1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, April 12, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
ABSENT: WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
c~
P. 1
~V
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
I N D E X
April 12, 2004
PAGE
--- Commissioners Comments 5
1.9 Approve interlocal agreement between Kerr County
& Kimble County for housing inmates, authorize
signatures of the Judge and Sheriff 10
1.1 Proposal to TexDOT that a south-of-the-river
road to connect new high bridge in Kerrville
with Hunt be considered in the planning process
of the Texas Mobility Fund Strategic Plan 14
1.2 Accept offer from the TexDOT for Kerr County to
assume ownership of a portion of old Highway 39
near Ingram 19
1.3 Discuss provision of fire and emergency services
	to citizens who reside in the far northwest corner	
	of the county, including Y.O. Ranchlands residents	21
1.4	Request to waive inspection fees for septic systems	
	removed from service in Phase I of Kerrville South	
	Wastewater Project	30
1.5	Agreement For Professional Services with Texas	
	Conference of Urban Counties to bring the County	
	into compliance with HIPPA privacy regulations	34
1.6	Approval of 2004 Employee Benefit Administrative	
	Service Agreement, authorize County Judge to sign	40
1.7	Adopt Kerr County Safety Policy Statement and	
	Safety Committee Members	45
1.8	Consider whether January 2, 2004, is to be	
	considered an official County holiday	47
1.10	Budget amendment to Constable 3's Capital Outlay	
	line items to acquire radio	52
1.11 Approve contract to participate in Failure to
Appear Program with Texas Department of Public
Safety, authorize County Judge to sign 60
1.12 Approve electric line easement and right-of-way,
authorize County Judge to sign 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
I N D E X (continued)
April 12, 2004
PAGE
1.13	Approve Earth Day Proclamation	65
1.14	Authorize staff to enter into contract for	
	erecting airport fencing	67
1.15	Resolution authorizing Airport Manager to pursue	
	funding avenues for airport capital improvements	71
1.16	Authorize execution of Professional Services	
	Agreement Pursuant to the TexDOT General Aviation	
	Terminal Grant	79
1.17	Set public hearing date for alternate plat process,	
	Lots 14 & 15 of The Horizon, Section One	83
1.18	Set public hearing date for alternate plat process,	
	Lots 32 & 33 of The Horizon, Section One	84
1.19	Present Engineer's Flood Study for Lots 42-44 of	
	of Bumble Bee Hills, consider whether revision of	
	plat is required for same	85
1.20	Request by City of Kerrville for the Kerr County	
	Environmental Health Department Manager to act as	
	City's Designated Representative in administering	
	O.S.S.F. program	120
4.1	Pay Bills	122
4.2	Budget Amendments	124
4.3	Late Bills	134
4.4	Read and Approve Minutes	134
4.5	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	135
5.1	Reports from Commissioners, Liaison/Committees	136
---	Adjourned	137
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, April 12, 2004, 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: Let me call to order the
regular Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this time
and date, Monday, April 12th, at 9 a.m. Commissioner Letz,
I think you're up this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would everyone please
stand and join me in a moment of prayer?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this point, if
there's any member of the public who wishes to address the
Court or say anything to the Court about anything that is
not a listed agenda item, you're privileged to do so at this
time. If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we would
ask that you fill out a participation form. The forms are
at the back of the room. That's not an absolute
requirement; it just helps us -- or helps me, at least, be
aware of who wants to be heard on a given matter, so that
hopefully I don't miss you. But, at this time, if there's
anybody that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a
listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time.
Seeing no one, why, we'll move on. Commissioner Letz, have
4-12-04
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
s--.
25
you got anything for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a -- I'd like to
thank Road and Bridge Department for their great work on
getting out after the floods and cleaning things up
extremely quickly, at least in my precinct. I received a
number of calls thanking them, and I wanted to pass that
along. That's it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The -- we got 5, in
some places 6 inches of rain in two to three hours, and had
a pretty good-sized flood, not a real bad flood. Was
isolated for, oh, 18 hours or so. A lot of debris because
of the speed of the water. And same thing; our Road and
Bridge group and the state Highway Department got out there
and got things cleaned up. Nobody got hurt. Little bit of
water in some houses, but not as bad as it has been, so I'm
thankful for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me get one quick
aside. The Hermann Road -- Hermann Son's road and bridge
made it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, hallelujah. Go
through that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just
wanted to alert the Court to one issue, that the -- will be
coming in here pretty soon, and that is Boy Scouts of
4-lam'-04
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
America, local group, is going to want to erect a monument
of some sort on the courthouse lawn. I think there are
three different troops in this town, plus a home-schooled
troop as well. And Troop Number 1 is in Kerrville, Texas,
and I think that that is -- means that's the first troop in
the United States. So, collectively, I understand that
they're going to come to us and want to put some kind of a
monument or something on the courthouse lawn, so I just
wanted you to -- I wanted Commissioner Letz to start
thinking about that and -- and to be nice to them when they
do come in. That's all. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Couple of items
this morning. One is, tomorrow is runoff election day, and
I haven't heard much interest generated, but there --
there's at least one race on the Republican, and I think
more than one on the Democratic primary runoff ballots, and
so I would urge everybody to exercise their right to vote
and participate in that election. The second item that I
have is a -- is a good news item. Some of you may recall,
and I'm sure the members of the Court recall, we -- we opted
to participate in a safety incentive program sponsored by
the Texas Association of Counties, and we have been selected
to be the recipient of an incentive award. And we have a
representative from Texas Association of Counties, Mr. Larry
Boccaccio, here this morning, and I'd like to take a few
9-1~-04
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
minutes and -- and thank Mr. Boccaccio for all of his
efforts. We`ve had some safety issues recently that have
been unexpected and unprecedented here in the county, and he
has been extraordinarily helpful, and Texas Association of
Counties has allowed him to be somewhat of a semipermanent
fixture over here to assist us, and I want to thank him for
all of his efforts, and Texas Association of Counties for
permitting him to assist us. We've -- we've still got a
ways to go, and we're going to do what it takes to comply
with any lawful requirements, and we want a meaningful and a
very effective safety program here in Kerr County, because
it's going to result in considerable savings to -- to the
taxpayers of this county. It impacts a number of things.
Tt impacts our workers compensation rate, and Mr. Boccaccio
will let you know a little something about that in a minute.
It also affects our lost time. It affects a whole lot of
things. And so we -- we want and will obtain a real
effective safety program. And, Mr. Boccaccio, the floor is
yours. Thank you very much for being here.
MR. BOCCACCIO: Great. Thank you, Judge,
Commissioners. I -- I don't get to do as many of these as I
would like to do, so I -- I take full advantage of it when
my little number comes up. It's like, "Oh, great." So,
yeah, I have actually two things for you. And, Judge, you
mentioned the Safety Incentive Program -- see how long my
9-1~-09
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
voice lasts. But what that is, the County opted to
participate in our safety program. It's a mandatory
seven-step component, and as a result of that, the County is
eligible, and we're rebating back to you about $18,000.
This is actually a full 10 percent of the workers comp
premium. So, one of my few that got the full 10 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is good.
MR. BOCCACCIO: So, congratulations on that.
That's a good -- a good one. Now, this year at C.M.I., all
the safety guys were actually asked to come up with about 10
counties that we consider good examples of safety programs.
This year, I only could come up with seven. So, as a result
of that, you're -- you're one of my seven as far as a good
program that's in place, and like the Judge said, we're
working towards some things. Had a little misfortune with
the -- the wonderful State of Texas and the Workers Comp
Commission, but we're -- we're going to succeed over that.
So, that's -- that's going to be kind of a drawn-out
project, so you'll probably see me, like he said, around
here a good bit. So, if you'd like -- would y'all like to
do a picture?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MS. LAVENDER: Come down and somebody accept
it, at least.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Come down? Come up?
~-i~-o~
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Whichever. Where do you want
us?
MS.
MR.
MS.
Treasurer's office
work. Come on, Ci
work on this.
LAVENDER:
BOCCACCIO:
NEMEC: In
gets in th
ndy. She's
He can hand it to you.
How's that?
the years past, the
picture, since we do all the
the one that does a lot of
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like this.
MS. NEMEC: Think we should stand behind
them? Behind them.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: This is great, 18 grand,
10 percent cut. You betcha. It adds up over the years.
Thank you, --
MR. BOCCACCIO: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Mr. Larry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Treasurer's
office.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for your efforts,
and we look forward to seeing you a good deal more.
MR. BOCCACCIO: Good. I like to do the
positive things too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOCCACCIO: Thank y'all.
9-1?-09
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, I'd
like to take an item out of order because of some
commitments that the Sheriff has, and go to Item 9 on the
agenda, and that is to consider, discuss, and approve an
interlocal agreement between Kerr County and Kimble County
for the housing of inmates, and authorize the signatures of
the Judge and the Sheriff on that agreement. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Real quickly --
and I appreciate your taking it out of order. I have Grand
Jury this morning also. This is our standard agreement we
have signed with all the surrounding counties around us.
Bandera, Kendall, Gillespie. And Kimble has asked us from
time to time to house inmates, so I felt we needed to have
an agreement with them also due to their population
constraints that they have. It's -- nothing's changed in
this agreement compared to what we've had with the other
ones. It's $37 a day and any reimbursement for damages
intentionally caused by their inmates, if there were any,
and reimbursement for any medical. The agreements have all
been looked at by the County Attorney. And, like I said,
they're just standard agreements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move the agreement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item and the agreement. Any further
4-1^-04
1
-- 2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question for
the Sheriff. Do we have any relationship with Menard
County?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Every once in a while,
when they have a trial coming up and they need one, we do
house one. I don't have an agreement with them. I do have
one, I believe, with Mason or Brady. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Next time you get
something going with Menard County, let me know. I got a
speeding ticket there last weekend, and I -- I think it's
time to visit about that relationship.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't even want to
know about your speeding ticket you got in Menard County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I do.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd like to know more about
it. What was the allegation, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, they were wrong.
So wrong. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: They made the allegation that
they were wrong?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, they didn't make
that allegation.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They felt like they
g-1<-a~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
were right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One other question.
Have we been recently housing out-of-county inmates?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have all along been
housing up to about 26 of Bandera County's. Now, we got too
full here a few weeks ago. We hit 185, 186, which is way
over what we can have to classify, due to the number of gang
members and that we have in there. We had to ask Bandera
County to come get theirs. Now, at the same time, Bandera
County has entered into another housing contract, I believe
with Frio County. I don't know what all the terms are in
that, but one that we cannot continue to keep housing
theirs -- and 'cause of our in-house our own population
going up, I can`t be concerned about it, but I doubt if we
will be housing very many of Bandera County's any more,
except on special occasions, because the contract they have
with Frio County, Frio County has also agreed to transport
Bandera's inmates back and forth to court, and there's no
way we can transport another county's inmates, and I
wouldn't even consider it. So, you know, we're kind of
going to lose a vast majority of our out-of-county housing,
but our population last week was averaging 160 to 170. Now,
80 percent of our max is 153 to keep it where we can really
classify us, so we're at the point where most of our
out-of-county housing's going to be few and far between.
?-~^-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you dealing with
gang members now more than you have historically? Is the
problem increasing?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, the problem has
gotten serious in the last year, and we have a number of
gang members in our -- in our jail now. We have a number of
investigations going involving gang members, and it is,
unfortunately, getting to be a serious problem.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And these are adult
gangs, not youth?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, these aren't your
little youth gangs. These are Mexican Mafia, Aryan
Brotherhood, Latin Kings, some of our more serious gangs
that have started coming in. And we've always maintained a
zero tolerance on them, and we have to do that, and so,
consequently, we've got a number of them in jail.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to vote. We
need to vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? Did I not call for a
vote on that?
MS. PIEPER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
4-72-09
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
14
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next
item on the agenda is consideration and discussion of a
proposal tv the Texas Department of Transportation that a
south-of-the-river road to connect the new high bridge in
Kerrville with Hunt be considered in the planning process
and development of the Texas Mobility Fund Strategic Plan,
and authorization of the County Judge to communicate this
proposal to the Director of Transportation Planning and
Programming Division by the April 16, 2004 deadline.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; First, there's some
documents -- there a cover letter from Attorney Oehler --
that don't belong in there. They belong in -- under Item
1.2, so the only thing you -- you have on this item is the
note -- the note that I sent. I've been -- been talking
with a number of people, but particularly Len Odom, for some
time now about the need to do some planning, long-term
planning on the traffic issue for west Kerr County. Highway
39 is -- from Ingram t~ Hunt, Hunt to Ingram, is barely
adequate. There's a lot of traffic on it. It's dangerous,
and there's been a number of auto accidents there, and some
of them very serious; there have been people killed on them
4-1~-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
over the years. It seems like there's very little
alternatives toward improving that stretch of highway. You
got the river on one side and you've got bluffs and rocks
and -- and private property on the other side. Someday
what's going to be needed is an alternate route from
Kerrville, Ingram, to west Kerr County and Hunt, and a
south-of-the-river route is -- is feasible and probably
preferable.
If we could get some help from TexDOT, I'm --
and I'm guessing this may be a 10-, 15-year project. We're
not going to have a road out there any time soon. If we can
get some help from TexDOT on funding the planning of it,
which would include surveying, and then probably naming an
easement, telling the landowners out there that there's
going to be an easement and here's where it's going to be,
and someday we're going to -- to build a highway out there,
that would be -- that's step one, if we're going to do that.
So, when this opportunity came along from the Director of
Transportation Planning and Programming Division, we thought
it would be a good idea to nominate this project for their
consideration.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I
think that this is something that we -- the Court has talked
about for some time, this particular project, and other
long-range planning on roads. I think that this is -- this
4-1~-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
particular road is also in the Kerrville -- City of
Kerrville's Master Road Plan. I serve on that committee,
along with a bunch of other roads, but this is one of those
to try to figure out how to get traffic basically into
Kerrville and around Kerrville, so I think that the -- you
know, I certainly have no problem with going with TexDOT on
this particular one right now. If we can get on the list,
great. But I think that, beyond that, the next step is for
us to look at the Master Road Plan that the City adopted and
proceed with that, and then get something probably in our --
either court order or subdivision rules or something that --
so that when property becomes available, there's a mechanism
for the County to start acquiring those rights-of-way, even
if we do stockpile it. I don't know. And -- and I think
some of the planning and surveying that you mentioned,
that -- I think that would be a good topic to bring up with
the City of Kerrville at our joint meeting with them,
because I think it's -- if TexDOT will come up with the
funds for it, that will be, obviously, number one, but if
they won't, then we have the City of Kerrville and the
County to join and look at planning for some of these roads
that are way out in the future; you know, 15, 20 years. To
get that built in 15, 20 years, we need to start doing the
work now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
4-12-04
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, if I understand
your request today, Commissioner, is that we go on record as
supporting that project in general terms as a long-range
project, hopefully to be done by TexDOT. Is that
essentially what you're requesting today?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I'm requesting
that the Commissioners authorize you to communicate this
project to the Director of Transportation Planning and
Programming Division.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the Texas Mobility
Fund that is in the backup material, is there anything in --
there was, I believe, an April 16th date in there. Is there
any particular form that you're aware of? Or we just need
to send a letter to TexDOT and say we want to be considered
for that particular fund or any funds? Or --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They just -- they
sent -- it seems fairly informal. They say provide us with
any comments you would like us to consider when developing
the plan. So, I'm -- I was thinking simply a letter from
the County Judge, just briefly describing -- one paragraph
describing what the project might be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To see if it fits
their criteria.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Is that a motion?
4-1<-09
18


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further questions or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a
comment. About 15 years ago, when I was a Commissioner out
in Precinct 4, we built a road from Indian Creek over to
Bear Creek, connected those two for the first time, with
this basically same thought in mind. And when we -- we
built it, we built it with 120 feet right-of-way, which is
what the State requires. So, that -- that segment is in
place and ready to go. Now, connecting Bear Creek on into
Kerrville, from Bear Creek to Thompson Drive, I understand
-- I was in a meeting not too long ago -- that there's plans
on the table of connecting those two now, so it`s getting
there. I know it's a little slower than we'd like, but,
boy, that's a tough one. But you were going in the right
direction, Commissioner. I appreciate your -- you doing
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: The meetings that I've been
involved in at -- and I believe it's called Freedom Trail,
the segment you were talking about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
9-12-04
19
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That segment has been
mentioned as being the intermediate or middle segment in
that -- in that south-of-the-road route.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: South of the river.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or south of the river, excuse
me, yeah. Any further questions 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 does carry. Next item
on the agenda is to consider and discuss accepting an offer
from TexDOT for Kerr County to assume ownership of a portion
of old Highway 39 near Ingram. That runs from a point south
of the new Highway 39 on the Hill Country Arts Foundation
property, across that property and across the property of
the little -- Ingram Little League to connect back to the
new Highway 39. Mr. Odom --
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and Commissioner Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is -- this
issue came up, I guess, two meetings ago, and it's -- the
source of raising the issue is -- is two places. One,
TexDOT asked us to -- wrote a letter to the Judge and asked
~-i~-o~
20

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
us to assume ownership of this old Highway 39 that runs
through the Point Theatre and the Ingram Little League.
Then I got a letter from Attorney Oehler, and he is
representing Point Theatre, and he was proposing essentially
the same thing. A little more complexity to it, in that
there would be a separate piece of business between TexDOT
and the Point Theatre where they would gain ownership to
their entrance to the Point Theatre property. I've had
occasion to talk with Attorney Oehler, and to ask him if the
Point Theatre was interested in owning that road, and he --
he affirmed that he thought they were interested in owning
the road. And I talked with some Little League officials,
but at this point they're a non-meeting organization.
That's a pretty loose-knit group, and there's more
information that's needed from them about what their
intentions would be. What I'm going to suggest is that
we -- that Commissioners Court assemble the parties to this
issue, TexDOT, City of Ingram, Point Theatre, and the Little
League and Commissioners and County government, and review
the issues and see if we can -- we can come to a place where
all -- we're all of one mind on what needs to be done.
JUDGE TINLEY: I had a discussion with
attorney Danny Edwards, who is City Attorney for the City of
Ingram, and he had originally placed this on the City of
Ingram's council agenda for last week, and after our
9-1~-09
21

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
discussion, we came generally to the conclusion that
probably before this thing gets going off in the wrong
direction again, that we needed to get all of the parties
together that -- that are stakeholders in this issue, and
see if we can find out something that's commonly acceptable
to them and then move forward from there. And he's going to
suggest to the Ingram Council -- I assume he did last
week -- that they not take any formal action on this item
and essentially do what you've requested.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, no action is needed
today?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; If there's no
objection to this plan for going forward, we can -- we can
just pass on this one now. By the way, there was a --
Commissioners, there was a document with a cover letter from
the Bandera County Judge that was in that section that
belongs in the reports section, so I'll talk about that at
the end of our meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, thank you.
Anything further on the second item on the agenda? If not,
we'll move on to the third item on the agenda, and that is
consideration and discussion of the provisions of fire and
emergency services to citizens who resides in the far
northwest corner of Kerr County, including the residents of
the Y.O. Ranchlands Subdivision, Commissioner Nicholson.
4-~~~-04
22
I
1
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 NICHOLSON: Terri Budow is a
resident of Y.O. Ranchlands Subdivision, and she's present
today and she would like to address us.
MS. BUDOW: Judge, Commissioners, Jannett, as
Mr. Nicholson said, I'm Terri Budow and I'm from the Y.O.
Ranchlands Homeowners Association. For those of you who
aren't familiar with us, we are 10,000 acres just north of
the Y.O. itself. We have about 100 families, and the
Ranchlands Home Owners Association was established through
the C.C.& R., the deed restrictions on each of the
homeowners' property. My husband, Harry Budow, is president
of the homeowners association. I'm on the infrastructure
committee, which is charged with the issues that we're
asking you to address today. Our issues are as follows: We
would like the Commissioners to insure that 9-1-1 both
dispatches fires and the first responders for our areas are
the Junction Volunteer Fire Department and the Junction EMS.
Regarding the fire services, in looking at
the KARFA protocol, we understand that they've established
that the Divide Volunteer Fire Department would be our First
Responders. Divide is at least 11 miles further than
Junction. Divide, on its -- by its own admission, isn't yet
fully ramped up and doesn't have the equipment to respond.
Kerr County, as I understand it, has a contract with
Junction to respond in the Kerr County area. It's just not
4-i?-o~
23
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-.
25
established that it will be a first responder in our area.
Lee Hall, who runs the volunteer fire department for
Junction, believes that he should be a first responder.
He`s fully familiar with our area, and agrees that he should
be. And so, to the extent that the contract needs to be
amended to reflect that they will be the first responder,
we'd ask that you do that, and we'd ask that you charge
9-1-1 with dispatching them as our first responder. We
haven't yet had any fires in our area where it's -- we've
had to call upon any fire service, but we'd like to make
sure that they are our first responders.
As far as EMS, in the last two years -- or in
the last 12 months, we've had two occasions to have 9-1-1
dispatch EMS. Kerrville responded in each of those
occasions. They were both thought to be heart attacks, and
the first incident, it took an hour and 40 minutes for the
Kerrville EMS to respond. In the second incident, it took
over an hour. It was a fatal heart attack in each case.
Kerrville EMS turned out to be of no effect in both
instances. We understand that, again, Kerrville Fire
Department has a contract with Junction EMS to respond in
our area, or to respond for Kerr County, but it's just not
reflected in that contract that they be first responder. I
haven't been able to get ahold of Becky Chenault, who, it's
my understanding, is responsible for the EMS in Junction,
~-~~-o~

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
but I understand there wouldn't be any objection to them
being first responders for our EMS. So, we'd ask that the
Commission do that; make sure that 9-1-1 dispatches Kerr --
Junction EMS, and then that they also actually be required
to respond. Thank you. Any questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much,
Ms. Budow.
MS. BUDOW: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds reasonable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The City of
Kerrville, I'm told, does have a mutual aid pact, so I
suppose that's the vehicle for -- for causing Junction to be
dispatched instead of somebody else. We -- that's not the
County. County doesn't have the authority to make that
call, but we can ask the City to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that we can enter
into an interlocal agreement with Kimble County. I think
Kimble -- the Commissioners Court, Kimble County, and/or,
you know, City of Kerrville, as well as wherever the
counterpart -- Kimble County, probably, all need to sign. I
think the mutual aid agreement is a little bit different
than what you're talking about here. I think that's just a
-- everyone agrees help to each other. I think you probably
need a separate interlocal agreement that specifically says
4-12-04
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
who the first responder is, because with that comes a lot of
liability issues to one or the other. And -- you know, and
the same issue we've talked about before certainly comes up
in the eastern part of the county as well, between Kendall
County as much, you know, for -- it's willing to at times
provide the services.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who would be the
party to the interlocal agreement -- parties?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess you'd probably
need the City of Kerrville, Kimble County, Kerr County. I
don't know if it's the county or who handles the EMS portion
in Kimble County. I guess that's -- they're the parties. I
think you need both entities or both sides from both of the
counties, would be my thought, and that's how I would
proceed. I think -- I mean, I've been trying to get one of
these with Kendall County for a while; haven't been
successful to get them to agree to it. It sounds like
Kimble County is more willing to work with the residents of
far western Kerr County than -- than my area. But I think a
separate interlocal agreement is the way, because I think it
needs to be real clear who the first responder is, and
it's -- and not -- I mean, 'cause I know the -- the current
system in the eastern part of the county I bet is the same
in the west, is that I bet Kimble County is probably
notified or toned out at the same time that it goes to the
4-1~-04
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fire department in Kerrville. However, who does the
transportation and who is the -- actually the liable party
is -- you know, needs to be addressed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my question,
the whole thing. And 9-1-1's sitting here; might be able to
answer. If we do that and Kimble County is the first
responder, that doesn't mean that City of Kerrville is just
completely dropped out of the picture. I mean, will they
get the same message and know that there's something going
on?
MR. AMERINE: Certainly. I mean, the 9-1-1
call will still terminate with our answering point here in
Kerrville. The protocol that was mentioned can be adjusted
to whatever would meet that homeowners association for their
benefit. But there's all sorts of -- one of the things to
consider in this follow-up discussion is mutual aid and
understanding that even though -- I want to say Divide --
even though you'll be changing who will be responding for
fire or for EMS, that there's always a backup in all these
circumstances. But -- I think someone mentioned this
earlier. The 9-1-1 organization doesn't have the authority
to change the protocol and, you know, start dispatching
Kimble County EMS or even a different fire department.
That's something that we'll have to work through KARFA and
through the County on a local -- interlocal agreement, or
4-1~-G4

27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the City of Kerrville with an interlocal agreement. We'll
do whatever we're told to do; we're happy to serve the
public however it best suits them. We can't just simply go
in and change the protocol dispatch, because --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that.
MR. AMERINE: -- somebody wants us to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I just
don't want the ball dropped. Most -- Junction being a
volunteer department, I love them and they're great. I are
one. But there's just something about that, somebody
sitting at the City of Kerrville picking up the telephone,
that I like more. I just don't want the ball to drop
somewhere.
MR. AMERINE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other issue
comes, I'm sure -- I mean, I don't know how many ambulances
they have on call in Junction, but I guess it's probably
one, and if that ambulance -- or even if it's two, whatever
it is, those could all be already at accidents or on other
calls in Kimble County, and you still may have to dispatch
out of Kerrville. So, I mean -- you know, so it all needs
to be taken into consideration and all the protocols worked
out.
MR. AMERINE: That's part of the mutual aid
thing I was mentioning. Most of the departments have this
4-12-G9
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
where, if they're currently occupied, then there are
secondary backup people that you will dispatch. Those
things need to be worked out in the circumstances.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And maybe -- I
mean, I'm not really familiar with the verbiage of the
mutual aid agreement. Maybe we need just to modify that; it
may be a simpler approach. I just don't know. But I think
we need to have it in writing in one of those agreements.
Once it's done, then I'll try to use the same one in the
east, because I think we definitely need one in the eastern
part of the county as well. And, I mean, the next step
is -- I don't know if it's -- you know, maybe Bill can help,
or Caunty Attorney's office representative, maybe. You
know, I don't know how we proceed. Maybe talk to Chief
Holloway.
JUDGE TINLEY: My thinking would be that,
from Mr. Amerine and the County Attorney's office making
contact with whoever the other parties are involved, City of
Junction, the VFD up there, and City of Kerrville, that a
draft of a proposed agreement or amendment to an existing
agreement, be that mutual aid agreement or interlocal
agreement, be prepared to be presented to us, such would
change the primary responder for fire and EMS purposes at
the Y.O. Ranchlands to the Junction personnel, with
secondary or backup being Divide and then other personnel as
4-i~-04
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
falls under the KARFA protocol, and start putting that
together. That would seem to be the appropriate way to at
least begin.
MS. BUDOW: We would ask that Divide just be
excepted at all from responding. In discussing with Divide,
they are -- by their own admission, aren't ramped up at all
to respond, and neither have their equipment going nor their
volunteers marshaled, so we would ask that Mountain Home or
Kerrville be the secondary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that could be one of the
issues to be looked at in this entire process, I would
think.
MS. BUDOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, we need a
motion. Move that the Court authorize the County Attorney
to -- to prepare an interlocal agreement with Kimble County
and/or the City of Junction to provide emergency EMS and
fire services to a portion of far northwest Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that will work.
Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
4-1~-09
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank
you very much. We appreciate your participation today. The
next item on the agenda is consideration and discussion and
take appropriate action on request to waive Kerr County
Environmental Health Department inspection fees for septic
systems removed from service which are pumped, crushed, or
filled in Phase I of Kerrville South Wastewater Project.
Commissioner Williams put this on the agenda, and because of
his inability to be here today, asked that I present the
item. As most of you know, the -- Phase I of the Kerrville
South Wastewater Project is substantially complete. It is
online. The last phase of it, I guess I'm going to call it
for lack of a better term, is apparently T.C.E.Q, requires
there be -- there be some taking out of service, as it were,
the existing septic systems that were previously utilized by
the -- by the people in this project, and that they be
crushed or filled, and as part and parcel of that, there
would be an inspection performed by the Designated
Representative of the Environmental Health/O.S.S.F.
representative here in Kerr County.
And, that being the case, under normal
circumstances, there would be a fee for such inspection,
4-1~-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
which I believe is $50, if I'm not mistaken. Commissioner
Williams wanted this placed on the agenda. Prior to --
prior to Kerr County assuming the responsibility for
O.S.S.F. in November of '03, the Upper Guadalupe River
Authority, as the Designated Representative, had agreed to
waive that inspection fee as part of its in-kind
contribution to this entire project, and Commissioner
Williams' intention and desire was that that in-kind
contribution merely be carried forward and -- and be --
become now an in-kind contribution to be made by Kerr County
in support of that entire project. So, that's the basis of
his request. I believe there are approximately -- what, 70
units? -- that are connected onto the -- the new Kerrville
South Wastewater Project, Phase I, that has recently gone
online, and those will be the ones for which the inspection
fees -- the request is that they be waived. I think I
substantially stated it correctly, did I not, Mr. Arreola?
MR. ARREOLA: That's correct, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many?
MR. ARREOLA: There's 70. Total is 70. The
first part, it's 15, and then the rest will be done in a
second part, but it's the first phase, total of 70.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that we
-- the County waive the $50 fee for 70 inspections.
~-i~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
---~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
waiver of the $50 inspection fee for 70 of the hookups to
the Kerrville South Wastewater Project. Any further
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got some -- I
want to share my thinking with you on the issue. A couple
things. There's 70 -- 70 hookups that -- right now that
need to be dealt with, and in the future there may be
another 400. The inspections are going to put a strain on
the workload of our -- our Environmental Health Department.
That's a lot of inspections. 70 is a lot; 470 is a whole
lot. I don't -- I don't view the U.G.R.A.'s intention to
waive these fees as a commitment or a promise. I think we
could decide to collect the fees without -- without breaking
any promises. The -- the third item, in my thinking, is
that the fees would amount to about $25,000 or $26,000, full
cycle of the project. We would be passing up a lot of
fee-based revenue that will help support our Environmental
Health Department. So, it's going to be -- it is a stress
on our department, and it's -- could be a much larger
stress, and it could be very, very costly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I
agree with everything Commissioner Nicholson said, but I
also think that the -- and it really has nothing to do with
4-1~-04
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
U.G.R.A.'s promise. I think that it's a -- we need to get
these systems on -- I mean, our goal in this whole project
was to get these people off of septic, and all along in the
earlier discussions, it was how to -- you know, what costs,
you know, were these people going to bear? And it was
basically trying to get to the point of no cost to get them
to actually make this connection, 'cause we were -- we're
not making them. We have no -- we're not going to make them
get on the system. So, I look at it as a -- as a public
health benefit, and that's worth taking on, on the cost --
or the revenue that we will not receive from it. The
concern -- or the issue of workload is more, I guess, you
know, troubling to me. And I can just ask, you know, that
-- to me, this needs to be scheduled and done in a -- over a
long enough period of time that it's -- that it has a
minimum impact. And I think ttie -- you know, initially is
what we're talking about; 15 right away. So, I mean, I
think that can be scheduled in. I think, down the road, it
could be more of a problem, and I think Commissioner
Baldwin's motion only covered the first 70. It may not
include the next 400. There may be another way to fund that
through the grant. So, I mean, I think the -- I'm
comfortable with what we're doing at this point.
JUDGE TINLEY: As Commissioner Letz said, the
70 of them included that first phase that's already
4-~~?-04
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
virtually complete. I would hope that, in the next phase,
that planning can be accomplished that would provide the
funding so that we don't have to do this same thing with
respect to the upcoming 400 or whatever that number is. I
think we're a little too far along to try and back into
getting those fees covered under the existing project funds,
because we're virtually complete, but I'd like to see -- see
us get back on an even keel now that -- that we're
administering that program and find those funds so that the
program will stand on its own, as it were, 'cause that's
what -- that's what needs to happen, as Commissioner
Nicholson says. Any further 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 does carry. The next
item on the agenda is consider and discuss the agreement for
professional services between Texas Conference of Urban
Counties and Kerr County to bring County into compliance
with privacy regulations relating to HIPAA, and authorize
County Judge to sign same. Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: Good morning, Judge,
Commissioners. A couple of weeks ago I contacted the Texas
Conference of Urban Counties, spoke to John Dahill. And on
22
23
24
---
25
4-12-G4
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~ 11
12
,,,~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the HIPAA regulations, there's a lot of forms that need to
be prepared, and some training that we need to do and stuff.
I had gotten several samples from our association and from
other counties that have -- already have theirs in place,
and so I kind of put together something for our county. And
what I asked Mr. Dahill if he could do was, since I kind of
had already done the legwork and typed everything out, is I
could just send him our documents; if he could review those
documents and let us know if everything was in order and we
would be in compliance, and maybe we could get this done for
a lesser cost than what it would be if we contracted their
services.
What he told me was that, really, it's just a
matter -- when contracting with them, it's just a matter of
filling out a little survey like this and sending it to
them, and they have notebooks already based on this
information that we send, and they just send it to us. And
so this would be more costly for him to go through all my
stuff that I've done. It would be more costly to the
County, and we would have to contract with him and not Urban
Counties. And, so, his suggestion was that we just fill out
this survey, contract with him and pay the costs that it
would take to do that. He assured me that we would be okay,
being the deadline is April the 14th, and as long as we have
something in place, an order that we are contracting with
9-1~-09
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..,.
25
them. And, like I said, they already have the books there,
so he'd probably be able to get it to me by that time, but
if he couldn't, he said that the law states something that
as long as we're in the process of doing it, we'll be okay.
So, I think the fee for that is $3,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Barbara, you said
something about you contacted "our association." Is that --
MS. NEMEC: No. No, I took -- I took copies
from the Treasurer's Association.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
MS. NEMEC: Sample copies of all the HIPAA
policies and -- and rules and stuff like that, and from
other counties, and that's how I put my package together --
my HIPAA agreement together.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are these Urban folks,
are they the only ones that provide this service?
MS. NEMEC: That I know of, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have budgeted funds
for this?
MS. NEMEC: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you don't think --
it's not possible -- I mean, you say you've done quite a bit
of work on it already. It's not possible just to do it
in-house?
MS. NEMEC: We can do it in-house. I feel
4-1~-04
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
...-,.
25
pretty confident that my -- my research and everything that
I have put together is in order, but, you know, they're the
professionals in this, and if there is something in here,
I -- you know, it's not like I can give it to the County
Attorney and say, "Please review my documents," or anybody
else, 'cause we're all kind of new at this. It's just a way
of just covering all our bases and making sure that
everything is in order for $3,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if the Commissioners
will recall, there was a presentation that we received at
the West Texas County Judges and Commissioners Association
conference that we attended, what, two weeks ago, I guess.
There was a presentation by someone who had spent a
considerable amount of time -- and out of Victoria, I
believe. I took the liberty of making the request of that
young lady who had done all that work, and she was kind
enough to share her work product. I have that available,
and I'll be happy to furnish that to -- to Ms. Nemec. It's
pretty comprehensive. I've got a stack of documentation
that's probably better than a half an inch thick that she
was kind enough to furnish me, and she'd been working on it
for a considerable period of time. That could be a
significant benefit to you. I just got it last week.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- my gut
feeling is to go this route the Judge is talking about, and
4-1?-04
~. - --- - -
38
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if we need to spend money -- which is more on the education
side, based on that -- the presentation that we heard.
There's a lot of things that I think we need to do some
education to all our employees as to what they can and can't
say under these rules. I mean, it's pretty strict as to --
basically, you can't say anything about anyone's health,
period.
MS. NEMEC: The only employees that that
training would affect is employees in my office, and,
really, I've already trained them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's what I'm
saying.
MS. NEMEC: I've done a lot of the work
already.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm saying is, I'd
rather try to figure out some way to get the information to
all employees, and certainly all supervisors and elected
officials, because some off-the-cuff comment made can be a
severe violation under the HIPAA regulations, and I think
that we need to do some, you know, work in that area. I
just -- you know.
MS. NEMEC: And I can set up someone to come
and do that training, too, with all the elected officials
and department heads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. You know, it just
9-l~-og
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
seems like a lot of money to me for something that's going
to be very, you know, cookie-cutter, that's just going to --
you know, we're -- I think we, you know, maybe -- probably
have the ability to do it ourselves.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the deadline?
June what?
MR. AMERINE: April 14th. But as long as
we're working on it and show that we are trying to get
there, then -- and, really, it's just if someone makes a
complaint against us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two days.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's two days.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we are -- I mean, we
are working on it.
MS. NEMEC: Sure. I have documentation where
I've been working on it for a year already, so we're okay;
I'm not worried about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- from that
standpoint, I think that we can just send out a memo to all
department heads and elected officials and say, you know,
"We are under HIPAA regulations, and that has changed at
this time," and -- you know, something along those lines.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. Well, if you would like,
then I'll get that copy from the Judge and compare it to
9-1~-04
1
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
what I've already done, and then just bring it back to the
Court for approval on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Super.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I'll try and get
that to you today, Ms. Nemec.
MS. NEMEC: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume there's nothing
further on that particular item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is consideration and
discussion of approval of a 2004 Employee Benefit
Administrative Services Agreement and authorize the County
Judge to sign the same. Ms. Nemec forwarded to me the
administrative services agreement with our third-party
administrator. I asked Ms. Nemec to -- to verify that the
basic factual elements were in compliance with the bid which
the third-party administrator made, and the award which was
subsequently made by the Court, and she confirmed the -- the
monetary aspects of it, I believe, in a memo to me at the
end of last month. I have some questions about the
administrative service agreement. It was forwarded, I know,
to the County Attorney's office, and last time I talked to
the County Attorney's office, he was requesting certain
4-1~-04
41
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information. I don't know whether there's been any response
to that or not. Do you know, Mr. Feary, whether or not the
information that you ar Mr. Motley requested has been
received?
MR. FERRY: No, Judge, I do not. As far as I
know, it has nat yet been --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. I think,
basically, it had to do with the -- the bid information
that -- the bids that were submitted, and secondly, the
awards that were made after our consultant review. Is that
correct, Mr. Feary?
MR. FERRY: That is correct, yes, Your Honor.
MS. NEMEC: May I ask who the request was
made to? 'Cause we haven't received anything. Do you know
who the request was made to? You haven't received it, and
if you're waiting on my office, we haven't received a
request, so --
MR. FERRY: No, I do not. I recall an
initial discussion that it was going to be requested, and I
don't ki7ow whether it was to be from Ms. Nemec's office or
from another source, outside --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. FERRY: -- consultant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I -- I'm confused.
I mean, this is -- was on the agenda, I thought, directing
4-1~-G4
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
..-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,---
25
42
you to sign it two months ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: February?
JUDGE TINLEY: February.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess I don't
understand what the holdup is. I think this is a -- this is
important to our employees, 'cause it's our insurance
coverage, and I don't understand what the delay is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I have some questions
about it myself, and maybe somebody can answer them today.
On Page 4 of the proposed agreement, there's a plan document
fee with a -- a request that one option be selected, and in
my review of the -- what meager copies I have about the
analysis that was made by our consultant, and also in the
submission by E.B.A., I don't find that there's provision
for such a fee to be charged. Maybe I'm missing something.
Like I say, I don't have all that documentation. And that's
the reason I requested that the -- that the Treasurer, as
the employee benefits ad -- as the employee benefits
officer, confirm those items, and requested her to do so.
If that is an item that -- that we're obligated for, I'm not
aware of it.
The other item that I see in the agreement,
it provides for a three-year agreement. I'm not aware that
this Court is able to make a three-year agreement to
4-1~-04
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,--. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
obligate funds of future courts, future budgets, firstly.
Secondly, my understanding of the proposal that was
submitted and the subsequent award was based upon a one-year
agreement. There was a -- a guarantee issued by E.B.A. that
they would freeze their administrative costs for three years
in their submission, but that certainly didn't -- didn't
make it a three-year agreement. So, that concerns me. The
termination clause of the existing contract, of course, is
tied to a three-year agreement, and provides automatic
renewability unless there's 30 days written notice prior to
the anniversary date, rather than 30 days written notice at
any time. Those are some of the things that I'm concerned
about. And -- and, as I say, I don't have access to the
documents that I feel like are absolutely essential to
confirm that it does, in fact, conform to the bid that was
made, and -- and the award that was granted by this Court.
And that's the reason I requested the benefits officer do
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I don't
understand the contract for three years; I thought it was
one year. But on the other issue -- I mean, but on the bid
documents, my understanding was that all the information was
sent to Mr. Gray, and that he -- after he looked at it, he
sent everything back to Kerr County, so I don`t see why we
can't find the documents.
4-1~-04
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,..-.
25
MS. NEMEC: They're in my office. No one's
asked me for them yet, unless the request came in last week
while I was at conference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my recommendation
is that the County Treasurer provide all documents to the
County Attorney and let's get done with this. I mean, I
think this is something we need to -- I mean, I think it's
been hanging around way too long. I'll so move.
MS. NEMEC: I'll get it to him today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the County Treasurer, as employee benefits officer, provide
all the documentation to the County Attorney in order to
analyze the administrative services agreement, and for the
County Attorney to then make that analysis and present it to
the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At our next meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, will the County
Attorney -- will he be in need of your concerns? Specific
concerns?
JUDGE TINLEY: I can sure make them available
to him.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would hope that they
would address what you're concerned about, and so we don't
have to do this again.
9-12-04
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really hope -- my
intent is that we can get this settled and done at our next
meeting. I think it should have been done long ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll bring it to the attention
of the County Attorney, what my concerns are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
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 does carry. Next
item on the agenda is consider and discuss adopting the Kerr
County Safety Policy Statement and Safety Committee members.
Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: Okay. As a result of getting
this $17,856 check this morning, there were several things
that had to be in place, and one of them -- or in the
process of being in place, and one of them is adopting a
Safety Policy Statement and adopting the Safety Committee
members. So, this is the Safety Policy Statement that you
have there, along with the members, and we need to adopt
this and post this at every county building that we have.
9-12-04
46
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--~
25
So, that is what is before you. I will have to -- once it's
adopted, if the Court considers these names, I will have to
make another form, because the required -- your required
signature is -- is required on this document, so I'll bring
that back later to you all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move for approval.
MS. NEMEC: Not for approval. I'm here for
approval today, but if you can approve it based on this
document having the lines for your signature --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion -- I'm sorry. Motion
made and seconded for approval of the agenda item, and the
policy statement with signatories on each of the Safety
Committee members.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- there's a typo
that -- on the second paragraph.
MS. NEMEC: "To manage." Yeah, I've caught
that one on mine.
JUDGE TINLEY: I want to thank Ms. Nemec for
all of her work on this. She's been kind of thrown in the
breach here of late with our -- all of our safety emphasis.
She's been responsible for the safety meetings, and we've
had some safety training that's going on that she's been
kind of riding herd on, and I appreciate that. And she's --
4-1~-04
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
she's been doing the yeoman's work on this, and I want to
thank her for that.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you. My assistant has
helped me greatly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further 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, Ms. Nemec.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
consider and discuss a budget amendment of -- oops.
consider and discuss whether or not January 2, 2004, is to
be considered an official County holiday, Item 8 on the
agenda.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. The problem we have here
is, this was not an official, so-to-speak, holiday. It was
just kind of brought up, I think, by several elected
officials that they were going to close their office, and so
the problem I have now is with timesheets that were turned
in. Some -- some employees did not work, and those who did
not work either put -- charged it against -- or put that it
4-12-04
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was a holiday. Some employees that did not work charged it
against their vacation, some charged it against their comp
time, and some employees actually worked. So, when these
timesheets get audited in September, we're going to have a
problem. So, in order to prevent a problem in September,
I'm here to, I guess, ask that January 2nd be declared an
official County holiday so we can get all these timesheets
in order.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The holiday document
in the budget does not include January 2nd.
MS. NEMEC: It does not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; And what's the second
question, then?
MS. NEMEC: Okay. Well, I guess we need to
discuss it, whether you -- whether the Court wants to make
it an official holiday or whether I send letters back to
these people who marked "holiday" on there and ask them to
either charge it to comp or vacation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the issue came
up -- I mean, I was asked by several elected officials. I
told them if they wanted to close, that's their prerogative;
I think they can do whatever they want in their offices.
You know, that's just -- that was my feeling on it. I mean,
I personally don't have a problem with it being a holiday.
I think that it was a date that not much was being done. I
4-1~-04
1
--, 2
3
-
1
4
r
5
I
- 6
i ~
~ 8
~ 9
- 10
I
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
think most people were off. I don't think it's really fair
to those that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to vote
for that, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, that's --
whether it's a comp day or -- anyway, I look at it as
something each department could handle their own way.
MS. NEMEC: Well, I'm just trying to protect
myself. Like I said, when we do qet audited -- they do
audit these timesheets, and we will be written up for it if
some are charged in a different way. So, I just want to
bring it to the Court and put it in the minutes that this
has been addressed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- I
mean, to me, the way to handle it -- or what was done is
that it is not an official holiday. If an elected official
chose to give it as a personal day, they chose to give it as
a personal day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I see that, you
know, the -- we vote hundreds -- literally, hundreds, maybe
thousands of times a year, and the single most important
vote is on that budget book. And this -- the holiday
document is a part of that -- of that budget, and it's -- I
can't see being wishy-washy about that. I don't understand
this at all. It's either a holiday or it's not a holiday.
~-1~-0~
50
i
1
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 -- and coming back and changing it in April just
doesn't make sense to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Couldn't agree with you more,
Commissioner. We designated the holidays prior to last
October, at the beginning of this current fiscal year.
And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody understands
it.
MS. NEMEC: The other problem that we have
here is that there's -- I'm sure that there's going to be
several employees that are going to complain if their
department did not give them a personal day and they had to
charge it as a holiday or they had to charge it as comp or
vacation, or they actually worked. They make the complaint
against this county. All employees need to be treated
equally, and if they make a complaint that they weren`t,
it's not going to be against their individual department,
it's going to be against Kerr County. So, I just want to
make you aware of that, that that is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now we're being
threatened because we're trying to stand on -- on some
principle here?
MS. NEMEC: Well, no. We're being threatened
because some departments did not abide by the policy -- by
the budget book.
9-12-04
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-..
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That makes me hold my
neck up even stronger.
MS. NEMEC: It's going to come down to Kerr
County, not that department.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bring it on.
MS. NEMEC: It's unfortunate. I agree
completely with what y'all were saying. I'm just letting
you know what's -- what's out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it was -- at the
time, we said, "If y'all choose to close your office
individually, you can do what you want; it's your office."
But, I mean, it's not a county holiday. If they want to
give personal days -- and I don't know how they handle it --
that's up to them. I mean, I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. I
agree with that, you know, to do what they want to. But you
can't get paid because they decide that some day's a
holiday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we even need to take any --
any --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not to my knowledge.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- action to affirm that it
was not a holiday, having -- having established what the
holiday schedule was earlier?
MS. NEMEC: I don't think so, no.
4-12-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-,
25
52
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is there a motion to be
offered on this, gentlemen? If not, we'll move on. Next
item --
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- on the agenda -- thank you.
Next item is consideration and discussion of an amendment of
Constable Precinct 3 Capital Outlay items to acquire a
radio. Constable Garza, thank you for being with us this
morning.
MR. GARZA: Good morning, Commissioners and
Judge. I'd like to just give you first my monthly report,
if I can, please.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much.
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. This is one for
Commissioner Williams.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. GARZA: Morning, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Constable Garza?
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you able to
always receive calls on your radio?
MR. GARZA: Yes, your -- Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No spots in your
4-12-04
1
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
area where you -- where you can't get a call?
MR. GARZA: Yeah, there is spots in my area.
The main question with that radio, it's an older model radio
that was given to me by the Sheriff's office. It -- the
speaker on it is very weak. At times I have to turn it up
full blast to hear. I was part of the chase on -- on
March lst with the felony pursuit there in Ingram. On the
interstate, I picked up a trooper in the pursuit, and the
radio -- I had it full blast, and the -- you know, with the
sirens and everything going, I had a hard time trying to
keep up. But it is, in spots, kind of weak. I do patrol
out in my precinct, which is eastern Kerr County, and at
times I do get, you know, spots where I don't get traffic.
I do have a portable also, thanks to Commissioners Court,
but the radio is weak in spots, and I'm just concerned about
my safety. And it also does have a digital readout of
exactly what -- I guess, displays what channel I'm actually
speaking to; like, it will say "Sheriff's Office" or "P.D.,"
whereas the radio I have now is just numbers. Sometimes,
you know, I could be driving, you know, a call comes up.
I'm not sure exactly if -- I got to make sure I can
remember, okay, Channel 6 is P.D., Channel 1 is S.O.,
Channel 2 is Sheriff's Office secondary channel.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My feeling is -- I mean,
I think you may very well need a new radio, but it's a
4-12-04

1
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
budget item. We need to do it during the budget process.
That's -- you know, that's just where I think we are.
Otherwise if we -- I mean, if we open this up, I mean, if
you have -- if it's, you know, clearly broken and not
working, that's one issue. But if it just needs to be, you
know, upgraded, which is what it sounds like to me, I think
that opens up the door for budget amendments in this area,
you know, throughout. Now, you -- I do note you have some
money left in Capital Outlay. Why do you have the excess?
MR. GARZA: Well, I've been very frugal with
the money there, sir. On a lot of the items that were --
like the radar and the -- the radio installation for the
constables, I actually installed myself to try to save some
money in the budget. So, I was trying to be frugal with
that, so I saved the labor costs that the Advantage
Communications would have charged me for installing the
radar. And when -- also, when I got this radio, installing
this radio, I installed it myself and saved -- I think it
was at least $150 on both items, as far as being installed.
So, I was trying to just be frugal with the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We applaud you for being
frugal.
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. I'm a taxpayer too, so
I -- you know, I'm just trying to make sure that we, you
know, account for every penny. I'm very -- you know, just
4-12-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~--,
25
55
try to be as efficient as I can with County funds that I
have in my possession.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you do make -- or if
we were to approve it, you're not going to be short on any
of the other items in your budget?
MR. GARZA: I can't say, Commissioner. One
of the items is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Vehicle repair.
MR. GARZA: -- repair and maintenance. I do
have a brand new vehicle. The money there I've been using
to -- for the gas and oil changes. It is under warranty at
this time. Including -- I've also gone to a -- the County
goes to one place to get the oil and gas changed. I go to a
different place, 'cause I think I found a better location
and a little cheaper. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: What you're proposing to do
is -- is not to charge any excess costs of this radio
against anything outside of your own budget; you're going to
scrounge it from within your own budget?
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir, that's what I'm trying
to do. And I gave you a proposal; I don't know if you have
it in front of you. They did gave me a bid. It was $440.
The antenna was $48, installation was $65. I can -- I still
have the old antenna that I've got for the radio I have, so
no antenna. Basically, just $440. I would install it
4-1_'-04
~ . _ - - - -
56
1
,.-.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
myself. It's programmed, and I would just -- I'll install
it myself in my own vehicle.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Angel, are you
considering this a safety issue?
MR. GARZA: In a way, Commissioner, I -- I am
in a way. I just feel that I do have a -- the radio is
adequate that I have, but it's an older model radio that I
was given by the Sheriff's Office. Like I said, the speaker
on it is very -- you know, I have to turn it up all the way,
you know, sometimes to hear the -- to hear better. And, you
know, at times it -- some spots out there, it is a little
weak. I think it's a 25-watt radio. The radio that I'm
looking at is a 40-watt radio; it's a stronger radio. The
Sheriff's Office has a newer model radio that they buy for
their new cars when they get them, you know, bought for the
County. This would just be an upgraded model. That's --
JUDGE TINLEY: You'd feel more secure if you
had this newer radio, being able to hear it better and
knowing that you didn't have the dead spots?
MR. GARZA: I feel I would, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. GARZA: I just feel like it would just be
an upgraded radio. I think, you know, the features on it,
too, has some extra features on it, such as I can have it
hooked up to the outside speaker, so when I'm out on a
4-ice-04

57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
traffic stop on the interstate, you know, I'd be -- besides
my portable, it will have -- like, I can hear it a little
better. But that's what I'm looking at, you know. It's
just -- I'm just here just to ask for it, if -- and go from
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have any -- what
do you see on the horizon in your budget for next year for
Capital Outlay? Anything?
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. Hopefully, matching
funds for a video -- video recorder for the -- the vehicle.
I mean, like I said, I'm out there and, you know, I do make
a lot of stops at night. Mainly at night. You know, during
the day, a few, but at nighttime, you know, I just want to
have more documentation on my stops. And that was one of
the items that we had to cut out to get the cars, but I felt
that it was -- it was worth it to get the vehicles, to get a
little bit more, you know, visibility in my precinct and my
constituents, that that would be the main thing. I think
that this upcoming budget that I'm looking at would be the
video camera for my vehicle.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think Commissioner
Nicholson has asked an excellent question about reception
and blind spots and those kinds of things, after we have
spent a million dollars on a radio system in the Sheriff's
Office where we're supposed to have 98 percent coverage in
4-12-04
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the county. I think it's time that we maybe we had a talk
about that and make sure that we're getting -- that these
guys have the coverage that we were promised to get. I
never have heard whether that -- what has happened in the
final analysis of it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A few weeks ago,
KARFA officials put together a package to try to get a grant
for -- to buy three repeaters, and they didn't get it in in
time. The deadline passed. Maybe there's a -- maybe
there's another time they can do that. But their -- their
rationale is that in the eastern part of the county and the
western part of the county, there are dead spots where
they -- where they lose contact with the Sheriff's Office or
the EMS or dispatch.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Constable Garza's
concern is not the equipment that the Sheriff's Office has.
They have newer radios in their units and have the greater
power. That's what he's lacking, is his ability to
communicate with them because of just the equipment he has
in his unit.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I think
they're two separate issues.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If there are dead
spots out there, a new radio is not going to fix it, 'cause
4-12-09
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some of these other outfits have got terrific radios. So,
it's two different issues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, he now has a
25-watt, and the new one's a 45-watt.
MR. GARZA: It has the ability of 25 and
40 watts; 25 watts, like, when you're in the city. Like,
that way, it's -- you don't overpower the system. But, you
know, 40 watts I can switch it over to, you know, when I'm
out there. It's just a little bit stronger reception.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 45.
MR. GARZA: Or 45, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I'm torn on
this. I think that it's a -- I don't like things that
aren't in during the budget, but you are finding the money
within your own budget, so I'll go ahead and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- move approval.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the -- of the amendment as requested by the
constable. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you go through
Menard or if you see a Menard Sheriff's Office car in this
town, write them a ticket. (Laughter.)
9-1~-U4
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,_
25
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. I did get somebody
from Pecos County, and he was -- I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's close enough.
MR. GARZA: He was very upset with me the
other day. But, you knave, he was going over the speed
limit. Thank you very much.
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: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank
you, Constable.
MR. GARZA: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank
you, Commissioners.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here.
Next item on the agenda is consider and discuss approval of
the contract to participate in Failure to Appear Program of
the Texas Department of Public Safety, and authorize the
County Judge to sign the same. I was advised by the
Department of Public Safety last week that they are
discontinuing their Warrants program. What that had
consisted of was, if an out-of-county resident, for example,
was issued a ticket or a citation by some of our in-county
4-12-09
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
officers, and they were from out of county and went on about
their business and just gave us a general "leave them alone"
and not -- not responding, the Justice of the Peace had the
ability to input a warrant for that individual into the
statewide D.P.S. computer system, and if that individual
were subsequently stopped and records run anywhere in the
state by a D.P.S. trooper, there would be an outstanding
warrant shown, and all sorts of things would happen. The
individual would either be required to take care of the
matter right then and there, or they would be arrested and
incarcerated.
The D.P.S. elected, because of some legal
issues, to terminate that program. What they did instead
was contracted with a third-party provider that's listed in
the materials; I believe it's Omni Systems or something of
that nature. And that provider would maintain a database
that those jurisdictions, be they J.P.'s or -- or
municipalities, could opt to be a part of and transmit this
information into that database. That database would then be
utilized not as a database for warrants, but as a
prohibition for driver's license renewal within the D.P.S.
system, so that when that same individual went to renew his
or her driver's license, they would be told that they had
some business they needed to take care of. And, according
to the D.P.S. sergeant that I talked with, they would be
~-i?-o~
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
issued a temporary permit for 60 days, within which to get
that solved. If they did not, they were there after driving
with a -- while license invalid, and would be subject to a
Class B misdemeanor. A number of jurisdictions have opted
into that. What it would require is for the Court to
approve the interlocal agreement between the County and
D.P.S., and then each J.P., as that J.P. saw fit, could opt
into the system, and it's all handled electronically. The
cost in -- in doing this is via an administrative fee that's
tagged on top --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 30 bucks.
JUDGE TINLEY: $30, a small portion of which
would come back to Kerr County in each instance. I believe
it's a $4 part would come back. $20 would go to the State.
$6 would go to the provider that maintained the database in
each case.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I would prefer
that we remain with the system of when a police officer
pulls somebody over, that the information comes up and get
them right there; however, we don't have a choice.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the Department of
Public Safety says there's a legal issue involved.
Heretofore, what's happened was that when they would stop an
individual, run his driver's license, and if they found that
there was an outstanding warrant, they -- they would tell
9-1~-G4
i
1
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
that driver, "You've got some outstanding business to take
care of, and you got two choices. You can be under arrest
and go to the local hoosegow, or you can write a cashier's
check or money order in the amount of" -- whatever it
happened to be. The trooper would receipt for that, and
then the trooper would be responsible for transmittal of
that amount to the court where the obligation was
outstanding.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Trooper's not a court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that was the problem
that they finally woke up to. That would be tantamount to
accepting a plea, and a magistrate is the only one who can
accept a plea. So, the D.P.S. says, "No mas. No more."
That's how we got --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't have a lot of
choice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, they have discontinued the
warrants program. It's gone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. Well, I move
that we participate in the Failure to Appear Program with
D.P.S. and authorize the County Judge to sign it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further questions or
4-1~-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
64
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.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, consideration and
discussion of approval of electric line easement and
right-of-way, and authorization for the County Judge to sign
the same. This relates to the lease property out at the
Youth Exhibit Center that's under lease to the Arts and
Crafts Foundation. It's detailed in your -- in your
materials, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move approval of
the right-of-way easement with KPUB and authorize County
Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
4-1~-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
65
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item
is consideration and discussion, approving the Earth Day
Proclamation as requested by the Riverside Nature Center.
We do have a speaker here. Ms. Bailey?
MS. BAILEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Good
morning, Judge and Commissioners. For the record, my name
is Ilse Bailey, and I'm appearing before you this morning as
the secretary of the Board of Directors for the Riverside
Nature Center, and I'm here to express our appreciation for
your willingness to issue this proclamation declaring
April 24th Earth Day in Kerr County. As you know, we're
having a -- a community-wide Earth Day celebration at the
Riverside Nature Center on that day. The actual Earth Day
is April 21st, I believe, but we'd like to have it on a
weekend day. The major sponsors of the event are Riverside
Nature Center Association, the Native Plant Society of
Texas, Upper Guadalupe River Authority, the City of
Kerrville, and Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District.
On the day in question, we will have a large native plant
sale and what we like to call nearly native plants that are
adapted to this climate, educational presentations,
children's activities, food and beverages and music.
Promises to be a fun event for everyone, and we would like
to invite all of you, as well as members of the public to
attend. And, again, thank you for the proclamation.
4-~~-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r
25
66
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a quick comment. I
appreciated Ms. Bailey's letter -- letter to the editor
regarding the damage done out -- I wasn't aware what was
done, the vandalism to the Nature Center, and I appreciate
you just informing the public, and hope y'all --
MS. BAILEY: We're hopeful that that will
bring someone forward to find out, because we've been very
fortunate in the past, not having any vandalism. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very sad that happened.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further 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 does carry. At this
point, why don't we go into our mid-morning recess? We'll
-- we'll stand in recess until -- he's standing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in recess.
JUDGE TINLEY: Till, oh, approximately 15
4-12-04
1
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
before the hour.
(Recess taken from 10:31 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order. We went into recess a little bit after 10:30 until
approximately quarter until the hour, which it is now. Next
item on the agenda is consideration and approval to
authorize staff to enter into a contract to erect airport
fencing. Mr. Pearce.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Dave, before you
start, let me just make a comment. On the next three, all
three of these items have been presented, discussed at
Airport Board meetings, and we're familiar with them, and
have been approved by the Airport Board, and are being sent
both to us and the City for -- for review and approval.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, on that topic of
approval, the committee that was authorized by this Court
regarding the governance issue at the airport, it has met
and it is meeting on a regular basis. We've had some good
meetings so far, and I would say within the next month to
six weeks, we should have a -- a new governance agreement
ironed out between the City, current Board, and this
Commissioners Court as to how to run the airport. I think
it's turned out to be very productive, and it'll be -- I
4-12-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
i 9
- 10
i
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
think it will work out for the best.
MR. PEARCE: Good morning, Judge and
Commissioners. This first item on your agenda is for the
fencing of the airport. As you recall, last year you
authorized us to pursue the fencing. We had two years of
entitlement money that we combined, and also some R.A.M.P.
money; gives us $357,000 to do airport fencing. It's chain
link fencing that goes around the entire airport. We are
extremely pleased with this. We bid the project. It was
quite extensive and lengthy with respect to F.A.A. specs and
all of the things that are in there for the requirements for
D.B.E. and for the requirements for the bidding. I was real
worried that after it went out and it was advertised, that
steel prices shot through the roof, and I thought I was
going to choke. However, out of the folks that picked up
packages -- we had 25 people that picked up packages -- we
had eight people that actually responded, and our low bid
was $19.25 a linear foot, which is substantially cheaper
than when we did that small section last year, which I'm
extremely pleased with.
This will allow us -- and in your packet, you
should see that lengthy picture in the back. This will
allow us to do the items that are in blue. About 80 to 85
percent of the airport will be fenced with this. We also,
on the contract, had them lock into a price for two years,
4-'_2-04
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~--
25
so if we get additional funding, we're able to get it at the
same rate, which made it attractive for the -- for the
airport; makes it attractive for the contractor, 'cause they
knew when they bid this job that they would -- they would
have the whole enchilada, so to speak. So, I'm real pleased
with this. It's exactly what we had hoped for -- better
than what we had hoped for, and we're asking that -- if you
would authorize us to enter into the contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dave, can you -- I know
you have the backup in here on all of the eight people that
bid on this project. Can you give us the -- I guess the
difference between the first and the second bid, the bidder
we're accepting?
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir. This is absolutely
amazing. $19.25 was the low bid. The high bid was $42 a
linear foot. The difference in that is about $400,000. We
had -- the middle range seemed to be $26, $27, $28 a linear
foot. There was three people in that range also. What's
good about this is every one of the folks that bid had a
bond, a bid bond. It is a bonded project, so we're
protected on that. And we're just, again, thrilled with the
low bidder. That -- that's quite a spread. I mean, my
first fear was, okay, let's go back and validate the -- you
know, all the criteria, and they are bonded. So, good to
go.
4-12-09
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: David, did any local
construction companies bid on this project?
MR. PEARCE: No, sir. This -- this
construction company was from Eagle Pass, and we did not
have any local construction companies. We advertised. I
sent them to a number of folks. I was really hoping to see
a couple -- couple of folks here, but their -- their
feelings were that true fence companies were going to take
this -- this job, that we geared up with them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and approval --
seconded for approval of the agenda item.
MR. PEARCE: And if you'll bear with me,
Judge, I know in your -- your transferring with Thea being
gone, they asked me to hold the originals and give these to
you, so Jannett didn't have that. These are the ones that
were signed by -- I'm sorry -- County Attorney and all of
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. And the County
Attorney has reviewed these?
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, and that -- and has
signed, yes.
4-12-04
71
1
---. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank
you very much, Mr. Pearce.
MR. PEARCE: Okay. And the next one, Judge
and Commissioners
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and do the
agenda item. I apologize. Next item is resolution
authorizing the Airport Manager to pursue funding avenues in
order to proceed with identified airport capital
improvements. Proceed.
MR. PEARCE: Judge and Commissioners, this
next item is in our pursuit for funds, one of the things
that we do is we try to get on the TexDOT and the F.A.A.
laundry list, if you will, so we can pursue grant-type
fundings, which are 90/10. Certainly does help when we have
-- and I think this is a very positive step when we have the
County and the City also behind us on a resolution, it puts
a lot more horsepower behind it. It's a request to get us
into the funding cycle, if you will. And there's three
areas on there. I know the back of your package looks
pretty busy, and you have this item here on the back with a
4-1~-04
1
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
lot of colors and stuff on it. Let me just kind of walk you
through those three items, and I know we addressed this when
-- when Dr. Davis and myself were here in the pursuit -- in
addressing some of the future projects when we briefed the
Court approximately two months ago.
First one has to do with our Airport Layout
Plan, and if you look at the very -- toward the bottom, you
see kind of a drafted-in -- sketched-in relocation of
Highway 27, if you will. That was placed on the Airport
Layout Plan because of some penetrations that have to do
with airport approaches and also future approaches which
were precision. One of the things that -- when they did the
Airport Master Plan about three years ago, this was kind of
incorporated in the document, but I don't think it was
communicated well enough what the impact would be and what
needed to happen to have this accepted. TexDOT Aviation
Department addressed it, and did put in that they had not
intended on moving the road, but what wasn't communicated
was the fact that approval for any modification to design
standards, which is what the F.A.A. terms this on an
airport, has to come from the F.A.A.
We have requested the modification to design
standards, which is something that is annotated here on this
document, that we need to go in to request this. And what
that would do is allow the highway to sit in its present
4-12-09
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
73
condition, but approve where it's located, and we can go on
with future funding issues and runway extensions and
different approaches. However, if the F.A.A. elects not to
approve this modification, then we've got to tackle some
other issues here which pursue funding to relocate the road,
or to do something different. We had a -- Dr. Davis hosted
a meeting with TexDOT and Commissioner Williams. We did
talk about -- that's TexDOT Highway Department. We did talk
about the possibilities of -- of road relocation or some
areas of penetration, and they were very favorable, as far
as the discussion, but we have to wait for a response from
the F.A.A. before pursuing that any further.
My position has always been, in communicating
to the F.A.A. and TexDOT, this is not an issue that they
need to decide to sweep under the rug. What we have to do
is we need to identify what the problems are, identify what
the options are, and then the owners make the decision from
there on what we need to do, and that is what I'm trying to
do right now at this point. Then we can come to the
Commissioners Court, we can go to the City Council. And, if
so, if there's some things that need to be relocated, if
there's some joint funding objectives, if there's some
outside requests that go in from senators and congressional
folks, which are also options, that would be a decision of
this Court to make at that time. So, I want to make sure
~-1_-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ZO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
that we communicate the options that we have and that you
have all the information for the ability to take it from
there.
In addition to that, one of the things -- if
you look right in the middle of that east-west runway, you
see a taxiway and then a sketched-in taxiway just above
that. That taxiway has always been looked at to relocate
it, 'cause it has to go further away from the main runway
for a precision approach. The -- the existing taxiway is
not up to standards. We are basically nursing it, if you
will. We did not do an overlay at this time, because we
don't need it to be relocated; at the same time, to look at
lighting. This is on the future planning document, but what
we're trying to do is now say, "Okay, TexDOT, F.A.A., we
want to -- we want to pursue the 90/10 funding for this.
Get us on your document. Let's start looking ahead." In
other words, we're trying to say these are our priorities.
We need you to start putting them into the funding cycle,
and this is important to us.
And then, along with that, I believe the last
item on there, if you will, was the MALSR. And I know we
always use terms; if you ever had a -- a medical doctor and
an airport person, you'd probably never be able to
understand them. But the MALSR's basically are -- if you go
into a large airport and you see -- or you've seen on movies
4-1~-04
1
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
where those white lights that come in at the end of the
runways, and folks will fly and then land on the runway, and
that gives them a visual location of the runway. That's
utilized in instrument approaches, and we would like to have
those also identified in our funding cycles. So, this is
not a commitment of funds. This is saying that these
projects are important to us; we'd like you to put them on
your funding document. We'd like to -- for you to put us in
the ticket line, if you will, and start pushing forward
to -- to take care of these. And with the support of the
Commissioners here, and also with the City Council tomorrow,
the Board, I think that we stand a very good chance of
seeing these -- these funding issues popping up here in the
next couple years.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Pearce, am I to understand
that the existing situation which we presently have on the
ground out there, that the clear zones that we're required
to have in order to get these various navigational aids and
landing systems and so forth, that we're not totally in
compliance with F.A.A. requirements to -- to have those
particular items? Am I to understand you correctly?
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, that is correct. And
there is some penetrations there, and what we're trying to
do is say, "Give it to us in writing that it's acceptable."
There's a certain criteria for every airport, for every
9-1?-04
1
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
runway, for every type of airplane that comes in, and you're
supposed to have a certain distance from the runway for
penetration for certain types of approaches, depending on
how low you can go on an instrument approach. That is
dependent on what the obstacles are in the area, and these
are identified as being deficiencies, if you will.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. PEARCE: And, so, we are saying, "Okay,
then, if this is acceptable, then you need to get it to us
in writing that it's acceptable." 'Cause there's going to
come a time when myself and the Commissioners are not here
and there'll be a different group of folks here, and
somebody's going to say, "Hey, we're ready to go ahead with
this," and the old question is, "Show it to me in writing
that we said this is okay."
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, what you're
asking for is, to the extent there are deficiencies, to
grant us a variance and say we're okay to proceed?
MR. PEARCE: That is the first --
JUDGE TINLEY: For these various types of
improvement?
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, that is the -- the
first and utmost priority. If, however, that is not
acceptable, then wP want a detailed listing of what those
deficiencies are and what our options are, if you will, to
4-12-04
1
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
collectively put our heads together and see which option
that we want to do. Or we may just say, you know, we don't
want to do it; we're going to leave it like it is. But I
think that's not a decision for TexDOT Aviation to make.
That's not a decision for Dave Pearce to make. That's a
decision for the owners to have all the options laid in
front of them, and to look at what -- the cost variances.
Or there's other avenues, as I mentioned, to have assistance
in funding, if it's a funding issue. There's, a lot of
times, a straight line item out of a congressional budget or
senatorial assistance that can help facilitate additional
funding.
JUDGE TINLEY: I notice that the clear zones
on either end of the main runway appear to be slid a little
bit to the south, rather than being equidistant on either
side of -- of the runway. Maybe I'm not looking at it
correctly. Or maybe it's the taxiway that's got me
confused, that makes it appear like it's slid south. Is it,
in fact --
MR. PEARCE: It is slid to the south. If you
look at the -- the penetration, it's more on the east end of
that runway than it is on the west end, to the south of the
main east-west runway. So, there are other options that you
can do with -- let's say that the -- and I'm just grabbing
out of the air here, but let's say the F.A.A. comes back and
4-12-04
1
2
78
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
says everything's fine foot-wise, but if you go to the east
side, we have penetrations that are not acceptable here on
Highway 27, and here they are. It may just be relocating a
portion of that. But what we want them to do is to tell us
specifically what it is, and then sit down with the Highway
Department and -- which we've already had preliminary
discussions. They can analyze, and in their future
planning, this may -- may accommodate what they're trying to
look at in the future anyway, 'cause they're looking at
widening, extensions of Highway 27, and possible relocation,
so all of this could bubble in together. And I think the
important thing here is for everybody to -- to get their
cards on the table and talk to each other. And I think
Dr. Davis did an outstanding job with Commissioner Williams
as far as hosting the meeting with the Highway Department,
and we got the preliminary discussions. Now we're waiting
for the concrete specifics so we can move forward from there
and give you a --
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--.
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you -- are you
waiting on some kind of response from TexDOT now? Or are
there -- the real conversations --
MR. PEARCE: I'm waiting for a formal
response from the F.A.A. TexDOT forwarded our document to
the region, which is -- the south central region of the
F.A.A. is Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
4-12-04
1
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
and that group in its entirety took a look at it, and then
it has to forward it on to Washington, D.C. F.A.A. for a
modification, or a waiver -- better term -- for the design
standards. So, in that portion, I'm waiting for a response
from them for us to start pushing forward and staying, okay,
let's look at what our options are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any 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. Next
item, consideration and approval to authorize the execution
of Professional Services Agreement pursuant to the Texas
Department of Transportation General Aviation Terminal
Grant. This is in connection with the terminal that was
previously approved.
MR. PEARCE: Once again, this is a great time
for us, 'cause we're getting to the actual formal stage when
we approve the terminal, and Commissioners and City Council
approve the terminal that -- well, we received funding for
9-12-09
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back in November. Our next step was to move forward and to
get a design consultant to do the preliminary design, if you
will, to do the geo-tech and all of that. We followed
the -- the guidelines of TexDOT. There was an advertisement
for -- for design consultants. We had 13 people that were
interested. We had six submittals for that, assessed with
point values on all of the -- the individuals, and from
there we're ready to award the contract to GRW Willis. I
think it was an overwhelming support for him, because he's
done 14 of the small TexDOT Aviation terminals, so he's very
familiar with the program. He's got an outstanding
relationship with TexDOT, and this is state money that goes
with that. This really starts the kickoff. Once we have
him under contract, if you will, that's when he comes in,
starts the meetings with all of the folks.
I'm not sure how the -- this Court would like
to proceed with that; whether you want two people, to work
on it individually, or you want him to work with everybody
in open forum. He's amenable to do any of the above. But
what will happen is, typically, in a terminal like this, you
will have the individual meet with -- with all of the
political bodies, airport users in themselves, board
members, individuals, then spend some time in the community
driving around, looking at what the facades are, what we
want to see, because each thing is different. This is our
4-12-04
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gateway to -- to Kerrville. This is our gateway to our
community. And then start pulling together all of the
specific wants, if you will, and desires for -- and then
start doing sketches.
From there, the sketches will be done two,
three, four times over, and I guess it's same thing as if
you were going to build your own house from scratch. And
when everybody, then, is approved and the design is
acceptable, then he finalizes the blueprints, the plans,
goes out for bid, follows the project all the way through.
The -- the design consultant is really the hub of everything
that we have here. He's an engineer; he does all of the
geo-tech survey with it. He follows the project from A to
Z. We tell him what we want, we tell him what we don't
like, back and forth. And then, when it's all done, he has
all the bid documents; he does everything for the
construction documents. It is my -- I envision that this
will take approximately till August-September to finalize
everything and we have an actual good document to bid. At
that time, we should get the go-ahead for construction, and
then we bid the document and you just continue on with the
facility at that point. I'm real excited about this,
because now we can start sitting with somebody and start
listing out what we need. With that, I'd ask for this
Court's approval, and to move forward with us.
4-1?-04
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of
awarding the Professional Services Agreement to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask one thing.
The agenda item here, is that approving contracting with
this company?
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's approving hiring an
architect and engineering.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hiring architect and
engineering, and the expenditure of 80 grand.
MR. PEARCE: Yes, which is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what else?
MR. PEARCE: And that's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those two items?
MR. PEARCE: Those two items.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I assume it authorizes me
to sign?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. PEARCE: And what I would ask from this
Court, if you don't mind, if -- if you have an idea of how
4-12-04
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you would like -- or if you have some folks that you -- I
assume possibly Commissioner Letz and Williams would be
working with the architect, or maybe you want to approach
that differently; if you can include that in your same
motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if it
needs a motion or not. I think it -- just carry on with the
work that you're doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And we'll -- you
know, once we get some drawings and -- preliminary drawings,
we'll bring them back to the Court at that time, get
feedback.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion and second? 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. PEARCE: The last of the stacks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item on the agenda
is to set a public hearing date for the alternate plat
process for Lots 14 and 15 of The Horizon, Section One.
MR. JOHNSTON: May 24th. Alternate platting
9-12-04
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
process requires a public hearing, and they only have to
bring the platting in at the time of final plat, so this is
the procedure. Set the date that they can have the hearing,
and do the final platting at the same date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're just combining
two lots into one lot?
MR. JOHNSTON: Just combining two lots,
right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we set a public
hearing on May 24th at 10 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
setting public hearing on the agenda item for May 24th at 10
a.m. 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 does carry. Next
item on the agenda is to set a public hearing date for the
alternate plat process for Lots 32 and 33 of The Horizon,
Section One.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is the same issue, set a
date for public hearing. Probably 10:15 on the same date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
4-12-09
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
set a public hearing for May the 24th, 2004, at 10:15 a.m.
on the agenda item. 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 does carry. Next
item on the agenda is to present an engineer's flood study
for Lots 42 to 44 of Bumble Bee Hills, consider whether a
revision of plat is required for the same.
MR. JOHNSTON: We had the engineer,
Vordenbaum Engineering -- in fact, Stewart Vordenbaum is
here to go over his flood study and answer any questions
that you might have concerning it. And then, after that, I
might bring up the issue of this -- this site consists of
three lots. They want to build one residence on three lots,
and they're -- I'm getting the feedback from them that
they -- they think they can; they don't need to do a plat
revision in order to do that. And it sounds to me like it
needs to have a plat -- a lot combination of those three,
but I'll bring that to the Court. This is Stewart
Vordenbaum, if you have questions concerning -- or if you
4-1^-04
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just want him to walk through it or whatever your wish is on
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you do,
Stewart? Tell us about it.
MR. VORDENBAUM: We looked at -- we did a
detailed study, albeit limited, on Bumblebee Creek to
determine whether or not the existing fill had any effect
on -- on the flow of Bumblebee Creek. The findings are
that -- that the fill that's in place has -- has no effect
on the flow in Bumblebee Creek. The flooding source, then,
would be backwater from the Guadalupe, so the backwater --
we did look at the detailed study on the Guadalupe. If
you're at the site, just -- just from the physical
appearance of the site downstream, the embankment is higher
than the fill that's -- that's in question, so the -- the --
there is no effect on the flow of the Guadalupe for this
fill. The question --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say that again, Stewart?
I'm sorry, repeat that? I was just looking at this.
MR. VORDENBAUM: Just -- let's leave the
engineering and everything aside. We have a detailed study
on the Guadalupe River with cross-sections. If you're
standing at the site looking downstream, the embankment is
higher than where you're standing on this site, so the -- as
far as the Guadalupe River is concerned, it doesn't even see
9-1~-09
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this fill. So, there would be no effect on the detailed
study on the Guadalupe because of this fill. We also looked
at the flow in Bumblebee, which I'm repeating myself, but it
has no effect on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. VORDENBAUM: The flow did -- just to give
you an idea, the flow in the Guadalupe, the 100-year flow,
is 129,000 CFS. Bumblebee Creek is 4,500 CFS.
JUDGE TINLEY: And did I understand you
correctly that there's an embankment on the river itself
downstream which has a greater elevation than the fill in
question?
MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: But that's on the river
itself?
MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes, sir. we have the
original runs -- the computer runs that FEMA used for the
runs on the Guadalupe River, and we took a look at the
cross-sections and the flows in the Guadalupe also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on your diagram here,
I mean, you've got the Guadalupe BFE drawn. That's the --
MR. VORDENBAUM: I'm sorry, let me look at
what you're pointing at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the dotted line
right here.
4-12-04
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. VORDENBAUM: Right. Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's the flood
line.
MR. VORDENBAUM: This is the base flood
elevation. This -- this is off of the FEMA floodplain map
150. So, the BFE, the -- the flood elevation that affects
this property is the backwater off the Guadalupe, not -- not
the flow in Bumblebee Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this elevation is --
is still lower than the pad, correct?
MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes. Yes. Top of the pad
is -- now, we didn't -- we did not address, you know, the
house being there, but typically you want the top of the
slab at least a foot above this BFE. But the -- the soil
that's there is already above it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe I don't understand it
correctly. You say the soil that is on the pad now is above
the BFE that you measured?
MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Off the Guadalupe, which shows
it as 1734?
MR. VORDENBAUM: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I'm looking at --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's 1735.
9-12-09
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. I was looking at
the corner fill, 1731 -- okay, I'm seeing where you're
talking about now. 34.83, 35.61, 35.24, and -- okay. Okay.
Just barely a foot or so above, all right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you, I think
it's great that our engineer's office has this kind of
information for future use, and I appreciate Mr. Vordenbaum
and Mr. Vlasek both for providing this information for us.
This is a lot of information that we didn't have before.
MR. JOHNSTON: It all accumulates. It was an
unstudied area before, and now -- so this whole portion has
been, you know, studied, so now we have more information on
it. And the second -- the second part of our -- our agenda
is whether or not those lots need to be combined.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think we've always done that
in the past, but they come up and said, "Where in the rules
does it say you have to do it?" And I don't think it really
says that. It just assumes that that will be done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the issue would
come on -- we have requirements on lot lines for
construction and septic and things of that nature.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if they situate their
house --
4-12-04
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1U
I
11
12
13
,.-,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-,
25
MR. JOHNSTON: It will cross a line, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, let's say they're
going to -- and if it does have a -- cross a line, you need
a revision. In other words, you need to get a waiver. But
if they configure it where they don't, if they just build on
one of the lots, under those requirements, they won't have
to. So, it depends on the house they're building, the way I
see it.
engineer?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for the
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I do. I got a
call early this morning from Mrs. Fox, a nearby resident of
this building site, and she told me that she had, Saturday
night, received the results of a hydrology study that she
and some of her neighbors ordered, and it was done by SGA
Consulting Services of Spring Branch, Texas. At the -- at
the break, Ms. Mary Hart Frost gave me a copy of this report
that they just received Saturday night, and I've given you
the cover letter, not the backup detail. And it -- and I'm
going to ask a question, Mr. Engineer. It appears to
conflict the studies done by Mr. Vordenbaum, and I'll read
just one paragraph. "The main result of the analysis we
performed is that the entire three lots, 42, 43, and 44, on
which the fill has been placed will be underwater from back
flow from the Guadalupe in events less than the flood of
4-12-04
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
record with no flow at alI in Bumblebee Creek. There's any
number of combinations of creek versus river flood that
could put these lots underwater, even with the present fill
in place." Do you -- do you need time to consider --
MR. JOHNSTON: First of all, there's really
no meaning to the term "flood of record." The flood we're
looking at, the universal throughout the county, is 100-year
flood. That's a FEMA -- what FEMA requires, and that's what
Stewart's report was based on. So, whatever they say the
flood of record is, that, you know, could be more or less,
but what we're looking at is a 100-year flood, and that's
what's required in the floodplain ordinance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you don't
believe this work provides you with any more information
that would be useful to you?
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm just responding to your
question there on that particular item. I -- actually, I
just had a few minutes and read through it once. I think
Stewart had a chance to read it, but there's any number of
combinations of -- of -- well, maybe you ought to explain
that part of it, Stewart.
MR. VORDENBAUM: I read that letter briefly
in a few minutes. There's a couple of things -- and I'm not
being derogatory at a11, but the letter states that the
author had just downloaded HEC-RAS and had to become
4-i2-04
1
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
familiar with it. I didn't see anything in the report that
disagreed with our study. The conflict may be in knowledge
of how FEMA operates and what is and is not required in --
in a study like we've submitted to you. We used the HEC-RAS
program. We've been using it for approximately 10 years.
We have -- our organization has submitted to FEMA over 30
similar flood studies which have been approved as submitted.
I have not had a chance to study that letter, but the letter
refers to the effects of the 100-year flood coming down
Bumblebee Creek with some flooding in the Guadalupe. Well,
FEMA does not require the scenario of combining flows; this
being up, that being up.
We -- we just recently submitted a study on
Goat Creek, and same scenario where we looked at backwater
flow, and also -- that was a controlling factor. We looked
at, individually, the flow in the creek with no flow in the
Guadalupe. The scenario of the flooding, the Guadalupe
being at 100-year flood stage, plus Bumblebee Creek being at
100-year flood stage, is not a reasonable and rational way
to analyze a situation. We looked at them individually.
The flood of record is 1932, yes. That flooding is in
excess of what FEMA, in their detailed study that we looked
at -- the flow and the BFE that's based on that flow is the
1734. That's based on 129,000 CFS, okay? Yes, the 1932
flood was something greater than a 100-year frequency. So,
~-i~-o4
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in other words, the -- the FEMA -- and these studies that we
do are based on 100-year frequency. So, is there any other
questions concerning that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, to me, as I
understand the issue, we have federal laws that we need to
comply with when it comes to constructing near waterways in
this county, and -- and those are the rules we follow. And
whether -- it may or may not protect someone from a -- from
an event that may cause a flood. But, I mean, I don't think
that we can -- if someone -- if the FEMA rules and our
development rules allow something to be built, it can be
built. I mean, I just I don't see how you can deny someone
the right to build on their property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I mean,
Mr. Vlasek -- or it doesn't make any difference if it's
Mr. Vlasek. They bought lots in a development. They are
meeting the requirements of FEMA. They can build. You
know, that's -- I don't see any alternative. I think that
the alternative, if we were to say no, you can't build,
would be a liability to the County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Vordenbaum, you indicated
that analyzing this particular situation on the basis of
both a 100-year flood on the Guadalupe and a 100-year flood
on Bumblebee Creek is not a rational way to analyze it, I
4-12-04
94
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~.
25
believe, or something similar to that.
MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that if
there's heavy general rains in the area, that it very easily
could occur that you're going to get 100-year occurrences on
both of them. But I guess the pertinent question is, does
FEMA permit the analysis by considering one to the exclusion
of the other, and does not require that they be considered
together?
MR. VORDENBAUM: Yes, sir, that's -- that's
why I mentioned that we had just recently submitted a second
study on Goat Creek right at 27, and that's the way it was
approached, you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, under the FEMA
calculations, what you've done is within the parameters of
what they require in order to come up with a base flood
elevation and the other parameters that we're talking about
in this particular case?
MR. VORDENBAUM: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. VORDENBAUM: I might add that Bumblebee
Creek is a relatively small watershed. It's very steep.
The -- if -- if there was a hydrology analysis done which
would indicate when the peak flow times were down the
Guadalupe and versus Bumblebee Creek, the chances of the
4-12-04
95
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
peak flow in both hitting the same place at the same time is
almost nil. So, basically, what would happen in a storm
event, the -- and I haven't done calculations on it, but
it's based on many previous similar scenarios. The peak
flow on Bumblebee Creek would be gone before the peak flow
hit on the Guadalupe, just because of the travel time and
the steepness. Both are steep in a regime of flow, but
Bumblebee Creek is much steeper than -- than the Guadalupe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for
Mr. Vordenbaum? I've got a participation form.
Mrs. Frost -- Mary Hart Frost has indicated a desire to
speak with us.
MS. FROST: I've already given a copy of this
to Mr. Nicholson and to the Judge. Do you want me to leave
a copy for Mr. Williams?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no, let's leave
him out in the cold. If he doesn't want to show up at
meetings, he doesn't need this stuff.
MS. FROST: Okay. My name is Mary Mart
Frost, and I live in Bumble Bee Hills at 312 Queen Bee. I'd
like to share this review of the hydrology of Bumblebee
Creek at flood stage with all of you. As -- as
Mr. Nicholson said, we did not get this report back until
Saturday night, and so it's -- it's fairly new to me, too.
But one of the things that really impressed me was how he
4-1~-04
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
could make someone like me, who is not technically aware,
understand very clearly what the danger is here.
"Dear Mrs. Fox, I reviewed the subject report
prepared by Vordenbaum Engineering, Incorporated, and it
locks reasonable for the limited analysis performed. To do
this work, I had to familiarize myself with the Corps of
Engineers' computer program HEC-RAS, Version 3.1.1., which
is available without charge from their web site. Because of
the limited time available for this analysis, I was not able
to do some modeling that would tweak the output a little
better. However, I believe this report will show that we
cannot model the flow in Bumblebee Creek without taking into
consideration the water level in the Guadalupe River, It
was also necessary to become familiar with the program to
evaluate the data and conclusions drawn by V.E.I.
"The case modeled by Mr. Spraggins of V,E.I.
does represent the case of a flash flood on Bumblebee Creek
before a significant rise has occurred in the Guadalupe. I
duplicated this case to be sure the older version of the
program which V.E.I. is using is compatible with the latest
version we downloaded this week. I used all the data as
presented in the V.E.I. report dated March 11th, 2004, and
duplicated the results in the report. However, I could not
justify the boundary conditions and would like more
information on the determination of the input values of the
4-12-04
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
slope." We definitely need that before you all make a
decision on this.
"The HEC-RAS instructions say to use the
slope of the channel bottom in the absence of energy data,
and this is what I did in later cases by scaling the V.E.I.
drawing Number C-1, which you supplied to me. I could not
determine the slopes used by V.E.I. in this manner, and
presume they have information withheld from the report, or
did not supply a scale drawing, although a scale is noted on
the drawing. The program is sensitive to the slope used for
the downstream boundary condition, and if a zero slope or a
very small value for slope is used, the program will show
the creek backing up and flooding the lots. This is a
mathematical problem solved by adding more cross-sections
downstream, which the error analysis in the V.E.I. report
stated is desirable for this case.
"The conclusions presented by V.E.I. based on
this one case are reasonable. The water level in the creek
is far below the elevation of the lots, so adding fill on
the three lots has no effect on the flow dynamics. To
investigate the influence of the Guadalupe, I added a reach
and junction to the schematic required by HEC-RAS for any
analysis to include the Guadalupe. The schematic is shown
in Figure 1" -- which you have there. "Since I do not have
channel geometry for the river, I created a rectangular
4-12-04
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
channel and generated a rate curve for boundary conditions
using U.S.G.S. data. The flood data is sensitive to the
actual elevation of the bottom of the river, but as we will
show, the flood record is such that river water levels in
the Guadalupe generated by the model are not uncommon, and
far below the flood of record that occurred in 1932. The
rate curve used is shown in Figure 2. The flood of record
caused Guadalupe River to crest 36.6 feet above normal
upstream of Bumblebee Creek at a flow rate of 206,000 CFS's.
"The Bumblebee Creek flood condition at two
different flow rates in the Guadalupe using the 100-year
flood flow for Bumblebee Creek calculated by V.E.I. are
shown in Figures 3 through 8. The elevation of the water
surface in the Guadalupe was 4 feet over Highway 39 at
53,000 CFS's, and less than 1 foot over the pavement at
40,000 CFS's. As may be seen, the water backs up at
cross-section 11, well above the river level, and goes from
critical, rapid flow, in the V.E.I. analysis to sub-critical
flow and about 5 feet deeper when taking the Guadalupe flood
stage into effect. At a Guadalupe River elevation of
1,727 feet, 53,000 CFS's, Bumblebee Creek just floods the
fill at elevation 1735 feet at all sections.
"We did not consider the effects of fill
versus no fill on erosion, as there is a subroutine in
HEC-RAS for this purpose that I did not have time to study.
4-12-04
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
HEC-RAS is a comprehensive program, and it seems V.E.I.
could have done a much more detailed analysis with little
added expense, considering their familiarity with the
software." The main reason of analysis we performed --
pardon me. "The main result of the analysis we performed is
that the entire three lots, 42, 43, and 44, on which the
fill has been placed will be underwater from back flow from
the Guadalupe in events less than the flood of record, with
no flow at all in Bumblebee Creek. There is any number of
combinations of creek versus river flood that could put
these lots underwater, even with the present fill in place."
And then he goes on to give his credentials
and where you can call him. And you'll see that each page
of the report which I gave you is signed with his seal. We
have another concern, and that is that Mr. Gregory's
analysis and Mr. Spraggins' analysis did not take into
consideration the Bumblebee Creek bridge and how that small
area where Bumblebee Creek comes out into the Guadalupe and
where the Guadalupe River backs up over the Bumblebee Creek
bridge, that was not taken into consideration. Mr. Gregory
apologized for that. He said he did not have time to do
that, and so that is something that we would like to see
done. We think there's another -- there's additional
analyses that need to factor into -- that need to factor in
the bridge.
4-1~-04
100
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Also, as a private citizen living in Bumble
Bee Hills, I'm very concerned about my neighbors who are
directly across from this pad, Mrs. Lillian Lewis and
Mrs. -- her name is -- I can't recall it right now; it's
gone away from me. But, anyway, both of them are physically
impaired, and if the water comes around that pad and floods
over Should Bee, they will have no way to escape, because
the low-water crossing will also be flooded. This is a very
serious problem. We are very concerned about this, and I
would urge you to have an additional study done on this
before you make a decision in this matter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a couple of
questions.
MS. FROST: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On the letter -- I'm
going to go back to this letter. The second paragraph down,
the last sentence, he says, "I couldn't justify the boundary
conditions and would like more information."
=rmination of the input
like that from -- from
Okay. And then, on
It says. "Since I do
MS. FROST: On the det
values of the slope. And so we would
the Vordenbaum report.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
Page 2, the Figure 1 --
MS. FROST: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
4-12-04
i
I
F
1
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
not have the channel geometry for the river, I created a
rectangular channel..." This guy created some kind of
model, just out of the blue?
MS. FROST: Mr. Baldwin, this man is not
someone who creates something out of the blue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. I'm just
reading --
MS. FROST: He is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm asking you.
MS. FROST: He is a trained hydrologist, and
that was what he had to use, because he didn't have the
information that he's requesting in Paragraph 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- to me, it's very
simple, and the question goes to the County Engineer, who is
our Floodplain Administrator, you know. Based on FEMA
rules -- and I don't mean to be, you know, callous from the
standpoint of not of caring if the property floods or not.
I do care, but that's not -- my position is the fact that it
may or may not flood is somewhat irrelevant to allowing Mr.
Vlasek or someone else to build on the property. We're
required to follow FEMA rules. If FEMA says -- if FEMA
rules were followed by the Vordenbaum study and said that
development can take place on this lot, I don't see where we
have any prerogative to stop that. I mean, he bought the
4-12-04
r~__._~. ~ ~ - --
102
1
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lots in the -- in a grandfathered subdivision. I mean, it's
really not even subject to our rules.
MS. FROST: Well, also --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our current Subdivision
Rules.
MS. FROST: Also, Mr. --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me finish, please.
So, I mean, you know, this issue is really -- it's, you
know, does the Vordenbaum study comply with the FEMA rules?
And if the answer is yes, then I think that Mr. Vlasek is
allowed to build.
MS. FROST: Well, you know, there's the
history of that fill. It was placed there without a permit.
It was then permitted by the U.G.R.A. after the fact, and it
was only for six months. And he was not allowed to build on
that without reapplying. In the meantime, he put additional
topping on that without a permit, and you said that that
topping should be removed because he did not have a permit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He did have a permit when
he started it originally.
MS. FROST: He did not have a permit. He did
not have a permit to put the top layer on top of the
original fill. There's a pattern here of granting permits
after the fact.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you know, there
4-12-04
103
i
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
probably was some mistakes. I remember that, talking about
requiring him to take off the 2 or 3 feet or whatever it
was; I can't remember what -- the number. However, what
Commissioner Letz was saying earlier, if he -- you know, we
do a lot of things here that I personally disagree with, a
lot of subdivision things that I personally disagree with,
but they comply with the law. And if they comply with the
law, I'm not going to stand in the way and cause the County
to go out and have to purchase people's property, their
private property, because of something I held up. And this,
to me, is one of the those issues. Whether I agree with
Mr. Vlasek or Mr. Vordenbaum, if they're complying with the
law, there's nothing I can do about it. We -- we have to --
we have to let them do what they need to do on their own
property, and we've said that a hundred times in here over
the issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have a question.
Going back to that -- and maybe I'm reading this wrong. It
appears to me -- this is to Mr. Vordenbaum or Mr. Johnston.
It appears to me that the -- the pad, before any fill was
ever put there, is outside the floodplain. I mean, on your
drawing, here's the creek and here's the floodplain. So, I
mean, it appears to me that the permit was not even really
required, 'cause it wasn't in the floodplain.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think that's the floodplain
4-12-04
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not considering the river.
MR. VORDENBAUM: That's the floodplain only
considering Bumblebee Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. VORDENBAUM: The whole thing's in the
floodplain when you look at backwater off of the Guadalupe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My thinking is not
too different than y'all's. A few months ago I promised
David I wouldn't practice law, and I'll promise Franklin I'm
not going to practice engineering either, so I'm going to
look to Franklin Johnston to tell us whether or not we're
complying with FEMA requirements.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
MS. FROST: Well, let me just ask you one
thing. Is it going to be a pattern of the new Floodplain
Administrator to allow fill to be put in a floodplain
without a permit, and then afterwards say, "Well, that's
okay; you can leave it there"?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The answer to that is
no, he will not set a pattern and do that on a regular
basis. No, ma'am.
MS. FROST: Well, that's happened here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It might have happened
here, but no. Your question was is there going to be a
4-12-04
r
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
pattern. The answer is no.
MS. FROST: But, in this case, it's going to
be okay; he doesn't have to remove that fill that he put in
there without a permit?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I -- I think the
other issue is -- I mean, it's -- just because it's in the
floodplain doesn't mean you can't build on it.
MS. FROST: But you have to have a permit to
put it there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. FROST: And he did not have a permit to
put it there. The permit that he had for the first fill was
issued after the fill was put there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. FROST: It was issued for six months, and
it was issued without the ability to put any kind of
building on it. So then, when he wants to put a building on
it, he moves in some more fill and puts it on top of this
fill. Does not have a permit for that, and no permit has
been issued after-the-fact, as far as I know. There was a
court order here that he was to remove that fill because he
did not have a permit for it, and I'm saying that that still
needs to be done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that the
-- I mean, my feeling would be -- I mean, I guess we can
4-12-04
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
require the fill to be removed, then grant a permit to bring
it back. Doesn't that seem somewhat -- doesn't make much
sense to me.
MS. FROST: Well, it makes a lot of sense to
me, because I don't think he should again be able to get
away with putting fill in an area where he did not have a
permit, and then having granted a permit after-the-fact.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that would make you
happy, if we made him remove the topsoil and obtain a permit
and then put the topsoil back?
MS. FROST: Mr. Baldwin, it's not a fact of
what's going to make me happy. It's a fact of what is
right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Would that be
the right way do it, then?
MS. FROST: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, I'm with
you, then. Let's make him do that.
MS. FROST: And I'd also like to know where
he's going to put that fill when he removes it, because I
don't want it to damage anybody else's property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what is this?
I mean, it looks like a letter from some lawyer or
something.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly what it is,
4-12-04
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, I begin to
recognize this stuff, huh?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The agenda item is
pretty limited. It says present the engineer's study and
consider whether a revision of plat is required. So, the
issue of whether or not the County Engineer is going to
approve the -- going to grant a permit to build there is not
on the agenda.
MS. FROST: Mr. Nicholson, what about the
court order to remove the top layer of -- does that have to
come up at a different --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It would have to
be --
MS. FROST: -- meeting? Have to be a
different agenda item?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Have to be on the
agenda, yes.
MS. FROST: And, in the meantime, the Court
order still stands?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Still stands.
MS. FROST: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: The --
MR. FERRY: My recollection is that the order
was for the County Attorney's office to prepare the
9-12-04
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
documents to go forward with contempt -- a motion for
contempt and an order. That is available to us today;
however, in light of this engineering study, the -- the
Court may not want to move forward with that. So, the
documents are available if the Court does. If the Court
decides not to, then --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think you
should move forward until the County Engineer's had an
opportunity to review all the -- the floodplain analysis and
hydrology.
MR. FEARY: Yes, sir. I just wanted to
express what I thought my recollection of the order was, and
that that's where we are now, is we do have whatever
available if the Court would like.
JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, what you're saying
is the County Attorney has things to the point where they
were requested to be at the last time you were instructed,
and you -- you will await further instructions?
MR. FEARY: Yes sir, exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: I have one additional item to
maybe clarify the record. It was brought up that there's
found to be a pattern for this current Floodplain
Administrator to allow fill to go into the floodplain
without a permit. Might bear in mind that the -- all this
4-1~-04
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-~
25
fill was put in prior to my time as Floodplain
Administrator, so no permit's been issued as of now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a motion to present
in connection with the agenda item as framed?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what say ye?
Are you telling us -- I'm looking at the engineer here. Are
you telling -- what are you telling us?
MR. JOHNSTON: What am I telling you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Are you
recommending that we break for lunch? Or are you
recommending that we approve this? Or --
MR. JOHNSTON: The requirement was -- it came
up when your court order was issued that, in lieu of him --
Mr. Vlasek, the owner, having an engineering study -- that
you were concluding that he didn't. Without a permit, he
would have to remove -- you know the whole story on that.
It was all premised upon having the engineering study.
That's what's required by the floodplain rules, to have --
you know, if you build in a floodway, you have to have an
engineer -- in a floodplain, you have to have an engineering
study made. So, that's -- we finally caught up to that
point. Have that done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me where
we are is that the study's been presented, and it's up to
the --
4-12-09
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
110
MR. JOHNSTON: I think, you know, I can issue
the -- or not issue the permit without bringing it back to
court, but I wanted -- since it's been in court, I wanted
the Court to know that this engineering study has been
completed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you saying that it's your
opinion, based upon the study, that a revision of plat is
not required? That's the agenda item, as I see it. Is or
is not required.
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it's supposed to be a
two-part -- one of them was informational on the floodplain
-- the floodplain study. The other part was a platting
question of whether or not these lots had to be combined
before they did their development, as opposed to building on
three separate lots with one -- one structure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MR. JOHNSTON: Apparently, there's some legal
documents that -- Fred, you might talk to them about that,
that -- where he signed some papers; said that they would be
forever combined. But that's not a -- not going through the
platting process.
MR. HENNEKE: If I might, gentlemen, I'm Fred
Henneke, here on behalf of Mr. Vlasek. Mr. Vlasek has
signed and delivered to the Designated Representative for
Kerr County for O.S.S.F. a document whereby he states and
4-1t-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
111
avows that the tract of land in question shall be considered
a single tract by virtue of a single water treatment system
servicing these tracts of land. In other words, he has, in
effect, consolidated these three tracts of land into one
land for purposes of O.S.S.F. This document is on file in
the septic system file relating to these properties, and I
have a copy of it here which I'll be happy to make available
to Mr. Johnston and anyone else who would like it. I think
Commissioner Letz would agree with me, there's no
requirement in the Subdivision Rules that he consolidate
these lots for purpose of construction upon them, and he
has, by virtue of this document, which is on the U.G.R.A.
form -- I mean, it's their form -- effectively consolidated
them for purposes of O.S.S.F.
If I might take just a minute, too, with
regard to the issue of the additional fill, I believe I
provided each of you gentlemen with a document from the
Floodplain Administrator at the time the additional fill
was -- was placed on the site authorizing an additional 12
to 24 inches of fill. That was all part of the development
permit process. The original fill was inserted as part of
only a fill. This was done as part of Mr. Vlasek's efforts
to move forward to actually develop the project. So, I
would take the position that the additional fill was
authorized and is legitimate, although I know that's not
4-12-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~-
25
112
before the Court today. If anyone has any questions, I'd be
glad to respond to them on behalf of Mr. Vlasek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment would
be -- is, you know, on the document that combines the lots
from a septic standpoint, I mean, that -- I don't want it.
Give it to the County Attorney, if anybody. It's -- it's
just whether, you know, that -- that meets the O.S.S.F.
rules. 'Cause, I mean, I think Fred is correct that there's
nothing in our Subdivision Rules that would require a
revision of plat, but there are some requirements in the
O.S.S.F. rules regarding lot lines, and I don't know if that
document satisfies those or not.
MS. FROST: I would just like to request
where I could get a copy of that document authorizing the
additional fill, because we have the complete file from
U.G.R.A. and we never saw that document.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's it right there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this what you're
considering the authorization?
MR. HENNEKE: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me.
MS. FROST: Yes, we did have this, but this
is not -- this is not a permit. This is just simply a -- a
note from Stuart Barron on 10/14 that says, "Okay to bring
in additional fill -- 12 inches to 24 inches of fill to
4-12-04
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
elevate the home site." There's no official document here.
There's no official request that this be done. This is
not -- this is not authorization. This is not a permit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't answer that
question. That's a legal issue, and that's -- I mean, I
don't know if it`s sufficient or not.
MS. FROST: Well, anything else that we saw
that was permitted was on official U.G.R.A. forms for
permitting, not just a written okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, you
know, I don't know what the legal status of that note is,
but I think there's a -- you know, and, granted, this was
all done before the County took over floodplain directly.
But when a member of the public -- in this case,
Mr. vlasek -- I think he's in pretty good standing to rely
on a handwritten, you know, memorandum. I wouldn't know why
he would not rely on it. So, I think that there's -- I
mean, there may be -- the issue is more in the way, you
know, it was handled prior to the County taking over this
program. But, you know --
MS. FROST: Is that something that the County
Attorney's office has looked into, the authority of this
note?
MR. FEARY: I don't think it's appropriate to
discuss that right now.
4-12-04
114
1
--- 2
~ 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. FROST: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to
know from the County Engineer and Floodplain Administrator
if -- if Mr. Vlasek's property complies with FEMA or not.
Yes or no. One or the other.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good question. Mr. Engineer?
MR. JOHNSTON: FEMA -- the FEMA requirement
is that you can develop property within the floodplain
fringe if it's elevated above the 100-year floodplain, or
the 1 percent flood, and the County has an additional
requirement that it be elevated to 12 inches above the BFE.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, according to
Mr. Vordenbaum, does -- does it comply with FEMA?
MR. JOHNSTON: Best I -- yeah. I think it
does, yeah. We have an engineer that does this type of work
and that sealed that report that said it meets the FEMA
requirements. I don't know why we would challenge it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there or is there not a
revision of a plat required as a result of that flood study?
MR. JOHNSTON: That was a question of --
that's really a separate item. I don't know how it's
written on there, but that should be part one and part two.
A revision of the plat was whether or not, you know, those
4-12-09
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
115
lots need to be combined, go through a plat combination
process, and that's what that letter that Fred Henneke just
read that -- to give to the County Attorney to see if that's
sufficient, or if they need to go through the -- through the
plat process.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, you don't have an opinion
as to that question at this point?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's why I brought it to
court. It doesn't really spell it out, A-B-C, in our rules,
as such. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- that's an option that they
can do. But it doesn't really say they have to do it, I
don't think.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does anyone have a
motion they wish to offer?
MS. FROST: Could I have one more question?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We are dealing with
the flood study thing today, but I -- I don't know if we can
deal with the revision of plat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently, we can't, because
there's -- that's in the hands of the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we can on the
first one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a motion to be
4-12-G9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
offered?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we
approve -- I don't know what all language needs to be in it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's "accept."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we're accepting
the recommendation of the Floodplain Administrator that
Mr. Vlasek be able to move forward with his building
project.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think that
question's on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. We accept
the -- Mr. Vordenbaum's flood study, then. We can do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second accepting the
study. That's as far as we can go, as I see it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have a motion and
second. Did you --
MS. FROST: When it's appropriate.
JUDGE TINLEY: You have a point?
MS. FROST: Yes. I think it's very important
that there be further analysis that factors in the bridge
and the amount of flow that goes under the bridge, and I
think there should be additional study. If the County
Engineer doesn't want to do it, we'll be happy to pay for
it, because that's very, very important and very significant
in terms of the volume and the velocity of water that comes
4-12-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r
25
117
from Bumblebee Creek into the Guadalupe and what -- well,
mainly that, because the backflow is not affected by that
area under the bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mrs. Frost, I don't -- I
mean, I'm not -- don't disagree with you, but Mr. Vlasek or
anybody else shouldn't be required to do more than the
FEMA -- than the law requires. And the -- and if the study
that was performed meets the FEMA requirements, then it
meets the FEMA requirements. And the County Engineer says
it does, so I don't see how we can all of a sudden say,
"You've met the requirements, but now we're going to make
you" -- not making you; I mean Mr. Vlasek -- "do an
additional study." I mean, I don't think we have that
authority.
MS. FROST: Well, I do know that at one point
you did say that you would factor in in this study -- you
would factor in the opening under the Bumblebee Creek
bridge, and that was not done.
MR. JOHNSTON: We have the engineer here that
did the study. Is that a significant factor? I don't know.
MR. VORDENBAUM: I don't think this bridge
opening is going to make any difference to the study.
MS. FROST: You don't think that small bridge
opening is going to make any difference in the velocity and
the volume of water coming from Bumblebee Creek or backing
4-1~-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
118
up?
MR. VORDENBAUM: No, because we have
elevations on Highway 39 when you're -- the -- the elevated
pad is here, all right? Highway 39 is way down there. The
water's going to go over 39 from Bumblebee Creek long before
it gets to this pad.
MS. FROST: I'm talking about the opening of
the bridge, of the -- of the creek coming down through the
bridge where it stopped, because there's only a small amount
of space there --
11
12
MR. VORDENBAUM: Okay.
MS. FROST: -- for it to get through, so it's
going to back up onto the -- that pad.
MR. VORDENBAUM: No. Let me -- I'm going to
take your scenario. If the bridge chokes the water off --
we have an elevation on the study, but just as a matter of
common sense, if I'm standing on the pad here, I'm looking
down at 39, the water is going to go over 39 from Bumblebee
Creek long before it ever gets to the pad.
MS. FROST: Okay. What's it going to do on
the Should Bee side of the pad?
MR. VORDENBAUM: On the Should Bee side of
MS. FROST: Right. That's the road -- the
..-.
25 county
4-12-04
the pad?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
that road?
MR. VORDENBAUM: I don't believe so.
MS. FROST: You mean a pad of that size is
going to let the water flow around it, just as it would have
if that were what it originally was?
MR. VORDENBAUM: The flooding source that
sets the -- the base flood elevation is the Guadalupe.
Bumblebee Creek flow is well below the pad and the road, and
the houses on the other side that you're concerned with are
much lower than this pad.
MS. FROST: Right, that is my concern. That
is my concern.
MR. VORDENBAUM: They're going to -- they're
going to flood -- they're in the floodplain of the
Guadalupe, regardless if the pad is there or not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't y'all resume this
discussion -- it's not germane to the motion that we've got
before us, which is merely accepting the study, and that's
the motion before the Court now. Y'all can resume that
discussion privately. Is there any further discussion on
the motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. What is the
motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: To accept the study.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That means we heard
4-12-04
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the report and we received a written --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We received the report.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all it means. Anything
further? 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. The
next item on the agenda, the addendum, is consider and
discuss a request from the City of Kerrville for the Kerr
County Environmental Health Department Manager to act as the
City's designated representative in administering the
On-Site Septic Facility program.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we can
dispose of this real quick. Here is the promised letter
from the City, and this is to -- quote, to serve as notice
of continuing authorization for Environmental Health office
to act as the City's authorized agent. It's a matter of
cleaning up some loose ends, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do we need t do? We
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we can make
a motion that the County Judge confirm to the City the
-~_z-o~
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
receipt of their notice of continuing authorization.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Continuing
authorization, I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you make that as a
motion and second?
JUDGE TINLEY: That was a motion. Did you
second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you restate the
motion, just so it's clear on the record?
JUDGE TINLEY: That the County Judge
acknowledge to the City of Kerrville that we are in receipt
of their continuing authorization for our Environmental
Health office to act as the City's authorized agent for the
O.S.S.F. program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Judge.
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 does carry.
4-i2-04
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,,-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Miguel?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Here's a copy of it.
MR. ARREOLA: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now we go to the
executive session items, unless you want to put those at the
tail end.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wouldn't want to
break up that meeting over there. Do we have an executive
session issue? I didn't look at the --
JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing would be a
report on the status of the civil attorney's action on the
health insurance claim. That's the only thing that is
active, as far as I know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any reason we
need to go in executive session? I don't see it. I mean,
I -- I just -- I really think the -- in my mind, I think
it's executive, but I would like to say, at our next
meeting, I think it's about time that we get a good report,
and possibly the attorney can come advise our Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we're going to forego
the executive. Nobody has any other reason to go into
executive? All right. Let's -- let's talk about paying the
bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
4-12-04
~ r
123
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's one thing I
believe in; we need to pay our bills. And I've got two sets
this week. Somebody show up with none?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I had two. I had two
sets, too. I threw the first set away.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
pay the bills. The only comment I'd make is that it looks
like this was -- Santa Claus came to The Software Group this
month.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. Yeah, year
after year after year after year; 15, maybe 17 years now.
MR. TOMLINSON: We paid two quarters at
one -- at one time. We didn't -- we didn't receive their
invoice for the prior quarter, so we're catching up.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're doing so good that
they're not even invoicing us. I think we ought to do so
good in delaying payment to them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did they issue them a gun when
they gave them that franchise agreement? Appears that they
have one.
4-12-09
124
.,-,
I
1
I
i
I
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--.
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MR. TOMLINSON: Yep.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
pay the bills. Any further question or discussion? All in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for Environmental
Health. Their request is to transfer $948.10 from Capital
Outlay to Office Supplies, and $1,000 from Postage to
Operating Expenses.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why? They've got no current
expense. Why -- are they just positioning themselves for
something or what?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have a memo or
anything from them, so I don't -- I don't know the reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be a great
way to learn how we function around here, is to hold it
until we get an answer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's no current
expense in any of those items. There's an unexpended budget
balance in the two to which there's a request to transfer
funds. I don't see the need for it, very frankly.
4-12-04
125
1
1
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
11
12
13
,.-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone have a motion to offer?
Let's move on to Budget Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 2 is for the
District Clerk. She's requesting a transfer of $500 from
Maintenance Contracts to Machine Repair, and then another
$2,000 from Maintenance Contracts to Microfilm Expense.
JUDGE TINLEY: She does say in the event that
there's not an actual need now in the microfilm category,
that there's an estimated future expenditure. At least she
gave us the benefit of that information.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for the Lake
Ingram Estates Road District Number 1. This amendment is to
4-12-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
increase the budget for -- for that fund by $530 to pay the
service fees related to the payment of the principal and
interest on that debt. The prior year's service fee was
$470, and they -- the paying agent raised it to $1,000, so
we need the extra $530 to pay that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Lake Ingram Estates
Road District -- that's a dedicated fund, is it not?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. It's a sinking fund, is
what it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: 63, surplus funds are county
funds, are they not?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, they're -- 63 is the
surplus funds in that -- in that sinking fund.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tommy, is this our
money, or --
MR. TOMLINSON: No, this is not our money.
We're --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: We're the paying agent for
it, so we need to approve the use of that surplus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This comes out of the
people paying the road district?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure seems like a high --
4-12-04
127

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
I make a motion to approve, but it seems like a pretty big
increase in --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, does the contract, by
whoever's administering, authorize them to just increase
their funds -- increase their charge by over 100 percent?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall any -- any
language in any of our -- any of our agreements that would
preclude that. I know that this has been an issue ever
since -- since the '90's with all of our debt. I mean,
they -- our servicing agents have all have continued to --
to increase, and it seems like it's all at one time. They
never do it in increments. It's -- it's every, you know,
four or five years, they decide to do it all at one time,
and that's what they're doing. Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if they can get over 100
percent in one lick, that's -- seems like they wouldn't need
to do it a piece at a time. I mean, it's a blank area, a
place to take people's money, but I don't think they should
have an interest in this thing. If they're being
overcharged by somebody, they need to bring in somebody to
take them to task on it.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't consider -- I
mean, I don't -- I mean, relative to the -- to the service
fees or the County's debt, it's not as much as we're paying.
So, I think -- I think it's a reasonable charge in relation
9-12-04
128
1
1
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 -- to the fees that we're paying the other paying agents.
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't live in Lake Ingram
Estates, though, do you?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Maybe today I'm just
obstreperous; maybe that's it.
MR. TOMLINSON: I do remember that -- that
they're happy just to have the road district, period.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's at least one resident
out there that I can assure you is not happy.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I know there is one,
too. Yeah, I've had numerous conversations with that
person.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Commissioner
Baldwin's getting hungry; we got to move on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there a motion or
anything?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somebody -- I made a
motion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any further
question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising
your right hand.
4-12-04
129
t
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for the Sheriff's
Department, to transfer $15,000 from the Dispatchers line
item to Maintenance Contracts, and this is for a maintenance
agreement with Dailey Wells for -- for the maintenance for
that radio system through September the 30th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, do you have any
idea, is this radio system working wonderful and everybody
just thrilled to death and happy and get goosebumps every
morning?
MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think that it
would be if we're -- if we're doing this here. 15 grand
for --
MR. TOMLINSON: And along with that, I need a
hand check for that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- payable to Dailey Wells.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hand check to whom?
9-12-09
130
.._-,
1
1
1
i`
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Dailey Wells.
JUDGE TINLEY: David Wells?
MR. TOMLINSON: Dailey Wells.
JUDGE TINLEY: Dailey Wells.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Is the -- go
ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4 and authorize hand
check to Dailey Wells Communications in the sum of $15,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is, the
expenditure -- there's $7,000 in the account. The expense
is $15,000. Why are we not only putting $8,000 in?
JUDGE TINLEY: Good question. Another
question let me throw out on the table, and for some of you
more experienced members of the Court. I was somehow under
the impression that when we had vacancies in -- in the
personnel positions, that it wasn't fair game to use the
funds that had accumulated as a result of those vacancies to
pad your budget in other places, or utilize it to make up
shortcomings.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent point.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that -- am I off-base on
that, or has that been kind of a rule of thumb?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it has been
4-12-04
131
1
'--~ 2
~ 3
q
1
iI
1
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the rule of thumb. I think not a policy by any means, but
we certainly have functioned like that in the past, and it
would be a good policy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be a good -- but
usually the later we get in the year, the more lax we get
with that policy, you know. But I think it -- I mean, those
funds are -- should not be used for these purposes. I mean,
I think the Sheriff or whoever -- Auditor, whoever came up
with this --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think the Sheriff
just overlooked the fact that -- that this system was going
to be a year old during this year, and didn't anticipate and
totally forgot about having to have a maintenance agreement
for the remainder of this fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it appears he knew
we were going to have the contract; there's $7,000 in
Maintenance Contracts. Or maybe that's for other --
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that was for other
things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, the reason
he's transferring the full $15,000 is that he wasn't --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. We had -- he has other
maintenance agreements other than this one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: For different things.
4-7~-09
132
1
i
1
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're going to be
doing this again every month from now on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if we have -- but
if -- we may.
MR. TOMLINSON: Of course, I think if he'd
have known -- if he'd have remembered that this was going to
be an issue, then he would have asked for much, much more in
the budget process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, how did we have 15
grand laying around in the Dispatcher's line?
MR. TOMLINSON: He's had some -- some
positions that just haven't been filled.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. So, when it
comes budget time, it's going to appear that we have had
them filled when, truly, we have not. It's going to look
that way because we spent it here.
MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's going to come out of
there. I mean, the $15,000 will come out of the budget, so
we dust look at what he's actually spent, as far as -- but,
really, I mean, we're budgeting positions, regardless of
whether he fills them or not.
JUDGE TINLEY: The correct answer to your
question, Commissioner, is yeah, it'll look like that was
utilized there because we're going off a position schedule
with grades and classifications and steps, and that's one of
9-1~-04
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the reasons that I was under the impression that -- that you
don't use unexpended personnel funds as a hidey-hole.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does he have any other
source for those funds?
MR. TOMLINSON: Not that much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further 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.
MR. TOMLINSON: It'll be -- it will be double
this next budget year. I mean, this is just -- this is just
for six months.
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request
Number 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 5 is for
Nondepartmental. The request is to transfer $381.04 from
Liability Insurance line item to Maintenance for Mainframe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any further
question or discussion? All in favor signify by raising
4-12-04
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we
have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one to Gary Kerrick
for $70 with Road and Bridge. It's to reimburse him for --
for road sign expense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve late bill, and I presume hand check, to Gary Kerrick
in the sum of $70 as reimbursement for road sign expense.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY; Any further question or
discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I have
before me the transcript of the Kerr County Commissioners
Court regular session from Monday, March 8, 2004, and the
Kerr County Commissioners Court special session from Monday,
4-1^-09
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
March 22, 2004. Do I hear a motion to approve these
transcripts as submitted?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move to do that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any further question or discussion? All in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I have
monthly reports from the Sheriff, Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 2, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, County Clerk,
District Clerk, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, and we
were handed this morning Constable Precinct 3's monthly
report. Do I hear a motion to approve these reports as
presented?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the reports as presented. 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: Motion does -- all opposed,
4-12-09
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. That brings
us down to the reports section.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, not a word.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 15 seconds.
Misplaced in your book was a package that included a letter
from Bandera County Judge Richard Evans, and he was calling
a meeting in Bandera to -- to -- of the several counties who
are in the TexDOT area headed by David Casteel. And what we
-- I attended in the Judge's absence, and there were, I
think, six counties represented there, five judges and two
Commissioners -- seven counties, I guess. We -- we heard
about a -- probably a group of counties that organized up in
Wichita Fa11s area to meet periodically and talk -- talk
about area-wide transportation issues, and they felt like it
was worthwhile in that they -- they believe that those
counties got better participation in TexDOT funds because of
it. The bottom line is that they agreed -- I understand
they agreed to meet in connection with AACOG meetings, a
little bit before or a little bit after it, and see if they
4-1^-04
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
want to get organized and see where this would go. It's
probably worth following up on. The Judge will get another
letter one of these days talking about it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question
about this thing. When is the meeting? March 29?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I guess that's the
next AACOG meeting.
~7UDGE TINLEY: Well, March is gone. It is in
my book, anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really wanted to go,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dadgummit.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sorry I let you
down.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further, gentlemen?
Being nothing further, we'll stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:24 p.m.)
4-iz-a~
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 2004.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
~~ ,--~
B Y : _-~~f _ ~~~
- -------------------
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 15th day of April,
4-1~-04
ORDER NO. 28589
- INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
INMATE HOUSING
i
- Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
- 3-0-0 to approve the Interlocal Agreement between Kerr County and Kimble County for
housing inmates and authorize signatures of the Judge and Sheriff.
ORDER N0.28594
TEXAS MOBILITY FUND STRATEGIC PLAN
r
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 3-0-0, to authorize the County Judge to communicate by the April 16~' deadline,
the proposal to the Texas Department of Transportation that asouth-of--the-river road
connect the new high bridge in Kerrville with Hunt should be considered in the planning
' process and development of the Texas Mobility Fund Strategic plan.
ORDER NO. 28591
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
3-0-0 to authorize the County Attorney to prepare an interlocal Agreement with Kimble
County and/or City of Junction to provide Fire and Emergency Services to the YO
Ranchlands subdivisions.
ORDER NO. 28592
INSPECTION FEES WAIVED
KERRVILLE SOUTH WASTE WATER PROJECT
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-0-0 to waive the inspection fees for septic systems in Phase I of the Kerrville South
Wastewater Project.
ORDER NO. 28593
Employee Benefit Administrative Services
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 3-0-0 to authorize the County Treasurer to provide all documents to the County
Attorney with respect to the 2004 Employee Benefit Administrative Service Agreement
for confirmation that the same conforms to EBA's bid.
ORDER N0.28594
SAFETY POLICY STATEMENT
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 3-0-0 to adopt the Kerr County Safety Policy Statement and Safety Committee
Members.
ORDER NO. 28595
BUDGET ADMENTMENT
CONSTABLE PCT #3
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with a motion made by commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-0-0 to increase the capital outlay line item from $236.14 to $440.00 and reduce the
miscellaneous line item from $122.00 to 0 and reduce Vehicle Repairs from $427.29 to
$345.29 for the replacement of a radio.
ORDER 28596
FAILURE TO APPEAR PROGRAM
Came to be heard this the 12t'' day of April, 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-0-0 to participate in the Failure to Appear Program with the Texas Department of
Public Safety and authorize the County Judge to sign the same.
ORDER NO. 28597
EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to Grant an easement and right-of--way required for utility construction at the
Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center to serve the Texas State Arts and Crafts Education
Foundation.
ORDER NO. 28598
EARTH DAY PROCLAMATION
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-0-0 to approve the Earth Day Proclamation as requested by the Riverside Nature Center
and authorize the Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 28599
AIItPORT FENCING
Came to be heard this the 12a' day of April 2004, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-0-0 to authorize a contract for erecting airport fencing as submitted by David C. Pearce,
Airport Manager.
ORDER NO.28600
AIRPORT FUNDING
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-0-0 to authorize the Airport Manager to pursue funding avenues I order to proceed with
identified airport capital improvements.
ORDER NO. 28601
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to authorize the execution of Professional Services Agreement pursuant to the
Texas Department of Transportation General Aviation Terminal Grant.
ORDER NO. 28602
PUBLIC HEARING
THE HORIZON, SECTION ONE
Came to be heard this the 12'x' day of April 2004, with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-0-0 to set a public hearing for May 24, 2004 at 10:00 AM for the Alternate Plat Process
for Lots 14 & 15 of The Horizon, Section One.
ORDER NO. 28603
PUBLIC HEARING
THE HORIZON, SECTION ONE
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-0-0 to set a public hearing for May 24, 2004 at 10:15 AM for the Alternate Plat Process
for Lots 32 & 33 of The Horizon, Section One.
ORDER N0.28604
FLOOD PLAN STUDY
BUMBLE BEE HII..LS
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with motion made by Commission
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-0-0 to accept the flood plan study as presented by Vordenbaum Engineering, Inc for
Lots 42-44 of Bumble Bee Hills.
ORDER NO. 28605
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO ACT AS CITY'S
REPRESENTATIVE FOR OSSF
Came to be heard this the 12a' day of April 2004, with motion made by Commission
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 3-0-0 for the Judge to send a letter to the City confirming the County is in receipt
of the letter authorizing the Kerr County Environmental Health Department to act as the
City's representative in administering the OSSF program.
ORDER NO. 28606
Claims and Accounts
On this the 12th day of April 2004 came to be considered by the Court
various Commissioners precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
10- General $139,616.14
14 Fire Protection $22,392.67
15 Road & Bridge $23,375.34
18 County Law Library $2,742.53
19 Public Library $32,265.00
28 Records Mgt $328.59
50 Indigent Health Care $17,500.46
80 Historical Commission $6.29
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: $ 238,227.02
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to pay said Claims and Accounts.
ORDER N0.28607
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DISTRICT CLERK
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with motion made by Commission
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 3-0-0 to transfer $2,000 from line item 10-450-457 from Maintenance contracts
into line item 10-450-412 microfilm and transfer $500 from line item 10-450-457
maintenance contrast into line item 10-450-456 machine repair.
ORDER N0.28608
BUDGET AMENDMENT
LAKE INGRAM ESTATES ROAD DIST. NO. 1
Came to be heard this the 12's day of April 2004, with motion made by Commission Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-
0-0 to transfer $530.00 from #63 Surplus Funds into line item 63-643-665 for Service
Fees.
ORDER N0.28609
BUDGET AMENDMENT
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with motion made by Commission
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 3-0-0 to transfer $15,000.00 from line item 10-560-107 into line item 10-560-457
for maintenance contracts and authorize a hand check to Dailey Wells.
ORDER NO. 28610
BUDGET AMENDMENT
NON-DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with motion made by Commission
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-0-0 to transfer $381.04 from line item 10-409-205 into line item 10-409-564 for
mainframe maintenance.
ORDER NO. 28611
LATE BILL
ROAD SIGN EXPENSE
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004, with motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
3-0-0 to pay $70.00 to Gary F. Kerrick for reimbursement for private road sign from line
item 15-611-457.
ORDER NO. 28612
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Came to be heard this the 12~' day of April 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved the
minutes from the Regular Session of March 8, 2004 and the Special Session from March
22, 2004.
ORDER N0.28613
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 12`f' day of April 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 3-0-0 to approve the following monthly reports.
Sheriff
Justice of the Peace #2, #3 & #4
County Clerk
District Clerk
Constable #3