~4C'1MISSION R HURT Ar,FniDA R (JUFST
' ~ • P A~F FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL ANDS VFN c'npl S nF THIS RFCJUFST At~n nnri ~nn~-.iTc
' IO BE REVIEW D BY ~-IF ('OURT '
. ~ . ,
MADE BY: _ ~~ ~~,~-~; ~, ~~/~ OFF ICE:
~ L
~. ' ~ .MEETING DATE: ~~~~ ~' ~~ ` ~ TIME PREFERRED: .
. SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC): ~~1--~-~ /ice
~~ ~ ~ ~~
,-~' ~i' r
C,%n„ S ',7~'' /z- 77`7 .-tv. c~,~ . o _ , ' ~' ~-

ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: ~ ~ ~ h ;, Dc°~
IF PERSOIJNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING l~f-IE COUR1-:

Time For submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter Is posted in
accordance with Article 6252- 17 Is as f of lows:
• Meetings held on second Monday: a 2:00 P. M. previous Wednesday
• Meetings held on Thursdays: 5:00 P. M. previous Thursday.
If preferable, Agenda Requests may be made on office stationery with the above
Information attached.
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY: 1 ,~G
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON: _~'v~ -C/O @ -Z-'~~
All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine If
adequate information has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at
' time of Court meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards
your request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. ,
~P~"~ °~~,, KERR COUNTY
~.~~ ~• ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
S'~ ~~ Y
~' 101 Spur 100
~•~~ ,~
°°~~~ „t'~` Kerrville, Texas 78028
(512) 896-5101
HEMORANUUM
1U: Commissioners Court
FRc~l~i: David L. Litke ~.~~
l)atp: ,July 3, 1990
SUB;IECT: Sewer line fieasibility for Contour Drive, Loma Vista
Sr.ibdivic:iori, Kerrville South area.
Since our- last meeting information has b~~~en gathered concerru.ng:
1. legal feasibility of county government to construct sewer
lines,
2. financial feasibility by the county fur construction costs,
3. participation by the residents on Contour Drive if sewer
service becomes available.
In response to concerns #1 and #2: The county can construct sewer
lines as we have previously determined and the county can spend
monies for this project as lonU as. indebtedness, such as selling
bonder i~s not incur~rerl.
The county cannot force mandatory hookup upon completion of the
construction. We can provide sewer t.o those that want it as an
alternative and preferred choice to on-site disposal.
In response to #3: 1 sent letters to the residents on Contor.rr
Urive asking iF they:
1_ would like to have sewer service,
2. would be willing to participate by connecting to the sewer
] irie , and
3. have concerns or ideas on the best way to provide sewer
service.
1"Iie responses received were a].l favorable to sewer service as long
as it is affordable. Cost was a major concern in all the
responses.
Recommendation:
Recommendation:
1. CoriLirnaF~ with tl~e pl,~rr Lo provide sewer service on Contour
Drive.
I. rlut.l~~>r.i.z~ L.Irf:~ t,r~~l-,;r,:~l,iun of cc-~-rsLruction spe<;ificationa for
bids for a sewer line to run the entire length of Contour
Drive.
3. Allot monies i.n next years budget to construct the sewer line.
CrAate line items in the budget for receiving fees and paying
out costs.
4. Etablish baseline fee for the homeowners so they know what to
expect.
Determining a fair across the br_ard cost per owner is difficult
due to tkre many variables involved primarily due to the phases of
construction, different types of dwelling units and possible
expansion in tl7e future.
C would rec~~mmwnd the Commissionf=rs Court set a base line cost of
construction per livirie~ unit rather than per lot.
Example for one house:
School Fee
City Fee
$ 500
SUU
Construction Fee
flow estimate only)
Plumbing costs
hfonthly sewer service
rate approximate based
on 6,UUU galJmonth
2900
(variable per location)
4U
$ 39U0 on up per living unit