--: s
R ,.
~~
L_ ~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
	13
~„	
	1a
	1s
	1s
	n
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	2a
	25

COMMISSIONERS' COURT
Regular Session
July 27, 1998
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: ROBERT A. DENSON, County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
T. H. "BUTCH" LACKEY, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LET2, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 9
Fled Day of ~AD.1 R~TIME_
BILLIE G. EEKER
Gerk County Court, Kerr County, Texas
By' sPuA'
L_J

1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
I N D E X
Morning Session
1.1 Pay Bills
1.2 Budget Amendments
1.3 Late Bills
1.9 Monthly Reports
2.1 * No-Parking signs - East Spicer Road
2.2 Preliminary Replat, Tract 2 ~ 3-Pecan Valley
2.3 Bus Shelter - Highway 27 East & Split Rock
2.4 Interlocal Agreements - M.H. ~ Chem. Depend.
2.5 Central Counting Station-Nov. Gen. Election
2.6 Drivers' license renewal, FTA-Class C Misd.
2.7 Improvements to Scott Schreiner Golf Course
2.8 Extension of Water/Sewer lines to Airport
2.1 * No-parking signs - East Spicer Road
2.9 Potable/Nonpotable water plan
2.10 Donation of Tree by Sons of Texas Republic
2.11 Grant funds for routing Airport maintenance
2.12 Share of proceeds-tobacco industry settlement
2.13 Burn Ban
2.19 Joint-committee - OSSF rate structure
-- Informational - Employee Evaluations
Afternoon Session:
-- Potable/Nonpotable water plan
2.15 Regulations of Subdivisons-Plat Revisions
PAGE
9
5
13
13
14
15
22
23
25
29
32
36
50
57
62
62
69
64
69
70
72
2
r"~l
L J 1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
On Monday, July 27, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
session of Commissioners' Court was held in the County
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 Monday, May the
27th. It is 9:00 or gust a couple minutes after. We have
our second and special Commissioners' Court meeting today for
the month of July. And before we get started, we'll have an
invocation and pledge of allegiance, as is customary by the
Court. This morning Commissioner Baldwin has charge of the
invocation. I think he has something special for us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I have a special
guest that I'd like to introduce. Before I do, though, I
want to point out that we have the boy scout -- part of Boy
Scout Troop 111 with us, with Mr. Collier and Mr. Simank's
leadership, and it's an honor to have these guys in here.
These are our future leaders, and there's no telling where
these guys are going to go. They finished summer camp and
outdid everybody in the state of Texas, lust about; went down
and won all the awards, and we're real proud of these guys.
So with that, we're going to have an opening prayer. And I
wanted you to know that I have had the great opportunity to
know some great men in my life, and but my very favorite one
in the whole world is here to do the opening prayer, and I'd
3
L ~ 1
2
3
a
5
6
a
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like to introduce ya'all to my son, Jesse. Jesse, where are
you? Would you pray for us, please?
(Invocation and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Thank you very much. As a
mattez of information before we get started, and for public
notice, I have in my hand a letter that was handed to me
Friday from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, and rather than
me read the whole thing, I'll just paraphrase. With deep
regret, J.P. 1 is going to zesign for disability reasons,
effective -- her letter says it's effective August the 31st.
So, gentlemen, we'll be needing to look into that matter
about an appointment. I'm trying to make arzangements where
the J. P.-elect in that precinct, and maybe his clerk,
whoever he's chosen, can come in and get a little O.J.T.,
on-the-job training, before the cuzrent J.P. is actually out
of office, because there is some information that her staff
will be retiring with her. Okay. Just so ya'all are kept
abreast. The first matter on the agenda this morning is that
of paying bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any questions.
I know you find that hard to believe.
JUDGE DENSON: You don't have questions? That's
only because Jesse's here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't want to embarzass
Jesse. I don't have any questions.
9
LJ
~-.
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and a second. Any
questions? Comments? All in favor??
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
MR. TOMLINSON: We need to invite Jesse all the
time.
JUDGE DENSON: Do we have any -- yeah, we may have
one or two budget amendments. Number one?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number one is for the
Commissioners' Court, and it's the transfer of 5578.75 from
Contingency into Professional Services, and that's to pay
some bills for Javore in relation to the ongoing suit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Two?
MR. TOMLINSON: Two is to establish a line item for
access fee for long distance for -- it's an annual fee of
5710. It's currently being charged -- or was charged when we
had MCI by allocation into the different departments. But
now that we have a different billing -- billing system, it
breaks that out, and I think it's -- it's a difficult task to
break it down. It's time-consuming, so I'd like to set up a
5
~J 1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
line item lust to charge that fee to Nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Motion and second. Comments?
Questions? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Number three?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number three is actually --
it's between Nondepartmental and Courthouse and Related
Buildings. I have bills totaling 59,860 for autopsies.
There's -- there's a fund balance of zero, so I'm
transferring $9,860 from the Utilities line item out of --
out of Maintenance. I think there's enough to last the
remainder of the year to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Motion and second. Further
questions? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Four?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number four is for the 216th
and 198th District Court. We need 51,200 in Court-appointed
attorney line item in the 216th District Court and 51,120 in
Court-appointed attorneys in the 198th District Court, 529.50
in court transcripts in the 216th court and 5175.75 in court
6
~ transcripts in the 198th court. Along with that, I have a
LJ ~ late bill that I need a hand check for for $175.75 to Cindy
2
Snider, and it's for -- it's for record furnished in an
3
appeal on Gabriel Chacon versus the State of Texas.
a
JUDGE DENSON: I need a motion.
5
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
~ JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments? All in favor?
8
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
9
JUDGE DENSON: Number five?
10
MR. TOMLINSON: Five is Juvenile Probation. It's
11
to transfer 51,587.50 from Alternate Housing into Attorney Ad
12
Litem fees.
.-- 73 JUDGE DENSON: So move.
~a COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
t5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second -- third.
i5 JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
17
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
18
JUDGE DENSON: And Just because there's lots of
19
money in that line item, men, don't get any ideas. Okay?
20
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I noticed that.
21
JUDGE DENSON: Number six?
22 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number six is for Indigent
2s Health, transfer S2,077.37 out of Administrative line item
2a
into Third-Party Administrators line item.
25
-- 7
L~
1
2
3
4
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, what is the
Administrative line item? Is that --
MR. TOMLINSON: That is the salary -- our share --
the County's share of the salary of the person that
administers the program at the hospital. The Third-Party
Administrator line item, that's payable to the party that
administers the -- the financial part of the program.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're saying there's a
surplus in the Administrative?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, there is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We overbudgeted that one?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Number seven.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number seven is -- it is for --
actually, it's a contractual obligation. The general fund
portion of that -- of that debt, we budgeted $200 for service
fees. This is payable to Norwest Bank; they're the paying
agent for -- on that security. And their service fees went
up to 5375. That's an annual fee. And so we need 5275 in
that -- in that line item, so we're going to have to declare
an emergency and take it out of -- out of Surplus, because
8
r"`l
l_ J

1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
the only thing that we budgeted in that -- out of that fund
was the principal and interest, and all that's been expended.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couldn't it come out of
Contingency?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's a different -- this is an
interest and principal fund and it's not a -- it's not a
general fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the reserve fund is also
of that Fund 59?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments?
MR. TOMLINSON: Wait just a minute. I do need a
hand check for 5375 to Norwest Hank.
COMMISSIONER-LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: We have a motion and a second.
Further questions or comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Number eight?
MR. TOMLINSON: Number eight is the same problem as
the one before, but it's for the Road and Bridge portion of
that -- of that debt. And that fund -- well, I'm sorry.
9
Gs'`i
LJ
,~-~
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
That's -- no, that -- no, this is -- I'm sorry, back out.
This is for the 1999 jail bond and it's for the same reason,
for the service fee. And there are no funds in any other
line item to pay that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They sure did double our
service fees, didn't they, without telling us till time to
pay it, right?
MR. TOMLINSON: Essentially.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments? All in favor?
{The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Number nine?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number nine is for the Youth
Exhibition Center. Request a transfer of 5776 from the
Insurance line item into Equipment Repairs. I have a bill
for -- it's a fuel bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's going to cover some
anticipated expenditures as well as --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it will.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments? All in
favor?
10
~'~l
LJ
t
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Number ten?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number ten is -- is a
transfer between jury funds. And it's from the County Court
at Law jury fund into the Justice of the Peace jury fund, and
it's 589.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments? Ail in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DEN30N: All right. Any handouts? No?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, back on those Norwest
charges, we don't have any idea about them in advance; they
can just raise them --
MR. TOMLINSON: I think they can.
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: -	- at their	discretion?	
COMMISSIONER	OEHLER:	Something	doesn't seem	quite
right about that. There needs to be some notification if
it's going to go up or something. You know, there might be
another place in town that might be a little more --
MR. TOMLINSON: We borrowed the money from them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So you borrow the money from
them, you pay them a service fee to service the deal?
MR. TOMLINSON: Until we pay off the debt. And so
they're -- they bought the debt. And so they're -- isn't
'~` ~ ~ 11
G'..~
LJ
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
I
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that correct, Barb?
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: They bought the debt. And
payment's made through their -- I guess it's their Trust
Department.
MS. NEMEC: It used to be Victoria Bank and Trust,
but then they bought the note.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, Victoria Bank and Trust was
the original paying agent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't seem like they should
be able to increase fees.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Next year it may be
5500, you know.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it could be.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How much longer do we owe on
that?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's it. I think it's, what --
MS. NEMEC: Well, the 90 --
MR. TOMLINSON: There's a payment due in February;
is that right?
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: In February. That's the last
payment.
JUDGE DENSON: Do you have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
12
IF^l
~ J
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
w
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to point out
something to these scouts or anybody else that's interested:
your government at work here. That was the County Auditor
that was presenting the bills, and then you have the County
Treasurer sitting on the front row here as a check and a
balance. Great government. Good government. Okay? That
ends the education portion of this meeting.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. And the early movies start at
the Plaza Theatre at 1:00 today. Let's see. We have the
monthly reports?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I move we approve them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those three, or all of them?
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: All three.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All three of them.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. We have a motion to accept
and approve monthly reports.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Second. Further discussion or
comment? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Consideration agenda. Top of
the list, 2.1, Consider and discuss complaint regarding
no-parking sign installed July the 22nd, 1998, on East Spicer
Road in front of a business. This is put on the agenda at
13

1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
the request of Joe Fuente. I think Mr. Fuente came by my
office last week and requested an opportunity to speak with
me. And I -- I had information that he had spoken with other
members of either the Court or County government, so I
thought this might be something that the whole Court, as a
body, should listen to. It is relative to work performed by
our Road and Bridge Department, and I'm happy to see that Mr.
Odom is here, so we can all listen to this and see what kind
of problem exists and what remedies are available, if any.
Mr. Fuente, are you present?
(No response.)
JUDGE DENSON: Well, I sure laid a big predicate
there not to be able to -- we'll just wait on Mr. Fuente.
Let's go to 2.2, Consider preliminary replat of Tract 2 and 3
of Pecan Valley, No. 2, in Precinct 2. Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: Good morning.
JUDGE DENSON: Franklin Johnston, our County
Engineer.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. We have a replat of an
existing platted subdivision dividing a large lot, 14.33
acres, into two lots, 7.9 and 6.8. I would recommend -- I
think all fees have been paid. I would recommend approval
and set a date for public hearing. I think the next one is
September 14th, to get the 30 days.
JUDGE DENSON: September 14th. 10 o'clock?
'" II 19
P" 1
LJ
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
1s
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: That motion is to approve
preliminary replat and set a public hearing. All right.
Further questions or comments on this subject? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.3, Consider and discuss
variance from applicable rules regarding construction of bus
shelter on County right-of-way at the corner of Highway 27
East and Split Rock. Commissioner 2 and Philip Hawkins put
this on the agenda. I'll ask Commissioner 2 just to open up
on this.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Well, the boy scout camp
wanted to put a bus stop on Split Rock Road, and I looked at
it and I didn't see a problem with it at the time, but then
after talking to Mr. Johnston and Mr. Odom, they said you
couldn't erect one on that -- you know, it wasn't a wide
enough space there. And I don't know what happened from
there on. I took Frank down there and looked at it, and --
but in talking to some people in Austin, they said it could
be done if it was just a temporary, but not a stationary
building. And this one here has a concrete floor and has
concrete block.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, Franklin, can you elaborate on
15
L_J
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
za
25
this, you or Leonard?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think those are basically the
facts, concrete building in the right-of-way.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. That's a cinder-block
building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it in the State or the
County right-of-way?
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: County.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know if it's up -- there are
several views of it in there, several pictures. It's on the
County right-of-way just beyond -- just right at the -- I
don't know if any of it encroaches on the State.
MR. ODOM: It doesn't any.
JUDGE DENSON: Is Mr. Hawkins here?
MR. ODOM: Pardon me. I don't know -- I did send a
memo to the Court, to Buster, and to David Motley to look at
that. And, basically, by the Transportation Code, 251.008
says that fixed objects in the right-of-way should be
removed, and basically the question would be whether that
gets down to tort liabilities. The question would be, is
that an administerial order? Is that -- you know, is 251.008
directly a -- a law, or is it discretionary? And what I
asked Buster and David to look at -- and maybe Buster can
answer that if Motley got back -- 'cause, to my knowledge,
Motley didn't get back to us. If it's discretionary, it
16
LJ
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
means as far as tort liabilities, we may be immune to that.
If I look at the right-of-way -- and the young man measured
off the right-of-way -- we have a very narrow right-of-way.
It doesn't it necessarily block the vision on 27. But in
this, I sent a copy of a lawsuit. It was from the State.
Southwestern Bell was sued, and the Highway Department was
mitigated into this lawsuit. And it had to do with not
enough right-of-way. They removed a pole and put it as close
to the right-of-way as they could, but it wasn't that clear
distance that they use. The Highway Department's totally
different than what we are, because they use 120 feet or they
have 80 feet and a lot more right-of-way than what we have,
but it didn't clear their clear zone. A gentleman was going
to turn off the highway, and he turned off the highway and
hit the telephone pole. Then he sued Southwestern Bell for
obstruction in the right-of-way. The State -- and the
State's position was that they are immune to this liability
because it's discretionary. And that's a question I
presented to David; is it discretionary where the Court would
have leeway to look at this? Also, what had happened in the
interim, the telephone pole was moved and the highway was
widened. And my -- when I look at it, basically I say
251.008. I have a question whether it's administerial duties
-- which I'm speaking law, and the Judge knows what I'm
talking about as far as immunity to lawsuits -- or whether
17
• I
~ J 1
2
3
a
5
s
a
9
10
11
12
,~
13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
it's discretionary. And discretionary, you -- we may move to
that point of immunity as long as the highway stays where
it's at. If the highway's widened, there may be some
flexibility. I don't -- I don't -- David never got back with
us to -- to give me an answer to that. I can tell you the
position of the -- of the Road and Bridge Department is that
there's a fixed object and it's in violation of 251.008. And
as far as we're concerned, our recommendation is that that
structure is a fixed object and should be removed from the
right-of-way. I don't think there should be an exception.
We've already gone through this before in Precinct 4. There
was a carport; it was removed. I understand where the young
man's coming from. The Eagle project is -- is a fantastic
accomplishment. We have discussed that, that there might be
some leeway to complete the project in some way, about
talking to the young man and his father. The KISD would not
allow them to put it across the street on private property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't you let Mr.
Hawkins present his side of it?
MR. ODOM: Okay. Does the Court have any other
questions? I just told you our position, and it hasn't
changed from the start of this. It basically gets back to is
this administerial oz is this a law -- or is this a tort
liability, which may be discretionary.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Mr. Hawkins? Your name is
~' II la
~'~l
L J 1
2
3
a
5
6
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
r
Philip Hawkins?
MR. HAWKINS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, Philip.
MR. HAWKINS: Well, basically, I went out to -- I
got all the other requirements -- legal requirements I had to
get and permissions, and I went up to the County Road and
Bridge Department and asked the secretary there -- I don't
remember her name -- if I could -- I needed the map which I
showed you for the easement, and to talk to whoever could
show me where to build it. When we -- when me and Mr. Lackey
measured it, he said that it was okay where it was, but
agparently we measured it wrong. I didn't realize that you
weren't supposed to measure from the middle, 'cause the
easement doesn't stick with the road. That was basically my
fault that I didn't look into it more. To my knowledge, the
building itself isn't in the easement; it's the ramp that
comes off of it. Is that correct?
MR. ODOM: Oh, you're within the easement.
MR. HAWKINS: Totally?
MR. ODOM: Totally.
MR. HAWKINS: Okay, I was wrong. And I'm just
looking for a way --
JUDGE DENSON: Let me ask a question. Who actually
gave you permission to build it there?
MR. HAWKINS: Nobody, really. I mean, Mr. Lackey
19
L ~ 1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
za
25
said that it was okay, but that he wasn't sure that the
easement stuck with the road. And I thought I was far enough
off the road that it would be out of anyone's --
JUDGE DENSON: Here's my opinion. It's certainly
for a good cause, and I don't fault you for trying to have a
shelter there to keep you out of the elements and such while
you're waiting on a bus. That's all well and good. But if
we have the County exposure, liability, it really concerns
me. I think we ought to just pass on this, and get a legal
opinion out of either Motley or Pollard on how we can do
this, whether the County is insulated. You don't have to
stop building. It would be my opinion that you don't have to
stop, but don't go any further at this time until we can see
how we can put this --
MR.HAWKINS: The building's built. It just needs a
roof. I mean, it's there.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. But, I mean, I'm asking you
please don't do any more work till our attorney tells us no,
you -- we can't do this. Then we're going to have to ask you
to remove it. I think we'll have to.
MR. HAWKINS: The one other thing -- the reason
that I didn't really go into more depth to get the -- the
okay to build it was when I talked to the Highway -- Road and
Bridge Department, he came out and -- or Texas State Highway,
he came out, and when we looked at the highway easement, he
^ ~~ 20
r-~
L_ J 1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
to
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
said that I didn't need permission because it wasn't in the
easement. And so, since I assumed that it wasn't in the
easement, I didn't think I needed permission to build it.
JUDGE DENSON: I'm not faulting you, but hold up
right now and let us get an answer, and we'll try -- we'll
certainly try and get this -- get you where you can complete
that thing.
MR. HAWKINS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Philip, just for the record,
what is the -- the little house for?
MR. HAWKINS: It's a bus stop for the school
children. 'Cause I did originally want to build it on the
other side of the road, but the KISD said that I couldn't
because then they'd have to cross the road because of the way
the bus has to stop or something, and that they would have to
put a crosswalk guard there or something.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
If you were -- let's pretend that KISD did not say that and
you could build it on the other side of the road. Is there
some way to get it out of the County right-of-way over there?
MR. HAWKINS: I would have to ask the man who owned
the property permission to put it on his property. But he's
a pretty nice man; I mean, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't say
no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So what we're doing, we're
21
L. ~
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
passing this, even though the County Attorney is well aware
of it and has --
JUDGE DENSON: The County Attorney just did not
respond to Mr. Odom, unfortunately. However, I think Mr.
Pollard can probably get us an answer by tomorrow, I would
guess. We'll just recess on this matter, and if Tom can give
us clearance where the County has no exposuze, then we can
call Mr. Hawkins and tell him to continue on, put a roof on
it, let's go. Does that sound okay, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Actually, I'd
rather use the County Attorney; just my personal opinion, but
JUDGE DENSON: Well, he -- I mean, I don't know, I
can't respond for the County Attorney, but he's going to say
that he doesn't do civil business for us or he's busy or
whatever. But I think we can get -- this needs, I think,
expeditious handling because of the potential exposure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: And maybe we can get Tom to give us
an answer by tomorrow, and go from there. Philip, thank you
very, very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Philip.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.9, Consider approval of
interlocal agreements for mental health and chemical
dependency commitments, and authorize County Judge to sign
'" ~~ 22
~~
L ~
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
same between Kerr County and 22 other counties that are
listed on our posted agenda.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So move.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
Further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a --
JUDGE DENSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- comment here or question,
I guess. Approve interlocal agreements foz mental health and
chemical dependency commitments. Do we treat chemical-
dependent people?
JUDGE DENSON: No, not as a separate disease or
problem. But dual diagnosis, we do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. So that would be
included in there?
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Super.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.5, Consider and discuss
establishment and organization of central counting station
for November general election. The County Clerk put this on.
Ms. Meeker?
MS. MEEKER: I gave each of you a copy of the Code
23
1 ~
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~.
13
1a
15
16
n
1a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that explains what -- what your appointment should be, and
made recommendations of people whom I feel are experienced
and can get the lob done.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like this.
MS. MEEKER: This is Section 127.001 of the
Election Code, establishment of the station. The authority
establishing a central counting station shall appoint these
very offices or personnel. If you have any questions or
suggestions about other people that you would like to
consider appointing, of course, we will --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think you picked a good
bunch. I think you picked a really good bunch to do this.
MS. MEEKER: They're good workers; I've worked with
them and I know they're good.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that we appoint
Counting Station Manager and Presiding Judge, Billie Meeker;
Tabulation Supervisor, Nadine Alford; Assistant Tabulation
Supervisor, Mindy Williams and Brenda Craig; Counting Station
Clerks, Sheila Brand, Jean Lowry, and Georgeann Smith.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions or comments? All
in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
29

rnl
LJ 1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1s
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
MS. MEEKER: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, ma'am, thank you. Okay.
Consider and discuss contracting with 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. Let's see. Before we take any
action on this, Judge Tench?
J.P. TENCH: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: I know you came by the office and
wanted to visit on this, and I wasn't able to get with you
Friday or whenever it was. Can you comment?
J.P. TENCH: Yes, sir. I think we need to do a
little bit more research on this project before you sign
same. It looks good on paper as it was presented. I have
done some preliminary research, and it's added work, as it
stands right now in our courts. And I've talked with several
other counties that are involved. I have a list of the
counties that are supposedly involved, one of which that I
contacted, they're still in the talking stage. And --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What kind of additional work
would it put on your office?
J.P. TENCH: At this point in time, I can't answer
that specifically. I've talked to a couple of counties,
approximate same size, approximate number of cases per month,
and they have more clerks than what we have, and they say
25
f~
L_J

1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9 I
10
11
12
13
1a
is
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
za
25
they need more to do this. It's a double-entry system as it
stands right now. You put the cases in the existing program,
and unless you can download electronically from one system to
the other, to their system, you have to enter those cases in
that system, in their system. And, it --
(Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.)
J.P. TENCH: I think we need to look at it a little
bit further before just running out and signing the
documents. I'm not saying it's -- it's not a good program.
But I want it -- I'd like to see little bit more research on
it before we -- before you guys sign it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How much time do you think
you need?
J.P. TENCH: I can't answer that. Couple of weeks,
maybe.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Put it on the agenda, first
meeting in August.
J.P. TENCH: First meeting in August? Abaut --
that's about the 19th of August or --
COMMISSIONER LET2: The 10th, I believe.
J.P. TENCH: Somewhere around there. I Probably
could have a real good answer for you at that time. At this
time I don't have a real good answer for you. I have done
some research, but it's only preliminary.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we've got that much
26
f~l
L J

1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
s'
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
za
25
time, don't we?
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. Couple of comments I'd like
to make. It will create a $15, I think, revenue for the
County?
J.P. TENCH: Negative. It will give you $4.
JUDGE DENSON: $9?
J.P. TENCH: Yes, sir, it will give you S9, as it
stands right now. And I have done another little bit of
research, and $9 -- you're going to get maybe $900 so far
this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you get $900 -- I mean,
the S9 for?
J.P. TENCH: Well, there's a $30 fee that is
charged to the culprit.
(Commissioner Baldwin returned to the courtroom.)
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
J.P. TENCH: $20 goes to the State, S10 is
retained, and $6 is sent to this Omni company -- Omni-based
company, which leaves $4 for the County.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Another comment. And I met
with Sgt. Seal and --
J.P. TENCH: So did we.
JUDGE DENSON: And he said he had met with each of
the J.P.'s and explained it; that DPS, at some point in the
very near future, is going to eliminate that one data --
27
P"`i
L ~
~^.
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
J.P. TENCH: Warrant databank, yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: Right. Whereas an alternative, if
we don't go this way, then there's not going to be any way
that you can pick up these people.
J.P. TENCH: I understand that, sir. And they've
been trying, from what I understand, to get rid of the
warrant databank because it's growing and growing, growing,
growing, and it is a burden to them.
JUDGE DENSON: And it's lost revenue for the
County.
J.P. TENCH: Well, I understand that. We will
still -- we will lose revenue if we don't issue some kind of
warrant, anyhow.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, we --
J.P. TENCH: We'll get the --
JUDGE DENSON: I don't have to tell you these
things, 'cause you know, but in explaining it for purposes of
the public, an FTA, failure-to-appear, is issued based on
some other violation?
J.P. TENCH: Yes, sir. We'll have the other -- the
standard violation. We will no longer have the "violate
promise to appear" or "failure to appear." We'll no longer
have that unless we issue it.
JUDGE DENSON: Here -- you not only have the
underlying offense for which an FTA was issued, but both of
28
~^`1
L. J
/'~
..-..
1
2
3
a
5
s
B
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 I'
2a
25
those could go uncollected forever, or indefinitely?
J.P. TENCH: That's correct.
JUDGE DENSON: Unless we do join DPS's new program.
J.P. TENCH: I understand what you're saying. I
understand what you're saying. I just think we need to
research this and find out a little bit more about it before
we just blindly sign the document, because I'm not looking
for more work. And I don't want to come to you guys and say,
hey, I can't handle this.
JUDGE DENSON: And I agree with you. I mean, a
little time delay on this is no problem. The Court's not in
the habit of blindly signing anything.
J.P. TENCH: Well, I understand that. I would hope
not.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay?
J.P. TENCH: I would hope not, okay?
JUDGE DENSON: All right.
J.P. TENCH: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2:7, Consider and discuss
County participation with the City of Kerrville in
improvements to Scott Schreiner Municipal Golf Course. This
will be hand-in-hand with 2.8, also. Consider and discuss
County participation with the City of Kerrville in the
extension of water and sewage lines to the airport. As
29
L~
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
1a
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
ya'all know, just simply from keeping up with the news, the
various improvements that the City is paying for,
improvements out at the -- at the golf course. I think I had
this on the agenda once before, maybe back before Jonathan
and Buster were on the Court, and I ran into a bunch of deaf
or closed ears. And I anticipate the same fate of this
agenda item. But I think anyone in economic development can
tell you that that golf course is invaluable. It's an
extremely valuable asset for the county, the entire county
and all the residents. The county people play on that
course, as well as city people. That course -- or golf, in
itself, is just becoming a tremendous recreational sport. As
ya'all know, we have pretty much of a retirement community
here. A large segment of our residents are retired, and this
is the only municipal golf course available. I just feel
like the County -- this should be should be something that
the County should participate in with the City, even though
it's -- it's not the County's asset as far as own ownership
goes. Something for ya'all to consider.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What kind of -- I mean, two
questions. On the golf course, are you talking about the
improvements to the golf course, itself, or the construction
of a gray water line to service the golf course, or both?
JUDGE DENSON: Or both. I mean both. This is just
sort of a broad, general concept or philosophical approach at
30
L~ 1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
s
10
11
12

13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
.~
this point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has the City come to us with
any kind of a plan or proposal?
JUDGE DENSON: No. I first -- I think the first
time I brought this up was at the request of Mayor Johnson
back a year or two ago. And just to get a feel from the
Court, I had put it on the agenda and brought it up. As I
said, no one was really interested in pursuing it at all. If
I felt like that there's a consensus or we took action to
study it, I'd love to do so and see, you know, what role we
could play. I just -- I just think the -- again, as I've
already said, that that golf course should be something that
everyone in the county supports.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm in favor of talking to the
City regarding -- the Judge is excited.
JUDGE DENSON: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You look excited. On the
construction of the sewer line and gray water line, I think
that will benefit the whole county to get development on Loop
534. It's something we need to do. I'm also in favor of
talking to the City about participation of the sewer line out
to the airport, because we have a lot of jointly-owned
property out there. In fact, the whole facility is
jointly-owned, and I think that's something that is
reasonable for us to participate in. The actual golf course,
31
L~
t
2
3
a
5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
itself, I'm a little bit less inclined to -- I think that
should be more a user-fee-driven thing with the City. But
the sewer lines around the Loop, the sewer line through the
airport, I'd be very interested in visiting with the City on
those two issues if there's some way that we could help them
in that process.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. The water and wastewater
services or extension out to the airport, the City Manager,
Glenn Brown, sent over a fax; we do have a documentation
there. The other agenda item, I just put it on at the same
time, my own interest. But ya'all see the wastewater there
saying that this total estimated construction cost is
5799,178. So, there -- there's a number to look at. Would
you -- and I'm not trying to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second it. Go, John.
JUDGE DENSON: Would you like to take that on and
make a few phone calls?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll visit with the Mayor and
see if there's something that we can do.
JUDGE DENSON: And then we can bring it up at the
next agenda, discuss it some more, and just see where we're
going to go on it. I appreciate you showing some interest in
lt.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that it's a really
good idea to do that, and especially run the extension of
32
?"`l
~J
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
sewer lines. That's a problem that needs to be cured.
Pzobably should visit with the City about timing, because
there could be money available to help cost-share some of
this in a few years after we get through with all the
construction, renovation project that we have going. That
would be a good use for that money. That would be down the
road a year or two, but you could plan for a small amount or
maybe a -- maybe a bond.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the City probably could
allocate that money if we could come to some sort of
understanding that, say, dawn the road we could allocate
more.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe the economic
development -- whatever that little tax is that they have --
Improvement, can be -- some of that can be utilized to help
fund that as well.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I want to add just
one thing here.
JUDGE DENSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As you know, actually, the
sewer and water line out to Mooney is really a critical
situation. Mooney is now -- they have -- they just had this
gigantic septic tank or cesspool, basically, sitting out
there, and the State now has a hammer over them: "If you
don't get this thing fixed" -- and it's just, like, a year
33
C~"~
L ~ t
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
.-
timeframe now, "we're going to close your doors." So it's
pretty serious stuff now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With that -- I mean, you're
totally correct that the hammer -- the date for the hammer to
fall supposedly is December 31st of this year. But I really
think that the -- we shouldn't be doing that project thinking
of Mooney. I mean, we own the property out there, and .it's
in the County's interest to improve it. Whether it's Mooney
or not is irrelevant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's just a reference
point where we all know where Mooney is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is fairly -- it does need to
be fixed; I think it would be of long-term benefit to the
City and County and future development to that airport area.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: When do the contracts come up
to renegotiate the lease with Mooney?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2001.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. I think there was a couple of
different --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We could actually -- at that
point, the County could negotiate the lease at the correct
price per month, as opposed to what they're paying now, which
is next to nothing, to help retire debt on some of these
improvements, you know, at some point. Of course, that's too
39
LJ
.~-~
t
2
3
a
5
6
8
s
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2a
21
22
23
2a
25
far down the road, but with that in mind, if you made that
improvement, at such time, you know, we could renegotiate
those leases and maybe recover some of the funds.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Very well. Let me -- excuse
me, Leonard, you had your hand up?
MR. ODOM: Yes. Leonard Odom. I don't -- I'm very
much in favor of what you're saying, but I think if you check
with the City, and we already have, that's a forced main
coming down in front of us, so we were looking at trying to
tie into the sewer, too. It doesn't work on a forced main;
you can't do that. So please, Jonathan, look in -- you got
the ball fields there and us on this side here. My
understanding is that no one can tie into that. It's going
to be totally for Mooney.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last time I visited with the
City on that, the meetings, their plans were to be able to
tie in with part of Guadalupe Heights. They were making
areas up there, and for future development, I think they
pzobably modified that system.
MR. ODOM: Frank, what did they tell you?
MR. JOHNSTON: They told me forced main. I guess
we could tie in, but it would be kind of complicated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I talked to Jim Dower about it,
Little League. They're aware of a lot of that. I was under
the impression that it could be tie-in capacity; that's
35
C'"i
U
something we need to check.
1
2
3
a
and see.
5
6
a
9
to
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
1a
1s
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: We need to talk to them about it.
(Judge Denson left the courtroom.}
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, we'll just have to wait
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll visit with the Mayor.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is Mr. Fuente here? Let's go
back up and take that up. 2.1, Consider and discuss
complaint regarding no-parking signs installed July 22 of '98
on East Spicer Road in front of business. You want to come
up to the podium and state your name for the record?
MR. FUENTE: Okay. My name is Joe Fuente. I own
the Lazy Eight. I'm mostly just curious about why I'm being
singled out. There's a lot of people that park cars in the
easements, and I'm wondering why I'm the one whose got
parking signs stuck in front of my shop. I mean, my
customers can't even park and get out and talk to me now, and
it's kind of interfering with my business. I'd be willing to
put a parking area in, but I've been asked by Environmental
not to cut my screen down, so I've got kind of a dilemma. If
I cut it down, I'm going to have them after me, and if I
don't cut it down, I got nowhere to park.
(Judge Denson returned to the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is your property in East
Spicer Road?
~~ I 36
r, "1
l_.J
r
i
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
~o
11
12
13
is
15
~6
n
is
~9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. FUENTE: Right on top of the hill, right off of
Highway 16 about maybe two-, three-tenths of a mile.
JUDGE DENSON: Are we on 2.1?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I went back to 2.1.
MR. FUENTE: I drove around the county and took
pictures of all kinds of places where cars are parked on the
easement. I'm just curious why I'm being singled out. I saw
no no-parking signs anywhere else.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Mr. Fuente, I'll
address that. You have been -- I have here -- I understand
your question was why weren't you invited to --
MR. FUENTE: Yeah, that's definitely a question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You were invited.
MR. FUENTE: I was never sent any letter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we don't personally
invite you; we're not required to do that. We are required
to publish public hearings in the newspaper, which we did.
And I have copies of all that for you.
MR. FUENTE: Well, I don't get the newspaper.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that is not my
problem, okay? We've complied with the law, and we're going
to ask you --
MR. FUENTE: Not a problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to do the same.
MR. FUENTE: I have complied. In case you haven't
37
LJ

r
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
noticed, I have complied. There's no vehicles except one; it
doesn't belong to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you talk, I'll listen,
and when I talk, you listen, okay?
MR. FUENTE: Fair enough.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First of all, here are some
photographs taken of his place of business. This is all on
the County right-of-way. I have in my hand here a letter
from the Kerr County Solid Waste facility dated January 7th
from Mr. Holekamp to Mr. Fuente. It says, "During our
conversation in mid-November, you indicated to me that you
would move the automobiles out of the road. I realize these
automobiles are not junk and have become a hazard at that
location." And subsequently he's turned it over to the
Sheriff's Department. Why they did not respond, I don't have
any idea. Here is a court order. Here's the agenda item for
regulatory sign -- public hearing on regulatory sign. Here's
the newspaper notice that we put in, and here's the Court
order. I'd like for you to have that to show that we have
complied with the law.
And, Judge, I have in my hand a petition from some of
the residents in that area with 31 signatures, which is a
large number for that small area out there, that are in favor
of our no-parking policy. It's obvious that Mr. Fuente has
been telephoned and has had several letters written to him
38
I! 'mil
LJ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
zo
21
22
23
2a
25
asking him to move his vehicles out of the County
right-of-way. And in that petition right there, it even
mentions at one point that the entire road was blocked for
him repairing his vehicles out in the middle of the road. I
think that our Solid Waste office has had numerous telephone
conversations and several letters have been transported back
and forth between the two. So, Mr. Fuente has chosen not to
comply with not only the State laws, but the County rules and
regulations as far as Solid Waste is concerned. So I don't
know of any other way than to just put the no-parking signs
up there, and if he parks out there, then it's a police
problem.
Is there anything about that you didn't understand?
MR. FUENTE: Oh, no, I understand it quite well.
The Sheriff's Department did come out. They've come out
repeatedly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
MR. FUENTE: And they have never ever cited any of
my cars. They find no hazard with my cars, none. The --
with the exception of two cars, very few of the cars ever
stay out there very long. And I only do it when I don't have
any room in my shop. And the main reason I don't have room
is I can't cut my screen down. If I cut it down, I've been
warned by Environmental that I'll be in violation of their --
I don't know, whatever act.
39
[~"~
LJ

1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
tt
12
13
14
15
16
17 I
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Abatement thing where you
have you to cover up --
MR. FUENTE: Right. I have no problem with cutting
it down and putting in parking. I mean, I'd be glad to do
it, it doesn't bother me at all. I've got the room. But to
do it, I've got to cut the screen down. I have no -- I mean,
what other alternative do I have?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couldn't you cut the screen
down and make the screen in a new area? I mean, I don't
understand --
MR. FUENTE: Well, the trees -- I'm using the cedar
that's already there; I'm trying to leave it natural as much
as possible. And, I mean, to cut it down, it's going to take
years to grow back. Also, my customers -- as fax as their
parking, they don't stay there except for dropping cars off.
I usually get them in the next day. There's one car that
sits there that does, not belong to me, and I've told the
Sheriff they're welcome to take it anytime they want. The
customer brought it out and left it and hasn't come back. I
haven't been asked to work on it, so I have no alternative of
what to do with that car. The other car has been bought by
another person, and they were supposed to pick it up and
never picked it up. I also can't bring it in my property. I
did it anyway, but I'm not -- legally, I'm not supposed to;
it doesn't belong to me. And I haven't been asked to work on
t. ~ 90
I~"1
LJ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it, so both those -- in my opinion, both those cars can be
taken. That pretty much gets rid of all the stuff that
doesn't stay there. I mean, this stays there.
COMMI3SIONER BALDWIN: You -- may I speak?
MR. FUENTE: Well, I wasn't done, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, go ahead. You go
ahead.
MR. FUENTE: I have talked to Environmental and,
for the most part, you know, I've complied with everything
they've asked me to do. I have a trailer that they want me
to move, but I don't have anywhere to put it. And I just use
it for hauling trash, and there's no perishable trash in it,
so it's really just junk that comes out of my shop, all the
metal and everything that I collect. I have it hauled off at
least once a month. I don't know what else to do. If ya'all
give me permission to cut the screen down, I'll be more than
happy to put in parking. At this point in time, I can't do
business. My customers got to walk over 300 feet to get to
my shop now. I mean, there's not even, like, a 2-hour
parking limit; it's anytime. I mean, if you could at least
allow my customers to park, that would be greatly
appreciated.
JUDGE DENSON: What kind of business do you have?
MR. FUENTE: I own a Volkswagen shop. I've been in
business six years.
" II 91
r,..~
LJ
~.
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
I
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
JUDGE DENSON: Volkswagen repair?
MR. FUENTE: Yes, sir. The property is paid for.
And my fence is back 3 feet from the easement, so I park as
close to the fence as I can get. You know, within reason,
and still be able to get a car in and out. And, so, several
feet of that belongs to me. I mean, it's not really
easement. And if you want to survey it, you'd be more than
happy to find out it's true. I'm willing to take the fence
down and put in parking, but I have to have permission to cut
the screen down.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, the screening laws serve an
important purpose.
MR. FUENTE: I realize that, and I've complied with
them.
JUDGE DENSON: And, you know, I would say that all
those conditions and those rules were in place when you
opened your business.
MR. FUENTE: Well, I don't know about the screening
laws.
JUDGE DENSON: Yes.
MR. FUENTE: Well, I don't really know.
JUDGE DENSON: And I've -- I dealt with that when I
was County Attorney back in the mid-80's, and we have -- and
that law was on the books back then.
MR. FUENTE: Well, I've left the screen there.
~ ~~ 92
L J
}
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
18
17
18
1s
2a
21
22
23
2a
25
JUDGE DENSON: Hut this petition states, among
other things, that at some times Spicer was partially blocked
because of vehicles.
MR. FUENTE: I've never worked vehicles in the
road, ever.
JUDGE DENSON: The petition also says that garbage
is stored in an open trailer on the right-of-way.
MR. FUENTE: There is a trailer there. It's not
open, it has sides all the way around it.
JUDGE DENSON: Sides, but the top is open?
MR. FUENTE: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE DENSON: Mr. Fuente, I know that sometimes,
for all of us, life would be a little easier if we could do
things that were not in strict compliance with the law. But
when it infringes or works some kind of detriment to someone
else, we have to insist on strict compliance with the law.
And it appears that your neighbors and all are -- feel like
you've been taking advantage of the situation out there to
their detriment, and we cannot allow that to continue. I
think that's probably one of the reasons why the no-parking
signs were installed, because Road and Bridge was receiving
complaints or calls because of your actions. I don't see any
way that the County can give you some kind of variance or
give you more space. Your -- you just have some hard
business decisions to make, as far as I'm concerned. One,
93
LJ 1
2
3
a
5
s
a
9
10
11
12
r.
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
limit the capacity of your business, or two, buy another
place. But, you can't be parking cars, even on a temporary
basis, in the County's right-of-way.
MR. FUENTE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The final comment I'd like --
you made a comment that the number of cars are pretty small.
The pictures here were taken on five different days -- or a
5-day period, and seven cars didn't move during that 5-day
period.
MR. FUENTE: Four of those cars belong to people
that either work there or were there at the time. There's
only three cars that stay parked out there. That's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, these pictures were taken
July 10th, 11th, and 19th, and they were still parked in the
same place. There are seven vehicles that did not move
during that period. There are an additional three or four
that, you know, appeared to come and go, but there are
vehicles in the exact same location on all photographs, and
they're dated by the camera.
MR. FUENTE: I don't have seven vehicles that stay
out there. I don't mean to say that's misleading --
COMMI3SIONER LET2: They are --
MR. FUENTE: I'm sure -- for instance, the
blue-and-blue one is one that I drive every day, and it's
legal.
94
!~1
L J 1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Mr. Fuente, I'm going to
contact the Sheriff's Department, have them contact you with
regard to those one or two vehicles you mentioned that belong
to customers that have dropped them off.
MR. FUENTE: They're not customers.
JUDGE DEN30N: Well, they were intended to be
customers, but they didn't come up with the money to pay you?
MR. FUENTE: No, they just dropped it off there and
said they'd be back, and never came back.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. And I think they'll probably
-- if they can't get in touch with those people, they'll
treat those vehicles as abandoned and tow them.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Is one of them that blue
Volkswagen in the picture?
MR. FUENTE: I haven't seen the picture.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can park it up at my
place for a while.
MR. FUENTE: I haven't seen the picture.
JUDGE DENSON: We need to correct that situation.
But on the other --
MR. FUENTE: If it's the blue one I'm thinking of,
I just pulled the motor out of it not even three -- three,
four, five days ago, something like that. So I know it
hasn't been sitting there that long.
JUDGE DENSON: Mr. Fuente, I want you to
~ ~~ 45
L_~
1
2
3
a
s
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
17
1a
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
understand, please, how -- how the Court wants to treat this,
and we want to make sure that you no longer park vehicles on
the County right-of-way. And I know you stated that the
5.O.'s been out there in the past and you never received a
violation.
MR. FUENTE: Never.
JUDGE DENSON: I am going to talk with the
Sheriff's Office about that also, and I think that the next
time they come out, that if you're not in compliance, that
you will receive a citation.
MR. FUENTE: Not a problem.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. FUENTE: I would like to -- if it would be
possible, to have my customers park there until I can do
something about my -- just for a few minutes while they talk
to me.
JUDGE DENSON: No, that's in violation of the law.
MR. FUENTE: Is it7 I've got pictures here of over
20 vehicles that are in violation of the same law.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, that doesn't mean that just
because someone else breaks the law, that you can.
MR. FUENTE: I'm not saying that. I'm just saying
why enforce it on me and no one else? It should be a
county-wide thing, not just me.
JUDGE DENSON: If we receive word of someone else
~~ 96
Cpl
LJ
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
with a Volkswagen repair shop that's parking their cars out
on the public right-of-way --
MR. FUENTE: Well, that's also my --
JUDGE DENSON: -- we'll enforce that.
MR. FUENTE: It's also my residence. I live there
also.
JUDGE DENSON: Makes no difference.
MR. FUENTE: Well, these places are all residences
and jobs; they're all -- they're all parked in the easement.
I got pictures.
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you very much, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you for coming to the
Commissioners' Court. Appreciate it.
MR. FUENTE: Well, thanks for allowing me to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're welcome.
MR. HOTCHKISS: Excuse me, did I understand what
ya'all just went through there? If it's a Chevy repair shop,
it would make a difference, but --
JUDGE DENSON: Oh, it doesn't make any difference.
MR. HOTCHKI3S: That's what you said.
JUDGE DENSON: Whether it's a repair shop or not,
any kind of building, any kind of encroachment, any kind of
violation of rules.
MR. HOTCHKISS: I know Mr. FUente and I appreciate
where you're coming from, because that has built up and it --
97
L_J
,..~
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
i0
11
12
13
14
15
is
n
78
i9
20
21
22
23
2a
25
it got away from him because of some of the customers coming
and going. I think, though, that simply, like, no overnight
parking or, like, a 2-hour limit or something like that would
remedy the situation.
JUDGE DENSON: No, we can't do that.
MR. HOTCHKIS3: Seems to me that you're -- maybe
not intentionally, but you are bringing a lot of hardship on
this gentleman. And
JUDGE DENSON: What is your name, sir?
MR. HOTCHKISS: David Hotchkiss.
JUDGE DENSON: Pardon?
MR. HOTCHKIS3: Hotchkiss.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Yes, sir? And your name?
MR. GARZA: Pablo Garza.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Mr. Garza?
MR. GARZA: I live up that way on Adkins Road off
of Spicer, and I've never seen that road blocked, and I drive
by there every day. It's never -- you know, there's no
hazard.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
MR. GARZA: You know, so --
MR. BROACH: I'm Hurley Broach, and I have seen it
blocked.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, as Commissioner Baldwin
stated, there are quite a number of names on this notice to
98
L J 1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
us, and the they're all affirming that.
AUDIENCE: Down to one-lane traffic, it is blocked.
It is frequently down to one lane of traffic, and when a
school bus comes down, that's the only thing that can come
through.
JUDGE DENSON: And let me comment further. We
don't want to get into beating a dead horse here, but it
really doesn't make any difference whether the road was
blocked or not. The question, the issue, is whether you're
in the County right-of-way, with or without permission. And
if you're in the County right-of-way without permission,
you're in violation of the law.
MR. HOTCHKISS: Nowhere the in county are you
allowed to park in the right-of-way; is that correct?
JUDGE DENSON: Sir?
MR. HOTCHKISS: Nowhere in this county, outside of
this city, are you allowed to park within the right-of-way,
even if that right-of-way is on the shoulder; you're not
allowed to park there at any time?
JUDGE DENSON: As a rule, no, unless there's some
kind of emergency. Yes, Mr. Fuente?
MR. FUENTE: Right across the street from my shop
is a building that the front of the building is in the
easement. You were just talking about buildings being in the
easement or anything like that.
49
Gs"1
L.
2
3
a
5
s
7
a
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
1s
20
21
22
23
za
25
JUDGE DENSON: Sue them.
MR. FUENTE: I'm sorry?
JUDGE DENSON: That's all for this agenda item, and
we're concluded on this. We will, at this point, take our
morning recess for 10 minutes, come back in at 10:20.
(Whereupon a brief recess was taken.)
JUDGE DENSON: All right. It's 10:25, the 27th of
July, '98. We'll continue on with our agenda items. I think
-- and before I do that, let me mention that the telephone
call that I received and left the courtroom for momentarily
was from the County Attorney, David Motley, and Mr. Motley
will be here this afternoon to discuss several things with
us, among which is the right-of-way and bus shelter question,
and he does have an opinion; he's already researched it.
However, he's on vacation this week, but he's going to take a
few minutes to come in and visit with us on that issue. And
he'll be also appearing in the Executive Session to discuss
matters relative to J.P. 1.
All right. 2.9, Consider and discuss distribution plan
for potable water during the extreme dry weather conditions
we have. Commissioner, Precinct 3, Jonathan Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We discussed this at our last
meeting, and I thought we should put it on the agenda and
come up with a formal plan. I've also discussed this with
Leonard Odom at Road and Bridge Department, who's looked at
" II so
f~~
LJ
r
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
io
ii
12
13
is
15
~6
~~
18
is
20
21
22
23
2a
25
that and hopefully will help coordinate this effort. And,
you know, I think the -- the tentative plan that Leonard and
I have come up with that we think would work is that the
County has water rights in the river and we don't use them
all, and that we could, you know, use some of those for
agricultural purposes for nonpotable water, and set up a
system, maybe once a week on the western part of the county
and once a week the eastern area of the county, and that the
Road and Bridge Department be available to pump water out of
the river into -- for agricultural purposes primarily, or any
nonpotable purposes. I think if we set up a system where the
days of the week -- maybe, like, a Tuesday in the west and
Friday in the east, and have a period from, say, 1:00 to 3:00
where people could do it, but they would have to preset the
time through Road and Bridge so -- you know, if no one wants
to preschedule an appointment, we wouldn't send a Road and
Bridge person out there, but if people call in and and want
to come out during this time, Road and Bridge will send out
one of their trucks to pump it out of the river. We would
not transport the water at all, it's just a matter of getting
it out of the river. I do think we need to have our
personnel on-hand. If we just open it up, everyone's going
to be out there pumping out of the river, and I think we need
to be able to control how much is coming out since we do have
water rights review for that. The potable water -- the
51
~i
L_~
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
nonpotable water, we also talked to -- I think Truby talked
to the City about using the gray water that comes out of the
sewage plant before it goes in the Third Creek. And I think
it's kind of on hold at this time because there's same
question about whether that water can be used for
agricultural reasons or not.
MR. ODOM: We did -- Truby told me -- excuse me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead.
MR. ODOM: Truby just told me before I came down
that the gentleman that she was talking to said that we could
use it for agricultural purposes. It wasn't that bad; it was
55 cents per thousand is what they charge for the gray water,
so it might be something that you want to look at. We named
certain days of the week and limited it to that time; that if
they need it beyond that, they can still go out there, and
it's metered and sold. At this point, we're pursuing that to
try set a policy up that we can, as a department, do that.
Because about a year ago, we came into drought conditions,
and T.N.R.C.C. was saying you -- you can't use your
10-acre-feet of water. And we were documenting all the
using. So, you know, basically we -- they control the
permitting, and we wanted to make sure that when we got to
that point, if we couldn't do it, we needed a source -- like
Ranchero. If we were in the middle of that project and they
said, you know, you can't pull the water out, we can still
52
[mil
L_J
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
17
18
1s
zo
21
22
23
2a
25
get the gray water. So we are working on that. We haven't
resolved all of it, but we felt like they wanted to set
something up as a policy. And I thought that was a good
forum to go ahead and set the policy up so that we could use
it; that our cost would be 55 cents a thousand. People could
use -- maybe use that under our permit or agreement with
them. But we could have a written agreement at this point,
because it is -- it tentatively sounds like it's feasible.
And, certainly, we'll supply the tankers to pump water in at
those times that ya'all set up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any locations that you were
thinking about?
MR. ODOM: Unless the Court's got -- I was thinking
about the boat ramp down here behind the Ag Barn for this
side of town, and Ingram Boat Ramp down there for the west
side.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then for the potable water,
choose a different day of the week, setting up the same time
period. We can go to the Ag Barn, just put a flowmeter on --
basically a fawcet over there, and just get reimbursed for
the City water. Can we do that?
MR. ODOM: Well, I would agree with it, but I did
read something, and the Judge may -- I don't know if it would
hit him. I thought I read something Friday that says that
the County is -- for drinkable water, for potable water, we
53
Cr`+
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
s
10
i~
12
13
1a
is
i5
17
18
~9
20
2t
22
23
za
25
could not charge a fee. So, I don't -- and I was looking for
it today, and I told Truby -- we were discussing the
different things Friday, and I -- I came over that in the
Governmental Codes, and I couldn't find it again today. I
was going to bring it to you. It's something maybe Legal
needs to look at. And it sort of surprised me, but then
again, under emergency conditions, I don't know if we could
charge a fee or not. I know that we're going to pay for that
water.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We should be able to pass the
fee that we're being charged for water onto the customer, I
would think.
MR. ODOM: You're probably right, Bruce. I'm just
telling you --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll just pass it on,
whatever we're paying for it, which in my mind would be fair.
MR. ODOM: It would. I'm just telling you what I
-- it just said that that was one thing we couldn't do is
charge a fee for drinkable water.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even if we couldn't, I'd be in
favor of giving, like, a 25-gallon allowance or 50-gallon
allowance at a time and just absorbing it as an emergency
situation. I think it's important enough, and it's not that
much money.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not that much money.
59
C~"
LJ
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
MR. ODOM: No, but this is for human consumption,
too, so it's not like for cattle and stuff like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's kind of what Leonard and
I visited and came up with, and we'll let them, you know,
have the place to set up the actual days and times that work
best with their schedule and have -- you know, for three
hours, three times a week.
JUDGE DENSON: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I do know that now the bottom
-- I know at least two fire departments, maybe three, that
will haul water to people for a fee. And I'm not sure what
their fee is, but I know Mountain Home -- and who else?
Hunt does it, I know for a fact. And when people need stock
water or whatever, they'll --
MR. ODOM: If there's other locations, we're open
for it; I'm just trying to get access for people to get in
and out, and that's the only thing those boat ramps -- I
figured they could do, anyway. Maybe that's too far there, I
don't know. We're open --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What days of the week? Do you
have any preference?
MR. ODOM: No preference. We just have to work
around -- we're almost through with the program. All I got
left is that Ranchero on the backside there, so we feel like
we'd be in pretty good shape to, you know, respond in some
55
~~
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16 ',
17
18
t9
20
21
22
23
2a
25
way; that we wouldn't need --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tuesday, Friday?
COMMISSIONER ODOM: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And Wednesday for the potable
water?
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is -- I'll put it in the
form of a motion. I make a motion that --
JUDGE DENSON: Well, let's do it like this: I'll
make a motion to authorize Commissioner Letz to develop a
schedule for water distribution to members of the public.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
MR. ODOM: At your discretion.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the press, I'll have that
by lunch.
JUDGE DENSON: One last thing. Do you think we
need to have people sign waivers of liability on water they
get out of this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third Creek?
JUDGE DENSON: Out of the treatment itself.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably out of all the water.
JUDGE DENSON: I mean, if it kills all the fish in
~~ 56
L~
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
Third Creek, it may not be good for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At this point, we're not going
to use the wastewater; we're just going to use the river.
But it may not be bad to have a liability release for all
that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not going to comment on
that.
JUDGE DENSON: And you're not ever going to let
your dog go swimming.
COMMI3SIONER OEHLER: My dog is not going swimming
back there again.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.10, Consider and discuss
accepting donation of tree for the courthouse lawn from the
Sons of Texas Republic, to be planted on November 3rd, '98.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Questions? We have Mr. Fred
Messer, who is part of that organization. When we first did
the agenda item, I didn't know whether Mr. Messer was going
to be here or not, but since he has shown up and some of us
recognize him and some of us don't -- I recognize him as a
mechanic/guitar-picker.
MR. MESSER: Right. That's a bad combination.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a bad combination.
MR. MESSNER: Incidentally, we're -- we're not part
of the west Texas bunch. We've been around since 1893, and
57

1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
n
19
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
we are dedicated to the preservation of -- of the history of
our republic, and we'd like to share that with -- with school
children. We do re-enactments. We do all sort of little
things. We do -- but, of course, now the ladies' side of it
has been -- has fought the Alamo ever since. Do you want me
to do this or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, you're doing
great.
MR. MESSNER: okay. The Sons of the Republic of
Texas have, through the generosity of Mx. Billy Price, begun
a project of great magnitude. Mr. Price is the owner of the
historical property in West Columbia, Texas. It's the death
site of Stephen F. Austin. lie has accepted great
responsibility in maintaining this property and is seeking to
perpetuate the memory of Stephen F. Austin through this land.
Approximately 2,200 certified Stephen F. Austin oak trees
were grown at Texas A ~ M University from acorns at the
Austin site. The trees are certified by the Texas Forestry
Service as Stephen F. Austin oak trees. The S.R.T. has
accepted the task of distributing the trees. It is the
desire of the S.R.T. that one of these trees be planted on
each courthouse-square lawn in the state. The local chapters
of the S.R.T. are responsible for acquiring permission
necessary to have these trees planted. The following few
items of information are regarding the planting; that's what
58
~'sl
l~ 1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
,•-.
13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
I'm doing here today. Each tree will be planted on November
the 3rd only. And that's the -- that's to commemorate the
birthday of Stephen F. Austin. The first two trees will be
planted at the Bush Library in College Station. The trees
are expected to be approximately 6 to 7 foot at the time of
planting. The trees will be delivered to the chapter or
courthouse at no cost by the S.R.T. The S.R.T. will provide
a written guideline for the ceremony to be performed at the
time of the planting. The ceremony must include the the
participation of local school children, as it is our wish to
perpetuate the spirit and memory of Stephen F. Austin, and to
teach the children of his many accomplishments. The trees
will be accompanied by certificates from the Texas Forestry
Service. And beginning on November the 3rd, the trees will
be planted at remaining courthouses, as well as all schools
named for Austin state-wide. We -- I've already -- I don't
want to get ahead of myself, but I haven't talked to anybody
in the school system here that wouldn't like to be in on
that. So, we'll furnish -- as it says, we furnish anything
necessary to plant them. Somebody's going to have to dig the
hole. It was suggested maybe that our County Agent would
supervise, tell us what we need. Maybe -- maybe Bruce would
want to dig the hole. I've got a shovel. But --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, I think that, being as
the Commissioner of Precinct 1 put this on here and I haven't
59
r~
L~
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
seen him dig a hole in my life, it would be a good
opportunity to do so.
MR. MESSNER: Well, that might be, too. But
anyway, we'll have to do that. So, anyway, that's -- that's
all that I have. I guess if you've got any questions, I
don't know much more than that. I've been in this
organization for a couple of years, and this is something
that kind of got -- as a matter of fact, I had to get a fax
from them to see what we was going to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fred, the -- I scanned over
it the other day when you sent it over here to me, but this
is the first time I really read it. These trees are grown
from those acorns that are gathered at his gravesite2
MR. MESSNER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Holy smokes. I want one.
This is neat.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's going to cost you to get
one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's no question of it.
This is neat. I'm certainly in favor of doing this; no
question of it, 'cause these big trees -- these large trees
someday won't be here, and we need to have them replaced, but
I want to to make sure that -- that our Maintenance
Department is involved in it to choose the proper site, as
well as Mr. Extension Service, Eddie Holland, to make those
n ~~ 60
~l
t_ J
1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
kinds of decisions.
MR. MESSNER: Of course, they'd have to -- like I
told somebody, it's not a good time to be talking about
planting anything right now. But maybe we'll get some rain
around November and, of course, it will be up to the
Maintenance people here to do whatever.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in favor of it. I'd
like to make a motion that we accept this tree from the Sons
of the Republic of Texas.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DEN30N: And we've got a second by
Commissioner Lackey. Further discussion on this subject?
All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Messner.
MR. MESSNER: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Make an appointment with
Buster and bring your shovel.
MR. MESSNER: Well, I got one. And mine's never
going to wear out, either, if I can help it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll furnish a handle if he
burns one up on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. All right, guys,
let me up. Bill, do you want to participate in this?
MR. WILLIAMS: You'll do a good job.
61
Ga"`i
L. J
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
JUDGE DENSON: Consider and discuss -- this is
2.11, Consider and discuss resolution approving grant for
funds for routine airport maintenance and authorize County
Judge to sign same. That's sent over here from the City, and
I think it's routine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, it couldn't be much
with that -- that amount of money you have. You're talking
about cleaning out a ditch or something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There needs to be a couple more
zeros when it comes to the airport. So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions or comments? All in
fdVOZ?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: You have the original on that? I'll
sign it later. Okay. 2.12, Information regarding having
reached an agreement in principle with representative of the
State of Texas, allowing Texas counties with indigent health
care obligations to receive an equitable share in the
proceeds of the State's settlement with the tobacco industry.
This is -- and if ya'all don't have backup on that, I
apologize.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It was in the box.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We all received it.
JUDGE DENSON: These are memos that I've been
II 6z
r~
LJ
1
2 I,
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
1s
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
receiving periodically from Jim Allison, who's an attorney in
Austin, represents the Texas Association of Counties. And he
intervened on all Counties' behalf in that lawsuit -- for the
settlement of that lawsuit, in hopes of Counties fully
receiving direct benefit from the settlement, rather than it
going indirectly through the State. And they have sole
discretion on how to distribute those funds, and the number
for Kerr County is $630,000. I just wanted to pass that
along to ya'all. As far as the members of the press, I'll be
glad to share his letters with you. Just informational.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's paid over a 3-year
period, as I recall?
JUDGE DENSON: I think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe three or four years. But
the majority -- I think 50 percent of it comes the first
year, so a lot of it. Pretty big help with some of our
indigent health care costs.
JUDGE DENSON: In January '99, he says there will
be initial distribution of $300 million to Counties and
hospital districts by population. Then in 2000 and 2001.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Judge, for
providing that to us. Appreciate it.
JUDGE DENSON: You're welcome. And thank you for
63

2
3
a
5
s
a
9
io
tt
12
13
14
15
is
n
is
i9
20
21
22
23
2a
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Being here?
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, and for the invitation that you
extended to Mr. Fuente.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you're welcome. We're
here to meet the needs of the taxpaying public and represent
them in a fashion that they're not accustomed to, I can tell
you that.
JUDGE DENSON: 2.14 -- excuse me, 2.13, Consider
and discuss extending the burn ban.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: So move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third.
JUDGE DENSON: Bruce, do you think we ought to
extend this thing?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not going to fight it. I
mean, we haven't had any rain; it's dry. Besides that, it's
so hot, it will almost catch the grass on fire without having
a match.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Questions or comments on
this? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 2.19, Consider and discuss
appointing representatives to joint committee, with sponsors
being the U.G.R.A. and the County, to study the on-site
69
f'~
LJ

1
2
3
a
5
s
a
9
10
11
12
13
1a
1s
1s
n
1e
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
sewage facility rate structure. This was a -- an idea and a
decision that was made in a joint meeting with the County and
the U.G.R.A. Board back a month ago. And I -- I think we're
going to have a couple of members from the Court on that, and
then there's going to be a couple of people --
representatives from U.G.R.A., and then there's going be some
individuals from the general public. Let me ask Commissioner
Letz to take over from this point, because I know he's going
to be serving on that committee, right?
COMMISSIONER LET2: I believe there's one
representative of the County, and I'm more than happy to do
that for the County. And I think there's one from U.G.R.A.,
and then Jim Brown or someone from the -- one from the Board
and one from the administrative side of U.G.R.A. And, as I
recall, we had discussed that it'll be one meeting to try to
work this out. We shouldn't decide to overly burden some
past fee structure; it will be trying to come up with a fee
structure that will basically make the program pay for
itself. It's the goal, anyway. And I think we discussed the
meeting, bringing someone in from a development or real
estate-type background. And I really -- I don't have a
recommendation for who we should appoint. I wouldn't want to
appoint someone I haven't talked to, at least, ahead of time.
But, toss that out.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Who's your recommendation?
'~ ~~ 65
• i
G,,"'~
LJ 1
2
3
a
5
s
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, you don't have any?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE DENSON: Let me ask Bill Williams,
Commissioner-elect, and currently a member of the U.G.R.A.
Board. Bill, do you know what the status of this is from
U.G.R.A.'s --
MR. WILLIAMS: Judge, I believe they were waiting
for the Court to take an action to set it up officially. The
U.G.R.A. Board will -- Administration, I guess, will be one
member from the Board. I think the intention was to have a
developer, an installer, and a designer on the board, and
people from the general public as well, so we can get some
consensus as to where we should go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How were we going to go
about -- I mean, were we going to go out there and find a
developer? It seemed like this Court could find -- Mr. Letz
could go out and find a developer, but these installers and
those folks, that's more U.G.R.A.'s bailiwick.
MR. WILLIAMS: They probably have some
recommendations, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. So I would think that
when Mr. Letz -- you know, he's the appointee from this
Court. Heck, go find you a developer to go over there with
you. Keep it simple.
66
Ill
L ~

1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
s
10
11
12 i
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. Let's just take action -- you
know, appoint him and turn him loose.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, no, no. I'm trying to
make a motion here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But let me just say that if you
could appoint myself and authorize myself to find the
developez, and then specifically say one from U.G.R.A. Board,
one from Administration-U.G.R.A., and have them appoint -- or
find the other two spots.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the committee's all done at
one time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That should be included in
my motion.
JUDGE DENSON: Did you get that, Tammy?
M3. MARQUARDT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glad you did.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second that.
JUDGE DENSON: And you said it was cool?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it's cool.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I welcome any comments on the
'" II 6~
f'"`~
L~
i
2
3
4
5
s
8
9
io
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
za
25
developer from anyone on the Court, ideas.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, my -- the only opinion I have
on it is, you know, we shouldn't burden people that have
systems in place, as far as repairs, repairing an existing
system. We want to encourage that. But new developments, I
think, is what we what we really need to target, increasing
those rates. And that way, I think it will be fair and
equitable, because everyone will be on notice that it's just
part of the cost of the land, cost of development, buying a
house or what-have-you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was thinking of Delmar.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Who?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Delmar Hiller.
JUDGE DEN30N: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He'll say what he thinks.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what you -- you do
need some of that.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Let's see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's it.
JUDGE DEN30N: That is it. We have a 1:15 agenda
item this afternoon, talking about our subdivision
regulations and revisions of plats, and then we have an
Executive Session this afternoon. And we also, I think, are
going to hear from the County Attorney as to his opinion on
that bus shelter. And I think, just from the brief
68
Cam" l
L J 1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
r^
conversation I had with him, it's going to be supportive of
what Mr. Hawkins wants to do. That's a preliminary report.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have an information
item I think I'd like to do at this time, if you'd allow me.
JUDGE DENSON: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because I'm probably going
to end up doing it anyway. This is a -- our employee
evaluation that we're going to put out the next -- the
two-week agenda from now. And I just kind of want to pass
these out to you guys, or I'll just put them here and you'll
take them with you and do your little evaluation of our
employees. And then, at the next Commissioners' Court
meeting, we'll make an agenda item, and then ya'all can come
back in with your evaluations and we'll go from there. Okay?
Say, "Yes, Buster."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can put it here, like,
about 2:30; it will be fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm probably going to put it
there, like, right now.
JUDGE DENSON: We'll be happy to have some more
paperwork.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, anything else I
can do for you guys, you let me know.
JUDGE DENSON: You can move to Washington.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I move -- we need to wait till
69
~	December 31st for that.
I_I t	
	JUDGE DENSON: No such luck.
2	
	COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I hate to go out of office
s	getting cussed.
a	
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, Butch, come on.
5	
	JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Anything further? Thank you
s	very much. We're in recess.
~	(Morning session was concluded at 10:50 a.m.)
8	
9	
	JUDGE DENSON: Okay. It's 1:18 on July the 27th,
io	
1998. We're continuing with our agenda and business. I want
11	
	to revisit one matter, that being agenda item 2.9.
i2	Commissioner Letz has drafted u a
p proposed schedule for
^ 13	distribution of water. I'll
lust turn the floor over to him.
14	COMMISSIONER LETZ: I lust drafted a schedule, like
is	the Judqe said, Kerr County Emergency Water Distribution
16	Plan. Just as -- I won't read the whole thing, but potable
~~	water would be at Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center
18	Wednesday from 1:00 to 3:00. Water will be metered. Kerr
19	County will be reimbursed for the cost of the water.
20	Nonpotable water in west Kerr County at Ingram Dam on
21	Tuesdays from 1:00 to 3:00, and in eastern Kerr County at
22	Flat Rock Lake boat ramp each Friday from 1:00 to 3:00.
23	Individuals needing water must schedule at least one day in
	
2a	advance by calling Kerr County Road and Bridge Department at
25	
	70
C^)
LJ

i
2
3
a
s
6
8
9
io
~~
12
13
is
is
16
n
is
~9
20
21
22
23
2a
25
257-2993. Individuals must bring containers to transport
both potable and nonpotable water. I thought it would be
better, probably, to have something in writing, as opposed to
leaving it up to me to schedule. I make a motion that we
adopt this plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: A motion and second. Questions?
All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
MR. JOHNSTON: Is Road and Bridge going to do the
metering?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't put a start date on
here. How about a week from Monday, whatever that date is?
That way there'd be time there to have -- to get a flowmeter.
MS. HARDIN: He's ordered it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. We'll start it a week
from Monday. That will give everyone time to get organized
and Road and Bridge to figure out -- do you want this, Truby?
MS. HARDIN: Do we know how much to charge for it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever the City's charge is
to us for the water, we charge them.
MS. HARDIN: So just turn it over to Tommy's office
in the amount that people get?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or just find out the -- I'd
contact Tommy's office and get the amount so they can pay us
71
LJ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1a
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
on the spot. Otherwise, we wouldn't want to get in a
collection-type situation, where we've got to start billing
people. That's going to cost us more than we can get. Just
find out what it costs per -- break down per thousand
gallons.
JUDGE DENSON: Cash on the barrelhead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cash on the barrelhead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or bucket.
JUDGE DENSON: Bucket head.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bucket head.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. Our next agenda item
scheduled was 1:15. It's item 2.15, Consider and discuss
County regulations and subdivision-related revisions of plats
as per local government code. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is one that needed to
probably, I think, be dealt with several weeks ago with
.another -- Japonica Hills or one of those situations where a
lot in a subdivision was divided into two lots. We had
another one with with Dwaine Machann several weeks ago. We
had one today which we set public notice on. And I have had
-- another individual called me, Mr. Botkin; I have his
letter. It's in Bruce's area. He got ahold of me somehow,
wanted to talk to me about this, doing the same situation.
All of these are basically the same in that we have existing,
platted subdivisions. The rules for the subdivisions are in
72
f~"~l
L.J 1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
1s
17
18
1s
zo
21
22
23
2a
25
the homeowners' association permit division. But to me, when
you read the Government Code and our subdivision rules, which
are based on the Government Code, there is a process that
they're required to go through that is -- well, we waived it
for Dwaine Machann. And I'm not sure that we can do that,
the way I read it, and I just thought I'd put it on the
agenda and get -- while Tom was here for a little bit of
legal advice, see what we can do with that, and with the
Judge, and so we have a consistent plan. I talked with Frank
a little bit about it, trying to figure out exactly -- you
know, maybe developing a third -- we have a replat or a minor
replat form and process, and we have everyone else,
basically. And maybe we can put a third form in and put
revision of plat as a new kind of streamlined form, trying --
you want to comply with State law and not be overly onerous.
Tom, what are your thoughts? I mean, you've read the -- I
know the Judge has read the provisions copy; I believe it's
attached on the back.
MR. POLLARD: If you read Brooks' book on county
and municipal law, it would sort of tend to lead you to
believe that if a replat is going to be required, that you
need to give the public notice and all that sort of thing.
However, if you -- if you read the statutes closely, they say
that if it affects other property owners' rights in there,
then you need to get -- give the public notice and have the
73
L~
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
public hearing on it. And it seems to me the key in this
situation is, then, if the restrictive covenants allow --
contemplate that resubdivision and what their proposed
resubdivision is, and is within those -- those restrictive
covenants, then I guess it doesn't affect anybody else's
rights, and you wouldn't have to give public notice and go
through the public hearings at all. I've -- frankly, I'd
feel better about it if it requires a replat, and I
understand the one in Machann's case, they do intend to
replat; I talked to Dwaine about it. And my personal feeling
is I'd feel better, if they're going to replat it, that they
-- that you give public notice and all, but that is going to
require a longer time and delay everybody then, and they're
always in a big hurry when they're doing this; they've always
got a real estate deal waiting to close based on it, and
they're -- so I don't know if that's really going to work or
not.
COMMI3SIONER LETZ: To me, the cost part of it and
the time part of it are both on the public notice. I mean,
that's where the delays come, that's where the big cost comes
in. Our fees are fairly small; we can certainly control our
fees. But I do think that, you know, to keep our records
straight, we need to really encourage and make it as easy as
possible to do a replat. And I think that if we look at the
various people that need to get signed off, from 911 to
74
l_ J 1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
za
25
U.G.R.A., they really probably need to go through that, in my
opinion, because it could affect all those things. There's
water systems, there's so many things every time you do
divide it. Each one individually isn't that big a deal, but
if everyone in the subdivision does it, all of a sudden
you're changing a platted lot out there. And at some point
you got to kind of keep a record of it, and I think probably
the various people to sign off on it. But I don't see why it
couldn't be handled like -- from our standpoint, like a minor
replat, which is a pretty simple process, and even let the
Commissioners have, you know, authority to sign off if we can
get around the notice portion of it. But I think they do
need to go through, certainly, anything to make sure our
records stay accurate, though. That's my feeling on it.
MR. POLLARD: If it doesn't affect some other
property owners' rights, I think you can get around the
public notice thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the issue that we're
talking about today, is it the public notice or the actual
surveying and recording of a subdivision?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both. To me, the surveying is
part of it. If they're selling a piece of land, they're
going to have to get it surveyed. Now, the platting -- there
is an additional platting expense, but it doesn't have to be
the entire subdivision; it only has to be the two lots.
~ ~~ 75
L J
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
1a
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
za
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, I cannot imagine
that this is an onerous cost for them to do.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't have any objections
to surveying part of it; I think that should be mandatory,
and the recording of that survey should be filed in the deed
records. Where I have a problem is, until the Elgin Bank
case is changed to somebody -- until it's tested again and
there's some different finding out of that, I think that
we're violating some property rights of owners by trying to
make them do things that has not been tried and proven in a
court of law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
Elgin Bank at all, because --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER:
I don't think this relates to
Well, it fronts on a public
road, it fronts on a County road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The provision in the book is
revision of plat, has nothing to do with that, and it doesn't
give any way out. I just say revision of plat, period.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But it still, when you get
right down to it -- and this is my opinion, I'm going to
state it. But when you get right down to it, I bought that
piece of property. I bought it with certain restrictions on
my piece of property. It stated that it can be divided or it
can't be divided, and it usually tells how small it can be
76
~~
L J 1
2
3
a
5
6
a
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
divided or how -- you know, what those parameters are for the
division of that property. And if that property fronts on a
public or a County or a State highway, you can divide off of
that as long as you have the frontages that are required in
our subdivision -- I think it's 120 feet for one acre for the
public water system, and 200 feet for two and a half acres,
the way I read the rules last week. So, you know, you're
saying that, no, you can't draw that line through this and
resurvey it and set -- even though it does front on a public
road and even though it is in a subdivision. I think that,
you know, really, what you're -- what I would like to protect
is the integrity of the subdivision, saying that there is
some record of that being sold that's actually a plat, a plat
of those lots or that lot submitted and filed with the County
Clerk's office. But, you know, we can go through this. This
is going to happen from now on. And, you know, I bought it
knowing that I could -- that it was said in there that I
could do those things, and it didn't say anything in the
restrictions about going to replat and all the notification
of every landowner in the subdivision, so that -- I mean,
because it's really kind of erroneous in a way, because the
owners of the subdivision can't fight it, because it says
it's okay in the restrictions. They all bought the land
under the same pretense. I think the one kicker is water,
water and easements as far as, you know, septic and well and
77
Gr'°i
~J
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
s
10
11
12
13
14
15
1s
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
that sort of thing. I think those and -- but the main issue
in a small subdivision would be water, because we know that
all these systems are not adequate enough to serve four lots
that were cut out of one, maybe. And I think that's really
the key issue to it, more so than drawing a line and setting
off a piece of property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what happens, though,
if you did it -- I mean, ours have been pretty clear cut and
I don't have any problem. Say you took a 100-acre lot and
they wanted to divide it into 50 tracts, or whatever they
could get, say, above the two and a half acres. That's going
to have a major impact on that subdivision; on roads, on
water availability, in ground water and everything else. So,
I mean, you can't just look at these -- or we could; we could
divide them out and separate one set of rules for just
division from one into two, and then from others -- you know,
going into more than just one other lot. Because it can
really have a mushroom effect.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we have discouraged a
lot of those; we don't see many of those any more. Those are
on older subdivisions and they're -- oh, you know, this
particular instance that we're looking at here, as an
example, is -- you know, it's going to be 6 acres instead of
12 when it's divided. And, you know, I don't know what the
restrictions say in the subdivision; I have never read them,
~ ~I 78
~~
L J 1
2
3
a
5
s
8
s
10
11
12'
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
but if they allow for that to happen, then I think that, you
know, we're telling them they can't do something that they
bought the land under the pretense that they could do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. Some
subdivision restrictions or covenants state that if -- if no
one is harmed, you can do anything you want to do, but some
restrictions say something else. How are we to tell what
those restrictions say every time we do a resubdivide? Do we
trot out to the subdivision and get their covenants to find
out what -- what we're allowed to do7
MR. POLLARD: That's one of the things you would
ask them to do.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Go down here to the Clerk's
office and pull those Deed Records, and it will tell you what
the restrictions are on the plat.
MR. POLLARD: Yeah, but you don't want your
engineer having to spend all his time looking through the
Deed Records down here. I think what you -- what you want is
somebody to ask them to furnish it. You know, as part of the
process. Ask them to furnish the copy of the restrictive
covenants that are in effect. Just -- and that way you've
got it on record.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't have a problem with
that. It's just that I -- you know, I -- until this thing
changes, the Elgin Bank case, in my mind, that is a real key
~' II ~ 9
~J 1
2
3
a
5
6
7
a
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issue to what we should be telling people they ought to do or
what it's legal for them to do under the law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the Elgin Bank overturns
Section 12 paint --
MR. POLLARD: Well, it simply holds that there's no
reason to -- if it fronts on a public road and there's no
necessity for the laying out of public roads or public
facilities, then, you know, they're not required to go
through the platting process.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And they're not flag lots;
they're frontage lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When I read -- if you're
talking about revision of a subdivision, that's the section
that I'm talking about here. And it doesn't talk about any
other -- it gust says if you revise that plat.
MR. POLLARD: It's not a new subdivision; it's a
revision of an existing subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're revising that
subdivision that's existing, and it -- and Elgin Bank, to me,
is irrelevant to that situation. I don't see how it even
applies. It's a different --
MR. JOHNSTON: Isn't the Elgin Bank case about raw
land, whether or not it had to be subdivided initially?
MR. POLLARD: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: It didn't really talk about
80
~`1
L J 1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
resubdividing it.
MR. POLLARD: It was -- let's just say, for
example, it was on a public road and shaped in such a manner
that they could cut it with frontage on the road for, say,
just three tracts or something out of it, and they didn't
need to lay out any public streets or have any public
facilities out there. And, so, the Court held that they
could not be held to be required to subdivide.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either way, I think we're in
agreement up here as to we all want them to have to do the
plat -- give us the plats so we can keep accurate records.
And Tom is saying that we can get rid of the notice
requirement if they give us the -- furnish us with their
homeowners' association rules, and if it -- you know, as long
as you're not contrary to that, then we can -- that's really
want I wanted to find out. We can probably then --
MR. POLLARD: You know, it's not much of a jump to
-- if you do you away with the public hearing part of it,
requirements to delay it, it's not much of a jump from them
being required to -- they're going to have to survey it
anyway, like you say, to sell the tracts. They'll have --
it's not going to cost much more for a surveyor to do the
plat right then, to amend the plat and bring it down here and
hand it to ya'all for approval in some kind of a quickie
process, a minor replat process or whatever you want to call
al
L_~
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we --
MR. POLLARD: That satisfies you, gets it of
record.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm just trying to get
something that's a little quicker and easier for somebody to
do. Because it's kind of -- it seems to me to be a little
ridiculous whenever somebody has the right to do that, they
have to go through all the steps. But the public hearing
part of it is really -- unless they're violating some rule or
regulation or part of the restrictions, the homeowners really
don't have much leg to stand on, the other owners of the
property.
MR. POLLARD: That's right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They can stand up and say,
"This is going to destroy the value of my property," but they
have the same right to do what this guy is doing, you know.
You can't mandate something for one and not the other.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 30, you have -- I see two
different issues here. One would be the notification of the
subdivision, and the public hearing of the subdivision.
Those are two separate things. So, you're saying that
neither one of those would have to come about if the
restrictions say -- I don't remember what you --
MR. POLLARD: No, I didn't say that. I said the
82
r~l
L_J
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
s
t0
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a ',
25
public notice is not required -- if it doesn't affect the
rights of other property owners, the public notice is not
required.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But the public hearing would
still be in place?
MR. POLLARD: Well, public notice and public
hearings are the same thing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They go hand-in-hand. The
"Notification of Public Hearing" is what it is.
MR. POLLARD: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think -- yeah, I
understand that, that you notify them that that is going to
be a public hearing. But you're also notifying them that
there's going to be a subdivision of land. I mean, it's not
just a public hearing. You're notifying your neighbors, Hey,
there's fixing to be a division of land over here. In my
mind, that's what it's about, not the public hearing. But I
see it as two separate things.
MR. POLLARD: Well, the public hearing is just a
place for them to come express their opposition or whatever
to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As we've done in the past, we
really can't -- since I've been on the Court, we've always --
even if we had objections, we still say, you know, that's no
.-_ ~~ 83
P'`~
L~
i
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
basis for us not to approve it. My concern is that we keep
accurate records. I think the public hearing is a nuisance
and I don't think -- from when I've been on the Court, it
doesn't serve any real value because we have to go along with
it anyway, so it's just a waste of time. My concern is that
we come up with a procedure to keep our plats in the Clerk's
office accurate, and that -- and putting everyone on public
notice.
MR. POLLARD: And that accommodates the public on
closing real estate deals, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about if I propose or ask
Franklin and Leonard to come up with a separate -- you know,
like a revision of plat, like we do on minor replats, and do
a separate form on how we would handle revision of plat. And
so we can amend our subdivision at our next meeting and look
at the -- you know, the --
MR. JOHNSTON: We'll probably need to consult with
Tom on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will be fine.
MR. POLLARD: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then --
JUDGE DENSON: Maybe some kind of check-off list?
MR. JOHNSTON: They furnish us with all the
information about their -- the subdivision; if it doesn't
have the provision that you can divide the lots, then you'll
..^-~ 18 9
~l
LJ
.-.
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
do the regular process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. It will be -- basically
it's a new routing slip. We have one for final plat, one for
preliminary, and one for minor replats. We'll just add
another one for revision of existing plat. And, you know --
MR. ODOM: And that would -- like, Tom would give
us a legal opinion to read that deed restriction to make sure
-- other than our interpretation. My interpretation and
Tom's interpretation may be two different things. But he is
vested by law to -- to be able to adjudicate that opinion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that someone's going to
have to interpret it. I don't know who that will be.
MR. POLLARD: Most of them are not -- on the
subdivision part of it, there isn't -- there's no magic
language about it. It's pretty clear.
MR. ODOM: It's pretty explicit, yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: In this context of subdividing, if
the only reason they could turn the replat down is violating
someone else's property rights, what would -- what would
constitute someone else's rights?
MR. POLLARD: Well, it's really -- let's just say
in the one that Dwaine had, it was -- I forget the acreages
involved, but it's Japonica Hills. But it was about 50 acres
in the lot, I think, and they were -- they couldn't
resubdivide into less than 25-acre lots. And he was planning
~ ~~ 85
!~
L~
1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
to resubdivide down to a 27-acre lot, as I remember, so it
was within the subdivision restrictive covenants. Now, if
he'd have wanted to move it down to 15 instead, that would
have affected everybody else's rights out there.
MR. JOHNSTON: If they wanted to close a road or
change a road, that would too.
MR. POLLARD: Yeah, that's right. That's right.
See, the other people are bound to not subdivide to less than
25 acres either, and so if you allow one to do it, that
affects the others' rights. They have the right to rely on
that under the restrictive covenants.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know of a new one that's
coming on-line before too long, or going to be proposed, and
they're going to have it to where I think the front's going
to be 2-acre lots and it's going to have public water system.
The back acreage and behind that is going to be 10 to 25
acres, and they're going to restrict it to never be sold less
than 10. And so, really, you know, with a 25-acre lot, one
division is going to be the end of it.
MR. POLLARD: Yeah. Well, it's whatever they
happened to choose in the restrictive covenants.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
MR. POLLARD: If you stay within the restrictive
covenants, well, that's not violating anybody else's rights.
Everybody is governed by the same regulations and laws. But
86
n
L J
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
if you try to do something less or something that's
prohibited by the restrictive covenants, that's affecting
somebody else's rights.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Then they need to get
approval by the homeowners' association for whatever they
want to do that's less than what is required.
MR. POLLARD: But it also would be a mandatory
notice and public hearing --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MR. POLLARD: -- at that time. They can't waive
it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Both those things you need to
get permission. If you get permission, then you wouldn't
need the public hearing.
MR. POLLARD: Well, I'm afraid you would.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you had 75 percent of the
landowners to say, "Yeah, it's okay with us" --
MR. POLLARD: I think you'd still have to have the
public hearing. Yeah, I think you'd still have to have
notice and hearing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't mind that. But
whenever you're talking about doing something that's within
the restrictive covenants of the subdivision, I don't have a
-- I don't want to stop somebody from having what's
rightfully theirs and make them spend a lot of money for
~ I 87
L~
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
nothing, and a lot of wasted time.
MR. JOHNSTON: And if they are on public water when
they divide it, they need to get their letter from T.N.R.C.C.
stating they do have the capacity.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They need to notify the water
company and let them know what they're doing. If they're
close to being out of compliance by number of people, to give
them notice that there's going to be more lots going in
there, and they need to do something about upgrading the
water system. I think there's a problem with Wood Trails
right now with that very thing.
MR. POLLARD: I don't know if that affects other
property owners' rights or not. I'm not sure that would be
in the area you're talking about. If the water system's not
adequate, I don't think we can do anything about that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm lust saying there needs
to be a notification of the water company; say, Hey, we're
going to -- they probably get notified when they want a meter
put up anyway, but, I mean, sometimes they might not have
enough available water.
JUDGE DENSON: Wait. Wait. Wait. One at a time,
please.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Might not have enough
available water supply to do four or five more lots. And
it's happening right now in Wood Trails. That's a real-life
88
L ~ 1
2
3
a
5
6
8
s
io
11
12
13
is
15
is
n
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
,~-~
thing. And, they're going to -- it's going to be awhile
getting the upgrade done. And that kind of notification
probably should be done, just as a courtesy to the -- at
least the person has a fighting chance to get it done without
getting beat over the head by T.N.R.C.C.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only thing on the
water issue, you have to have -- you know, on most of those
water systems, they have a certain allotment, don't they?
You can go up to a certain number of lots. Like I said,
before you can get them do it, they've got to get that
approved from T.N.R.C.C. Each one doesn't have to, but once
they get over the water company's license amount or whatever
you call it, that needs to be done ahead of time; otherwise,
I see a real problem.
MR. POLLARD: But if it's a privately-owned water
supply, for example, and you can't -- the water supply
reported to you that they did not have the capacity to serve
more customers, and the proposed subdivision would require
more customers, I'm not sure you could turn it down based on
that. I don't think that's what the statute had in mind when
it talks about public services.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER:
and the water company.
MR. POLLARD: Yeah.
That's between the homeowner
MR. ODOM: Tom, wasn't there a new -- I'm sorry,
89
r/'~l
LJ
t
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
Judge -- wasn't there something recently that bound the
County governments to somewhat have responsibility for this?
I mean, for water systems? And it's been recent; something
just came down.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: September of '97, I believe.
'Cause what I was told and the way that it works -- the way
it was told to me that it works is that -- that the
Commissioner in each precinct is kind of the watchdog. If,
say, a private citizen in a subdivision comes to a
Commissioner and makes a complaint about a water system,
we're supposed to, in turn, call T.N.R.C.C. and report the
problem, and then they will go do the investigation. They
would rather have it that way than have all the citizenry
call them every time their water pressure gets low or
whether, you know, they didn't have any today, or -- but I
think that's -- that was what I was told. I had no knowledge
of that until being told that.
MR. ODOM: It was something -- I just don't recall.
I recall reading something that did involve the County
government more than it's ever been before.
COMMISSIONER LET2: I think we haven't really
changed our subdivision rules based on that, but a lot of the
counties do have a lot more authority over that area. But
it's kind of nebulous.
MR. POLLARD: Well, if it works the way Bruce
~"" II 90
r/"`1
LJ
1
2
3
a
s
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
understands it, that's just a reporting requirement, and I
don't think you could base subdivision rules and regulation
requirements on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One gives a lot more authority
over a developer; we can require a developer to prove they
have water available.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. I think we've covered
this agenda item.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, I'll shut up.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, all we're doing is just
burning up paper over here. We have some other business to
report other than just general discussion. Let's see, we
have a scheduled 1:30 Executive Session dealing with all
pending and possible litigation, and I know a couple matters
that we have to discuss. And so let's -- at this time, we
will be going into Executive Session. We'll close our public
meeting.
(The open session was closed at approximately
1:99 p.m., and an Executive Session was held,
the transcript of which is contained in a separate
document.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. It's about 2:20, July the
27th, '98, and we're back in open court, dealing with agenda
item 2.3. We talked about a bus shelter on the County
right-of-way at the corner of Highway 27 East and Split Rock.
91
r"`l
L.J
~,
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
We had a young scout by the name of Philip Hawkins in here
earlier today talking about that, and, we had recessed on the
matter, knowing that we need some legal guidance. And I
think Mr. Motley has some kind of information for us.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I have to tell you, my first
involvement on this, I believe, is going to be the 22nd. And
I was really just standing there chatting, and Commissioner
Baldwin expressed some concern about the language of the
posting, the agenda posing, and we tried to reword it in a
way where we could say that it was broad enough to consider
the young man's plan and allow a variance. At that point, we
were not certain precisely what rule we were seeking to vary
or to waive for this young man. I cannot tell you that what
I'm going to tell you is anything, as far as a legal opinion,
but as far as avoidance possibly of some sort of litigation,
you know, and I -- I suspect ya'all heard this this morning,
so I don't want to repeat, but, you know, the right-of-way
certainly serves functions other than a place to expand the
road. And it does serve as a -- as a zone where a car that
gets off the road can slow down before it strikes some solid
object or some people or something. And hopefully, you know,
a great number of off-the-road accidents can be alleviated by
keeping a clear zone on either side of the road. I think the
clear zone would be less on a lower speed road with a lower
speed limit. I know on State highways, they like to keep
92
rr~
~~
/~
t
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
about 30 feet from the -- what I call the fog line or the
edge line out to -- you know, 30 feet of clear zone past that
line. On a County road, I have found no specific rules that
say that they can or cannot put something in the
right-of-way. Now, Leonard and Frank may very well know
something that I'm not telling you about. But, it seems to
me that this is a situation where the young man needs to know
that once the construction is finished, it immediately
attaches to the land on which it's built and becomes the
property of the County. And I'm sure he knows that. And
also, if there's a widening of that road such as would make
its position more dangerous or, in fact, you know, bisect the
improvement, then it's going to come down within a 5-,
10-year forseeable period if it will become the County's
item.
I'm certainly in favor of boy scouts doing what they
need to do to get the merit badges; I think it's a good,
altruistic goal for this young man to keep school kids out of
-- sheltered. I know we've been having substantial rains;
those children are going to drown like rats if we don't have
that thing -- somewhere, anyway. But, you know, I just think
it almost boils down -- I can't tell you a legal opinion on
it, other than, you know, it's a generally good principle, I
would think -- you know, the highway or the Road and Bridge
guys are saying to keep it clear for a safety purpose, and
93
r^el
L J 1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25

also, you know, avoidance of some kind of a tort claim act if
somebody went whipping off there for some reason and hit the
thing, and it's within an area which is suggested to be
clear, we could be facing some sort liability. And, of
course, we're insured and we have limits and such as that,
but we hope those kind of things don't happen.
But I don't know if that's really a legal opinion. As I
say, my involvement originally was lust to kind of try to
help get the thing worded correctly, and I didn't mean to get
in anybody's face as far as what -- what had been -- I
understand it's been going on for a year or more. The first
I saw of it, in fact, was the actual construction; I didn't
even know it had been constructed.
JUDGE DENSON: They started construction before all
this was --
MS. BAILEY: The State Highway, I think, rules
about that are instructive; they require that 30 foot.
MR. MOTLEY: Right. I'm not sure that the 30 foot
is flexible. These guys could probably advise. I know that
the Highway Department, Bill Tucker and Bill Pehl, have been
contacted about this, and I know that they are aware of
what's going on. To my knowledge, they have not said don't
do it. They continue, I believe, to want to work with the
County and with Road and Bridge in order to accomplish this
if it can be done safely. Hut, yeah, that's what I was
99
P"`1
LJ 1
2
3
a
5
s
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
saying earlier; the 30 feet may go down if the speed limit's
lower, but it's still a good idea to use those rules. I mean
those are based on, I'm sure, long-term studies of what
percentages of wrecks were -- you know, cars go off the road,
how many times the injuries or damage occur within what
distance. And I think that's why they come up with the
suggested 30-foot zone.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, you know, from what you're
saying, it's almost like here we have notice that
right-of-ways are supposed to be clear for emergency stops or
what-have-you. And if we allow an obstruction to be placed
there, we're clearly liable if -- if there was an accident.
But Leonard was talking this morning about -- and I --
MR. ODGM: Administerial versus discretionary-type
judgment. One of the defects, you know, if it's
administerial, then 251.008 is a fixed law. It's a very
broad law, like David says, and Tom will tell you. You get
back to discretionary, and what I'm worried about is immunity
to the County. And so this -- what I read says that there's
eight defects, and one of those defects on a tort liability
is a fixed object in the roadway. Now, you have to use
discretion and common sense, and we're not -- you know, we're
certainly not here to try and stop what the young man is
trying to do, because it's being done for a good purpose.
However, you know, is it -- does it fall within the
95
~l
L J 1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
1e
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
parameters of discretionary judgment, that sovereign immunity
would fall into place if we're covered from a lawsuit? Are
we -- have we gone over 50 percent negligence? And that's
what they'd have to prove to sue us.
As it stands now, it's probably outside that area on the
highway department. It's in an area that's off the road.
The probability, with no access and a dead-end in there, is
that it wouldn't be a problem at Split Rock. Where the
problem would occur would be on that highway; in all
probability, someone coming across there. Maybe there is an
opportunity to look at it, and the Court has to make that
decision because of the tort liabilities. Would you -- would
you leave it there and then, when the highway is widened --
and there was an example I gave Buster and David;
Southwestern Bell was sued because of that. They put a
telephone pole in. The roadway was so-wide; later on it was
expanded, and a guy made a left-hand turn and missed the turn
and hit the telephone pole and sued the State, as well as
Southwestern Bell. And Southwestern Bell settled out of
court, and then the suit against the State was dropped. They
said they had sovereign immunity to the thing. And
basically, it never did come -- there was never a decision
made whether the State was liable or not, so I don't know.
I'm just saying there is a defect in discretionary judgment,
and one of those is a fixed object in the roadway.
96
C'"`~
L_J 1
2
3
a
	5
	6
	7
	8
	s
	10
	11
	12
,,,,,	13
	1a
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	za
	25
~"..	
Therefore, immunity is not probable.
MR. MOTLEY: Does anybody know the distance between
what I'm calling the north face of this construction and the
-- and what I call the fog line or the edge line on 27?
MR. ODOM: I haven't measured.
MR. MOTLEY: It may be in the 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The pictures show it's probably
beyond; it's set quite a bit back.
MR. ODOM: It's set back and it may be outside that
30 foot. That's the reason I say it might be fine on their
part, where the danger -- the probability -- but as sure as I
told you that, David, tonight somebody would hit it. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you asking if it's 30
feet from the edge of Highway 27?
MR. MOTLEY: I'm just saying along the Split Rock
Road, is it 30 feet to the closest edge of that building?
JUDGE DENSON: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. One
person at a time, please.
MR. MOTLEY: What I was saying is, as you measure
along Split Rock Road from the edge line of Highway 27, and
go down along Split Rock to the very beginning of that -- of
that building, is that 30 feet from there to to there?
Because if it is, then you've cleared your problem with the
most traffic of being out -- or in 27. And then -- but the
other -- there's other things you can do besides, you know,
97
rT~
L J 1
2
3
a
5
s
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
,..-..
tear it down. You could put up some sort of protective
barrier or something like that, that would help traffic
coming, you know, north on Split Rock. If they got over all
the way across to the other lane and then hit it, maybe put
some kind of guardrail -- I don't know. But, I mean, I think
there are other options as well as just saying tear it down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's more than 30 feet
off of the fog line on 27.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's 50 or 60 feet; it's a
long ways.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, yeah, at least 50.
MR. MOTLEY: If you have problems with somebody
driving, as Leonard says, you know -- well, it's clear if
they came off 27 and hit that thing, they're -- they're twice
the distance. We're not in trouble, in my estimation, as far
as traffic exiting the road at that point. It's going to be
somebody who's, like -- the liability is going to be somebody
who's headed south on Split Rock Road and they haven't had
too much time to pick up a whole lot of speed, I hope.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Actually, that's not where
the problem is. There's a big culvert right there on the
edge. They'd have to come around the drainage pipe and then
turn and head directly at the building. Centrifugal force is
going to be taking you away from it.
COMMI3SIONER BALDWIN: It would really be hard to
98
f'"~
LJ
hit it.
1
2
3
a
5
s
8
s
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You've got to really make an
effort to hit it.
MR. ODOM: The probability -- I'm sorry. The
probability is highly unlikely.
MS. BAILEY: Or you could clip the corner of that
fence and get the telephone pole and the shelter.
MR. MOTLEY: The people most likely to hit it would
be people on 27 approaching Split Rock who somehow cross over
and then go -- it doesn't matter where it's going to be; if
they're crossing another lane of traffic and hitting it, you
may not be able to prevent that accident no matter what you
do.
MS. BAILEY: Isn't another question the precedent
of the County allowing obstructions in the right-of-way?
That might be of more concern.
JUDGE DENSON: Excuse me. Butch?
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Leonard and Frank and Bruce
all know, about four years ago we had a big problem right
there at this place on all them houses flooding. And Mr.
Shelton, before he passed away, he took that electric fence
down and let us build a berm dawn through there to keep the
water out of these houses. That house that he built here is
right in the drainage ditch there, if you'll look at it. If
we ever get rain again, it will be standing in water.
99
I^1
L..J
n
i
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
io
11
12
13
is
~5
is
17
is
~9
20
21
22
23
2a
25
MR. ODOM: They'll be floating out.
JUDGE DENSON: Why don't we just -- just for
discussion purposes, why don't we just ignore it, rather than
take action and grant a variance?
MR. MOTLEY: We certainly can be charged with
knowledge, I suppose, down the line somewhere. But, again --
MS. BAILEY: But we haven't approved it.
JUDGE DENSON: We haven't expressly approved it.
MS. BAILEY: We're still contemplating it five
years from now.
MR. MOTLEY: I'll tell you what, I see a master
plan where it's twice the safe distance it needs to be away
from 27. If people are going south on that road, they're
going to have to just crank it straight for the deal and hit
it. If they're going north, they're crossing across their
lane, another lane, some frontage, and then hitting the
thing. As I say, you could put it back another 20 feet and
somebody could probably accomplish that and hit it anyway. I
don't know if the placement would be of any safety to the guy
that's going to go across a couple lanes and hit it anyhow.
So --
JUDGE DENSON: I think everybody wants them to
complete it and for it to be there, and I think we're in
unanimous agreement on that. I just -- I personally would
feel better -- and I don't know what good it would do, but it
100
~i
~J 1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25

may be something to hang our head on, but let's just not take
any action on it whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also -- I mean, I agree with
Butch's comments about the drainage part; I see more of a
drainage issue than interference with the right-of-way. But,
then again, we can do nothing at this time until, maybe, it
rains sometime and we see if it does -- is a problem.
JUDGE DENSON: Well -- and there, again, hopefully
this -- nothing like this would happen, but if you -- what if
it rains all afternoon; if there's a kid in there and there
is a lot of water coming along, I mean, and we expand our
liability by some kid getting trapped in there or --
MS. BAILEY: Attractive nuisance or something.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, by approving this thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In a County-owned bus stop.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think being silent is
probably a good idea. Also, I think probably -- to get back
to the boy scouts, I don't know if they have any liability
for building it there.
JUDGE DENSON: Possibly. I don't know. This is
one of those things that, you know, you start out trying to
be a nice guy, and then you find out what the real world is
all about.
MS. BAILEY: Maybe he can get a civics merit badge
101
~_J
r
1
2
3
a
5
6
a
9 ',
10
11
12
13
1a
15
t6
17
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
instead of a building merit badge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is his Eagle Scout
project; it's a big deal.
MR. MOTLEY: Can I go on record as saying I'm in
favor of boy scouts?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. You already have.
Well, I'd probably go along with not doing anything, as long
as we don't run up and tell them to go ahead and tear it
down. If we don't -- if we're going to go the route of not
doing anything. If we're not going to go that route, then I
want to make a motion that we allow them to do it, as a Court
order. ,
JUDGE DENSON: I think Jonathan has a good point
about waiting to see what a heavy rain will do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine with me.
JUDGE DENSON: Before we take further action on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine with me, as long
as, you know, no one runs out there and and tells them to
remove it.
COMMISSIONER LET2: Let them put the roof on it.
JUDGE DENSON: We can do that, except for --
MR. ODOM: You have no authority do that.
JUDGE DENSON: Unless you have a construction item,
like --
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: All they need to do is put a
102
f'~i	roof on it, unless they're going to paint it or something.
L J 1	
	MR. MOTLEY: It is forecast to rain in April.
2	
	COMMISSIONER LET2: Thanks, David.
3	
	JUDGE DENSON: Let's wait until it rains and see.
a	
	MR. MOTLEY: Can I just -- I don't know if you want
5	
	to expand this, but could you just maybe inquire from these
s	
	gentlemen if there is some sort of a moderate-priced kind of
	
	a barrier or section of guardraili that could be placed in
8	
	between the front of that thing and toward the road that
9	
	might -- if we decide to keep it there or allow it.
10	
	JUDGE DENSON: I don't know whether I agree with
11	
	that, David. You're creating another obstruction as far as
12	
	damage to a vehicle. Now, you -- you could make it safe or
13	
	protect anyone that might be in the little shelter. But,
1a	
	you're making -- you've still got the problem. What I'd like
15	
	to see -- ya'all have a sign-making machine out there at the
16	
	shop -- is to go back up the road a little distance from that
n	
	house and put "Bus Stop" or -- or some kind of little sign,
18	
	so if a car was pulling off of the highway to stop in the
19	
	right-of-way, they get notice that there's a building up
20	
	there.
21	
	MR. ODOM: Are you saying on 27, Judge?
22	
	JUDGE DENSON: No, six, I'm saying on this other
23	
	street where it's located.
2a	
	MR. ODOM: On Split Rock? We'll put something up.
25	
...	
103
~ J 1
2
3
a
5
6
8
s
10
11
12
r^
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
/"~
MR. JOHNSTON: I think maybe what David is talking
about is what you see in cities near the underpasses and
stuff, they've have all these plastic barrels that are
absorbers of --
JUDGE DENSON: That's filled with something.
MR. JOHNSTON: Hard-hitting, they absorb the shock.
That's getting kind of extreme.
MR. MOTLEY: It might be. It might be something we
could do that would protect it, but it would probably cost
more than the building itself.
MR. POLLARD: Whatever you put up there to protect
it is going to acknowledge that the County knows this thing
is there, and it defeats your whole purpose of ignoring it.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Including, do you think --
do you see that same theory even with the some of those
little reflectors stuck on it or something for nighttime
traffic?
MR. POLLARD: If the kid wants to put reflectors on
it, that's fine, but I think whatever the County does out
there acknowledges that it's there and bears responsibility
for it. In fact, I think you possibly already have, anyway,
with this record here. I mean, so that's academic, really.
JUDGE DENSON: We still haven't approved it. And
as we're talking here, my mind's working, and I'm -- you
104
r"'`:
~J 1
2
3
a
5
s
8
s
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
1s
20
21
22
23
2a
25
know, if we approve this thing -- and Butch says they're
going to put a door on there. If a kid gets locked in there,
there's just -- so this thing can grow, our exposure.
MR. POLLARD: I think your primary exposure is
maybe from diverting the waters. If you don't get them to
take it down, and knowing that they're diverting water, if it
gets into somebody's house or damages somebody's property
allowing it to stay there, the County might have some
liability. But I don't see much other liability
possibilities.
MR. ODOM: May I -- on that one -- may I say
something? That design, Tom, was on a 10-year frequency and
everything. This structure's outside that berm. So,
basically, what we have is an overflow at a 10-year
frequency; it's going in those homes. No matter what.
MR. POLLARD: Whether this is there or not.
MR. ODOM: Whether that's there or not. So that's
really not -- after that, it's coming. So we've done as much
as we can. We haven't penetrated the berm; we've stayed this
side of the berm, so we're not going to affect that field at
all. We're still going to have a 10-year frequency. If it's
15 or 20, it's coming over.
JUDGE DENSON: Is that going to push water out on
the road, though, and damage the County road?
MR. ODOM: Sir, it's going to go all over the place
105
L J 1
2
3
a
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
21
22
23
2a
25
over there. If you've ever seen that field, it just -- it's
-- it's bad.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How long before he earns his
Eagle Scout award?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really don't know how long
it takes. Once they -- you know, they've got to present it
to the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is he getting close?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. This is the project,
but, now, once it's presented to the national system, you
know, they go through all these -- I really don't know, to
answer your question. I see where you're coming from.
MR. ODOM: Yeah, I know. My boy's working on his.
He's been working on it a year. He's already done the
project; they do the project and then they do the paperwork.
And, basically, this is like a project and you have to do
paperwork. You fill out that paperwork, get the signatures
that are necessary for that, then you to go a committee, in
fact, and that committee reviews that, the Alamo Area Council
out of San Antonio. And if they approve it, then the boy is
put up and then there's a ceremony for an Eagle, which is
only 2 percent of all the scouts in the U.S. -- or the world,
for that matter, are receiving an Eagle. So it's -- we
certainly should encourage that. I encourage the young man.
I'm sorry, I was pushed to that point to make -- I was asked
106
r^~
~J

1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1a
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to make an opinion. I made an opinion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. After that time
happens, you can take the big catloader over there and it can
be relocated. To me, you can put the roof on it, the
newspaper takes his picture, says he's got an Eagle, and it
can come out, to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can put a chain around it,
put it over in the middle of the field.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. Gentlemen, unless
there's some kind of objection, I'm going to set the J.P. 1
matter for Friday at 10 o'clock, and then I'm going to set a
10 o'clock Monday workshop with the J.P.'s with regard to the
failure to appear matter. I talked with Judge Tench about
that. Are you aware of that?
MR. MOTLEY: No.
JUDGE DENSON: It's a new program the DPS has out.
I'll share it with you. You may want to come to that
meeting.
MR. MOTLEY: Sure.
JUDGE DENSON: It's an entirely different approach
to -- as in J.P. court, Class C's. We're in recess.
(Commissioners' court was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.)
107
'~" , `~^
C E R T I F I C A T E
~ J
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 31st day of July, 1998.
ICS ~., r3~,,-u./G
Kathy Ba ik
Certified Shorthand Reporter
108