Kerr County delays decision on part‑time fire marshal after public debate over battery storage and costs

The Kerr County Commissioners Court on Feb. 9 deferred action on contracting a part‑time county fire marshal and adopting a permit and fee schedule while it seeks further legal guidance.

The court had no motion or second after initial discussion and instead said it would return to the issue at a later meeting, asking for additional legal review and a consultant’s follow‑up. County leaders said they had received counsel and will continue deliberations before bringing a formal resolution back to the court.

Why it matters: Commissioners framed the proposal as a tool to enforce safety and to respond to proposals for battery energy‑storage systems (BESS) in the county. Supporters told the court a marshal would give the county technical authority and enforcement capabilities; opponents warned of budget and regulatory consequences if the county adopts a fire code or expands enforcement responsibilities.

Public comments highlighted the divisions. Beck Gibson, a former county commissioner who addressed the court, said the legal framework associated with a fire marshal could open new regulatory requirements that demand additional staff and budget. “I’m concerned about budget,” Gibson said, adding that adopting a code can trigger other state rules and oversight responsibilities.

Several residents who oppose battery projects pressed the court to act. Audrey Burner, a Kerr County resident, praised commissioner efforts to oppose battery installations and urged swift action, saying those projects pose risks to the Hill Country. “You have taken hours talking with other commissioners, fire marshals, experts, and others trying to protect our hill country and our residents,” Burner said in support of hiring a marshal to address battery storage concerns.

Other speakers raised different concerns about unintended consequences. John Miller Jr., a 53‑year county resident, warned that adopting a fire code or formal marshal role could impose additional costs on small businesses and compel the county to staff a larger enforcement operation.

Court response and next steps: Commissioners said they want a unified approach and solid legal footing before taking action. One commissioner noted that the attorney who advised them is scheduled to return on Feb. 23 to provide additional guidance. The court formally deferred the motion and will revisit the issue at a future meeting after reviewing counsel’s recommendations.