1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X Commissioners' Comments 1.. lo~~t'Pay Bills ~ 9~~, ~~ 9~5, .ir9~9, ?s9,7c, 1.2 Budget Amendments •~~'~~• ~st3~, .Zt9~3, ~.t9-~~ 1.3 Late Bills ~s133, ?s~.3v ~ X537-~sY138-as~39 -.tssr 1.4~sq y/ Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 2. l~t/aw/B Purchase of 840 Ranchero Road { former Kerrville South firestation) 2.2atS9y~Fina1 plat - Hunt Valley View Ranch 2.6~t/o~/E Request for funds for Courthouse Lighting 2.3~9y3 Final replat - Lot 18, Box S Acres 2.4~9yy Preliminary replat - Lot 11, Hidden Hills 2. 5,~~iy~Variance to Subdivision Rules for trenching depth on Kerrville South & Codrington Dr. 2.7,cJp~.~ Engineering for footbridge, Flat Rock Lake Park Adjourned ~~ `~~J ~ ~~ ~~ PAGE 3 8 13 15 16 21 96 59 67 69 77 86 3 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Monday, July 26, 1999, a Special Session of Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Good morning. It is 9 a.m. Welcome to the Special Commissioners Court, Kerr County Courthouse, July 26th, 1999. I want to welcome you all. It's customary at this Commissioners Court that we have an opening prayer and a pledge of allegiance, and I think it's my colleague, Commissioner Letz' turn to lead that. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please stand. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Commissioner. Now we'll have the comments from the Commissioners Court. Gentlemen, do you have anything that you would want to bring before the public today? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just -- I have a couple quickies here. First of all, I want to thank the Road and Bridge folks for making a decision to go over to Bastrop County and visit with Judge McDonald, tell him about the good and bad and the indifferent about the unit road system. I know you'll do a good job. I know they're very interested. And, secondly, while I have your attention about roads and 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bridges and so forth, I'm wondering whether or not anybody has inspected Lehmann Drive at the intersection of Cully Drive and where it leads up the hill. Sid Peterson Hospital is -- has a major construction going on there, and they're building huge retaining walls right on the side of -- of Lehmann Drive, and I'm wondering what, if anything, that does to Lehmann Drive. Does it impede or impair the shoulder in any way? Should we be taking a look at it? So, I just commend to it your attention. MR. ODOM: I -- Mayor Pro Tem -- would you like a response? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if you know an answer. MR. ODOM: I have an answer. But the Mayor Pro Tem 1S -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge. MR. ODOM: Judge Pro Tem, I guess. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was lust headed on this plane for a while; now I'm headed down, being a mayor. MR. ODOM: Buster may have a comment; he's aware of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know it's in his precinct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have some comments, and none of them are good at this time, okay? But we're -- we're 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 watching it; the Road and Bridge and the engineer and all are -- they're watching it on a day-to-day basis. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reason I bring it to anybody's attention was that the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Committee for the City of Kerrville, who happens to live in Precinct 2, called me about it the other night and I said I would reference it and see where it goes from there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to chat with you further about that. Is that it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment I have is regarding the Region J water planning effort. We had a meeting about 10 days ago, two weeks ago, at Leakey. Well-attended, got a lot accomplished. The first, I guess, chapters of the regional water plan were -- in draft form, were submitted to the Texas Water Development Board. There are some copies around here. I don't have one right now to leave at our front desk, but I probably will put one up there. Pretty interesting reading, a lot of information. Also, in that same regard, the League of Women Voters is putting on a -- I guess, a forum. I think it's October 18th, if my memory serves me correctly, and myself and our consultant, Glenn Brown, and some others are going to be 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 talking about water issues for Kerr County at that forum in October. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One thing I just wanted to we'll be flying in -- a number of Confederate Air Force aircraft will be there, a big dance that night, and so on. It's going to be a very interesting and, I think, a very good thing for the Kerrville Airport and for Kerrville -- or Kerr County, and I commend it to everyone to get the word around. And, there'll be more publicity coming soon on this in the very near future. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have one more comment. I looked in the audience, and I see several members of the Hill Country Veterans Council, and I thought I would just mention that -- I guess it was a week, two weeks ago, they had a meeting with Governor Bush. I think it was a very productive meeting, it's my understanding. And, there's going to be a meeting with his Platform Committee Chairman; is that correct, General Schellhase? MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which I think is a great effort for the veterans of the whole nation to have the lead taken 7 L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by a group out of Kerrville in Kerr County, essentially, with the Governor, and then it will be certainly be considered in, I think, the Republican party platform. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. Okay, thank you, gentlemen. I have an announcement, or reminder. Cowboy Camp Meeting coming up beginning next Sunday out at Mountain Home. For you folks that know about the Cowboy Camp Meeting, just a reminder that it's fixing to happen next week. For those that don't know about the Cowboy Camp Meeting, I have some extra brochures. This is the 60th annual. You know, it's more than just a church meeting and a barbecue. A long time ago, when we were about a 5 years old, my wife used to chase me around out there as little kids, and finally -- finally caught me, and -- after many years, and so things can happen out at the Cowboy Camp Meeting. I want to urge you to come. Send all your children out there. The other comment I have, we have a distinguished guest in the courtroom, the Honorable Robert Denson, former County Judge of Kerr County. Bob, I'm glad to see you, see what retirement looks like. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. DENSON: Is that because I brought you doughnuts? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. That's the way it works. Okay. Now we have a segment that 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is open for comments from the audience on issues that are not on the agenda. If anyone has any comment that they'd like to make that is not an agenda item, you're welcome to come forward at this time. (No response.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. May I remind you that if you want to speak on an agenda item, we have forms in the back that we'd like for to you fill out at this time and get up to this table. Okay? Let's pay some bills, gentlemen. Start your engines. Any comments or questions or motions to be made on the bills for this month? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll move that we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a motion. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: And a second. All in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bills are paid. The budget amendments. There are numerous. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's that time of year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our fearless Auditor, Mr. Tomlinson. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 1 is for the County Law Library. We have a bill for $287 to West Publishing. As 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we all -- as we've experienced the last month or so, this fund is depleted as far as the budget is concerned, so I think what we need to do is move money from Surplus in that fund to pay that bill. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Mr. Letz, Mr. Williams. All in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 2 is a request from the District Clerk to transfer $450 from employee training in her budget to Conferences for important post-legislative conference coming up in August. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll move it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 2 and Number 4. All in favor, say aye. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.} MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is a request from County Clerk to move $800 from Overtime in her line item to Dockets and Forms. She tells me she's out of File 66 forms, and she thinks that $800 will do her for the rest of the year. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need a motion, first. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move it. 10 ~_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ZO 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Commissioner 2 and Commissioner 9. All in favor? (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for Commissioners Court. We have bills pending for notices for -- I think it's for the Sheriff's Office in the jail. So, I'm requesting a move from Contingency out of Commissioners Court budget, $1,000, to transfer that to the Notices line item. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, do all notices come out of our budget? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, they do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't aware of that. So move. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Commissioner 3, Commissioner 9. All in favor? (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.} MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is between the Commissioners Court and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, to transfer $770 from the Contingency line item in the Commissioners Court for utilities at the office in Ingram. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So move. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Williams, 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commissioner Griffin. All in favor? (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.} MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is for the Tax Collector. This is to move $27.62 from Miscellaneous into Maintenance Contracts. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So move. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 4 and Number 3. Number 4 made the motion, Number 3 seconded. All in favor? (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We skipped 6. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: What about 6? MS. BARBEE: You skipped 6. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or did you mean to skip 6? MR. TOMLINSON: I have them clipped together. Okay, I'm sorry. The one for $1,000 was number 6. I'm sorry, there's two. It wasn't -- it was -- Number 6 is for Commissioners Court, I'm sorry, to move $1,000 from Professional Fees in the Commissioners Court budget to Conferences. This is a request by Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Letz. All in favor? 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We did 7. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 8 is a request from the County Treasurer. I think in the budget hearings, she -- she requested to purchase filing cabinets and office furniture in this budget year rather than take it to -- to the 2000 budget. So, this transfer is her request to transfer the $1,700 from her Part-time Salary line item to Capital Outlay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So move. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Commissioner Griffin, Commissioner Williams. All in favor? (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) MR. TOMLINSUN: The Road and Bridge Department, Number 9. This -- this amendment is to set up funds available to pay our share of the Fall Branch and Riverside Drive project. This request is from Leonard, $7,500 from Capital Outlay, $5,200 from Guardrails, $8,900 from Lease Payments, $2,000 from Fence Repairs, a total of $23,600 into a line item we're going to call Riverside Drive Bridge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That includes both bridges, or just one? MR. TOMLINSON: This is just Riverside Drive. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 13 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Commissioner Williams made the motion. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Commissioner Griffin seconded. All in favor, say aye. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got an "aye" out of you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 10, last one, is for the County Judge. Request from the Sheriff to move $100.03 from the Jailer Salaries into Overtime for jailers. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What be your pleasure, gentlemen? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Griffin. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Commissioner Williams seconded. All in favor? (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that all of those? MR. TOMLINSON: That's all of those. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. What about late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: I have four, I believe. First one 14 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 is from Computer Service Center for $90. It's for some work that they did on Y2K compliance in the Sheriff's office. I'd like to request that you approve that, and a hand check to them. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So move. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Griffin. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second by Commissioner Williams. All in favor? (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next three are from -- from Vance Elliott, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Vance Elliott, J.P. 1? MR. TOMLINSON: J.P. 1. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The number one J.P. in the County. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't want to say that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The J.P. who serves in position No. 1. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's another way to say it, of course. That's easy for you to say. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's necessary for me to say. MR. TOMLINSON: The first one is for $100.57, 15 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 payable to Omni Dallas Notel for a post-legislative conference for J.P.'s. One's for lodging. The next one is for 5127 for air fare to -- from -- I guess to Dallas and back. The second -- third one is to Southwest Texas University for registration. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Griffin. I'll second it. We have a motion and second to approve those -- three? MR. TOMLINSON: Three. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three late bills, and all in favor of approving the late bills, raise your right hand. (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that all, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: That's it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you so much. Do we have monthly reports? We have monthly reports. Do I hear a motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move that we approve the monthly -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Approve and accept the monthly reports. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. Commissioner Griffin and Commissioner Letz. All in favor? 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll go into our consideration agenda now. We're running a little bit ahead of time. I see Mr. Burger is here and ready to go, so we'll just -- if it's all right with you, we'll just go ahead and move right on into your Item 2.1, consider and discuss purchase of property at 890 Ranchero Road. That's the former Kerrville South Fire Station. Mr. Burger came to me a good while ago, and had asked if the County may be interested in purchasing his property there to move it back into a fire station. And, of course, I didn't have an answer for him, and so I've asked him to come before the Commissioners Court and make a pitch at this time. This is Mr. Cecil Burger. MR. BURGER: Okay. Now, this is a -- well, it's actually a needed thing. We're growing so big out there, along with more homes and homes and homes that don't have adequate protection, and Precinct 1 is a large precinct. This land here was set up and was a fire station, an acre and six-tenths, which would benefit the people of the area, and also, I believe, would benefit the Road and Bridge Department for stockpiling of equipment at times. And, it's an easy access, well-constructed property. And y'all have this. Are there any questions y'all need to ask on it? Or -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I have a question. We have an interlocal service agreement with the City of 17 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kerrville's Fire Department to serve outside the city limits. To what extent does the City of Kerrville Fire Department serve the area in which this building is located? MR. BURGER: It comes out -- it's out -- they cover it with Station 3, which has been good. It could -- if it was properly set up and maintained, this department, I think we can probably work it a lot better and have them right there in the area. There's -- a lot of people have discussed this, or mentioned it to me. And, you don't have long with a fire, especially in a mobile home, because I know -- I was on the Midland, Texas, Fire Department for 19 years, and the quicker you get there, the better off you are. And, of course, I have a home out there on Monroe South, which I'm concerned about. So, I wanted to present this to you to possibly help this Kerrville South area and fire prutection. If you've got the No. 3 truck down here at the hospital working, you don't have one ready to get loose, we're in trouble out there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make two points. Kerrville South area is primarily covered by the Turtle Creek Volunteer Fire Department. That's a long ways around and over some hills and dales. And, another point Mr. Burger pointed out to me was when -- when the Road and Bridge Department stockpiles equipment to work -- or material to work out on that end of the county, the area that we've been 18 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 using, we have recently lost -- we don't have that stockpile area any longer. And, with this piece of property, there is a -- there's an area back there that y'all use as stockpile now. MR. BURGER: Probably about an acre back there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the history of the abandonment of this as a fire station to begin with? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a long story. MR. BURGER: History of it is bad management, theft, and various things like that. It got pretty bad and was shut down by the order of the County and the Sheriff. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, to me, the way we should approach this -- and maybe you've talked to the residents -- is to look at a process of setting up a fire district out there. You know, I think that's the only way that the County sari justify getting involved as -- and helping in that area. If we start buying property and doing things of this nature for one, then we have to do it county-wide, and I don't see how we can pick out one area of the county and not do it for the others. Ingram, not long ago -- or several years ago wanted, you know, to establish a fire district. They have -- we still continue to support them financially to a small extent. And, I think that would be the approach, that the residents of Kerrville South get 19 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 together and come to us, and I think we would assist. I would certainly be in favor of assisting setting up a fire district for that area, so there'd be some tax revenue coming in from those residences that would use the service. And, maybe some of the funds that we've used for Turtle Creek or the interlocal agreement, we could divert towards that fire district to help, you know, get them going. That would be, you know, my way to proceed. MR. BURGER: Well, y'all were helping tl--em when they were open, and then everything was dispersed around to the other fire stations, I understand that, Turtle Creek and all that. But, also, they've got it set up to where Precinct 1 -- or Kerrville South covers a whole lot of this side of tie highway and over on the other side and toward Fredericksburg and all, and that's a lot of running. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the precinct boundaries have nothing to do with the fire department or fire district boundaries, necessarily. I mean, they could be the same, but I~ they don't need to be the same. MR. BURGER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, they could be -- I mean, I just think I -- the geographic area that would be served in Kerrville South and those residents that want to participate in the fire district, they would be covered by that fire district. It could be covered by two precincts, 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for that matter, or portions of two precincts. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In this case, it would cover two precincts. A lot of that that Mr. Burger's talking about is in Precinct 2. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. BURGER: What I'm looking at is the coverage that, you know, they're losing -- there's nothing in that area till you get out to Turtle Creek, and then you go over to -- well, yvu have it out at Center Point, which is pretty -- pretty good district support. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've gotten a little bit away from the actual agenda item here. We can talk about a fire station some other time, but do you want to or not want to purchase this man's property? Is there a motion? Anybody going to make a motion? Do you a have any desires? Do you want to table it? Do you want to thank Mr. Burger for coming in, serving our community like he has? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Certainly, we want to do the latter. I don't think there's any way at this point that we could make a commitment one way or the other. So, I think we have to table it. We can take it under advisement. We can do some talking with both the fire department -- the district idea. We could also, perhaps, get with Roads and Bridges to see what the requirement may or may not be. There are several issues that we would have to discuss even before we 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 could approach it as a budget issue. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, I would recommend we table it for now, but we sure do thank you for coming in. MR. BURGER: That would be -- I'd like to see every one of you come out and look the place over, anyway. I think you'd understand what I'm talking about. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for coming. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: TYiank you, Mr. Burger. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Item 2.2, consider final plat for Hunt Valley View Ranch, Precinct No. 4. Mr. Johnston. MR. JOHNSTON: I think all punch list items on this subdivision are now complete. Larry and I went out last Thursday, I think, and looked. And we recommend approval. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion that we approve the final plat as presented by County Engineer. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion made by Mr. Griffin. MR. LESLIE: We have some opposition -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Second by Mr. Williams. Is there any discussion? Counselor? MR. LESLIE: We got a little carried away over 22 L- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: That's okay. It'S okay, I understand that. Would you like to approach Commissioners Court at this time? MR. LESLIE: Yes, I would. No, I just wanted to interrupt you once. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, I'm used to it. It's okay. MR. LESLIE: Thank you, and I apologize for the interruption. The -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: State your name. MR. LESLIE: I'm Craig Leslie. I represent the Cavazos family. We took Commissioner Baldwin's advice last time seriously and we all met yesterday. We didn't have the sense to sit under a shade tree. No, we all stood out in the middle of the road and talked about this, and we really didn't come up with any -- any serious solution to the problem, at least not from that particular discussion. The -- the Cavazos' are not here out of a mean spirit or any intent on doing damage to the -- to the Keys, but they have a serious problem with water. If it was my place, I'd be upset. If it was your place, I think you would be upset if this was happening to it. But, there are a couple of things I'd like to point out. I know just being upset and unhappy with water running 23 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 across the property may not be within the purview of your responsibility, but there are a couple of things I'd like to point out. In the preliminary plat, there was -- the road into the place was located approximately 120 feet from the property. This is the Cavazos property line here, and this road was built up, shown to be up here 120 feet from the property line. In the final plat, that road has been moved down from 120 feet to within 40 feet of the property line. Now, you know, that -- that is a matter of discussion as to whether that is a substantial change from the final plat -- the preliminary plat to the final plat, but that's a change, and it has a -- we think, a substantial impact on our clients. And, that's in the regs. It says there will not be a change from the preliminary -- a substantial change from the preliminary to the final. The tract -- in the preliminary plat, the adjoining tract right above the road is 10 acres. In the final plat, this tract is now 12.38 acres, so what that means is by moving the road down, you put another 2.38 acres up above the road and in that cachement area that the road is going to trap. Now, if you look at the engineering report by Mr. Hearn and you look at the topographical sketch that he has in there, he has the road located -- for all of his calculations, it appears to me, unless we have something more current, he has his sketch located -- or his road located 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where the preliminary plat showed the road to be. So, there's another 2.38 acres in that cachement area than Mr. Hearn, the hydrologist, contemplated. I don't know what the changes in the figures will be. I can just barely understand all this stuff, but I know it's bound to generate a change when you add 2.3-something more surface acres to the runoff problem. It seems to me that the engineering report that we have here may be at fault. Now, maybe Lee can explain, and maybe I'm wrong, but from the -- from the engineering report that we got, that's a problem. And, the -- also, reading the regs, it seems to me that it says that every time you run a culvert under a road, you're supposed to have an engineering report as to the amount of water that runs through there in the cachement area involved in all of this. And, in the engineering report I've seen, it only gives figures and stats as to two culverts under this road. There are three culverts, so they -- you know, there~s a -- again, there may be something more current than I have, but it doesn't seem to me that that addresses all of these areas, because they only provide the data for two of them, that I can see. The -- another problem that we have is, if you look at the upper road, this -- this changes the watershed area, because where the road turns up to go the last -- after the last curve up the hill, it traps water that would come down 25 L_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the hill and go to another entirely different area, runs it all the way down and back down under the -- the Cavazos property. And, all of these things are just sort of an annoyance -- or they maybe go way beyond an annoyance, but, again, we -- we question the accuracy of all of the assumptions that have been followed in this thing. The -- and I don't even pretend to know all the federal laws. And Greg and I have talked about it, and he seems to feel confident that it's been satisfied, but from my little sketchy check on this thing, it indicates to me that when you do a subdivision like this, you need a construction runoff discharge from the E.P.A., as well as a stormwater pollution prevention plan. And I don't think they -- I don't know, but I don't think we have any of that, and I think that the regs, once again, say that they have to comply, not only with the regs, but with any County, State, or Federal regulations before they're subject to plat approval. You know, again, I'm not here trying to be mean-spirited about this, but my clients are being damaged, and there appears to be no -- at least we haven't yet worked out a problem with it -- an answer to the problem. Appreciate your time, and I'll try not to interrupt any more. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Leslie. I want to remind you, just like Mr. Leslie filled out one of these forms, if anyone wants to speak on these agenda items, 26 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 get back there and fill out one of the forms at this time. We have several people that want to speak on this issue, but -- thank you, counselor -- but I want to give the County Engineer an opportunity now to respond to that. Do you want to respond? MR. JOHNSTON: As far as the E.P.A. anJ Clean Water Act, I think that was considered. It doesn't trigger it until you get 5 acres under construction. I think we have, like, 2-point-something acres in the road, so that's not really an issue. Lee, do you have anything about the size of that? MR. VOELKEL: Good morning. Lee Voelkel. Just a couple items, and I'll have to divert the technical stuff to Doug Hearn, who did the hydrology study on the area. Just to assure Mr. Leslie the data that we provided him was actually on the road that was built, he talks about a difference in the preliminary plat and the final plat, and we worked very closely with the County Attorney and did not consider that to be a substantial difference; at least along the process we were never told that. But, the data that Mr. Hearn based his report on was data that was actually taken from the way the road was built. The issue Frank just addressed on the E.P.A., my understanding -- and the Keys, the owners of the property, talked with Mr. Jim Brown about this, about the E.P.A. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 regulations on stormwater runoff will be a 5-acre development, and a -- 5 acres of development property; that's being changed. And, in this case, we were not into that 5-acre area. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Voelkel. We have some other folks that wish to speak. Nancy Cavazos? MRS. CAVAZOS: My name is Nancy Cavazos. I am an adjacent landowner, Honorable Commissioners, and I have endured ongoing damage to my property for five months as a result of Key Development's construction on Valley View Ranch subdivision. I believe alI parties involved share a responsibility for the damage done to my property, as the poor road design and placement, the variances granted by the Commissioners, and the fact that the construction was allowed to begin before County rules and regulations were complied with, as stated in the handbook. All of these things have resulted in considerable damage to my property. The developer's road forms a virtual dam around two sides of my property. This road dam varies in height from 2 to approximately 10 feet, and because of this creates a waterfall which is carving my property into sections with every rain. No matter how small the rain, additional damage occurs. For the past 58 years or more, my wet weather creek has not flowed unless and until the Guadalupe River floods and runs over the top of the road at Shoemaker's Crossing. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I have a letter from the previous landowner verifying the condition of my creek -- wet weather creek for decades prior to the damage done by Key Development. I quote, "To whom it may concern: My family owned the property known as the old Mogford homestead on Highway 39 irr Hunt from about 1941 until 1988, when I sold it to Nancy Cavazos. During my lifetime of connection with the above-mentioned 11 acres, the draw, wet weather creek bed, never held moving water unless the Guadalupe River had reached flood stage over Highway 39 at Shoemaker's Crossing. Only in periods of rain that made Shoemaker's Crossing impassible did that creek bed on the property run with water." And, it is signed Nola Terry. Caliche from their road has now reached Highway 39. It will not take long for the caliche to reach the Guadalupe River and negatively impact even more taxpaying Kerr County residents. When the County takes over Hunt Valley View Road maintenance, it will be a monumental headache for all concerned, as well as an absolutely unnecessary expense to the taxpayers of Kerr County. Were you aware that there was already an existing road to that subdivision? As my County Commissioner, Larry Griffin, who spoke so forcefully in favor of suspending the County road grade rules for Key Development, has refused to even come out and look at the damage done to my property, I would ask that the other four of you gentlemen drive out Hunt Valley View Road and see 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exactly what you have approved. The damage to my property would be alleviated if, among other things, Key Development were required to place their road where originally indicated in the preliminary plat. As close as it is to my property, they cannot control the water coming off of it. It forms a waterfall. Both the County Engineer, Franklin Johnston, and the engineer who designed the road, Lee Voelkel, have viewed my property and agree that there is damage occurring. In closing, my husband, my father, and my grandfather were all Commissioners. I have spent all of my adult life educating the children and working with the parents of this state toward the improvement of my community, the last seven years as a resident of this county. I have worked extremely hard and still am working for my few acres in Hunt. In the interest of responsible development and responsibility to the small landowner, as well as the developers, I am requesting that you deny final plat approval until such time as Key Development takes appropriate measures to stop the damage on my property. The importance of your decision goes way beyond my property lines. I am simply the first to be adversely affected by this developer. Ultimately, everyone downhill or down river from this and future developments will be affected by the precedent you set today. Thank you. COMMISSIONER $ALDWIN: Thank you, Mrs. Cavazos. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Doug Cavazos? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd like to respond. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: First off, Mrs. Cavazos is totally incorrect in saying that the County is going to take over maintenance of this road. If she had taken the time to read the plat, there is a note on top right-hand portion that says, "Kerr County not responsible for road maintenance," and never will be until and unless the road is brought to County standards and is under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. I've also been on the Key property which is being developed perhaps 10 times in the last five months, and I've looked at both the construction technique, I've looked at the runoff that has occurred, and it's impossible not to create some of that. Even the E.P.A. recognizes that. Our Subdivision Rules and Regulations, if Mrs. Cavazos had taken the time to read them, clearly state that the developer will take such action as to minimize the impact on adjoining properties. In my judgment, the Key Development folks have done that. The engineer who put in the road has done, I think, an excellent job. It's one of the best roads of its caliber that I've seen anywhere in Precinct 4. And, I just think that perhaps here the emotions of long ago are outstripping ar-y facts, and I can only deal in what the facts are as presented by the County Engineer, by the engineers who 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 designed the project, and by the engineer who signed the drainage study, and I cannot go on emotion. So, I still -- my motion is still on the table that we approve the final plat. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Johnston, do you have a response? MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. She did mention my name, but I don't recall saying that any damage was done to the property. Small amounts of siltation is washed on their property, but then the definition of what damage is -- I would say I wouldn't consider that damage. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you. Doug Cavazos? MR. CAVAZOS: My name's Doug Cavazos. I live on Highway 39, the adjacent property to the development. I think in the County rules and regs, that what we have -- we have read them clearly. It's a matter of interpretation, a matter of what you Commissioners view as kind of a gray area in all those rules and regs. It does state in there clearly about damage to adjacent property. And, as the County Engineer stated, he doesn't recall saying that there was damage. We do recall what he said, and he just stated, well, there was caliche on the property. I think everybody here would admit that that qualifies as some damage to the property. 32 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As far as Mr. Griffin not coming out, we were very disappointed that he would not come out and even look from our side of the property. You can't actually see everything that's going on from their side of the property. And the invitation is still open for him to come look from our side of the property. And, as far as Mr. Griffin's statement as far as following Hearn's recommendations, in Hearn's recommendation to call for some diversions on the downhill side of the culverts in question, his report calls for the spreader berms of head walls to be installed at 10 to 20 feet apart. I think maybe there might be one that's 10 feet apart. There's not enough room to do more than -- than two berms 20 feet apart, because they're so close to the property line. The spreader rock on the berms have to be level on the top, the entire length of the creek bed. This was not done. The rocks are just placed on there; they're not level. If you look at the development between Ingram and Hunt, I think the concept is that's how it's supposed to look, is the rocks piled up across the creek and level at the top. This is all to stop the -- the speed and the -- and slow -- and stop some of the sediment coming onto our property. The stone boulders were supposed to be a certain size; I believe it's up to 500 pounds, from 200 to 500 pounds, average 300 pounds. I think maybe there might be two or three boulders to qualify for 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Z1 22 23 29 25 that size. They also -- that they were supposed to -- also, I believe that the culverts that were placed in this wet weather creek, one was placed prior to any stormwater runoff plan that was ever even done. Mr. Hearn came out and, basically, the road was already in place. And he designed his plan around what was already there. Now, I don't know if that is the -- the concept behind what the rules and regs say. I think that that's g'all's decision to make on whether or not it is a legitimate and a valid record if the construction has already begun and the construction is in place. I know yesterday we learned they came back with some new figures. Is this a matter of you can just keep coming back with new figures on this storm -- on this stormwater runoff plan until it's right? And just negate the damage being done in the meantime, or might be done in the future? I don't know. These are questions for you guys to answer. And, I know that the questions that you -- how you answer this problem should serve as a notice to the rest of the members -- or rest of the citizens of Kerr County as to how development's going to take place. Also, I don't know if there's any figures on the other -- there's a culvert up the hill, on the top of the hill, and a culvert in the entrance. I didn't see any figures -- I haven't seen any figures on those two culverts, as far as how much the discharge is, and 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think the regs state that they're supposed to be in there. And, as far as the E.P.A. and federal regs, if you notice, no one has really put their foot down and said, "No, we are following E.P.A. rules and regs." It's all a matter of, "Well, I understand," or "This is my understanding of it." And, it's my understanding, as far as following your advice, Mr. Griffin, that, well, perhaps more resolution could be with the E.P.A. And, the information I found out is that, yes, it does qualify, and it's not based on what road construction exists now; it has to be based on what will ultimately be there. That's my understanding. And the agents that I have spoken with have stated that, yes, it needs to be -- you know, with seven homes on there, seven lawns, seven driveways, it's going to increase the flow even more. And that's -- I just would like to voice my opposition to the final plat approval, and the changes going to be made and damage to our property can be stopped. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Cavazos. Commissioner, would you like to respond to that? Mr. Johnston, would you like to respond to that? No is the answer. We'll move to our next guest, Lucy Cavazos. MS. CAVAZOS: Thank you. Good morning. Lucy Cavazos is my name. I am also here to request the final plat not be approved today. First of all, that water study is not accurate. I just heard Mr. Voelkel say that information is 35 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accurate, but I understand that there is a new and improved report hot off the press that was received Saturday by Mr. Voelkel. Mr. Richards had it with him yesterday. And, even on the latest report, which I saw yesterday, the road is not where it's indicated in his report. It's on the opposite side of the hill. And that makes a huge difference on how much water is being shed onto our property, and just the way the water is being shed, period. So, it's my position that it is based on inaccurate information. And, I believe Mr. Richards has that report with him today, and the Commissioners -- if they would like, I'm sure he would let you look at it. That road is not where that topographical sketch says it is. We were there yesterday, and it's not there. We saw it witi~ our own eyes. We pointed it out to Mr. Richards. Further, that report does not address that third culvert, which is basically causing excess water to be -- come down right beside our house. That's not addressed at all. I think once -- I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but Mr. Richards yesterday indicated that the reason that was not even covered by Hearn's report is because the amount of water there -- shed there is negligible. It's not. We have seen it when it's actually flowing, not just after the fact. Several times when it's rained, it's rained at night and we're not able to go out there and look at it. But, when it 36 ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 did rain during the day, we were actually out there and saw the water flow and saw that it's excessive. I would say it's 10 times more than it was before, if not more, just going on by what I remember it doing before this. Something else that's not been considered in that Hearn report is a road. There's another road on there, a pre-existing road going into that development that's not on that report. Obviously, that's going to have some impact on the watershed and how -- how it sheds now that there's a new road in there. Bottom Iine is damage to our property has occurred and will occur due to -- continue to occur due to the redirected and excess water flow. And, correct me if I'm misstating you, Mr. Johnston, but I was at that meeting where you agreed that there had been an increase in the water flow. And, of course, you were out there looking at the damage to our property, and we do appreciate you going out there. At the last meeting, someone -- one of the Commissioners asked, "Where is all this water going, Mr. Johnston?" And he admitted to you that it's all going onto the Cavazos property. And, you know, we're not here -- if we were not getting any damage to our property and we felt that the rules and regs and everything was being complied with, we wouldn't be here today. And, as far as -- you know, we keep getting these rules and regs and reports thrown at us, saying those are accurate, those are accurate. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Richards, yesterday, said something to the effect that, "I see what's there" -- we were talking about the report says this, but what's happening is something else. And, if I understood him correctly, his position is, "I see what's there, but the report says that's not happening." Well, if the weatherman says it's not raining, you're not going to go out and paint your house and say, "Well, I have to go by what tY-e weatherman is saying. He says it's not raining, so even if it's raining, I'm going to say it's not because the report says it's not." Also, back to the rules and regs, it's our position that the final plat is not substantial compliance with the preliminary plat. And, I think a big, big problem is that the road is basically right up against the fence line, for the most part, which some places are right almost flush up against the fence, other places a little further back. But, I think what's happened is there's not enough room left for the developers to manage that water before it leaves their property and comes onto ours. As far as -- you know, I feel like I'm here in vain. It seems like no matter what I say, no matter what I do and what we point out, it doesn't do any good. But, I'm here anyway. So, if you should approve the plat -- let me go back a little bit. And we do appreciate the Keys meeting with us yesterday. I know originally, before the last Commissioners' 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 meeting, it was, "We're not budging, we're not meeting." But, we appreciate the meeting with us yesterday, and I think what we finally arrived at yesterday was the damage -- "We see what's there" -- and I don't want to say anybody said "damage." According to Mr. Richards, "We see what's there, but the report says it's okay," that, you know, everything is fine. And, I think what we finally arrived at yesterday was we would talk to Doug Hearn; we would sit down and meet with him and find out why -- why the road is not on his sketch where it is in reality. It's not accurate. And talk to him a little bit closer. So, I would request that eitY-er it not be approved, or maybe it be tabled until we have an opportunity to talk to Doug Hearn and find out why that road is not where his report says it is and how that affects his report and his conclusions that he's drawn in his report. If you should approve it, I would request that you do so with conditions. Mr. Griffin and I met before the last Commissioners meeting, the Wednesday before, and he had indicated to me -- and, again, correct me if I'm misstating you, if I misunderstood, but I thought I understood that you were under the impression that if the final plat was approved, that it would be approved with conditions, such as sodding the unvegetated areas and siltation or sedimentation ponds to capture silt and water before it gets onto our property. 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As I recall, we discussed that, and the gist of our conversation -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You are mistaken. MS. CAVAZOS: Okay. I recall that the gist of our conversation was that -- I know my comment was, "It's caliche; I don't think anything will grow." And, I understood your response to be, "There are things and grasses that will grow, because the Highway Department does it, and so something will grow," and -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If I might interrupt you just a minute? MS. CAVAZOS: Sure. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The part you particularly are misstating MS. CAVAZOS: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- is that a final plat would be approved with conditions. We can't do that. We can do that on preliminary plats. MS. CAVAZOS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But we can't do on it a final plat. We cannot conditionally approve. It will either be approved or disapproved. MS. CAVAZOS: Okay. Well, I misunderstood it. But, at the last -- if you say so, then I misunderstood. But, the reason I understood it to mean that is because we 40 ~_ 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were discussing the final plat approval. As you will recall, that was set for final plat approval at the last meeting, and at that time, Mr. Voelkel said, "We're not submitting it for final plat approval," and that's why I understood you to mean final plat approval. I thought we were in in here discussing the final plat approval and, of course, discussing whether or not it would be granted. But, I would request that if conditions can be imposed, that they be imposed. And I do thank you and appreciate the opportunity to be able to voice my concerns here today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Ms. Cavazos. Any comments or questions from this table? MR. JOHNSTON: I agree that all the water that flows across that subdivision will end up flowing across the Cavazos property, but it did before the development also. I think the question might be the speed, the velocity that the water now travels to get to that point. That's -- and that's why they added the -- the stones and the different methods to spread it out again and slow it down, accordiny to that report. Lee, do you have any -- do you want to clarify the issue of the two reports? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, please. MR. JOHNSTON: I think we're still under the original, but Lee can probably clarify that. MR. VOELKEL: I don't know if I can clarify that 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 issue or not, but I'll try to. Mr. Hearn did an initial report, which called for two 36-inch culverts at this crossing. It's the major crossing. That doesn't divert water; it carries water into the Cavazos property. It's the same location that the water was going before; it's just now that we have the road built and these two culverts take care of that, carrying that water across or under the road. When the road was built, it was built with one 36-inch culvert, so Mr. Hearn was asked to relook at the study to see if one 36-inch culvert would be adequate, hoping that the developer would not have to put in another culvert. We went out -- "we" being Voelkel Engineering -- and did some additional field work on the road that existed, the present location of it, the present location of the 36-inch culvert that was in the road, and the immediate area surrounding that location. We sent that data to Mr. Hearn, and my understanding from Mr. Hearn was that even with all the new data that we have, that two 36-inch culverts would still be required. So, that's when the developer was told that he would have to put another culvert in, and that was done. I don't know if that's the confusion over the reports, if that was the additional work that was done. That's something I will have to review with Mr. Hearn. I feel confident that Mr. Hearn's report reflected the initial report, which was the two 36-inch culverts. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Voelkel. We have one final speaker on this issue. Mr. Richards, Greg Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Greg Richards. I think there are certain immutable laws of the universe, a couple of which apply here. Number one, water flows downhill. The other is that facts rule over supposition. The purpose of having the drainage study done in the first place was to determine how this development would affect the watershed in this area. I've been out there, and I think that I've discovered that there's another third rule that is immutable, and that is that lawyers don't know anything about engineering. I can go out there and look on the property -- and I would like to clarify the way Ms. Cavazos characterized my statements. I saw some sedimentation in the natural water courses, and I told her, "I see what's there. I don't know what that means." What I have to rely on -- and I've had extensive conversations with Doug Hearn, asking him to explain every detail of this report. I've sent him faxes asking him specific questions about how this development affects the watershed. And the response that I have gotten is that, unequivocally, this development does not change the direction of the water and the way it flows. The one change it does make is that the water flows through this natural channel at 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the bottom of the hill, which was the biggest concern of the County Engineer. It flows 6 percent faster after the development than it did before. But the report, as I read it, states that once the revegetation occurs on the natural -- the area out there, that the sedimentation rate will be what it was previously. The type of rock that is out on this property is very slowly permeable and very highly erosive in terms of its ability to carry silt down towards the bottom. And that's what has happened for centuries and centuries, is that the silt on top is going to flow down. It's going to go through the Cavazos property. It always has. This development does not change that. Another thing I think we ought to point out is that Key Development is not a multi-national conglomeration of high bigwigs who care nothing about the environment or about this county. Key Development is Bobby Key and his wife, Patricia, retired out of Houston, wanting to take on a little project in their retirement. And they came to me from the very beginning and have, in my estimation, jumped through every hoop, satisfied every request, and made every concession that could be made to make sure that this development was done right and done by the standards which the County sets forth in the Subdivision Regulations. I believe they've done that; I believe they've made every effort to try to comply. I 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 don't see any reason why this plat should not be approved. They've completed all the requirements they're supposed to. And, if you go by the facts as they exist in Mr. Hearn's report, he states that the sedimentation is not greater than it would have been previously, and that the watershed has not been changed. And if we can rely on the facts, then I think we can get a clear picture of how this development affects this area. Water is going to flow on the Cavazos property. It always has, and it will into the future. The question is whether or not this road and this development diverts more water onto their property than had previously been the case. And, according to the professionals, to Lee Voelkel who did the engineering work, and to Doug Hearn who did the hydrology study, there is no damage. And, so, if you -- if you're going to weigh something, understand that what you're weighing is the facts versus the supposition of some folks who have a very high emotional interest in all this. Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Commissioners, any COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one question of Mr. Richards. You made reference to the fact that the water was flowing faster, 6 percent faster. Then you said later that the sedimentation rate has increased. You meant flow rate; is that correct? 45 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. RICHARDS: Yes, the flow rate has increased. And I asked -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not sedimentation rate. MR. RICHARDS: Right. And I asked Mr. Hearn -- I said, you know, "This 6 percent, what does that mean? I mean, is that significant?" And the comment that he made was that 6 percent is negligible, and that's acceptable even in Travis County and the City of Austin, where, as most of you probably know, the development requirements are extremely stringent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is just -- from wriat I've heard, is that the developer has followed the rules. We've requested the drainage study. When you do a development, there's going to be some disturbance; it's going to change water flow slightly. Our goal in the rules is to minimize that and to minimize that adverse effect on the neighboring property owners. From what I can tell, the developer's done that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Griffin? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Motion is on the table, waiting for a second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to comment. One comment was made from this side over here that they 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wouldn't be here if there wasn't a problem. And I kind of agree with that. I kind of see that. I couldn't imagine you guys going to all this trouble -- Lucy going to all this trouble if there wasn't something wrong. And that puts a check. But, I wanted to say I do appreciate you all sitting down yesterday and trying to work this out like good neighbors are supposed to, like good Kerr Countians are supposed to. However, we have a motion by Mr. Griffin and a second by Mr. Williams to approve the final plat for Hunt Valley View Ranch, Precinct No. 4. I'll call for a vote at this time. All in favor of this motion, please raise your right hand. ( The motion was carried by unanimous vote.} COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion passes. We're going to take a short break at this time, but I've been asked to make an announcement here. It says, "Buster, Security State Bank brought in a very large cake to show appreciation to the Kerr County employees. During the recess, ask everyone to come down to our office and enjoy a slice of cake." The County Clerk's office is that way. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can I ask, because there are several folks in the audience with respect to 2-point -- 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what is it? The lighting project, 2-point whatever it is. Can I ask that you move that up? Because these folks probably have other things that they need to be about. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When we come back in -- 2.6. When we come back in in about 10 minutes, we'll take up 2.b. We're in recess until 10:15. (Recess taken from 10:05 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Court's back in session. It's now 10:16-ish. Thank you all for being here with us again today. Before we take up item 2.6, we wanted to -- we had talked about the -- our safety program people are going to be in the courthouse this coming Wednesday, day after tomorrow, in the afternoon. They're requesting that someone from the Commissioners Court go around with them throughout the courthouse and take a look at the issues that are in -- have to do with the safety program, and I was wondering, is anyone just jumping up and down with joy wanting to do this? Besides Mr. Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoa. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see nobody. Mr. Williams, would you do you that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't jump with up joy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you so much. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I said I'd do it. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Okay. 2.6, request for funds, $5,000 to $10,000, for courthouse lighting project to create an attractive and inviting atmosphere that will make the city and courthouse appealing to citizens and visitors. The request is made by Mr. Al Donaubauer. And he has said that his length of presentation would be five minutes, and the general told him a while ago he couldn't even say his name in five minutes. So, Mr. Donaubauer, would you come forward, please? MR. DONAUBAUER: Yes, sir. Honorable Commissioners, thank you for the privilege of appearing here before you this morning. We are going to make history. We are going to get this through in five minutes, and I'm watching my watch. I have a supporting cast behind me. Don't you think these are good-looking people here in the back of the room? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have them stand up. MR. DONAUBAUER: Would you please stand up, all the members of my supporting cast? And those who have departed. If you wonder what happens to judges, they learn how to climb and they are appointed to be members of the Courthouse Christmas Lighting Project. So, Judge, we're delighted to have you on our side. Why am I here this morning? Simply because the 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 community has received a reminder -- there is a catalyst among you who has said, "Why not have an active committee?" So, Bill Williams got people together to form a committee to look at courthouse lighting, to make an attractive -- remove what might be a dark, dreary area, certainly, during the last Christmas of 1999 and heading into Y2K. We express appreciation to the Court for its past support, for doing many things that tell the community, "We are with you." Not behind you, but we're with you. We are a part of the community. Here is our proposal. To replace the small gauge inadequate stringers that were put up so conscientiously and effectively, but certainly they were not put there with the idea of longevity. We hoped they would last a long time. So, the proposal is to replace the stringers with 14-gauge wire stringers made in Waco, not in Yagaboodoo or some foreign place like that. There is an advantage, too, beyond being 14-gauge and being made in America. There is a -- a guaranty that extends for a minimum of five years. And then, if lights have to be replaced, you don't knock out -- cut out the entire string of lights. You don't have those dark spots in dark areas that have so suddenly appeared before because there's a bulb out where you need to replace them. You can reposition the sockets and put in new bulbs, and those will continue to burn. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Seriously, this is an economic enhancer. It's social, it's religious. It reminds us of our Judao-Christian system and what we are doing all over the country. Let's send Kerrville out on a bright note for 1999. Let's bring in the Year 2000 in grand style, bright and cheerful, and make Kerrville, the courthouse, the center of attention. There will be other lights, as you know; residential, commercial, professional. But, I guarantee you that if you take the lead, if you set the stage and the style, the community is going to be more than impressed. It's going to be grateful. And we trust and hope that you will approve and grant somewhere in the range that we're requesting. Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any questions for the gentleman? Mr. Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After Mr. Denson speaks, I have a comment or two. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Anything at this point? Thank you, Mr. Donaubauer. We may get back with you shortly. MR. DONAUBAUER: Thank you. And we did make it, didn't we? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four minutes? Four minutes, Mr. Donaubauer. We're proud of you. My only question is, where is Yagaboodoo? 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DONAUBAUER: It's beyond southern -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nevermind. Nevermind. No questions or comments from here so far. We have one request here to speak on this topic. Can't read the handwriting, but it sort of looks like Bob Denson. Robert? Please come forward. MR. DENSON: 3ust briefly, gentlemen. I think one thing that Al hit on, that it's extremely important, I think, for the County, through its Commissioners Court, to show support for this program. We're not asking the County, with its tax dollars, to fund this entire project. The entire project probably will run in the neighborhood of $30,000 to $35,000. We're asking you, as leaders of the County, to show that you are supporting this project with some sum of money that you think you can afford and that is justifiable, and then we're going to other members of the community, including the City and different civic organizations and individuals, to raise this money. But, I think it's extremely important that you demonstrate, as a group, the County, for the very courthouse the lighting will be displayed on, that you're fully supportive of this operation. And I thank you very, very much. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Denson. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I have one quick question 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 I'd like to ask of anyone who's familiar. Do these expenditures all have to be made by a certain date? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me talk on that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm thinking of budget year here and so on. When would it have to be done? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me touch on that. A couple things come to mind that need to be pointed out. First of all, I want to say thank you to Jim Murphy and Ray Lehmann and Al Donaubauer and to General Schellhase and Pat Dye and Beverly Bond and Charlotte for being here and being a part of this. It has not been easy putting together a new committee. There's a bit of history about this, and I won't keep others waiting too long, but the original formers of this group or this idea were Mr. Murphy and Commissioner Lehmann, when he was on the Court. Now, together, a bunch of people have supported it. This is five years ago, and this would be the 5th year. The first two years, those folks undertook it. The second two years, the Women's Chamber underwrote the effort, both financially and with manpower. I hasten to say that that's a difficult prospect, the manpower part. About $30,000 to $35,000, as Judge Denson said, is required to revamp the lighting scheme on the courthouse and the grounds and put a more suitable type of lighting out there that will last a long period of time and will withstand 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the weather and all the conditions it's exposed to. In order to make it happen, the lights have to be paid for when they're ordered, and that is in September. So, about $15,000 to $16,000 of that amount of money needs to be up front and accompany the order for the lighting. So, we need to think about how we're going to do that. The Kerrville Telephone Company and the Hill Country Telephone Co-Op have allowed us to put a flier in their bills going out to the general public asking for funds. That was done on one other occasion, and a significant amount of money was subscribed that way. We are hopeful that that would be the case again. Commissioners Court has always been responsive to this project. In the past, it has underwritten the cost of the electricity, I believe. It has underwritten the cost of our Maintenance Department doing certain things with respect to the wiring and the lights and on the grounds and so forth. And I believe, without fear of contradiction, the Court will do that again this current year. There's never been any hesitation in terms of support. So, we appreciate you coming today. We'll take a hard look at it and we'll see if we can twist some arms. I don't know where we're going to go, out of whose budget it's going to come, but we'll certainly take a long, serious look at it, and thank you very much. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Anything else from you guys? The request on the table is for funds between 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 $5,000 and $10,000. Do y'all have any comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I make, I think it's a great project and I certainly support the project, but at this point in our budget year, I just don't know where the money's going to come from. Looking back on going through a year ago, when we developed this year's budget, I remember things that we cut out, and it's hard to justify how we should spend money on Christmas lighting when we -- you know, we were cutting out things in the Sheriff's Department, is one that comes to mind. I think we need to think a little bit more about that part of it from the standpoint of helping through our Maintenance Department, through efforts like that. I think, you know, certainly, I'm in favor of that and I think we'll continue doing that. We've also, in the past several years, done some upgrades in the lighting and the -- you know, I guess, breaker boxes and things of that nature. And I think that may need to be done again. I would like to see a plan for what they're planning to do. We have such a -- I don't know -- for lack of a better word to use, I see a hodgepodge of conduits and plugs and wiring out there right now that I -- you know, if we're going to invest the kind of money -- or the committee's going to invest that much money, I'd like to see a plan that our Maintenance Department is very much involved with in knowing where everything is, and get it done 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right one time. Which, you know, they're spending so much money on the lights themselves, if they can raise the money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That plan is being developed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, I just have to, I think, think a little bit before I could really go forward with authorizing an expenditure of that amount this year. Next year, while we're doing the planning for this budget, you know, it's certainly something that we could look at with our expenditures in the Courthouse and Related Buildings. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we're going to have to -- if we try to spend the funds -- the funds out of this year's budget, we're going to have to go do some real searching before we could make any kind of commitment. It might be a little easier to work -- that's the reason for my question. It may be a little easier to work it in the following year's budget if we look at the Courthouse and General and -- and maybe try to put those funds in there. That's the reason, that if we could pay it after October 1st, maybe -- maybe it would work a little better. But, I think we're going to have those issues. We're going to have to go sort out -- I don't think we can take any action today, because we can't identify where the money comes from if we did. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we all support the idea. It's just how we might be able to help. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I certainly support the program. The 3ohnsori City Courthouse has become part of my family's Christmas activities; that's one thing that we do. And, it's exciting. Kerr County Courthouse, our home courthouse, is creeping up on Johnson Gity, even as we speak. Good-looking, good-looking courthouse. But, I think my -- to my way of thinking, I think in these kind of things, Kerr County has -- like you said, in the past has committed funds and helped do some things around here, and that's great, and we're always proud to do that. But, I think those kind of funds need to come out of the private sector first. We need to go to the private sector and -- and the banks in town and all these other businesses need to come up with their part of -- of the contributions to a program like this, and then you come to the government. That's just the way I think. And if that's contrary to the way you think, I'm sorry. Plus the fact, I think, that this -- particularly this size of request must go into the budget process, just like everything else that we -- you know, we put it in there just like we do all the other requests that have come along. That's kind of where I'm at. Commissioner Williams, you do you want to fire a shot at making a motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 57 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't think so, either. So, what would you like to do with this? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we should take it under advisement and see if there is anything out there that we can come back with. And, if so, we'll do so. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MS. NEMEC: Commissioner? Could I make a suggestion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see, we have the Kerr County Treasurer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Keeper of the bucks. MS. NEMEC: This is just a wild idea I just got while sitting here, but if we're needing the funds this year at~d there are some departments that -- by this time, they know if they're going to have funds left over in their budget or not, could you not ask the departments to look within their own budgets to see if they can spare any funds to donate to this project? So that you don't have to go back and have Tommy look for funds that aren't there anywhere. I'm sure that some of the departments might have some funds that they can contribute to this for this year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's part of the look-see; we have to take a look, see what's out there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you're suggesting that somebody from the Court go and do that? 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MS. NEMEC: No. That you put out a memo to the department heads and elected officials and ask them if they do have any funds that they're willing -- that they may t-~ave left over for this year that they're willing to contribute. 'Cause when y'all look for funds, you look for it in -- in Nondepartmental or Contingency and things like that. You don't actually go into other departments to look for those funds. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We tell Tommy to find it. MS. NEMEC: Right. And that's what I'm saying, to make his job easier. I know that's what's going to happen. He's not going to go looking in other department's funds and ask them to give those funds up if there's any left over. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Williams, is that proposal -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a good suggestion, and the County Treasurer and I will work toward that end. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you like to automatically put this -- put this automatically back on the agenda in two weeks? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll do that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And the Treasurer's going to contribute how much out of your budget? MS. NEMEC: Oh, I'll contribute some. I don't know 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 how much. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll see what we can find, and if we can find it, we'll have it back on the agenda two weeks hence. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Let's go to Item 2.3, please. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Hang on, you've got a -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Donaubauer, I didn't mean to cut you off. MR. DONAUBAUER: No, I'm just going to say, in support of what you said about private sources -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir? MR. DONAUBAUER: Six contacts have already been made, i ncluding two of the bank s, and ttlere is assurance of support from the six contacts w e've already made. So, we hope to make up that difference by September. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic. MR. DONAUBAUER: Your contribution, hopefully, and what we need from private sourc es in the total budget. Thank you ver y much. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Donaubauer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We appreciate your efforts. (Discussion off the r ecord.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 2.3, consider final replat for Lot 18, Box S Acres, in Precinct No. 1. Mr. 60 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Johnston? MR. JOHNSTON: This plat, as a preliminary, has been passed. We waived public hearing due to the fact that the deed restrictions allowed for each lot to be divided into three parts. And I think they've met all the requirements, and recommend approval. (Discussion off the record.) MR. JOHNSTON: Lee has something to say before you decide. MR. VOELKEL: I have one comment I would like to make on the plat. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, Mr. Voelkel? MR. VOELKEL: As you see, we sent this plat out, got all the signatures on the plat. The only one that we have not been able to secure -- and it's an agreement that we made with 911, in talking with -- conversation with T. Sandlin. First of all, we asked him for addresses for these lots, and he said -- and I hope y'all will understand this, 'cause I really didn't -- that this area has not beetz finalized as far as his plans, so that it would not be possible at this point to have addresses on the plat. The other item, there's a 40-foot-wide access easement that provides access to the lot -- to one of the lots. Actually, both the lots are using it. He also said that this road easement will have to be named. There will have to be a 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 name to be put on a plat. And I have talked with the owner of the property, Mr. Ted Schiwetz, who is here. He was reluctant to name the road at this point, but would like to give that option to the owner of the property that the road fully crosses for him to name, if he wishes to do so. So, that's the only item that hasn't been finalized for the plat, is the naming of the road. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I'd like to also add that that's the only line that hasn't been -- the only department that hasn't been signed off on, other than -- MR. VOELKEL: Yes, that's correct. That's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the County Judge is not here and won't be here -- I think he's out for, like, one week, and so you're going to -- we have that week to wait on the County Judge to get back in here to sign all these plats that we're doing today. So, there's a time frame there. Larry, did you have any comments about naming roads and 911 and -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, but I think this is -- this probably points up a problem which maybe we're going to have over the next several months, and that is we'll probably have other plats come to us that are going to be in the same predicament. I understood at one time that T. was making temporary assignments of numbers, based on the criteria as they're set out, but he was laying out those numbers just to 62 ~_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 get through the plat process. But, maybe we need to revisit that. I will give him a call and see what the procedure will have to be. Perhaps we can get it solved within this week period, but I don't see any -- we need to come up with some way, while we're in this 911 transition period, of getting past the platting process without stopping all the machinery while we wait for that. So, I'll give him a call, Lee, and see what -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a request here, a guest to speak on this particular item. Mr. David Jackson. If you'd like to come forward, please? MR. JACKSON: David Jackson. I'm here on behalf of the owner of the property that's affected by the easements you're discussing, Dr. Rob Sherron. I think the issue that he wants to raise to you is that he opposes the replat on the grounds that this is not a valid easement. And, let's talk about that. Specifically, it's 90 feet, not 60 feet. Specifically, its actual use may even be less than that. Specifically, it's not dedicated to the public. If anything, it's a private road that may or may not exist at all, depending upon what a court might or might not say. It's not publicly maintained. Should you proceed with the replat as it is right now, undoubtedly, the County would then have to come out and start maintaining it, or the owner who's the proponent of the replat would have to construct the road in 63 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accordance with your standards. The other point that Dr. Sherron wants to point out to you and make clear is that this Lot 18 has access to a 60-foot-wide road that is adjacent to his property, and I think, as was just stated, everyone understands that the existing owner of the property that seeks to subdivide this uses this entrance. Now, if you'd look at the plat for the 40-foot road, it does not dedicate the road. The dedication on that plat is an adjacent plat to Lot 18, and that specifically does not actually dedicate it. So, A, it has access; that access should be used. B, this road is not a valid easement, even though it may say so on the other plat. C, it's private, not public, 'cause there is no public dedication or maintenance. And, I guess the most important thing that Dr. Sherron wants to understand and have an understanding with the Court is, if you're going to replat it, what's going to happen to this road? Is it going to be put in? Is it going to be constructed? Is it going to be maintained, or is it a private road that he maintains, or who maintains it? What's its width? Can it be fenced? Can it be gated? All those issues are out there, because there's an uncertainty. And, I actually was at the last meeting, although at that time I was not representing him; I was contacted only last week about this. And I think there was a statement made 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that this most probably is a valid easement. It may be an easement, but we don't know whether it's a sufficient easement under your regulations to permit a repiat. And we certainly don't know the status of it for maintenance and improvement. I'll answer any questions you might have. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have any questions of Mr. Jackson? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just one. The doctor's property lies to the north -- MR. JACKSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- of this easement? MR. JACKSON: Yes, 26. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 26? MR. JACKSON: Yes. Now, the public maintenance, as I understand it, that comes to the borderline of Box S Acres. Publicly maintained, publicly dedicated, no question. Then, when you enter that second area, that's where there is no public dedication, no grant of an easement. And, I concede that it says that on the plat, but in legal terms, that may or may not make it a road. And, if it is a road, it might not make it of a quality standard or size sufficient to support replat. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you know, Mr. Jackson, who's the owner of record of Lot 20? MR. JACKSON: Lot 20? 65 ~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. VOELKEL: Just west of 26 there. MR. JACKSON: Right. Do you know who owns that? Mark Sherron's here, and I thought he might know. We don't know, sorry. Yeah, Lot 20 is affected by that road. Although, as I understand the replat, it doesn't actually get to this replat. In other words, you don't have to use the part that's oci 20. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Mr. Jackson, don't run off too far. We'll have a little discussion here and hopefully maybe you can -- MR. JACKSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- get in on it. Thank you, sir. Mr. Johnston or Mr. Voelkel, either one, do you want to address those points? MR. JOHNSTON: I think we passed the preliminary plat on the advice of the County Attorney, where he said that the easement was -- he felt, was adequate. He might want to say a few words. MR. POLLARD: I don't change my mind, I still stand on it. I think the language in the plat provides access to this lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Using that easement that we're talking about? MR. POLLARD: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 40-foot easement. 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ZO 21 22 23 24 25 MR. POLLARD: I agree that it is 40 feet. That's what it shows on there, is 90 feet. But, I think it does provide -- and I think there's an -- I think, from reading all the documents, I think there was a plan to develop both of these; that it was done in different sections, one called the North Pasture. But, I think it was a -- the language in there shows an intent for the use of those roads by the folks in there. I think it is probably a private easement rather than a dedicated road, which does away with all your ideas about, you know, a public road. But, I think it provides access. I'll stand on it. MR. JOHNSTON: That's the way you interpret a private easement. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's a private easement. There's no County -- there's no public road called for, and so it will just be up to the landowner for any improvements on that easement to get him in and out. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you have anything else, Lee? MR. VOELKEL: No, sir. MR. JOHNSTON: I think that~s all we have. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any other questions of anyone, gentlemen? Commissioner Letz? I know you well enough, I can see the cogs turning in there. What's on your mind? COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have two attorneys that are 67 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interpreting an easement differently, it appears. You know, that's my only -- you know, our responsibility is to make sure there's access to Lot 18-B, as replatted. And, our attorney -- civil attorney, Tom Pollard, says that the easement is sufficient, in his opinion, and I have to go with his recommendation. MR. POLLARD: And I think a court would agree with that if it's tested. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I make a motion that we approve the final replat of Lot 18, Box S Acres, in Precinct 1. That will be a Baldwin motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Commissioner Letz has the second. Any further discussion? Not coughing, discussion. None? All in favor, raise your right hand. {The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All opposed, no. {No response.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, gentlemen. Item No. 4, consider preliminary replat of Lot 16, Hidden Hills, in Precinct 2, and consider variance from public hearing and notification. Commissioner Williams, do you want to take the lead? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Johnston will do the honors. 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Lot 1, Hidden Hills, is 150.47 acres. They wish to divide that into four lots. MR. WIEDENFELD: Three. MR. JOHNSTON: I'm sorry, three lots. Two at 50 acres, one at 97.2. So, it's -- the difference being in the road right-of-way. Extends the road a couple thousand feet to give access to all the lots. This is a private road, country lane road. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let's don't sit here and look at each other. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move that we approve the preliminary replat of Lot 11, Hidden Hills, Precinct 2, and grant the variance from public hearing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion made by Mr. Williams. Seconded by? Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Griffin was going to -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I thought we already had a second, I'm sorry. Well, you got one. You got one. MR. JOHNSTON: The basis of not having a public hearing is in their deed restrictions, they have the statement that -- correct me if I'm wrong. I think it says they can be divided to no less than 25 acres. So, this would qualify under that. 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any further discussion at this table? If not, all in favor, say "aye." (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion carried. Item No. 5, consider variance to subdivision regulation for trenching depth on Kerrville South and Codrington Drives in Precinct 1. MR. JOHNSTON: We have a specific section in our Subdivision Rules, Appendix H, that shows the depth and the construction of utility trenches. Charlie Wiedenfeld is working in an area that's apparently solid limestone, and he'd like to address the Court for a variance to the depth requirements. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Wiedenfeld? Nice to seed you. MR. WIEDENFELD: Good morning, Commissioners. Charles Wiedenfeld with Wiedenfeld Waterworks Incorporated, president. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Charlie, excuse me. Would you like for to us address U.G.R.A. about getting you some razor blades or -- MR. WIEDENFELD: That will be fine. And I'm requesting a variance to the depth -- to laying underground utilities across County roads to a depth -- a total trench depth of 32 inches, if that -- that is what is reasonable 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 equipment that can be obtained in the San Antonio area. There is no equipment that will get that deep in Kerrville. And, going to the depth of 48 inches that would need to be done in this, according to Kerr County rules and regulations, is almost prohibitive. Unavailable equipment, very limited, and backlogged, no telling how long. I -- like I say, again, that's the reason I'd like to propose having a trench depth of 32 inches, following the Appendix X (sic) drawing, and I will also abide by all the other permit conditions, as shown in Appendix X. I gust would like to have a lower depth. Again, my reason is, this is in solid rock. I don't believe road construction will ever go down and damage my -- damage the water lines. I will be able to service my water lines a whole lot easier. And, for those reasons, I feel like I'm requesting this variance. I've been pushed by some of my cohorts in the business to bring this issue to y'all's attention. I had presented this thought during the Subdivision Rules process, and I was led to believe that a representative would be handling rock cases on a case-by-case basis. So, I -- I'm here to see if we can proceed with that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Wiedenfeld. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Charlie, you~re going to go with 32 inches? 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 MR. WIEDENFELD: 32 inches. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- I know this particular Court hasn't, but the prior Court, I know, has granted variances for similar things. I believe it was out in western Kerr County somewhere. MR. ODOM: Felix Fisher. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Felix Fisher. The same figures, the solid rock, unreasonable to go to the 48-inch depth that would be required here. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What did you say that was? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Felix Fisher. I knew it was out west; I couldn't remember the road. I talked to you earlier, Larry. I think the Court set a precedent. When we did the Subdivision Rules, it was understood that there would be times, with the rock conditions in this county, that you just physically cannot get to the depths that were in here, but we wanted to leave them where they were and to do them on a case-by-case basis. If the County Engineer has no problem with it, I certainly have no problem with granting a variance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. What type of equipment is required to go to the -- to the required depth? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably dynamite. I really 25 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have to dynamite? MR. WIEDENFELD: Rock saw. One of them is so big, you couldn't get it in this courtroom. And, for making two road cuts, it's -- this person could almost drill a well cheaper. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A question on the -- on the depth requirement. The way I read the chart, it's -- it's 36 to the top -- I'm talking about the requirement, not what you're requesting. But, it's 36 inches to the top of the -- of the conduit or water pipe or whatever, and then 6 inches below that? MR. WIEDENFELD: 6 inches below, proposed 6 inches. MR. ODOM: You have 2 foot of fill over that, Charlie, on your proposed line. MR. WIEDENFELD: I don't think it would make 2 foot of fill over the lines. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just so I can make note of it here, when was Felix Fisher done? Just so I can make a note, roughly what year? MR. ODOM: In this last budget year, I think. I think that was -- what's that gentleman's name out there? MR. JOHNSTON: Vlasek Pump. MR. ODOM: Vlasek. And the -- the developer was right the other side of the -- 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Delmar Hiller. MR. ODOM: Delmar Hiller. I don't know what the name of the subdivision was. Delmar was putting it right next to the edge of the roadway instead of getting over, as the subdivision said, within 9 foot of the right-of-way. I would assume that you're going to follow that direction; am I right? MR. WIEDENFELD: Right. We're going to be -- all the rest of the utility lines are going to be in the private -- private land. MR. ODOM: Private land. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm still not clear on the answer to Commissioner Griffin's question, Charlie. The regs call for 36 inches of minimum cover from the road surface to the top of the pipe. MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you proposing? MR. WIEDENFELD: I'm proposing there will be -- there's 26 inches from the top of the pipe to the top of the road. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 10 inches difference. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion to approve the variance as requested. MR. WEST: Can I say something? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Let's get a 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, Commissioner Williams. Further discussion? MR. WEST: I haven't filled out one of your pieces of paper. I've got something I think needs to be said here. Out in Wood Trails Ranch, which is where I live -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you state your name? MR. WEST: I'm George West, 137 Roland Trail in Wood Trails Ranch. On July 8th, 1999, a certified letter was written by Attorney Pollard to Mr. Davila, who operates the water system in our subdivision, telling him that he needs to correct an existing condition and comply with Appendix H of the Subdivision Regulations. And he said if you don't do that, we're going to take you to court. In essence, that's what this thing says. And, we sort of agreed with that, thought that was a good idea. But, I can picture a scenario that's going to happen here now. You're going to grant this variance, allow something other or less than the requirements of Appendix H. Mr. Davila is going to come in here and say, "Wait a minute, you're making me comply with the law and you're letting this guy get away with it." What do we do about that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Davila didn't come to us ahead of time. He went ahead and trenched the roads and 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't figure it properly, and Mr. Wiedenfeld is coming in and asking for a variance to do this one. That was -- MR. WEST: You're still telling Mr. Davila to do it according to the regulations. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He could -- MR. WEST: And allowing him to do something that you might allow as a variance. I think you need to do one or the other. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if Mr. Davila would have come and shown that in his case, that he was in solid rock, we would grant him a variance, but he chose to do it on his own without his -- MR. WEST: Can he do that within the time requirements? Would you let him do that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: He didn't come to us. He went ahead and trenched the road. MR. WEST: He hasn't done the work yet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought he had. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Perhaps he should. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, maybe he should request a variance if he's in solid rock. This is consistent with what we've been doing in the past. MR. WEST: The rock in Wood Trails Ranch is about the hardest limestone of any in the county. I know I had to do it with the foundation on my house. I did it with an air 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 compressor and a jackhammer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: request a variance, he should. not. If he thinks he needs to My memory was that he did 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it seems Like we got -- we had gotten something just this last week that said that everything is a go on your project -- in your subdivision out there, that they were going to -- MR. WEST: Going to do it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- going to do everything and everybody had agreed to it and all that. I think -- I think Mr. West brings up a fantastic point, although Mr. Letz does too, that if Mr. Davila had --- had come to the Commissioners Court and asked for a variance, that's a different issue than going out there and just digging holes on County property. And, so, we have a motion and a second, Letz and Williams, I believe. And, any further discussion? Thank you, George, very much for your comments. MR. WEST: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You County guys, any comments? MR. ODOM: Two foot of cover over the top of the pipe -- he said he had 26. I think that's sufficient in that rock to stay within 4 foot of the right-of-way. You know, if he needs to clear the right-of-way, clear it. 77 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You both recommend approval?I MR. ODOM: I would. ii COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who's going to inspect this to see that he does 12 inches of concrete? MR. JOHNSTON: He'll call in when he's ready to do it and I'll go out and look at it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All in favor, say "aye." (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion carried. We did Mr. Donaubauer. Item No. 7, consider and discuss engineering the footbridge across Third Creek for Flat Rock Lake Park. Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To start with, I apologize. I was talking to Frank about this prior to the meeting. Actually, he's going to be involved on -- it's my recommendation -- on this, hopefully. The -- I think he is aware of the situation, though. The footbridge out there, we originally thought, was going to be -- we were going to get a prefab bridge, which it has been very difficult even to find someone that makes a prefab bridge that will probably work there. The location is in the -- right down by the river, and certainly in the floodplain, so that makes it subject to FEMA regulations. Their regulations will require an engineered bridge. The most recent discussions I've had with Frank and 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Leonard are to -- possibly, to get a used -- you know, put some footings out there -- this is without any engineering being done yet -- some footings across the area, the span, with some metal beams, something of that nature. But, to do that, we need, I guess, the load figured out for the crossing engineering for the bridge, and we don't have any money to do that. My idea would be to ask the County Engineer to do this engineering function for the County. It's beyond, I think, the scope or the -- generally, of what he does for us, but this is a little bit of a unique situation and I -- you know, basically, lust turn it over to Frank, see if he will do that, the engineering portion of it, so we know what needs to be done. I think Len Odom, you know, certainly is present and is willing to work with Frank to do that part, but Len is not a licensed engineer, so he can't put the seal on it, which is going to be required from FEMA. And, also, I think we should have it from the safety standpoint, as well. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me ask -- MR. JOHNSTON: Well -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, yeah, go ahead. I do have some questions. MR. JOHNSTON: I guess you can say, like doctors have many specialties, engineers have specialties. Unfortunately, structural engineering is not one of my specialties, and that sounds like that's what's you're asking 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 me to do. I can work with someone else, if you have any money at all to spend to try to get someone to do it, but I'm really not qualified to do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me ask a question at this point, 'cause it's based on what he just said. Is the way this would work is that we would -- for the building of the bridge, that we would contract with a bridge builder that does the prefab jobs? Is -- what I'm getting at is, it could be that if we're going to buy a pre -- ready-made bridge to put on our pilings or whatever, at least their engineering piece of it should be available. We could ask for review by -- you know, of their load analysis for their prefab bridge, and they should give that to us. And, you can --- at least we can review it. I mean, I could help with that; I know a little bit about structural -- but then the other thing is, there would be some other engineering. That's for pilings and that kind of thing, which we would probably have to contract for, would we not, once we had a design? MR. ODOM: Yes. Because you'd want spread footings in that pier. You'd want them a bell housing. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, whoever is in that business, putting in spread pilings and all, should have -- MR. ODOM: Should have in-house -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- load analysis for their 80 L- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 designs, also. So, what I'm getting at is that it seems like it would be for review, perhaps, but what we're really asking for on Franklin's part is the engineering data that these two or more companies might have, that we're going to have to deal with this in contracting for. And, that then I think you might feel comfortable reviewing their data and then putting a -- MR. JOHNSTON: I wouldn't mind doing that at all. It's the actual design work, 'cause I don't have that computer software to really run all those things and everything and design it. We did a search on the Internet and found local -- fairly local people that did prefab. A representative is, I think, in New Braunfels. MR. ODOM: I think -- yeah, we've been trying to get them to respond to us. There would be questions that they would have as to the live load, is what concerns me. And, is it at the frequency that you wish to design this at? Is it at a 25 or 50? And, I might suggest a 50. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Are you talking people? MR. ODOM: I'm talking about -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, the 50-year floodplain. MR. ODOM: 50-year floodplain, because of the live load factor on that bridge. If you get something as a pedestrian and you get that level of water up there on top of it, just the weight of the water will take, probably, a 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 wooden structure and it probably wouldn't stand up. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the live load design into that structure. We got a span of 90 foot, so to preempt -- I mean, Alamo Ironworks could probably give us the flexion that we want at 50 or 100. What is it the Court wishes to do? And, the amount of money -- you know, that's going to be how much are we looking at, and that will also tell us what the frequency is. If it was a 50-year frequency, we'd probably get three. If we had 100, well, we'll go to FEMA, because we're going to have a lot of damage. Or is it 25? I don't know what that elevation -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do you know what the FEMA requirement is? Do we have to design the bridge to the 100-year -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure. MR. JOHNSTON: I talked to Charlie. He already ran off, but he told me that someone had to certify that that bridge is either out of the floodplain or would stay in the 100-year flood. Someone has to sign off on that. So, that's a pretty substantial bridge. MR. ODOM: That's substantial. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me follow up on what Commissioner Griffin was saying a minute ago. If we were to put that bridge out for contract as part of the park plan, certainly, the company that's going to design and fabricate 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that bridge would want to do the load engineering and all that kind of stuff. I guess what I'm really getting at is, why wouldn't that work? Why wouldn't that be covered by the L.C.R.A. grant? It's part of the improvements that we received money for for the park. We don't have it in our general budget, but why wouldn't it be covered by grant money? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it may. I think it's looking at a way to try to cut the costs of this. I mean, it can -- you know, trying to minimize the expenditures, because we do have very limited funds under that grant. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If our engineer said that's nut covered, we really don't have much alternative. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And FEMA's going to dictate 100-year flood frequency. Have you been able to contact either of those companies that I the got the names from? MR. JOHNSTON: We talked to one, I think, on the phone some time back, and they -- the pre-engineered bridge for a 90-foot span -- is that it? MR. ODOM: For 90 foot. MR. JOHNSTON: They would furnish the material. Unerected, dust material, was in the neighborhood of $30,000, I think, for a 60-foot-wide pedestrian bridge. MR. ODOM: But we don't know what the -- we don't know what that live load is on this -- what he quoted. 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's what we were really trying to get to, was find out what it would stand and what we could do within the FEMA -- you know, U.G.R.A. working with them, if we could keep it local, and -- but if we get in that river, we're going to have to deal with people. MR. JOHNSTON: Talking about that kind of money, we almost need to get it up out of the 100-year floodplain or it's almost a washout. MR. ODOM: I don't know about that, but I -- that would be something -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't do that. It would be out of the park. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You'd have to have an elevator to get to the COMMISSIONER -- I know we've gotten of it, and I guess the Franklin, to come back of it, what it's going other -- bridge. LETZ: I guess the main thing is just a little bogged down on this one part -- you know, just to ask you, to us with a cost for the engineering to cost, whether we can use several MR. JOHNSTON: I could do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- contractors or come back, what it's going to cost to determine the load we're talking about under a 100-year flood. Do one or the other. I mean, if it's easier to find a company that can do it, or find out 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Once we have the requirements, we can set our specifications and the pre-engineered bridge company could design it for whatever we need. MR. ODOM: They could design it. MR. JOHNSTON: What we're talking about is designing the abutments and the piers for the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it would seem to me if you can figure out from Alamo Ironworks -- get beams from them, they can design the beams. MR. ODOM: They can build and engineer the beams for that type of live load and that span. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can -- we can get the footings, then, separately, you know. That should work. If you can kind of consolidate all the pieces and get it in to FEMA, see if they'll approve it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we spec it right in the request for proposals from Alamo or whoever, they'll do the engineering work to meet that spec. MR. ODOM: That's right. We'll tell them what the live load is, and from there they can -- they'll design the beams. MR. JOHNSTON: We have to watch -- there's also a hitch on requesting -- I think that would be like a design and build project. There's a problem with professional 85 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 services on -- on having engineering as part of the bidding process. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. (Discussion off the record.} MR. JOHNSTON: Engineering needs to be done first, then it has to be bid, so we just have to be careful. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to get to the bottom. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that enough to help get us going, Frank? MR. JOHNSTON: We can get some facts and figures together for you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, and come back to us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Two weeks? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two weeks. MR. JOHNSTON: Two weeks? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that concludes Commissioners Court agenda for this day. Do you agree or disagree? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge Pro Tem, excellent job. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Excellent job. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Thank you, men. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You got us through it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: Thank you. 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will say, considering we only had eight items, you went rather long. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One of them took quite a bit of time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: I love you, however. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Are we adjourned? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:: We're adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:10 a.m.) STATE OF TEXAS I COUNTY OF KERB I The above and foregoing is a true and correct transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 29th day of July, 1999 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY: Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter DRDER N0. `59`6 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS On this the c6th day of J~_ily 19'39, came to be considered by the Co~_irt the vario~_~s claims and acco~_ints against Kerr Co~.~nty an~~ the vario~_is Commissioner's' precincts, which said Claims and Acco~_int s are 1G-General Fund for '~98, c6~•. ~~-; 11-J~_~ry F~_md for- X1,948.91; 13-Road R~ Rr~idge Add' 1 Registration Fee F~_~nd for, ~~.:,,4~.?+.7~:; 14-Fire P'r'otection F~_ind for' ~c51.SQ~; 15-Road ti Rr,idge F~_ind for, ~c9, 69~. ,?,1; 18-Co~_rnty Law Libr•ar,y for' ~c54. ~0; c~-J~_~veni Ie State Aid F~~.nd for ~15~. ~+~; c4-Traffic Safety F~_rnd for' ~SSS.~k; c7-J~_ivenile Intensive p'r'ogram-State Aid F~_~nd for ~ic5.9~; S1-F~arks F~~_ind for ~c7~d.5+Z~; 5~-Indigent Health Care ,,,_ for ~c6, 5+^. sZ~w~; 6c-1994 Jail Pond F~_~nd for x.375. @4~; 81-District Administration F~_ind for gc17.5~; 8S-State F~_~nded- c16th District Attorney F~_~nd for, X1,783.96; 96-State F~_inded- c16th D2str-'ICt F'robat ion F~_~nd for ~8, ~5`. 9~:; and 87-State F~_~nded-Comm~_tnity Correct ions Fund for ~c, Sic. 57 (TOTAL ALL FUNDS-'b 174, JJJ. 79) Upon motion made by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court ~_inani^ously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, payment of said Clai~as and Accounts as reco~emended by the Co~_tnty A~_rditor. ORDER N0. ;~59c7 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUI'JTY LAW LIBRARY On this the `6th day of J~_~ly 1999, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner- Lets, seconded by Commissioner- Williams, the Co~_~r-t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, transferring ~~'B7. ~~ from FUND #18 Surpl~_~s F~_inds to Line Item No. 16-'E~J~Z1-J9~ P O O I{ s . ORDER PdO. ~59~8 &UDGET AMENDMENT DISTRICT CLERF'. On this the 6th day of J~.~ly 19'39, ~_ipon mat ion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Co~.irt ~anani~no~_isly approved by a vote of 4-0-iD, tr,ansfer,ring ~450.~+~ from Line Item No. 1~-450-E18 Employee Training to Line Item No. 1~-45~-485 Conferences iF'ost Legislative Conference). ORDER N0. ~'S9`9 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUhJTY CLERK. On this the `E,th day of July 19`39, ~_ipon mat ion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Co~_ir,t ~inanimo~asly approved by a vote of 4-~-~, transfer~r~ing ~BiZ-~.~~ from Line Item No. 1~t-40~-11c Overtime to Line Item hJo. 1~-4~?,-,:~1~ Dockets & Forms. ORDER N0. G59.3~ PUDGET AMENDMENT COMMISSIONERS' COURT On this the c6th day of 3uly 1999, ~~pon motion made by Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commis~aioner• Griffin, the Co~_~rt ~_inanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-a, transferring ~ 1, k'~-Z~~. 0~ from Line Item rdo. 10-4~1-571 Contingency to Line Item No. 10-4~1--4Ck Notices. ORDER N0. ~'S931 BUDGET AMENDMENT JUSTICE OF THE F'EACE #4 ~~OMMISSIONERS' COURT On this the c8th day of J~_ily 19'9, upon motion made by Commissioner' WiI' iams, seconded by Gommissioner~ Griffin, the Co~_~r,t ~_inanimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-~-~, transferring '~770.~k from Line Item No. 1~-411-571 Contingency to Line Ite~a No. 1~-458-44~ Ut i 1 it ies. ORDER N0. c,C~93c P,UDGET AMENDMENT TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR On this the ;.6th day of J~.~ly 1999, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner, Griffin, ~~econded by Commissioner^ Lets, the Co~_~r-t ~ananimo~~sly approved by a vote of 4-~-~, tr~ansfer~ring X57.6` from Line Item No. 1+~-499-499 Miscellaneo~.~s to Line Item No. i~-49`3-457 Maintenance Contracts. ORDER NO. ;~593C BUDGET AMENDMENT COMMISSIONERS' COURT Dn this the CEth day of ~~_~1•~ 1999, ~_~pon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner, Lets, the Co~_~r,t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~D-0, tr~ansfer~r~ing $1,00~'~.0k'~ from Line Item No. 10-401-486 Professional Services to Line Item No. 1~'~-=+4'~1-485 Conferences. ORDER hJO. c59S4 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY TREASURER On this the 6th day of J~_~ly 1999, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner Griffin, _econded by Commissioner Williams, the Co~_~r-t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, tr,ansfer~r~ing ~1,7~-Z~.-Z~~ from Line Item No. 10-497-1~3 F'art-time Salary to Line Item hJo. 1k'+-497-57u Capital 0~_-tlay. ORDER N0. ~:59G5 BUDGET AMENDMENT ROAD K BRIDGE On this the E6th day of J~.~ly 1999, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner~ Williams, seconded by Commissioner~ Griffin, the Ca~_~r~t ~ananimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-~-~-, transferring ~7, 500. 00 fram Line Item Pdo. 15-611-570 Capital 0~_~t lay X5,`00.00 from line Item No. 15-611-56~'~ u~_tar~d Rails X8,900.00 fram Line Item IVo. 15-611-46E Lease Payments ~`, 000. i~0 fr~am Line Item No. 15-611-410 Fence Repair~s totaling ~~..:~,600.00 to Line Item Na. 15-611-579 Riverside Drive L'~r~idge. ORDER N0. ~59G6 P:UDGET AMENDMEh~T COUNTY JAIL On this the G6th day of J+_~ly 1999, +_ipon motion made by Commissioner, Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Co+_~r~t unanimo+asly approved by a vote of 4-0-~, transfer~r~ir.g ~1~~.Q1.?~ from Line Item No. 1~--51G-1~4 Jailer Salaries to Line Item No. 1~-51G-11~ Overtime. ORDER IVO. `5967 LATE BILL ISSUE HAND CHECK. TO COMPUTER SERVICE CENTER, INC. On this the c6th day of J+_ily 1999, ~_~pon motion made by Commissioner Gr^iffin, aeconded by Commissioner Williartis, the Ccurt unanimo+_isly appr^oved by a vote of 4-~-~, the late bill from Comp+_iter Service Center, Inc., in the amo+_tnt of ~9k'~.0~ presented by the A+_~ditor. fFor onsite service on 7/19199 to test var^i~~+_is computers for Y~Y, compliance). ORDER N0. ~59.?,8 LATE PILL ISSUE HAND CHECF". TO 'DANCE R. ELLIOTT, JF'#i On this the C~,th day of J~_~ly 1999, ~_ipon motion made by Cammisaianer, Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the Co~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the late bill fr~am Vance R. Elliott, in the amo~_~nt of g1~~.57 presented by the A~.~ditor,. (OMl~JI Dallas Hotel F'ark West - lodging expense tc attend F'ost Legislative Seminar 8/x/99?. ORDER NO. ~59~3 LATE BILL ISCUE HAND CHECK TO VA~dCE R. ELLIOTT, TP#1 On this +.I-~e E6th day of J~_~1 y 1999, upon motion made by Commissioner- Gr~ififin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Co~_~r~t unanimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-~-0, the lot? bill from Lance R. Elliott, in the amount of ~lE?. ~~ presented by the A~_iditor. (Air line expense to attend Post Legislative Seer inar, o.; 8i c/99) . ORDER rd0. X594@ LATE BILL ISSUE HAND CHECF`. TO VAI`dCE R. ELL I OTT, JF'. # 1 0.. this the ~~~th day of July 1999, ~_ipon motion CoRimissior~er Griffin, seconded by Commissioner, Co~_~r,t ~ananimo~_isly approved by a vote of 4-@-~, from Vance R. `lliott, in the amo~_int of ~C5.~0 the A~.~ditor. (Southwest Texas State Universit fee for F'ost Legislative Seminar on 8/x/99). made by Baldwin, the the Late bill presented by y - registration ORDEP. N0. c5941 AF'F'RO'JE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS On this the `E,th day of J+_~ly 1939, came to be consider~ed by the Co+_~r~~t the ~.~ar^io+_~s monthly reports of Kerr Co+_~nty and Precinct Officials for 1'.err Co+_lnty. Upon motion made by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the Co+_~rt +ananiwously approved by a vote of 4-0-@, that said r^epor^ts be accepted and filed with the Co+_~nty Clerk for f+_~t+_~re a+_~dit: J+_~st ice of the F'eace, F'GT #4 - Wi 11 iam E. Ragsdale Fines, J!:dgments and J~_~ry Fees Month of J~.~ne 199'? ~;er~r Co+_~r;ty Clerk - Jannett Pieper Co+_int'y' C1 er~k' s Fees - General F+_~nd Month ending J+_ine .?~~, 1"39`3 Distr^ict Cler~k Fees - Linda Uecker^ „~ Di~atr~ict Clerk's Fees Month ending J+_~na ,34'!, 1999 Extension Activity Repor^t - Eddie Holland 1~lonth of J~_ine 19~~9 Extension Activity Report Major Acti~.~ities Month of J+_~ne 1999 Derr Co~_~nty Clerk F+_inds Collected by the Probation Office For the period of 0C-iF-9`3 thr+_~ ~E/i4; 99 oRDCR rao. ~~~~+ AP'P'ROVE FINAL. FLAT FOR HUrdT VALLEI' VIEW RANCH On this the 6th day of J~-ply 199'3, ~_ipon motion made by r'OiPmisSlOrier' Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Co~_ir~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-Q~, the Final Flat fcr~ H~_~nt Val ley View Ranch. ORDER N0. X594,?, AF'F'ROUE FINAL REF'LAT FOR LOT 18, ROX S ACRES Cn this the c:6t;h day of J+_ily 1999, ~~pon motion made by Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Let:, the Co+_-r-t unanimo+_isly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the Final fteplat for- Lot if3, L',ox S Acr-es. ORDER N0. c5944 AF'F'RO'JE PRELIMINARY REF'LAT OF LOT l1, HIDDEh.I HILLS Ah~D 4JAIVE THF_ PUBLIC HEARING On this the `E,th day of J~_ily 1999, ~_~pon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Cos_~r,t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, F'r~eliminary Rep2at of Lot 12, Hidden Hills S~_ibdivision and waived the p~_~bl is hear~ing. ORDER N0. ~J9'~FJ AP'P'ROVE THE VARIANCE FOR TRENCHING DEF'TN ON FCERRV I I_LE SOl1TH AND CODR I NGTDN DRIVES On this the c6th day of J~_~ly 1399, ~_~pon m~~tion made by Com~;~issioner- Lets, seconded by Commissioner ~Jilliama, the Co~_~r-t ~_~nanimo~asly approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, the variance to s~_ibdivision reg~_~lation for trenching depth on Kerrville So~_~th and Codrington Drives.