/^

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29'
i
2511
COMMISSIONERS' COURT
Regular Session
Monday, August 10, 1998
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
Fded~Day o1A0.19q~Zfh1E
&WE EEKER
Clerk County Court. Kerr County, Taws
BY .
PRESENT: ROBERT A. DENSON, County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
T. H. "BUTCH" LACKEY, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 9



1		I N D E X	
			PAGE
2	1.1	Pay bills	3
3	1.2	Budget Amendments	5
9	1.3	Late Bills	--
5	1.9	Read and Approve Minutes	15
6	1.5	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	15
7	2.1	Subdivision Rules - Revision of Plats	16
8	2.2	Cypress Springs Concept Plan	23
9	2.3	Tract 20, Japonica Hills Subdivision	63
10	2.4	Thompson Drive Extension/Moore Lake Road	70
11	2.5	Commanche Trace Concept Plan	71
12	2.6	Removal of Special Notes - Ace Acres	78
13	2.7	Step/Grade fox Promotion of Jailer	83
19	2.8	Benefits - Part-time jail employees	88
15	2.9	Designation of Polling Places	91
16	2.10	Interlocal Agreements: Mental Health and	
		Chemical Dependency Commitments - KSH	92
17			
	2.11	Maintenance Supervisor-time clock purchase	96
18			
	2.12	Resolution - Tobacco Litigation	98
19			
	2.13	Texas Dept. of Public Safety - Deny Driver's	
20		License Renewal on FTA for Class C Misdemeanor	99
21	2.19	Burn Ban	100
22	2.15	Kerr County Fair Association	102
23	2.16	Kerr County Participation - Golf Course improve-
		ments, water & sewer extension to airport	103
24			
	2.17	Scheduling Final Budget Workshops	106
25			
	2.18	Electrical Problems - First Floor Annex	112




1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9~i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
On Monday, August 10, 1998, at approximately 9:00 a.m.,
a regular session of 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 DENSON: Good morning. It's August the 10th.
I think it's, like, 9 o'clock. We have our regular
Commissioners' Court meeting this morning for the month of
August. And, before we get started, we'll have an invocation
and pledge of allegiance, and this morning Commissioner Letz
will in charge of the invocation. If you'll please stand.
(Invocation and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you. We need to pay some
bills. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I have two
questions. Actually, I have about 40, but I'm going to spare
you. On page 12 -- this is exactly the wrong time to ask
this question with TexDot folks here, but Road and Bridge --
MR. TUCKER: We're watching.
JUDGE DENSON: What invoice ox --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hold on a second. It's
third from the bottom, 92689.
JUDGE DENSON: Jim Rediker.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Removing two large
oak trees, 5600. We're -- it just -- I just don't understand
3
/'^

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
when we have staff.
MS. HARDIN: We didn't have the equipment to do it
safely and properly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't have chainsaws?
MS. HARDIN: We have chainsaws, but it needed a
bucket truck. We tried to get KPUB to go out and do it, and
they weren't able to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then on page 29, I just
don't understand -- reimburse for balance on bill to Y. 0.
Ranch. What does that mean? For the adult probation?
That's the second from the the bottom there.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the -- first of all, this is
-- what it is is the -- the State probation officer,
Probation Officers' Association had a conference at the Y O.,
and that's what it's for. And then these are -- this is not
16A a County-funded fund, anyway.
17	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:	Well, I understand that.
18	But when it comes through here,	I'm still going	to ask a
19	question about it.		
20	MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.		
21	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:	And we have --	well,
22	nevermind. I'm not going to tal	k about the sudd	en 52,500
23	training expenses in the Sheriff	's Department.	Go ahead.
29	That's all, sir.		
25	JUDGE DENSON: Well, I	have a question	based on
~ ~I 9


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
your question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is exciting.
JUDGE DENSON: Where is the firewood?
MS. HARDIN: The man who removes the tree also
removes the wood.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, so the price doubles.
MS. HARDIN: Sorry?
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I'll second it.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, thank you. Further comments?
Questions? All in favor?
{The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That includes indigent.
JUDGE DENSON: That includes indigent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All $39,161.
MR. TOMLINSON: We do have to have a budget
amendment for that. You have it in your packet.
JUDGE DENSON: And it looks like we do have a few
budget amendments. Number 1, Sheriff's Department.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Along with that, I have --
I have two late bills. One is to Ackman Pharmacy for
$713.89, and one to Dr. Terry Harvey for $1,350. These are
all medical expenses for inmates at the jail. I think this
-- this amendment is self-explanatory. I have the bills here
~ (~ 5
/'~

,~-~
1'.
2'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
if you -- if you have any questions about any of the specific
bills. Transfer 5300 from cooks' salaries, 511,582.96 from
full-time salaries, 5600 from secretary salaries, 51,595 from
maintenance contracts, and 536,000 from nurse's salary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 53,600?
MR. TOMLINSON: 53,600, I mean. 54,000 to go into
the telephone line item; 5250~drug dog expense line item;
$6,098.91 into part-time salaries, 5600 into prisoner
supplies; 52,500 into prisoner medical expenses; and
$9,229.05 into operating expenses.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then what about the new
ones, Ackman Pharmacy and Dr. Harvey?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's part of the -- that's part
of the medical -- the 52,500 into current expenses under the
-- it's the second item. That's -- that's part of that
52,500. And I didn't -- the reason I brought it up, they're
late bills and we want a hand -- you know, hand check for
those.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Motions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess about -- it's more of a
comment, and I think Tommy's probably done it; I'll just ask
to make sure. Overall, the amendment -- what we're doing is
we're taking money from salaries and putting it in a lot of
other operating expenses, which means that we underbudgeted
in a lot of categories in Sheriff and the jail?
!-, U 6
/'`
r'^
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next year's budget will reflect
-- I mean, these amounts were included in our current budget
estimate for next year, so we're not underbudgeting again?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's hard to answer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know you can't guarantee it.
I just want to make sure -- we still haven't finalized the
budget -- that we make sure that these items that we're
underbudgeting, that we really take a close look at them and
make sure we at least have what we spent this year in next
year's budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: I guess I can answer that by saying
we need to revisit those two budgets at some point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to be, I think
later on today, setting another budget workshop. And prior
to that, could you take a look at the Sheriff's and Jail's
budget to make sure that we're not underbudgeting again on
some of these operating accounts?
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
JUDGE DENSON: You've got a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I said so move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments? All in favor?
~ A 7
/'`

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13,
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion was carried
MR. TOMLINSON: Number
indigent health care bill. There
that -- for that expenditure. We
emergency and -- and pay this out
indigent health care fund. We do
by unanimous vote.)
2 is in relation to the
are no funds budgeted for
need to declare an
of surplus funds out of the
have the cash to pay it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I got a motion, Letz; second,
Oehler.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so it's -- we're going
to go to the surplus fund in that -- in that fund.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not the general fund?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not breaking the
budget on this thing, only for that one.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what -- at what point do
we go to the State and say, we're over?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not sure I remember this
correctly, but it's $630,000 or some -- in that neighborhood.
I don't remember exactly.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
8


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: 3?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, 3 is for nondepartmental. We
have autopsies, $2,366. I've searched high and low for
places out of that department to pay for this, and I -- I
just -- I just think we need to take it from surplus. That's
the only thing I can see to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 4?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 9 is for the 216th
and the 198th District Court. I have late bills that I need
hand checks for for this. One is for 511,070, and it's to
Albert Pattillo and it's for legal services for the Daniel
Reneau case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that case under appeal?
Isn't that case -- or is this -- that was awhile back, I
think.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, no, it's -- the bills are
from March -- yeah, from March through July.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it must be an appeal.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Okay. Then the other one is
-- one is from John Ward. It's for $5,355.98. It's for the
-- it's for legal services for the Jeffrey Haufler case.
9
/"`
r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's really an old one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know when we went through the
budget -- back to next year's budget again -- again, on this
one, I know we tried to account the best we could for
Court-appointed attorneys for those courts based on the cases
we knew that were pending. I don't recall that we discussed
appeals. And I think we probably have at least two capital
murder cases that are in that appeal process. You might want
to check with the Judge to make sure. I mean, I have no idea
how much those appeals are going to cost, but an $11,000 bill
coming up sure is going to be expensive.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we -- the total for Court
appointments through this month is 5103,000 in the 216th
court, and it's almost 590,000 in the other court, in the
198th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is lust more, kind of,
for the public a little bit. In next year's budget, we have
put in -- and it's probably a conservative number -- 550,000
for the Lich murder case, lust to give you an idea how much
those cases cost the County when the defendant's indigent.
Fifty thousand probably will not be enough to handle that one
case in the 216th. Anyway, another thing when we go through
the next workshop we might want to look at these again with
these appeals and get an idea how much it's going to run up
10
~'"~
r
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
on the bills on the Renno and the other case.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE DENSON: Motion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'd like to point out
that we are going into the general revenue surplus reserves
at this point.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For about $40,000 in the
district courts.
JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 5?
MR. TOMLINSON: 5 is fox Juvenile Probation. We --
I have -- we have bills totaling 5787.50, and they're also
for Court appointments, for attorney ad litem fees. That's
5787.50. 5959 fox vehicle insurance, S97 from capital
outlay, and 5231.50 from computer software.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Second by Commissioner Lackey. All
in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 6?
!"- ~~ 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13~~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is for the Commissioners'
Court. And it's -- I have a bill from Allison Bass ~
Associates for $62.50, and it's -- it's in relation to the
Carmen Soria versus Kerr County case that they -- it's an
ongoing case that they're working on. And there's -- there
is no -- no funds in that line item to pay this bill, so
that's another $62.50 that we need to take from surplus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have that in
contingency, that much?
MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently not. I mean, Mindy
didn't put it in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What case is this?
MR. TOMLINSON: Carmen Soria, an employee
some-three years ago -- two years ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 7 is for courthouse
maintenance. It's a transfer of $4,000 from part-time
salaries into jail repairs and maintenance, $200 from
conferences to telephone.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments? All in favoz?
~~ ~~ 12


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 8?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, 8 is for the 216th and 198th
District Court. It's a transfer of 5100 from miscellaneous
in each court to office supplies.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: So moved.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Second. Questions? Comments? Ali
in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 9?
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 9 is for the tax collector,
transfer 5367.02 from conversion cost, which is a software
conversion line item. $298.50 to maintenance contracts, and
$568.52 to books, publications, and dues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Commissioner Lackey has got a
second. Questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 10?
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 10 is for the Commissioners'
Court for professional services. 51,196.10 to come from
general fund surplus, and it's bills from Tom Pollard, our
,,-~ ~~ 1 3

/~
n
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2?
26
2~
civil attorney, for the month of July.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Again, there's no other place
we -- so moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Motion and second. Further
questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 11?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, 11 is for the 216th and 198th
District Court. Actually, it's -- it's court appointments
that we -- that came in after we did the first amendment that
we talked about a while ago, Number 9. And, one is for 5500
and one is for 5880.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a second. Further
questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 12?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, Number 12 is for Juvenile
Probation. We have a bill for 5250; it's an attorney ad
litem fee. We're requesting a transfer of 5250 from
retirement line item for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
14



1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second by
Commissioner Lackey. Further questions? Comments? All in
favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: These attorneys are eating us alive,
aren't they?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, they are.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. Any late bills, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE DENSON: We need to read and approve minutes.
I need a motion to waive reading.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I so move. And I've read
them.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Have I got a second?
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Got a second by Commissioner Lackey.
All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. And likewise with the monthly
reports, we need to accept and approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Second. Further questions?
15


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13.
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. On to our consideration
agenda now. At the top, 2.1, Consider and approve amending
Kerr County subdivision rules to modify process for revision
of plats. This was put on the agenda by Commissioner Letz,
and I'll turn that over to him at this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is in an effort to address
the situation, I guess, the last several meetings we've had
to deal with regarding revision of existing subdivision.
Most of the ones that are coming before us are single lots
being divided into two lots. But -- and it was felt that we
were -- previously we were requiring public hearings and
notification, things of that nature, and a full platting
process. We've asked our attorneys -- civil attorneys to
look at the State law regarding this, which is what -- our
rules we were following, and determine that we do not really
need to require the public hearing in all instances.
Essentially, if a -- if a homeowners' association's
rules allow for a plat to be revised by dividing a lot into
two lots, and both sizes of the new lots are -- you know,
exceed the County minimum requirements, that we're not
affecting the rights of the people other than what they
already know when they bought into that subdivision.
Therefore, we don't need to do the public notice requirement.
16


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23~,
24
25
And this will, I think, speed up that process quite a bit for
those individuals that are trying to do this. I think we're
probably going to have more and more of these in the future.
So, at the last meeting, we asked the Road and Bridge
Department to come up with a -- I guess, a proposed modified
plan to do this, and they have done that, and it's in our
package for revision of plat in a recorded subdivision.
And, the -- I was just going to highlight the main
points. And that the revised plat must be prepared by a
Registered Professional Land Surveyor. A recorded copy of
the restrictions or covenants of the subdivision must be
referred or submitted to the County Engineer. And revised
plats must meet all of the following items to not require
public notification and public hearing, and I'll just read
them. They're A through G.
Revision -- should be revision of lots -- of lot lines
are within one recorded subdivision. Changing the boundary
lines of the lot or series of lots does not result in any lot
being smaller than 2.5 acres, all of which are in one
recorded subdivision. Does not involve construction of new
roads, public or private, to access a lot. Does not involve
construction of a public water system. Does not have roads
or driveways entering State highway. Does not require
construction of drainageways or drainage structures and does
not interfere with the established rights of any owners or
17

r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13'
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22~
23
29
25
parts of any owners -- of parts of the subdivision. If you
meet all those requirements, you go to an abbreviated process
where you would just have to submit it to the Court one time
for approval, and just put it on the agenda for the rest of
the Commissioners to comment and, you know, see if you want
to do this or not.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the only thing I see,
in B, it says "not smaller than than 2 1/2 acres," but it
should include where allowed by subdivision -- by
restrictions of that subdivision and served by public water
system, should not be less than -- cannot be less than one
acre. That way it all fits with what we're doing with our
subdivision rules and regs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As long as it's provided for
in the restrictions and is served by a public water system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know about the "does
not have roads or driveways that are entering into the State
highway." I don't know that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't sure when I read
through that as to -- is that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They have a right to enter
the State right-of-way and the State highway, whether we tell
them they can or can't. I mean, it's -- that's a matter of
18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13'
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
getting a permit from the Highway Department to make that
allowable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Frank, do you have a comment on
the inclusion of that?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, if a lot's divided, each lot
will have a separate driveway. They can cause traffic
congestion. It doesn't say, you know, unsafe, you know, site
additions on the road. That's something that needs to be
looked at in more detail, I think, than just a routine
approval. That was our -- that was our reason for putting it
in there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that comes under
Highway Department regulations and not the Kerr County --
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, I'm like Bruce. That would
seem to be the appropriate authority to deal with that.
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the Highway Department signs
off on all these -- you know, anything that enters the
highway. So that -- they sign off on the plats. So that --
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. And if they signed off on it,
approving it, I don't see why the Commissioners' Court should
be in a position for them to reject it, based on that very
reason.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is also based on -- minor plat
requirements also have that verbiage in it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess what it is,
~ ry 19

r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13i
1911
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23'~
24
25
probably the -- I guess I don't understand why, on the
routing slip, the Highway Department has to sign off on the
routing slip. And if they have to sign off on the routing
slip, then that doesn't make any difference, I wouldn't
think, as to whether they qualified, whether they need a
public hearing or not.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think that's a reason
to deny a redivision of property. I don't think Kerr County
has that right to deny somebody if they have property
fronting a State highway and for us to say, You can't have a
driveway going into the State highway. That's what it says
to me. I don't believe that's the case. I think this ought
to be removed.
JUDGE DENSON: I agree. Mr. Brown?
MR. BROWN: For the record, Jim Brown, General
Manager, U.G.R.A. As Administrator of your O.S.S.F. program
and your floodplain program, will the -- will those two
programs have an opportunity to look at this revised plat in
the process, or is that covered otherwise in the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is a routing slip that
goes with this for the individuals that need to -- Road and
Bridge Department, County Engineer, County Clerk, 911 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Floodplain, O.S.S.F.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, floodplain. Is that on
there?
20
.~-~

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 !,
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, floodplain, O.S.S.F.,
basically the same ones that have to sign all of them now.
MR. BROWN: My concern is that if that second lot
is significantly down in the floodplain, then when they come
in for an O.S.S.F. permit or Headwaters well permit, there's
not enough acreage outside of the floodplain that they could
get their permits either to build their septic system or to
drill their well. And that was my only concern, is that --
that I think those two programs need to have an opportunity
to review that in the routing slip.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do.
MR. BROWN: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: There's no significant change here.
The only -- as Commissioner Letz said at the front of this
agenda item, our intent here is simply to do away with the
need for a public hearing when someone is just doing a
revision of an existing plat.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Notification and public
hearing.
JUDGE DENSON: Otherwise, the different entities
and authorities that have to take a look at it and sign off,
they're still in the loop.
MR. BROWN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of our -- I mean, our
`^ fl 21


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12I
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
thinking on this is that we certainly want to encourage
people -- we want to keep our records accurate; we want to
make it as simple as possible for people to do this, which
happens quite a bit in the county, and at the same time
encourage them to get a plat to the County so we can have it
of record. I suspect what's been happening in the past is
that it's being done and no one knows about it, probably, in
a lot of instances, and this way we're trying to get our
records straight. And, generally, when these happen, a real
estate deal is pending and a closing is pending, and all of a
sudden it goes through a big -- you know, takes quite a bit
of time to go through public notice and Commissioners' Court.
So, as a way to facilitate this a little bit -- Truby, you
had something?
MS. HARDIN: Just that when you were making
highlights, you didn't read the first sentence, which would
have answered those questions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which first sentence? Oh,
the --
MS. HARDIN: That it has to meet all the
subdivision regulation requirements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, right. Still subject to
all the rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, I
probably agree that Item E probably needs to be struck. If
~, I 22
/'1
/'~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20~'i
21
22
23
29
25
-- if the TexDot engineer signs off on it, it's kind of a
moot point when it gets over to this, anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. No problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it says there that the
"TexDot engineer" -- it doesn't say anything about sex or
anything; it's impersonal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, I make a motion
that we accept this revised -- revision of plat process as
amended here with modification to add the one acre minimum
and delete Item E.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments? All
in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.2, Consider concept plan
for Cypress Springs subdivision in Precinct 9. This was put
on the agenda by County Engineer, Lee Voelkel. I know there's
been quite a bit of interest in this development, and at this
point I'll just turn it aver to Franklin.
MR. JOHNSTON: I've had a limited amount of
knowledge of this subdivision -- the plans. I've looked
forward to hearing a presentation from the developer. I
talked to Mr. Moran and Mr. Whidbee -- I don't know, a month
ago, something like that, about road specifications. They
had kind of a sketch along with them, and then I received
r'` II 2 3
/'`

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this -- I think the sketch that you probably have in your
packet a couple weeks ago to review. But it doesn't have a
whole lot of information on it, like lot sizes and -- and
some other information. So I -- I'd kind of like to hear a
presentation from them and see what their plans are.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, certainly. The developer?
And who is that? Franklin, who's going to be speaking?
MR. JOHNSTON: Is Lee coming today to talk about it
or --
MR. DELLY VOELKEL: Yes. He was in a meeting,
probably.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can tell you a little bit
about it. I met with Moran and the other fellow -- I can't
remember his name. And Lee went out and visited the site.
JUDGE DENSON: Lee?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Lee Voelkel. And TexDot was
there and they were discussing the entrance from the highway
and exit of the subdivision there. From what they told me,
they are going to have about -- I believe it's 60 -- 60
12-acre lots served by a public water system in Phase I, or
-- I believe that's right, Phase I, which will be the part
closest to Highway 39. Then the acreage behind that will be
in 10- to 25-acre parcels, and all roads will be private
roads. It's supposed to be real nice. They're going to have
three lots instead of four on the side next to the river;
~ ~ z4
/'`

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
221
23
29
25
talked them out of four. The access to the highway was kind
of batted around; that also gets their acreage up. It does
front on a public highway, all acreage along there. They
have a common area park along those lots on the far west
I side.
It's going to be a really nice subdivision; I believe
they're trying do a really nice job of it. All the roads in
the front end, the Phase I part of it, will be paved roads.
Of course, those lots will be a lot more expensive. And then
the ones behind will be caliche roads for the time being,
with access to 10 and 25 acres. I think that goes along with
our regs -- new subdivision rules and regs, that they can be
accessed by that kind of road and not have to be paved. But
that's what they told me. And those are -- you kind of see a
similar layout. But the big concentration will be in the
front end of the thing; the back will be large acreage. But
that's what they -- this is just a preliminary conference,
basically, anyway -- concept. It's not a -- they just don't
have -- I don't know how far Lee is along with the actual
drawing of the plat of the entire deal, but that's all they
have at this time. We're not being asked to approve
anything. They just came in to -- wanted to present this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just a -- with the new
subdivision rules, that we made a change in the way things
were done. Technically, this only needs to go to Bruce and
r ~~ 25

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
251
Franklin. But I think because of the size of it, they
probably wanted all the Commissioners to see if we had any
comments before they really started doing preliminary work,
you know, on what might be required. And I think that -- you
know, I mean, obviously it's going to be -- just my view on
this -- the roads and drainage are two things that -- you
know, that they follow our rules, which I think are adequate.
And this just appears to be the type of development we'd like
to have.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it is. They may come
in and they may challenge the road base specification being a
crushed base, come in with proof of materials to be used that
will meet the specifications. But it will not be crushed,
which is what our regulations call for. So we -- they may
come challenge us on this and ask for a variance, and they
have that right to do so. But that's the concept they
approached me with. TexDot was there and met with them on,
like I say, the entrance and exit part of it, and they --
well, as far as I know, they agreed to move it down slightly
where they'd have a better line of sight in each direction to
access the driveway. Where they first planned to put it, it
was going to be a little bit of a problem. But they really
hadn't done much work on it; they just kind of dug a few
holes, moved a few trees around. It will be a nice
subdivision, I believe. And the people around them should
/'~ ~~ 2 6

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not have too much complaints because of how large it's going
to be toward the back, and it's pretty consistent with what's
there along the fields. They're trying to do a first class
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have some serious
questions about it, but I'm going to wait until somebody gets
here that can answer them.
JUDGE DENSON: Like the developer?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like the developer or his
representative. I guess Mr. Voelkel would be that person.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess another comment
that I would have is that the -- and it's hard to really see
the scale -- if there is any way that we can encourage them
to put in a public water system to serve, maybe, segments of
the other area. I don't know if there's a way to figure
things slightly to make it economical. Because the calls
that I received on this was just concern about the number of
wells that's going to be required in the back part, which I
share that concern, and -- you know. But it may not be
feasible. There may be -- I looked back, and I don't know
how -- I presume these are lots lines. The back corner over
here seems to be fairly small. Maybe you can put another
central system in there. I have no idea what the cost is
back in there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Pretty -- it would cost a lot
~~ 27
r
s-~

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
S
91
l0l
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
of money to put a system in for 10-acre and 25-acre lots.
It's 895 acres total.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, maybe it's all by roads. We
can't really object.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but it --
JUDGE DENSON: There's one thing -- and this goes
back to our discussion earlier when we were talking about the
new plat revision procedure. How does all the small -- and
this may be beyond the scope of the authorities in the
County, but it's something that's interesting to me. How far
do all the small lots that -- along the front of 39, access
397
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the ones on the north
side of the highway will be through -- through one
entranceway. There will be a road that ties them all
together and feeds onto Highway 39.
JUDGE DENSON: Each one of the lots is not --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, just the three lots on
the south side. One of them on the south side of the road
will actually access the road, that Rio Vista crossing.
They'll have that option to go out though that road, because
it goes right down to where you access the crossing on the
the north side of the -- of the river.
JUDGE DENSON: You're talking about the -- yeah,
right, the ones on the river side will access the highway
28

r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0',
21'
2 2'
23.
29
25
through the Rio Vista entrance.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, one of them will. The
other -- they have that option, they can go either way. It's
more advantageous, I believe, to go to Rio Vista.
JUDGE DENSON: And then the small ones on the other
side of the highway, which will be the north side of the
highway, they tie into one common road that feeds out onto
39?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. No, there is not more
than one entrance that I know of. Isn't that right, Wayne?
MR. PEHL: Not the plat that I saw. I mean, that's
kind of what I thought at the beginning.
JUDGE DENSON: This is Wayne Pehl of Texas
Department of Transportation.
MR. PEHL: But since that time, the plat that we
looked at, it appears that there's more than one entrance on
the north side.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's all -- I didn't
know if there were any more than what they represented to us
would be that one -- one road coming out.
JUDGE DENSON: And I repeat myself again, because
you heard me arguing about that plat revision procedure on
deletion of that E, because this isn't County business. But,
I encourage Texas Department of Transportation to be very
careful in reviewing this plat and this overall layout. I
'~ ~~ 29

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
happen to live out in that area. I live in the Hunt area,
and that's an extremely dangerous part of the highway out
there. We've had a number of accidents; most recently, the
head of Schreiner College right along there, that his jeep
went off the road. But there's a big dip, and you lose sight
of the turns and all. Some real, real dangerous areas. So,
I think we can minimize future accidents by taking a close
look at this thing right now.
MR. JOHNSTON: So you're saying --
JUDGE DENSON: And I think we'll -- Bill Tucker
wants to make a comment. He is the resident engineer for
TexDOt.
MR. TUCKER: I would like to say, first of all, I
agree with Bruce that this development has the potential to
be an outstanding asset to Kerr County, so I wouldn't want to
discourage it. But I would like to encourage them, while
they're in the concept stage, hopefully, to -- to do whatever
it takes to minimize the number of access points to the
highway that they're planning on having because of the things
that the Judge pointed out. And, also keeping in mind that
Kerr County, as a whole, is kind of exploding right now with
growth, and if the economy stays healthy, it's going to
continue. And west Kerr County seems to be quite a draw
right now, and I don't see anything in the future to change
that. State highway 39 is the only corridor to take people
~' ~~ 3 0
r-.

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
into west Kerr County. And the more -- more access points,
the more side roads and driveways you put on that, the more
the flow breaks down, and eventually you've got a bumper-to-
bumper commute for those folks that move out there and need
to get into town. It's -- there's only one spot along that
road that's really a legal passing zone. And we're going to
see more and more congestion. We can -- we can mitigate it
somewhat by reducing the number of access points on that
route.
Another thing I would ask you to take a look at -- or
that I guess, really, the developer should take a strong look
at is how they drain the water. We're going to be very
difficult to deal with if water is -- is going to be
increased along that route in our ditches, because there is
no place -- there's no room to improve the ditches. And --
and there -- it's something that I would say the developer
needs to pay close attention to, plan for retention ponds,
some means of metering the water that comes out of there,
because you've got -- right now you've got a ground that
soaks up the water to a certain extent. The more you develop
it, the more impervious ground you have and the faster the
water comes, and with that you get overloading the drainage
systems, plus you get erosion. And this county is a -- is
known for its erodability.
Another thing I would ask that the developer keep in
r. ~~ 31
/1

11
21
3
9
5
6
7
8
mind, and the County and all of us that are looking at these
plats, is that we need to start looking at some setback
restrictions, because, especially along 39, there's no room
for future utilities. There needs to be some land set aside
that -- that can possibly be used far corridors for utility
work, and also to preserve sight distance along the roadway.
Just some general comments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, are there any plans to
9I1 widen 39?
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24'
25'
MR. TUCKER: John, no, to be honest with you. It's
one of those kind of things that probably in the near future,
the traffic would justify widening. But the -- the
difficulty in widening that road is obvious. You've got the
river on one side, you've got horrendous terrain on the other
side, so the cost would be enormous. The other thing is the
environmental impact of that. You're talking about
essentially destroying the ambience of the area with a major
arterial, and 39 -- its ambience is sort of why people come
to Kerr County. Not that that's going to be intact after you
get bumper-to-bumper traffic on it, but the -- the only
logical solution to that is to go off that route and put
another route somewhere out there. Again, that -- in today's
concept -- context, that's almost prohibitive from the
standpoint of either acquiring land through many, many, many
tracts, and then the -- just the engineering; cut through all
~` I 3 2
i^'~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2°
those hills and valleys. It's not going to be something I
think is easy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is TexDot's -- do they have any
proposed alternative routes through western Kerr County that
would, you know, basically alleviate Highway 39?
MR. TUCKER: No. At the -- about ten years ago,
Buster was Commissioner-elect, first go-round. We held a
community meeting at Heart of the Hills Girls Camp one
evening and met with a cross-section of the community in west
Kerr County, and talked about the alternatives and kind of
looked at what would the community -- what would be
acceptable. And at that time, it was pretty much the
consensus that 39 -- they did not want us to touch it. They
wanted to lust keep it -- we talked about alternative routes.
There were none that any of us at that time could come up
with as a real easily do-able alternative, but that seemed to
be more acceptable, to find another route. We`ve looked at
some possibilities of going south along the river, possibly
continuing Thompson Drive Extension and go way -- lust
continue along the river somewhere where on the south side,
and possibly cross over the river somewhere, maybe on the
west side of the Hunt area. But I've been up in helicopters
looking and everything else. There's not -- there's not an
easy way to do this. So I'm saying our alternatives axe
pretty slim, at least fundable alternatives and politically
~ ~ 33


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22'~
23'.
29I'
25
acceptable alternatives.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would just encourage TexDot
-- I mean, at some point something is going to have to be
done out in that area. And by doing nothing now, it's going
to make it worse in the future, the more development we get
in places like this. This is -- to me, if this was on a
proposed route, this would be the ideal time to get the
right-of-way for that road acquired, whether it's TexDot or
the County or whoever to pay for it. But as these
developments are going on now, it's certainly a lot easier to
do it now than to come in and try and condemn homes. I
really would encourage -- with other programs that ya'all
look at each year, that, you know, I feel this probably needs
to get pretty high up on your list of projects that need to
be looked at. It may be 15, 20 years away, but at some point
we need to start addressing the problem out there.
MR. TUCKER: I agree. It's something that TexDot
and the County really need to get together and talk about a
plan, but it's going to have to be driven locally. The
State's not willing to come in and impose a plan. It's got
to be driven from local leadership.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, another view is, stay out of
Hunt.
MR. TUCKER: There's your local leadership leading.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have tried for years --
~ ( 34


i"~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17~I
18~!
19
201!
211
22
23!.
24'
25'
and I've worked with Mr. Tucker and we've worked with the
governor's office to try to get one-way signs going out of
Hunt for years and years. We can't seem to get that off the
ground. Mr. Voelkel is here, and we're excited to see him,
too. Lee?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Good morning.
JUDGE DENSON: Do we have anything else on this
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do.
MR. JOHNSTON: I have one comment, and Lee probably
has the answer to it. On these five lots on the north side
of 39, he said they're going to have a common -- I assume
they left those out for the, you know, Elgin Bank exception.
They'xe not part of the subdivision.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ask Mr. Voelkel.
MR. JOHNSTON: But you're saying they're going to
put in one road and then feed all the lots from that one
entrance?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what was represented
to me, except for lots on the south side of the road.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think that would basically nullify
the Elgin Bank -- it probably should be part of the
subdivision, then, if there's a road into it that serves all
the lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it sounds like Bill may
35


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
make that requirement. The Highway Department may not allow
a lot of lots right there on Highway 39.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's probably -- since
that is a State highway, this probably is more the Highway
Department's, you know, decision.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a tough one from the Elgin
Bank standpoint. They can divide it the way they want, I
think.
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, if you build a road, it
nullifies -- it doesn't seem like it would be a big problem
to put that part of the subdivision.
MR. TUCKER: We can't keep them from subdividing;
that wouldn't be in our area, but we'll be difficult to deal
with if highway access is desired on every lot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a little bit --
little bit different slant on this whole thing as far as Mr.
Tucker's signing off on the plats and it being none of our
business. I'm a little bit different in that when the plats
come to this table and the TexDOt signatures are required on
them and I am to vote on them, then it is some of my
business. So I'm going to -- we're going to talk about that
just for a moment. Lee, how many entrances off the State
highway are there going to be?
36


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. VOELKEL: The plan is for north of the highway
to have one entrance off the highway, the property along
between the highway and the river, which they were going to
do, like Frank said, under the Elgin Bank case, 200 foot of
frontage, and not plat that. That was the intent, and to
sell those lots by metes and bounds. And there would be four
lots there, and of course one lot -- one that's not really a
lot; it's a park, which is a common area, but that would also
be on the river side. And ya'all have been out there --
TexDot's been out there, and ya'all kind of agree in concept?
MR. TUCKER: I'll -- Wayne has been out there. I
don't agree in concept. I don't agree -- and I don't know
that I have the legal right to do anything about it under the
Elgin Bank deal. If we're talking about separate lots along
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here's my question, Mr.
Tucker. Are you going to sign off? Would you sign off on
this plat?
MR. TUCKER: As it stands now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, the concept plan.
MR. TUCKER: I would ask that some notes be put on
the plats dealing with drainage, dealing with access. But
the plat that I saw isn't -- it excludes some -- some outside
property; in other words, that's not in the plat. Which
means in the future we're going to be asked to sign off on
/" ~) 37
r'`
i-`~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
2 9 '',
25
driveways, and that's where -- the future is going to be
where the problem is, and it's going to be the person that
buys a small tract fronting 39 after it's been separated from
this -- this overall tract. Then we're going to be dealing
with somebody that's going to come to us and want a driveway,
and his only alternative will either be to put -- get a boat
and go down the river to find access, or to get some sort of
access across his neighbor's property to get to a safer place
to enter the highway. These are the concerns we're going to
have, and obviously we're going to be looking to somebody
who's going to say, you know, I bought property expecting to
be able to enter the highway. So, our -- we're very limited
in our options at that point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, in my opinion, now's
the time to address that, you know, in the -- to address the
developer, or don't come along and try to do this later on.
Lee, these lots down the river --
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't read one word on
this thing; I mean, not one word. So could you tell me --
MR. VOELKEL: That was intentional, Buster -- no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You've treated me that way
for a long time. Tell me the size, the actual size of the
lots on the river.
MR. VOELKEL: I've got a plat that addresses that.
''^ ~~ 3 8
,'^

/'~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15I
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you read it?
MR. VOELKEL: Probably not. Okay. Let me just
show this you this, Buster. If you look, they ran from one
and a half to two and a half acres.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One and a half to two and a
half acres. On the river?
MR. VOELKEL: Actually, what we've
river is three tracts, and this is a park or
for the entire subdivision, so that will not
site. 1.7, as you can see here, up to 2.56.
these will be the three lots that they were
be a part of the plat, itself. This is kind
got here on the
a common area
be a buildable
And these --
not intending to
of a layout of
what we're looking at as Phase I, which is the first part
that will be developed down by the highway, which, of course,
is on the concept drawing, but it's a little bit more
detailed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not intending to be a part
of the plat?
MR. VOELKEL: That's correct. Because of the Elgin
Bank case, which is 200 foot of frontage on a public road.
They were going to use that and sell these by metes and
bounds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the septic tank program
fits in with the acre and a half?
MR. VOELKEL: With a water system, yes, sir. These
39
T

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
will be served by a water system, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, Lee, I'll just lay
these out down here. I've got one last question here. Is
this your -- is this your routing slip?
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir, correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. Okay. You have
checked with TexDot, obviously?
MR. VOELKEL: They've been out there, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, County Clerk for name
duplication, you have -- you checked with that. 911, you
haven't dealt with them, 'cause we're not dealing with major
roads. On-site sewage facility administration, have you
checked with them?
MR. VOELKEL: To my knowledge, they were delivered
copies of the plats.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That means that you've
checked with them?
MR. HROWN: We have not seen a copy of this plat.
We've -- it's not been discussed with us. It's checked off
on this list. This is the second time we've had to deal with
these people out here. First they went in and started
scorifying the earth without getting a flood -- Lee, without
coming up with a flood determination, and they're in
violation of the E.P.A. regulations. And I'm concerned about
how this is moving without getting clearance with those of us
90
,~'~
.--.
1 who are responsible to come to you and offer suggestions to
2 you. I take -- I take exception to this. I've never had
3 this done to me as long as I've been in this community. I've
4 never had something like this done to me, and I'm not happy
5 about it.
6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me ask you a question,
7 Mr. Brown. You know, if I buy a piece of property and I want
8 to go clear the brush off it, I ought to have a right to do
9 that without contacting you or anybody else, whether it's
10 intended to be a subdivision or not. There are property
11 rights in the State of Texas that should be protected. And
12 I'll guarantee you, if I want to buy a piece of land and
13 clear it, scorify it, make a field out of it, plant grass on
14 it, I think I'll do that and somebody better come stop me.
15 MR. BROWN: Mr. Oehler, I think if you're doing
16 this for agricultural purposes, you have every right to do
17 it, but the E.P.A. law says if you clear more than five acres
18 without getting a construction permit, you're in violation of
19 federal E.P.A. regulations. Now, we didn't -- we didn't
20 initiate -- a complaint was filed with U.G.R.A., and we went
21 out, we met with the gentlemen, and they were most
22 cooperative with us.
23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand that. And they
24 also went and put high walls all along to take care of the
25 silt and whatever was going to wash down.
91
r~

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. BROWN: And went beyond what we asked them to
do.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MR. BROWN: But the point I'm getting at is, this
implies we've had a chance to look at this, and we haven't.
And -- and that's our concern.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll take that exception, but
the other one I'm going to fight you on every time, because I
believe in property rights.
MR. BROWN: I do too, Mr. Oehler. Unfortunately, I
was caught in the middle of this. The complaint was filed
with me and I had to do what I had to do.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe in property rights
just as much as you do, Bruce, but if this is -- I mean, if
there's any indication -- and I don't know, but I've heard
that there has been some layout of roads and some concrete
poured out there, which means to me that they are moving --
they've already moved beyond the concept plan, and I think
that they're already beyond the reason that we're having this
meeting today. And that is against the rules.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it may be, but I tell
you what; he still owns the property, to my knowledge, has
never sold a lot. If I want to pour concrete on my property,
I'll doggone sure do so, any time I choose and wherever I
!'~ N 9 2


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I choose to do so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I understand the E.P.A.
rules are to -- rules and regulations are fixing to double,
maybe triple. I mean, they are really fixing to get tough.
MR. BROWN: They're pulling it from five acres to
one acre. Now, I -- along that line, if I may, with the
pleasure of the Court, I'll be very brief. This is not the
first time this has happened in our community, and a lot of
our people are getting exposed to it. It's a $2,500 a day
fine for every day you -- you continue these activities
without getting your E.P.A. permit. What we're -- hopefully,
we're going to put together a seminar for all of our land
developers, road contractors, home builders, talk to Lee
about this. Hopefully we can do this in the latter part of
September, first part of October, where we're going to bring
into this community an engineer that -- that serves as an
expert witness on behalf of landowners to talk about that
side, and also we're going to bring in an attorney who
represents the landowners, not the government side, to deal
with -- with the folks in this community so we can -- we can
help our folks out so we don't get into any more of these
kind of situations that we have. Hut we do have -- we have a
case in this county where one man is now facing a $20,000
fine for a project that he did without getting his E.P.A.
construction permits. So, it's an issue that, unfortunately,
'~ ~~ 9 3
/'~


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm the weanie in the hot dog; I've got a hot bun on each
side of me out here. But, I don't take exception to the
property rights at all, Mr. Oehler.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand you don't. I
tell you what, they're being taken away every day that we
live. And if somebody doesn't fight for the landowner, I
think they'll just probably wind up being able to kind of be
renters of the property and pay the money to stay to the
federal government or whatever. I think that I -- that's
wrong.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. And don't forget,
it's the democrats doing it. Okay. On-site sewage facility.
So, you -- Mr. Brown, you feel like that this is kind of
untrue here, that they -- that you haven't been notified?
What about floodplain administration?
MR. BROWN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Headwaters
Underground Water Conservation District?
MR. BROWN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. My stand is that, you
know, I'm obviously not going to -- actually, I don't know if
we're going to have a Court order on this.
JUDGE DENSON: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is not even up fox a
preliminary plat.
44


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I understand.
If I had an opportunity to vote on it, I'd vote against it
until these things -- these things are met on here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment would be that,
you know, from Franklin's initial comments, he hasn't had
much to do with this, and with a development of this size, I
think there's going to be requirements, obviously, on roads
and drainage and things of that nature. And I think that --
and I'd encourage, I guess, Lee to let the developer know
that they really need to get with the County Engineer and
make sure -- because, you know, if it continues, I can see
problems coming down the road. But it shouldn't be now; I
mean, it's early enough -- this is the reason we do these
conferences like this, so we can eliminate that type of a
down-the-road problem. So I think I would encourage the
developer to get with the County Engineer and really start
working with him.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the only other time we need
to --
JUDGE DENSON: Just a minute. Go ahead, Mr.
Voelkel.
MR. VOELKEL: I was just going address -- I
apologize, the owner was going to be here at 10:00 so we can
maybe directly ask him some of these questions. I am not
aware of any road-building that's going on on the project.
~~ 95
/'~
r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22i
2 3'i
29
25,
There has been some clearing of the land. I thought they got
a floodplain development permit. I thought that they did,
Jim, so maybe I'm off-base there.
MR. BROWN: No, they did after we received a
complaint and talked to them. They have cooperated with us
all the way through.
JUDGE DENSON: One person at a time, please.
MR. VOELKEL: I just thought they had addressed
these things, and I apologize for the -- I thought a plat was
delivered to Jim Brown of this concept plan, which is the one
that we have here, not the preliminary plat. I thought we
were at the concept level, where we haven't gotten into
really looking at the things that we're looking at this
morning. They're kind of new because of the new regs. The
concept plan hasn't really come to Commissioners' Court
before. And I didn't -- I really didn't know that it went to
Commissioners' Court unless we desired it to, which was why
we put on it on here today, just to hash out some of these
issues and ask some questions. I didn't realize we we were
looking for approval today.
JUDGE DENSON: We're not, Lee. What you're saying
is accurate, it's a consent. You had no requirement of
putting this on the agenda. You did, I assume, in good
faith, so you could get it out on the table here.
MR. VOELKEL: That's correct.
~ ~~ 96

r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
91
l0
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: That's what's happening. There'll
be no action taken on this.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Well, the owner, Gary Moran
-- I hope he'll be here in a minute -- just had some specific
questions on road construction, road layout, things of that
sort. And, of course, the tracts along the river are things
that we want to talk about before we get into our preliminary
plat, so that's kind of where we are. We thought we had
covered the bases. If we haven't, we apologize; it was just
new to us, so to speak. Now, I know they have made an
application for an E.P.A. development permit. Again, the
floodplain permit I thought was secured with him, so we're
getting there. I'm not sure that we covered everything on
the preliminary plat; we just haven't gotten that far along
yet.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think one of the questions on the
concept plan is to determine whether or not a drainage study
is needed, and I think on a development this size and with
the terrain, with the actual drainage down through it,
probably I'd recommend a drainage study be, you know, done on
this project. Bill had a concern about drainage, and saw him
right toward -- this structure's right toward the river.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, certainly -- I mean,
from the standpoint of the roads, you need to have the
drainage. I don't think it's really critical to know
N 97
,~
r

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
exactly, you know, on a specific lot, what the drainage is
going to be; I don't think that really has anything to do
with it, but a highway development where the roads are, and
put the layout and all that and where that water goes from
the roads, 'cause it's going to change drainage when the
roads go in. And I think, that part, yeah, we should be --
that would be required.
MR. JOHNSTON: We want to know how they're going to
discharge it and all that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, where the water's going.
You know, it's just going to cross Highway 39 at some point.
You know, I think that Bill Tucker's comments are justified,
as well, you know. The drainage, I think, is a part of the
process. And, you know, I'm sure that would -- it was going
to be done. I think that's between the -- you know, the
developer and the County Engineer and Mr. Oehler, I guess,
to, you know, go over some of these details.
MR. VOELKEL: Can we discuss a few more of the
items?
JUDGE DENSON: Sure.
MR. VOELKEL: Even though Mr. Moran's not here.
MR. DELLY VOELKEL: Lee, do you have my regulation
book?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Frank explained that they were to
be private roads. Does the County have a problem with them
98

b
10
11
12
13
19
1_°
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.
29
2°
being private roads? One of the things that Frank had faxed
to me --
	MR.	JOHNSTON:	We don't have a problem with it
being	private	roads.	
MR. VOELKEL: We discussed it and it's out of the
regs, and Frank had faxed this to me. And Frank, you might
want to help me address this, as far as one of the sections
calls for projection of roads. And it says, Where adjoining
areas are not subdivided -- and to me that would mean the
property that is around this property -- the arrangement of
roads in the subdivision shall make provision for the proper
projection of roads into unsubdivided areas. And when I
discussed that with the property owner, it was his intent not
to do that; in other words, not to leave an easement or a
roadway going to adjoining properties. And then Frank said
that this might be a requirement for the -- that the
Commissioners' Court may require that. I just thought that
that was something we maybe ought to discuss this morning to
see if that is going to be a requirement to do that. I'm
making myself clear on what Frank was talking about?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I, for one, I really don't
see it as a requirement.
MR. VOELKEL: I've kind of highlighted my roads
here. In other words, to extend a road to the boundary so
that an adjoining property owner can tie into that. Would
~ II 49
/'`

i"~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that be something that we need a variance on? Because it's
in the regs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Personally, I don't think
so. But I would really encourage doing what you're doing
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so, Lee. I think
a lot of that language that was in there is more with a --
with the master road plan, which has been discussed, or if
there's -- you know, it's closer to Kerrville where there is
existing roads over here, you might want to tie them
together. I think it's -- in general, it's not.
(Mr. Moran entered the courtroom.)
MR. VOELKEL: I was just going to answer this.
This is Gary Moran, and he's the owner of the property.
We've already started talking about it, and I'm sure they'll
have some questions.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The adjoining property has
access out to Highway 27?
MR. VOELKEL: Yeah. None of the adjoining property
is accessed through the property presently. It's not being
used to get to other properties. I think Frank's point was
that we extend, either by easement or by dedication, these
roads to adjoining property lines so that adjoining
properties could develop their property through this
property, I would guess.
50


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: That's not the intent at all. I
think Commissioner Letz correctly explained the intent of
those rules, and they usually come into play when you are
closer to the city or a densely developed area, and where
there's a natural projection of one road that you'll be
putting in to tie into some other major artery that's out
there, and, you know, there there will be a logical extension
there in the future at some point. That's not the case here,
and I don't think that's an issue before this Court.
MR. VOELKEL: Very good.
clear that up, because it did come
about the tracts long the highway
the river. Am I hearing the Court
it that way? Or we had talked abo
where we had a few hundred feet of
I was just wanting to
up. Gary, we had talked
-- between the highway and
saying that we cannot do
ut the Elgin Bank case
frontage along a public
road, and not having to plat those lots, selling them by
metes and bounds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think you heard the
Court saying you can't do it. You certainly have the legal
right to do it. I think the problem comes from whether the
Highway Department will allow the entrances. It's more the
Highway Department's issue than a County issue, that I see,
'cause there is concern about entrances on Highway 39 by the
Highway Department. I don't think that --
MR. VOELKEL: It's kind of a Catch 22 here. If we
~ ~~ 51


b
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2F
don't file a plat, there's a -- does the Highway Department
become involved on a regulatory basis?
JUDGE DENSON: Unfortunately -- and I'm certainly
not criticizing anyone at all -- we've started talking about
this before ya'all were present. And Mr. Tucker, resident
engineer, has already spoken on this matter, but we'll go
over it again. And let me see if I can briefly summarize
what has been said. One, ya'all meet the County's rules and
we're in a position where we have to approve the plat,
regardless. The Elgin Bank case, we all, I think, understand
what it says. And your proposed plan here fits within that
case law, so you can develop those four lots or three lots by
metes and bounds; they need not be a part of the plat. And
they're sold by metes and bounds. All well and good; it fits
Elgin, okay.
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: When you go out -- and this is what
Mr. Tucker said earlier, and I think it's extremely
important. That same future lot owner or tract owner that
buys one of those tracts down there on the river is going to
have to come to him „ and when they put a house on there and
build a driveway, they're going to come out there on 39, and
they're going to have to jump through some hoops in
satisfying the Highway Department. Now, TexDot, I think,
probably legally cannot stop someone from accessing 39, but
~~ 52


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
they can set some requirements. And it may catch a property
owner or purchaser of one of those three tracts off-guard
when they come and say, "Hey, I want to access," and they
say, "Well, you're going to have to do this, this, this and
this." So no one's rejecting or even trying to say that you
can't exercise the legal rights that you have, but because of
the danger -- dangerous section of the highway that is, and
more traffic that you're going to be piling up on it, we just
-- we're real concerned about those things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the comment I have on
that is, what would be the problem of including it in the
subdivision and putting it right inside or off Highway 39, a
road that would access the lots. I mean --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 'Cause that would require
subdivision plus expenses to build a road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We talked about that the
other day, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. They're dealing with
the subdivision plan anyway, so I can't imagine, you know,
adding or not adding those lots is going to change the cost
of the platting process. There is a cost of however long
that 600-foot road --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think that's the
whole point. The point of it is that people buy lots along
~ ~~ 53


1
2
3'
4'
5'
6~
7~
81~
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the river far somewhat -- some amount of privacy. You can
plant a hedge or something along that; they wouldn't even
have to see the highway. You build a road and you get people
driving right behind the houses there.
MR. MORAN: One of the other things is we're in no
different situation than a thousand of people have been along
this road already. And, you know, some of the entrances and
exits that are already off of 39, to me, are a whole lot more
dangerous than these would be, you know, already. And the
cost to build the road, it was one consideration, and us
changing the -- the footage to 200 feet in the front. I
think if there's a totally dangerous situation of where, you
know, it couldn't be done that way, a person couldn't have an
entrance in and out of there by themselves, well, then, you
know, it would be something that we would go ahead and do and
build a road, but I don't think that's the case. And there's
so many on that road already that, like I said, I think
they're -- in my point of view, are a whole lot more
dangerous than we are because of where they're located.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, the way Lee laid it out for
you, it's legal with the 200 feet.
MR. MORAN: We met with the people from TexDot,
changed the entrance where we're going to put the
subdivision, you know, to try to make it to where it was more
accessible or where TexDot thought it was more safe to enter
~ ~~ 59


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and exit, and to widen the entrance into the subdivision so
that people coming from one side would have an on and off
ramp in the entrance part to be able to get off and on 39
with a -- and have a slow-down area.
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
MR. MORAN: And, you know, we're not trying to say
that -- we want to abide by the rules, but --
JUDGE DENSON: There were comments, again, made in
your absence that this is an excellent subdivision that
ya'all are putting in. Excellent plan, a quality
development; I think those type of words were used, that this
is something that we -- we like to see. A first class
operation, rather than the opposite. But we do want to work
in concert rather than in opposition.
MR. MORAN: Right. Did ya'all discuss about the
road types?
MR. VOELKEL: No, sir, I haven't discussed that
with them yet, as far as the classification of the roads.
And, again, I colored these just to make it a little easier.
I don't know if Frank explained we will be doing this in
phases. If you can imagine this red line here as kind of --
kind of Phase I. Again, this is the area down by the river
and the highway. We're confused with the new regs over the
classification of the roads, and it becomes important as far
as the specifications for how the roads are built, and we
r'` II 5 5
f-.
i--
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2°
just wanted some clarification from the Court on the roads
and the types of roads that will be -- that will be put in
the subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: I haven't seen what that is there,
N but --
MR. VOELKEL: It's the same plat you've had; I lust
colored mine to make it a little easier to see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, under that one,
something to do with the rules, what -- private roads.
MR. JOHNSTON: The private roads, local roads.
MR. VOELKEL: It would be under local roads?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, local roads, 20 foot of
paving, 24-foot base.
MR. VOELKEL: So as far as what you're looking at,
Phase I, these would all be -- are considered local roads?
MR. JOHNSTON: The way I see it.
MR. VOELKEL: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: The larger lots, you can do, you
know, the country lane, but it's a specific number of lots.
It can't go over a certain number. We've changed that back
and forth.
JUDGE DENSON: Wait, wait, wait. We're going to
have to have one person speak at a time, and please keep the
other noise down so this lady can hear and take notes.
!'~ II 56

1
2
3
9
5'
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. VOELKEL: Gary, hand me that back behind you,
please, sir. I gust had a couple of things tabbed on page
31.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that where we are here?
MR. VOELKEL: Yes.
MR. VOELKEL: Okay. So we're looking at local road
under that classification.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So we have right-of-way of 60
feet?
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the way I would look at
this, the local road is going to be the -- if this is the
main road to the subdivision, and the rest of them off of
that would be country lane. I mean, there's got to be a
number of feet of road, and that's going to be, you know, a
presumably larger road than the rest of them.
MR. JOHNSTON: In any case, a country lane is 10
acres or more. If they're less than 10, it would still
continue to be a local road, I guess, correct?
MR. VOELKEL: Well, the country lane is limited to
10 acres or more. In other words, if we have less than 10
acres, the roads serving those would continue to be a local
road, would it not? I guess that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: According to the rules, yeah, all
57
r~
/~
r.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the lots in the front part were, like, 2 acres, right?
MR. VOELKEL: Correct, 2 acres.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that would be average
size, you know, not minimum size. I mean, the --
MR. VOELKEL: The only other question I had deals
with one of the rules. If you got your book, it's on page
25, Access to permitted roads where you have minimum lot
frontage. All of these would qualify for 120 feet of minimum
lot frontage, and this plat will make it a little bit more
visible. When you have a lot that's on a cul-de-sac, such as
these here and these here, we're going to be less than 120
feet. Just could serve the lots off the cul-de-sac. Is that
something that we need to get a variance on, or is that just
understood?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't we cover that? I think
there's another provision in here.
MR. VOELKEL: I'm not sure.
MR. JONNSTON: I think its 60 --
JUDGE DENSON: One person at a time, please.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe we addressed that.
MR. VOELKEL: Okay. In other words, if we're on a
cul-de-sac, we've got other things that address that, other
dimensions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They get excited when they
start talking about cul-de-sacs. Wait till we get down to
58

,~-~
~-~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the gravel and caliche; they're going to be wild here.
MR. VOELKEL: That's all I had to address, unless
Mr. Moran had some other thought or questions.
MR. MORAN: I want to get to what Mr. Lackey
brought up.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: I'm not Mr. Lackey, I'm Mr.
Baldwin. Thank you.
MR. MORAN: This subdivision will be a gated
community; therefore, it will be a private road. And under
new regulations they have, it says that on a local road, that
you must use a certain -- or a crushed stone for a base on a
local road. But if you go in and put this on 10 acres or
more, then it becomes a country lane, which can be a caliche
road. And we all know there's a lot of difference between
caliche; there's several different types, it's kind of a
broad base. And one of my questions -- this being a private
road, would be maintained privately, the bond's put up for
that maintenance -- is there any leniency or variances as far
as using crushed stone compared to some type of base, whether
it be caliche or whatever, as long as it's a good base, on
the roads in lieu of crushed stone? And I'm saying that, you
know, I've been building here for 12 years in Kerrville,
building several different subdivisions, and there's a lot of
difference in caliche. Our intent out here is to put in
roads that -- because we have to maintain them, is to put new
59
roads that will -- will stand up and last and so we don't

~^'~
G
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
have a lot of maintenance to them. Myself and my partner
will be living in this subdivision, and so surely we don't
want our neighbors coming down and tackling us about the
roads. But there's a cost factor here when you go to crushed
stone or limestone; the roads become almost equivalent to
what we would have to be doing inside the city limits as far
as cost-wise. I think that the rules and regulations are
good and there should be some overseeing or whatever, but it
would push a lot of the development into a C.R.C. because the
cost variances between the two are almost nonexistent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment on that, if I'm --
you know, if you have a -- on the caliche, is not just any
caliche; I believe there's specifications set for the type of
caliche. If you have an alternative to crushed stone, then
you can, you know, go to the County Engineer with a specific
proposal, and if you don't like that answer, you can come to
us for a variance. I would not be inclined, I think, to do
it, because I think the quality of roads has been a real
problem in the county, whether private or public. And I
think that, you know, we're making an effort to try to make
them reasonable, and at the same time, good quality roads,
'cause we have been hit, as a County, many times on private
roads. So this can come back to us, whether they are public
roads ox County roads, that we have to end up footing the
i-. I 6 0


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
171
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
bill as a County for the maintenance, compared to some of
those roads.
So, you know, I -- my personal feeling is that, you
know, we can spend a lot of time on the rules. We had a lot
of developers come in and make comments, and the developers
that chose to get involved with the project supported these
specifications. But, I mean, certainly, if you have a way to
do it that you think is adequate, you know, I encourage you
to visit with the County Engineer, and if you're not
satisfied there, you know, you can come to the Court to ask
for a variance. But I think that, you know, it's kind of a
moot point for us to say right now what we're going to do
until we know what the alternative is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd just like to make one
comment about all that. We have approved a lot of these
subdivisions since I've been on the Court with private roads.
To my knowledge, I don't know of one that we've been asked to
take maintenance on them. Not in the -- not any time since
I've been on the Court. Most of all the problems that we
have had have been from subdivisions that were put in back in
the 70's, where they told people something different from
what the truth was at the time about what the County would do
at a certain point in time. Those are the only roads I know
of anywhere in the county that we've been asked to take over
maintenance on. We have not been asked one time to take over
~ fl 61



1 one of these newer subdivisions with private roads. They've
2 been told that the County absolutely will not take them
3 unless they're brought up to County standards at the time. I
9 don't think you'll ever be asked to do that.
5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I know that if -- I
6 wasn't on the Court when it was done, but requests come in --
7 and one that comes to my mind right away is Creekwood. I know
8 there are people out there that talked to me and to Road and
9 Bridge, that they would want the County to take over
10 maintenance at Creekwood right now, which is a similar type
11 development, you know. Not as large as this. I think there
12 are some -- and it just -- you know, I think we've got the
13 same playing field. The rules are just -- you know, I mean,
14 I think everyone knows my position on the road rules.
15 COMMISSIONER OENLER: I think everybody knows mine.
16 JUDGE DENSON: Just in case you haven't heard mine,
17 here it is. I think you have a distinction here. I think
18 you have a -- a type of development that may be somewhat
19 different in the fact that it's going to be gated.
20 MR. MORAN: That's right.
21 JUDGE DENSON: See, people throw around terms about
22 roads, and it sometimes gets contusing. We have
23 County-maintained roads, and then we have other roads that
29 are private, but the public has access to them. They can
25 drive over them all the time. And -- for example, in
62


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21'
22
23
24
25
subdivisions that are put in, and they retain the private
nature of the roads, but the public has access to those roads
and can drive all through them. And, so, you want the
integrity of the road to be such where it's safe, to protect
the public, and it should have minimum standards on them.
But in a gated community, where only the owners of the lots
within that subdivision will have access to those roads, I
could see, personally, where a variance might come into play.
Okay. Anything further on this?
MR. VOELKEL: Very good. We appreciate your
direction. We'll be coming back for a preliminary plat. At
that time everybody will be notified and get their plat and
all. We appreciate it.
MR. MORAN: Thank you, Judge, gentlemen.
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you. Okay. We'll do 2.3, and
then we'll break for a little morning break in a few minutes,
but 2.3 is Consider amending plat for Tract 20 of Japonica
Nills Subdivision, Precinct 9. We have the County Engineer
on this, and Delly Voelkel -- "Pop" Voelkel, as apposed to
"Son" Voelkel.
MR. JOHNSTON: I thought this was already approved,
but -- Delly, I guess you might have some comments on it, but
I thought we approved this sometime back, with the proviso
that we got a letter from T.N.R.C.C. about the water. And
they've provided that letter -- or fax. So he probably has
~ ~~ 63

~-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
some comments on it.
MR. DELLY VOELKEL: My chance --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My appearance of it, T.N.R.C.C.
says this is not under their jurisdiction because it's less
than 15 hookups, which means the prior order is sufficient to
approve this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, there's one
sentence in here in their letter that says, "Connection could
be adequately served if the well and pressure tank capacities
have remained the same."
MR. VOELKEL: They have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. VOELKEL: I checked with the property owners
that are in charge of the wells and the pumping.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm -- Z don't know who's on
-- the County Engineer said that he thinks that we approved
it. I do, too.
MR. VOELKEL: I don't know that you approved it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm taking your word
about the pressure tank. Can't you take my word, Delly? I
think we have. You want to make another order, add a little
more paperwork here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's not a copy of the order
in here.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, we don't have sufficient
/^ it 6 4
!'`
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13'
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
information in front of us about amending the plat. All the
backup material relates to T.N.R.C.C. issues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe we approved it
contingent on that, so I think that -- why don't we pass on
it, see if we can find that old order and see if we passed
it. If we don't --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We did approve it with that
one stipulation.
MR. VOELKEL: We were never informed you were even
considering it. Are you saying that this subdivision-
amending plat has been approved%
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it has. It's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll find out, though.
JUDGE DENSON: We'll take a 10-minute break. It's
10:30; we'll come back at 10:90 and resume. And during that
time, we'll see what we can find out.
MR. VOELKEL: Good deal. Thank you, Judge.
(Whereupon a brief recess was taken.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. It's 18 minutes till 11:00 on
the 10th of August, 1998. We'll go back into session, and we
were talking about agenda item 2.3, Consider amending plat
for Tract 20 of Japonica Hills Subdivision, Precinct 9. And
during our break, I asked that a Deputy Clerk see if there
was an order in existence, and it is Commissioners' Court
Order 125390. On the 26th of May, 1998, motion by
~'~" ~~ 6 5
r-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Commissioner Oehler, second by Commissioner Baldwin, approved
3 to 1 for, Commissioner Letz opposing, to allow the -- grant
a variance for replat of Japonica Hills Subdivision, Lot 20,
and allow amended plat to be filed with the County Clerk upon
approval by T.N.R.C.C. and the County Engineer. So that has
been done.
MR. VOELKEL: May I make a comment, please?
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, sir.
MR. VOELKEL: You know, I pleaded before the Court
when this this came up to let us go by the Austin -- I mean,
the Elgin Bank rule. And, you didn't see fit to. That's
your prerogative, and there's a difference of opinion. The
Elgin bank rule interpretation I read didn't mention that the
land is rural or platted before or anything; it just says you
can do it. And, the reason this was not handled that way is
because it was previously platted. The thing I wanted to
make known to you is that because of this, this has cost that
landowner close to $9,000 just to divide this tract. And
it's a very unreasonable amount of money to have to do when
it could be so simply done with the -- with drawing a line
and writing two field note descriptions. You hear where I'm
coming from?
JUDGE DENSON: Well, under our current procedure
for approving amended plats, which we discussed early this
morning --
'^ ~~ 66


n
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23!
241
25
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir. I couldn't hear it, but I
figured the
JUDGE DENSON: We'll try to make it much easier.
MR. VOELKEL: Great, but it still requires
platting, does it not?
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, sir.
MR. VOELKEL: And it will still require contacting
the --
JUDGE DENSON: Engineer.
MR. VOELKEL: -- environmental health people to get
their approval?
JUDGE DENSON: Yes.
MR. VOELKEL: So we're right back where we started.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, I think the intent -- and I
certainly agree, Delly, that once a plat has been filed, we
want to keep track of those -- those lots. Historically, we
want a paper trail. And if one of the lots within a plat has
been filed and approved by the Court, and there's going to be
some change to it, we want that filed of public record.
MR. VOELKEL: For what purpose? And I'm not
arguing the point; I just don't understand why that's so
important.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, just for example, the impact
to the rules for wells, for septic systems.
MR. VOELKEL: Well, that's all offered in the
67
/"
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
process of doing it. You can't do it without it. Here's one
of my concerns. There are 20 tracts in this subdivision. If
each landowner cut his in two, you've got 40 tracts. Right
now you have one sheet in your records. That way you're
going to have 41 sheets in your -- in your Plat Records. It
just clutters it, and I don't see any real reason for it, is
my problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The answer I'd have on this one
is, if you didn't have to go through the platting process,
how would the County know, all of a sudden -- I mean, I guess
the developer or whoever maintains that. Well, all of a
sudden, if it goes to 20, that's become a public water system
and that's a way for the County to be involved with that
process in making sure that, you know, the rules for that are
in force.
MR. VOELKEL: Well, then why not have a simple
matter of sending a copy of the plat to the County Engineer
so he'll be on notice, and then he can put you on notice
rather than going through a platting process? Because that's
what gets expensive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, now, I think the -- the
way for us to keep accurate records is to go through the
platting process. And before you got here, we've eliminated
the preliminary -- there's just a one-step process to come to
the Court now, which should reduce it, you know,
68

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
substantially. I think the survey work has to be done either
way; it's just the cost of preparing the plat, and 911 is
going to have to assign an address whether you plat it or
not. O.S.S.F. and, you know, other -- floodplain, they're
going to have to sign off on it whether you do you a plat ox
not. So I don't see that we're really requiring much
additional, other than the, you know, piece of paper, itself.
'Cause the people that have to sign off on that -- TexDot, if
it's a public highway, is going to have to do a driveway
access at some point. So --
MR. VOELKEL: But my point is, that's a pretty
expensive piece of paper for that landowner, when he has to
pay almost 54,000 to get it done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if you're charging $9,000
to prepare the piece of paper, then, you know, that's your
prerogative as a surveyor. All we're requiring is, you know
-- I think it's a S75 fee to the County. So, either way
you're going to have to do -- you've got to survey tracts,
you've gat to divide it somehow. It's just the preparation
of the papers.
MR. VOELKEL: This one was a little unusual, in
that the owner was going to sell the piece of land. We
surveyed the property for it. Then, when it ended up in the
Commissioners' Court, we had to plat it; we had to go back
and pick up the one that had been sold previously, so that
!^ ~) 69

r~
--•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
23
24
25
was having to go back out and do it again, to do some more.
JUDGE DENSON: The attorney --
MR. VOELKEL: There's time spent on the deal with
the environmental people. It took us two months to even get
a response from them, back and forth. Thank you. Thank you
for listening.
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We tried to make it easier
today.
JUDGE DENSON: 2.4, Clarify status of Thompson
Drive Extension and Moore Lake Road. County Engineer/Road
Administrator.
MR. JOHNSTON: Truby's going to handle this.
JUDGE DENSON: Truby Hardin?
MS. HARDIN: Each year we do a list certifying the
number of miles to the State. I gave each of you a list this
morning of the roads that have been added and subtracted
through the year, and the only one that we did not have a
Court order on was Thompson Drive, so all we're asking for
today is for a formal court order of acceptance for that
road. We had been maintaining it; we just don't have an
order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And Moore Lake's not --
MR. HARDIN: Moore Lake, we're going to ask you to
pass on at this time, because it's under contract to be sold,
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
251
and people want to come back with it later asking you not to
accept or consider it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're recommending that
we accept Thompson Drive for County maintenance?
MS. HARDIN: I believe that, through contracts, we
have already done that. We are maintaining it and we bought
right-of-way, but there was never an order of formal
acceptance, so it's just a formal --
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
MS. HARDIN: -- acceptance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's cool with the
Cummings thing, all of that?
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, this is all part of it; it's
already been discussed and actually approved. It's just
never been formally --
MR. HARDIN: We maintain it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we put Thompson Drive
-- accept Thompson Drive as Kerr County road maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments? All
in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.5, Consider concept plan
for Commanche Trace, Precinct 2. County Engineer, Tommy
Morrill, and Don Beauregard.
71
,•~•
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 ',
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the developer could just
make the presentation first.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: Come up to the lectern, please.
MR. MORRILL: That'll be great. I'm Tom Morrill,
the principal of HNB Partners, the proposed developer of the
Commanche Trace project. I think we supplied everyone with a
concept plan and a narrative of that plan last week. I know
we've met with Franklin a few times over the past six months,
kind of going back and forth on some of these issues. We're
really here today to answer any questions and receive
feedback from you all as far as our concept plan and how it
strikes you, and any comments and suggestions you might have
before we head towards actually closing on the property and
before we start working on a preliminary plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have, I think
it's on roads, which I know you mentioned in the write-up
that some are public, some private?
MR. MORRILL: We just haven't decided. We're
really here to get your thoughts and comments on it. We can
go either way at this point in time. I think we're probably
biased a little bit, especially on the village roads off the
main collector street that goes clear through the project,
for those to be private. And we probably will be back with
some variance requests to keep it in a rural ambience that we
!~ II 7 2
/'`

~''~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
want to keep for that as far as widths and road curves and
things like that. But we're really here to kind of listen
today and learn what the pros and cons axe from the County's
perspective. And, of course, we've got the E.T.J. to
consider, too, as far as the City requirements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think -- to me, this is
an area that it would be nice to have a main thoroughfare and
-- I don't mean like a four-lane major road, but a road that
cuts through from 173 to --
MR. MORRILL: Turtle Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Turtle Creek Road.
MR. MORRILL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't know if that's part
of this or not.
MR. MORRILL: Well, we'd be -- to be honest with
you, I think we'd be somewhat concerned about, you know,
creating a thoroughfare through this -- through this
master-plan community. We would probably want to keep it --
if it were private, I don't think we would gate it, per se;
it would be open to the public, but we would try not to
encourage through-traffic to go through, to be honest with
you, because I think the people living there would object to
more and more traffic coming through this subdivision that
really don't -- don't end or arrive, don't have a purpose for
doing it other than kind of taking a shortcut, supposedly.
73
r
i--~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19,
Z0
21
22
23
29
25
And that's why I think you'll see a well-planned kind of
circuitous route of that street, probably with some stop
signs on it, some low speed limits. I hope it will be
strictly residential and golf course environment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That makes sense.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: We have that same problem in
The Woods dawn there; people cutting through, creating more
traffic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes it dangerous, too.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Real dangerous.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Happens in River Hill, too.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I have one question for Lee on
here. Lee, is part of this property where that drainage
ditch goes down and that field aver there, is that where the
drainage goes down, goes through The Woods?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: No, sir, that would be -- if I'm
understanding your question right, would be on the homestead
site where the subdivided part is, and this is the remainder
of the property that's away from the homestead.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Above that?
MR. VOELKEL: That's correct. And kind of wraps
around to the west. It would not be in that area, though,
no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't the ditch leave the
homestead and go across towards -- I mean, to go on the --
'~ ~~ 7 4
/'~

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
on, I guess, the west side of The Woods, that ditch kind of
goes around?
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Onto that big field?
MR. VOELKEL: That's correct. When the homestead
was approved, there was a promise made by the developer-
owner at that time, Charlie Ray, that he would put a ditch to
divert that water going into The Woods. And that ditch has
been built through the big field going down toward Turtle
Creek, and it drains in that direction now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that field's not -- looks
like -- I mean --
MR. JOHNSTON: Is that what we call that parcel?
Is that part of it right there, Lee?
MR. MORRILL: I think that's right. I think that's
where they're coming out of here, and they would have to work
with us to get some kind of drainage -- continued drainage to
get to Turtle Creek.
MR. JOHNSTON: But you do a drainage study of the
whole area as part of the plat process.
MR. MORRILL: We'll have to do a drainage study of
the holding ponds as well as -- as well as wastewater holding
ponds, treated wastewater.
MR. JOHNSTON: Those aren't shown on here yet, but
that's something you haven't really got in development?
~ ~~ 75

~,
1 MR. MORRILL: No, that will really be the next
2 stage of engineering as far as designing the drainage plan
3 for the property, the irrigation plan for the propezty, and
9 the holding of reused water on the property.
5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And all of the lots axe
6 intended to be served by a public water system?
7 MR. MORRILL: Yes, centralized water system.
8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not public, okay.
9 MR. JOHNSTON: Bill Tucker had commented -- he had
10 to leave, but he had -- there's one, two, three, four exits
11 on Turtle Creek Road on the back.
12 MR. MORRILL: Mm-hmm?
13 MR. JOHNSTON: He was concerned about all of those
14 right in a row on a curve. Might you be able to minimize
15 that down to maybe two?
16 MR. MORRILL: We talked to him just now, and we
17 agree with him that that does make sense. We didn't focus on
18 that, really, but I think there would be no problem taking
19 that down to two.
20 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Some of these lots will have
21 two to three homes per acre?
22 MR. MORRILL: Yes, sir. Possibly -- possibly more.
23 We'll be asking for -- I think in some of the land use, we go
24 up to five per acre.
25 MR. JOHNSTON: They have a sewer system, so there's
76
T
.-.
/'~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a difference.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Yeah.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's almost like a city lot.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Be like River Hills over here
on the side of those hills where the water runs off one, lust
keeps on going down on top of the others.
MR. JOHNSTON: Drainage will be a big issue on that
high density. You'd have to really do an analysis of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Morrill, I'd like to
make a comment, that I see your plan as a -- really a concept
plan.
MR. MORRILL: That's true.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In my mind, it's a real
concept plan. You haven't gone out there and cleared all the
land and laid everything out, and then later know that you're
going to come in and bulldoze the Commissioners' Court. This
is a real concept plan. I appreciate you doing it this way.
Excellent. Tremendous information. I read about my friend
Bobby Shelton and all that; it was great. And it lust --
it's good.
MR. MORRILL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm certainly in favor of
what you're doing.
MR. MORRILL: Yeah, you hit it on the head; it's
truly a concept plan. Although I will say that we've been
77

1
2
3
4
5
6
7,
91I
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
out on the site a lot with our planning firm, as far as this
routing of the golf course, and we've got the -- it's got
good topo maps on it, so there's a lot of thought in even
where the main spine road is going in from topo reasons. And
we've had wetland studies done, we've had some environmental
studies done; all that's been considered in the concept plan
at this point.
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you very much.
MR. MORRILL: Appreciate it.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.6, Consider and discuss
removal of special notes on Ace Acres plat. Mr. Dean, if
you'll please come forward?
MR. DEAN: In 1998, Mr. Bob Sandison platted a
Clearstreams tract into eight different plats -- eight
different lots. At that time, the U.G.R.A., which was in
control of the wastewater and also the flood -- flood zone,
they had -- they put some special notes on the plat that are
not conducive to the -- to the times now. In other words,
what they had done, they had actually defined the -- a type
of septic system that could be placed on these lots.
Technology has changed since that time, and those particular
septic tanks are not required by U.G.R.A. And, what we're
asking is that the Commissioners' Court remove those or allow
the removal of those special notes. And the reason for this
is that I'm a real estate broker. I presently have Lots 5,
~ ~~ 78

~.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22'
23I~
24~i
25
6, 7, and 8 sold to two different parties; in other words, 5
and 6 are sold to one party, and 7 and 8 are sold to one
party. They -- these particular people have gotten with the
U.G.R.A. already to apply for their septic tanks on these.
And this is where it came to be that the septic tanks are not
required as the special notes implied back in 1986. U.G.R.A.
has already gotten with the -- with the buyers and they --
they've gotten the right septic tanks or proposed septic
tanks.
My problem has come in, in that the title company, in
issuing a title opinion or a policy, has excepted to these
notes right here, and -- in other words, if the buyer buys
with these particular notes on here, then, in essence,
they're required to put that type of septic system in, which
is no longer required. Charlie Wiedenfeld, I met with him.
He has drafted a letter stating that -- that none of these
things apply. On the plat, the individual wastewater
disposal systems, it still has the general clause that
U.G.R.A. has all control over those. So, actually, what
we're asking for is a Court order, not a replat, not a total
replat on this. We're just asking for a Court order removing
these. Charlie, do you have any comments?
MR. WIEDENFELD: I just -- Charles Wiedenfeld,
Upper Guadalupe River Authority Septic Program. I have
reviewed the -- the special notes that are on that plat and
r, II 7 9

~^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25'
have prepared a letter that I suppose Mr. Dean submitted to
the Court. And, in summary -- I looked at the floodplain
portion of it, septic portion and anything else related.
And, in summary, I believe current septic rules, State and
local, do provide equivalent protection to the public health
and the environment for what he's trying to get done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, do you have a
comment?
MR. JOHNSTON: I put it on the agenda just because
it concerned a plat, but I really don't have any, you know,
expertise on that, other than saying that the process doesn't
really apply to any lot dimension or anything, so I would
think this possibly could work. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, is this a revision of
plat affecting owners' rights?
JUDGE DENSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It isn't? We can just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What notes were they? I'm
sorry. Notes -- special notes?
MR. DEAN: They were the special notes pertaining
to Ace Acres Subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's qot --
JUDGE DENSON: I make a motion that the special
notes on Ace Acres plat relative to on-site sewage facilities
are no longer applicable to current on-site sewage facility
/~ II 80


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19~
20
21
22
23
24
25
rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't want to cite the
actual number of the note or all those notes?
MR. DEAN: It would be all the notes. It's not
just the on-site facilities. In other words, this does
pertain to the flood zone. And Charlie has addressed that
already. In other words, flood zone in primarily the
environmental -- or the wastewater -- individual wastewater
systems had to do with the flood zone.
JUDGE DENSON: What were you saying earlier just
relative to the on-site sewage facilities and the change in
the rules? Charlie, do you have -- do you want to make some
suggested language that our motion -- or that our action
encompass?
MR. WIEDENFELD: To address floodplain again, Kerr
County order, I think, addresses concerns in that area, and
we'll catch -- we'll be covered during the permitting process
there, also. Dealing with some wording -- well --
JUDGE DENSON: Well, maybe what I just said
earlier, and I'll just add floodplain also?
MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: For example, the motion will be that
special notes on Ace Acres plat relative to off-site sewage
facilities and floodplain --
MR. WIEDENFELD: Floodplain.
~` II 81
r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: -- are no longer applicable to
current on-site sewage facility and floodplain rules.
MR. WIEDENFELD: Or possibly use the words, "more
appropriately addressed by current on-site septic rules and
Kerr County order." Mare appropriately. It can still be
done this way, but --
MR. JOHNSTON: The floodplain line moved?
JUDGE DENSON: We'll do that if the title company
says.
MR. DEAN: Well, that's what I was going to say.
The title company -- that's probably going to be a big
question to them, because the special notes are still on
there.
JUDGE llENSON: I think my -- I think -- excuse me.
MR. DEAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: I think my suggestion was more
definitive
MR. DEAN: Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: -- than "more appropriately." I
think I know what the title company is looking for.
MR. DEAN: All right.
JUDGE DENSON: So they'll issue a title policy
where they don't have to except to that reference on the
plat.
MR. DEAN: Yes, sir. Okay.
~'` it 8 2

,^
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't we just delete
special notes?
MR. DEAN: That's basically what we are asking for
is deletion of the special notes.
JUDGE DENSON: You can't delete them. They're
there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's a lawyer, though, see.
Second. I second your motion, Judge.
JUDGE DENSON: They're just --
MR. JOHNSTON: Floodplain didn't move. The
floodplain -- I don't know how we can do away with the
floodplain unless they did another study. It has to remain
there, right?
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
Further discussion? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
MR. DEAN: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: 2.7, Consider and discuss step/grade
for promotion of jailer. Gentlemen, I -- let me back up. I
think all of us received a copy of the Sheriff's letter, and
I simply -- it appears to me that she was asking for us to
take some kind of action. While she has not asked us
specifically to put it on the agenda, that's the only way we
can take action, and so I put it on the agenda. And if
r" II 83
r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10,
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
ya'all want to do something about it --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question. I mean,
somebody needs to explain it to me before I can vote on it.
In the first paragraph there, in October '97, jailer Garcia
received a merit raise. In October of '97 he received a
merit raise. And then on down, her real request is here is
for jailer Garcia to receive that merit raise. That's what
I'm reading.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, she -- now, Barbara, are you
listening to all this?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: Because you're going to be the one
that really tells us what it says.
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: It looks like that he -- he received
a merit raise at the beginning of last year's -- this year's
budget year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He got the merit raise.
JUDGE DENSON: He received that. And during the
course of the year, the Sheriff promoted him --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh.
JUDGE DENSON: -- from one grade to another. Looks
like on May 16th she did that to bring him up to $18,773,
which is the same salary without that merit raise.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
~ II e9


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25'
JUDGE DENSON: So now she wants to add a merit
raise on that 15-1 to make it a 15-3.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's already received the
merit raise, though. He's already received it.
JUDGE DENSON: He did, but when he received his
promotion, it was sort of taken away. When he received the
promotion, he was just moved up to the salary level that was
in existence without the merit increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we did the same thing
last meeting, I believe. I forget what the employee was, but
in some --
MS. NEMEC: It was Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Road and Bridge. Where he got
a raise and ended up -- he got promoted, ended up at the same
salary level, they kicked him up whatever -- the second
number is for the grade. I don't have a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree that we've done it
before, and I really don't have much of a problem with it. I
was just wondering -- I was concerned about the way this is
written. To me, this is written -- there's something sneaky
about this thing.
MS. NEMEC: This particular employee was a jailer
in October of '97, and he was a 14-1. That -- a 14 is the
jailer grade. And then a 5-percent increase was given to
!1 ~~ 8 5


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
employees, so then he became -- he was -- she put him as a
19-3. So then in May, when she promoted him to a jail
supervisor, that's a step of 15. Then the only way she could
have put him at a 15-3 was to come to Court at that time, so
therefore, he had to -- she had to put him at a 15-1, which
is the same salary as a 19-3. So, as a supervisor, he's
making the same as he was making as a jailer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I also agree -- I
mean, it's not worded very well in her letter, but I think
what she intended, I don't have any problem with it, and
would move to put him at an a 15-3 -- Mr. Garcia at a 15-3.
JUDGE DENSGN: Here's the problem that I have with
it. And I've heard your motion. Here again, some action is
taken by someone during the middle of the budget year that
creates a need for us to find some money, find some funds to
fund an increase. I mean, Barbara, for example, this person
is making $18,773 a year at this point. Because of action
being taken in May of this year, the promotion, he jumped to
$19,723 -- what is that, $950 or something? -- that is needed
to fund this -- this raise or this promotion. And so we have
to go find the funds --
MS. NEMEC: A lot of times --
JUDGE DENSGN: -- outside the budget process.
MS. NEMEC: A lot of times when that happens -- and
I don't know that that's the case on this one without looking
~~ 86


1 at it. A lot of times when a promotion is given like that,
2 it's normally because there's been someone in that slot that
3 left, and more than likely they were probably higher than a
4 15-1 anyway. Now, I don't know that that's the case here,
5 without going back and looking at all that. But --
6 JUDGE DENSON: Okay, I see. You're saying that the
7 money would be there because --
8 MS. NEMEC: Right.
9 JUDGE DENSON: -- the position is there?
10 MS. NEMEC: Right.
11 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. If that's --
12 MS. NEMEC: It possibly wasn't 15-3 or higher to
13 begin with. But because it was vacated, it went to a 15-1.
14 JUDGE DENSON: If that's the case, I have no
15 problem with it. But if it made us have to find some more
16 money, I have a problem with it.
17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because what happens is -- I
18 mean, if there's a 15-1 position open, you could go out and
19 hire anybody in the world if they agree to go to work as a
20 15-1. That's the salary you're going to get paid, no matter
21 whether its the same as a 14-3 or a 12-7. You know. It's
22 lust when that person gets moved up, then they expect to get
23 an increase because of the increase in responsibility, even
29 though they were at that salary.
25 JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, and that's certainly a good
87

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
theory.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I mean, that's the way I see
it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but, I mean, I don't
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Well, we've got a motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that slot -- is that
money there? She said maybe or maybe not; we don't know.
JUDGE DENSON: I'm not going to vote on it.
MS. NEMEC: I can go look at my position sticker
real quick.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There was a shift supervisor,
presumably, but he got promoted into -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think so, too.
JUDGE DENSON: Why don't we answer this for sure?
Why don't you go look it up, please.
MS. NEMEC: Okay, sure.
JUDGE DENSON: And while she's gone, let's slip up
to the next one. 2.8, Consider and discuss benefits for
three permanent, regular, part-time employees in the jail.
Again, this was a letter that was sent to us, I believe, and
I simply put it on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, number one,
"permanent, regular, part-time employees"? Is there anything
that we can do about that language?
JUDGE DENSON: I think -- and I've heard this
~ ~~ 88


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
thrown around -- it's full-time part-time
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hate that.
JUDGE DENSON: What it means, it's a person that
works 20 hours a week or something like that, that does
receive full benefits, where most part-time employees do not
receive insurance, retirement, and so forth. But there are a
couple of unique positions in the County that I've been told
about in the past.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From what -- from Tommy's
comments previously, based on what is said in the second
sentence, each averages more than 19 and a half hours per
week. They are full-time, by law.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By federal law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, they are entitled
to benefits by federal law. So, it's -- I mean, I don't see
we have any -- you know, any choice in this.
JUDGE DENSON: And, here again, I would ask the
same type of question I asked earlier. As long as this does
not create a need to find additional funds, I don't have any
problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I have another
question that may go along with that. In the very last
paragraph, "I appreciate your consideration of those folks so
that it may be figured in the upcoming budget." Is this
something that they're requesting that we address today? Or
/` II 89
,r-~
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
are we addressing it as a budget ~rocess?
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, it does look like she's asking
for the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: udget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I t ink, clearly, this will
affect our budget, whether it's n w or next year, because we
are adding benefits which are not currently being paid to
anybody.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
it. But it looks like here that
address it for the upcoming budge
reading it.
JUDGE DENSON: I agree
treat it that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
you've agreed with me today on?
JUDGE DENSON: No, I've
solutely, no question of
r request is that we
That's the way I'm
th you on that. And let's
[s that the only thing
agreed on quite a few
things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tha
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Exc
by federal law, they're probably
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
permanent, regular, part-time; th
when it goes over 20 hours.
is a budget item?
[ think so.
ept from the the standpoint,
=ntitled to it now.
I agree. And they're not
ey're full-time employees
~'' ~ I 9 0
.~-~
~~
r^"-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2F
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Full-time employees that work
less than a 90-hour week.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Let's see. Let's move to
2.9, Destination of polling places for the 8 November
election. County Clerk. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got to have a second before
we can have discussion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Midway Store is closed.
MS. MEEKER: Let's change that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're going to have it at
Sunset and combine -- we're going to combine 910 and 409. It
will be at the Sunset Baptist Church, where they've been now
for the last two or three elections. Midway Store has been
closed down.
MS. MEEKER: I noticed that when -- when I passed
it yesterday; I was beginning to wonder. If you'll make that
change, you'll make Maxine Powell as well as Dawn Castillo
happy.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And 909 and 910 will be
combined.
MS. MEEKER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Into 409. In other words,
404 -- 410 will vote at Sunset Baptist Church rather than
91


--.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Midway Store.
MS. MEEKER: Consolidate.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Then I'll second your motion.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Your motion included that
change?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, six, it did.
JUDGE DENSON: And we got a second. Further
questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Now we're going. Okay, 2.10,
Approval interlocal agreements from mental health and
chemical dependency commitments at Kerrville State Hospital
and authorize County Judge to sign the same with the
following counties. There's quite a number of them that have
been posted.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to point
out, these chemical dependency commitments that we've all
been worried about, that M.H.M.R. does no longer handle, they
do now. The contract is with Starlight Village Hospital.
JUDGE DENSON: Oh, really?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To start treating some of
92


1
2
3
9
5
6,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13~~
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
these people.
JUDGE DENSON: Good. Okay. Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: In this particular case, he was taking
the place of a 15-1, so that position was budgeted at a 15-1.
JUDGE DENSON: So, there -- in other words, the
money is there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's not there.
JUDGE DENSON: Oh, it's not there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I understood it --
MS. NEMEC: Look at the position that he's taking
the place of. He actually takes the place of a person that
was making -- that was a 15-1, and they left.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think we ought to
approve it.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, as I said, that -- and I don't
want this to sound critical of just the Sheriff. It's a
philosophy. You cannot, by discretionary action, create an
impact on the budget that's not funded. You simply -- and a
department head or an elected official promoting someone
during the budget year, which would require Commissioners'
Court to go find the funds for that action, is not right.
That should be done during the budget process.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, in order to go up two
grades, you're going to have to justify some experience and
extra duties and all kind of things that they qualify to meet
/~ ~~ 93
/^
/'~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1311
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those in order to get from a 15-1 to a 15-3. Just like if
you got a raise as a 19-1 -- he got a two-grade increase to a
14-3. So, you know, I can't see taking somebody from a 19-3
to a 15-3 just like that. I mean, like you said, he already
got his raise.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He got his merit raise.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He got his merit raise, and
they just -- the merit raise didn't get tacked on again to
the 15-1 level. He'd be getting a double-whammy that way, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, too.
MS. NEMEC: You'd be getting a double raise.
JUDGE DENSON: While it works a little bit to the
disadvantage of a person that gets promoted, it should be
something that's discussed with that individual, that you're
not going to get the true benefits of the position until the
beginning of next budget year. And I have no problem
whatsoever with increasing that person from a -- from
whatever grade it is to that other position, and give him
what she's asking, but it begins October the 1st of '98.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that will be something
she'll have to come in and request to justify, unless we give
merit -- if we authorize 5 percent, then he'll be at a 15-3.
He already got a raise, just like what Buster said in the
beginning. It's just that he changed from from one job title
/' II 94

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12'
13
19
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
to another. Just because that's the same salary doesn't mean
that wants increasing again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The request is for another
merit --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER:
exactly. And I'm not going to
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
another budget item.
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
saying. Did you have a motion?
that?
Another merit increase,
/ote for that.
Sounds like to me it's
Basically, that's what we're
Did someone make a motion on
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I think the motion's
going to die on the vine, John.
JUDGE DENSON: Do you want to withdraw it, or do
you want it to die for lack of a second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll withdraw it.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm still thinking through this
a little bit, how we did some of the other ones. But it --
JUDGE DENSON: If the money was there, it would be
okay. We shouldn't tell people who they can promote and who
they cannot, and I wouldn't want to ever get into that.
That's their business. But only if the money is available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me that shouldn't be the
issue. The issue is that it's the level of -- and it's --
~ ~~ 95


1
2
3
4
5
6,
7i
81
9i
10
11
121
13
19
15
16
17
18
1911
201'
21~,
22
23
29'
2 5 I'
maybe this is the answer, that she needs to come to us if
this person should be a 15-3. Then we should jump it up.
The fact that the money is really not there shouldn't make
that much of a difference.
JUDGE DENSON: You want to declare an emergency
just because someone gets a raise?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I'm saying that person
goes into a 15-1, unless -- and if the department head wants
that person to be a 15-3, they can come in here and justify
that adjustment, as opposed to doing it, you know, just
because the money is there. I think it's just a 15-1 either
way, and the fact the money isn't there is irrelevant.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a double merit raise,
is what that says right there.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, here -- let's see. Let's move
to Z.11, Consider and discuss request for Maintenance
Supervisor to purchase capital items. Glenn Holekamp was
here, and he stepped out. I know last week in some of our
discussions, he said he wanted to install time clocks, a
couple of those, and that's why I put this on here, is to
authorize him -- this is sort of, I guess, an emergency or --
I don't know whether there is money in his budget or not.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He has money. Should be.
JUDGE DENSON: Does he? He said it would cost a
couple hundred dollars a piece, if I recall.
~ ~ 96

~~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9'
l0
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE DENSON: But ya'all want to wait until he
comes back in or take action and authorize him to buy two
time clocks?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't have a
problem authorizing him to do it if the money's in his
capital budget.
MR. WILLIAMS: He's outside.
JUDGE DENSON: Would you mind? Thank you, Bill.
(Glenn Holekamp entered the courtroom.)
JUDGE DENSON: Glenn, we're on 2.11, which is
talking about authorization to purchase capital items, and I
know that you had mentioned last week that you wanted to buy
a couple of time clocks.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: Is that still your desire?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, it is.
JUDGE DENSON: How much do they cost, and do you
have the money to pay for them?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. I do, sir. In capital
outlays in Courthouse and Related Buildings, we have a
balance of $1,107.72. Two time clocks, one placed at this
facility and one at the Ag Barn. Cost, $220.97 each. So, a
total of 5992, basically, to come out of that particular line
item and get those time clocks in place.
~~ 97
r.
r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Fourth.
JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you, sir.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: 2.13, Consider and discuss Order
approving by Resolution the negotiated agreement between
State of Texas and its counties and hospital districts into
final judgment in the tobacco litigation. Let's see. This
is a Resolution that Jim Allison sent me per his letter. And
what it says is -- there's some language -- ends up with some
language that may speak to the settlement.
Resolved that the Commissioners' Court of Kerr County
recognize the excellent representation provided by the County
Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas and the Texas
Association of Counties in this effort, and further
acknowledge the extraordinary public service rendered by
Representative Robert Junell, Senator Bill Ratliff, Speaker
Pete Laney, and our other state leaders in this achievement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a good
resolution. I don't know why they want to single out these
three people. Obviously, they all kind of owe each other
98
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
something here, but could be. These guys are just three of
the many, many, many, many folks that work.
JUDGE DENSON: It says "and other State leaders."
I guess they were involved in the tobacco deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't see the reason
for a Resolution commending TAC for doing their jab.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can't see that it does one
bit of good.
JUDGE DENSON: These are democrats anyhow, aren't
they?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Except for Bill Ratliff.
And I agree with that, see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm basically opposed to it.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, there's no motion. I'm going
to move on.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So we can pat them on the
back?
JUDGE DENSON: Consider and discuss -- this is
2.13, Consider and discuss contracting with the Texas
Department of Public Safety to deny renewal of driver's
license for failure to appear on certain Class C traffic
violations and authorize County Judge to sign same. This is
subject matter that we discussed the last agenda, and then
had the workshop with the J.P.'s where it was concluded that
99
~-..
~~
1 they had no -- no objection.
2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
3 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
9 JUDGE DENSON: Second.
5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understood the conclusion
6 was that we were lust going to do nothing for about a year
7 and let this thing rock on.
g COMMISSIONER LACKEY: We decided to go ahead and
9 pass this year and then --
10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then for a year --
11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were going to include the
12 Sheriff's Department to kind of input that and see how it
13 worked.
14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
15 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All in favor?
16 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
17 JUDGE DENSON: 2.19, Consider and discuss extending
18 burn ban.
19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much rain did you get out
20 west?
21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Varied. We're not expecting
22 to get any this week.
23 JUDGE DENSON: Not enough.
2q COMMISSIONER LACKEY: We had one spot out here that
25 had six-tenths of an inch. I move that we extend it another
100


1
2
3
4
5
6~1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
days.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It varied. We had anywhere
from 2 inches down to some areas that didn't get more than
-- there were areas that got 2 inches, Garven Store. It just
-- you still got the dry grass up there, it only takes a day
or so to dry out and with dry grass, here we go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yesterday would have been a
good day. It's too late now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: When it was raining, it would
be have been a great time. I had people call, wanting to
burn.
JUDGE DENSON: I had a number of calls that day
when we got a little rain here. As a matter of fact, I had a
couple of anonymous calls, saying there were fires in
existence in one of the subdivisions -- conceptual
subdivision that we discussed today. Okay, I've got a motion
by Commissioner Lackey.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I make a motion. It wouldn't
hurt to you second that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second the motion.
JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you want to give
out your phone number? I mean, people calling about burning,
is that who we call?
~ ~~ 101


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE DENSON: They find me here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay.
JUDGE DENSON: 2:15, Consider and discuss Kerr
County participation in activities of Kerr County Fair
Association. Actually, I don't know, I think Thea may have
chosen that language. I wanted to make sure that the news
media gets word of the Kerr County Fair Association
activities, which will be on October the 10th, 1998. They're
going to have Friday events, Saturday events, and Sunday
events. I have an information sheet I'd like to give to the
news media and see if -- if ya'all could just, as a public
service-type of announcement, let people know that this is
going to happen. Because these people do an awful lot of
work, and it's a -- some of the events are neat. Things that
the kids and families and all can get involved in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You think that we should
challenge the City Council to the garbage can painting
contest? It would be a special challenge.
JUDGE DENSON: I will concede that the City is
better at painting --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Garbage cans? I'm with you.
JUDGE DENSON: -- than I am. Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Now, shooting holes in them,
we might be better. Portable showers.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. I said October the 10th
~~ 102
/"~

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
2111
221!
23
29
25
a while ago, and that's -- that is the day of a parade. So I
was -- that's actually a little inaccurate. They're going to
have a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, so you just need to look
at this information sheet I give you. Thank you.
Okay. Down to 2.16, Consider and discuss Kerr County
participation in improvements to Scott Schreiner Golf Course
and extension of water and sewage to the airport. This is
really just a continuation of that item, because I think the
last time we had this on the agenda, Commissioner Letz said
he was going to talk to some people at the City. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did.
JUDGE DENSON: -- come back to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I talked to Glen Brown, and I
think I probably also talked to some of the -- the City
Board, and I told them that -- you know, that if they would
get us a proposal, we'd be glad to consider something. And I
said that the feeling I had was that we were not very
inclined to help with the improvements to the golf course,
but we were somewhat inclined to the -- essentially, on the
sewage and wastewater around loop 539, and even more inclined
to participate in with the sewage to the airport. As I said,
really, you know, I don't know what their -- other than at
one point they mentioned to me it was $800,000 proposed to
get the sewage line to the airport, and they need to come to
us with a specific plan as to what -- one, what they're
/~ II 103

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12'i
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
planning to do, and two, how much it's going to cost, and
three, how much they want us to pay. And I told Glen that,
you know, to me they should propose a joint workshop so we
could sit down with the City Council and go over what their
-- I mean, I really don't know what they're doing other than
what I read in the paper. That's what I told Glen. I
presume he'll bring it up at the City Council meeting
tomorrow night.
JUDGE DENSON: A joint workshop?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I -- to me, it's
the easiest way to get going forward on it, rather than back
and forth waiting. A proposed a workshop, and I'm sure
we'll, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me be real clear on what
you're saying. Workshop with Commissioners' Court and the
City Council? Or Commissioners' Court and the appointed
Board?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference would be with the
City Council. I didn't say; I just said a joint workshop
with the City and, you know, us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't really say what -- he
said he was going to bring it up to the City Council, so I
presume that it will be with City Council.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They keep -- I saw in the
/"~ N 10 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
paper last week or the week before that said the appointed
Board wanted to do something big and wonderful, but they're
not going to make a move until the Commissioners' Court make
some kind of commitment. Commitment for what? I mean,
nobody's ever come forward to us to have any idea, but -- I
also saw the $800,000 -- $700-thousand-plus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, I think that my
-- the amount that I'm willing to go and to help with is
going to vary a lot, depending on what they're planning to
do. A sewage line out to Mooney, I don't have a lot of
interest in that. If they're just going to add sewage out to
that part of the county, yes, I'd be willing to kick in, you
know, try to find money to kick in for that. So it just
depends, really, what their true proposal is to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Mr. Letz, once
again, thank you. You do a great service to this community.
JUDGE DENSON: Is there a motion on the table to
give them 5250,000 for the golf course?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're waiting on that motion,
sir.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I will -- I'll try to give
Glen a call today to say that we discussed it and we think a
workshop's the way to go. We'll just set it up. Is there
any day that's preferable from our standpoint? Probably
105
/~
r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
they're all bad.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, if they want to do that, if
you get positive feedback, we'll take it up next time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll tell them the Court --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Tell us when to show up.
JUDGE DENSON: 2.17, Consider and discuss
scheduling days for final budget workshops. I had our
administrative assistant call the Tax Assessor/Collector,
Paula Rector, last week -- last Thursday or Friday, and find
out when we we're going to get some final figures from the
Appraisal District. And they said -- this was through, as I
said, two. or three people, through the chain of people I've
just mentioned -- that we probably won't get any figures
until midweek this week. That's what they're hoping to do.
Some certified numbers. Because of all the contested
hearings they've had. I already had this on the agenda,
these workshops, so it's getting -- it's cutting it sort of
close. Because if we have a workshop, there's no need to
have a workshop unless we have those final numbers. And, of
course, the Sheriff's budget is one of the most important
budgets we're going to have to look at as far as what we're
going to be able to fund and those various requests that she
has. I talked with her. She is going to be out of town for
the first -- most of this week, but we did come up with
Thursday afternoon at 1:30 as a workshop for her. And, you
,"~ ~~ 10 6


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, that's what I would like t
budget workshop for her, as well
personally in, as well as anyone
or revisit any of these budgets.
don't have the certified numbers
can call it off or reset it.
~ do.
as -
else
But
by t
I'd like to set a
- we'll invite her
ya'all want to think of
pick that date. If we
hen, then I can -- we
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This coming Thursday?
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is the 13th?
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. And that was -- that was set
at her -- sort of at her convenience, because she was going
to be out of town. She was going to come back in especially
for that and then be out of town again Friday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only request is, Judge,
that we -- from -- you know, that's fine, I'll do that, but
I'd prefer to do it early in the morning. Just -- I mean, I
know that's a silly thing, but we've all kind of got on the
early morning thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would it be too much of a
problem to postpone it till next Monday when we'll have the
numbers?
JUDGE DENSON: She's going to be in -- she's
involved in a lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She won't be here.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. But we need to -- and I know
!'1 II 10 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7,,
8
91'',
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
we're waiting on a precedent, so that can't be avoided, but
we need to move forward in this budget process, get us some
numbers and all the hearing dates we're going to have to go
through
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my preference is going
to be -- and I don't know that -- you know, how this is going
to work. But when we get the numbers, even if the Sheriff
isn't here, I really want her to figure out -- or any other
department, figure out where the cuts are going to be. Like
if a lot of them have new employees and capital outlay, I
really want them to tell us which they want, as opposed to us
saying, you can have the computer and you can't have the
personnel, or vice-versa. Because they're going -- the ones
that -- you know, they know what they need the most out of
what they've requested. I think other departments other than
the Sheriff's are likely going to have to have same cuts.
So, you know, I almost think that we could almost meet as --
just as a Commissioners' Court to figure out a total, get
them back and say, you need to reduce your budget by this
amount and come back to us, and then next meeting -- at
another meeting. I mean, I just -- last year, or prior
years, I think we tried to do it in here. I don't know that
it's the best decision to try to make a one-meeting decision.
That's why I would rather -- let's get the numbers, meet
Thursday and hear the cut.
~~ 108

~.
,~-~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19'
20~,
21~!
22
231
24
25
JUDGE DENSON: Here's just -- this is just a
general statement as to most people that came in. You're not
looking at very large increases in their budget. I think
we've had a couple people ask for additional employees, but,
like, one employee. Or like the County Attorney making a
full-time out of a part-time. And there were some -- a few
requests, I think, for some capital outlay. By and large, I
mean, the Sheriff's Department -- if we give her what she's
asking, you're talking about a $600,OD0 increase. No one --
no one in County government has come even close to that, you
know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE DENSON: As a matter of fact, most of the
increases are a few thousand. But -- well, what do you want
to do on the 1:30? Do you want to set it then? That's about
the only time she can be here, it sounded like, over the next
seven or eight days. I have -- I have -- we can do it next
Monday, but it will be in your absence. I have Thursday
morning Probate Court for, like, some of my judicial duties.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really wanted a little bit of
time to go -- to be able to go through it before we meet with
the Sheriff. It depends on that -- I mean, if we get the --
I don't want to be hit with the budgets -- the actual numbers
for the first time when we're in here, you know, with the
Sheriff on Thursday. I want to have some time to look at it
109
,-'~
r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and figure out and get some ideas for myself. And I don't
know -- which means, you know, at least a day in advance.
So, for me to want to go along with that Thursday, I would
want to have the numbers by Wednesday.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Well, let's forget about it
and I'll talk with her and I'll be talking with the Appraisal
District and I'll set a budget workshop on my own closely
after consulting with ya'all as to a convenient date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think from any standpoint, my
time is -- your schedule is, by far, more dictated by your
other hearings. You know, I can adjust mine accordingly,
pretty much.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's do that. So we just won't do
anything, won't take any action on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we prefer it in the
morning, don't we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE DENSON: And I always try and do that. But
it -- it's Fridays or Mondays is the only time that I have
mornings available.
MS UECKER: Judge Denson, I just have a question.
Are you talking about just the Sheriff, or all of us?
JUDGE DENSON: Well, you know, what Jonathan was
saying, the way I understood it, was that he wants to look at
everybody's budget as to what they've requested as far as
~~ 110

r^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
increasing.
MS. UECKER: Well, I think everybody -- all mine
decreased from last year. But when -- at what point are we
going to talk about salaries? I think that --
JUDGE DENSON: That will be in another general
budget workshop, and it's going to be totally dependent upon
what kind of revenues we have.
MS. UECKER: Okay. But you are going to hold some
type of a --
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, ma'am. We're going to have
some final budget workshops. Not only with the Sheriff, but
just of a general nature, and discuss possible raises and if
the money's there.
MS. UECKER: Right. Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: This Court -- I think it's real
clear, there will not be a tax rate increase under any
circumstances.
MS. UECKER: That's not my question. My question
was are we going to talk about salaries at some point.
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's no question --
I mean, salaries -- the salaries are going to be increased.
Potential for increase is going to be dependent on how much
we approve and this other spending --
MS. UECKER: I know. That's the same thing every
111
1 year. But my question was are we, and yes, you've answered


2 that. Okay.
3 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Mike Walker -- I saw him in
4 and out. Is he out there? Bill, again, I thank you for
5 being sort of a doorman.
6 (Off-the-record discussion.)
7 MR. WILLIAMS: He's disappeared, Judge.
8 JUDGE DENSON: Consider and discuss approving a
9 plan of action recommended by architect and engineer to
10 resolve electrical problems existing on the first floor of
11 the annex. Commissioner Letz, do you know anything about
12 this?
13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This relates to the -- I think
19 it was the Tax Assessor and Appraiser, but mostly the Tax
15 Assessor was having problems blowing circuits. I think they
16 came up with a short-term fix for that, but I'm not really
17 certain what the details of that fix are at this time. I
18 know he had his two engineers here as well, so maybe they're
19 going to come back at one o'clock.
20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He seems to come whenever he
21 wants to. But the Judge read up to the first floor of the
22 annex, and my question is those next few words, "which may or
23 may not be covered." Are they or are they not?
24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are you reading from?
i
25~ JUDGE DENSON: Oh, on his budget request sheet.
112
/'~

1
2
3
9
5
6,
7
8'
9',
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not budget, but agenda.
JUDGE DENSON: Agenda request sheet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 18.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, there it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which may or may not be
covered in the developing construction documents.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they're not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think that they're
not, just thinking about it. It's strange, that wording.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I understand it, there's --
when I talked to Mike, it's several thousand dollars to solve
those problems, sort of on a short-term basis.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, let's see. I've heard from
Paula Rector about it, and let's see if I can put it right.
She is -- if we don't get the blown circuit problem solved,
she will blow a fuse.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Personal fuse?
JUDGE DENSON: Personal fuse.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. I think we ought to
move forward with this.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't want to be around
when she blows.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mike's comments really were
that it is not a big problem. But, you know, that could be
several thousand dollars dealing with Mike.
n ~~ 113
~^'`

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15~
16
17
18
19 i
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: Do we want to keep talking or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask another question,
please. In that same group of words here that I was reading
from, the last sentence is, "Multiple copies of supporting
documents will be supplied to the Court by Wednesday morning,
August 5th." I failed to get mine. Did ya'all get yours?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe so, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know why
ya'all put up with that.
JUDGE DENSON: Ya'all want to take this up? Let's
see if he's here. That may be my fault; I didn't tell him --
I said it probably would be after lunch, we were so late when
I saw him. But he was out there a few minutes ago and then
maybe he decided, 11:30, he would go to lunch.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 1:15?
JUDGE DENSON: 1:15, we'll be back, yes.
MS. NEMEC: Judge, I probably won't be in the
courtroom at 1:15, I'll be in my office, but would you mind
asking if that includes my office? 'Cause we're also having
problems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ
I believe it's yours and
Paula's, correct?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ya'all are just using too
much electricity, that's all there is to it.
~ ~~ 119

~^,
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0 I'
21
22
23
29
25
(Morning session was recessed at 11:45 a.m.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, I guess we'll get down to
business here. It's Monday, August 10th, 1998. It's 1:30.
We're in open meeting now, but we're going to close this
meeting and go into Executive Session, per our posted agenda,
and deal with both matters that are posted, one dealing with
pending and possible litigation, and the other dealing with
personnel employee evaluations. So, at this time, 1:31,
we'll close our open meeting.
(The open session was closed at 1:31 p.m., and
an Executive Session was held, the transcript
of which is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE DENSON: It's 10 to 2:00, August 10, '98.
We're back in open session, and we'll recess.
(Commissioners' Court was adjourned at 1:50 p.m.)
115


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19',
20
21
22
23
29
25
C E R T I F I C A T E
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
Official Reporter of the Commissioners' Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 18th day of August,
1998.
Kathy Ba ~k
Certified Shorthand Reporter
r` N 116