:1
,~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, August 10, 2009
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
~C
6'
d
+G7
Oo
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I N D E X
August 10, 2009
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, approve amending Court Order
No. 31347, replacement of Election Judges and
Alternates for the term of one year in accordance
with Texas Election Code Section 32
1.2 Presentation of audit report of the Office of
Court Compliance
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
declare certain personal property as surplus;
authorize disposing of same
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
allow Maintenance Department to reconfigure their
office space in the basement of the courthouse
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize participation by Road and Bridge with
City of Kerrville on sealcoating project for Alamo
Drive North, Olympic Drive North, and San Jacinto
Drive North, Precinct 3
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
verify areas of interest in each precinct for
Zone A Floodplain studies, Pct. 1, 2, 3 and 4
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding black fire hydrants, MOU's and ESD's
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
allow Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District
to drill a monitoring well on Lower Reservation
Road, Precinct 4
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set
public hearing for private road name, Moorhead
Road East, Precinct 2
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Kerr County Appraisal District's proposed budget
amendment
PAGE
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
25
34
38
39
25
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
I N D E X (Continued)
August 10, 2009
PAGE
l.ll Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
contract for professional services received
from Allison, Bass and Associates, LLP,
regarding extension of Chapter 258, Texas
Transportation Code 40
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
implementation of the Burn Ban 46
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve and adopt the Personnel Policy --
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
appeal of DFC's set by GMA9 47
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
request public hearing in compliance with SB1685
to establish a District Court Technology Fund,
set a fee not to exceed $5 to be assessed on the
filing of civil actions, and approve District
Clerk's annual plan for preservation/restoration
of district court records archive 49
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
comply with HB3637, establish a "County & District
Court Technology Fund", and set a filing fee not
to exceed $10 to be assessed in each civil case
to be used only to digitize court records and
preserve records from natural disasters 55
1.18 Consider, discuss and take appropriate action to
authorize RFP's for inmate food service 59
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate regarding
submission of application for a Homeland Security
grant for communications equipment 60
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding
approval of inmate housing contract between Kerr
County Sheriff's Office and Gillespie County
Sheriff's Office 61
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding applying to local foundations for
grant to upgrade audio-visual technology in
three courtrooms 70
4
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)	
	August 10, 2009	
		PAGE
1.12	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	
	regarding removal of Road & Bridge surplus	
	property from fixed assets	77
1.22	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	
	authorizing Road and Bridge to haul water	
	to preserve and stabilize recently installed	
	at-risk landscaping at the courthouse if needed	79
4.1	Pay Bills	83
4.2	Budget Amendments	83
4.3	Late Bills	--
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	92
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	92
5.2	Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads	100
---	Adjourned	105
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, August 10, 2009, 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: Okay. Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me welcome you to this regularly scheduled
Kerr County Commissioners Court meeting posted and scheduled
for this time and date, Monday, August 10, 2009, 9 a.m. It
is that time now. If you would, please stand and join me in
a moment of prayer and then a pledge of allegiance to the
flag of our country.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, now is
your opportunity to tell us what's on your mind. If you wish
to be heard on an agenda item, we would ask that you fill out
a participation form. There should be some located at the
back of the room. It's not essential. It helps me to not
overlook you when we get to that item. However, if we get to
an item that you wish to be heard on, and you haven't filled
out a participation form, get my attention in some manner and
I'll see that you do have that opportunity. But right now,
8-10-09
<?
3
4
5
h
_~
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
if there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard
on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, come forward
where everybody can see you now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can y'all see me up here?
It's been years since anybody's fooled with my chair.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wasn't here; don't blame
me.
not through with my anger over that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's because you stole
mine. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I wanted to bring
this thing here up. It's -- I received it from the Veterans
Administration last week. And I haven't looked at it close,
close, but I've had a visit with a couple of folks that do
know about it. And it's just information I wanted to give to
the Commissioners Court and the public today that -- that
there's a huge possibility and a probability, I think, of the
Veterans Administration property out there, of leasing
5 acres of their property to some private company that's
going to build some housing for homeless veterans, which is a
good thing, in my opinion. Along with that, then, the
8-10-09

2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1a
20
21
22
23
24
25
homeless veterans' families -- this is what I understand; I
don't know if this is true or not, but this is what I
understand. That they get the homeless veterans there, and
then the homeless veterans' families come here and live as
well, and then county taxpayers pick up the tab on that. So,
it's something to keep an eye on. They've had -- this is a
presentation, as you can see, and they have -- so they've had
a couple of meetings on it, and there may be more to come.
And after today, I will -- I'm going to contact the folks
that make this presentation and ask them to come to this
Court next time to just to let us know, let the taxpaying
public know in Kerr County, what -- what their plans are.
That's all, Judge. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I enjoyed a few days
away in southern California, away from the Texas heat, and
the most that they had out there was the low 90's, nighttime
about 50 degrees, but they didn't have any rain either. But
it's always good to be back. What was interesting to me out
there this time -- I visit my brother once every year or
so -- was the devastation in the commercial property.
Everywhere you drive in southern California, there's either
an "Available" sign -- I mean, commercial property is just
really on the rocks out there, so they're feeling the brunt
of -- in addition to the housing market, the commercial
8-10-09
8
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
20
21
22
23
24
25
property is suffering just about as bad. It's always good to
be back. Sorry we didn't get more rain while I was gone. I
gave you a chance, but it's good to be back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just L.C.R.A. a little bit, and
I think probably most of the Court's aware of what happened,
and this is probably a good thing, but not a real good thing.
The Westwind station, which was on the table to be built up
Highway 16, which would be a -- kind of take some of the
power that's coming in from the west to Westwind station,
then shoot it up towards the new transmission line towards
Gillespie County. That substation has been taken off the
table, which means that the lines will just come from the
west to Comfort, and then from Comfort north. So, it's -- it
may minimize some of the impact. It doesn't really increase
any lines going into the Comfort area, because they would
have been built regardless, but it does change a little bit
of the dynamics in northern Kerr County up Highway 16.
Doesn't mean that those lines aren't possibly going to be
used, 'cause they may send it far enough north that they're
going to use some of those transmission lines to the south,
but there would not be a substation built there. So, that's
probably -- it's good for the people right in that area, I
think, but you never know until the final decision's made.
Other than that, just, you know, had a little bit of rain in
8-10-09
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the eastern part of the county since we last met, some
windstorms. Some areas got about 2 inches right around
Comfort. Other areas got fires from lightning strikes.
Quite a few fires, not too big, north of Comfort. So, that's
kind of where we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, there were -- we were
kind of blessed and not blessed in the west end, as the case
has been going for a long time. Seems that most of the rain
happened south of the river, and south of 39 -- actually,
1340 and 39. Mo Ranch area was blessed with over 2 and a
half inches in one night, and they already had an inch or
something before that. And the river actually came up just a
little bit. Didn't last long, but, of course, you know,
that -- that creates more problems with the burn ban, because
everybody north didn't get anything, and the people down
south are giving me a tongue-lashing for not taking the burn
ban off. So, anyway, over half of my area didn't get but
less than a half, and with 100-degree heat, it was -- it was
all gone by noon the next day. So, anyway, that's kind of
unfortunate; it's unfair for part of the area that is blessed
like that not to be able to burn, when others for sure can't
burn. Anyway, that's it. We just need more rain. That's
24 it.
25
8-10-09
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Following up a bit on
10
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 c~
20
21
22
23
24
25
the L.C.R.A. transmission situation, we got this word late
last week. The L.C.R.A. rep brought it to me, and I see it
as potentially good news. With the Westwind station off the
map, there's not a have-to requirement that it would come to
that location. It may very well go north of there. Now, we
may not be in any better shape, or -- though we can't be in
any worse shape, is I think the end result of that. But it
will have to get to Comfort in some way, shape, form, or
fashion, and then go north into Gillespie County. But I see
it as potentially good news, if there's good news to be had
from that entire situation. So, we'll wait and see until
they identify their alternate routes as to where they think
they may be going. I noted that Representative Hilderbran
has requested that the P.U.C. consider taking these lines
down 277 up to the northwest of us, and then following I-10
down here. That, of course, would -- if, in fact, it were to
happen all the way to Comfort, it, of course, would put it
totally within our view, and I'm not sure how well that's
going to work. But there's a lot to be sorted out between
now and then, and we'll just see how it develops.
Let's get on with our agenda, if we might. The
first item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and approve
amending Court Order Number 31347, replacement of election
judges and alternates for a term of one year in accordance
with Texas Election Code Section 32. Good morning.
8-10-09
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. ALFORD: Good morning. Once we sent out the
notice of elections, I had two alternate judges decide that
they did not want to be alternate judges. And the parties
requesting to be replaced, in Precinct 303, Wanda Holekamp
with Margaret Morries, and in Precinct 118, JoAnn Jones with
Donna Mideke.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you,
Ms. Alford.
MS. ALFORD: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 2, presentation of an audit
report of the office of Court Compliance. Ms. Mabry?
MS. MABRY: Yes, sir. Good morning. I recently
did the audit of Court Compliance, and I'm finding that
they're a very efficient department, doing very well. Are
there any questions that you gentlemen have about the report?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any
questions concerning the audit report that we've received?
8-10-09
12
,~
3
~}
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we do?
us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we accept it, or what do
JUDGE TINLEY: It does not indicate that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any action?
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything more than it's presented to
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Ms. Mabry. We
appreciate it. Item 3 is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to declare certain personal property as
surplus and authorize disposal of same. Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, I have seven very old
chairs that have been in the back of my office forever, that
are unsafe, that I want to declare surplus, and a green metal
stool.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
s-io-oa
13
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to Item 5. That will be to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to allow the Maintenance Department to
reconfigure office space in the basement of the courthouse.
Mr. Bollier?
MR. BOLLIER: I believe each one of y'all have a --
have a little drawing that I made. The main reason I want to
do this is down there where my office is, I want to -- it's
more like a loss control, liability type thing, where I can
put all my chemicals up and locked up into where my office is
now, so I can move some stuff around, make a little more
room, make it look a little better down there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much is this going to cost?
MR. BOLLIER: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much is this going to cost?
MR. BOLLIER: Well, I have the money in my budget,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That wasn't my question.
MR. BOLLIER: I haven't even put it to paper. It
should not cost over probably about $2,200, if that much.
That's just on the high side. I have not put it to paper.
JUDGE TINLEY: Based on what you explained to me,
Tim, I don't -- I don't see it even approaching that.
MR. BOLLIER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to partition off two
offices and put in some doorways, and --
8-10-09
14
1
,~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$1,200.
MR. BOLLIER: It will probably be more like about
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. BOLLIER: Something like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's close.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
MR. BOLLIER: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get down to Item 7; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to authorize
participation by Road and Bridge with the City of Kerrville
on sealcoating project for Alamo Drive North, Olympic Drive
North, and San Jacinto Drive North, located in Precinct 3.
We had this item agendaed incorrectly as to location last
time, so --
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- it was necessary that we bring it
back. This is also part of our pilot program working with
8-10-09
15
:L
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 City to try and create some efficiencies dealing with
their road issues. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. You have enclosed in the
agenda item that I have the information of the roads and what
our participation would be and what the City's participation
would be. At this time, we ask the Court for their approval
for Road and Bridge to participate in this sealcoat project
on Alamo Drive and Olympic Drive and San Jacinto Drive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll move to
Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
verify areas of interest in each precinct for Zone A of the
floodplain studies, Precincts 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. At the last meeting we
discussed this, and it was asked that we come back this time
again to ask for that list. Buster has already given us his
list, and if he wishes to add anything like the rest of the
Court at this point, we would encourage you to do that.
8-10-09
1
,~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
Based upon that, then, I would ask your authorization to
proceed to find out what funding we can receive from the
State based on the motion we gave you, as well as what Buster
has given us. And we're still open at this point, if
something should come to mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I was out of town
when the rest of the Commissioners may have responded to you,
but I do have some creeks I'd like to put on the list, if you
will.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got your pencil ready?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Verde Creek. I believe
Wilson Creek flows into Verde Creek just before it gets into
the Guadalupe River. That comes through Center Point
Estates; take a look at what that's all about.
MR. ODOM: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same with Steel Creek,
which flows into the river about the center of Center Point,
comes in from the north, crosses Highway 27.
MR. ODOM: 27, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And tends to back up in a
flood situation. And Turtle Creek; ought to take a look at
those. Turtle Creek, as you know, comes in just around
Brinks Crossing, somewhere in that area, just a little bit
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 _`i
17
south of Brinks Crossing, but has a tendency to back way up
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so I'd like to take a
look at all of that, okay?
MR. ODOM: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, how much -- like, Verde
Creek goes -- is huge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, and our funding is --
we're limited to a pretty --
MR. ODOM: Within a mile, at least a mile from the
Guadalupe, where it flows into it. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I have no idea -- I
know where you're going with the question, Commissioner,
and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't take all the money.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- I don't know how far to
go, but I've had some discussions with some of the folks who
live out on Elm Pass Road, and it has been known to go way
out on Elm Pass Road in terms of flooding situations.
However we can go, I really don't know, 'cause I have no idea
what kind of money we're going to be able to put to this
project, how much is available for us. But, you know, I
8-10-09
18
7_
,~
~_
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
defer to others in terms of what's reasonable. I don't know
how far to go.
MR. ODOM: This -- we can always -- my thoughts
were when we started looking into this, is that this would be
an ongoing situation. We take so much, we get it done, then
we look at probably the next year or the following year,
however the State would do the funding. And probably it
would be every other year, if I had to guess at it. And so
we would look at those points, and we just keep extending on
out with certain tributaries to take a look at. And you --
you know, if it's Verde Creek or whatever, within a mile or
two of the Guadalupe, we'd look at that; maybe the next time
we'd go out a little bit farther. And I understand that once
you get past a mile or two on Verde Creek, you're really
limited on the number of people that really are being
affected at that point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's probably true.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. And we will come to the Court
and -- and we'll prioritize these things to let the Court
make that decision. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And another question. Bill,
you mentioned Wilson Creek.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe it's Wilson; it
comes through Center Point Estates and flows into Verde.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wilson --
8-10-09
19
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: Elm Creek, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it Elm?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Elm Creek. Wilson Creek is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wilson --
MR. ODOM: Is over right off --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Change that. It's Elm
Creek.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wilson Creek's up by cattle
guards.
JUDGE TINLEY: Cattle guards flow down the creek?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Intersection.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This past --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Elm Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The last big flood we had -- I
don't know, the one that we had a lot of damage, Hermann Sons
Bridge knocked out, that big flood, it seems to me that FEMA
did quite a bit of studying up Cherry Creek and -- I don't
know, the creek that comes out of Hermann Sons, that creek.
Is there -- areas where that all got flooded real bad, I
don't know, the little subdivision up off Hermann Sons; I'm
blank on the name of it right now. Didn't FEMA do a lot of
studies at that time?
MR. ODOM: They didn't change anything, to my
8-10-09
20
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
knowledge, at this point. And what we've looked at, what
FEMA's done so far with the new profiles is, very little has
been changed. We've identified those areas, but most of it's
Ingram. Floodplain didn't change, but under the profiles,
you can normally take a profile and maybe go 1,000, 2,000
feet up a tributary based on the profiles.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: So, they -- in that aspect, they have
sort of done some of the tributaries that feed into it
within -- it depends on the profile, but when you look at
1,000 or 2,000 feet, you could still get a studied profile
off that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause I just remember FEMA
doing survey work and all kind of work up along Schneiders
and Crenwelges after that big flood that one year, and I
don't know what they do with -- this may be a different type
of --
MR. ODOM: That's an unstudied area all the way
back up there, so that sort of surprised me. I don't know of
any study there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the areas -- Wilson Creek
is an area that you can add to your list, though. I think
Wilson Creek as it goes up by Greenwood Forest, that area.
It's that -- probably the first half mile or so, and also the
creek that comes out of Hermann Sons. I think it's Lindner.
8-10-09
21
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lindner Branch, possibly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I thought you'd know that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I know what it
comes in there. Maybe the whole thing is called Lindner
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's named after his
relative.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that part. And then
Cypress Creek goes through. Those are the three that I think
are the most populated that need some study. And Cypress
Creek is pretty confusing; it's right along the Kendall
County line.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Most everything in my area is
pretty well set, as far as I know. I don't -- we've had some
severe floods over the years, and I think FEMA maps,
especially new ones, are going to pretty well cover --
MR. ODOM: Cover it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- everything in my area. I
don't think there's anything -- I mean, everything --
everybody's aware of where the water gets up there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are the three that I --
MR. ODOM: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have some members of the audience
that wish to be heard on this. Yes, ma'am? If you'd come
8-10-09
22
i
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
20
21
22
23
24
25
forward, give us your name and address, tell us -- give us
your input on this item.
MS. MATTHEWS: I apologize for being late. My name
is Mary Matthews. My husband and I own a ranch -- a 100-acre
ranch across from the airport, right outside the city limits
of Kerrville. And the first document that I have to hand out
here was just a letter from me requesting that our property
be -- and the area around it be included in Mr. Odom's
request, so further Flood Zone A's. My property's having an
independent study done right now, but we have Silver Creek.
We have another unnamed creek that comes in underneath the
airport. There's Nowlin's Hollow. We have Turtle Creek, and
we also have the Guadalupe River. And the second map that I
have attached here shows the Flood Zone A's in black with
little black dots, and that's the area that is being
considered, I understand, to be further studied by Mr. Odom
in this request. Because of the backing up of the Guadalupe
River and Turtle Creek, I'm also -- this is why I drew such a
large area around it here. We are adjacent to a 104-acre
property that is the proposed R.V. park that also has not
only Flood Zone AE, which is special flood hazard zone, but
also Zone A, unstudied. So, this is a great opportunity for
us to be participating in that and to find out exactly what
has happened and the elevation on that ground. So, I'd
respectfully request that this map in my area be included.
8-10-09
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
And I guess the second page is just in general, a letter that
Flood Zone A's are an important issue in Kerr County. They
offer the opportunity for people to find out what's going on
with development in their area. If the Flood Zone A's have
not been studied further by FEMA, then there's always the
chance that it's not really documented or it's not -- people
are not made aware of the fact that they are better or worse
than they actually are. So, what we're talking about here,
if I'm -- if this is accurate, is we're talking about further
study to actually define the elevation of these A's. And I
guess there's a lot of A's all over Kerr County, and I feel
like the general person does not really have very much
information about this, and so I would respectfully request
that this decision as to what specific areas you are going to
identify in this study -- in this phase of the study, you
know, be put off until maybe we could have some sort of --
Mr. Odom might be able to give a public meeting to inform
people more about what Zone A's mean and Zone AE's mean.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any
questions for Ms. Matthews? Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll -- I'll see that
Mr. Odom gets a copy of this, Ms. Matthews.
MS. MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, as you understand,
what we do is dependent on how much funding may be available.
8-10-09
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
We don't know how far this will go or what it will entail.
What we're trying to do is compile a list. So, I'll see that
Mr. Odom gets a copy of this, and we'll see what happens.
MS. MATTHEWS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Matthews. There's
another lady wishing to be heard. Come forward and give us
your name and address and tell us what your thoughts are on
this issue.
MS. LOVETT: Yes, sir. Well, I'm Frances Lovett.
I live at 6749 Highway 27. I hadn't planned to say anything
today, but I would like to support Mr. Williams on the Verde
Creek issue, because in 1978, eight people died at the
intersection of Elm Pass Road and Verde Creek. Water backed
all the way up across the Verde Creek Road. And so I would
simply request that -- that your study would at least go back
that far.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has to go at least that
far.
MS. LOVETT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It needs to go a little
beyond that.
MS. LOVETT: And even in 2002, this area reflooded
with, like -- people over there -- I just have to give you
one little anecdote. A guy was building over there, and I
said, you know, this area was -- this -- this lot was under
8-10-09
25
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
28 feet of water in 1978. He said, "Oh, that's okay. FEMA's
readjusted all that." And I said, "Well, okay." And it
wasn't -- in 2002, a couple of years later, he had, like,
8 feet of water in his house. So it does reflood; that
wasn't a one-time incident.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. LOVETT: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 4, which was a
timed item that we've gone a bit past now. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action regarding black fire
hydrants, MOU's and ESD's. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you very
much. I want to introduce the Court and the community to Deb
Johnson. Deb is a recent move into Kerr County, and into
Precinct Number 1.
MS. JOHNSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's a former commissioner
in Fort Bend County ESD, and she's in tune with the
Legislature as well as Aqua Texas, so she is basically a guru
on the --
MS. JOHNSON: I don't think so.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you are now.
8-10-09
26
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. JOHNSON: Oh, excuse me. Okay, I'm now one,
yes, today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we cleared this up
MS. JOHNSON: Well, you know,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
versed in this thing, so she has some i~
I wanted to kind of just open it up and
Court know kind of what direction we're
in this thing. Deb?
I forgot.
And she's very well
leas and thoughts, and
let the Commissioners
thinking about going
MS. JOHNSON: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank
you for having me here today. I wanted to discuss a subject,
as Commissioner Baldwin has told you, that is of great
concern to my neighbors in Saddlewood, and I've learned this
morning, to persons in Horizon, and I'm sure probably all
over the entire county. But I'm very concerned about the
issue of the black fire hydrants. For those of you who may
not have an idea as to how all this began, just a real quick
review. In 2007, our state Legislature, in an attempt to
remedy a situation, passed Bill Number -- House Bill and
Senate Bill Number 1717, which I'll read a statement by the
State Firemen's and Fire Marshal Association of Texas. Just
to give you the intent of this, it said that it was intended
to aid in identification of non-functioning hydrants and
assist firefighters in responding to fires in a timely
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
manner. That was the intent.
The reason for -- that the timely manner is
critical is that, according to most of my research, fires can
double in size anywhere from 30 seconds to five minutes.
Every 30 seconds to five minutes, whatever is combusting --
and there are all kinds of formulas that go with this, but
it's doubling. So, time is -- is essential in trying to put
some water on a fire. So, if -- if the fire department is
unable to determine what's a functioning hydrant, then, you
know, we're losing precious seconds. The water utilities
identified this bill as a liability to them, and they
determined that they needed to cover themselves, and instead
of determining what each fire hydrant could -- how much
gallons per minute each fire hydrant could produce, they
would cover themselves and paint them all black. So, this is
where all this came from.
In 2008, I met with Bob Laughman, who's the
president of Aqua Texas, at an open house here in Kerrville,
and asked him what they were planning on doing, or if they
could give us any relief from this. He told me that they
were supporting any legislation in the State Legislature to
remedy this bill. They were behind anything that was going
to happen, but he also said that they had devised a
memorandum of understanding, which I believe you all have
before you. The one in particular that you have is the one
8-10-09
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
.~
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
between Aqua Texas and Wimberley. This would remedy the
situation in that each fire -- not fire hydrant -- each
hydrant would be tested to see how many gallons per minute it
could produce, and the top or the bonnet of the hydrant would
be painted according to national standards. We decided to
kind of wait to see if the Legislature could indeed come up
with a remedy, which they did not do. They did introduce
House Bill 1912 and Senate Bill 1258, which neither passed,
so we are now back to our black fire hydrants and an
inability of our fire departments to determine what is
functioning and what is not.
In an effort to save lives and property, I would
ask that you consider entering into a memorandum of
understanding between Kerr County and Aqua Texas to at least
put a bandaid on this problem by determining the gallons per
minute flow at each hydrant, and having the bonnet or the top
painted accordingly. And I think that's what I've got to say
and ask of you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who determines the flow?
MS. JOHNSON: In times past, the fire department,
in conjunction with Aqua Texas, goes out to each hydrant and
they measure the flow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They measure the flow?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do -- the fire departments
8-10-09
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1a
20
21
22
23
24
25
are involved?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, they are. Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, what we're talking
about doing, let's say we're going to do her community out
there. We want to invite the volunteer fire department that
covers that area, as well as the City of Kerrville fire
department, because of our contract with them and they go out
there with a pumper truck, and Aqua Texas, all three people
would be represented in this thing. And so it -- and it
actually is -- it would be a neat exercise. And go around --
MS. JOHNSON: It would be, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in her community, and the
gentleman with the glasses on, his community.
MS. JOHNSON: Horizon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which probably has
functioning fire hydrants. Out at my house, zero, zilch.
There's just cute little black things sticking up out of the
ground with very, very little water in them, and so that's
what we want to determine.
MS. JOHNSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When the City of Kerrville
pulls up with their pumper and wants to hook onto a hydrant,
they need to know immediately how much water, if there's any
water at all in that thing so they can attack the fire.
MS. JOHNSON: Right.
8-10-09
30
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about lives
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 `~
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is what we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the agreement would be
between the County and Aqua Texas and our other water
utilities county-wide, correct? I mean --
MS. JOHNSON: Whatever you all would decide. I
think that would be up to you all to talk about and decide
whether you want to do -- whether you'd want to try it on a
smaller scale, see how it works, or go county-wide. That
would be up to you all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, what we're talking
about is, because of the perceived liability issue that the
water supplier has, by contract, they would be given
contractual release of liability, assuming they were not
grossly negligent.
MS. JOHNSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Something along that line. If they
worked in this program and did their best to determine the
actual flow, so as to give somebody some kind of information.
MS. JOHNSON: Exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: As opposed to everybody being in the
dark.
MS. JOHNSON: That's right.
8-10-09
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
JUDGE TINLEY: Because they're all black fire
MS. JOHNSON: That's right, exactly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems to me like they could
post a sign next to the fire hydrant that would just say how
many gallons a minute, rather than having them color-coded.
Somebody could --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the color-coding thing
MS. JOHNSON: It's a national standard.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Yeah. Like, if you
-- if you look closely at the hydrants in the city of
Kerrville, they are -- well, they used to be; I'm not -- I
may be stepping out of line here, but used to, the bonnet of
that thing would be either red or green, and when the
engineer pulled up in his truck, he knew exactly how much
water was in that thing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have a big variation of
that kind of flow out in the county, though.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not going to be one or
two different colors; you're going to have areas that may not
have 100 gallons a minute.
25 ~ MS. JOHNSON: Well, there's a -- actually, the
8-10-09
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
national standard is 1,500 gallons per minute or more is
blue, green identifies 1,000 to 1,499 g.p.m., and orange is
500 to 999 g.p.m., and red is below 500. So, fire
departments know these standards.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They need to know; I agree
with you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While Aqua Texas is the big
gorilla --
MS. JOHNSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in this equation, there
are other water purveyors there that might also apply to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure might be; you're
exactly right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wiedenfeld comes to mind.
I'm not sure how many others have multiple systems.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we have one in my area
that's owned by the homeowners, Wood Trail.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. And in my area out
in The Woods, that one's owned by the homeowners as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good -- I
think -- you know, I think it's a great idea, and I think to
try to move it with Aqua Texas, which will probably be the
most difficult, from my experience in working with them --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, it's not.
MS. JOHNSON: Bob has -- has really been
8-10-09
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
forthcoming in this whole process. Every time I write to
him, he says, "I want to work with you all. I'd like to help
you, you know, fix this, at least put a bandaid on it until
the Legislature can do something, you know, definitive." And
he's been very willing to cooperate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who is it you're
corresponding with?
MS. JOHNSON: The president of Aqua Texas, Bob
Laughman.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And where are they
MS. JOHNSON: I don't know where their offices are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Austin.
MS. JOHNSON: It's -- yeah, it's in Austin.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Used to be Dripping
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's in Austin.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The local office is right
here off Schreiner Street.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that the first thing
we need to do is get the County Attorney to take a look at --
at whatever documents are proposed to be involved in this if
Kerr County's going to be a party to it, and subject, of
course, to that, it seems like if there's a favorable review
there, why, then we go forward.
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what we're
going to do. I just wanted to bring you the information
today, and if I get a nod, which I am, we want to take the
M.O.U. to the County Attorney, and we'll bring it back at the
next meeting for approval. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: To present to the various water
purveyors?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To bring it back to the
Commissioners Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm.
MS. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MS. JOHNSON: Any further questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MS. JOHNSON: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone in the audience have any
comments -- further comment about this? Thank you, ma'am.
We appreciate you bringing that to us.
MS. JOHNSON: You're more than welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to our 9:30 item, if we
might. It's a bit past that time now. Item 6, to consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to allow Headwaters
Groundwater Conservation District to drill a monitoring well
on Lower Reservation Road in Precinct 4. Mr. Williams?
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm Gene Williams with the
Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District. In our ongoing
effort to monitor the aquifers in Kerr County, we have future
plans for two and four more monitoring wells. This
particular location, I have -- Mr. Odom was gracious enough
to meet me at the location, and we looked the site over and
feel like it's an appropriate area for our next monitor well.
So, we would request the Court's permission to allow us to do
this.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I have no problem with it at
all. That's about three-quarters of an acre that the
County's owned for many years. It's where the -- the
factory -- old teachers' dormitory-type thing or house is
still on the property. It's kind of about to fall down, but
I think that's a good area for one, because that area -- and
some of those wells are very low production. My
grandfather's home place is only about a mile from there, and
they raised 14 kids on three quarts a minute. And there's
some areas that's real dry, and there's some areas that -- as
far as wells go, and other parts of it have good wells. In
fact, there's a hand-dug well across the road from where this
is, and I don't have any idea whether it still has water in
it or not. It's on the Esquell place. I think it's a great
location, because that is a different type area there than
what we have in the Mountain Home area, or even over around
8-10-09
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
the Hunt area. That's -- I think it's a great idea to have
one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Gene, how much -- how
deep will this well be? What --
MR. WILLIAMS: I'd say approximately 800 to
900 feet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would it be the Lower Trinity,
dually?
MR. WILLIAMS: It's really not in the Lower Trinity
there; it's all on sand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- are you going to try
to monitor the Edwards as well? Edwards-Trinity, or just
the --
MR. WILLIAMS: Just the Trinity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just the Trinity.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a good area for that,
because it's right up on the divide between what goes into
the Pedernales, what goes into Johnson Creek and eventually
into the Guadalupe River.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a way -- is there a
value to monitoring the Edwards-Trinity there, or is it
possible? I know it's money.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, it's money. It's possible,
yes. I can visit with an engineer, weigh the cost, see
8-10-09
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other part of it, is
that an area that's worthwhile to really put a monitor in the
Edwards-Trinity right there? I mean --
MR. WILLIAMS: We envision a large enough conduit
to be able to aquifer test, and to dually complete it would
eliminate that possibility.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just have one more
question. We see in these models that the aquifer -- they
call it pinching out, out there on the divide somewhere. Is
that near that pinch-out point? Are you knowing what I'm
talking about? Or --
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, no, the Lower Trinity pinches
out probably south of the interstate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: South of the interstate,
okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: Closer to 27, I guess.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: Somewhere in that area. So, that's
all one sand in that area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
8-10-09
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
MR. WILLIAMS: There's not a shale barrier there
that I know of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll find out.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll find out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Find out. Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you
very much, Mr. Williams.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 9; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to set a public hearing for
private road name Moorhead Road East located in Precinct 2.
Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Mr. Moorhead has requested a
name as Moorhead Road East on a private road. The proposed
road name is located off Sanders Way, which is off Elm Pass
Road. Mr. Moorhead is not the only one living on this
property. The family has several pieces of property. We
also have other members that own property on this, and we had
sent out notices that this is -- was going to happen, since
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
the Moorheads are the only ones that really live there. The
others live in San Antonio. We felt that a public hearing
should be set to give the other landowners an opportunity if
there might be an issue with the proposed name. At this
time, we ask the Court to set a public hearing for Monday,
September the 14th, 2009, at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
MR. ODOM: For name change.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second for
approval of the agenda item, to set a public hearing on
September 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. Question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll go to
Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
Kerr County Appraisal District's proposed budget amendment.
The Appraisal District has requested that their budget be
amended to allow certain capital improvements to be made.
They're proposing to do that by moving a budget surplus that
they have from this current year over to next year. My
recollection is that they've done that once previously in an
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
effort to upgrade their facilities out there. There would be
no change in the previously notified contribution of Kerr
County to their annual budget. They've just merely
transferred those funds one year forward to make those
improvements.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? Yes,
sir?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, I don't have any
questions or discussion. I was getting ready to vote.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're voting already.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of the agenda item, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carried. Let's move to Item
11; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
contracts for professional services received from Allison
Bass and Associates regarding extension of Chapter 258, Texas
Transportation Code. As has been discussed on probably
several occasions, there's an upcoming deadline, three years
8-10-09
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
out now, to identify and solidify the designation of county
roads. There are all sorts of roads that are in the system
because of prescriptive use, maintenance and so forth, and
the Legislature has provided a methodology for -- for those
roads to be identified, and there be a master -- master
designation of those roads. My recollection is we first
started hearing about this -- three years ago or more?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably longer than that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At least.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty good while back. But there's
a procedure in place that Allison Bass and Associates has
developed to comply with the statutory provisions, and the
total cost is, what, 17 -- 17,400 approximately?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six.
JUDGE TINLEY: Six hundred. 17,6.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 17,6.
JUDGE TINLEY: Payable over a three-year time span
to complete that process. Leonard, what are your thoughts
about this?
MR. ODOM: I think if we could come up with the
funds, it's a very good idea. I just don't have the funds.
I think when Allison and them did this before, we just did
not have the money at the timeline that they had sent us, and
it's probably something we ought to do just to secure it.
We're always having a question. What state law says is if
8-10-09
1
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
we've had it ten years, it belongs to the people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the -- I mean, maybe we
need to ask Jim Allison this, or somebody, but does this go
in -- are they going to go into all of -- I guess clarifying
the whole issue about roads being public on plats? And then
the people think they're public -- or county roads, and
they're not, 'cause we've never maintained them. Is that
going to be part of this at all?
JUDGE TINLEY: I can't answer that question,
MR. ODOM: And I can't either. You're talking
about prescriptive easements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not -- not easements. I'm
talking about roads that are in many, many subdivisions that
were dedicated to the public in the platting process, but
never accepted by the County for maintenance. And those
people, you know, continually --
MR. ODOM: Say they go to the center of the
roadway. Or all the way across.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, the roads are public.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Public. See, public
maintained, public non-maintained, and private.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three categories of roads.
We eliminate that goofy middle thing.
8-10-09
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 LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're either maintained or
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's where I'm at.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's good that -- it
needs to be helped. If they're going to help clarify that,
I'm really in favor of it, but the other side of it is, I
don't want to open up this whole issue again where we have to
vote on some of these old roads that we don't think are
County-maintained. So, I mean -- but I guess we can maybe
get Mr. -- I don't know; Jim Allison's the one handling it.
Maybe we need to get them, one of their representatives to
come down here and explain exactly what this is going to do.
I think I'm in favor of it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's kind of right
where it goes back to 1981, and we have to prove the
existence of the road with evidence of County maintenance
prior to September 1981 to avoid a court battle, some kind of
a contest -- legal contest.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it would be appropriate for
the County Attorney to do a review of this and engage in
8-10-09
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
whatever discussions he might feel is appropriate with maybe
Allison Bass, to come back to us and tell us the -- the
entire legal effect of what this whole process is. I've not
researched it, so I can't tell you.
MR. ODOM: The only thing that we have to go by,
what Mr. Williams was talking about, prior to 1981 is a 1959
road list. We look at that; we look at the '84 -- '86, when
the unitized system came into being. That gives us a pretty
good idea of what was going on before the system -- what the
Commissioners were doing. And to answer your question, I
don't know -- that was a question we had. Would this really
rectify some of the questions of going to the center of the
road or up against the fence? And I got 30 foot. Is it a
neighborhood road? That was established. So, I don't know
if Allison will do that, but it's worth a -- a try. At the
time, we just didn't have the money, and we had already had
it on the list, '59, '86. And the Highway Department had
done GPS on our roads, so we felt confident that we had a
very good argument. And I've been here over ten years; I
knew what roads I had. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I think it's good to
visit with them, see if it's worthwhile or not. If it is,
you know, I think it's -- the cost is reasonable.
MR. ODOM: Reasonable, over two years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Over a two-year period.
8-10-09
45
1
2 impact --
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: Mm-hmm. The only budgetary
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't do anything --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're just going to hand them
the list and they're going to do it, and they're going to
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1,500 to get started.
MR. ODOM: I'm sure they'll be asking me to do a
lot of the work, though.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's a number of steps outlined
in the agreement, but I think -- I think probably what would
be beneficial for us to know is, what is the ultimate legal
effect of following this process?
MR. ODOM: Once it's done.
JUDGE TINLEY: What benefit do we derive from that?
Are we going to avoid getting ourselves into all sorts of
hassles down the road? Is it this kind of road, that kind of
road, some other kind of road? Because those do crop up
occasionally, as you know.
MR. ODOM: Occasionally they do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause I think this Number 3
here, newspaper notice of the date of a public hearing to be
held to receive objections or protests to any road claimed to
be County-maintained, I also see that going the other
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
46
direction of those that were not claiming, and that's what
I'm concerned about. You know, I thought we were pretty
confident that we were -- had a good list, and I don't want
to open it if we don't need to.
MR. ODOM: I feel confident it's good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be Pandora's box.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that agenda
item, gentlemen? Let's move to Item 13; consider, discuss,
take appropriate action on implementation of the burn ban.
Periodic requirement that we have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the action -- or the
motion is to extend the burn ban for another 90-day period?
22 hand.
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not real clear.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
8-10-09
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We will move
to item -- Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on appeal of the DFC's set by GMA-9. Commissioner
Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just a real brief
comment on this. This will be back on our next agenda. We
met -- a committee out of Region J met one day last week,
last Thursday, I think, and discussed how we should proceed
with this. And it was pretty much all the representatives
from Kerr and Bandera County, and it was felt by the majority
of the entities I represented that they'd let Region J do the
appeal and all the other entities file a support of that
appeal, rather than everyone write their own appeal and maybe
have conflicts between them which may be used against the
overall process. Makes sense to me. The -- and also, Region
J's a little bit -- because of their meeting schedule to be
called, as opposed to our schedule, they can get it done
probably more timely. Region J's going to have a meeting on
the 18th for the full board to vote on this appeal.
Hopefully -- I believe it will pass, and then that'll be
before all the other entities, such as Headwaters, U.G.R.A.,
City of Kerrville, City of Ingram, and us, Kerr County -- I'm
not sure who all. Bandera County. And they just will
support it. But we've come up with a long list of problems
with the DFC's as it was set by GMA-9. Most of these are --
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
48
it's not a challenge of the numbers as much as a challenge of
the process and data that was not included and not surveyed.
So -- but it looks like all of the entities out of Kerr
County are on the same page on this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This will be an appeal to
the T.W.D.B.; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. It's a very specific
process, how you have to do it, and notice and timing and all
that. And it was interesting that the -- there was some
feeling that we will -- this will be the first appeal of a
23
24
25 the dat
8-10-09
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's all subjective.
DFC, just by chance, and that it's going to be looked at very
closely, probably by the Water Development Board, because
there are some members of that board -- two of them, to be
precise. One's Jack Hunt, and another one, Weir Labatt, that
for different reasons do not like the DFC process at all, and
it's felt that this may get us kind of passed right up to the
full board for review. Which, because of the process, we're
really saying the process is more wrong than the -- the
numbers. We don't have the -- the data, and no one has the
data to challenge the numbers, per se, and that's the
problem. The numbers -- I mean, you -- there's no data there
to come up with this specific DFC.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1"
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
a model of the Hill Country Trinity model that was last
updated in 2003. And both Headwaters and Bandera, the
equivalent of their groundwater district, have supplied
numerous data and information on wells and science on the
Edwards-Trinity Aquifer in Kerr and Bandera Counties, as well
as Region J doing a study of -- two studies related to the
Edwards-Trinity, and none of that data was considered. They
set the DFC based on a model that had no -- none of this new
information and input.
JUDGE TINLEY: And what action are you seeking from
the Court today?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Today, nothing. It will be
back on our next agenda to support the appeal that Region J
files.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else in connection
with that agenda item? Let's move to Item 16, to consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to request a public hearing
in compliance with Senate Bill 1685 to establish a District
Court Technology Fund, to set a fee not to exceed $5 to be
assessed on the filing of civil actions, and approve the
District Clerk's annual plan for the preservation and
restoration of the district court records archive.
Ms. Uecker?
MS. UECKER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're seeking a public hearing on
8-10-09
1
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
this matter?
MS. UECKER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Particular date and time?
MS. UECKER: Well, I guess the next Commissioners
Court meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much advance notice do
we have to give?
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we make it for 30 days,
and set it for the 14th of September.
MS. UECKER: 14th?
JUDGE TINLEY: At, say --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:30? 10:10?
JUDGE TINLEY: 10:10.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:01?
JUDGE TINLEY: 10:10.
MS. UECKER: 10:10?
JUDGE TINLEY: A.m.
MS. UECKER: Okay. Also attached, I've submitted a
copy of the plan that has to be actually presented and
approved by the Commissioners Court annually, and the plan
would broaden the scope of what the -- the funds could be
used for. The first couple of -- the first year, this should
net about $8,500, and that is if everybody pays their fees on
the civil filings. And we also -- also in here, you'll see
the list of the proposed expenditures, the bill itself, and
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
so I guess all we need to do is set a public hearing on it if
the Court approves it. You don't have to, but this is
additional revenue that goes to the user.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, we approve it and then
the public hearing takes place?
MS. UECKER: Yes, mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, we approve the plan.
MS. UECKER: The plan, and then set it for a public
hearing. And -- and the fee is not to exceed $5, and my
proposal would be to set it at $5.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that -- the public hearing would
mention that -- that aspect of it?
MS. UECKER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Linda, the projected annual
revenue that you have in this document, based on the
parameters of SB 1685, is that based on your years of
experience in your department?
MS. UECKER: Well, it's based on the projected
number of civil cases that -- that this would be applied to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is tied to history?
MS. UECKER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. UECKER: I mean, we're up this year on civil
filings again. So, based on that projection is what I came
up with. Of course, you're always going to have those cases
8-10-09
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where affidavit of indigency, or C.P.S. cases, where there
are no costs. Protective orders.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
approve the plan as presented related to the District Court
Technology Fund.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And set a public hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And set a public hearing for
September 14th at 10:10.
MS. UECKER: 10:10?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, this is Item -- just
1.16?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do I need to mention that --
well the plan mentions the $5 fee, so --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. UECKER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, what is -- let's see.
What exactly does the words, "preservation and restoration of
district court records archive" -- what does that mean
exactly?
8-10-09
1
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
MS. UECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does --
MS. UECKER: If you look at the plan, on Page 5,
the goal is to reproduce and archive all documents,
regardless of type, as efficiently as possible, restore
handwritten records, suspending deterioration, improving
public access, and this is a continuing process as new cases
are filed daily. All closed cases up to this date have been
scanned and are digitized. One of the projects that -- you
know, and y'all have been budgeting a little bit of money
every year for me to be able to do this, is protect those --
keep those records that are from the 1800's, handwritten
documents, from deteriorating any further, putting them in
mylar sleeves, and this could help for that as well.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. So, this goes
toward, like, digitalizing those records, or it may -- the
funds could be used to upgrade technology.
MS. UECKER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If something came along
that's cooler than digitalization -- whew.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Got that out good.
MS. UECKER: Yeah, I think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you could use it for
future information, okay.
MS. UECKER: Now, the problem with all of this
8-10-09
1
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
is -- and if you look at the very last page of the plan, and
this is the way the Legislature said it, currently there are
three existing records preservations funds; there's one for
the County Clerk, one for all of the -- all of the offices
for the county, and then there's the District Clerk's
preservation fund. Now, this last session created three
additional new funds, one of them out of this current item,
1685, which is a District Clerk Technology Fund, and the next
item on this agenda creates two more funds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MS. UECKER: Which is the County and District Clerk
Technology funds and the Court Records Preservation fund.
The Auditor called me Friday and said, "Can we combine
these?" And I -- you know, I said, "Well, the statute is the
statute, and I don't know that we can actually do that." Of
course, then I got to thinking, well, what if, once they're
established in that fund, it was all paid over into one, you
know, big fund in the sky. I don't know. But that would be
-- that's just the way they're written, and I don't know
exactly how that happens or -- or why. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I see plainly why
you'd want to have them separated. I mean, what if we
disagreed with one of them? Disagree with the whole thing?
So, no, you're doing it right, I think.
MS. UECKER: Well, and they're all part of the
8-10-09
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget process under the direction of the Commissioners
Court, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes more -- be easier if they
would simplify it, but they don't, so --
MS. UECKER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So they don't.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They don't. That's the way
it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just the way it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just the way it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll --
MS. UECKER: Do I need to get the notice posted, or
does the Court?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the public hearing?
MS. UECKER: I do? Okay, not a problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 17; consider,
8-10-09
1
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
discuss, take appropriate action to comply with House Bill
3637 to establish a County and District Court Technology
Fund, set a filing fee not to exceed $10 to be assessed in
each civil case to be used only to digitize court records and
preserve the records from natural disasters. Ms. Uecker?
MS. UECKER: Okay, same purpose. This bill
actually creates two different fee amounts. One of them is a
set $4 that the Court doesn't have to set; it's not a -- not
to exceed $4, but that one is on criminal cases. In addition
to that, it also establishes this not-to-exceed $10 fee on
all civil cases that the Court has to set. There's no
requirement for a public hearing or anything like that. It's
just set the fee at not to exceed $10, and, you know, my
proposal would be to set it at the maximum of $10. Now,
those together, in doing -- in looking at what the fees could
establish annually, 3637 and 1685 could produce revenue up to
about $20,000 for the first year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, what's the total fees of
this type on civil cases now?
MS. UECKER: Oh my goodness.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's --
MS. UECKER: Okay, look on the last page; you'll
see it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last page of this?
MS. UECKER: Existing related funds. $10 on civil
8-10-09
1
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
cases; five of it goes to the clerk's records preservation
fund -- five of it goes to mine; five goes to the County's.
And then there's a $25 fee on eviction in County Court at Law
and District Court. $22.50 of it goes to the County's fund,
which is where the biggest portion of that fund comes from,
and then $2.50 goes to -- if I collect it, it goes to my
fund; if Jannett collects it, it goes to her fund. So, if
you do the 10, 25, that's 35. And then the 4 and 10 and then
the other 5 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: About $60.
MS. UECKER: Yeah, $60. But it's a user fee, so --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does it require a public
hearing also?
MS. UECKER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move that we set the County
and District Court Technology Fund as established by HB 3637
at $10.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
MS. UECKER: Now, the only difference -- I'm sorry.
The only difference between those two fees is this one will
take effect -- the $10 fee takes effect January 1, because of
Government Code 51.607. Now, 1685 takes effects as soon as
the hearing -- the public hearing is over, and if the Court
approves it, that can take -- takes effect immediately,
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
because that bill became effective June the 19th, because it
received more than two-thirds of the vote. And any fee that
is assessed on a bill that takes effect prior to August 1 is
effective immediately. I know. Maybe you didn't understand
that, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever.
MS. UECKER: Whatever. It's complicated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you something.
See, and my questioning on the other one -- this one, you
actually uses the word "digitize."
MS. UECKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER
used only to digitize.
MS. UECKER:
COMMISSIONER
new -- anything else?
MS. UECKER:
COMMISSIONER
comes along, we can't
has to be for digitize
MS. UECKER:
digitizes the records.
COMMISSIONER
Yes, I see that.
BALDWIN: That -- civil cases to be
That's right.
BALDWIN: We can't use that for any
New -- what do you mean?
BALDWIN: Any new technology that
use any of these funds for that? It
-- digitized --
I guess you could, as long as it still
BALDWIN: Yeah, if it's digitized.
MS. UECKER: But, of course, everything that we're
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
doing now is digitizing. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so what about -- what
MS. UECKER: You digitize them. You digitize them,
and -- in case the originals are either burned or get wet
from flooding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will they be stored on a
server, or are they put on a disk?
MS. UECKER: Mine are stored off-site in San
Antonio.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's the answer to my
question right there. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Is
there any further discussion or question 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 will
move to Item 18; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to authorize Request for Proposals for inmate food
service. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This has been mentioned a
couple times before during previous Commissioners Court,
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
where we had a proposal from a vendor that actually was
cheaper in producing meals than we could produce them
ourselves, mainly because they have such a large deal. And
since it is something that the County would be spending more
than $50,000 a year over, it would have to go out for bids.
So, what I have -- am asking is that when Rex and I finish
going over the -- an RFP, that we have permission to send
that out so hopefully we get it all in line with budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let me make
mention of -- that Item 14, dealing with the approval of and
adoption of the Personnel Policy, Ms. Hyde is unavailable, so
that item will be passed to a future meeting. We'll move to
Item 19; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
regarding submission of an application for a Homeland
Security grant for communications equipment. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What this one is, is last
year, if you'll recall, we got approximately 90,000 from this
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
same grant that helped replace about half of our car radios.
This is the second half that we need to get done to replace
the rest of the vehicle radios and portables. It will also
be replacing the radios that all the constables have and that
Animal Control has, are all included in this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Item 20, to
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action regarding
approval of inmate housing contract between Kerr County
Sheriff's Office and Gillespie County Sheriff's Office.
Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, this is, I think, the
product of the direct file working, the steps that y'all took
in speeding up some of the jail process of inmates, getting
those people to court. Last week, I don't think we had a
single day all week that we were over 100. We were in the --
in the 90's most of the week. Now, this morning we had 107
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 '~
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
in jail. Four of those would be getting out, 'cause I looked
at those; they came in last night charged with Class C
misdemeanors, so it drops us down to 103 before we even
really start a bunch of the day-to-day processing. In doing
that, I feel that, talking to Buddy Mills over at Gillespie
County, Sheriff there, of course, they've been housing a lot
of theirs in Comanche. I know Bandera, opening up their new
jail, has offered, but I think the price is a lot different
than what I would recommend we charge, and it would make it
easier for Gillespie County to be able to house their inmates
here. Their jail administrator lives in our county. As far
as hauling prisoners back and forth, it's all 216th District
Court on felonies; they could even actually have court days
over here for the -- their inmate ones. And what I would
recommend, if you look at our costs right now, at 90 -- or at
100 inmates, our average cost, not counting what we're still
paying on the -- on a yearly payment of the jail bond itself,
but if you figure in all the other fees, jailer salaries,
everything else, it's costing us about $44 a day to house an
inmate. Now, if we do this contract -- and what I'm
recommending is that we do it at $37 a day, because my
overhead is going to stay the same. I'm fully staffed. The
$44 a day is fully staffed; nothing changes except for some
-- the meals, of course, would change a little bit, and just
some of the toiletries and things like that, I guess you
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
could say, would change. But it's not going to be anywhere
near $44 a day to house these extra inmates. That would drop
even our cost average, so I would recommend that we -- we can
do this at $37 a day per inmate. And then they reimburse for
any medical expenses that we have to have on top of that.
What they're paying Comanche right now is $35 a day, and I
think on switching that out, that would be the best way to
go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's Bandera going to charge?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $50.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $50.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They won't -- that's what
Buddy, the Sheriff of Gillespie County, had heard. And
there's no way they could -- they would go $50.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're not open yet?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Supposed to open sometime in
the next month, I think, hopefully, but they don't have the
employees to staff it yet either, from what I'm hearing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You didn't say -- you didn't
say to us that it costs us $44 a day to house one, and we
were going to charge somebody $37?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Let me -- I'll have
to think about that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The reason being is the $44 a
8-10-09
64
1
2
3
4
5
0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
day is	-- is our jail	running at	full -	- fully	staffed, which
it is,	the electric,	everything	else is	running	the same,
okay?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fixed costs.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, our fixed costs. Our,
you know, normal overhead. The only thing I'm adding to
that, okay, that these 30 inmates -- if we house up to 30 of
theirs, would be is meals. That's what we're adding, and a
few incidentals, so this would not cost us $10 a day to
actually take on these other inmates. And I'm suggesting we
charge $37 a day. That's what we charge --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't 39 -- 37 what we used
to charge in the previous contracts?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $37 a day is what we charged
in the previous contracts. Started out at 35, and we went to
37.
JUDGE TINLEY: What are we currently charging the
City for their overnight prisoners?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $37.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I had from the J.P.'s
before the meeting was, does this impact magistration at all
from their standpoint?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would they be required to
8-10-09
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
magistrate?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At this point, part of this
contract is on court days, they have to supply the personnel
to come over and take care of their inmates during court.
That's in the contract. Also in the contract is they do all
transporting back and forth. At this point, it would not
involve anything with magistration or anything like that.
Now, if the Jail Commission -- I know Buddy went there last
week, and his judge, to Austin. If they were to issue the
order to close the Gillespie County Jail, the old one, and
not give them a, you know, 48-hour lockup facility, holding
facility, then, yeah, it could affect magistration.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But at this point,
there's no magistration added to our J.P.'s?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. No, there's no extra
duties added to our J.P.'s at this point on any of these.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the contract has been reviewed,
or is in the process of review with the County Attorney?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The contract has pretty well
been written by our County Attorney, because he took an old
one and he totally redid it. I applaud him for being able to
get it done this quickly. Clay was just on the phone --
that's why I stepped out a little bit. Gillespie County
Commissioners Court is this morning also. We're trying to
get this thing approved, and I think they had a couple
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
66
questions, I hope that are getting resolved, but -- but I
think we can get it all resolved and get this in place.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How many inmates do they have
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They are housing -- as of two
weeks ago, in Comanche, they house anywhere from 25 to 43, I
think, or 45. What I'm writing this contract for would give
us some leeway, is 30. I think two weeks ago, they actually
had 28 -- 25 to 28 in Comanche. What this will -- if we --
if we did 30 inmates a day, at 365 days, you're talking about
$495,000 income for the County, and then take away the cost
of the meals.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They send out all of their
prisoners, right?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They send out just about all.
They can keep a few in-house, but very, very few.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, if this issue of
magistration comes up, we need to visit about that. The
natives are restless on that issue.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Especially 1 and 3.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just -- I'm just saying
courtesy. Courtesy visit.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree, we can visit on that.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or we can say no to this
8-10-09
1
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
today, either one.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Up to y'all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If the magistration -- if they
close this jail, they can't put anyone up there. If that
happens, they could -- we could enter into an agreement for
magistration, or they could send their J.P.'s down here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think at that time -- and
I'm not taking up for Gillespie County, but if they close
that, make them haul prisoners, everybody they arrest, number
one, I think you're going to see arrests go down in Gillespie
County. Gillespie County doesn't arrest near what we have.
Magistration, you're probably looking at an average of one
inmate a day. And if this County wants to charge to
magistrate, read somebody their rights, for one inmate a day,
I've got a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happens if in-county
population reaches the point where you become impacted?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then they -- normally, we each
have 30 days to cancel out this contract with written notice.
If I reach in-house a population where I'm above what the
state, you know, has okayed us for, the 80 percent and that,
then they have eight hours to get any of those inmates that I
say get out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And make alternate
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1a
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And make alternate
arrangements.
JUDGE TINLEY: You have the right to curtail --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have the right to curtail
that. We also have the right to refuse any inmates that we
wish to refuse under the contract.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move approval.
JUDGE TINLEY: Somebody in the driver's seat.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. We're going back to
where we were back in 2000 when I first took office, when we
were able to bring in half a million dollars.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this the only contract we
have, or do we still have a contract with Uvalde and all
those other people?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Technically, we still have
contracts, okay, with the -- oh, we have them with Bandera,
we have them with Junction, Mason, Menard, McCullough,
Blanco, Burnett. Several -- quite a few counties that are
still on file. We have not used any contracts in a number of
years, and we kind of halfway canceled them all because of
the -- of the crowding that we were going through. So, if we
were to reenact any of those, and say we continue to go
down -- I don't see that happening -- then what I would do is
ask Rex to redo all those contracts before we sign any new
ones.
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what we're doing today
is we're reaching across the Rhine to our brethren -- our
brethren in Gillespie County.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At this time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Offering a hand of help.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's the Pedernales.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At $37 a day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At $37 a day. They need to
magistrate their own people. All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have an actual contract
to approve?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is a contract that I
have, that the Judge --
MR. EMERSON: Subject to minor changes, if y'all
would, when you bless it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: B
JUDGE TINLEY: Subject
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do
and get it on down the road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
ut that's another deal.
to approval.
Yeah.
it, and then y'all tweak it
Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of entering
into a contract with Gillespie County for housing prisoners
at $37 a day, subject to the final approval by the County
Attorney of the contract.
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~o
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that we authorize the
County Judge to sign said contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Item 21;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action regarding applying
to local foundations for grants to upgrade audio-visual
technology in three courtrooms.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What this is, is I think
everybody's aware, in the district courtrooms especially --
Linda can vouch for this -- we have two very nice drop-down
screens for evidence presentation, if it's overhead or
something else, but that's all that's there. There was
never -- back when the courtrooms were built, the old jail
was remodeled, never any equipment put in there to actually
operate those screens or work with the audio-visual
technology part. We had a company come in and give us an
estimate of totally hooking up three courtrooms, which would
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
be both district courtrooms and County Court at Law, with the
most advanced technology in audio-visual trans -- or, you
know, presentation of evidence, where -- where cameras even
turn on the -- if it's the defense attorney giving the talk,
the camera turns on him. Everything is recorded, okay, in
that courtroom for future stuff, and in assistance with the
court reporters and them, that they can use to go back and --
and re -- every word is recorded. And then the overhead
projector, videos, all the different types of CD's and DVD's
that we play. I know every time we have a jury trial up
there, everybody's hunting a different type of TV or DVD --
you know, it's just -- it's chaos to go through.
What this would also do is, if we had any major
trials in the courtrooms or in Kerr County, it would allow us
to corral the media in one location, which would probably be
this courtroom; that there would be jacks put in that they
can plug into and get their feed directly out of those
courtrooms without ever being allowed up -- up on the second
floor. The total cost of this project would be about
$175,000, is what the bid is. What we are suggesting is that
we be allowed to apply for -- 'cause it has come from
foundations to us, that we be allowed to apply for two
different foundations, local foundations, for one-third each
of the cost, and then the County, in their capital
expenditure fund, the other third, which would be about
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
60,000 to each deal to upgrade all this technology.
MS. UECKER: Rusty, we have one projector. We can
use that, and that would reduce the cost, that we bought last
year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This will -- this type of
projector even gives a judge a touch screen in front of his
bench to control everything, whether it goes on the projector
or not on the projector, and it's just the same thing some of
the federal courthouses have gotten. That's all this company
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This contemplates the two
district courts and the County Court at Law?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. And hookups
in this one, most likely in one of the two, this one or the
County Court for the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster, would that get rid of
court reporters?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. That was tried at one
time. Some courts have done that, but it was tried at one
time, and I think most of the courts have ruled no. It can
assist court reporters in being able to get accurate, you
know, translations and everything that they need. It can be
used for that, but I do not believe that the courts have
allowed you to replace the court reporters.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will say, I was up there
8-10-09
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
last week in a jury trial observing, and they had one of
these things sitting out there to project some -- it was a
police stop, a traffic stop. And I'm going to tell you, an
hour and a half later, they finally got the damn thing turned
on, and then we had to get experts in there to get the sound
up. Never did. And it was just the most embarrassing, worst
thing I've ever seen in my life.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One of them. One of the
worst things I've ever seen in my life. Remember that time
we were down in Del Rio?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. (Laughter.) That
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was worse. But -- but,
you know, if it's going to cost the County, I'm not going to
vote for it unless it goes into the budget process just like
everything else. I'm not going to approve it today.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, what I want today -- and
what we -- we need to be able to apply for the grants, but it
is contingent on -- if the grant --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Application only.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, for application only.
If the grants were approved, then the County is kind of
committing --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then we go through the bid
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
74
process and the whole thing, and the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That would probably be exactly
right. Rex is shaking his head.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much is the total amount?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $175,611.92.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And a third of that is how
much?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $58,373.10.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move approval of the
grant application as presented by the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second. Then I'll --
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't mean I'm voting for it.
I kind of share the concern that Commissioner Baldwin has. I
mean, this technology stuff a lot of times doesn't seem to
work, and -- or you go through these delays in trying to get
the projectors to work. And, you know, is there an assurance
that this is going to be a simple system that will work?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's exactly why we're
applying for this system. What Buster is referring to is
what we've all seen up there, if you've been up there at all.
It's trying to -- you know, unfortunately, what you have
nowadays is our interview rooms record on a certain type of
25 ~ format. You know, patrol cars, with all the new video and
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
audio stuff in those, record on a certain type of format.
Regular store-bought DVD's are a different type. You get
many different types of -- of recordings that half the time,
we can't find equipment around -- you know, the district
court has gone and bought different VCR players, DVD players.
I know Rex has gone and bought different ones, and we have,
trying to make everything work correctly, because you never
know what type of format it was recorded on. This is
supposed to, is what we've been told, and I would think the
contract, when they install, it's going to have to be written
to where it will take care of all those things. But we're
trying to solve what -- and I think Buster hit it right on
the head. A courthouse like this and a county this size, and
what we present in jury trials, and jurors being the most
important thing, when they walk in this courthouse, we are
the most unprofessional people in the world that I've ever
seen on presenting cases, just because of the technology. We
have -- we had -- you know, it started out great with the
great big drop-down screens, but then it ended at that, and
we've never set up things. I've seen some private civil
trials come in here where those attorneys brought, you know,
$100,000 worth of equipment that could do a professional job
of presenting cases, but we just never had --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me come at it from a
little different angle, following up on Commissioner Letz.
8-10-09
1
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
If the grant application is approved, at that time, will you
engage with our I.T. Department for development -- and people
in the courtroom, to develop a uniform set of specifications
so we can eliminate all this junk -- equipment that gets
brought in here that doesn't work, that doesn't connect?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other part of that is, I
mean, I think the -- whether it's our I.T. Department or, you
know, someone who hopefully is helping write the
application -- other than you, Sheriff. Not that I have
any --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not me, no. I don't have the
I'm not going to write those specifications.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Like the RFP for the meals.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're arranging for someone to
write the specs for the grants so we know that the amount of
money we're asking for is what we really need?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We need to, you know, have
some -- it's going to have to be prepared for in the budget
somehow or another. It can be put in as a -- you know,
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
contingent only, but you got to go through the budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if we get the grant,
we add it to the budget, and then we --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How soon do you think you
would know whether you got the grant?
MS. UECKER: Being that you're applying for local
foundations, I think we would know way before October on
whether or not the grants would be approved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Enough time for us to change
the proposed budget?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we take the check and
accept it and add it to the budget, then we would expend it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, I'll go with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion
on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's
quickly go to our 10:30 timed item, to consider, discuss,
take appropriate action regarding removal of Road and Bridge
surplus property from fixed assets.
MS. SOLDAN: I've been working on our property
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
78
insurance renewal, and going through the fixed assets and
making sure that what we have in our fixed assets is also on
our insurance. So, I e-mailed the report to Road and Bridge
and asked them to take a look at it and let me know what
items they do still currently have, and we came up with a
list of items that they do not have any more, which they
would like to remove from fixed assets, which is what was
given to you to review.
JUDGE TINLEY: What you're saying is, all of these
various items that are described have been used up and may be
either not there, or --
MS. SOLDAN: Or need to be disposed of.
JUDGE TINLEY: Salvaged iron value only, huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let's take about
22
23 a 15-mi
24
25
(Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:51 a.m.)
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
8-10-09
1
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might, after our recess. Let's move to Item 22; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action authorizing Road and Bridge
to haul water to preserve and stabilize recently installed
at-risk landscaping at the courthouse if needed.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda based
on -- the City of Kerrville recently went into Stage 3
drought restrictions, which prohibit any use of sprinkler
systems. And this is also kind of after a conversation I had
several weeks ago, maybe a month ago, with the City Manager
and others at the airport of -- you know, of looking at
alternative sources for certain projects we're undergoing in
the county, whether private or public. At that meeting, we
talked about construction projects, having to find
alternative sources at the airport, that big project, find
alternative sources, whether it's out of the river, private
wells. That got me to thinking about -- we just spent a lot
of money putting in new sod at the courthouse, and are now
prohibited from watering it, and that we do have the
resources, through our Road and Bridge Department, to be able
to haul water, and we have some wells that are in compliance
with the Underground Water District's limits, both at Little
League and at Mountain Home. And I think on a -- just to
kind of put it on the agenda once every two weeks, you know,
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
to keep this sod alive if this drought does continue, to
allow some watering on it. I think it's a -- I think it's
kind of something we just need to look at doing, and
something we need to -- I'm not sure what Leonard has from
the standpoint -- I know he can haul water. I don't know if
he can spray water or, you know, hoses, or I don't know what
we really have out there. I wanted to ask Leonard, you know,
what their ability was. And I understand that this will have
to be worked in around his other workload.
MR. ODOM: Right. And also, may I say, building
maintenance also has an individual -- you have Ray McCarson
has a CDL, so he can -- and is aware of the water truck.
It's not that Road and Bridge would not help you. We
certainly would, but the fan spray -- we do have a fan spray
on one. But there's hoses out there on the old yellow water
truck, so different things can be done for different
situations, you know. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Well, that can be --
MR. ODOM: More than happy if the Court wants to do
that. But, again, McCarson can do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think it's great,
really. It's really -- I would probably prefer to have
Maintenance do it, but using y'all's truck.
MR. ODOM: Right, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And just making sure --
8-10-09
1
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
MR. ODOM: We'll just coordinate and we'll make
sure we can get you something when you need it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we figure out a way to get
water, because it's an investment to the taxpayers. I think
we need to protect it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We can get it from the sewer
plant, another alternative.
MS. HOFFER: They charge.
MR. ODOM: They do charge us, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure -- I'm not
positive, but when we e-mailed the City Manager, I believe
they were going to cut off a lot of that as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They -- I don't believe you can
buy from the sewer plant any more under Stage 3. And there
are -- I started looking at some of our wells that we have
that we still -- and we have the capacity to pump. It can be
done; we don't use them that much. I think we need to check
on that. Obviously, if we need to buy from the City, that's
a good option too, 'cause -- just from a time standpoint.
MR. BOLLIER: I thought we could still hand-water
by water hose.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can hand-water some, or as
well, and that's another option. But this is just to give
you another option.
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
82
MR. BOLLIER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That I think is -- we just need
to make sure that landscaping is green and looks good. I
mean, whatever you're doing right now seems to be working, so
maybe just continue. I mean, it's obviously not as green as
we'd like to see it, but considering the drought we're in,
the goal is to keep it alive, not to make it beautiful.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hand-watering, there's just
two very short windows of opportunity, between 7:00 and 9:00
in the morning, and same in the evening, so that doesn't
offer you a lot of opportunity --
MR. BOLLIER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for watering this sod.
MR. BOLLIER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, it's just another
option, and I don't know -- do we need to actually take
action on this, Judge? Or just a --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- you know, seems like
everybody seems to be on the same page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Section 4,
8-10-09
1
83
payment of the bills.
2
3 the bills.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I think we should pay
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to pay
the bills. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MS. HARGIS: You don't have a 12?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I stop at 11.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was a separate sheet.
MS. HARGIS: A separate --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about 13?
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I got 13.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 13 is what replaced 12.
MS. HARGIS: You should have Number 12, which
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir. We have one extra one. I'm
going to just give y'all these and then let you hand them
around. And we have a correction on one. Number 12 should
reflect an additional 10,752.50, not .15.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a 12.
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
should be for Elections. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. How much is it?
MS. HARGIS: It should be 10,752.50.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, what's unreserved fund
balance?
MS. HARGIS: When we don't have -- in some of these
funds, we build up a -- a surplus, or we don't use the
revenue every year, and so, therefore, we go back and grab
that revenue to be able to budget for that year, and it's
called reserve fund balance or surplus funds in that account.
That particular fund has -- the election funds, I believe,
has 17,000 in it, and then the records preservation has 93.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm with you now.
The -- so, the elections -- the unreserved fund balance is
part of the elections?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. And the same
thing about the
MS. HARGIS: 13, yes. Each fund has their own
unreserved fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, very good.
MS. HARGIS: The election one I think has been
explained to you. That one is for the warranty on the
election equipment that we didn't know we were going to have
to pay. And then the records preservation is -- we -- I've
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
been told by both Jannett and Linda that that is for all --
that's for the entire courthouse. And Diane needs to put
some of her records in preservation, and for this year, they
want to put in $15,750.
JUDGE TINLEY: To include the Tax Assessor's
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: So, that's what that one is for.
JUDGE TINLEY: But these are separate funds for
specific purposes?
MS. HARGIS: That's correct. And they're being --
JUDGE TINLEY: We have adequate reserves in each of
those funds that you're attempting to draw from --
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for this specific purpose?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe I missed the bill.
What's the -- under Number 11, what is the bill for 37,000
for professional services? It's -- the current expense is
37,065.
MS. HARGIS: Those are for attorney's fees, I
believe. That's a combination total; it's not one bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's coming out of line item --
8-10-09
1
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
out of Commissioners Court.
MS. HARGIS: That's where we have your professional
services, is out of Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it wouldn't be attorney's
fees.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I thought it was under
nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We moved the money from
nondepartmental to Commissioners Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, what that is attempting to
do is to move 5,000 back into Commissioners Court
professional services that was taken out and moved over to
nondepartmental previously, and to restore the Commissioners
Court professional services. That's the whole purpose of
that. I discussed that with Ms. Mabry, and the actual amount
that is due is a little over $2,000.
MS. HARGIS: 2,065.
JUDGE TINLEY: But we weren't able to fund that,
because 5,000 had previously been taken from that fund and
put over into nondepartmental, so we're putting it back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm looking at these
headings. First heading, Current Budget, was 35,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Current Expense, 37,000.
MS. HARGIS: That's the total expense for the year.
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARGIS: So, therefore, if we budgeted 35 and
expenses are 37, we're over by 2,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: So we moved over five.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're putting the 5,000 back that
was originally taken earlier.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have a motion yet?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we do not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we approve the budget
amendments as amended today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second, but I have a
question.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I have one too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the budget amendments as shown by the summary,
being Numbers 1 through 13. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want to go?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unexpended budget balance --
(Microphone static noise.) Is that Frances?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, probably. Didn't want
you asking that question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me reword this. The
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
next to the last column, is that -- is that before the funds
come out or after?
MS. HARGIS: Before.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what I'm seeing here is
that there -- there's a balance of $7,900, and we're taking
$10,000 out of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which one are you on?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 12.
MS. HARGIS: He's on 12.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure you're doing it
right. I just -- I didn't understand it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sometimes the parentheses go
different ways on different budget amendments, I think.
MS. HARGIS: When you remove it from the fund
balance, it's a little bit more complicated than you would --
but what we have is 7,200 that's in the budgeted line item.
We wanted to move the 10,752 by adding what's remaining in
that item plus the 7,900, and if we take the 15 out, if
you're with me, let's go across --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I am not.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. All right. Let's start --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Buster --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You lost me in Eagle Pass.
JUDGE TINLEY: Buster didn't do good at the last
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
89
carnival when they did the shell game.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Shell game.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm still hung up on Rusty's
math, which doesn't work either.
MS. HARGIS: If you take the 7,200, that was what
was originally budgeted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: We need 15,000 -- I mean, 10,752.50.
That was -- and then, so if we -- if we pay that out, we
would have an $8,560.50 shortfall.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
MS. HARGIS: So, if we add -- add that 15 -- add it
in, then we will end up with 10,752.50, which is what we
need. It's kind of complicated, I'm sorry. That one is,
because the amount is incorrect; it's hard for me to carry
across, because she's got 15,000, which is incorrect.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you so much.
MS. HARGIS: I'm sure --
JUDGE TINLEY: You're completely clear on that now,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. Clear as mud.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which walnut is the pea
22
23 under z
24
25 Rusty'
right?
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
90
MS. HARGIS: The budget amendments are a little bit
different than just making a journal entry, because you're
really just replacing one and moving another from one spot to
another, which is a little bit different than a journal
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Listen, I'm thrilled to
death.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I have one comment, and
that's --	you would	not expect me	to go without	having a
comment.	Prisoner	transfer, jail,	it seems that	there's a
little --	there's a	little excess	in there. But	over here on
the jailers' salaries, I just want to make a note that
there's an excess in jailers' salaries. That's what it looks
like, unless she has the parentheses going different than she
did the meeting I asked the question about it and I was told
that it worked the other way.
MS. HARGIS: There's a little bit in the jailers'
salaries, not a lot. Because we -- we've got --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Should be able to finish out
the year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Overtime is what's going
to -- what we're really trying to shuffle around to finish
out the year with.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's having to come out of
that jailers' salary and prisoner transfer hearing.
MS. HARGIS: It's not a lot. It's just -- we're
taking little pieces now from wherever we can do, so what we
do with the salaries is we project the highest amount that
he's used for the next, you know, two months, and then
hopefully -- you know, but I think we have maybe 10,000 extra
in that line item, not a lot.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. And prisoner transfer,
haul prisoners from different states here this year. Most
years we have to contract out from what we have this year.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. We just we don't have a lot in
his line items like we've had in the past. We don't have
that big 300,000 sitting there like we did last year. I wish
we did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any 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: Motion carried. Do we have any late
MS. HARGIS: No, sir, we do not.
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with monthly
reports for Constable, Precinct 1; Constable, Precinct 4;
Kerr County Environmental Health; County Clerk; and Kerr
County Payroll Expense for July 2009; and Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 3. Do I hear a motion to approve these
reports as presented?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve
the indicated reports as presented. Question or discussion
on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. How about
reports from Commissioners in connection with their liaison
assignments? Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you. Thank
you for asking, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A couple. Just F.Y.I. for
the Court, the June unemployment rate for Kerr County is up.
It's now pegged at 5.7 percent. It was at 5 for the month of
May, so it's going to continue to rise a little bit. We're
8-10-09
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
still below the 12-county average of AACOG region, which is
6. 9, and certainly below the state, and certainly below the
nation, but it's inching up. It's 5.7. Another thing is,
with the help of Mr. Tim out there and concrete from the
Ingram Ready Mix and Mr. Maldonado -- no, not Maldonado --
yeah, it is Maldonado.
MR. BOLLIER: Drymala.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Drymala. We got four new
picnic tables with benches strategically placed in the lower
section of Flat Rock Lake Park on pads which Tim and his
people prepared. And the signage that we need out there
directing our animal friends will be placed up -- be firmed
up this week and hopefully placed out there, moving one sign,
putting in a new sign and so forth. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just checked the weather, and
just so everyone knows, the forecast for the next five days
is hot. (Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I'll go back to
California.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- ETJ, just a little bit of an
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
update on that, or lack of an update. I have not heard from
any member of City Council or City staff since our joint
meeting, so I'm not really sure what they're doing. I did
visit with -- though I presume that they're rewriting what
they think are -- how do you phrase it? The new rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Blended.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- blended rules. I'm also
working on a set of blended rules, because it appears to me
that the county rules are far more appropriate for the -- for
the -- in the area of the ET J, because there's lots of
things, water availability and septic and things of that
nature, that they don't have in their rules. So, anyway,
we'll see how that goes. I did talk to the mayor. I gave
him a call; we had a long -- good talk about it. And I had
two basic ideas as to how I thought this whole process should
proceed. I said it didn't appear to be working real well the
way it had been. I think that the -- Option A would be for
the full Commissioners Court and full City Council just to
start meeting weekly, and go through the rules page by page
until everyone signs off on them and be done with it. Every
time we seem to go to a meeting, some new -- something new is
brought up, and we're not accomplishing anything, and --
other than the fact that I've wasted a huge amount of time,
as have members of City Council and City staff.
8-10-09
1
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
So, we either need to go through it page by page
and line by line, and, you know, go through our rules and
come up with a blended set, or to me, a much better option
would be for the Commissioners Court to appoint one person,
Council to appoint one person, whoever, to -- you know, from
the Court, I would be glad to, or would like to continue
working on it. Council, I think the City Manager or Kevin
Coleman makes the most sense, in my mind, but if it's a City
Council -- it could be a City Council. Anyway, we each
appoint one person, and there's an up or down vote, no more
discussion on them. We present the rules that we -- that we
can each agree on, and just present it before the two bodies.
They can either vote for it or against it, but no changes.
I don't see that we're going to get past going
through this, and I think where we're going right now, I
really think it's going to take close to the end of the year
to come up with a blended set of rules. I don't think the
members of Council understand how different our rules are,
and you can't just say that they're close. I mean, they've
got to be exact. And I'm not willing to vote for something
that has a lot of variances built into the system. The rules
need to be the rules, and the rules then can't be changed by
either entity without the other. So, a variance can't be
given by the City, and we can't -- likewise, we couldn't.
The other big issue that, while it was not
8-10-09
1
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
addressed at that meeting, was who's going to administer
these rules in the ETJ? And I really -- and the City's been
very adamant up to now that they would be the person to
administer -- or the entity to be the administrator of the
rules, and that's been part of the problem. So, I think
there's a -- I was sorry to see the joint meeting end up
where it did. I think that the deal -- or the arrangement
that was presented at the meeting had the approval of myself
and City staff, and it seemed to go downhill from there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. What was
disappointing in that meeting -- I don't disagree with
anything you said. What was disappointing was seemingly the
inability of our -- of the City folk to interpret the map
that you worked so hard to put together. And I don't know
why, except that maybe if there's a new iteration of that
map, there needs to be some kind of a legend so it will help
them understand what's what and where it is, and et cetera,
et cetera, et cetera. And I don't know how, after thinking
about it -- you and I have spoken one time about it since
that meeting. I don't know how you can administer a set of
blended rules unless you have some kind of a map as a
guideline as to where it's going to take place.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, after you -- you had to
leave a little bit early, and after -- I kind of got maybe
oversimplistic with the -- with the problem. And it really
8-10-09
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
boils down to -- to acreage and size of tracts. It's really
all it's tied to. If -- you know, and I think I expressed
the opinion to them that if you're not planning to annex this
property, if it's not going to be high density and you're not
planning on providing services, then why do you really want
to have anything to do with the platting process? And that's
really it. I mean, if it's going to require septics, it's
going to tie to our rules. If it's going to require wells,
it's going to tie to our rules, if they don't have public
water. And so, really, I think it's just -- it's just lot
size and density, is all that needs to be tied to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we were there -- I mean,
the map -- you know, it was their map. They were the ones
that generated the map. We just modified it and said, "Here,
we want to add some areas and delete some areas." But,
anyway, that meeting -- what happened, happened at the
meeting. I think with a blended set of rules, you're still
going to need a map to divide up the areas a little bit of
responsibility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And, you know -- so, you
know, I think we can still get there. I think -- I really
think we're there. It's just a matter of, you know, maybe --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Making everybody
8-10-09
1
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- explaining one more time.
The rules that were presented were blended. The County --
and what was presented at that meeting, it was a provision
that the County was going to basically add four things to our
subdivision rules that accommodated all of the concerns that
the City had for density development. So, anyway --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Bruce's point's
well-taken.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can't have density if you
don't have wastewater.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And that's -- that's
what it did. It -- that map pretty much did it, and it gave
the flexibility that if the density development came in, it
went to the City. But we'll get there at some point. I'm
sure I'll -- we'll be getting a -- I wish the City staff
would, you know, contact -- seems to me, I hate to have them
spend a whole lot of time writing a set of rules when I
really think the -- our rules really have to be in place in
areas, because we're under a -- because of the -- any lot
size less than 5 acres -- or 5 acres or less has to follow
Water Development Board rules. I mean, there's no
flexibility, and they don't have -- you know, that's talking
about 20, 30 pages of text that they don't have in their
rules, and it has to. So, anyway --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And your illustration about
8-10-09
1
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
county roads is a valid -- very valid illustration.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There, again, if you don't
have density, they need to follow the county rules. If
you're going to have a high-density subdivision with small
lots and have wastewater, you need curb and gutter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, I think we'll get
there, but I -- I'm afraid it got a little bit of a glitch,
and hopefully -- I asked the mayor to visit with Council
about it tomorrow night. We'll see what happens.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to attend
that meeting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pretty straightforward
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mountain Home has poured the
slab for their new firehouse as of last week.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mountain Home?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mountain Home has finished
8-10-09
1
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Hopefully it will be up
before the May -- excuse me, October 10th fundraiser, which
will be another fish fry this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's doing the fish fry, I
wonder?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can't imagine, Bill. I
think it's going to be the same group that has done it the
last four years. Anyway, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have any reports from
elected officials? County Attorney.
MR. EMERSON: Brief. Very briefly. Ilse is going
out with knee surgery. She'll be out for a couple of weeks,
so bear with us if we're a little slower than normal getting
you answers. And we have two A.G. opinion requests pending.
I know y'all are aware of the first one. We got an answer
back as to the video room at the Sheriff's Department, and
that came back favorable to the Sheriff's Department. And
the second one is pending on the mental health transports,
and it looks like all the amicus briefs are due today. So,
they're going to have to make a decision pretty quick, and at
least so far, based on everything we've seen, everybody's
encouraging them to expedite the decision, don't sit on it
for six months like they have a statutory right to do. And
we'll see what shakes loose.
8-10-09
1
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That decision will affect
probably every Sheriff's Department and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- M.H.M.R. across the state.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Every county budget.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's going to be major.
MR. EMERSON: Interestingly enough, the general
counsel for M.H.M.R. facility has called and asked us to
withdraw our request. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That's interesting.
MR. EMERSON: It is interesting. I very politely
told them, thank you, but no thank you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Might have to change their
policy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. It's a funding issue for
them, obviously. Any other elected officials have any
reports? Department heads? Naysayers?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's me. That's me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who -- who is going to bring
about -- I think either you or Rusty or somebody, bring about
the status of the new building?
JUDGE TINLEY: I am expecting to hear something
hopefully from Mr. Lewis this week, hopefully, on his layout.
Also, the floodplain issue -- the drainage issue is being
8-10-09
1
2
3
102
looked at by the floodplain engineer, because that's
necessarily going to have to be incorporated. But it's
moving forward.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then we would -- are we
going to have to visit with Bob Henderson about all this?
JUDGE TINLEY: I've talked last week with the
Auditor, that we need to get him in the loop also, and she
indicated she was going to be calling him, and to get him
involved. How -- how quickly do you want -- do you want him
involved? Like, R.A.T. now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm thinking -- you
know, I can't remember exactly what agreement we had with the
present building.
14
15
16 like
17 deal.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a six -- we have a bailout
after the first six months in the one year-term of the new
lease, which begins October 1. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we have about a year?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we've actually got eight months.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, maybe that's
plenty of time; I don't know. I can't see --
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's under consideration,
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
103
because I talked with the Auditor about it last week, and
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we're going to use
Henderson, seems like to me that we'd get him -- get him
involved as early as we can.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got him involved,
however, for all of the capital items that we may be
contemplating.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. He likes to have as much of the
data that -- before he comes so he can absorb it and be able
to plug in the numbers to bring. So, I'm waiting for this
last number. I've got everything else plugged in I can think
of .
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay.
MS. HARGIS: So, if there is any other capital
items that each of you would like to have considered in
that -- the airport, I don't know if I have all of the
airport in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a very important
Airport Board meeting this afternoon which Commissioner Letz
and I will be at, and we'll -- the terms and that will be
talked about, their capital items.
25 ~ MS. HARGIS: Yeah, 'cause they have not given those
8-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1a
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
to me. I asked for those from Josh, but he hemhawed around a
little bit and didn't give them to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we can spur them on
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think also they're looking --
based on our joint meeting, they're relooking at that list
and prioritizing the dates on them.
JUDGE TINLEY: And exactly how the -- the ongoing
funding is going to be handled, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Much different manner than we may
have handled it in the past.
MS. HARGIS: But, again, if there is anything
else -- I do have a temporary list I can pass out to each of
you, and you can look at those and see if there's anything
else. I've just been adding as people have requested.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you e-mail that list?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that would be
interesting information to have. It may trigger something
that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, some other --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't we meet for budget
tomorrow afternoon?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, workshop.
8-10-09
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: I'll e-mail that out as soon as we get
back to the office, to each of you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: If you want a hard copy, just come by
and I'll give it to you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, e-mail.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more naysayers? That's
wonderful. Anything else? We will be adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:22 a.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 13th day of August,
2009.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : _____ ___'___ __ _ _____ _
Kathy B nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-10-09
ORDER NO. 31387
AMEND COURT ORDER NO. 31347 FOR REPLACEMENT OF ELECTION
JUDGES AND ALTERNATES
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve amending Court Order No. 31347 and replacing the following Alternate
Election Judges:
Precinct 303: Wanda Holekamp with Margaret Morries
Precinct 118: JoAnn Jones with Dona Mideke
For the term of one (1) year in accordance with the Texas Election Code Section 32.
ORDER NO. 31388
DECLARE PERSONAL PROPERTY AS SURPLUS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams/Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve declaring certain personal property as surplus, and authorize disposing of same.
ORDER N0.313 89
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT RECONFIGURING OFFICE SPACE
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Maintenance Department reconfiguring their office space in the basement of the
Courthouse.
ORDER NO. 31390
SEAL COATING PROJECT WITH CITY OF KERRVILLE
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve participation by Road and Bridge with the City of Kerrville on a seal coating
project for Alamo Drive N., Olympic Drive N. and San Jacinto Drive N., located in
Precinct 3.
ORDER NO. 31391
ALLOW HEADWATERS GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO
DRILL A MONITORING WELL
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District drilling a monitoring well on
Lower Reservation Road, located in Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 31392
PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRIVATE ROAD NAME
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve setting a Public Hearing for Monday, September 14, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for
naming a private road, Moorhead Road E., located in Precinct 2.
ORDER N0.31393
KERB COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BUDGET AMENDMENT
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Kerr County Appraisal District budget amendment to allow certain capital
improvements to be made.
ORDER NO. 31394
BURN BAN
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve extending the Burn Ban for an additiona190 days.
ORDER NO. 31395
DISTRICT COURT TECHNOLOGY FUND
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the District Clerks' Annual Plan for the preservation and restoration of the
District Court records archive as presented, and set a public hearing for September 14,
2009 at 10:10 a.m. to establish a District Court Technology Fund, setting a fee of $5.00 to
be assessed on the filing of Civil actions.
ORDER NO. 31396
COUNTY AND DISTRICT COURT TECHNOLOGY FUND
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve establishing a County and District Court Technology fund to comply with HB
3637, and set a filing fee of $10.00 to be assessed in each civil case to be used only to
digitize court records and preserve the records from natural disasters.
ORDER NO. 31397
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR INMATE FOOD SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Sheriff going out for Request for Proposals (RFPs) for inmate food service.
ORDER NO. 31398
APPLICATION FOR HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FOR COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Oehler/Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Sheriff submitting an application for a Homeland Security Grant for
communications equipment.
ORDER NO. 31399
INMATE HOUSING CONTRACT WITH GILLESPIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Inmate Housing Contract between Kerr County Sheriff's Office and
Gillespie County Sheriff's Office, at $37 per day per inmate, subject to the final approval
by the County Attorney, and authorize the County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 31400
APPLY FOR LOCAL FOUNDATIONS FOR GRANT TO UPDATE AUDIO-VISUAL
TECHNOLOGY
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Grant application as presented by the Kerr County Sheriff, to apply to local
foundations for Grant to upgrade audio-visual technology in three courtrooms.
ORDER NO. 31401
ROAD AND BRIDGE SURPLUS PROPERTY
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve removing surplus property from the Road & Bridge Fixed Assets list.
ORDER NO. 31402
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, came to be considered by the Court
various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	133,243.93
14-Fire Protection	$	4019.45
15-Road & Bridge	$	24,326.01
16-2008 Capital Projects	$	500.00
26-JP Technology	$	2,500.00
28-Records Mgmt & Preserv	$	18,850.00
31-Parks	$	150.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	1,508.00
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	82.30
82-SO Law Enforcement	$	2,309.60
83-216t" District Attorney	$	1,025.25
86-216t" CSCD	$	1,340.87
TOTAL $ 189,855.41
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 31403
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unAnimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve paying the Budget Amendment Nos. 1-13 as presented.
ORDER NO. 31404
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of August, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Monthly Reports from:
Constable Pct # 1
Constable Pct #4
Kerr County Environmental Health
County Clerk
Kerr County Payroll Expenses for July, 2009
JP #3