1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, July 26, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 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
2
I N D E X
July 26, 2004
		PAGE
---	Commissioners' Comments	4
1.1	Approve appointment of election judges and	
	alternates for term of one year	19
1.2	Approve polling locations	20
1.3	Consider Extension Service secretary entry-level	
	starting pay at a 14-2	22
1.4	Lateral transfer from Kerr County jail clerk to	
	Facilities Use and Maintenance event scheduling	
	clerk, 12-2 to a 14-2	24,42
1.5	Approve road names for privately maintained roads	30
1.6	Concept plans and variances for Dan Cowart	
	properties, Precinct 1	32
1.8	Commissioners Court resolution promoting joint	
	study team effort for the purpose of identifying	
	opportunities to improve the provision of law	
	enforcement services while reducing costs	43,62
1.7	PUBLIC HEARING - alternate plats in Falling Water,	
	Precinct 3	50
1.9	Consider leasing 2.1 acre property located on	
	State Highway 27 to Mountain Home Volunteer Fire	
	Department	50
1.10	Authorize display in courthouse of portrait of	
	former County Court at Law Judge	52
1.11	Memorandum of agreement between Texas Department	
	of Health and Kerr County concerning receipt,	
	storage, delivery, and transfer of medical	
	material from the strategic national stockpile	54
1.12	Approval of resolution by Commissioners Court of	
	Kerr County, Texas authorizing the filing of a	
	second amendment to the Articles of Incorporation	
	of the Alamo Area Housing Finance Corporation	60
1.13	Interlocal agreement for joint management of	
	Kerr County/Kerrville Airport	68,92
1.14	Consider & discuss Airport Management Contract	84
1.15	Resolution authorizing Kerr County to file an	
	application with Texas Water Development Board	
	for grant money for Center Point wastewater system	95
4.1	Pay Bills	101
4.2	Budget Amendments	101
4.3	Late Bills	---
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	112
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	113
Adjourned 119
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, July 26, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me call to order the meeting of the Kerr
County Commissioners Court scheduled for this time and date,
Monday, July the 26th, at 9 a.m. It's that time now. I'd
like to recognize my good friend, Reverend Al Shults, from
Motley Hills Baptist Church, and the good reverend is also a
spiritual adviser and mentor and kind of a de facto chaplain
at Kerr County Detention Facility, and I've asked him to be
here with us this morning. Will you please stand?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much.
MR. SHULTS: Judge, thank you. May I make a
comment real quick?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. SHULTS: I'm glad the Sheriff's here,
because you almost look like a rogue's gallery this morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You forgot to
mention, Judge, that Reverend Albert serves honorably on the
Library Advisory Board as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize for that omission.
7-26-04
4
1
r--. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,._
25
Thank you for being here. At this point, we have the
visitors' portion of the agenda. If there`s any member of
the public that wants to address the Court on any matter
that is not listed on the agenda, you're privileged to come
forward at this time. If you want to speak on a matter that
is listed on the agenda, we would ask that you wait until
that agenda comes up, and we would prefer that you fill out
a participation form. It's available at the back of the
room. It's not essential, but it helps us sometimes to not
miss you when that agenda item comes up. So, if you have
not filled out a participation form, or if you have, and
if I've lost it in the shuffle up here, when that item comes
up, if you would do whatever is necessary to get my
attention so that you're allowed to have your say about that
item, I would ask that you do that. But right now, if
anybody has anything they want to say on a matter that's not
listed on the agenda, come forward at this time. There
being none, we'll move on to the next portion. I note that
Commissioner Baldwin, having previously notified us that he
was going to be on vacation, is not here, so we'll come to
you, Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, with your
permission, of course, I'd like to let everybody else speak
and come back to me, if you will. I have something really
interesting this morning I want to bring to the Court's
7-26-04
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
25
attention. It's not an agenda item. It's different, and I
will not talk for a minute or two about it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll come back to you.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can hardly wait now.
I'll make my comments brief. We had a great rain in the
eastern part of the county; in the western part, too. I
know the eastern part first got hit by a big storm; then the
west got hit. I drove to the west, got hit by a storm in
the west. So, pretty good rains for July. That's all the
comments I have.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Got a lot of winds,
too. I noticed tree limbs, quite a bit of minor damage at
least. And I -- I'm not going to say any more; I got to
listen to Commissioner Williams.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have one item. I know that
all of y'all have been made aware that our Family and
Consumer Specialist with the Extension Service, Ms. Amy
Chapman, has left the Extension Service. I hope
temporarily, but that's the bad news. The good news is that
we're going to be able to get the benefit of her services as
a volunteer on a lot of the various functions that she was
performing, and I've put her on notice of that, and have
indicated that's our expectation. She's assured me that
the -- the Wellness Program that she's initiated, the
~-26-04
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.-.. 2 4
25
educational programs that she's initiated in connection with
that Wellness Program will go forward. I think it's real
important that it do. Do? Does. Is that better? Okay.
The district Extension Office is working on filling that
position. They are -- they're going to be in contact with
the Court when they've got a group of applicants they want
us to consider. We're very, very sorry to lose Amy at this
time. We understand the rationale behind her departure, but
that doesn't make it any easier. But we're still going to
-- we're still going to get as much work out of her as we
can as a private citizen and volunteer. With that said, I
wait with bated breath with the rest of you for Commissioner
Williams' announcement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, thank you,
Judge. We've each done a lot of things in our life and
participated in a lot of events, and participated in
fundraising and done a lot of things for the benefit of our
community, but I doubt very seriously if any of us have ever
participated in or been aware of chicken racing for the
benefit of Little League. I see Commissioner Letz smiling;
maybe he did. I don't know. But we got a couple friends in
Center Point who are involved in -- in putting on a
fundraiser to benefit the Center Point Little League. I'm
going to ask them to come up to the podium in a minute. We
need a little guidance. There's no agenda item, but, Mark,
7-26-04
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
you and Kim come up, please, to the podium, and tell us just
briefly what you're going to do.
MR. ABBOTT: Judge, Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then I'll tell
the Court what the little problem is, see if we can talk
around it, give a little guidance to Mr. Odom and maybe to
the Sheriff, who doesn't want the road shut down, but that's
kind of preempting the whole thing. Go ahead, Mark.
MR. ABBOTT: Thank you. What started out
as -- to be a very local fundraiser has now become
statewide, nationwide. We've got participants from
California, New York, Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma. They're
going to be either at the race or have either sponsored a
chicken in the race. We figured we'd have about 20 or 30
people there. Now we've got 60 entries. That's one person
per chicken. They might bring five or six more people, plus
the people that will show up at the rays. We didn't
anticipate this thing getting out of hand like this. And
this is the first time that I know of this has ever been
done. We've got on the Internet; we talked to people all
over the United States and the state about how you do this,
and nobody's got any ideas. We are going to post the rules
for the race five minutes prior to the race, so there -- you
know, it will be that. And, like I say, the majority of the
money is going to be to benefit the Center Point Little
7-26-04
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
League, and this race is going to be held the last Saturday,
which will be the 31st of this month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Forthcoming Saturday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This forthcoming
Saturday. It sure is. And we've got prizes for the lst,
2nd, and 8th place chicken that's going to be in the race.
And what we're asking for is -- again, is some guidance on
how we can -- we've got 7 acres that we're putting this on.
It's on a small road, the River Road right there in Center
Point. I believe we've got ample parking, But, again, it's
the -- the road's so narrow there, we're wondering about
traffic control.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see if I can
get the issue focused a little bit, Judge. Mr. Odom and the
Sheriff and I met with -- Kim, come up here, please -- with
these good folks and others who are participants in this
event, and they originally thought they'd like to shut the
road down. Well, the Sheriff was against that. I was
against that. Mr. Odom was against shutting the road down.
The traffic is heavy there. The issue is, people come
whipping through there pretty fast; they're going to have a
crowd, so how do you control that? I'm not sure exactly,
except that the suggestion was rendered that perhaps the
Road and Bridge folks have some wigwag slow-down signs or
stop signs, and if they were to man the road and -- and kind
~-26-04
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
of slow the traffic down so that people could come and go,
maybe that would be good. So what we're looking is to have
a little guidance. Anybody got an idea? And maybe you`ll
even get an invite to the chicken race if you're really --
have nothing else to do next Saturday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bill, I was hoping to have an
entry. I want to find out what the entry deadline is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we --
MR. ABBOTT: Up until the first race.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we could have a
Commissioners Court chicken?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, where -- where's
the race exactly? Give me the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the -- on C.P.
River Road, just before you get to the old city limits right
there, is a botanical garden and -- Backdoor Pottery and
Botanical Garden. Now, the gentleman who owns that and has
built this botanical garden full of iguanas and other good
stuff, it's on his grounds, which he's got about 5 acres or
more.
MR. ABBOTT: 5 to 7 acres. I believe --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They`re going to do
this there. The problem is, whatever parking has to take
place will be across the street, or any -- maybe even on the
7-26-04
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
road. And traffic does come whipping through there pretty
quickly -- pretty fast. And, so, they were looking for a
little help. The Sheriff doesn't want to shut the road
down. I understand that; we don't want to shut the road
down, but we need a little help, maybe slow-down signs or
maybe some barricades or something, post some signs and say
"Event Fundraising Event - Slow Down," that type of thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The race itself is on the
private -- on the property?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On private property,
not on the road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not on the road?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not on the road.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to have citizens
parking on one side of the road, going to the event on the
other side of the road?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Back and forth?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And there's some blind --
blind spots as you approach from the other end?
MR. ABBOTT: Not necessarily blind, but there
is a small curve to where it narrows down to where the
bridge is, right before you get to where the event's going
to take place.
~-26-04
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The road narrows down
so that that water -- stormwater thing that TexDOT put in
years ago -- I think TexDOT put it in, 'cause it comes off
Highway 27.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I don't know why,
I mean, we can't put either a -- you know, assuming you
put -- Rusty's going to have a patrol in the area. You
could put that patrol -- they could just happen to be on
River Road at that point, which would -- and then I don't
see why Road and Bridge -- or if we have any signs, like
event signs that we use out at the Ag Barn -- I guess TexDOT
does those?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you got
available, Leonard?
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry. What, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any kind of -- you
know --
MS. KIM WILLIAMS: Festival sign.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anything we can use.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Event signs,
slow-down signs.
MR. ODOM: Well, we have paddles that they
could use.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Slow" paddles?
MR. ODOM: Yeah. We have some signs that may
7-26-04
1
~.,,, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
12
say "Slow." Do we have anything -- we have some -- we can
say slow, We'll have to look at it, but anything that says
festival or anything like that, we don't have. We don't
have anything other than what the manual -- the M.U.T.C.D.
would say. We normally follow that -- that manual.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We noticed at the
meeting the other day that when the Sheriff's car was parked
in front of this place, as well as mine and others, traffic
just slowed down, so the deputy cars out there making the
rounds probably would help.
MR. ODOM: We could put something like, "Slow
Ahead."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Something like that down through
there. And then they would probably need to have traffic
control in some way.
MS. KIM WILLIAMS: We do have volunteers that
are going to help from the Center Point Little League.
MR. ABBOTT: Right. And also, we've got
quite a few adult volunteers that are going to be handling
just the -- holding a sign that says "slow," help with the
parking and help direct where people need to go. We're
discouraging anybody parking along the road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
25 ~ MR. ABBOTT: We've got -- I believe we've got
7-26-04
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,~ 2 4
25
ample parking across the road in that large field, and we've
also talked to a couple of the neighbors that have some of
the river property also. They said no problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're in a position to have
one or two people on either end --
MR. ABBOTT: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- wearing reflective --
MS. KIM WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- orange vests and have
paddles and whatnot, and then I understand that you can put
up a barricade, "Slow Ahead"?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Coming from either direction.
That'll seem to solve the safety issue that we've got
involved here if we're going to have a lot of citizens
moving back and forth across the road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Commissioner
Nicholson had a great idea. It would free up the deputies
to see if Constable Ayala and Garza will --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we'll get
Constable Ayala out there for sure, maybe Constable Garza.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way, Rusty wouldn't
have to keep a deputy there. They could be in the area, but
not --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've already instructed
7-26-04
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
our people to have somebody that pretty well stays in that
area, because I think it's supposed to be from what, like,
9:00 to 4:00 or something?
MR. ABBOTT: 10:00 -- we're going to get
organized at 10:00 in the morning. I would imagine the
first race will start at 1 o'clock on Sunday. I -- I have
no idea. This is -- but we're trying to -- we're looking at
starting the race at 11 o'clock.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's just a very small
area that's right there on the road, and the problem is, the
crowd they're very likely going to have is really going to
cause some hazards going back and forth across that road.
That road, on Saturdays and Sundays, are -- are extremely
busy right now because of Brink's Crossing, the people that
go down there and everything. But it -- it's not really a
blind curve, but it's a very difficult-to-see curve, and
technically, the speed limit in that area is 50 miles an
hour, even though it's posted different, 'cause there's no
more incorporation of Center Point city limits, so that 30
is not accurate. But there are -- and I know Leonard's
working on that, but there's just some -- there's some real
concerns with that number of people and kids going back and
forth across the road. But if you shut down that road, they
have to go all the way up to Sutherland Road or turn around,
you know, to get out of that area. Either come all the way
7-26-04
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back up 173, or turn on Sutherland Road, and that's going to
cause even more of a traffic hazard around the springs and
all that area. So, you know, on the Center Point side, they
can turn up one of the side streets there and be all right,
but it's just -- to close it down, I felt like I had to get
a court order to do that. I think it's extremely hazardous
to try and close that road down on a weekend. But all I can
do is try and have somebody in the area. And I suggested to
them, you know, the slow signs, or even if they just put
sticks along both sides of the road with balloons on them,
something to get people's attention before they get to it,
to start hopefully slowing way down.
MR. ABBOTT: Right. We've got adequate
volunteers that are going to be manning the -- again, the
parking, and maybe two or three up and down each side --
each end of the road where the event's going to be held, to
have "Slow" signs and to -- and to just -- to get the
traffic down to where it's --
COMMISSIONER
will check -- touch in with
and Bridge to have some pads
you can use to help -- help
MR. ABBOTT:
COMMISSIONER
can help you out. And some
WILLIAMS: Well, if you folks
Mr. Odom or Ms. Hardin at Road
41es or some -- some things that
you --
Okay.
WILLIAMS: -- I'm sure that they
vests. Leonard?
7-26-04
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
MR. ODOM: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then I will
contact Constable Ayala and see if he and Constable Garza
can also be over there. Their cars are parked there and
they have lights on them and so forth, and their presence
will help you. That will keep the Sheriff's deputies from
being tied up all day, or most of the day. And I wish you
well, and thank you for coming. And, by the way, that's the
Kerrville Daily Times there, and I know she's going to want
to do a story on the chicken races.
JUDGE TINLEY: Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. What I would ask is
that -- we have a safety film, and I think it would behoove
us to have them come by, who's ever volunteering for traffic
safety and all that. We have the video there. I have a TV
there to do that, and we have safety films, and let the
people see that film that are directing traffic. We'll put
out signs, like "Slow Ahead" or "Pedestrian Ahead." We'll
put pedestrian signs, something like that for you. But I
would ask the Court, while they're out there directing
traffic, that they should have some training. And they
could look at that film, and that somewhat suffices the
reasonable concern of being able to direct traffic out on a
public road.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excellent point.
7-26-04
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
MR. ODOM: I'd feel more comfortable for them
to do that.
MR. ABBOTT: We need to call your office and
set up a time?
MR. ODOM: Any time you want -- yes, you can
call Truby here and do that. We're open most of the time.
I don't think we have anything scheduled as far as that
conference room.
MR. ABBOTT: Okay.
MR. ODOM: But I would like for y'all to do
that. That is safety for y'all as well as the -- as the
public out there when we're doing that. And we'll furnish
the vests and the paddles and some signs for you. But if
you coordinate it with Truby, I'd appreciate it.
MR. ABBOTT: We'll do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good luck.
MS. KIM WILLIAMS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got one question;
maybe Mr. Odom can answer it. Mr. Odom, is it true that
Texas A & M plans to enter a duck in the chicken race?
(Laughter.)
MR. ODOM: Could be. Probably. My luck, it
would be a pigeon, fly away.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You don't bet on the
duck.
7-26-04
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
18
MR. ODOM: We`ll get something that will fly
probably instead of run. So --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only other comment,
I will say we'll have to keep them off the road, because it
is so narrow. If anybody --
MR. ABBOTT: Oh yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If y'all can help us do
that, 'cause if they park and get out of the car and lock it
up on the side of the road with the wheels up on the
pavement, as narrow is that is, we're going to have to tow
them.
MS. KIM WILLIAMS: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So I would suggest --
and your parking people, encourage them to keep that road
totally clear.
MR. ABBOTT: Oh, we are
anybody park along the side the road.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Be
alongside of the road, you're going to
of cars and blind spots and everything
totally out of the roadway.
not going to have
No, not at all.
pause if you park
have kids going out
else. Just keep them
MR. ODOM: Right. And the reason we came to
the Court, Commissioner, is because of the delay in -- in
the timing. It wasn't on the agenda, so we wanted some
guidance from you, and I think that's acceptable. But, as
7-26-04
19
1
,r., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
„~ 2 4
25
far as being able to get on the agenda, we couldn't get it
in time, so we apologize.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, and good
luck.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good luck.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I'm going to see if I can
come up with some -- some entry that will get that coveted
8th-place trophy.
MR. ABBOTT: Oh, it's a nice silver
medallion, too. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on with the
business at hand. First item on the agenda is consider,
discuss, and approve the appointment of election judges and
alternates for term of one year, in accordance with Election
Code Section 32. Ms. Pieper.
MS. PIEPER: Okay. Gentlemen, this is a
formality we go through every July, appointing our election
judges and alternates. The Republican and Democratic chairs
have selected their names and submitted them to me, and
therefore I'm submitting them to you for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the
names as submitted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
7-26-09
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
20
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the election judges in accordance with 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.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next
item on the agenda is consider and discuss approving the
polling locations in accordance with Chapter 43 of the Texas
Election Code.
MS. PIEPER: Okay, gentlemen. This is the
list of the polling locations that we have used in the past.
Precinct 320, before we had consolidated it with 314, but
because it was an original polling location, we -- when we
redistricted, I went ahead and listed it. The only thing I
forgot to list is the early voting will be held downstairs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to add to this,
"early voting, lower level courthouse"?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's encompassed
within your motion, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
7-26-09
21
1
,,., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett, on the three --
Precinct 320, we have 90 days prior to the election to
change that location?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the polling places as specified in the -- with
the agenda item, with the exception of the addition of early
voting to be at the lower level of the Kerr County
Courthouse. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Got a question for
Ms. Pieper. As you know -- you've heard about it; I have
also -- there's been some annoyance and confusion from
people who apparently are in the Mountain Home area about
having to go to Divide to vote.
MS. PIEPER: That has been corrected.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I thought it had.
So we probably won't be hearing about that again this time.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
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.
?-26-04
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
{No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
consider and discuss the Extension Service secretary
entry-level starting pay at -- at a 14-2. Mr. Walston?
MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. Judge and
Commissioners, appreciate y'all giving me the opportunity.
We've just recently hired Jamie McClintock to fill our
vacancy in secretary position. Jamie was previously with --
her effective date will be the 1st of August. She was
previously with the Facilities Use and Maintenance there in
our office, and scheduling with Glenn Holekamp, and she will
be taking our secretary's position. And those two
positions, she -- she's currently at the 14-2 level, and
she's -- we're just wishing to maintain a lateral transfer
in that position.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This becomes a
full-time position for her; is that right?
MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, it's
full-time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You move it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
7-26-04
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
23
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Any precedent
setting here that we need to be concerned about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've done this before,
similar. Usually we do it at higher levels.
JUDGE TINLEY: She's at a 14-2 now?
MR. WALSTON: She's at a 14-2 now.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's a lateral. I don't think
we can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we can do it any
other way. Either that or more, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the only reason it's
before us is because it's a 2, not Level 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the agenda item and motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank
you very much, Mr. Walston. Next item on the agenda is
7-26-04
1
,,.., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,,~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
..1 2 4
25
24
consider and discuss doing a lateral transfer from Kerr
County Jail Clerk to Facilities Use and Maintenance and
Event Scheduling Clerk, 12-2 to a 14-2 due to experience and
longevity with Kerr County, on the basis of qualifications
exceeding required knowledge of job. Mr. Holekamp put this
item on the agenda. He's on vacation today. I suspect that
most of us have had some discussion with Mr. Holekamp.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the same -- same
as the previous one, basically, and just another lateral
move.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. And it's moving over
into the same grade that that position was held previously.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this one is going
from a 12 to a 14? But --
JUDGE TINLEY: I can only assume that from
looking at the agenda item. Because of the job description
change, apparently.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also, that raises a
question as to where this individual will be working out of.
Jamie was working out of the Extension --
MR. WALSTON: Out of our office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Part-time for you and
part-time for -- for Mr. Holekamp. Now she's full-time for
you.
MR. WALSTON: Yes, sir.
7-26-09
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
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I assume that
this individual will work out of here. That's an
assumption; I don't know that.
JUDGE TINLEY: There are some -- I don`t
think there's been any finality that's been nailed down
there yet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: There are some discussions
that are to be underway shortly, as soon as Mr. Holekamp
returns, to try and see if we can't get some sort of an
equitable shared arrangement that would really be a win-win
situation for both -- both departments. That's the approach
that we're working on.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this going -- one
person -- one job is going from half-time to full-time?
We're increasing our payroll cost?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. Actually, what happened
was, the -- the full-time at the Extension Service left the
service. The individual that was part-time Maintenance,
part-time Extension Service moved over, and is now full-time
at the Extension Service.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; So this doesn't
increase payroll costs by adding a half a person?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, we're reducing
half a person, aren't we?
7-26-04
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
MR. WALSTON: No, we're doing the same thing
we have.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're trying to do the same
thing.
MR. WALSTON: We're doing the same thing.
It's just we're shifting people. The positions are the
same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the difference in
this one and the previous one is that it's a -- it`s a
higher level position.
MR. WALSTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, this is going
from a -- the current employee is a 12-2, and going to a
14-2, as opposed to a 14-1.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, but coming into a
different job which already has a -- that sort of a --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And the employee taking
that position is -- the jail clerk is a 14-2. She's earned
that 2 with her longevity and that. So I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: So, this is lateral.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's lateral. She
should be -- I'd have to get my deal. She`s -- I know she's
a 2. It should be a 14-2.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
7-26-09
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it`s a lateral
transfer.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So it should be pretty
close, but it may be up a little bit more than what Glenn
was, because of -- 'cause our secretary and clerk step and
grade is totally different than anybody else's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is -- actually, Mr.
Letz, it's lower. I'd have to go back and look at it
specifically, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the only reason
-- to me, this is a little bit different, 'cause there's
a -- if we're going from a 12 to a 14, that's different than
going from a 14 to a 14.
JUDGE TINLEY: But I think, actually, this
employee is already at a 14-2 level, and being lateral, if I
understand the protocols correctly, they can't be penalized.
They can go one way, and that's up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was Jamie?
MR. WALSTON: She was at a 14-2 prior to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 14-2 in theirs from the
jail clerk is going to be higher than what the jail clerk
currently is at right now.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.}
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It will be a step up for
7-26-04
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,--. 2 4
25
that person.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the --
MR. WALSTON: Jail clerk.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- jail person?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For the jail person
going over to Maintenance is going to be -- or going over to
that secretary position is going to be a step up itself.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the salary between
the -- what's a --
MR. WALSTON: Salary on the 14-2? Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The salary on the jail
position to the new position.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think -- and I'd have
to look, and I can go out there and check and get back with
you today, but I think the current jail position is probably
17,000-something, and the one they're going to is 20.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hope to have that for you
shortly.
(Ms. Mitchell left the courtroom.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll go help her, 'cause
it's got to be that certain step and grade.
(Sheriff Hierholzer left the courtroom.)
MR. WALSTON: But as far as where that
position would be, we're -- we're currently looking at it
being there at our office, in our -- and filling the same
7-26-04
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
position that we had, is what we're looking at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, she'll be a
receptionist?
MR. WALSTON: She'd be part-time for both.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess I'm really
more interested in where the Facilities Use person is going
to operate from.
(Sheriff Hierholzer and Ms. Mitchell
re-entered the courtroom.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: She did not have the --
MS. MITCHELL: Not for the secretary.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- secretary step and
grades for Sheriff's in there.
MS. MITCHELL: It's in the very back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe there is no distinction.
Let me take a look here. I'm looking under the Sheriff --
well, that's -- let me look at jail and see if there's
anything different there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's being faxed over
right now, Your Honor.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm looking at your position
schedule here. I'm looking at -- this is currently under
Jail Admin. Are those positions the same?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Let me -- the secretary
is different.
7-26-04
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
JUDGE TINLEY: If that's the case, it's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Let me see what
you're -- it's a totally different step and grade type of
deal.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's the same.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You don't have names.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm looking at 14-2
under Admin.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, it's not --
JUDGE TINLEY: All the way to the right-hand
column.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, it's not the same.
It's much lower.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It will be here in just
a minute.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We can -- why don't we
move on to the next item? We'll come on back to that one.
Consider approving road names for privately maintained roads
in accordance with 9-1-1 guidelines.
MS. HARDIN: We have six privately maintained
roads, and there's a correction on the spelling on Cherokee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one?
MS. HARDIN: Cherokee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's O? Should be "O" in
7-26-04
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's an "0" in it,
right?
MS. HARDIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item, with the exception of the
spelling of the name Cherokee, to be spelled
C-h-e-r-o-k-e-e.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I may have
preempted Ms. Hardin.
MS. HARDIN: I'd like to make one comment on
the "B.J. and the Bears." This -- the person who wanted to
name this road name, we tried to dissuade them from making
cutesy road names, because those are the signs that get
stolen. So, we did tell this person that should this sign
be stolen, they would have to pay to replace it each time.
Just for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you get that all
on one sign plate, anyhow?
MS. HARDIN: Oh, yeah, we can get it all on
one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They really want that as
their address?
7-26-U4
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..-,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARDIN: That's what they want as their
address. We have several road names that are very likely to
be stolen, and we found out that on some of them, we have
replaced them as many as three times in one month, so we're
trying to discourage people from doing that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Obviously didn't work
this time.
MS. HARDIN: Well, she was willing to pay for
a new sign each time it goes away. So, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the correction.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, as stated. 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 next item is consider
concept plans and variances for Dan Cowart properties in
Precinct 1.
(Whispered discussion off the record.)
MR. JOHNSTON: Morning. I had a visit with
Dan Cowart, who owns these two properties, and he wanted to
do some property divisions which really don't meet the
7-26-04
1
,^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
33
Subdivision Rules, except with a variance. And he wanted to
come and present his case to the Commissioners Court. I
don't see him in court. I can give you the gist of what
he's looking for. Maybe you can give him some guidance.
One property on the -- on the small sheet, this is where the
Texas hardwood place is out by Harper Road and just past
I-10. It's 5.72 acres. There's a house on one corner, and
the business is on another location further back, and he
wants to divide the property into two lots, approximately
2.86 acres each. He would have to have a variance for the
lot size in this case.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What size did you
say they'd be?
MR. JOHNSTON: 2.86. He has frontage, but he
doesn't have the adequate size. Should be a 5-acre lot, you
know, according to our rules.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What --
MR. JOHNSTON: There's a well existing on one
lot. I guess that would -- he'd have to add a well to the
other lot if it ever separated and sold to someone else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- the business is
23
24
25
7-26-04
MR. JOHNSTON: Right where that 5.72 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's where --
MR. JOHNSTON: The box there, that's where --
on the --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's a residence on
the other part.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's up there in the upper
righthand corner of the lot, little box with an "H" in it.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's -- it's a structure. I
wouldn't call it a residence.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right. I don't think he lives
there, but he said there's a --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think anybody lives
there -- could live there. That's a rock structure, isn't
it?
MR. JOHNSTON: I didn't go out and look at
it, but he said it was some kind of a structure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a business on
the left-hand side?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. It's a metal building.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where it jogs around?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a bad -- or I
won't say a bad -- this would be a precedent.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty significant
precedent, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Without some other
7-26-04
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
35
rationalization, I don't think I can support this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The way that I can see
this would be different would be putting some sort of a
commercial part, and we look at those a little bit
differently because the tendency to use it is a little bit
greater. But from a -- with a potential of that being a
residential lot, I don't see it.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think he's looking at the
fact that he wants to split the lot and sell one part of it.
The other one is in an existing subdivision, the Hartshorn
Subdivision. At the very end out on Avery Road, the end of
that subdivision, it goes to acreage beyond that. There's
actually an easement -- or actually a right-of-way up the
right-hand side of that property, and I think it's dedicated
to the County, but the road was never built in that area.
It's just a 50-foot right-of-way that's overgrown, and I
think the owners used part of it for -- part of it's
fenced-in; looks like a part of it's not. There's three
lots that are -- actually, three and part of another one --
7, 6, and 5, and part of 4 -- that are lots already, and he
doesn't like the way they're laid out and he wants to
rearrange the lot lines, and that would entail the County
abandoning about half of that right-of-way.
JUDGE TINLEY: The blue portion?
MR. JOHNSTON: The blue portion. I told him
7-26-04
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
36
that if you go in and do a plat revision on an existing
subdivision, you have to follow the current rules, and that
wouldn't apply. There's no water system out there; they're
individual wells. There is a well -- there's a house and a
well on the front lot. You can see from the dotted line,
it's right at the lot line. Actually, the well's over the
line; it's on Lot 6. So, he wants to move that line up and
then split the other part in a different way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you're still --
you're going from three lots to three lots. We're just
changing the --
MR. JOHNSTON: Three lots to three lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Add a little bit of
acreage because of the right-of-way.
MR. JOHNSTON: They'd be roughly a little
over 2 and a half acres each.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the well -- does this
solve the well being
MR. JOHNSTON: That gets the well and the
house on the same lot. It says well, well house.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See that little note
there? Right now they're on a separate -- they're on 6 and
7.
JUDGE TINLEY:	The	well's	actually	on 6?
MR. JOHNSTON:	The	well's	on 6, and	the house
7-26-04
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
is right -- almost encroaching on 6, but it's on Lot 7. And
he wants to move the line up where that yellow highlighted
part is, so it would be all the same lot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On this one, I really --
I mean, I don't have a problem, and we have done this
previously. Usually we get to a situation where -- you
know, where --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think he technically needs a
variance, but it would be adjustment of lot lines. I don't
know about dedicating County, you know, property back to the
landowners, but it's probably never going to be used. It
dead-ends up in that subdivision.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the area in blue there
would continue to be a -- a right-of-way under this
rearrangement?
MR. JOHNSTON: No, he's proposing to have the
County dedicate that back to him, 'cause the -- the orange
part would go up and access all the -- all the lots.
Actually, 6 and 7; it would be an access to 6 and 7 if he
built a little road in there. Don't need to go as far as it
used to, 'cause 5 used to be way up -- I'm sorry. It's 5
and 6, if they use the same numbers, would be accessed from
the orange part. And so the blue part wouldn't have to --
that would be there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only problem I see,
7-26-04
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
38
and it's -- the problem already existed; there's no way to
turn around if someone was to go up that road.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no cul-de-sac.
But there's not a cul-de-sac currently, so it's really not
making anything worse.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's actually not making
anything worse right now, but if he did it, probably would
need to have a cul-de-sac at the end of it or some way to
turn around.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if he just, you
know, cuts into a little bit of Lot 6, possibly, and get --
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a cul-de-sac.
MR. JOHNSTON: Have a cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Give us enough to put a
cul-de-sac in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On 6 or 5?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which, 5?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you abandon the
blue on -- and that becomes 5, but he'll have to deed a
little bit of 6 to the County for that right-of-way.
JUDGE TINLEY: And maybe a little bit of 5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe a little bit of 5.
7-26-04
39
1
,.~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- whatever needs to be
done to get a cul-de-sac there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've done that
before?
that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Something similar to
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we've done --
JUDGE TINLEY: Dickey Road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that -- and we've
pretty -- I mean, we have, on a number of occasions, seen
real small lots, and -- and let them reconfigure them. Even
though the new ones don't meet the current rules, usually
it's a little bit better than it was before.
MR. JOHNSTON: Kind of a trade-off. Not
really dividing, just rearranging lots.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. When we get all of
the water source on -- on 7, 6 is going to be less than
5 acres, isn't it?
22
23
,,,, 2 4
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So is 5.
MR. JOHNSTON: Both of them will.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're currently
7-26-04
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
less than 5. And if Headwaters gives a permit, they give a
permit. I mean, he could currently sell, certainly, 5 and
6, and conceivably drill a new well on 7 and new well on 5,
or -- you know, I don't think that we're making things any
worse than they currently are, put that it way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happens with 8?
What about 8? Just remains the same?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's not part of what --
that's not part of what he owns.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: The line goes -- part of 4 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- will actually be
incorporated into 6 there, make that lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That'll work. But what
happens -- what's -- what happens to Lot -- to 4? It
says -- I'm looking over on the far left. It says
3.68 acres, which I presume that's Lot 4. Is that the
remainder of 4 that he doesn't own, is --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the -- yeah, I think
so. He owns -- actually, somehow divided off part of --
part of 4 at some time. This dark boundary line is what --
the property that he owns that; it's part of various lots in
there. I don't know how that came about, but that's what --
7-26-09
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
41
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we probably need
to fix 4 at the same time. I mean, 'cause if he owns part
of 4, then there's really 4A and 4B.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we need to -- that
needs to be adjusted to try to get the plat as correct as
possible.
MR. JOHNSTON: Or the plat revision. So,
this will be acceptable if he does a proper plat revision,
and probably needs a variance, but that will be handled at a
future -- when he -- at plat time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- do you agree,
Franklin? I mean
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, I think it's a washout.
I don't think it really changes -- you know, it's not like
we're setting a precedent. We're dividing the small lots.
It's already small; we're just changing the boundary line.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As a matter of
interest, Franklin and I have been in communication with a
property owner who wants to -- wants to either reconfigure
or add to lots in a grandfathered subdivision where the lots
were smaller than 1 acre, and we're not supporting that, and
I don't think there's a precedent for something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What we have done on
several occasions, and there -- I think in Bill's and my
7-26-04
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
42
precinct, this has both happened. People had, like, three
1-acre lots, and combined to make two acre-and-a-half lots.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, that's the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going in the right
direction. As long as we're staying the same or going in
the right direction, I think the Court historically has been
in favor of doing those things.
JUDGE TINLEY: No formal action needed on
this item?
MR. JOHNSTON:	I don'	t think so	on	this	one.
JUDGE TINLEY:	Okay.	Why don't	we	come	back
to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This other one.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Item 4.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think we can
straighten this out real quick, Your Honor. What the deal
is, is the starting salary for the position that the jail
clerk is currently in is a 12. The starting salary for the
position that she would be taking over there is a 14. There
is a difference there, so the whole thing -- just like
hiring a new person, theirs is a 14 already. The difference
is the step being a 2 -- a 1 or a 2. She is entitled to the
2, because she has been with the Sheriff's Office that long
to get that one-year longevity and that. And since she's
7-26-04
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
still with the County, I would say it should be a 14-2, just
as they have it there as their starting salary, since you do
have the County employment as continuing under the longevity
deal.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Shows a -- shows here
the one-year in 2004.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: That hit this year, so --
MR. WALSTON: That's what this position was,
was 14.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item as submitted by Mr. Holekamp.
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. Thank
you, gentlemen. Let me see. We'll go to Item 8, consider
and discuss a Commissioners Court resolution promoting a
joint study team effort involving Kerr County, City of
Kerrville, and the City of Ingram for the purpose of
identifying opportunities to improve the provision of law
7-26-04
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enforcement services while reducing costs. Commissioner
Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is a revised
resolution based on our discussions of two weeks ago. It's
a resolution to -- we've got some -- a new revision, some
more editing that -- that improves the clarity of it. But,
basically, it's a resolution endorsing the organization of a
study of the benefits that may be derived from identifying
opportunities from the sharing of resources or combining all
or part of law enforcement services now performed by the
County or the cities of Kerrville or -- or Ingram, and
inviting the City of Kerrville and the City of Ingram to
join with the County in a study to identify whether or not
those benefits exist, and if so, make recommendations about
how to take advantage of it. I'm anticipating that the
findings may -- may produce ways to do both, improve the
provision of law enforcement services and do so at a -- at a
better cost to the taxpayers.
I must say, the proposal's generated a lot
more interest than I would have expected. I've been
contacted by more than 50 people in the city and the county
encouraging the study. No one contacted me saying you
shouldn't pursue this. There were two contacts that were
concerned that -- one was concerned that the County would
not have the -- as much law enforcement services under some
7-26-09
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
combination, and the other one was concerned that the City
might -- might lose out. So, that's a concern that the
committee or the study group would have to deal with. So,
what -- what's the right way to get this new language in
there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think probably what we
ought to do is -- I apologize for presenting a revised draft
moments before the meeting. Probably, Kathy can make copies
and we can circulate them and we can talk about it after the
break. That way -- and the other thing that the -- my
revised resolution does a little bit more specifically is
talks more about sharing resources, as opposed to combining.
I think I took out "combining" in one spot, but also say
that the Court and the City of Ingram and City of Kerrville
all appoint one member, and then one member from each law
enforcement agency are on the committee. I didn't really
specify it being the Sheriff, or the Sheriff -- it could be
whoever from that entity. But I think it's worthwhile, and
I think what I hope comes out of this -- I'm probably not
leaning as far towards combining as Commissioner 4 is. I
probably lean more towards what Rusty was talking about,
sharing resources in areas and doing some things, and
property we have, and that we may be able to just -- but I
think it's a good time to formally look at how we can become
more efficient in law enforcement between the city of
7-26-09
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--
25
Ingram, Kerrville, and Kerr County, and I think nothing but
good can come from a discussion about it. That's what I
would hope happens.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to suggest
that the committee -- I think you're suggesting the
committee would be the governing bodies and law enforcement.
I'd like to suggest we take it to -- and find somebody from
the citizens at large who can also help populate that study,
an individual chosen by both or all three entities.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd let the committee
pick.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, but I'm just
suggesting the category, not the individual. The category.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I sure agree with
that. We need citizen involvement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, as have you,
I've had a lot of response to the general concept, and
generally those responses have been encouraging to at least
take a look at it. A good, hard, serious look. And in that
regard, concerning composition of the committee, most of the
comments that I've gotten that address that issue have
encouraged that the citizens, in fact, be the majority of
the committee. Because of the obvious interest of -- of the
stakeholders in the entire thing, that maybe that would
assist in -- in coming up with something that's more
7-26-09
47
1
,... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
unbiased or -- or not directed towards the interest of one
of the entities or another. So, that's been the response
I've gotten, is to get a large number of citizens involved,
several of them to participate in this thing. And, of
course, all of the law enforcement agencies and -- and the
government entities, of course, would be the resources to
that, and to some degree participants, probably.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think a thorough
study will be a good bit of work. It's not something you
can sit down in a few hours and have enough facts to point
you in the right direction. So, typically, you don't want a
committee or a study team to be very large, because it
becomes unmanageable, but in this case, I think if it was a
little bit larger, and divided the work up into
subcommittees, it would be okay, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's good to have
citizen involvement. I'm -- at this point, I think that the
expertise in the law side is probably -- you know, I won't
say more important; that is not the correct term, 'cause
it's not more important, but it's vital. I mean, there's
certain things that I don't think the average citizen likely
would understand when it comes to what we can and can't do
with this. It's a good time to get one or possibly up to
three members, but I wouldn't go any larger than three
members at large. I think it becomes unwieldy. I think,
7-26-04
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
48
really, one is probably -- one or two is probably
sufficient.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At that point -- there
are some recommendations that will come out of the
committee. At that point, you present them to the public,
or whatever the recommendations of the committee are. If
you don't do anything, you present that to the public.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- 'cause I
think then there's ample time for citizen involvement. But
I think, going into it, I really -- really believe that law
enforcement is the ones that need to be -- you know, they're
going to have to do most of the work. They're the ones that
understand the needs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right;
they are going to do most of the work. Might even enlighten
the representatives from the two governing bodies -- or
three governing bodies as well as it can enlighten the
citizens at large. But I also -- they also bring to the
table perspective, perspective of what they anticipate and
expect for law enforcement as a resident of a city, and what
they expect of law enforcement as a resident of the county,
and I think these perspectives are valuable in this context.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What you're saying is
7-26-04
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
three representatives from the public; one from Ingram, one
from Kerrville, and one from the county?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. That's what
I'm suggesting, is making it a 9-person committee at least.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably what -- I
like that. That's a good idea, but probably what the -- the
citizens will bring to the table is a little more
open-mindedness than a member of this group or one of the
other -- or law enforcement. We're -- I think we have a
tendency to resist change more than the citizens do, so I
think their input would be good balance to our preconceived
notions about what can or cannot be done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, why don't we -- at least
for the immediate time being, we'll work on that resolution
and we'll come back to it here shortly. Okay. Are we close
enough to 10 o'clock yet?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're at 10 o'clock
now. My watch says a little after, actually. At this time,
I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will
open a public hearing for alternate plats in Falling Water
located in Precinct 3.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10 a.m., and a public hearing was
held in open court, as follows:)
~-z~-o4
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,,,, 2 4
25
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the
public that wishes to be heard with respect to the proposed
alternate plat revisions in Falling Water, Precinct 3, in
Kerr County? If so, come forward at this time.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: There being no one coming
forward to speak on that item, I will close the public
hearing on the alternate plats in Falling Water, Precinct 3.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:01
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I'll reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting. Next item on the agenda is
consideration and discussion of a lease of a 2.1-acre
property located on State Highway 27 in Mountain Home to the
Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This was an issue
that we talked about some time ago, and I think we finally
ironed out all the wrinkles on it. What we're proposing to
do here is to lease a piece of property located on Highway
27 in Mountain Home to the Mountain Home Volunteer Fire
Department. It's about a 2.1-acre tract that the -- some
time ago, the County got -- got back from the State of
Texas. The State had a -- Texas Department of
7-26-09
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
Transportation had a lease on it for some 40 years, I think,
and this is a proposal that would be benefit both the
county's Road and Bridge Department, as well as Mountain
Home Fire Department. The quid pro quo is that the fire
department will -- will build a fence on it. They will
provide water, do some other things, and the county Road and
Bridge Department will be able to use the property for --
for materials and equipment, and have an easily accessible
and ready source of water, instead of having to go to
Johnson Creek when they're working on roads in that area.
So, it's a proposal that's just -- it's a win-win. So, I'm
going to make a motion that we -- that we approve the
leasing of a 2.1-acre property located on State Highway 27
in Mountain Home to the Mountain Home Fire Department, and
that we authorize the County Judge to sign the same.
MR. MOTLEY: Can I mention something real
quick? That copy that y'all have in front of you there is a
draft. I do need to get a property description from
Mr. Voelkel and straighten up a couple things. I have done
since a kind of a cleaned-up draft, but that was the first
effort, so I just wanted you to know -- wanted to be able to
do the -- substitute the final version with the property
description.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, that motion
includes the final approval -- or review of the County
7-26-04
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,^.,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,_,, 2 4
25
Attorney as to the form of the contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item subject to final approval of the
County Attorney and inclusion of the appropriate legal
description. Any further question or discussion upon this
agenda item? 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: That motion does carry. The
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you for your
help on that, Mr. Motley.
MR. MOTLEY: Oh, sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
consider and discuss authorizing the display in the
courthouse of a portrait of former County Court at Law
Judge. The backup information -- I thought maybe Judge
Brown would be here. Apparently, most of the contact that
took place was with Judge Brown. By way of introductory
comments, I would note that, upstairs in the foyer area
outside the district courts, several years ago there was an
effort made and -- and executed whereby the district judges
7-26-09
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for the past several years had their portraits hung up in
the foyer hallway there. This particular instance deals
with a County Court at Law Judge who was the first County
Court at Law Judge when this Court was instituted by Kerr
County some 19, 20 years ago now, I guess. And Judge Brown
is the one that alerted me to it after the portrait was --
was delivered. So, you've got about the benefit of my
knowledge, actually.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would this
portrait be hung, Judge? In the County Court at Law?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, in -- certainly, in
that -- in that area. If it were to be displayed, that
would seem to be the appropriate area for it to be, just
like upstairs in the district courts where we have the
district judges.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment would be that
-- and in that area, I have no problem with them doing it.
I think it's a nice idea to have a portrait of former
elected officials and judges. I think it needs to be in the
County Court at Law suite, because, as I recall, right
outside that area, there's two large portraits of the
Browns, and I would not want it anywhere near that, which
would detract from those large painted portraits.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: The foyer area outside, I
7-26-04
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
don't see that as the County Court at Law foyer; that's a
foyer to the County Clerk's office, the foyer to the -- as
it goes back into the Tax Office.
on location.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then we're in agreement
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a court order to
allow a picture to be hung?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- in the County Court at
Law office or courtroom area, at the -- at the selection of
the current Judge?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do a court order.
It just seems like -- I don't know why we need a court order
to hang up a portrait, or to hang a portrait. We hang
pictures around on a pretty regular basis in the courthouse.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I'll pass that
information along to Judge Brown, and he can be guided
accordingly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if he feels he needs
a court order, we can pass a court order.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Next item is
consider and discuss a memorandum of agreement between Texas
Department of Health and Kerr County concerning receipt,
/-26-04
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
._ 2 4
25
storage, delivery, and transfer of medical material from the
strategic national stockpile. I was presented with a
contract from the Texas Department of Health, who is acting
as the coordinating agency. The Sheriff's involved too,
because essentially these items would be stored at -- at his
facility and be secured out there, and he's obviously in the
loop. But they have a -- a contract that they're asking to
be entered into relative to this particular matter.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Want a little
background, Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I have the
background. I just --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's all part of the
terrorism stuff, to where if there were a terrorist attack,
the federal government has what they would call a push --
pushcarts, with a large amount of all types of medical
supplies, vaccines, antibiotics, everything in the world
that they can have delivered within 72 hours to a location
where it would be needed. And this is just one of those
planning deals the Health Department and everybody had to do
where, if there were something here and they had to
vaccinate 45,000 people within a matter of a day or two-day
period in this county, then what would we do and how would
we do it and how would it be organized? And it's all part
of this plan. Part of their requirements are -- is when
7-26-04
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
56
that push-pack comes, it has to be secured in a
climate-controlled area, because they're worried about, you
know, rioting and all that, people trying to get to it. If
it was something that major, then -- and what we have agreed
to do is, it would take up about a cellblock, an individual
cellblock out there to where we can totally secure it and
keep it in a climate-controlled area. And I just -- that's
one of the few places in the county you can do that without
expending a major amount of manpower to try and do it.
Because when you set up a location to dispense it is where
you're going to get into a lot of manpower and stages and
that. So, that would be a different location. But -- but I
had agreed that the safest place to store it would be in one
of our cellblocks.
JUDGE TINLEY: They've already got
contingency arrangements with the Peterson Hospital, State
Hospital, and V.A. Hospital to do the actual distribution of
whatever -- these medicines.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's all the other
part of the plan, is all the personnel, nurses, medical
staff to actually dispense it, doctors to actually evaluate
people, screening people. It's just -- it goes on and on
and on, and you could talk about it for six weeks, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a cost to the
County?
7-26-04
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
57
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just the space?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, it's just space,
in case there were a drastic deal where you had to do it,
and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who maintains the cart?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The cart, before it gets
here, is all maintained by the federal government, okay?
And it's ready. It's a secure location where they can just
load them and go anywhere in the United States. Once it
lands, then it's up to all of the volunteers and all the
different agencies. You know, federal government's even
contracting with some of the moving companies, if you don't
have an airport right there, to where they can require their
trucks to truck it in somewhere. But once you get it, it's
your responsibility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm -- like,
I don't even know what exactly is in it, but say there's
vaccines and things that need to be -- that are somewhat
hazardous potentially, I mean, to dispose of them, and
shelf-life comes into it. Who disposes of it? Who updates
the cart?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The federal government.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Federal government takes
care of all that?
7-26-04
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
58
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you anticipating
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is material sent to
you in advance and stored? Or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- sent to you at the
time of an actual disaster?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Of a disaster. Never
sent in advance. They're all stored -- maintained at
different locations, and then, say there were a terrorist
attack in San Antonio. Okay, we would end up having to have
some supplies here because of the people leaving San Antonio
that would need to be vaccinated and that. And once
something like that happens, your -- your disease control
people and everybody else get involved in it, and they
decide what is needed immediately at that location, and they
ship whatever they feel is needed, and then that location
takes care of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So -- so they
don't ship a cart here now. They --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just a space. We
agree to accept a cart.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, it's just a plan
7-26-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
59
on if something happens, that everybody's prepared. It's
part of the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would you
propose to store this?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In one of our
cellblocks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have a location that
we can get to it readily without interfering in any of the
rest of the running of the jail, and it keeps it secured and
under guard.
JUDGE TINLEY: Strictly a contingency
agreement.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, this is just a
domestic preparedness -- being prepared.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval,
authorize the County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
24
25 look at
~ 26 04
MR. MOTLEY: I haven't seen it yet, but I'll
approval of the agenda item. Any questions or discussion?
Mr. Motley, have you had a chance to review it? I realize
it caught you on short notice, but have you at least
reviewed it?
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: I'll look at it.
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: That motion does carry. The
next item on the agenda is consideration and approval of a
resolution by the Commissioners Court of Kerr County
authorizing the filing of a second amendment to the Articles
of Incorporation of the Alamo Area Housing Finance
Corporation, appointing the County Judge or designee as a
member of the Board of Directors of the Alamo Area Housing
Finance Corporation, and other matters in connection
therewith. Essentially, what has happened is that Kendall
County was left out of the Alamo Area Housing Finance
Corporation, and now that Kendall County wants to get in, it
requires, because of the articles, the way they're presently
filed, there to be an amendment to the articles. That has
to be approved by all of the area counties that are
presently members of that board -- or the corporation,
rather.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move approval of
7-26-04
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the resolution by the Commissioners Court authorizing the
filing of a second amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation of the Alamo Area Housing Finance Corporation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize County
Judge to sign?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Authorize County
Judge to sign.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you got to go
beyond that semicolon, because --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- I don't recall
that I was ever authorized to sit in on this, and this is
one of the main meetings that take place on Wednesdays, and
so it's either going to be the Judge or me, one or the
other. And I've not sat in on those meetings, because I did
not have court authority to do so.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All right.
Continuing that, appointing the County Judge or his designee
as a member of the Board of Directors of the Alamo Area
Housing Finance Corporation, and other matters in connection
therewith.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's your motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. Okay.
Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the
7-26-09
62
1
..~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's
go to the next item, consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on an interlocal agreement for the joint management
of the Kerr County/Kerrville Airport. I think Commissioner
Williams and Commissioner Letz have been working on this
item rather feverishly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, we have, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can we take a
break before we get into this one?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's going to take awhile?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It could.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we recess,
and we'll come back at 10:30, okay? We'll stand in recess
until 10:30.
(Recess taken from 10:16 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order. We've been in recess; it's now 10:30. We will
reconvene. Let's go back to Item 8, dealing with the
proposed resolution promoting joint study team effort
concerning participation in law enforcement activities.
7-26-04
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There's been some redrafting of the resolution.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. What we --
what we changed over the break was the second "Resolved."
It now reads, "The Kerr County Commissioners Court invites
the Kerrville and Ingram City Councils to join Kerr County
in the appointment of a member of its body, a representative
from each of the mentioned law enforcement entities, and a
member of the public at large in a joint effort to complete
the study and report the study findings and recommendations
to the three government entities by March 1, 2005." I --
I'd like to reconsider the makeup of the work team and
propose that we -- we invite each of the three entities to
staff the team with two members of the public at large; that
would be six total. And I'm making that -- bringing that
back up for two reasons. One, a thorough study is going to
be a lot of work, and I think extra resources would be good,
and I also think that I'd like a better balance. I'd like a
little more input from the community, and not -- them not be
overwhelmed by those of us who may have a vested interest in
the outcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good point, Commissioner.
We're dealing with -- with the citizens' business and their
tax money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I personally don't
have a problem with it. Citizen input, I think, is quite
7-26-04
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
valuable. If we do have two county appointments, I'd vote
that we do balance those appointments so that we get as
broad a perspective of the county as possible.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, your motion is to adopt
it, except have it read, "and two members of the public at
large" for each?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. And
inviting -- just -- I'm just being redundant, but inviting
the two other government entities to join us in such a
study.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Authorize the County
Judge to extend that invitation.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: How big a committee
would that be? Twelve-member?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twelve.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Even number's a good
number? Or odd, if they vote on things within their
committee?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't think it's
that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Type of deal?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that important a deal.
You can also -- the committee can appoint a chair, and not
vote. That way, it would make it odd.
~-26-09
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that your motion,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the resolution as drafted, with the exception
that on the fourth line of the last paragraph, it read,
"entities, and two members of the public at large in a joint
effort to complete..."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I believe it needs
to read, "two members of the public at large from each
entity." Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I was looking
at that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's getting rather
mangled. But there's six members of the public at large,
two from each of the entities, or represented entities.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can you make it say
that, Kathy?
MS. MITCHELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two members each of
the public at large will do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the next step
would then be for the Judge to send it to the City of Ingram
7-26-04
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the City of Kerrville, and if we get feedback that they
want to proceed, then we appoint two members at large and a
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And a law
enforcement representative.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would expect that
to be the Sheriff, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or probably --
JUDGE TINLEY: Or designee.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe a deputy. I
don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever he wants.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
It's kind of logistics or administrative. This is going to
be a rather large and significant effort. It's going to
take a lot of support work -- administrative support work to
pull it all together and try to make sense of it. Do we
have any thoughts on that?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I haven't given that
any thought, Commissioner.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I can make a
suggestion, last time we did the study for law enforcement,
you know, on our needs and different things, that took about
a year with that group of citizens. At that time, we
7-26-04
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
allowed them to meet in the training room, if they wanted to
meet once a month or whatever at the -- the Sheriff's
Office, and we also allowed them access to the copy machine
and little things like that, and one of our secretaries
assisted a little bit at times. If -- if we can offer that
to them, they may -- City of Kerrville may want to do that.
I don't know. But that way, it keeps the committee expenses
down, and those copies are not that bad. Far as the copies,
we had no budget tasked to do that; we just put it together
ourselves.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not trying to
throw up a stumbling block, just raising a question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good question. I
would expect that they would get organized and come back to
the -- to the three governing entities and tell us what kind
of help or guidance that they need. In fact, I'm -- I'm
guessing they're going to divide the duties up into maybe
three- or four-member groups, some of them fact-finding on
this issue and some of them researching on this issue, but
that'll be help for the group.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we have any
shortage of availability of places for them to meet. The
support service may be something that we want to look at. I
know we've got some jury rooms upstairs that are about the
right size for a group this size. In fact, it's anticipated
7-26-04
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you're going to have 12 participants. The support services
is something else we need to look at, but that's not -- I
don't see that as an issue. We'll figure out a way to
handle that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some of them may want to
make trips to other agencies or wherever where some things
have been done, and visit and spend some time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the first step is
to get this approved, and then let the other entities look
at it. They may have other ideas that are worth --
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- modifying the
committee. I think, you know, get this done first.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on this -- on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank
you. Let's go now to Item 13, consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on interlocal agreement for joint
management of the Kerr County/Kerrville Airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. At
our last meeting, we -- we talked about these two documents,
7-26-04
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
and members of the Court had some suggestions. Subsequent
to the court meeting, the County Attorney provided a review
that had some issues he believed needed to be addressed. V~1e
met again with the task force at City Hall, representatives
of the City and County and members of City staff, and we
kicked around the issue -- we provided the other members of
the task force with a copy of the County Attorney's
memorandum, and stepped through the issues that Mr. Motley
had raised or questioned. Most of them were -- were
addressed and had been addressed in prior discussions and --
and were not issues that were sticking points, and some of
them were just F.Y.I. There were two -- there were,
however, two issues that the County Attorney raised that
created some discussion, and those had to do with
Mr. Motley's questioning the provisions of Section 8 of the
Joint Action Agreement.
The Joint Action Agreement, Section 8, has to
do with allocation of costs and ownership upon early
termination or failure to adopt a funding budget, and
Mr. Motley wondered whether or not that the language that we
-- or the intent of the language that we had agreed upon was
consistent with the state constitution, and so we raised
that question. And none of us at the task force level had
the answer, and so we suggested that Ms. Bailey, who is the
Assistant City Attorney and assigned to this particular
7-26-04
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
~o
effort on our part, address that issue along with Mr. Motley
and see if we could resolve it to everybody's satisfaction.
I think, at this point --
(Mr. Motley entered the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought you were
listening; you weren't even here. I think, at this point,
we need to kind of air out this constitutional issue to see
whether we're okay and whether both legal representatives
for the City and the County are in accord. Then there was
one -- there was one point, however, that Mr. Motley raised
in a telephone discussion with me in this -- in this
context, and I'd like for us to address that. So,
Ms. Bailey, if you and Mr. Motley would join us in this
discussion, you had responded to Mr. Motley's memorandum
with a document of your own. I'm sorry, the other members
of the Court don't have this, do they?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kathy, would you
quickly -- we're only on Issues 3 and 4 here. Would you
quickly, while I'm continuing to identify them, make a copy
of Ms. Bailey's memorandum that deals with Issues 3 and 4?
It's on the two pages in the middle. And see if we can get
this thing moving forward. Ms. Bailey did address it. And,
as I started to say in a subsequent conversation with
Mr. Motley, he raised another point, Ms. Bailey, that had to
7-26-04
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
do with a mechanism by which the County or the City, during
the life of the Joint Action Agreement, could open the Joint
Action Agreement for a problem that needed to be addressed
without either party aborting its ownership issue, and I
think we need to -- we need to be comfortable about that. I
don't have an issue particularly in mind. I don't know if
Mr. Motley did, but if we just assume hypothetically that 7,
8, 9, 10 years into the agreement, which extends a lengthy
period of time, something did confront us or the City that
needed to be addressed in the Joint Action Agreement, and
the issue would be to address that issue, resolve it in the
Joint Action Agreement without either party giving up its
ownership rights. So, with that, while we're waiting on the
document to come back, if you'd pick up the discussion,
we'll go from there.
MS. BAILEY: Of course, I'll preface this by
saying I certainly can't speak for the Council, but I -- my
intention, certainly, in doing any of the drafting that I've
done, and I believe that the members of the committee's
intention, as expressed in a couple of places in those
documents, are that, of course, this is all subject to
written agreements to the contrary. I know there's at least
one place that specifically says, unless written agreements
are made to the contrary, this is what will happen if the
whole thing falls apart. If -- if you feel like, after
7-26-04
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
`1 25
reviewing it, that it doesn't say that clearly enough, I
feel certain that we could add a sentence that says
something to that effect in an area that you feel is -- is
appropriate to make it applicable to the whole agreement,
rather than just to the section that has that language
already in there. Or in both agreements, make it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just a general
provision that states that, you know, at any time this party
may be amended. I think it's -- you know, we have that
ability, even if it's not explicitly set forth.
MS. BAILEY: Yes, sir. Certainly, that -- my
general understanding of contract law is that it's only a
written agreement as far as both parties agree that
that's -- that is the agreement. And, certainly, one can't
unilaterally change it, but if you both together reach a
written agreement to modify it, then that becomes the --
another part of the agreement, the modification.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the issue is
that, because of the -- the language relating to default, if
it -- you know, a disagreement came up, to make sure that
there is a mechanism to amply protect both parties.
MS. BAILEY: Yeah, I think that's an
appropriate -- appropriate suggestion to make to the Council
and to the members of the -- sitting members of the
committee. I'm hesitant, though. I know that one of the
7-26-04
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concurrence on the issues Mr. Motley raised with respect to
constitutionality, Paragraph 8.
MR. MOTLEY: There's no problem on that.
And -- and the only reason I put that down is -- to begin
with is that it's my understanding that you wanted a kind
of -- just a quick review and commentary in time for a
meeting on the Friday -- you know, I got it on Wednesday,
and you had a meeting -- I think you and Jonathan had a
meeting Friday morning, and I was trying to do something
real quick and run through this. I just read it, and those
are the things that jumped out at me. I don't think there's
a constitutional problem. I think the issue that you all
are raising about, procedurally, if something were to occur
halfway through the life of this -- the term of this Joint
Operating Agreement, I just think there needs to be a means
to address it. I really think Use's agreement probably
contemplates that we would sit down and try to talk it out,
'cause if I'm -- I don't have the file in front of me, but
seems to me like Paragraph 8 says something like, if we
don't have an agreement and then there's a breach and then a
month comes, this is the result. So, I think it really
contemplates the City and County would try to sit down and
work it out, and I think that's what we ought to do.
My only problem -- and my only thing I'm
mentioning -- I think all of you have mentioned today -- is
7 26-04
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if we go to the City and say we have an issue with whatever,
some -- something in the Joint Operating or Joint Management
Agreement, and we're not able to sit down with the City and
work it out, if, for some reason, they're very firm on their
position, we're very firm on ours, and we're not able to
work it out, then if we have a breach at that point, then it
seems to me that the consequence is rather drastic. And
that's what I was saying. There might ought to be -- you
know, I wasn't really sure where that consequence was --
was, coupled with the actions. But, I mean, that's part of
being on the airport advisory committee that y'all are on.
Y'all understand that, and that's something that you felt
apparently that if we can't come to agreement on the -- on
some problem in the Joint Management Agreement, if you can't
have an agreement on that, then we want the airport to go
on -- obviously, to go on, but to be managed 100 percent by
the other party. And -- and that makes sense. And, you
know, the value -- as Ilse pointed out, the value of the
airport is not the real estate and the buildings, per se.
It's the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The operation.
MR. MOTLEY: -- community. We had it
mentioned at Rotary this week, and I can't remember -- I
think Dave Pearce said something like $32 million impact or
something in the community, which is a phenomenal amount of
7-26-09
7s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
money. We want to keep that operating. I just thought that
it -- if there was a reason that the City and County
couldn't agree before the breach, that there ought to be a
provision in there somehow that something could -- you know,
again, nobody would be forced to go into a mediation
situation at that point in time, and that wouldn't
necessarily have to take a long time. But it just seemed to
me that if we're firm on our position, they're firm on their
position, we can't agree, then the result is we're out of
the deal. And if that's what the executive decision is,
then I don't have any problem with that, if that makes
sense. I don't know if that makes sense or not. I didn't
realize that's what the commission -- the group, whatever --
whoever's doing this consideration, I didn't realize that's
what they wanted to do. If that's what they want to do,
then I don't really have a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think part of it is
that we are organizing the airport under the Transportation
Code, and there's a lot of language in the Transportation
Code that goes onto this, and that is really the only way
that we can operate it, is under the Transportation Code.
MR. MOTLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For two owners. I think
the reason for the -- part of the reasoning for the
transferring of all interest to the other party is so that
7-26-09
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-~
25
the airport can operate, 'cause there really isn't another
mechanism that's legal. And that's, you know --
MS. BAILEY: That's correct. And --
MR. MOTLEY: Probably transfer it to the
federal government. They could probably transfer it to
someone else. If both of us agree, we could probably make
some arrangement to sell it to a private something-or-other,
but I don't see that happening.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But I think as
long as we have the provision that Ilse is alluding to, I
think that one's more --
MR. MOTLEY: I think that's great. I'll be
happy to look it over if she wants to buzz me or send me a
copy of that paragraph.
MS. BAILEY: I'll draft it and get with
both David and the Judge, and when we reach an agreement
on language that we're happy with, then I'll present that
also to the Council tomorrow night as a proposed addition
to the --
JUDGE TINLEY: The modification or addition
could make reference also to resolving a good-faith dispute.
MR. MOTLEY: I think -- you know, I think
we --
JUDGE TINLEY: At that point, it'll take it
out of the default and -- and determination.
7-26-04
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
MR. MOTLEY: I don't really feel like we're
going to have a problem. We got to figure out, what if the
-- the most unforeseen thing happens? I don't think we're
going to have a problem, 'cause I think the City and County
both desire the same thing. I think we want smooth
operation. You know, as the end result, we want the airport
to run smoothly. Maybe there's disagreements about how to
do that sometimes, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the reason for
the provision being put in there to start with was more --
not of us not getting along, but if one of us wants out.
It's a way for one of us to -- it was more of a proactive
reason for having it, as opposed to a problem development,
if one of us says, "We've had enough of this."
MR. MOTLEY: To give the other party 100
percent responsibility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "You can have it."
MR. MOTLEY: Okay. Well, I didn't -- I
didn't look at it like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, let me see if I
understand correctly, then. We're going to revise a new
paragraph -- or we're going to revise a paragraph as per
Judge Tinley's suggestion?
MS. BAILEY: Either revise a paragraph or add
a separate paragraph at the end of the joint action
7-26-04
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
agreement that reflects something along the lines that, in
the event either party wants to address an issue or has a
good-faith dispute about an issue about airport running,
that making a request to the other party shall not be a
notice of default or an event of default that activates the
termination provision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. With that
JUDGE TINLEY: Notice of cancellation.
MS. BAILEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With that
understanding or explanation, I would move, Judge, the
approval of the interlocal agreement for joint management of
Kerrville/Kerr County Airport, known as the Joint Action
Agreement, with the understanding that -- with the inclusion
of language similar to what Ms. Bailey just spoke to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval as drafted, with the inclusion of the appropriate
language that we just discussed. I have one more item, and
I mentioned this earlier, on Page 6.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 6?
MS. BAILEY: Judge, do you also need to
include that authorization to sign the one that you just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, that includes
7-26-04
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
authorization. I think we're all signing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We all sign this
document.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're all going to
sign.
MS. BAILEY: Okay. You're not on the next
one yet. I'm sorry; I'm ahead of you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On this one,
everybody's going to sign.
JUDGE TINLEY: (c)(ii} I mentioned this
before, about the -- what, sixth? Sixth line, "within 30
days after receiving notice." I sure want "written" notice
there. It got struck previously, and I mentioned that
earlier.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did talk about
that.
MS. BAILEY: I apologize; I must have just
missed it.
JUDGE TINLEY: It got eliminated. It was in
the original draft, and in the subsequent draft it got
eliminated. I said I wanted it back in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did speak to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should be in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should be in there.
MS. BAILEY: I'll make certain that that
7-26-04
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
change is put in and brought to the Council's attention as
well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on this
particular motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, in addition to
this action, I believe at the same time, we need to make
probably the appointments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not on the
agenda. You and I need to talk.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I forgot to put it
on, the appointment of our board member, but you and I need
to talk.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was wondering. I mean,
I think it could be handled --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- under the agenda the
way it's posted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You and I still need
to talk.
7-26-04
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Since the agreement -- since
the agreement provides for, upon approval, the appointment
of those members, I think it would be included.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If -- that's
-- that's okay, but Commissioner Letz and I need to talk a
minute.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do you want to, to give
you time, take the other one and come back to it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good point. Why don't we go
on to 14 and then we'll come back to this item. Next item
is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the
Airport Management Contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You need it, Jon?
You got it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got it. I just had
to find it. I have too many drafts. Ilse, on Page 3, can
you go over the reason for the lengthy revision of
Paragraph {d) ?
MS. BAILEY: Yeah. The City Attorney had
some concerns that we wanted to make sure -- since we're
creating -- we don't want to create an attorney-client
relationship that's broader than it really needs to be,
because there are theoretical circumstances where the City,
as a contractor providing legal services through the City
7-26-04
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
Attorney's office, might end up with an issue where the City
doesn't have the same interests as the Airport Board. And
in those circumstances, just like in any insurance contract,
it provides that -- you know, where there's a conflict, the
attorney that's set by contract would represent one entity,
and that then the client would go and -- and have separate
legal counsel, so as to make sure that their own interests
were completely represented by someone who didn't have
conflicting interests also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, basically, what we're
saying is that in future years, when this contract is
negotiated, the Airport Board hires outside council to
represent it in the negotiations with --
MS. BAILEY: It could. It could, unless it
felt like there was no -- there was no conflict, no change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. BAILEY: But I think that's what it's
providing for. It's just acknowledging the fact that -- I
can't really give you an example right now, 'cause I don't
think we have any conflicts, but there could be
circumstances where the Airport Board would have interests
that weren`t our interests. And -- and I, as Assistant City
Attorney, certainly have to have my primary loyalty to the
City and not -- not primarily loyalty to the Airport Board.
But the Board's entitled to have its own counsel with
7-26-04
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
primary loyalty to it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Is there any -- any
requirement that the City has under this agreement, as it
presently exists, that the City would be required to -- to
solicit proposals for various phases of -- of the work to be
performed under this agreement?
MS. BAILEY: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. BAILEY: I mean, we have the option to do
it, but there's not a requirement within this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- the
thought has been that, because of where we are in the year
with budget coming up, that, in all likelihood, they will
continue operations as they currently are, and that next
year, after the Airport Board's had a year of -- of
operations behind it, then kind of look very closely at the
various components and determine at that time if it chooses
to go out for multiple bids on certain facets of the
operation.
JUDGE TINLEY: That'll be a Board decision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a Board decision
to do that. And that's in the -- I think the Joint Action
Agreement reflects that there can be multiple management
contracts.
7-26-09
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
MS. BAILEY: That's my understanding as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Exhibit A -- lacking
something better, there was some information or
documentation furnished under date of June the 29th;
expenditure analysis, I believe. That's not the correct
one. Management contract supporting information, June 29th.
That has the various allocations made. Was that what is
intended to be Exhibit A? It wasn't attached to the copy I
got.
MS. BAILEY: Yes, I believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. BAILEY: Far as I know, there have not
been any changes to that, and if there are changes, it'll be
taking out words like "draft" and explanatory notes, and
just having the numbers themselves there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it gives allocation of
various services; administrative, legal, accounting,
engineering, so forth, and allocates a certain amount of
time and rates.
MS. BAILEY: That's the -- I believe that's
the final.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe that's the
7-26-04
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
-- but, actually, while the Judge was talking, it made me
think of something that I'm a little uncomfortable with. I
think that the budget process, because we are -- we're
already at the deadline that is contemplated as when the
budget information would be coming from the Airport Board to
the City and the County, and with the default provision for
not funding the budget, I'm a little concerned about the
budget process this year.
MS. BAILEY: And, again, I think that this
was drafted for purposes of -- of ongoing years. I think
everybody recognizes that we may not be able to make a date
that is either behind us or in the next day or two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We won't make this
July -- might not make the July 30 date, but our deadline is
September 30.
MS. BAILEY: I think September 30th is really
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the critical
date; has to be in place by then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think the Airport
Board needs to get -- you know, once it's put in place, it
needs to get really up to speed on the -- on the '04-'05
budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Immediately.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because it's a -- you
7-26-04
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
know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Immediately.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my only comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me raise one
more. This is rather minor, you'll be happy to know. Page
1 at the very bottom of the page, number 2, terms of
agreement. Owners are not entering into this agreement, are
they? It's just the contractor and Board?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct.
MS. BAILEY: Yes, you're right. And I need
to change that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Just delete "owners."
MS. BAILEY: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, we've referred to
"owners" above, which is fine for reference purposes, but --
MS. BAILEY: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- but the actual entering
into the agreement are the -- the independent contractor and
the Board.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was changed on
the signature page, Judge, to take you out and put the Board
president in.
MS. BAILEY: I changed the first paragraph to
make it clear who the contract was between, and didn't make
sure I went back and corrected all that in the body of the
7-26-04
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,--~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think the
intent of the City is -- related to these is to not execute
the agreements -- pretty much have everyone in place and
everyone -- everything done so that, as soon as the Joint
Airport -- both agreements become in effect simultaneously
to avoid the situation of the City and the County not having
any authority and not having a board in place yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Because --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the initial agreement does
away with the old board.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But also, it
also -- the Joint Action Agreement removes the City and the
County from any authority, or almost all authority. So I
think that the -- the order that the City's going to sign
these is such that it's all done simultaneously, with
appointees --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is to prevent the
potential of having a Joint Action Agreement without having
a contractor in place as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's what I was
trying to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
7-26-09
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Though it will -- the
Joint Action Agreement or the new Airport Board may have
just the two County and the two City representatives
initially until the at-large appointees are there, but there
is at least a -- you know, a board there that can make
decisions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we -- are we saying at
this point that approval of -- of the management contract,
to whatever degree we have approval, should be contingent
upon the full implementation of the Joint Action Agreement?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could either do that,
or I think it's the City's intent not to sign --
MS. BAILEY: It is certainly correct that
it's not our intent to have one activated without the other.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sign them both at the
same time.
MS. BAILEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the
Airport Management Contract form.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the minor --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the minor
modifications we discussed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and
7-26-04
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
seconded for approval of the Airport Management Contract
with the minor corrections. 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: Are we ready to go back to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you give Mr.
Letz and I a minute or two?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll be glad to do that.
MS. BAILEY: In the meantime, I'll try to get
the wording from the court reporter that I so eloquently
stated earlier. Maybe we can get that approved right away.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order. Okay, we're back to reconsideration under Item 13,
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the
interlocal agreement for joint management of the airport,
dealing with the requirement of the contract which requires
that we name the members to be on that board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the best way to
proceed at this point is for the Court to appoint its two
members, and then the -- then in the agreement, the Court
has to agree with the City Council as to the three at-large
~-26-09
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
members. And I would recommend that the Court delegate that
its two members to work out those three at large members,
with the contingency -- or condition that those three
members need to come from the current Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We would be working
it out with the two City appointments -- the two City
Council appointments, so the two City Councilmen and two
Commissioners would get together to populate the rest of the
board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But --
JUDGE TINLEY: From the existing --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From the existing
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If, for some reason, they
wanted to go outside, we'd come back to the full Court to
make that decision.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm good with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems reasonable.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you have a good
feel that at least three of the current members would be
willing to serve?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, we do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's
important.
7-26-04
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
94
JUDGE TINLEY: Good continuity, I think, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that
Commissioner Williams and myself be appointed to the Airport
Board, and be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Empowered.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- empowered to work out
with the City the other three -- the three members at large.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The two City
representatives. Not the entire Council, but two City
representatives. Two City Council people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I said.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want Ilse to
understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. That's my motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I have a motion
to that effect. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further question or discussion on this agenda item -- this
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, gentlemen. That --
7-26-04
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
95
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We are closing in on
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes-indeedy.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At the break, we
were talking about this effort, and it's really --
congratulations to you two, and the others that have worked
with you on that to -- it's really a lot of progress, and I
know it was a lot of hard work too. So, this is -- this is
-- and it's a good example of how the City and the County
can work together to the benefit of all of our stakeholders.
Good work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. It
has been a good, long -- long process, but hard.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But a valuable
process.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it gives -- gives an
opportunity for -- for the Board to take advantage of a
number of matters that they can avail themselves of, with --
with all the activity at that airport. There's been a
tremendous amount of activity, and there's a lot of current
interest right now, and we want to be able to take advantage
of that. Why don't we move on to the next item; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on a resolution
authorizing Kerr County to file an application with the
7-26-04
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
Texas Water Development Board for grant money to undertake
planning and preliminary engineering for a Center Point
wastewater system. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
I've been devoting a lot of time, in addition to the
Kerrville South project, in thinking about and working
toward an opportunity to provide a wastewater collection
system for the community of Center Point. This has taken a
good while to get to this point, and what brings me to this
point to ask the Court for permission today is -- is the
meetings I had in Austin about two weeks ago, in which we
identified sources of funding available in Texas Water
Development Board for this purpose. I think I mentioned to
the Court before, I met with those folks. I met with
Representative Hilderbran's staff, Senator Fraser's staff,
and the Lieutenant Governor, all of whom believe it's a
viable project and one that we should begin to get involved
with. You might recall that the City of Center Point, when
it was still incorporated -- I'm going to lay this down in
front of you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the Commissioners
can see it. City of Center Point, when it was incorporated,
had gotten enough funds -- I don't know where all those
spots came from; must have got rainwater on it. I've got a
7-26-09
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
97
cleaner copy, but anyhow, they had raised enough funds to --
to get Southwest Engineers involved in doing a preliminary
study, and that study originally commissioned by them took
in basically central city and over here. In discussing this
with our engineer friends at Tetra Tech, who agreed, pro
bono, to update this -- this aerial, we now include some
other things. And I apologize; I didn't know that the water
had gotten on it. I've got a clean copy. But what we now
include as a potential system are the homes on the north
side behind the Mini-Mart; we include coming out Elm Pass
Road and picking up the Elm -- Elm --
JUDGE TINLEY: Elmwood.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Elmwood Mobile
Home Park, which is probably on the threshold of changing
ownership, and that one will expand, because there's plenty
of property left there to expand it. And going on down and
coming in on Verde Creek and picking up all the homes on
Verde Creek that have had septic problems in the past
associated basically with flooding, and then going over on
the other side and picking up the Center Point Independent
School District's athletic complex. My discussions with the
C.P.I.S.D. indicate that the city -- the school district has
an option to purchase this block of land right here for
future expansion of the school operation, and so it would
make sense that any design to incorporate a line that would
7-26-04
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
go and take care of this extension as well the athletic
fields.
So, what I'd like to do is file an
application with the Texas Water Development Board. There
are two -- at least two sources of funding. I apologize for
the spots. I honestly didn't know. It was in the back of
my car; I must have had a window down, but I've got a clean
copy if someone else wants to see it. There are two sources
of funding potentially available. One of them, as I
indicated to you, is the SCHP fund, the -- where's my
resolution? -- the Small Community Hardship Program. And
the other fund that is potentially available for water and
wastewater is the Disadvantaged Community Fund, which I
think comes out of their revolving water and wastewater pot.
And, so, what I'm asking the Court today is to give me
authority to move forward and perfect an application with
the Texas Water Development Board for the purposes of
obtaining funding for preliminary study and engineering.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further questions or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just a -- this is
~-26-04
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
basically a grant to study?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And do preliminary
engineering.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In that process, I would
encourage you to make sure that the study includes two
options; one option going all the way to Comfort and tying
in with the Kendall County Water Conservation District
Number 1, and the other option is coming back to the city of
Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you
mentioned that, Commissioner. I meant to make that point.
Originally -- it's a good point; the Court needs to hear
this. Originally, the little town had considered only one
option, and that was to have a wastewater treatment plant
situated in the community. That, to me, is not a viable
option. It's an expensive option, unnecessary, and I doubt
seriously that, in my lifetime, you could get a discharge
permit to the river. So, that is a big "X" mark on that,
leaving either going east or west and come out on 480 and
27. So, the option is clearly there to go either to
Comfort, which would require a special reg -- special --
getting across county lines and into a water district.
Requires some added work, but it's not impossible. It's
done. Or coming back east -- west to the city of
Kerrville's facilities, which are stopped at the airport.
7-26-04
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
100
And, so, this does envision one or the other, and the cost
will be -- will be assessed to determine what that's all
about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And the option --
the reason I bring it up, if you get close to Comfort, along
the way, the logical right-of-way route would be Highway 27,
and there are several pretty high-density communities along
Highway 27, and when you get into Comfort, there are some
proposed developments right in Kerr County right before you
get to the county line. And the Kendall County Water
Conservation District Number 1, which serves the water and
sewer for the Comfort area, has the ability to cross into
Kerr County under their charter, so there's -- and they have
tremendous -- they have a lot of capacity, 'cause they just
did a huge upgrade to that facility. So, it's a -- and the
benefit is that it's a gravity flow in that direction,
whereas it has to be pumped the other direction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, take it from
the lift station coming back this way. But that would be
part of the study to determine the cost feasibility one way
or the other.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
7-26-04
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. With
the permission of the Court, I'd like to pass on executive
session right now and move forward the approval agenda.
First one is payment of the bills. We have the auditors
right here today.
MS. WILLIAMS: Morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In lieu of
Mr. Baldwin -- Commissioner Baldwin, who would normally do
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the payment of the bills. Do we have any questions or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MS. WILLIAMS: We need to reallocate some
7-26-04
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
funds to pay some travel expenses that have been incurred.
Right now, the -- that particular line item is zeroed out,
and we also need to reallocate some money. They really
didn't budget enough for postage, not realizing that they'd
have as much to mail out as what they actually are having to
do. There is a little bit of surplus in the Group Insurance
line item, and if it's acceptable to the Court, we'd like to
move $514.48 out of that line item into these other two
areas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question
or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, a comment. On
Reimbursed Travel, are they planning to curtail their
expenses through -- for a while? Or --
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not
answer that one. This is travel for
lot of 4-H stuff, leadership classes,
line. She has to take the kids here,
that's basically what this Reimbursed
for. I figure that maybe they didn't
going to be traveling as much as what
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
real sure; can't
Gaurinda. She does a
things along that
there, and yonder, and
Travel line item is
realize that she was
she actually is.
And fuel costs have
7-26-04
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gone up considerably, too.
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, yes, sir, but we do pay
by the state travel guide.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the Commissioner's
question may have been they're just asking for enough to
cover what --
MS. WILLIAMS: What she has right now. I
have no idea what she's planning on doing in the future.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
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: That motion does carry.
Budget Amendment Request Number 2.
MS. WILLIAMS: We have an autopsy bill that
we need to pay, and we've run out of money again. So, what
we would like to do is -- is, if the Court will approve it,
we want to move the money out of the Address Coordinator
line in Nondepartmental, and move that money up to Autopsy
and Inquest to pay this bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one quick
7-26-04
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
question, Mindy. Is the address coordinator -- we're no
longer doing that, so this is an excess in that line?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made -- do I hear a
second?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Do I --
is there 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: That motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MS. WILLIAMS: We have some Court-Appointed
Services for attorneys out of the 216th District Court,
looks like, that we need to pay, but we're out of funds in
that line item. So, what we're asking is to move some money
out of this Special Trials line item up to Court-Appointed
Services, to where we can pay those bills. And then we also
have dues for both of the District Judges that we need to
pay, $30 dues. Right now, their Dues and Publications line
items are zeroed out, and we need to move $30 out of each
7-26-04
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
one of those. And, again, we want to take those moneys out
of Special Trials.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question
or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I suppose that --
the issue that Commissioner Letz raised earlier; they'll
probably be back for more transfers to pay for
court-appointed services between now and the end of the
12 ~ year.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the court-appointed
services, Commissioner, is something other than lawyers, I
think. That's for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Psychological.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- competency, things of that
nature.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So that's not
predictable.
JUDGE TINLEY: Investigators, possibly --
well, no, I think investigators is even a separate line
item, isn't it?
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure. I think
investigators, psychologicals, something along that line,
7-26-04
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
other than court-appointed attorneys. This particular bill
is on a psychological, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: On a capital case.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if they got to come
back, they got to come back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably the same
capital -- same case as what the Special Trials was budgeted
for.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
Budget Amendment Request Number 4.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. What we have here is,
we have a bill for vet services. It's been incurred on an
adoption out at the Animal Control -- animal shelter.
They're adopting out more animals than what we had
anticipated for the year, and of the moneys that we collect,
$40 of that goes to the vet for either spaying/neutering and
rabies shot. We've run out of money. They've got just that
many more animals. What we're wanting to do is increase the
7-26-04
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
budget to accommodate, say, another -- we figured it out the
other day -- like, 15 or so animals to hopefully carry us
through the end of September. That was one of the reasons
we asked to move $640.75 instead of having to come back to
the Court every time we get a bill.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any question
or discussion? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 5.
MS. WILLIAMS: Constable, Precinct 2. He's
needing to increase his Postage line item. He is mailing
out a lot more information to people, trying to get them to
come in and help take care of some of these problems, so
his -- his postage has just gone, you know, beaucoup. He's
doing a lot more work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move to approve,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
7-26-04
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
approval of Budget Amendment Request 5. Any 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: Budget Amendment Request 6.
MS. WILLIAMS: This one is for the County
Jail and the Sheriff's Department. We have some bills that
need to be paid for vehicle maintenance, and they have
zeroed that line item out. We would like to move the money
out of the Group Insurance line item in the jail to pay for
said vehicle maintenance. There is also expenses that need
to be paid out of the Operating line item, and also Vehicle
Repairs and Maintenance for the Sheriff's Department, and
again, there is a surplus in both of those budgets' Group
Insurance line item where we could move these moneys without
causing a hardship.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tell me what's
happening on this -- on Group Insurance. A number of these
involve transferring money from that code to, I believe,
various things.
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe when the budget was
proposed last year, we budgeted at the current rate. At
January 1st, I believe the rate went down, which puts a
7-26-04
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
little bit of a surplus in each department's Group Insurance
item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you've
explained that to me before; probably will have to about one
more time between now and next budget.
MS. WILLIAMS: That's okay, as long as I know
the answer.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you, Mindy.
MS. WILLIAMS: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a motion on that?
So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request 6. Any 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: That motion does carry.
Budget Amendment Request Number 7.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This is for the County
Clerk, and I'm not sure what Jannett has, but it looks like
she wants to move money into her Part-Time Salary line item,
and it may be that she's got part-time people that she needs
7-26-04
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to pay, and she's just running short of funds. And, again,
out of Group Insurance, because of the -- the surplus that
we have.
JUDGE TINLEY: How many part-time employees
does that account for, Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: Two.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two? Okay. Shows a current
expense of a little over $8,000, and she's only got $3,350
in the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you using the
part-time because of vacancies, or just --
MS. PIEPER: I'm using one part-time because
of vacancies, and the other part-time is just my permanent
part-time -- permanent part-time person.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But part of
it's -- you have more part-time because you have a vacancy?
MS. PIEPER: This is because of my vacancy,
yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 7. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
~-z6-og
111
1
^-.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,~-,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request 8.
MS. WILLIAMS: This one is to put money into
the Training line item. We have a request for reimbursement
from Mr. Johnston, a class that he attended in San Antonio.
There's no moneys left in his Training line item, so we were
wanting to move the money out of Books and Publications up
to that Training so that we can reimburse him his travel and
his parking expense.
JUDGE TINLEY: What -- do you know what
training that happened to be?
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe it was -- had
something to do with the floodplain. He was there, like,
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and came back on
Friday, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was that the mold remediation
for contractors?
MS. WILLIAMS: It could be. I've got the
papers in my office; I didn't bring them with me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 8. Any question
7-26-04
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we
have any late bills?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir, we don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have before me the
monthly reports from Justice of the Peace Precinct 3,
Justice of the Peace Precinct 1, and the Sheriff. Do I hear
a motion that these reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the named reports be approved as presented. 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: That motion does carry. Do we
have any reports from any of the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we skipped
this -- or that's in the budget. We have minutes?
7-26-04
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
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we have no minutes this
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two? Do you have any reports
other than what we've already gotten? Mostly on the
airport, I would imagine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only other thing I
could add, Judge, would be the airport -- not the airport,
the library, which some preliminary numbers were handed to
me and I handed them in turn to you, and you've in turn
written a note back to me, so I'm not sure where that leaves
us. Somewhere between here and there, is where it leaves
us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three? Do you have anything
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only report I
have is just more of a -- just to let everybody know it will
be on our next agenda. We have some road issues in my
precinct along Lane Valley, Louise Ehler Road. It's where
the county -- I've been talking to David Motley about this,
and we're working on trying to figure out how to resolve it,
but it's also probably going to require, you know, the
County Engineer as well, trying to get some easements
prepared and things re-sorted out, and this is all as a
result of the temporary road that the County built when the
7-26-09
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
114
Lane Valley bridge was built in 1991. And some things --
some easements were not prepared at that time; they didn't
think they were needed, but that has all kind of unraveled
recently. And I think we're, anyway, in the process of
doing that, but it's -- we'll probably require some funds to
come from	somewhere for the County	Engineer	-- County
Surveyor.	And Mr. Motley and I are	working	on getting some
documents -- easements prepared. So, anyway, that's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are these people from
the bridge south, or 27, or the whole thing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just from the --
it's actually not Lane Valley; it's -- the road's Louise
Ehler, but when we built that road, we moved two or --
easements and created some new easements, and we're having
to undo and redo all that area now. So, just kind of a
difficult situation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, 3? That's all?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Four?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have one item that I'd like
to bring to the fore here. I know I may have mentioned to
some of you about the video teleconferencing project that
I've been working on or around, kind of, sort of, here for a
couple of three months now. I have arranged availability
7-26-04
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
through our local Extension Service of having the -- the
specialist from College Station at A & M who was -- that was
the group that originally put me onto this thing -- to do --
to be available to do a demonstration of how this thing will
operate. Potentially, what I'd like to do is get it posted
as a workshop. They could be up here on the 11th of August,
which is a Wednesday, to do this, and I'd like to get a
commitment from the Court that we can do a workshop on that
date, and -- and so I can get them committed to come up
here. I realize some of you may not have the interest in
this that I do, but once you see the possibilities, you
might come up with some real novel ideas about how this
might be a usable situation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm interested, but I
know myself, and I believe Commissioner Baldwin, will be at
a seminar in Austin that day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that does not mean
that the -- I'm not sure if any of the other Commissioners
are going. It's the TAC meeting. I'm not sure if anyone
else is going to that or not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the legislative --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Legislative one is the
11th, 12th and 13th.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The other date that was
7-26-04
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
given me was on the 12th, so that's not going to work
either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- I mean,
from my standpoint, there's enough to have a workshop. Go
ahead and do it. I can be filled in after-the-fact.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know of any
reason I can't attend. I'd like to. I don't have my
calendar with me, but I -- I'll be in town that day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know -- I
don't know of any reason not to, Judge. Whatever date you
scheduled. I do have one item, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: What -- that's on a Wednesday.
What Wednesday is the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I go the third and
fourth Wednesdays to San Antonio.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, this would be, at
best, the second, so okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is a quorum
necessary to have a workshop?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. We've done it
without a quorum. No actions are taken. I do have one
other item, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I failed to mention
~-26-04
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..-..
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that Governor Rick Perry has appointed you to be chair of
the AACOG Economic Development Environmental Review
Committee, which is a very important committee that reviews
all applications that come before it for purposes of water,
wastewater, infrastructure, parks, housing, and all sorts of
other things I'm not sure about. So, Judge Tinley is the
new chair; he's got something else to do on at least one day
a month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- what committee
is that?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's called the AACOG Regional
Review Committee, is the actual title of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You wrestled it away from
someone in San Antonio?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was -- the chair
was David Carruthers; am I correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: I, frankly, don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The chair was David
Carruthers, who was the City Manager at Karnes City. But it
is populated by city representatives and county
representatives, and I think Mayor Fine was also appointed.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's on the committee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. Congratulations.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have any other
reports from any department heads, elected officials? Okay.
7 26-04
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Looks like we -- that brings us back to the executive
session agenda. Probably, under litigation, we're going to
need our County Attorney here for this.
MR. MOTLEY: I think the Sheriff and
Mr. Maguire also need to be here on at least one issue.
Probably take it up first.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you want to take that one
up first, that will be fine.
MS. BAILEY: Before you break, can you review
the language that David and I have agreed on? Maybe we can
agree that this is the right language for that contract.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd say it in about 250
additional words.
MS. BAILEY: That's 'cause you've got more
experience than I do as a lawyer.
JUDGE TINLEY: I want to make sure it does
not trigger the provisions of that Paragraph 8.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like it. Jon, you
want to take a quick gander at this? Jon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to do a bachelor
24 of law here?
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, sir, I'm trying
7-26-04
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to quit.
MS. BAILEY: Thank you, gentlemen. I'm sorry
to interrupt.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Ilse.
Thanks for being here.
MS. BAILEY: You're welcome. See you.
(Discussion off the record.)
(The open session was closed at 11:43 a.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We're back in session -- open
session at 12:38. Is there anything to be offered in the
way of action to be taken on matters discussed in executive
session? Any other business? We'll stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:39 p.m.)
7-26-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
120
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
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 9th day of August,
2004.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y • _ ____~_______ __
Kathy B nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
22
23
24
.-,.
25
~-26-04
ORDER NO. 28727
ELECTION JUDGES
Came to be heard this the 26~' day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the appointment of Election Judges and
Alternates as presented for the term of one (1) year in accordance with the Texas
Election Code Section 32.
ORDER NO. 28728
POLLING LOCATIONS
Came to be heard this the 26`'' day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the polling locations in accordance with
Chapter 43 of the Texas Election Code and combining Precinct 320 with Precinct
314 as follows:
PRECINCT VOTING SITE LOCATION
101	Southern Oaks Baptist Church	112 Valley View Krvl
202	American Legion Hall	Corner of 480/Kelly St. CP
303	Cypress Crk Comm. Ctr	Stoneleigh Road, Comfort
404	Lone Oak Store	Hwy 479/ I-10
405	Hunt School	Hunt School Rd.
406	First Presbyterian Church	101 Web Avenue, Ingram TX
107	Heart of the Hills Fellowship	111 Camino Real, Krvl
308	Calvary Temple Church	Hwy 27 East of CP
109	Northwest Hills Com. Ctr	172 Northwest Hills Dr.
410	Divide School	
211	Union Church	Memorial Blvd., Kerrville
312	Zion Lutheran Church	624 Barnett St. Krvl
113	St. Paul's Methodist Church	Methodist Encampment
314	Courthouse	700 Main St. Krvl
215	County Extension Office	5001 San Antonio Hwy
416	Kerrville KOA Com. Center	2950 Goat Creek Rd.
417	Western Hill Baptist Church	Goat Creek Road
118	United Methodist Church	321 Thompson Dr. Krvl
119	Trinity Baptist Church	Jackson/Bluebell, Krvl
320	Red Rose Ranch	Cypress Creek
	Early Voting -Kerr County Courthouse
ORDER N0.28729
EXTENSION SERVICE SECRETARY
Came to be heard this the 26`x' day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the Lateral Transfer starting pay at a
14.2 for Jamie McClintock.
ORDER NO.28730
Road Name for Privately Maintained Roads
Came to be heard this the 26~' day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the road names for Privately
Maintained Roads in accordance with 911 Guidelines as listed.
Existing Name
8004
8001
8000
8002
8003
8005
New Name
Bella Dr. N.
Cherokee Trl SW
BJ and the Bears Path W
Kally Ln E
Joy Harvest Rd E
Glory Way E
Location
North side of Greenwood
Off Merritt Rd SW
Off Ingram Hills across from Yavo
Off Silver Hills, out 173
Off Silver Hills, out 173
Off Silver Hills, out 173
ORDER NO. 28731
FACILITIES USE AND MAINTENANCE AND EVENT CLERK
Came to be heard this the 26th day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the Lateral transfer starting pay at a
14/2 for Alyce Davidson.
ORDER NO. 28732
COUNTY LEASE PROPERTY
MOUNTAIN HOME VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT.
Came to be heard this the 26`x' day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to substitute final approval document
from the County Attorney to include the property description, the leasing a 2.1
acre property located on State Highway 27 in Mountain Home to the Mountain
Home Volunteer Fire Department.
ORDER N0.28733
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Came to be heard this the 26~' day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to memorandum of agreement
between Texas Department of Health and Kerr County concerning receipt,
storage, delivery and transfer of medical material from the Strategic National
Stockpile.
ORDER NO. 28734
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
ALAMO AREA HOUSING
Came to be heard this the 26`x' day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the Resolution authorizing the filing of a
second amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the Alamo Area Housing
Finance corporation; Appointing the County Judge or his designee as the member
of the Board of Directors of the Alamo Area Housing Finance corporation and
authorizing the County Judge to sign.
ORDER NO. 28735
RESOLUTION
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 26`x' day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the Resolution promoting a joint
study team of 2 members at large from each entity in an effort involving Kerr
County, City of Kerrville and the City of Ingram for the purpose of
identifying opportunities to improve the provision of law enforcement
services while reducing costs and that the County Judge issue a letter to each
,_. advising each law enforcement entity of such,
ORDER NO. 28736
Interlocal Agreement
Joint Management of Kerr County/Kerrville Airport
Came to be heard this the 26`x' day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the Interlocal Agreement for Joint
Management of Kerr County/Kerrville Airport.
ORDER NO.28737
Airport Management Contract
Came to be heard this the 26t" day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the Airport Management Contract
ORDER NO, 28738
AIRPORT BOARD MEMBERS
Came to be heard this the 26`~ day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the appointment of Commissioner Letz
and Commissioner Williams to the Airport Board.
ORDER N0.28739
RESOLUTION
CENTER POINT WASTEWATER SYSTEM
Came to be heard this the 26`" day of July 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the Resolution authorizing Kerr County
and Commissioner Williams to file an application with the Texas Water
Development Board for grant money to undertake planning and preliminary
engineering for a Center Point Wastewater System.
ORDER N0.28740
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 26`h day of July 2004 came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners
Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
10-GENERAL $ 94,464.45
14-FIRE $ 1,024.00
15-ROAD & BRIDGE $ 35,738.14
18-COUNTY LAW LIBRARY $ 1,223.53
50-INDIGENT HEALTH CARE $ 14,298.92
59-GENERAL CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS $ 11,337.50
62-1994 JAIL BOND $ 375.00
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: $158,461.54
Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to pay said Claims and Accounts.
ORDER N0.28741
BUDGET AMENDMENT
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 26`" day of July 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to
transfer the expenses as listed.
Expense Code Description IncreaselQDecrease
10-665-428 Reimbursed Travel $ 314.48
10-665-309 Postage $ 200.00
10-665-202 Group Insurance $ (514.48)
ORDER N0.28742
BUDGET AMENDMENT
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 26t" day of July 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to
transfer the expenses as listed.
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-409-401 autopsy & inquest $ 1,800.00
10-409-107 address coordinator $ (1,800.00)
ORDER N0.28743
BUDGET AMENDMENT
216 DISTRICT COURT
198TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 26`" day of July 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to transfer
the expenses as listed.
Expense Code	Description		
		Increase/()Decrease
10-435-401	crt appointed services	$	630.00
10-435-417	special trials	$	(630.00)
10-436-315	books-publications-dues	$	30.00
10-436-417	special trials	$	(30.00)
10-435-315	books-publications-dues	$	30.00
,-.. 10-435-417	special trials	$	(30.00)
ORDER NO.28744
BUDGET AMENDMENT
RABIES & ANIMAL CONTROL
Came to be heard this the 26th day of July 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to transfer
the expenses as listed.
Expense Code
10-642-229
10-642-202
Description
IncreaselQDecrease
vet service $ 640.75
group insurance $ (640.75)
ORDER N0.28745
BUDGET AMENDMENT
CONSTABLE PRECINCT #2
Came to be heard this the 26th day of July 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to transfer
the expenses as listed.
Expense Code
10-552-309
10-552-499
Description
Increase/()Decrease
POSTAGE $ 48.00
MISCELLANEOUS $ (48.00)
ORDER NO.28746
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 26`" day of July 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to
transfer the expenses as listed.
Expense Code Description
IncreaselQDecrease
10-512-454 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE $ 439.02
10-512-202 GROUP INSURANCE $ (439.02)
10-560-330 OPERATING EXPENSE $ 408.57
10-560-454 VEHICLE REPAIRS $ 2,440.52
10-560-202 GROUP INSURANCE $ (2,849.09)
ORDER N0.28747
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY CLERK
Came to be heard this the 26th day of July 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to
transfer the expenses as listed.
Expense Code Description
Increase/QDecrease
10-403-202 GROUP INSURANCE $ (4,800.00)
10-403-108 PART-TIME SALARY $ 4,800.00
ORDER NO. 28748
BUDGET AMENDMENT
ROAD & BRIDGE - FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR
Came to be heard this the 26'i' day of July 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to
transfer the expenses as listed.
Expense Code Description
Increase/QDecrease
15-601-487 TRAINING $ 150.00
15-601-315 BOOKS & PUBLICATIONS $ (150.00}
ORDER N0.28749
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 26`h day of July 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 the
monthly reports of the following;
Justice of the Peace # 1 and #3
Sheriffs Department