|
COMANCHE -- The tradition of unanimous
voting on all matters great and small fell by the wayside at the
latest Commissioners Court meeting.
New Commissioners Jimmy Dale Johnson and
Kenneth Feist exhibited their independent thinking on two separate
issues as they voted against a longer tenured Commissioner and the
recommendations of other county officials.
Despite the unusual lack of agreement in
the voting, there were no apparent hard feelings, only a difference of
opinion.
The Commissioners Court met on Monday,
April 9, to consider a relatively light agenda. County Judge James
Arthur presided, with Commissioners Garry Steele, Kenneth Feist and
Jimmy Dale Johnson attending. Commissioner Bobby Schuman was unable
to attend.
Other county officials present and
participating included Sheriff Jeff Lambert, County Clerk Ruby Lesley,
County Attorney Charles Williams, County Auditor Joey Boswell, County
Treasurer Billy Ruth Rust and County Emergency Services Coordinator
Ray Helberg.
Judge Arthur opened the meeting with an
invocation and then Ruby Lesley read the minutes of the previous
meeting. The minutes were approved as read on a unanimous vote.
DPS Trooper Vernon Gaines was not present
for the agenda item "to discuss rental agreement on radar." The
matter was passed without discussion.
County Road Designation Controversy
The next order of business concerned the
status of Pettit Road in Precinct 3 off of Highway 2486 near Energy.
The road in question has long been in use, has an official county road
sign and was included in the official map of county roads adopted last
year when the Commissioners officially designated all
county-maintained roadways. It was omitted, however, from the
official notices of county roads published in newspapers and included
in the tax statements sent to property owners.
Most of the audience in the county
courtroom, who were not present as county employees, were involved in
the dispute over Pettit Road. Many had also been present two weeks
earlier when the matter was first addressed by the Commissioners and
then tabled for further research and consideration.
When the agenda item first came up for
consideration, Judge Arthur asked whether it should be again
postponed, since the road in question is in Bobby Schuman's precinct
and he was absent.
Garry Steele responded, "I think we
should go ahead and do it, Judge."
County Attorney Charles Williams
addressed the Commissioners and expressed his opinion that the
Commissioners Court was the initial administrative venue on matters
involving issues surrounding the county road designation process. He
said the Court should take a position regarding conflicts between the
official county road map as adopted and the roadways listed in the
official notices provided to the public and affected landowners.
Williams emphasized that the matter was
procedural rather than factual and that the specifics of the subject
road controversy was not as important as setting a policy on whether
the map or the notices were of greater importance in making official
determinations.
Williams noted that both he and County
Clerk Ruby Lesley had researched the matter in recent days and found
evidence on both sides of the dispute. He reminded that the
appropriate decision should not involve the specifics of the
particular road dispute, but rather a decision on how all similar
conflicts between the official map and the official noticing process
would be resolved, which of the two elements would be considered as
primary.
Williams noted that one side or another
would be unhappy with the results of the decision and that they could
then seek redress either in the Commissioners Court through procedures
under the state's Road and Bridge Act, or take their disagreement and
evidence directly to District Court, where the matter would ultimately
be decided.
Williams said the decision would tie up
legal loose ends regarding the official road designation process.
Only after that decision was made should the specifics of the road in
question be addressed, and not necessarily by the Commissioners.
Despite Williams' repeated advice,
however, both the audience members and the Commissioners focused most
of their discussion on the specific issues surrounding Pettit Road.
Commissioner Garry Steele asked if the
parties have the right to ask for a Jury of View. Williams said there
were several avenues of process that can be followed under the Road
and Bridge Act, one of which included petitioning the Commissioners
Court and that could lead to the employment of a Jury of View.
Williams repeated that people were
entitled to know whether the County was officially claiming a road as
a county road when there is a conflict between the officially adopted
map and the notice process. Once that decision has been made, then
they could know how to proceed.
In the Commissioners meeting two weeks
earlier, Williams had expressed his opinion that the notice process
should carry the most legal weight, and that if there was a conflict
between the map and the notice, that the notice should prevail. He
noted that if proper notice had never been provided to the public and
landowners, that the public use designation process was flawed and
failed to meet the standards under state law.
Questions and comments were addressed to
the Commissioners by Craig and David Willingham and Josh Mahaffey, the
primary parties involved in the dispute, as well as Tom White, a title
attorney from Hamilton, and Jack Pettit.
Pettit stated his opinion that the road
was not a public road and cited the county's past unwillingness to
maintain the road when requested, with the private nature of the
roadway cited as reason why.
White indicated that earlier title
research had been based on the belief that the roadway was public.
The Willinghams noted that the county map
was not accurately drawn and again noted that no notice had been
provided of the county's intent to designate the road as public.
Mahaffey stated his opinion that the road
was public and should be so designated.
On more than one occasion during the
extended discussion, Williams reminded everyone that the matter to be
decided in the current meeting did not involve the specifics of Pettit
Road, but rather an administrative determination as to whether the
official county road map or the notice process was primary in
determining the county's claim to public access for maintenance
purposes. "We're not a District Court trying a property case," he
stated.
Garry Steele offered his opinion
regarding the importance of the public notice in the road designation
process, in agreement with the position taken by Charles Williams.
Steele added, however, that he was having a problem ignoring the facts
as presented in the Pettit Road controversy.
Jimmy Dale Johnson restated the question
before the Commissioners, "It's either go by the map or go by the
written notice. Is that our choices?"
Williams responded affirmatively.
Johnson then asked Kenneth Feist what he
thought. Feist responded, "I think we need to go by the map." He
added that he had never seen the written notice and that all he had to
go by was the map.
David Willingham addressed the Court
noting that if they went by the map and not the notice, that it placed
an unreasonable burden on property owners, requiring all to come to
the courthouse to examine the map book rather than rely upon public
notices.
Willingham added that he had even come to
the courthouse and, along with Judge Arthur, checked the earlier map
of county roads and not found Pettit Road shown or included in the
public notice. He had left assuming that it was not involved in the
public road designation process.
Judge Arthur noted that the map
that had been checked was an old map that had been on the wall of his
office for several years, and not the official map.
Jimmy Dale Johnson said he had a copy of
the same map at his office and that its inaccuracies had already
gotten him into trouble.
Garry Steele said that neither the maps
nor the list were guaranteed to be completely accurate.
When Johnson asked him for his opinion,
Steele reiterated his belief that the list of roads in the public
notice should be considered as the more legally binding. He added
that anybody could come up to the courthouse and look at five
different maps and none would be completely accurate. "To me the
legal notice is the legal notice," Steele stated. "Whether it's right
or wrong, I'm not stating that. But I'm saying if this notice was not
sent to the property owners, they did not know to come to the hearing
and express their opinions for or against."
Steele later added that his preference
that the notice was more important than the map did not necessarily
agree with his opinion regarding whether Pettit Road was public or
not.
After further discussion and advice from
Charles Williams, Jimmy Dale Johnson expressed his opinion. "I'm
going along with Kenneth. We go by the map."
Garry Steele reiterated his opinion that
the notice was the legal means by which property owners should have
been informed. "That's where I stand on it."
Judge Arthur recapped the
situation. "We've got two on the maps, and one on the notice." He
later added, "Well I'm going to have to agree with the County
Attorney. I think it's the notice."
Garry Steele asked, "Do we have a tied
court?"Judge Arthur responded, "We have two and two."
When Johnson asked whether the matter
should be reconsidered by the full Court membership, Judge Arthur
responded, "I think we are going to have to reconsider it in two more
weeks. I think that's where I stand."
As many of the audience members began
leaving the courtroom, Garry Steele noted that even though they had a
disagreement, he appreciated the two new Commissioners voting their
conscience.
Miscellaneous Business
Following a brief break in the meeting,
Garry Steele described a problem that had been noted regarding the
access to the EMS parking area had been occasionally blocked by parked
cars. The Commissioners agreed that signs needed to be prepared and
installed warning against parking in the EMS parking driveway. Jimmy
Dale Johnson volunteered to prepare the signs. Security and door
locks for the Courthouse Annex building were also discussed.
Garry Steele spoke in support of a
request by Yme Bosma to lay a waterline in county right of way on CR
127 & 135 in Precinct 1. He offered a motion to approve the request,
seconded by Jimmy Dale Johnson, and the vote of approval was
unanimous.
Jimmy Dale Johnson reported to the
Commissioners that the rock crusher discussed as a possible joint
purchase among the precincts had been placed for bidding on the
internet with a minimum bid of $75,000. Johnson said he thought the
price was too high and that the crusher only could handle rocks of one
foot or less in diameter.
The other Commissioners agreed, but
expressed continued interest in the idea if a suitable crusher could
be located.
Juvenile Curfew Rescinded
Sheriff Lambert next brought up a
juvenile, under age 17, curfew resolution that the Commissioners Court
had adopted almost three years earlier.
Lambert said the law requires the
curfew resolution to be either re-authorized, modified or discontinued
by its third anniversary.
When asked by Jimmy Dale Johnson if he
wanted it or not, Lambert responded, "It's a good tool. We haven't a
whole lot of curfew violations."
Lambert explained that the curfew has
exceptions for legitimate purposes. He added that it was helpful when
juveniles were suspected of being involved in "stealing road signs,
drinking, and stuff like that."
Garry Steele commented, "I think it ought
to be kept in force."
Jimmy Dale Johnson noted that when
he was young that driving the county roads at night was one of the
primary forms of entertainment.
Judge Arthur commented with a wry
smile that he was always home studying at night as others in the
courtroom got a laugh.
Kenneth Feist said he had mixed emotions
on the subject of the juvenile curfew. He said he didn't think the
ordinance would stop anyone from getting into trouble that was going
to anyway. He said the curfew just gave law enforcement another
reason to stop somebody.
Feist stated, "The only reason I'm
griping about it, is because I've had some of my grandkids down from
the farm down there deer hunting at night, and they got stopped, and
they had all kinds of trouble." He added that they weren't road
hunting, but that they had been stopped on two separate occasions.
Feist added, "To me, the law has got so
much enforcement over these kids, that they can't even go from one
place to another without getting in trouble over it. I mean, it's
happened to my grandkids twice. That's the only reason I feel we
don't need any more ordinances against our kids!"
Jimmy Dale Johnson then related an
incident when two young boys were stopped and the only thing the game
warden could charge them with was possession of cigarettes. "Is that
kosher?" he asked. "Is that legal?"
Sheriff Lambert responded, "Yes."
Kenneth Feist said, "It's kind've
nitpicky," as Johnson added his agreement to Feist's assessment.
Johnson asked the Sheriff if it would tie
his hands on law enforcement if he didn't get a renewal or the
resolution.
Lambert said it would not and added that
all he was trying to find out was what the Commissioners wanted to do.
Johnson then made a motion to not approve
the renewal of the juvenile curfew resolution. Feist seconded. The
vote was two in favor and Garry Steele opposed.
Lake Deputy Contract Renewed
Sheriff Lambert then presented for
approval a contract with the Corps of Engineers to provide a deputy
devoted for law enforcement at the parks on Proctor Lake. He
explained to the new Commissioners that the contract was a routine,
annual affair that covered the period May 18 through September 15.
Lambert added that the deputy could be
called off of the lake to help out if there was a major problem
elsewhere in the county.
Jimmy Dale Johnson asked if the
county made money on the contract and Sheriff Lambert responded that
the Corps was charged the county's actual costs, which included salary
and related personnel costs, vehicle mileage at 41.5 cents per mile
and a provision for a 10% administrative add on.
Garry Steele offered a motion to approve
the contract, Kenneth Feist seconded, and the vote of approval was
unanimous.
Veterans Service Officer Vacancy Not
Filled
The next order of business involved the
vacant Veterans Service Officer position recently created by Truman
Childress’ retirement.
Judge Arthur noted that he had an
application from James Coats, who was present in the courtroom, and
one other to fill the position.
Kenneth Feist expressed his opinion that
the county did not need a Veterans Service Officer and that the
vacancy should not be filled.
Garry Steele said he did not know if
there was sufficient need or interest to warrant the cost of
continuing the service.
Jimmy Dale Johnson agreed and asked that
if there are those who feel the service should be continued that they
should call one of the Commissioners.
Kenneth Feist expressed his opinion that
veterans could access government benefits without having a local
service officer.
Garry Steele said he would like to take a
wait and see attitude on the matter.
Judge Arthur stated that the government
doesn't help the county one iota on the cost of the Veterans Service
Officer and added that most of the veterans he knew about went to
Brownwood to apply for benefits.
Jim Coats was asked for his opinion and
stated that there were 1,600 veterans currently receiving government
benefits which brings in around $2 million into the county each year.
He added that there were many new veterans being created by the
current world situation.
Garry Steele added that Vietnam veterans
were approaching the age where they would be accessing the benefits
more.
There was general agreement among the
Commissioners Court, however, that the matter needed further study
before any action to hire a replacement should be taken.
Garry Steele offered a motion to table
the matter, Kenneth Feist seconded and the vote in favor was
unanimous.
Hospital Contract Proposal Approved
Sheriff Lambert next presented a copy of
a proposed agreement between the Comanche County Consolidated Hospital
District and the Comanche County Sheriff's Department regarding a
service agreement for care of local inmates.
The agreement provided that the Sheriff's
Department would be billed at a 38% discount for hospital and medical
services provided under the agreement, which had a term of April
through December 2007.
Lambert said he had only received it that
same day and had taken a look at it and that it seemed to be in line
with earlier discussions.
The discussion regarding the proposed
contract was generally favorable.
Commissary and inmate trust funds were
also discussed after Sheriff Lambert noted that he had an Attorney
General's opinion that a former non-indigent inmate who had incurred
medical costs and never repaid the county that if subsequently
re-arrested, some of the inmate's commissary funds could be taken to
help satisfy the earlier debt.
Lambert also discussed steps he planned
to take to insure that indigent inmates would get qualified for
no-cost medical treatment.
Garry Steele said he thought the solution
was workable and added that he believed that before long the total
responsibility for indigent health care would fall to the counties.
Kenneth Feist made a motion to approve
the proposed agreement and to authorize the Sheriff to sign it. Jimmy
Dale Johnson seconded and the vote of approval was unanimous.
Sheriff’s Report
Sheriff Lambert noted that the jail is
$55,000 ahead of where it was at this time last year, however, the
inmate count has been down for the last week or two. He expressed his
belief that the Texas Department of Corrections had opened up some
beds in state jail and that it had produced the temporary drop in
county inmates. Joey Boswell expressed concern about the future loss
of inmates from Parker and Lampassas counties.
Sheriff Lambert noted that he had heard
concerns expressed that the inmates were being fed too well. He noted
that the average cost of inmate meals in February was only $1.43.
Lambert added it still totaled to a lot of dollars, but that it was
still a low average meal cost, and yet he had heard from inmates that
the Comanche County Jail was one of the better feeding jails in this
area.
The Commissioners approved payment of
accounts due and owing of $83,530.17 and salaries and related benefits
coming due prior to the next Commissioners meeting on April 23. |
