this section is not an obstruction of the road.
These cattle guards were put in by the County.
They were up to county specs. They were not an obstruction
on that road. That is the reason they were taken out, what
Jonathan Letz just said. According to the State, they should
not be removed because of that. They are not considered an
obstruction. Subchapter A, Chapter 143, Agricultural Code,
is amended by adding Section 143.003 to read as follows:
Cattle on county road with cattle guard. Cattle on a county
road are not considered to be running at large if the county
road separates two tracts of land under common ownership or
lease. We fall under that category. We own property on both
sides of the county road. Contains a cattle guard
constructed as authorized under Section 251.009,
Transportation Code, that serves as part of the fencing of
the two tracts. This act takes effect September 1st, 2007.
And it has the signatures of all of the state authorities on
there, and that includes Governor Rick Perry.
3-10-08
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
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That doesn't mean a whole
lot around here, but --
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: Because --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not -- I'm not a real
big fan of his, so that doesn't mean anything.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: Doesn't matter. It's a state
law.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's just -- yeah, I
heard all that. Actually, I'm in agreement with you,
personally, that I don't see cattle guards as an obstruction
or -- or whatever the verbiage was there. They're there for
a reason, and I kind of like the reason myself. I kind of
like it that way. But the County decided years ago that in
certain places, that they are -- excuse me -- that they can
be dangerous. And I wanted to speak to your idea about
neighbors trashing your roads and how -- how people move in
and -- well, Bruce and I grew up in this county, and I have
fought against that for years, of letting other people come
into our county to trash it up. And I'm -- I know y'all have
been here over two or three weeks, but the only way I have
found to do it is to put "one-way" signs up all going out.
(Laughter.) I never could get the State to do that. But I
think your easement issue is -- borders on ridiculous, in my
opinion, but I like the cattle guards. I like cattle guards.
I think that they're there for a reason, and they do -- they
3-10-08
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do what -- do what they're supposed to do. And it just
appears to me that that -- that would be a good compromise
for all of us, if we put your silly cattle guards back in and
you give up the easement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't -- and I -- when I
talked to Richard earlier, and I did tell him -- I said,
"We'll look into putting the cattle guards back if that's
what y'all need or want." And I probably shouldn't have used
the word "want," because I tried -- after I looked at the
will agree with this -- is when the Roane family owned it,
they owned both sides of the road. The entire north side of
the road has been sold to different people, and the south
side of the road, or the -- you know, so the reason for the
cattle guards is no longer there. The only person who
doesn't have it fenced is Mr. Williamson has a 100-foot
stretch. And the only spot that those cows can go outside of
his property are onto the county road right-of-way or the
easement right there. He does own the property, so there's a
little bit of bar ditches; there's some property there. And
I don't have a huge problem putting in -- Leonard doesn't
have a huge problem putting cattle guards back. One would go
back, the only one. It would be somewhere on the upper side
of your property, because you're the only one that doesn't --
3-10-08
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
45
doesn't fence your property all the way. And, you know, I
don't have a real problem; Leonard doesn't have a problem
with that. We've talked about that. It doesn't make a lot
of -- you know, of sense to me. And the liability issue, I
think, is -- but that's your personal decision there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If that's the issue, I'd
say put the cattle guard back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That one. And, you know, it
would be the one, I guess, right at the curve, basically, or
right after the curve.
MR. HENRY BOHNERT: That cattle guard that is on
the -- the northwest -- the northeast side of our property,
which would be Leroy Bohnert's, is adjoining our property
there. That cattle guard is also the property line for --
for us, for our livestock. We own property on both sides of
the road from Highway 27 also, and part of our concern is, if
they're going to take -- you know, if you're -- if the
actions were to take the cattle guards out up there,
eventually they're probably going to be looking at taking the
cattle guards out down by Highway 27, and -- and the -- you
know, along our property line there, and so that's part of
what our concern is also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think once all that property
is fenced, my recommendation would be, yes, take all of them
out. But it's not fenced below -- the last three cattle
3-10-08
46
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
guards still are all open. No one's put a fence up there,
and we're not going to try to encourage or make someone put
up a fence. That's why we left the cattle guards in place.
We were under the impression Mr. Williamson was going to
fence his property. Maybe we -- that was a misinformation, I
guess.
MR. HENRY BOHNERT: Well, from our standpoint, you
know, after some of the stuff that's come out here, we
realize that -- that the -- the easement over the existing
county road is not necessary, and we'll be more than willing
to remove that easement. But the county -- you know, the
county road will still revert back to its original status
I there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I --
MR. HENRY BOHNERT: Which was a 50-foot easement
and a 40-foot.
MR. WILLIAMSON: 40-foot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, Wilson Creek Road.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's not disappearing; it's going to
be a county road.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I just want to clarify one thing.
I am going to bring in some fencing, but it's going to be
left open for the cattle to go in and out. I just don't want
you to think I'm not doing the fence part of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only question I have is, I
3-10-08
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
47
am going to -- because we are in a -- I want the County
Attorney to look into that a little bit as to who's going to
be liable for livestock on a county deeded right-of-way.
Because, I mean, it's -- we're -- the County has a deeded
right-of-way under the road. It's not a prescriptive
easement. You own the property; we have a right-of-way.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if we're responsible for
livestock being on that road, --
MR. WILLIAMSON: I can understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- then cattle guards aren't
going back in.
MS. COOK: Right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if the County has no
liability for open -- the livestock on the county
right-of-way, that's -- you know, I don't have a problem
putting one cattle guard back in. That will segregate the
cattle guard to the south of your property to north of your
property.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Have we pretty well thrashed
I that one out?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, one more.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is this the last word?
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: Yes.
3-10-08
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: Okay.
MR. RICHARD BOHNERT: The County is not liable. We
had a cow that was hit when all of that was open, and I was
notified -- notified by one of the deputies. And the people
that ran into the cow, we never found out who that was. They
never came forward or whatever, and we took care of that. We
-- we were notified by one of the deputies that was
patrolling that area.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'll rely on the County
~ Attorney.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMSON: One more thing -- just one more
thing. When they're doing the work on the road to the north
side of us, we have some fencing there, and I'd like if we
could identify the pens that they covered over for our
boundary markers in the road. Because Doug had mentioned
something about us having to move one of our fences. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll --
MR. WILLIAMSON: -- I need to have that clarified.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard's here. We can check
into that.
MR. ODOM: I'll check. I want to say that that was
a 60-foot, either 10 foot behind it or 20 foot with that
easement that Mr. Bohnert put in. That's --
MR. WILLIAMSON: This is up -- the north part of
3-10-08
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
49
it. I believe we're in the middle of a 40-foot easement up
there. It would be 20 foot.
MR. ODOM: I'll check and see what Doug wants to
do.
MR. WILLIAMSON: That'd be great, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's move to our 9:30 timed
item. What do you say? That's a presentation from the
committee concerning incorporation of the community of
Comfort, and consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
on support of same. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be brief on this one.
It's a -- a community committee was formed in Comfort to look
at incorporation, and then kind of a fact-finding as to what
that means. And one of those committee members, Paul Urban,
has a brief, I think, presentation for us as to what they
found. If -- and what they're asking, basically, there's a
resolution in the back that also says Kerr County will
continue to provide services for a reasonable time within our
portion if they do the incorporation. Our portion is very,
very limited; it's basically a 1,000-foot strip on Highway 27
from the county line to Wilson Creek. Wilson Creek's popular
today. But that is -- it's just past Little League field, is
where that is. Paul?
MR. URBAN: Actually, Jon, there's another small
portion up on I-10 where it goes into Kerr County.
3-10-08
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
50
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. URBAN: But, Judge Tinley and Commissioners,
thank you for allowing me to be here this morning. I'm Paul
Urban, and I serve on a committee that was formed by the
Comfort Chamber of Commerce to study the type of
self-governance available to communities. Our committee's
completed our studies, and we're ready to present our
findings to the community. We plan to do so in town hall
meetings, with the first meetings being later today. Our
findings indicate that incorporation is really the only
viable means of self-governance. By incorporating, we can
control our own destiny and provide our citizens with a more
responsive form of government.
The committee has identified an area to recommend a
city limits, and a portion of that area, as Jon indicated,
lies in Kerr County. We do face some challenges, though,
such as how to finance the services provided by Kendall and
Kerr County in the proposed city limits. Texas Election Code
only allows two elections a year. That means that we would
not have a city council in place until at least six months
after a vote for incorporation. It is conceivable that it
could be 9 to 18 months after incorporation vote before the
city would begin realizing any revenue from franchise fees,
permits, sales tax, et cetera. We will, however, incur some
expenses before and after the incorporation vote. The
3-10-08
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
committee has identified interlocal agreements with our
present governing bodies as a priority for our success. The
interlocal agreements will provide our citizens the assurance
that they will continue to receive the services they have
until the city is able to take over those responsibilities.
The committee has studied the budgets of area
incorporated cities similar in size. We've made income and
expense projections. Our projections indicate that the city
should be able to take over the primary services of road and
bridge and law enforcement within ten years. The area of
Kerr County included in our city limits is rather small, and
will affect only a few residents at this time. However, you
are providing services to these residents at this time, and
it's possible that you would be relieved of those in the
future. I'm here today to request you approve a resolution
whereby you will continue to provide the services to the area
of Comfort located in Kerr County, if Comfort were to
incorporate, until the City's able to assume those services.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. I do have
some maps here that show the area of Kerr County included.
Would you like to see those?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would like to see those.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Urban?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one.
3-10-08
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
MR. URBAN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I applaud your efforts to
do what you're doing, Mr. Urban. I wish you great success.
I do have one question, however, and that has to do with Kerr
County's initiative to provide a wastewater system for Center
Point and the transmission line that would go through your
proposed corporate limits to the wastewater treatment
facility, which I believe is located on I-10. My question to
you is, do you see -- or foresee any negative implications to
our initiative and our -- our plan for that sewer system that
might result from your incorporation, and if so, what are
they?
MR. URBAN: I see none whatsoever, Commissioner
Williams. I think it'll be a great boost for Comfort to have
that coming into our community.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. URBAN: I wish I knew more about that. And our
committee is not -- our purpose is to educate our community
on the pros and the cons. We are not out actively pursuing
incorporation, but we want -- we feel like it's time to
educate our community and let them make a choice on whether
or not they want to pursue that issue or not. But the -- the
wastewater, I think, is a great thing for us. Every -- I
think it would be an economic boon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was the correct answer,
3-10-08
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
believe me. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple of other points. And
part of the reason a small amount of Kerr County is included,
based on the population, the -- the area limit is 4 square
miles. That's the maximum that Comfort can incorporate, and
they're at 3.99 -- 93, I believe. They're -- you know, my
feeling is that it would probably make sense to put a little
bit more onto -- into that area of Kerr County. And that --
and the boundaries may change slightly.
MR. URBAN: And the map is -- you have the whole --
our whole presentation there. The map is about five or six
pages back. And, remember, this is all just proposed, the
education process. If the city were to incorporate, we have
to have a surveyed area, but it appears to us, because of the
Election Code, that it would be -- November would be the
earliest time we could have an incorporation election, so we
would have time to learn more about the project you asked
about and possible changes to those boundaries. As you know,
the area affected in Kerr County on Highway 27 is primarily
ag land right now. And up I-10, the same. We're talking
about 500 feet off of the right-of-way on either side would
be in the city limits or in the ET J, so I don't think going
out that way would involve a lot of other residents at this
time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As our project progresses,
3-10-08
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
54
and if you're successful with incorporation, we'll be more
than pleased to meet with you. And --
MR. URBAN: We'd like to be kept -- we'd like to be
kept educated on --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We will.
MR. URBAN: -- on that project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I assure you, we will do
that.
MR. URBAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You had -- the question is,
today, will Kerr County continue with the services. What --
in your mind's eye, what do you see those services are? You
mentioned road and bridge?
MR. URBAN: Road and bridge, law enforcement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Law enforcement.
MR. URBAN: Well, in Kendall County, they provide
EMS protection.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. URBAN: I'm sure you provide some of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Emergency services.
MR. URBAN: Emergency services, animal control,
normal county services that those residents are receiving
today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. URBAN: And we would negotiate interlocal
3-10-08
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
55
agreements on those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was my -- another
question. We're talking about an interlocal agreement, Rex,
between Kerr County and City of Comfort to provide those
services.
MR. EMERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For a -- and the only thing
that's bugging me is, you mentioned that the -- provide the
services as far as 10 years out?
MR. URBAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How is that decision made?
Whether it's 10 -- I mean, I'm sure it has something to do
with your community being able to provide enough money to --
MR. URBAN: We came up --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- pay for the services, but
do you get -- is there a magical number out there? Or do we
set a time frame to keep you under pressure to be sure to
raise your money, or, I mean, how is that done?
MR. URBAN: My -- what I've learned is that we
negotiate the best deal that we can, based on the best
projections that we have. We're hopeful -- and our
projections are in that packet that I've given you -- that we
can assume all those services within a 10-year period of
time. And the County Attorney, I guess, would -- would be
able to tell us, can this Court bind future courts by those
3-10-08
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
56
agreements? I'm not sure. That's part of the education
process. What we're trying to do now is that when we make a
presentation to the public, that we can tell them that we
visited with each county government, and that they have
provided us some direction on that, yes, interlocal
agreements would be available to us to continue services
until a point in time that the city could take those over.
In Kendall County, they're more than willing to extend that
-- those agreements, just because they will be relieved of
far more --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
MR. URBAN: -- than you in the event we are able to
incorporate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. I just -- you know, I
have to think of the people I represent up here in Kerrville.
You know, are they -- are they willing to continue sending
their money to some other community, open-ended? Or --
MR. URBAN: Oh, I understand, and I think the
interlocal agreements would have to be defined. And we're
proposing out to IO years based on our projections at this
point in time. And, granted, the news about the Texas
Election Code, we may have to go back and redo some of our
projections, but we need to start educating our people to
give them a choice whether we're even going to follow through
with this.
3-10-08
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
-__
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. URBAN: And so we will be re -- we'll go back
and redo our projections based on -- and we've just learned
that in the last 45 days.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. URBAN: So we've decided to proceed, just to
see if the community has any interest in trying to learn
or -- educating themselves.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You've been down there
dealing with this kind of stuff for a long, long time.
MR. URBAN: Well, I used -- I used the City of
Ingram as a good example. I mean, they did it, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. URBAN: -- have done it successfully, in my
opinion. We've used their budgeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. URBAN: You know, I -- I don't want to express
my position on it, but I'm sure looking forward to the
meeting so that we can -- but I -- and I think Commissioner
Letz has kept y'all apprised on some of this previously, and
I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Urban?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval of the
resolution as submitted.
3-10-08
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the resolution as requested and submitted.
Question or discussion on that motion? All in favor of that
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you
for being here, Mr. Urban.
MR. URBAN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that include any cattle
guards or anything?
JUDGE TINLEY: No cattle guards in this deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not at this point.
MR. URBAN: I am a new resident to Kerr County, and
I'm vitally interested in this open range issue. Thank
y'all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Out. Get security in here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's -- let's go to our 9:45
timed item. We're catching up a little bit. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on request from Kerr
County Democratic Party to request and seek formal approval
from the Court for use of Room 123, County Court at Law
Courtroom, from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Saturday, March the
3-10-08
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
29th, 2008, for the purpose of holding the Kerr County
Democratic Party Convention. Ms. Larimer, thank you for
being here today.
MS. LARIMER: Thank you. I am Dot Larimer; I'm the
Democratic Party Chair for Kerr County. And you will notice
on the request that I submitted that I said I would take less
than one minute. I'm sorry to say -- well, maybe happy to
say that I may have to take a little longer than one minute.
In looking over the size of the court and remembering, having
used that courtroom in the past, I am concerned that it might
not be large enough for us to hold our county convention
there, so I'm looking for some alternatives. When we first
were planning the convention, we were told to plan for
doubling the -- well, for the election itself, actually, to
double or even triple the turnout, so we planned for four
times the turnout. And as you may have seen in the
newspapers, it's ten times the turnout, and we have a lot of
interest in this convention. We have encouraged not only the
delegates -- we have about 150 delegates that will be coming
-- not only the delegates, but the alternates to come, and
all of our meetings are open to the public, so I'm guessing
the turnout's going to be quite large. And so we're asking
if we can move to one of the upstairs rooms. I understand
the Republicans are there for the -- for their convention.
By law, it has to be on the 29th. But since there are two
3-10-08
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
courtrooms, perhaps we could use the other one in the
afternoon. And I don't know which one that would be, and I
assume you would inform me of that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Larimer, I was going to make
this inquiry of you. Based upon what I was informed was the
participation at your precinct conventions, it occurred to me
that maybe the County Court at Law was not going to be large
enough, even though it had been in past years. What we have
available upstairs, the Republicans have Courtroom Number 1
upstairs. I believe that's from 9:00 until 3:00, that's
committed. The other courtroom, District Courtroom Number 2,
is not committed, to my knowledge. I think it's just a tad
bit smaller in terms of capacity than Courtroom 1, but
it's -- it's the only other one we got available upstairs. I
think there's adequate room out in the -- out in the foyer
area for you to handle your registration. And it occurs to
me that's probably what we need to do, is plug you in for
Courtroom Number 2.
MS. LARIMER: Okay. Let me ask one quick question,
in case you might know the answer to this. If we have more
than what is the legal capacity of the courtroom, is there
somebody who's going to be there to say, "You can't have all
your people in there"? Or do we have to monitor that
ourselves? I understand that it's about 140 persons for
that --
3-10-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: I, frankly -- I, frankly, don't
know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think in the past, Judge,
the Republican Party using the 216th courtroom has provided
whatever ancillary services they needed, like cleanup and --
and I don't recall ever having a need for law enforcement
there. They get rowdy, but not that rowdy.
MS. LARIMER: I didn't mean rowdy, necessarily. I
~ meant having to do with the number --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand what you're
saying.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fire code.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The fire code is the issue.
And also, I don't think that the -- the Republican convention
will go to 3 o'clock, but who knows?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would -- how long do you think
your convention will last?
MS. LARIMER: We had planned 1:00 to 4:00, and I
didn't expect it to last any longer than two hours, but
there's so much interest, and a lot of people are new to the
process. That sometimes requires additional time just to
explain what needs to happen and so forth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we -- if it went from
3:30 to 6:30, they could use the same -- the larger courtroom
to accommodate -- would it accommodate the larger group?
3-10-08
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Would that be -- would that
be okay for you, or would you prefer the same time?
MS. LARIMER: I guess I'd have to make that
decision on my own, and I don't have a problem personally
with the later time of day. The -- I guess the problem might
be if there were older people who might not want to stay that
late in the afternoon. A lot of people like to keep their
meals right on time. But can we -- can we let you know
later, once the decision makers have had an opportunity to
meet, and say, "This is the specific time we want"? Or do --
do I have to make a decision right now?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me offer a suggestion.
If your time frame that you're requesting is 1:00 to 4:00,
would there not -- would it not be possible for you just to
have somebody up in the -- up there in the foyer monitoring
when the Republicans vacate? 'Cause we vacate around noon.
They could use 216th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we could do the order for
either Courtroom 1 or Courtroom 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a district courtroom.
MS. LARIMER: Right. If we set it for 1 o'clock,
and we have the smaller courtroom reserved to begin the
process there, and we see that we need the larger courtroom
and need to move, then that is also a possibility. But it's
important for us -- first of all, let me -- let me back up.
3-10-08
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Thursday, our executive committee will be meeting, and it
will be the executive committee that will make the decision
as to whether it would be 1 o'clock or 3 o'clock, or 3:30.
And I would -- I would prefer not to just unilaterally make
that decision myself, because there will be people who would
object, as you well know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you were to change your
time to 2 o'clock -- 2:00 to 5:00 -- I believe you would be
very safe, because I think the other courtroom would be empty
by that time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But for right now, we could
pass a -- a more general motion to authorize the Democratic
Party to use either Courtroom 1 or 2.
JUDGE TINLEY: Depending on availability.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Depending on availability, from
12 o'clock to 6 o'clock that date. That way, you can -- your
executive committee can have some -- make the decision, and
we don't have to worry about it.
MS. LARIMER: Okay. And then, if they should
decide they want to keep it downstairs, that's available too?
Is that what you're saying?
~I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'd say it has to be one of
the two upstairs.
MS. LARIMER: One of the two upstairs, but one of
them will be available?
3-10-08
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. LARIMER: One or the other definitely will be
available?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
'~,I MS. LARIMER: Very good.
i
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One or both.
MS. LARIMER: I think it covers them.
I
I COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably both of them will be
~I available, in all likelihood.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so.
MS. LARIMER: Okay, very good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make the motion that we
authorize the Democratic Party to use the -- either one of
the district courtrooms, Courtroom 1 or Courtroom 2, from
12 o'clock to 6 o'clock Saturday, March 29th, 2008, for the
purpose of holding the Kerr County Democratic Party
Convention.
JUDGE TINLEY: Subject to availability?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Subject to availability.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to amend that,
Commissioner, to from 1 o'clock on. Because if you're
including both courtrooms, there is a possibility that the
Republican convention would not be over, you know, at
12 o'clock, and somebody's going to say, "Well you told us
you were going to be out of there," so I prefer leaving it at
3-10-08
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
65
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll accept that amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. From 1:00 to 6:00, then,
subject to availability. Okay, we have a motion -- and a
second?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and a second
as indicated. Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exciting times. This is
exciting, to have a two-party system in Kerr County.
MS. LARIMER: It surely is. It surely is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Finally made it.
MS. LARIMER: Brings a smile to my face.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't count on it, though.
I wouldn't hang your hat on it.
MS. LARIMER: I know the nature of this county.
And let me -- let me just add that when I first moved here in
1977, I was told that the difference between Kerr County and
Gillespie County is that in Kerr County, you're a newcomer
I until you've been here for 25 years, and in Gillespie County,
you're a newcomer until you've been there for 35 years. I'm
not a newcomer any more. I'm glad to be a part of this
community.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Congratulations, Dot. We're
proud of you.
3-10-08
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
MS. LARIMER: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on
I 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. At this
time, I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I
will convene a public hearing for the final plat of Infamous
1169 Ranch, as set forth in Volume 8, Page 10, Plat Records,
and located in Precinct 4.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:11 a.m., and a public hearing was held in
open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard with respect to the final plat of
Infamous 1169 Ranch, as set forth in Volume 8, Page 10, Plat
Records, and located in Precinct 4? Seeing no one coming
forward to address that issue, I will close the public
hearing with respect to the final plat of Infamous 1169
Ranch, as set forth in Volume 8, Page 10, Plat Records,
located in Precinct 4.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:12 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
3-10-08
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
67
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting, and we'll go to Item 6, to
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to accept the
final plat of Infamous 1169 Ranch, as set forth in Volume 8,
Page 10 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4.
Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The plat of Infamous 1169
', Ranch was completed last April. Because of road access
issues, the developer was required to submit a revision of
plat. As stated on the plat, "This revision of plat only
changes the point of entry into the subdivision. No lots or
roads, as platted in Volume 8, Page 9 and 10, Plat Records,
are changing in any way." Therefore, we ask that you approve
the plat as presented.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll move we grant final
approval to --
MR. ODOM: Infamous 1169.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do what?
MR. ODOM: I was just giving you the name of the...
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: To Infamous 1169 Ranch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval as indicated. Question or discussion on the motion?
3-10-08
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 lets
back to Item l; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on
request from John Cradit, Facility Director of International
Congress of Speleology -- Speleology, excuse me, to rent the
Union Church building from July 17th through 27th, 2009, at a
reduced rate. Mr. Cradit?
MR. CRADIT: Thank you, Judge, Commissioners. I
have some brochures here I'll be glad to hand out to y'all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With that, tell me what
speleology is.
MR. CRADIT: Yes, sir. It's the science of cave
exploration, or cave -- there we go. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. CRADIT: Kerrville has been selected to host
the International Congress of Speleology. It's been held --
last year it was in Greece. Year before that, in Rio.
Before that, in Australia. This year's going to be in the
United States, and it will be held here in Kerrville. We are
pulling people from around the world -- scientists,
explorers -- to come, and it will be held at the Schreiner
3-10-08
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
25
people to stay in. We'll also have people camping out there,
and we're trying to keep the cost as low as possible to help
people who are traveling long distances to be able to afford
the registration. Schreiner's working with us quite a bit on
Church as one of the venues for the week, and we're asking to
have a reduced rate for a week rental of the Union Church.
The Congress, we're expecting about 2,000 people to attend.
I was just doing some napkin calculations here a second ago,
and I figure that 2,000 people here for a week, eating meals
three times a day, will probably bring in about
three-quarters of a million dollars to Kerrville. People
staying at the hotels will probably bring in another $125,000
to Kerrville. So, quickly, we'll have about half a million
dollar influx into the economy in Kerr County. Then there'll
be souvenirs, t-shirts, James Avery jewelry, whatever else
the people will be purchasing here, so we're hoping to help
the economy here in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's our reduced rate, Jody?
It's half?
MS. GRINSTEAD: Fifty percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, for that type of a
rental, I think we would not do the cleanups in between. You
know, we'd do a cleanup at the beginning and at the end.
3-10-08
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Wouldn't that work, Tim? We'd probably pick up trash, things
like that.
MR. BOLLIER: We would probably need to go by there
and check on it, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, yeah. But, I mean --
but as kind of a justification for reducing the rate, we're
not cleaning it and doing everything every day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Is the facility available
all of those dates?
MS. GRINSTEAD: I haven't booked anything for 2009.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What -- for what purpose
would you be using the Union Church? You're not going to get
2,000 delegates in there.
MR. CRADIT: We -- we will be holding different
sessions, scientific sessions, at the classrooms at the
university. But we're also looking for, you know, people --
we may have a -- a slide show presentation, or an art
presentation or something like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. CRADIT: And also, it will be real close to
where our campgrounds will be in that grassy area, so we are
looking at putting up some security fencing around the
campground area. We would like to go ahead and enclose the
Union Church. There will be some gates right there at the
3-10-08
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
parking lot, of course, but run the security fencing all the
II way around the Union Church to secure the campground.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing I would -- I think
~i
~, there would be a stipulation, after you said all that, that
the restrooms in the Union Church should be only for the
', people using the facility, not for the campers.
MR. CRADIT: Oh, yes. Yeah, we'll have --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Please.
MR. CRADIT: I didn't even realize there were
restrooms up there. We've already made provision for
other --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't go up there.
MR. CRADIT: That'd be fine.
', COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we grant a
~~ 50 percent discount on the rental rate for Union Church.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item to grant a 50 percent discount on
the normal rental rate. Question or discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. 2,000 attendees
for 11 days in Kerrville?
MR. CRADIT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About?
3-10-08
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CRADIT: About.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's -- our little old
town will take a pretty good hit, Mr. Cradit. I was kind of
interested in who these two gentlemen are that are with you.
MR. CRADIT: Those are my sons, and I thought I'd
bring them down, show them how --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they home-schooled?
MR. CRADIT: They're on spring break. They thought
they were on spring break until they found out they had a
civics class this morning. So, we left early this morning
and got caught in a torrential rainfall when we left San
Marcos, so they were wondering when we were going to be here.
That's why I got here so late.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. CRADIT: But when I got them up this morning, I
said, "You got another day of school." They weren't very
happy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are they spelunkers?
MR. CRADIT: Yes, sir, they are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic. Good to see you
guys. Welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
3-10-08
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you,
sir.
MR. CRADIT: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you being here,
Mr. Cradit. Let's go to Item 2. Never thought we'd get
there, did you?
MR. BOLLIER: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, take appropriate
action to approve electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest
control contracts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tim, what do we do about
plumbing?
MR. BOLLIER: I guess we'll just have to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do without?
MR. BOLLIER: -- do without, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't clog up the drain,
right?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let the inmates at the jail live
with their mistakes for a short while, educate them better?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have a current
3-10-08
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
74
plumbing contract?
MR. BOLLIER: With Whelan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whelan?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they chose not to
respond to your RFP?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, what I interpret
that to mean is that everyone -- all the plumbers in town
want us to use their standard rates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, in that respect, Tim would be
free to call whomever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whomever, as long as they're
all bonded, licensed, which I think all of them probably are.
MR. BOLLIER: I do have a couple lined up out there
in case I need them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Okay, electrical looks
pretty self-explanatory to me. D.W. looks like they're the
lowest. I had a question. And Compton's was the only one on
HVAC. Pest control, can you explain on the -- the quarterly
versus the monthly and how the bids were actually requested
and advertised, if they were supposed to bid back two ways?
MR. BOLLIER: In other words, he's not going to
come and do it but every three months, spray the facilities
every three months.
3-10-08
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
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, he's going to reduce his
price $1,200 for coming four times a year?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make sense.
MR. BOLLIER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, what's your
recommendation on all these?
MR. BOLLIER: My recommendation -- well, since
we're at pest control, I would like to stay with Hill Country
Pest Control, myself.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. BOLLIER: Then we go to -- I'd like to stay
with D.W. Electric. And then, of course, we'll stay with
Compton's, since they're the only one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move that we accept the
recommendation of the Maintenance Manager.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for the
approval of electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest control
contracts as recommended by the Maintenance Supervisor.
Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only thing I'd like to say is
that I don't know why it is -- I guess there may be some kind
of law or statute or something that requires us to have so
much liability -- or require so much liability insurance from
3-10-08
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
76
each of the people that do contract work for us. And I
understand in the pest control, there's a $1 million
liability policy that's required, and there are other people
that might have bid on this had there only been a half a
million, which is the normal capacity of their bond. So,
saying that, I just thought I'd let you know. Maybe next
year, we'll --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tim, put that down. Look that
up next year. That's a good point.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 11 quickly, to, consider, discuss, take appropriate
action to reappoint three commissioners for Emergency
Services District Number 1 for one-year terms. Commissioner
Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It seems that ESD Number 1
kind of had a -- a lapse of memory on when they needed to get
some Board of Commissioners appointed or reappointed. Last
meeting we appointed -- I believe it was two for two-year
terms, and so I'll make a motion today that we -- or we
3-10-08
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
~~
appoint Kenneth Wood, Donald Oehler, and Joanne Varner as ESD
commissioners for one-year terms so that we can straighten
out the -- the mess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. 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 take
our mid-morning recess. We'll be in recess for approximately
20 minutes.
(Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:52 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We
were in recess. Let's go to Section 4, payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Question or discussion? Five Star Wireless.
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see --
MS. HARGIS: The 216th and the 198th. I didn't
3-10-08
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
78
handle this contract at all, or wasn't involved in it, but I
don't know that they were notified.
JUDGE TINLEY: Everybody was notified.
MS. HARGIS: Well, I don't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Let us get
-- catch up with y'all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page are you on?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm on Page 11.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did they negotiate the deal?
JUDGE TINLEY: And 13.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, 216th District Court.
MS. HARGIS: It's the Judges.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. They weren't notified?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, well. Hell, let's just
pay it and go on. Why are you asking questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Because if they want a county cell
phone, we'll issue them one for ten bucks a copy, and not be
paying $20 and $33, respectively.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: District Judges. You didn't
read it.
I JUDGE TINLEY: Tell somebody that gives a flip.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the kind of phone he
got, a flip phone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe I should go sit out in
the car.
3-10-08
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
79
MS. HARGIS: Let me go and talk to them. I really
don't know, Judge. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: -- I'm sure -- I don't know. You also
asked about Dawn Wright's?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure did.
MS. HARGIS: And she -- I just looked on that bill,
and her -- it goes from 2-4, I think, to 2-14. It was not
the whole month. It's included in the overall bill. I don't
know if she -- I don't know what kind of phone she's got.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, she did have a Sprint, but we
had -- we had that contract in place in January.
MS. HARGIS: Not everybody, I don't think, had got
them in January, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: We had the contract in place in
January. Actually, we were supposed to go on in December.
MS. HARGIS: I thought so.
JUDGE TINLEY: But it was, like, the 20th of
January before we got everything finalized. I do not want to
pay that reimbursement.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. Can we check and see if she
i
was, you know, told at that point? Or when she was told?
'Cause we've had people come in and ask, "When are we going
to go on it?" When did we -- and I didn't know. I really
didn't. And so I can't -- I can't speak to what they knew,
3-10-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
either. I think we need to contact them and find out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't think ignorance is a
-- is a good excuse here. The fact that we were going on the
master contract was known by every elected official and
department head in this courthouse, and we got to cut it off.
You know, this nonsense has been going on for months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the notification?
I Was it --
JUDGE TINLEY: There were e-mail notifications that
went out numerous times on that -- on the contract. And, in
fact, they were told it was December 20 was -- was the
switch-over date.
MS. HARGIS: Were the District Judges notified as
well?
MS. GRINSTEAD: I believe I have them in the group
e-mail for elected officials/department heads. I'll have to
double check, but I'm almost positive they're in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me just ask a dumb
question, kind of slow you down a little bit. You obviously
had too much sugar during the break. (Laughter.) Did -- this
is the middle of March. Is everybody online now?
i
JUDGE TINLEY: I would certainly hope so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I would too. I mean,
that's what you're --
JUDGE TINLEY: In fact, we've added a number that
3-10-08
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
81
-- that weren't initially in the contract, and -- and we've
i added some into the contract. I can't tell you what
everybody on the other end of the communication has done. I
know what they should have done. And if they didn't, you
know, then --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we think they all -- all
received this notification, there's going to be a switch-over
January 1 or whatever -- December 20.
JUDGE TINLEY: December 20.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever it was. And,
what -- what were they -- what am I supposed to do if I want
to switch it over? If I switch over from my personal cell
phone to a county cell phone?
JUDGE TINLEY: Contact Mr. Trolinger.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then he hands you --
hands me a cell phone?
JUDGE TINLEY: He makes arrangements for you to go
pull a cell phone from Five Star Wireless into this contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, everybody's
notified of that, and they chose -- obviously, three of them
chose not to do -- to go that route.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They chose -- they can keep
using their own cell phone and pay for it, like many of us
do. But they can't -- which is what, obviously, they kept
doing. But they kept on submitting their reimbursement, and
3-10-08
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
82
that's what the Judge is saying. I agree with the Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I am too. I agree 100
percent, if that's what we did. I'm just trying to make sure
that's what we did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we need to verify
that that -- or, you know, that e-mail went out, make sure
they all were notified, as long as that went out.
MS. PIEPER: That e-mail said as of December the
20th, that you would not be reimbursed for your cell phone
charges.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: December 20th?
MS. PIEPER: December 20th is what my e-mail said.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the switch-over date. And,
in truth and in fact, we have paid some that bridged over
past that, because we had some delay getting the contract
laid in place, and so they continued billing on an individual
basis. Now, this situation where we got direct billing from
the District Judges, we may have to take a look at that one.
But the reimbursement should not be an issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's why I asked
the question, 'cause we had some delays. Did that affect
anybody, those delays? That's why I asked the question.
JUDGE TINLEY: On -- on individual contracts that
they could have switched over? Shouldn't have. Shouldn't
have had any -- any effect on that, certainly not past
3-10-08
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
January, approximately, the 20th. You had a question?
MS. HYDE: One thing that I will tell you, that if
there was not a cell phone line item in your budget, John's
~ not giving you a cell phone until it goes into your budget.
Now, I will say that, 'cause that's why I don't have one yet.
That's the only "uh" that I've heard of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll inquire of the Judges
and see what the answer is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the time being, the three
don't get paid?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my preference. Any other
questions or discussions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're holding those
three? Is that what you're doing?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not paying them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the only three?
MS. HARGIS: That's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That sought reimbursement,
yeah.
MS. HARGIS: The rest of them are on -- we did find
some problems with the bill, the newest one we have in-house,
but we're working on that one. You don't have that one this
time. And you had a question about the juvenile? You said
revenue, and I pulled revenue, but I bet you meant expense.
3-10-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
84
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, maybe you're going to have to
help me with that. I don't think I've dog-eared my page
here.
MS. HARGIS: You said something about the revenue
being 2 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, Indigent Health Care.
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Indigent Health Care is what I was
talking about. The report that -- that we were furnished
detailed every county in the state, and it showed what
8 percent of your general fund tax levy was, and then it
showed as of January -- and I don't know whether it's January
1st or January 31st -- the percentage of that general tax
fund levy that had been expended for indigent health care
that's outside of these issues, and it showed 2. One piece
of good news there is that begins to run in September, not
October, so it's either four or five months, but even at four
months, that's going to run us to 6.75 -- actually,
6.78 percent at that rate.
MS. HARGIS: We did get some refunds back, so --
again this month, so that should help lower it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the figure we got is
gross and it's not net?
MS. HARGIS: I don't think so. I don't -- I've not
25 ~ seen that report, so --
3-10-08
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: -- I can't speak to it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's all the questions I
have. Other questions or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. On budget
amendments, we've each been furnished a summary sheet for
budget amendment requests as of February 29th, '08, for the
meeting of 3-10-08. Do I hear a motion that these budget
amendments as indicated in the summary be approved as
indicated?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the budget amendments as indicated in the summary
be approved as indicated. Question or discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Item 8, is that -- do I take
that to mean that the City gave us 63,000?
MS. HARGIS: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
MS. HARGIS: No. When --
3-10-08
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
86
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought that was a little bit
of a big number.
MS. HARGIS: When we were doing the budgeting,
we -- one of the hearings, we put an even number, and then we
changed it at the last meeting, and I didn't get that change
made in the system, so I needed to fix it, okay?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: So that it doesn't -- so we're just
moving money from one spot to the other. It was right on our
summary sheet, but it didn't get in the machine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have
any late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No, sir, but I do have something that
I've presented to y'all for just your review. It was at your
desk -- or tables when you sat down. I'm kind of accustomed
to providing some type of a financial statement to my elected
officials over my 30 years, on a monthly basis. So, we're
going to try to provide -- this is all the funds, just a real
summary type of a deal, of all of our expenditures and
expenses through February the 31st, and revenues, so that
3-10-08
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
you'll get an idea of where we're at. And we'll be giving
you one of these probably every -- every month. I think it's
just -- it's good for you to look at, and since all of you
don't have computers, this will be a, you know, help. You
know, hopefully when we get our new budgeting system in
place, which we will be doing in the next 30 days, then
everyone will be able to go online and pull their own. For
those of you who do not have computers -- I understand there
are some Commissioners that don't have computers, so we'll
give you the printouts. Those of you who want access, you're
more than welcome to, you know, come to my office any time
and look at those, or use one of our computers. We do have
an extra one there, so you can -- if you wanted to look at a
particular line item or things of that nature. But, all the
people who will be involved in the new P.O. system and the
budgeting system now have Incode on their machines, and so
I'm going to be doing the training first with the budgeting
so they get used to the system, and then we'll start the P.O.
system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there is -- you have to
at the county, you have Incode now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: So, it's a read-only version, and I'll
3-10-08
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
be glad to step you through that so you can go in there and
check different things. But this is going to be, I think,
very helpful to the department heads as well. I mean, Rusty
already has access. He's one of the few. The rest of them
will be learning. And -- but I'm still going to give you the
booklet, 'cause I think it's nice to have something to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Easier to work with.
MS. HARGIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The column, Percent Budget
Remaining --
MS. HARGIS: That --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All those other numbers are
cute and pretty and all that, but I just feel like that that
is the column that we -- that I pay attention to, at least.
MS. HARGIS: Well, I would --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kind of to really see where
we're at.
MS. HARGIS: I would normally, but unfortunately, a
lot of these line items have been put in there on what they
call a -- on an amount basis, where you can -- it's just
divided by 12, so it's kind of giving you a false picture,
for instance, in your tax revenue area. So, next year we're
going to put them in based on percentages, and then what
it'll do is look back on the prior year, and when those funds
come in, it will actually do those percentages according to
3-10-08
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
when the money's come in. Because your tax money comes in
only four months out of the year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's what makes it
false, is -- yeah, I see what you're saying.
MS. HARGIS: So, you know, you can look at -- some
of your percentages are good and some of them are not. Just
depends on how the revenue comes in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you -- I know I can do the
math, but is there a way that we could automatically print
the number of months divided by 12 so we know what the --
where we are, so to speak? Like, I'm looking down here;
without doing the math, I'd say we're probably around the --
halfway, or almost halfway through the year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Almost halfway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Almost halfway point.
MS. HARGIS: And you can kind of -- really, kind of
look at your -- you know, your budget, as far as your ad
valorem taxes. See, it's showing only 19.38 percent
remaining, and that -- that's about right. You got about
another 2 million there to go, plus or minus. And the others
are getting fairly close to where they need to be. Sales
tax, however, I did notice is running ahead. Tommy was very,
very conservative in that, and I will say that it's probably
a good position to take with sales tax, because it's a very
volatile source of income. Looks like 2009 may be a real
3-10-08
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
90
good time frame. And I did -- I have -- just so you'll know,
I have been looking into the special sales district, but I
haven't got any good information yet. I had some return
calls from attorneys while I was out of town, so I'll try to
get that for you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I take it the sales tax is
listed as Other Taxes?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What else is included this
other than sales?
MS. HARGIS: Mostly that -- I think that's just
pretty much it on that one. Just a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we change the name to
Sales Tax?
MS. HARGIS: But let me check to make sure, okay?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be too easy.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the low --
MS. HARGIS: Not my G.L.
JUDGE TINLEY: The low percentage of budget
remaining in 198th, is that a red flag that, early on, we're
going to have to start feeding the Court-appointed services
and Court-appointed attorneys and special court reporters and
all those things? Interpreters?
MS. HARGIS: This is just the revenue side of it,
3-10-08
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
Judge. I'm sure the -- a lot of these things --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm talking about the expenditure
side.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. What page are you on?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm on Page 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the 216th, isn't it?
JUDGE TINLEY: 198th.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, 198th has only got
30 percent remaining.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 216th District Attorney has
zero remaining.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, I was looking at the
court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Let me look at it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 216th District Court's got
64 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're halfway through --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not halfway through.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not quite halfway through,
and there's only 30 percent of the total budget left.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what this says.
JUDGE TINLEY: For purposes of mental calculations,
what I always do is -- is back off a 30-day period. This
3-10-08
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
shows through February, which would be five months, but your
bills come in on the ensuing 30-month -- 30-day period. So,
really, this represents bills paid through January, so that's
four months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're a third of the way
through, essentially.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Or is February included in
this?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's as of February, but in
February we pay the January bills.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. But right now --
JUDGE TINLEY: So, through January.
MS. HARGIS: There could be some February ones in
there, but not that many. The last court date, you may have
a few. But --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What I'm saying is, what we
approve today to be paid, is that number included in this?
MS. HARGIS: No, it is not.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. That was my question.
MS. HARGIS: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like getting this thing.
MS. HARGIS: Thank you. I'll look into the 198th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I've been presented with
3-10-08
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
monthly reports from Constable, Precinct l; Constable,
Precinct 4; County Clerk, both General and Trust Funds;
Justice of the Peace, Precinct l; Constable, Precinct 3;
Environmental Health; and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3.
Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as
presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
i, approval of the reports as presented. Question or discussion
on the motion? All in favor of the notion, 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 have an
11 o'clock timed item, but it looks like that's going to
be -- or very well could be mostly an executive session item,
so why don't we go to Section 5 and get that out of the way.
Do you have any reports in connection with your liaison or
similar type assignments, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
3-10-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only that the -- kind of
the second phase of the median household income survey that
we're being required to do for Center Point and the eastern
part of Kerr County is underway. The letters are out, and
I've had a lot of phone calls about people asking what this
is all about, and questions on how to proceed, and we should
have -- have that information massaged and come back to us on
whether or not we're going to meet that criteria, I would
think by the end of this month.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, the inquiries, are
they -- are they saying, "What's wrong with you dummies?
We've already done this once"?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. What happened,
Commissioner, was that the first wave, when we sent out 663
letters, using basically the addresses that were provided to
us by KCAD, turned out to be -- a lot of them were property
addresses. That's not where people receive their mail, so we
had about 240 or 250 of them that came back undeliverable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, this is a good exercise.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it is. So, we had to
readdress them and send them back out again. That was why we
had the second wave.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
3-10-08
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
95
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two items. One, I think
two areas that Commissioner Williams and myself have been,
for lack of another word, harping on for the last three years
about airport governance, one, that the City has not been
providing enough detailed information on financial matters,
and two, that the Airport Manager should report to the
Airport Board, both of those items were hit exactly as we
have been saying by the consultant. And, so, a little bit
of, as Commissioner Williams said, "I told you so." And it
was nice to -- you know, an independent body agreed with the
way we were looking at it, that we felt that we were getting
the short end of the stick from the information standpoint
dealing with the City related to the airport. The other
item, on Friday, I spent the morning in Wimberley meeting
with what's come to be called the county-to-county group. I
think they adopted a name now; it's now the Hill Country
County Coalition. This group is really looking at working
with the Legislature -- upcoming Legislature on primarily
subdivision-type rules, trying to get some new authority to
counties. The -- at one point during the meeting, there was
probably 20 different items on the list that we were --
that -- which was to be asked for. And I brought up, and
Judge Millican from Comal County agreed, that that was
3-10-08
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
96
ridiculous. You know, let's narrow to what we really need or
feel like we need, and the list was pared down to two items.
One is that counties -- and these are basically -- and this
also a, I guess, cut. We didn't define it exactly, but on
small lot sizes -- and that's small, maybe 5 acres; it may be
2 acres, something like that -- that counties be allowed to
set density limits. And on small subdivisions, counties be
allowed to assess -- they didn't like the word "impact fee."
I think they came up with the word, a "safety road fund,"
for -- to charge the developer a fee, and those funds go --
or are earmarked for the county roads in the area of that
subdivision. Those were the two items.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean the county roads
that lead up to the subdivision?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those were the two items that
it was narrowed down to, to go to Legislature and look at.
Depending on how it came out, I could probably support those,
but I'm sitting on the fence a little bit. Some of the
counties, I will say that, in the Hill Country seem to want a
lot more authority than I think we need to have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyways, thanks to Judge
Millican being there to help.
3-10-08
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't elevate him. He'd be
very unhappy if you elevated him.
~i
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wouldn't be very happy?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll bet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought he was a judge.
Anyway, I think they're going to -- the next meeting is in
Blanco sometime coming up before too long. But, anyway --
and it looks like the big, I guess, split right now in the
group is that a majority of the group, I'd say, wants to hire
a lobbyist, and they think that that money can be raised.
Obviously, everyone agrees that it can't come from county
funds. That we should go to people that may be receptive to
this and try raise it from the communities at large. They
talked with former Representative Carter Casteel, who is now
a lobbyist, and familiar with these type issues, what that
would cost, and she gave us a ballpark figure of $60,000 to
I~ fund a bill through the -- or kind of birddog a bill through
the Legislature. And, you know, that's kind of where that
stopped. They -- there was quite a few on the -- on the
group that thought that the way that we get our allies and
funding was through environmental groups, and I explained to
them that if they went that route, I think Kerr County would
probably go a different direction. They were talking about
3-10-08
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
98
the more radical environmental groups. I think I'm pretty
environmental-minded, but I don't think that I'm going to see
myself aligned with the Sierra Club on something, generally.
They do some good work, but they have some political agendas
that I don't agree with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd be surprised if you
did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that's kind of where that
meeting was in Wimberley.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One quick note about what
you talked about. You and I have a meeting on Thursday,
maybe the first of the meetings that we're trying to organize
with the City to talk about the airport and the library and
animal control issues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, Commissioner Baldwin
and I have the first one. We're at 11 o'clock that same day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good. Make them
really mad so they'll be good for 1 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're meeting with --
Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Coleman, I believe, are meeting with
Buster and myself out at the Road and Bridge Department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then -- 1 o'clock?
3 o'clock? What time are we meeting?
3-10-08
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
99
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think ours is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sometime in the afternoon,
we're meeting with somebody else. I forgot who we're meeting
with. That's it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's it, huh? I don't have
a whole lot to add. I just, I guess, will say that we have
had a little bit of a problem with one particular volunteer
at the Animal Control, and that volunteer, I believe, is no
longer there. She's the lady that came from outside the
county and was doing the photographs of the animals that were
up for adoption, to be put on the Petfinder.com, and was
causing some controversy that was unnecessary and unwarranted
out there. And, so, now we are doing it ourselves. We have
a little gal out there that can take -- her name is Sarah, I
believe, and she is able to take the photographs and write
the articles and put it on Petfinder without having this
volunteer person come and do it. Janie's giving her off two
hours twice a week to go and put it on -- do it through her
home computer, because we still don't have a fast computer at
Animal Control; they're still working with the dial-up, and
it takes forever to download those things. As soon as we get
that available, they will do it at the shelter. But, for the
time being, it is being done, but we're doing it ourselves.
And that has eliminated a big problem there that has surfaced
out there.
3-10-08
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
100
Ray and some of his staff have been in San Antonio
last week, Environmental Health, getting some -- some more
certification on solid waste issues, and I think they've
completed that course. Things down there seem to be going
well. They're making some progress on some of these solid
waste issues, as well as the turn-around time on the -- on
septic issues relating to basically checking the documents
that come in and making sure that the -- that what they are
proposing to do they will do before they grant permits to --
to construct. I believe we have -- I know we have three
certified finally in Environmental Health doing those things,
and the turn-around time is very greatly increased. A lot of
those are one-day turn-arounds, where they used to be a week,
10 days, sometimes longer. So, I don't -- I haven't been
getting any complaints from anybody saying that they've been
held up and they're not getting their work done because of
Environmental Health holding up the process. So, I think
they're doing a really good job at that, and that's about all
I have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, any plans to
-- for Solid Waste/Environmental Health to file for some of
those grants that are available through the Solid Waste
Committee up at AACOG?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I do not know that right now.
I haven't talked to Ray about it, but I'll find that out
3-10-08
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
101
before the next meeting. We can ask him this afternoon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have any reports from
elected officials? Department heads?
MS. HYDE: Just to update you gentlemen, we've had
three meetings now with the City H.R., and they've requested
a fourth meeting on Wednesday, and they've asked for you and
I both, Judge, to be there. One of the things that we
reviewed was what I gave to Rex, was the contract that had
been given out. And we've given them a high profile of the
folks in our county that work for us; very high, male/female,
date of birth, that type of information, so that we can do
the first -- what we assume was the first part of the risk
analysis to see if it was something viable on the health
insurance. They're now requesting a little bit more detailed
information. They want our claims for the last two years.
And at that point, we'll -- that's why we want to have
another meeting; we want to discuss it a little bit further.
They do want detailed claims information, and based upon what
it shows in -- in this interlocal agreement for Chapter 791
and 271, I think our County Attorney will agree, it appears
that they want to get this information so that they can put
out an RFP. And so we feel a little bit unsure at this point
what they want, so we want to have another meeting with them
3-10-08
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
102
before we go any further.
JUDGE TINLEY: You say they want to put out an RFP?
MS. HYDE: The consultant. And this information
that they gave to us, one of the items in here is that they
get this information and they do an RFP, and that way they
can see, can we get some bids if we put the insurance
together for the two groups?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wouldn't that kind of
confuse --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Premature.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it'd be pretty
confusing. We have -- I mean, really confuse our carrier and
their carrier if, all of a sudden, an RFP goes out.
MR. EMERSON: It's real premature. If you look at
Chapter 791, there's a number of actions that have to take
place, or should take place before any request for RFP ever
goes out, and as far as I know, none of those actions have
taken place. So --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would think that that RFP
would have to be blessed by both entities, and not just put
out by the City on our behalf.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would agree with that.
MS. HYDE: Yeah, I don't think that's what they --
what their intent is. I think that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
3-10-08
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
MS. HYDE: We just need to get together with their
consultant again and make sure that we're all understanding
what we're attempting to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the initial stage here is to
determine whether there's basic compatibility to pull the two
groups together, and unless we can cross that threshold, I
don't see us getting to the next threshold, which would
include a detailed risk analysis of the type that would be
made in an RFP situation. But in discussions with -- with
our consultant, Mr. Looney, who has not been in on any of
these --
MS. HYDE: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, intentionally. I didn't
think it was necessary on the early stages. But we have
apprised him of what's occurred, and he has indicated to us
that -- I say "us" -- Ms. Hyde and I, that he's seen a number
of instances where various school districts have been able to
pool together, primarily smaller school districts, smaller
staffs, and pool together so as to create a larger pool. He
indicated that he has seen a number of instances where city
and county governments have attempted to find a way in which
they could pool, and he has yet to see one that has made it
to the point where it was ever submitted, I think, for even
an RFP, detailed risk analysis for bid by -- by a health
benefits provider. He said there's -- there's just some
3-10-08
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
104
wrinkles there that, so far, are just a little tough to
overcome. So, we're trying to see if maybe some of those
wrinkles are being smoothed out. If they aren't, we -- it
may be one of those things that, as Mack Hamilton said, you
know, may be something we can't do. Let's look at something
else. So, that's where we are on it.
MS. HYDE: We did agree to some items that we could
attempt to share. It's not to say necessarily large dollar
amounts, but it is, like, shared services. On our H.R.
pages, we can both put down jobs that are open between the
City and the County. To save a little bit of time, people
can go to those web sites and look at both, and also pool
applications. We're going to share -- we can share some
training. In fact, this Friday we're going to have three
folks and myself participate in a new supervisor's
orientation the City does, and then critique it, and let them
look at what we have and see if we can't modulate it together
into something that we can both use. And also look at, can
we put ourselves together so that instead of having personnel
go over to the emergency room at Sid Pete or over at Hill
Country in Fredericksburg as the first resort to small
injuries, we're working with two local emergency care
facilities to see if we can do that to save some money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the Boerne area, there is
a -- it's called Urgent Care Clinic. Is there a new one that
3-10-08
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
105
opened up in Kerrville?
MS. HYDE: Sid Pete has a new one down on Junction
Highway.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Minor Injury Care, or
something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's another one out
of Boerne. I think Boerne's is Urgent Care, but I think they
opened up one here. There's quite a few of them around.
Franklin Clinic, too. Boy, that's the way to go with that
stuff, to me. I mean, it's a whole lot more reasonable than
going to the emergency room, and it's very good care.
MS. HYDE: We just have to be careful on the
clinics, any -- any clinic -- any of the smaller clinics,
because if they use P.A.'s versus doctors, the insurance will
not pay. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they do.
MS. HYDE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they do use P.A.'s.
JUDGE TINLEY: Some do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other one at Boerne, they
have two -- three emergency room doctors who are retired that
they -- pretty much, the doctors run it, and it's -- it is --
that's a good thing. They have, you know, got to look at the
pitfalls, but it's an attempt to -- seems to me, to save
funds.
3-10-08
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
MS. HYDE: We just have to make sure -- if we go
forward, of course, we'll bring it to you, and y'all can
review it and see what we've got. But we want to make it
where it's pretty accessible for the employees on a minor
injury type basis.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds like you're speaking
from experience in the recent past, with two sons.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They go a lot, and it's always
on weekends. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Hyde.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're regulars.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports from elected
officials? Department heads? Any other reports we need to
receive? We've got an 11:30 timed item -- sorry, did you
have something?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I see the -- the
wonderful Democratic Party --
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a timed item for 11:30, and
I'm going to call that item now. Number 16, to consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to approve consolidating the
polling locations for the Democratic runoff into four
locations.
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, the Department of Justice
normally requires 60 days for approval. And I talked to that
office the other day, and they will give us expedient
3-10-08
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
107
consideration if I can get this approved and get them all the
necessary paperwork, and if we use the same four locations
that we used during the last consolidated precincts, that
being -- Precinct 1 is River Hills Mall; Precinct 2, the
Union Church; Precinct 3, the courthouse, the lower level;
and then Precinct 4, the First Presbyterian Church.
JUDGE TINLEY: In Ingram?
MS. PIEPER: In Ingram. So, I just need approval
to consolidate into these four locations.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got any problem with that?
MS. LARIMER: No, I'm in total agreement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval as indicated. Further question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay, let's
get back to Items 12, 13, 14, and 15. All of those indicate
executive session. My first inquiry is, on any of those
items -- I certainly understand real estate acquisitions is a
3-10-08
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
108
matter that's executive session eligible. On the others,
they appear to be personnel-related. Are there any portions
of those that are related to general management, staffing,
structure of a department, as opposed to individual
employees, that we can handle in the clear in open session?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On 14, why would it be in
executive session?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my question, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's your question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. If we're talking about --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who's going to answer the
dadgum question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hyde?
MS. HYDE: I'll answer the dad-burn question. The
dad-burn question answer is that, because we're going to talk
about specific individuals. But it's deferred at this point,
because Diane Bolin still is not available.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're not even going to
deal with it?
MS. HYDE: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're going to pass item -- Item
14?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
3-10-08
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
109
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is there any portion of 13
that could be handled in open or public session? Are we
talking about solely one individual?
MS. HYDE: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir, what?
MS. HYDE: We're not talking solely about one
individual.
JUDGE TINLEY: Then we're talking about department
structuring --
MS. HYDE: There'll be a couple of people
discussed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But we're talking solely
about individuals?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 15. We're
talking about individuals there?
MS. HYDE: Some of it. There is some that we could
talk out in the public, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm going to call Item 15;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on internal
posting of the department head for Court Compliance
Department. Commissioner Baldwin, did you want to open it,
or pass it to her?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just pass it to her.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good.
3-10-08
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
110
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So far.
MS. HYDE: The first part that I believe --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, this is the open part.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sorry. I was...
MS. HYDE: First part that I think that can fall
under open is that we did our internals, and we had one
person apply internally for the position, and he's the
current position holder. So -- but in addition to that,
there were some questions. And I haven't been able to review
it with you, Commissioner Baldwin, but I think that you have
a little bit of knowledge, Judge, about the Perdue, Brandon,
Fielder, Collins, and Mott Limited Partnership. There has
been some discussion about this office, anyway, and whether
or not there was two or three people needed, or one or two
people needed. And Perdue and Brandon have talked with us,
and they say that, basically, they can help us with some of
these collections, and the cost will be zero to the County,
in that if there's $1,000 out there -- $1,000 out there
that's owed to the County in collections, that they'll add
30 percent to that, which is their reimbursement for
themselves, so that it would still be $1,000 coming to the
County, plus they get a tacked on amount for their fee. They
do a lot of work in this area. They can -- they have a lot
of expertise in contacting and finding people, especially
3-10-08
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
111
from a higher level.
MR. EMERSON: Can I ask a general question? How
are we fitting within the agenda item?
JUDGE TINLEY: I was going to say, it looks like
we're getting outside.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we're not talking about how many
people we're going to have in the department; we're just
talking about the department head, is all we're talking about
now. That's the agenda item, I think.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: Well, and on top of --
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, on internal posting only
for the department head.
MS. HYDE: We had the one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. That's all we can
handle in open? Okay. At this time, it is 11:38. We will
go out of public or open session to go into executive session
i
to discuss Items 12, 13, and 15.
(The open session was closed at 11:38 a.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's 12:01, and we're now
back in public or open session. Does any member of the Court
3-10-08
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
112
have anything to offer with regard to matters which were
discussed in executive or closed session?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Regarding Item 13, Judge, I
would move that the position of interim chief deputy be
extended to Cheryl Thompson for an additional 90 days.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval as indicated. I assume that's based upon the
compensation as previously --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- received during the prior
six-month period?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
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. Anything
else to be offered with regard to matters considered in
executive or closed session?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On Item 1.15, I move that we
appoint Mr. Will Brown as the -- what? Director? What is
that?
3-10-08
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Manager?
MS. HYDE: Call him the manager, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Manager of the Court
Compliance office --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Department.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded.
Compensation, Commissioner? Current compensation? Is that
what we're talking about?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean "current" as in
where he is --
JUDGE TINLEY: What he's presently making.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or does he go to the -- the
position -- the salary of that position? That's -- that's
where I'm at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that he would -- when he
takes over the leadership, decision-making role, that then he
takes that same salary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that an exempt position or
not?
MS. HYDE: It was an exempt position prior, and it
should not have been.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should not be?
3-10-08
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
114
MS. HYDE: Should not be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where would --
MS. HYDE: And also, when I went back and looked,
part of the reason why the prior position was funded the way
it was is because the employee had longevity, and he was
never reduced. His pay was always increased. So, currently,
the position being held by Will is at a 17, Grade 17. He is
a Step 4 because of longevities. And the other one was
exempt at 40,375. A 17 is 29 -- 17-4 is 29,088.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's a 19-4?
MS. HYDE: 19-4 is 32,108.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's a 21-4?
MS. HYDE: 35,441.43.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He currently is a 17-4?
MS. HYDE: 17-4, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that number is?
MS. HYDE: 29,088.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the prior position, there
was also other responsibilities in that job.
MS. HYDE: I.T.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I.T. responsibilities.
MS. HYDE: A lot of I.T.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That goes away.
MS. HYDE: No -- yes, sir. They don't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not part of this.
3-10-08
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
115
MS. HYDE: No, sir, this is not part of this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would -- would a department head
position for a small department, as it were, would that fall
under 19? Would it fall under 21? Where would that
normally --
MS. HYDE: Well, the closest thing that we have, of
course, would be --
JUDGE TINLEY: How about Environmental Health?
MS. HYDE: -- Environmental Health and Animal
Control.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. HYDE: And Environmental Health, he was brought
in as a 25.1. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: But there's about six employees out
there, correct?
MS. HYDE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HYDE: And then Animal Control is a 23. And if
I go back to Maintenance, Maintenance is right there as well
at a 23.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What is that salary?
MS. HYDE: 23-1 is 36,327.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would like it at either a 19
or a 20 -- 20 or 21, somewhere in there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wouldn't look -- I would
3-10-08
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
not look at that department being -- being a higher level
than Environmental Health or Animal Control, because they're
not supervising anybody. It's a one-person department.
MS. HYDE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 19-4, I think, is a good
fit. Just my opinion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that is what?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's 32,108.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that's a little bit less
than what Tim and Janie and those departments and Ray is
drawing?
MS. HYDE: Yeah, you bet. It's 32,108, which is
about two grand -- an increase of about two grand.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll buy that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three grand?
MS. HYDE: Three grand, I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What is your motion? 19-4?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second to
bring in Will Brown as manager of the Court Compliance
Department at Grade 19, Step 4. Question or discussion on
3-10-08
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
25
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
I your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any more
business, gentlemen? We'll be adjourned. We have a workshop
at 1:30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't you maybe want to recess?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's a workshop we've got
~ posted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but in case, after --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. In case we might want to do
something, all right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we back on the damn
cattle guards?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we're going to put -- install
some cattle guards over the lunch hour. Let me retract the
adjournment, and we will be in recess until 1:30 this
afternoon.
(Recess taken from 12:07 p.m. to 1:32 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might. We were in recess from our Commissioners Court
meeting until 1:30. It's a bit past that now. Anybody have
3-10-08
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
118
anything to offer -- are there any open-ended things from our
Commissioners Court meeting of this morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is there a possibility there
may be so before we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was the one that we
decided --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right, then I will
adjourn the Commissioners Court meeting which was originally
commenced this morning at 9 a.m.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 1:33 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 14th day of March, 2008.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : _ ~ G~N~-~__ _____
Kathy ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
3-10-08
ORDER NO. 30755
CONCEPT OF REVISION OF PLAT FOR TRACT 3, THEODORE &
DOROTHEA OEHLER ESTATE
Came to be heard this the 10th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve setting a Public Hearing for April 14, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. for the Concept
of Revision of Plat for Tract 3, Theodore & Dorothea Oehler Estate, Vol. 4, Page
27, Pct. 4.
ORDER NO. 30756
PURCHASE OF CASE 800 SERIES MOTOR GRADER
Came to be heard this the 10th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the purchase of a Case 800 Series Motor Grader by the Road & Bridge
Department.
ORDER NO. 30757
ELECTION FOR COUNTY WIDE LIVESTOCK OPEN RANGE LAW
Came to be heard this the 10th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the County Attorney to pursue acounty-wide Open Range Law, with the
goal of having it on the November, 2008 ballot.
ORDER NO. 30758
PRESENTATION ON INCORPORATION OF THE COMMUNITY OF
COMFORT
Came to be heard this the 10th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Resolution as submitted from the Committee concerning
incorporation of the community of Comfort.
ORDER NO. 30759
KEIZR COUNTY DEMOCRA"1'IC YAR'I'Y USE OF DIS"1'IZICT COUR"I'ROOM
Came to be heard this the 10th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. 'I~he Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the Democratic Party to use either District Courtroom 1 or 2, subject to
availability, from 1-6:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 29, 2008, for the purpose of
holding the Kerr County Democratic Party Convention.
ORDER NO. 3 0760
FINAI, PI:,f1'I' OF INFAMOUS 1169 RANCH
Caine to he heard this the loth day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin/Lets. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Final Plat of Infamous 1169 Ranch, Vol. 8, Page 10, Pct. 4.
ORI)I~.R NO. 30761
INTERNA"I'IONAL CONGRESS OF SPELEOLOGY TO RI:N1~ UNION
CHURCII AT REDUCED RATE
Came to be heard this the 10th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Comn~issioncr Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved. by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Grant the International Congress of Speleology a 50% reduction on the rental rate
for the Union Church for the period July 17-27, 2009.
OIZI~I_;IZ NO. 30762
MAINTLNANCIJ CON"I'RAC'1'S I~~OR I:LF,C"I'RICAL, PI.UMI3INU, HVAC
AND P~;S'h CONTROL
Came to be heard. this the 10th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Count unanii~~ously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept the recommendations o1~ the Maintenance Supervisor For electrical,
plumbing, hvac and pest control contracts, as follows:
1. Hill Country Pest for Pest Control Services
2. D.W. 1Jlectric for Electrical Services
3. Compton's of Kerrville for IIVAC Services
ORDER. NO. 30763
ISD #1 APYOINI~MENT OF COMMISSIONERS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of March, 2008, with a motion n~~ade by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-U-U to:
Appoint Kenneth Wood, Donald Oehler & Jo Anne Varner as ESD Commissioners
for one-year terms.
ORDER. NO. 30764
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of March, 2008, came to be considered by the
Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts		Expense
10-General	$	220,993.63
14-Fire Protection	$	16,568.33
15-Road & Bridge	$	19,570.73
18-County Law Library	$	3,022.44
19-Public Library	$	36,972.25
28-Records Mgmt & Preservation	$	13,355.38
29-Court House Security	$	1.00
41-Records Archival	$	5.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	42,653.47
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	4,139.48
77-LEOSE Funds	$	300.00
82-SO Law Enforcement	$	310.33
		
TOTAL	$	357, 892.04
t)pon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners
Williams/Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the
claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 30765
~3UDGET AMENDMENTS NOS. 1-8 AS OI' FEBRt1ARY 29, 2008
Came to be heard this the lOt" day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Lett, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Budget Amendments requests of hebruar-y 29, ?008, as per the
Summary presented.
ORDER NO. 30766
MONTHLY REPORTS
Caine to be heard this the 10th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
Constable Pct. # 1
Constable Pct. #4
County Clerk -General and Trust Fund
JP # 1
Constable Pct #3
Environmental Health
JP #3
ORDER NO. 30767
CONSOLIDATION OF DEMOCRATIC RUN-OFF POLLING LOCATIONS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve consolidating the polling locations for the Democratic Run-Off into 4
locations as follows:
1.	Precinct 1 -	River Hills Mall
2.	Precinct 2 -	Union Church
3.	Precinct 3 -	Courthouse
4.	Precinct 4 -	I sc Presbyterian Church in Ingram
ORDER NO. 30768
EXTENSION OF INTERIM CIIIEF DEPUTY IN COUNTY CL1KK'S OI~'I' fCE
Caine to be heard this the 10th day of March, 2008, ~x~~ith a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler-. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-U:
That the position of Interim Chief Deputy be extended to Cheryl Thompson Ior an
additional 90 days, based upon the same compensation as received during the prior
six-month period.
ORDER NO. 30769
DEI'AIZTMENT HEAD FOR COUK'I COMPLIANCE DEPAR'hMEN"1'
Came to be heard. this the 10th day of March, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners OehLer/L.etz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote o I~ 4-0-0:
'To appoint Mr. Will Brown as the Manager of the Court Compliance Office at a
grade 19 step 4.