lt~_m i~a~?n ~e ~=~

~. ~ ~ :y .L ;:1 E; i ' r'' C' i.; Ci ttii id ~~ t; C r :: G 1. t.-i i I i! i_ C u IYl Rl 1 1~ r_ t~ Ci r ' ~n r_ C ` i:i ~~ ~: ~-t I , t_: rr ~~ i' t_. Q I_t Yl t~ ~
ln~1T1{:_ilPir?i~ -•C<<~C75e
_. r; 1 `_ i !~ _• RI ldc`t =: i~ 7. •_. ,._ It =: e C] r.:t"i; G ~r I_LCJ i.~ E• :::i% ctC::''y' W v I_t :. i~ 1 1 't: is c't 1 ~~ "t~ .i. C'
rli o r- ~~ .~ i rr, e .r n r e 'v ~. ~ w 't: F ~ t- t::; r m ra i 't t e ~ ~ •_ i -• r c i:, !n !n i~ r F i~ ~<'r 1 c~~ r ; ~ ~_. P ~
t~ o I_i r = t f F, F• i .s i t ~. ~> a q t; i; d c~ c, c• I_i m E, ri 't: > =~ I.i t: G•~ a 1_i :t d :i 3. i ; c~ .r c, __. E~ ~ t. i ~~ r.
• ~ J ~ ~ i" ::t J. i. i" '~ ~ fR 11 T' st 1 i ^ 4 ` l1 li'1 t' ~~'
't; i ~ i :3 >:1 ~. iJ a ;-. r. a.J ...., ..~ rd .- _ _. __ iJ _ , s i' 1_, U I_t'r ~ ~., l^: 7. 't f'~5
ct ~ 1 i, ~, 1 E• (:J 1 T t' ~' 'r ~ F i;'~: ). i:~ i; ~ It ~t ~ it 1- ti "r ` '~: ~"s e+"t~ S ~' is t~ 7. G i i . i fl 1 ty 1 't i:' in 1 +_ T C~
!:~ rj iil :;• i:7 ct (_ ~ t:i L.l'r' "i.; (: Tl '+: i i i? ii r? k t J 13 rs s_i 3;"'y' 01 E.•i t? ~:. 1 ;'i ?:~ ,
k t _. :.
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
* PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND FIVE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND
DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT
MADE BY: Franklin Johnston, P.E OFFICE: Road & Bridc,~e Department
Leonard Odom, Jr.
MEETING DATE: December 7.1993 TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC): Consider recomendation of committee for
acceptance of County maintained roads
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: YES
N O XX
PLEASE STATE REASON : Acceptance of recommendation.
STIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: 10 Minutes
PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Franklin Johnson P.E./Leonard
Odom, Jr.
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance
with Article 6252-17 is as follows:
Meetings held on second Tuesday: 12:00 P.M. previous Wednesday
` Meetings held on Thursdays : 5:00 P.M. previous Thursday
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:

All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate
-formation has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of
,ourt meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards your request
being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Guidelines.)
ACCEPTANCE OF
~- NON-COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS
On May 4, 1993, the Kerr County Commissioners asked Leonard Odom, Jr. and
Franklin Johnston, P.E. to form a committee to study Kerr County policy for accepting
non-county roads into the Kerr County Road Maintenance Program. Representatives of
education, finance, real estate, engineering, surveying, safety and Commissioners' Court
were brought together to represent a wide range of Kerr County citizens and their
interests.
This committee met June 2 and June 9, 1993. After careful consideration and
review, the Committee agreed on the following recommendations for prese~itation to the
Kerr County Commissioners' Court.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT
I. USE COURT ORDER #16776 FOR ALL ROADS PUT IN BEFORE 1984.
Court Order #16776
August 11, 1986.
Guidelines for acceptance of roads to he corrrrty maintained, re~ardirag roads
constructed prior to adoption of Kerr Cotarty "Strhdivisron Kules and Regr~lations"
On this the 11th day of August 1986, upon motion made by Commissioner Lich,
seconded by Commissioner Guthrie, the Court unanimously approved guidelines
submitted by Kerr County Road Adnunistrator, Jack C. Smith, for "Accepting Roads to
be County Maintained", regarding roads constricted prior to the adoption of KERR
COUNTY "SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS" that became effective
January 1st, 1984 and amendments to the regulations that were approved by the
Commissioners' Court on April 9th, 1984.
Page 1
ACCEPTING ROADS TO BE COUNTY MAINTAINED
There exists a need to establish a set of rules, regulations and procedures in order to
incchrporate roads constructed by developers prior to the established subdivision rules
and regulations into our county road system. The following specifications will govern
the acceptance.
1. The proper width of the right-of--way shall be dedicated to the County.
2. MAT(~R STREETS: Minimum width of right-of--way to be sixty feet. Minimum
width of surface to be 20 feet with a 3 foot shoulder having a 3 :1 slope to center
of the ditch. Minimum width from center line of ditch to center line of ditch to be
no less than 32'0". Minimum base coverage to he 6" in depth and 20' feet wide
with 3" crown.
3. SECONDARY STREETS: Minimum width ofright-of--way to be fifty feet.
Minimum width of surface to be 18 feet with a 3 foot shoulder having a 3:1 slope
to center of ditch. Minimum width from center line of ditch to center line of ditch
._. to be'no less than 30'0". Minimum base coverage to be 6" in depth and ] 8 feet
wide with 3" crown.
4. MINOR STREETS: Minimum width of right-of--way to be forty feet. Minimum
width of surface to be 18 feet with a 3 foot shoulder having a 3:1 slope to center
of ditch. Minimum width from center line of ditch to center line of ditch to be no
less than 30'0". Minimum base coverage to be 6" in depth and 18 feet wide with
3" crown.
5. STREET NAMES: Street/Roads which are in alignment with existing county
streets/roads shall bear the same name. All other streets/roads shall be assigned a
name agreeable to all concerned property owners. In no case shall the name
duplicate existing streets/roads names nor shall like sounding street names be
permitted, regardless of difference in spelling or suffixes (I.E., Street, Roads,
Avenue, Lane, Place, etc.)
ALL COST TO BRING ANY ROAD UP TO T1`IESE SPECIFICATIONS
SHALL BE AT EXPENSE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
Page 2
__ II. USE THE CURRENT KERR COUNTY SUBDIVISION RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR THOSE ADDED AFTER JANUARY 1, 1984.
1. It is strongly advised that the "Subdivision Regulations" he used during the platting
process of private roads. Any private road that is to be built outside of the County
specifications should have a disclaimer placed on the plat.
(Example: It is specifically understood that these are private roads. These roads will not
be submitted to Kerr County for County maintenance at this time or in the future. If at
any time these roads are submitted to Kerr County for maintenance, such roads must be
improved to comply with the subdivision regulations of Kerr County at the time of such
submission for acceptance and that the cost of such improvements to the road will be the
sole responsibility of the then owners of the tracts in the subdivision.)
l
2. All platted roads should be inspected by the Kerr County Engineer before the
platting process is completed.
3. Any intersections of roads or driveways adjacent to State Highway is subject to
prior approval by Texas Department of Transportation. All plats with such an
intersection should have a signature block for the TxDOT Engineer.
III. SHOULD MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT ACCEPTING
ROADS OUTSIDE OF THESE GUIDELINES, THE COMMISSIONERS
COURT HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO FUND THE ROADS BEFORE
THEY ARE BROUGHT INTO THE KERR COUN'i~' MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM. THIS FUNDING TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE ROAD &
BRIDGE'S ANNUAL BUDGET.
1. Sales Tai to fund the program
2. General Revenue - ad valorem taxes
3. Assess the cost of repairs to the landowners.
(Example: Attorney General Opinion DM-126 - SL1N1 MARY: A commissioners
court which orders improvements to a road in an unincorporated area of the county as
the result of an election held under article 6702-3, V.T.C.S., may delegate the details
of the process of collecting the assessment against the affected property owners, and it
may also determine the precise formulas for calculating the assessment, with special
regard for the particular benefits which will accrue to each property owner. The costs
of holding the election and collecting the revenues may not be assessed against the
property owners.)
Page 3
__
COMMITTEE SUMMARY -Every citizen in Kerr County made a choice when
he/she purchased property. With this choice they also chose a standard which was
reflected in the price of the property. It is not the responsibility of Government to
upgrade this'standard by improving thr r•nads, but fh;rt of each property owner.
Respectfully submitted by;
-,
>,.
Wayn~'hehl v'
Roadway Maintenance Supervisor
Teas Department of Tratnsportation
_~-~
toA WI~Cil180n
Vice-'resident Reai, estate
First National Bank
t~
d Administrator
~/,
i es F.ngr•Inr,rnn
pcrintcrirlcnl
uni Schoc~lti
,~
Lee Voelkcl
Kcrr County Sr~rveyor
~.. .
~'

Franklin Johnston, P. F:.
Kerr Connt.~~ f~:ngineer•
• h m a rr ________ . ___- ___._
Kerr County Conunissioncr, r'rt•c~;r.cf 1
1'1~;r~ ~4