1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 8 Workshop 9 Monday, February 14, 2000 10 2:00 p.m. 11 Commissioners' Courtroom 12 Kerr County Courthouse 13 Kerrville, Texas 14 15 16 17 18 SUBDIVISION RULES & REGULATIONS 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 On Monday, February 14, 2000, at 2:00 p.m., a workshop 2 of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. It's 2 o'clock on 7 Monday afternoon, February 14th, 2000. We will call to 8 order this special workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners 9 Court. We're here to discuss the draft of the Subdivision 10 Rules and Regulations, as presented by Commissioner Letz. 11 Jonathan? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think probably -- I 13 think the easiest way is to go through the draft version 14 that everyone received page by page. The portions that I 15 recommend we take out are marked through in red and the new 16 language is added in blue. A couple of just general 17 comments. There's really not a whole lot of changes, other 18 than a couple of areas. Cleaned up a few typos and things 19 of that nature. We added a -- a section, or basically 20 incorporated the Manufactured Home Communities language; 21 that's just been incorporated as an appendix. We modified 22 quite a bit the sections on Revision of Plat and 23 Cancellation of Plat. Those are the areas that we seem to 24 are have the most confusion on in the Court in the last 25 couple years as to how you handle certain things. And, what 3 1 we did on that, we just put the state law in there -- in 2 here. Everything in there is just verbatim out of the Local 3 Government Code, which makes it easier, I think, on those 4 things. And, then there's a section where you added about 5 water availability, which I'm sure we'll have to have a 6 lengthy discussion. 7 But, anyway, it's probably easiest to start 8 at the beginning and go through, and I will briefly explain 9 why we made the changes, the recommendations -- these were 10 done kind of as a collaborative effort between Road and 11 Bridge and myself, primarily. Then I've talked to other -- 12 other people along the way to get ideas and get some input. 13 This has not -- I did not go out -- we did not have a 14 committee, as we did last time, where we had a number of 15 developers give input. I thought that it was easier at this 16 point really to go through it one time and then put it up 17 for public inspection for 30 days, and then look at 18 adopting -- making any changes at that time. 19 But, anyway, Page 2 and 3 are just the table 20 of contents, which will be adjusted based on any changes we 21 make. Page 4 is -- was rules and regulations, and we added 22 this at the last version, which was not included previously, 23 and this was something that I thought was a good time -- 24 good idea at the time, basically gave us all of the 25 statutory authority to enforce Subdivision Rules and 4 1 Regulations. But they keep on changing them so much, it was 2 hard to keep it current -- almost impossible to keep it 3 current, and it seemed -- I really didn't see the point in 4 it, other than saying that we have the authority under the 5 Local Government Code and other codes, and I think that's 6 mentioned. We added that a little bit later, so I just 7 deleted that whole section. I just don't think it was 8 really necessary. It's -- I think the important portions of 9 that are covered under Section 1, as it was rewritten. 10 And, next page, on Page 5, I took the -- 11 basically, the first paragraph off of the previous page that 12 we deleted. We then went into the definition of a 13 subdivision, which is straight out of the Local Government 14 Code, as it was revised. That's another area that you get 15 into confusion, as to when you try to insert a comment, make 16 it more readable or do something different. So, I figured 17 it's easier just to put it in exactly as the Local 18 Government Code spells it out, and less confusion that way. 19 The balance of Page 5 and Page 6 are just citing various 20 authorities we have in general, without citing a specific 21 government code that gives us that authority, regarding 22 public safety, things of that nature. Those are not any 23 changes from our last version. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which ones do you 25 want? 5 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right now is probably a 2 good point, if you have a question on something. I mean, as 3 we go, I think it would be easier to make the penciled -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In reading -- in 5 reading Section 1, Subdivisions, you've got 1, 2, 3, and 6 you've got an A.1(i). It seems to me, in my logic, that A.1 7 would read better if it was under Number 1. It might 8 eliminate confusion. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So we need to -- 10 right, I see what you're saying. We need to have the 11 definition as one item, Paragraph A. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got 1.B, A.1, 13 then 2, then 3. That would be a suggestion. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A.1 or 1.A? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be either 17 one. Whichever would come out better. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be 1.01, 1.02, I 19 believe. You'd have -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yep. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1.01 and 1.02, is that 22 what you're talking about, Bill? 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's what 24 he's talking about here, is this "A.1" seems out of whack 25 with the -- 6 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. Oh, that one there. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, A.1. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's A.1. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, moving it up 5 under Number 1. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What is it? Is it -- 7 is that just an extract from the -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It referred back to that 9 one. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It refers back to that. 12 We'll get that lined up. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was taken straight 15 out of -- it was probably the way they were numbered in the 16 State code. Okay. Any other comments on Page 5? Page 6? 17 No changes on Page 6. Page 7 is the start of Section 2, of 18 definitions. Didn't change any definitions until we reach 19 Page 9, and we deleted the word "replat" and changed it to 20 "revision of plat," which was the language we're going to 21 try to go to. It wasn't changed there. And, then on Page 22 10, we deleted the definition of a subdivision. It's 23 already listed already; no need to give a definition again, 24 in my opinion. On Section 3, type of ability and 25 enforcement, there's just one typo change under 3.06. That 7 1 was it on that page. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would like to make 3 a suggestion there, too, Jonathan. 3.02, one, two, three -- 4 fourth line down, we talked about the arrangement of all 5 components of a subdivision including, but not limited to, 6 road easements, sidewalks, monuments, et cetera. I would 7 like to suggest the word -- additionally, the word 8 "utilities." 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Let's insert it 10 after the word "monuments." 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anywhere in that, 12 separated by a comma someplace. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. 14 Section 4, Variances. No changes to that section. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan, on 4.04, I would 16 suggest that the first section -- first sentence of 4.04 is 17 actually 4.04, and that starting with "Such findings" 18 applies to the whole section, not just the 4.04. So, I 19 would suggest that you -- "Such findings" be a separate 20 paragraph. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. We're moving right 22 along. We'll be out of here in five or ten minutes. 23 Section 5 are Subdivision Standards. Under 5.02, we've got 24 a typo change. Just for the public, if they have a 25 question, I note on a copy of this draft, there's no changes 8 1 to lot space, nothing of that nature. They're all, as it 2 were, in the current -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we not going to 4 entertain the notion of adjusting the lot size? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, the 6 basis for the current lot size is based on water, and if 7 there is a -- and which is based on well spacing. If 8 Headwaters has it in the works to change their well spacing 9 requirements, I think we would need to look at it at that 10 time, or if we get a change in it this time, it kind of goes 11 with water. Water's where we came up with that originally. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that the -- well, the 13 U.G.R.A.'s preparing revisions to the septic rules based on 14 recent changes in the state requirements, and I -- I know 15 that they are discussing the issue of lot size, which is 16 exactly what you're saying. So, we may have some occasion 17 to look at the lot size. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Since this will be in 19 a loose-leaf binder, we can change a page at a time. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's all we need. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next, on Page 14, again, 23 there is a typo change under 5.02.I.1. Two changes right 24 there. Actually, both of them are typographical. Next 25 page, Page 15, 5.03, is a new section to be added, which is 9 1 entitled "Water Availability and Water Installations." This 2 replaces the old language that we had; used to be called 3 "Water Installation." And there is one thing that I would 4 like to point out is a typo in the draft version, in the 5 blue version below under 5.03.A, the third line, Subchapter 6 A, says Chapter 323. It should be Chapter 232. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want to take this up 8 now, or do you want to move through and come back to it? 9 Would you like to -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would probably be 11 easier to come back to it. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause if we -- so we 14 need to skip that section. Going down to 5.04, Waste 15 Disposal Systems at the end of Page 16, no changes there. 16 Page 17, there are a couple of changes in 5.05 B and C, 17 based on trying to clarify the language slightly in regards 18 to right-of-way and placement of utility poles and things in 19 the right-of-way -- or outside the right-of-way. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We are going to come 21 back? You're just going to go all the way through? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any changes you have -- 23 we're going to come back to the water issue, but -- I mean, 24 which is 5.04. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 5.04.A. 10 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to come 2 back to 5.03, right? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 5.03, I'm sorry. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to make a 5 comment about 5.04, if I might. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In reading 5.04.A, I 8 don't see anything there that would encourage -- suggest or 9 encourage establishing collections systems and packaged 10 treatment plants. And, while I realize we can't mandate it, 11 I think we could take a step to encourage it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem with 13 that at all. I'm just trying to figure out how to do about 14 the same thing with water. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll come back to 16 water. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. The language 18 right now is very brief, and I think that it's -- in my 19 mind, it's probably really more significant, probably, in 20 the county right now. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In certain areas of the 23 county than a water issue. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That would be 25 my comment, that we should try -- 11 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to expand on that 2 a little bit. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I haven't put a 4 sentencing on -- I just put the thought that we should 5 develop some language that would encourage the development 6 of collection systems and packaged treatment wherever 7 possible. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think right now 9 we'll go through and try to get the concept down, and then 10 we'll worry about writing a new draft, so we can -- I 11 understand, I think, what you're saying there. I can get 12 with you and we can work on that, or you can come up with 13 some language and just let me have it, which would be 14 easier, and probably quicker. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any comments on Page 17? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A couple. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5.05.B, you're 20 proposing 4 feet, utility fixtures extending above the 21 ground and so forth and so on, to be within 4 feet of the 22 outside edge of the right-of-way and so forth. Could we 23 perhaps consider 6 feet? Again, for safety reasons, 24 additional safety space. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: That's within 4 feet of the 12 1 edge of the right-of-way. 2 MR. ODOM: Edge of the right-of-way. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I read you. 4 MR. ODOM: You're talking about coming closer 5 to the right-of-way? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Closer to the road. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't mean to 8 come closer; I mean 6 feet -- 9 MR. JOHNSTON: The right-of-way's 60 foot 10 wide. The road's typically centered. This is on the 4 foot 11 on each side. You can put utilities -- 12 MR. ODOM: We're trying to get those 13 utilities as far away from that road as we can and have a 14 clear zone. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- well, 16 that's my point. Maybe I read it wrong. 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Maybe it's not clear. 18 MR. ODOM: Four means you've got right-of-way 19 stake on this side, and within 4-foot of that, we don't want 20 them to go any farther. There's no excuse for them to get 21 that -- out, and we have -- roadways are not even 60 foot 22 wide, so we certainly want to push -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could we -- to clarify 24 that, don't we have a plat on the back? We have a road 25 diagram. We could put that -- the whatever you call it -- 13 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Sectional view across and show 2 where the -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put the cross-section -- 4 we could put it there and say, hereafter see cross-section 5 such-and-such, which it will be -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will be good. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- in the picture. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then I have a 9 question on 5.07.C. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We talk about, in the 12 second sentence there, the plans shall not -- shall show 13 construction details, calculations showing the anticipated 14 storm water runoff, including watershed area, percentage and 15 velocity of runoff, and so forth and so on. My question is, 16 does that refer to the slope? I guess I'll direct that to 17 Franklin. Is that what you're talking about here? Are we 18 talking about the slope when we speak of percentage and 19 velocity of runoff? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, yeah, basically. 21 There's ways to deal with velocity of runoff and slow it 22 down or divert it. 23 MR. ODOM: It'll be so many cubic feet per 24 second. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're talking about 14 1 the slope? 2 MR. ODOM: Well, all that's in the 3 calculation. Part of it's intensity, part is the terrain. 4 There's variables that -- that are used for the type of 5 terrain, whether it's grass or whether it's clay for the 6 slope. It has a variety from the topo, so all that is a 7 calculation showing that to meet the two in the 5-year 8 frequency. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. So, not 10 just -- not just the slope; you're talking about other 11 factors? 12 MR. ODOM: We're talking about other factors 13 and what that type of development is, Bill. You know, where 14 are the houses and are they concentrated and the runoffs 15 from the roofs, so all that's -- is the design of that flat, 16 and takes into consideration the topo and the -- the 17 intensity of the rain and et cetera. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: This is typically covered in 20 the drainage studies they provide with the -- 21 MR. ODOM: Hydrologists will do that or the 22 civil engineer will determine that. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 24 MR. ODOM: So, that way we know that we've 25 got our structures the right size. 15 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any other questions on 3 Page 17? Page 18. Next section on Page 19, the platting 4 procedure. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I had a question on 6.02.C.2. 6 Last sentence says subdivision names must be approved by the 7 County Clerk? Is there a statutory authority for that? Or 8 just -- are we actually doing that? Or -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: She runs -- runs -- I 10 mean, through -- the way it goes through her office, I think 11 she keeps -- she has all the plats. The reason it's done 12 through her -- 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not a duplicate. I 14 think that's the only thing she checks. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Checking for 16 duplicate names. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's on the routing 18 slip. It could go back -- I mean, there's no reason that 19 she -- other than our choice, that she's the one. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. I was just curious as 21 to what the authority for that was. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We ask her to. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe the word 24 "approved" is the wrong word. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Check only -- we're 16 1 speaking of check for duplication; that's the word. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Must be checked for 3 duplication. That's fine. I mean, that's the purpose of 4 it, is the subdivision names must be checked for duplication 5 or -- 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: By the County Clerk. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think Jannett's doing that. 9 Jannett, you do that, right? 10 (Ms. Pieper nodded.) 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's nodding. Page 20. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: 602.C.11, we say the plat 13 must show all roads with 60-foot right-of-way. Does that 14 mean a road with less than 60-foot right-of-way would not be 15 shown? Like a country lane or something like that? 16 MR. ODOM: Well, you have different 17 classifications from the size, but 30-foot road would be 18 called a -- 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Neighborhood road. 20 MR. ODOM: Yeah. It's not -- it doesn't even 21 need to be sealcoated, but 60 foot is -- this is for new 22 construction. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, but I'm -- this is what 24 has to be shown on the plat, and I was curious as to why we 25 only required roads with 60 foot right-of-ways be shown on 17 1 the plat, rather than all roads. Because it seems to me 2 like if your developer intends to put a less than 60-foot 3 right -- road in the plat, it ought to be shown on there for 4 everybody who's going to buy it to know where the road's 5 going to go. 6 MR. ODOM: Well, that makes sense. The 7 30-foot road is called an access road, just for access. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You still want to show 9 it on the plat. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think the -- 11 MR. ODOM: You do. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: It's not worded right. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's not worded 14 right. 15 MR. ODOM: The Judge is right. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It must show all roads. 17 MR. ODOM: All roads, yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Separate -- 19 MR. ODOM: Just strike out the 60-foot. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just take out -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All roads in 22 right-of-way. 23 MR. ODOM: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You want the right-of-way 25 on there too so we can know what the right-of-way amount or 18 1 width is, if it's less than 60. 2 MR. ODOM: Okay. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 21, main change here 5 is trying to clarify the language regarding extensions, 6 602.E.3. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: I would like to see us 8 delineate the time of each -- of any extension, and I'll 9 also say my personal preference is that developers shouldn't 10 get more than one extension. We are, after all, talking 11 about someone who's had a plat approved for a year and is 12 not able to complete the work. 13 MR. ODOM: How about two years? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we word it -- or 15 when I worded this, I gave it as much latitude as possible, 16 'cause we -- you know, we didn't have anything in here 17 originally. I don't have any problem with that. It makes 18 it easier to word it if there's only one. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd suggest one extension of 20 no more than one additional year. 21 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: If the request for extension 23 is received before the expiration date of one year. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that, and 25 we've had that recent conversation, as a matter of fact. 19 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we had to get a 2 legal opinion or something, ask for it. The word 3 "extension" is misspelled. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-oh. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Spell check. Okay. So, 6 we want one extension for one year. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If -- if the request 10 is -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Made prior to the 12 expiration. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Of the original. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One year, okay. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: That was on Number 5 17 originally. We had 6 months; we just changed that to one 18 year. Same thing, right? 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: We take out the last sentence 20 of that. 21 MR. ODOM: So what is it? How is it going to 22 be worded now on preliminary plat? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- a lot of these, 24 Len, I was just going to come back and we'll reword it. 25 Rather than try to hammer out the wordsmithing right now, it 20 1 will be one extension for one year, and it must be obtained 2 prior to the expiration of the initial year. 3 MR. ODOM: Which is 6 months, right? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's one year. One 5 year from your first plat approval, so it will be good for a 6 maximum of two years. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Once the first one expires, 8 they have to start over again -- 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: -- if they don't renew it? 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: If they don't come in for an 12 extension before the original preliminary plat expires, then 13 they start over, subject to the rules at the time. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what 15 you said before. It is, I remember. That last sentence 16 needs to come out, then. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Last sentence comes out. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last sentence comes out. 19 How about -- it's easier to word it if you don't have that 20 second -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Anything else on 23 that page? Page 22, remove the language, 6.02.E.5. 24 Essentially, that's E.3, which makes sense. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure wish there was 21 1 some way we -- 6.02.E.6, you know, could maybe be in bold or 2 something, because there's an awful lot of people who don't 3 understand that until the final plat is approved, you can't 4 sell the property. I think the developers can do it, but 5 there's a lot of other folks that don't. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The buyers -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, buyers and some 8 people that -- that don't think a subdivision ought to be 9 there in the first place. But, it's -- nothing can be sold 10 until the final plat's approved. That's just the key to 11 this whole thing. 12 MR. ODOM: And by your rules, the final 13 plat's not going to be approved until a water system is put 14 in. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And the drainage 16 study's done and the -- and so there's a whole lot goes into 17 that final plat approval. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Anything else 19 on Page 22? Page 23, just a minor change on number of 20 copies up 2.03.C.3, and then a wording change due to another 21 change later on. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: On D.1 -- 6.03.D.1 there, it 23 has in parentheses, excluding the minor revision of plat. 24 Somewhere else you deleted the entire thing on revision of 25 plat, or it's coming up later. 22 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just refer it to -- we 2 are changing the language. We no longer have minor plats 3 and minor replats. We just have revision of plats, which is 4 what the statute says. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: That's still -- on 6.03.D.1, 6 it still says minor -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. We need to 8 delete that. I know that. It should say excludes minor 9 plats, and that second "minor" should be deleted. On Page 10 24, I have a comment on one of these. My personal 11 preference on 6.03.D.8 -- I didn't make the change here. I 12 do not, personally, like having street numbers assigned on 13 the plats. I think it -- it's too much -- puts too much 14 information on it, and there are streets where you have more 15 -- you have addresses with two numbers assigned on the plat, 16 because, depending on where they put their house, they don't 17 know the number. I think it's something that 911 wanted 18 this on there. I guess I don't know who else would want it. 19 But, to me, it's -- I mean, I think they can do it on their 20 maps over there when they assign the addressing and all 21 that, but I don't think it should be on the final plat. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Cluttering 23 up the picture. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Delete. 23 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Strike. 2 MR. ODOM: Delete which number? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6.03.D.8 -- well, not all 4 of it. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Lots and blocks are probably 6 okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we need that. The 8 building numbers. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: House and/or building 10 numbers. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take out "and/or 12 building numbers"? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not house numbers? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: House and/or building 16 numbers. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And who's going to -- 19 MR. JOHNSTON: 911 doesn't assign the lots 20 and blocks, does it? 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. Shall be assigned 22 by who? 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Developer. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, the developer does 25 the lots and the blocks -- the lots and blocks. 24 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's -- we just 4 change that to read, "The numbers of all lots and blocks 5 shall be assigned by the developer." 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not "assigned." Shown by the 8 developer. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To be shown by the 10 developer, okay. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Once folks build a house on 13 the lot, there needs to be a procedure where they timely get 14 an address. In some cases they wait, wait, wait, wait, and 15 don't get addresses. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: We're working on that. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's another problem. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's another workshop. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a 911 problem. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you leave that 21 page, go back up to 6.03.D.6, if you would, please. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I'd like to have 24 you check with the County Surveyor. I've been advised that 25 the methods of surveying have changed significantly, to the 25 1 point that (a) and (b) as we have them here are no longer 2 necessary. And we may want to consider eliminating, but I 3 think that the County Surveyor ought to give us some input 4 in that. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. It's -- I, 6 you know, agree with you; has to do with the methodology of 7 surveying more than anything else. We might highlight those 8 in blue or underline them or something so we remember that 9 when we go through it and get an input from Lee Voelkel on 10 that. Anything else on Page 24? On Page 25? Page 25 and 11 26, we deleted the "minor plat" and "minor replat" language 12 completely and replaced it with "Revision of Plat of 13 Existing Recorded Subdivision." And that language is out of 14 the Local Government Code. And the main -- big difference 15 here is that we had a system where the Commissioner of a 16 precinct could modify a plat if it was only deleting a lot 17 line and making it bigger. When I read the Local Government 18 Code, I don't see any authority for a Commissioner to have 19 that -- to be able to do that. I mean, it clearly says 20 Commissioners Court has the authority, and I don't see how 21 it -- how we can delegate that down to anyone below the 22 Court, so I deleted that language. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you take a look 24 at 6.04.C.1? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: C.1? 26 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. "Revising of 2 lot(s) line...", I think the word "A-R-E" is probably not 3 necessary there. Changes the structure of the sentence. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say that again. What 5 word? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Revising of lot(s) 7 line within one recorded subdivision. The word "A-R-E" 8 probably doesn't belong there. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. Now, there is 10 a change -- well, it used to be called -- something that we 11 allowed the Commissioners to do. I take that back. I said 12 this is out of the Local Government Code, and this isn't 13 exactly in conformity, to me, with the Local Government 14 Code. But, to make it easier on people that are making 15 these relatively minor changes, it can be done in one visit 16 to the Commissioners Court, rather than do a preliminary -- 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Preliminary. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Preliminary and a final, 19 they just come through one time and go get it done. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Revision of plat. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Revision of plat. If it 22 meets all those criteria, which is basically what we used to 23 allow the Commissioners to do. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then on Page 27 and 28, 27 1 for a while we, again, had -- "Plat Revision or 2 Cancellation" was the language we used to have, and I 3 deleted all that and just put the language that's in the 4 Local Government Code on Cancellation of Subdivision. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the 75 percent of 6 owners wasn't part of the Local Government Code? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in here and it says 8 that, but there's a lot more than just that, and I think we 9 really -- you know, we weren't way off-base, but it makes it 10 cleaner, to me, to have the actual language, what the law 11 is. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's also -- it's 14 a difference if there's a -- if it's developed land or 15 undeveloped land, and we just put both of those in 6.06, 16 Cancellation of Subdivision. If land remains undeveloped, 17 there's a different procedure for that as outlined in the 18 Local Government Code, so we just put that in here, as well. 19 Makes it a little bit longer, but it's an area that maybe we 20 were having confusion on, so we'll go with the law. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm curious about 6.05.B. If 22 delinquent taxes are owed on the subdivided tract, and the 23 application to cancel subdivision is granted, the owner of 24 tract may pay the delinquent taxes on an acreage basis, as 25 if the tract had not been subdivided. 28 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what it said. I 2 mean, unless there's a typo. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: That -- I think K.C.A.D. is 4 going to have a problem with that, as is Paula, but I guess 5 my question is, is that mandatory, or do you think -- is 6 that permissive? In other words, do we have to have that 7 kind of a provision? Or -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The way I read it, I 9 mean, that's how you do it. I mean, that is the -- 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, but I'd be -- 12 MR. JOHNSTON: We had a letter from Tom 13 Pollard on that very point on a subdivision down in your 14 part of the county. He said anyone who owned a lot in the 15 subdivision had a property right in all the roads. Not just 16 the one abutting the property, but they had a right in all 17 the roads and had a say in whether or not they were 18 canceled. That was about a year ago or so. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a little 20 different. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Based on -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's different than 23 this. I mean, this is talking about the lots. 24 MR. ODOM: Yeah, I take that to be a 25 little -- 29 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it says closing -- on 2 D., closing of a roadway or easement. 3 MR. ODOM: But what -- if you did not. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: We're talking about B. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: B, Baker. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: B as in boy. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Only if they all agree. If 8 they all agree, it's all right. 9 MR. ODOM: What I'm saying, if the property 10 owners at that point from that road would agree to abandon 11 it -- 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, yeah, if they all agree. 13 MR. ODOM: I don't see how that hundred -- 14 the rest of the people would have an interest. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think on the -- 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: The point I raised on B is -- 17 I'm not sure how, in practice, that will work. If it's in 18 the Local Government Code, we need to have it in -- we need 19 to have it in there. But -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just one of the points 21 that we may need to highlight. We need to run this whole 22 thing by the County Attorney. And do we highlight that 23 provision and say, Does this need to be here? And, if so, 24 how do we do it? 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 30 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then on the -- Section 7, 2 Road Design and Construction. There's been a change on 3 cul-de-sacs. And, Franklin, I don't think you were there 4 when I made this change. It went from frontage on lots of 5 2 1/2 acres or more from 60 -- from 100 feet to 60 feet, and 6 I really didn't see why there was a differentiation between 7 the two. I thought it was probably a typo from before, that 8 kind of thing. 9 MR. ODOM: I'm wondering if we didn't, in 10 committee, not say that that 100 foot was for the smaller 11 than 2 1/2 acres up front, that we were concerned about -- I 12 remember a discussion about cul-de-sacs -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 14 MR. ODOM: -- and how driveways could be 15 connected to that when we're trying to space it out. Maybe 16 we switched those numbers; should have been 100 on 2 1/2 or 17 less and 60 on the bigger ones. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I thought that 19 too, but I really think -- I mean, on the cul-de-sac, 60 20 feet is not a whole lot. That's -- you can't get but around 21 four lots on a -- four or five lots, probably four lots, I 22 guess, on 60-foot, so 60-foot seems reasonable to make. And 23 we just looked at some -- I think we had two that were 24 almost variances, requests last meeting. So, anyway, I made 25 that change from 100 feet to 60 feet. 31 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do y'all agree with 2 that? 3 MR. ODOM: Well, I -- I'm -- I was trying to 4 jog my memory, why we did what we did, and I -- I don't have 5 the numbers. Maybe four or five is right on cul-de-sacs, 6 100-foot radius or 75-foot radius on cul-de-sacs. I know we 7 were trying to cut down -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 9 MR. ODOM: -- density. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And we can look 11 at that. I mean, this isn't the final word, but -- 12 MR. ODOM: I've got it circled, so I don't 13 have an answer for you. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Other than that -- 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: I wanted to make a comment on 16 7.06, Publicly Dedicated Paved Roads to be Maintained by 17 Kerr County. There's a new Attorney General opinion out 18 which states very clearly that the County cannot maintain 19 roads in a gated community. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Period. And I don't know if 22 we would be well-served by just putting a statement in here 23 to that effect or not. I mean, I just throw that out as a 24 suggestion, to make it very clear that if developers are 25 going to put in gated communities, those roads are not 32 1 public roads. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Wouldn't hurt to put it in 3 there. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: So there's no confusion. 6 MR. ODOM: The problem is, Judge, in so many 7 cases they don't put a locked gate up, yet they call it 8 private roads, and it's open to the public to drive through. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, it's not 10 county-maintained. 11 MR. ODOM: Yeah. And the intent is to not 12 be -- they're saying one thing, but implying another thing. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 14 MR. ODOM: And that's where we get caught, 15 and the public gets caught. Then they come to you and say, 16 Maintain my roads. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is one -- yeah, I 18 think we have that language. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If it's gated, that's 20 the difference. 21 MR. ODOM: Well, yes, if it's gated. I'm 22 saying the developer gets to the point where they don't even 23 have locked gates. They may put a wall or something up -- 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 25 MR. ODOM: -- but it's never intended to 33 1 close, you know. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There wasn't a problem 3 before the Unit Road System. Wasn't a problem with that. 4 The Commissioner went out there and drove through it with 5 his maintainer. 6 MR. ODOM: We have documents that the 7 Commissioner went through the road, it's county-maintained. 8 We have letters like that. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe -- we did 10 not make any changes in this section. 11 MR. ODOM: I think that was it on roads. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, that was it. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other than that, the rest 14 of them -- we spent so much time on that one last time, 15 we -- 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Got that one pretty 17 good. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a comment on Page 40, 19 if I can. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Subparagraph (a) at the 22 beginning, we talk about accepting a road for county 23 maintenance. We have, "The road has been constructed as a 24 public road in accordance with these regulations." I'd like 25 to see us add, "as amended from time to time." 34 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Regulations -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Comma, "as amended from time 3 to time." 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: And a similar comment on (e), 6 the second line, which says, is in compliance with the 7 current regulations. I think it should be in compliance 8 with the then current regulations. Add the word "then," 9 which makes it clear that you have to comply with what's in 10 force at the time, not what was in force when it was -- 11 (Discussion off the record.) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll add that. That's it. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. The other 14 thing that -- well, I guess at the end, we added Section 8, 15 the Manufactured Home Community. And that, I just -- we 16 just put that in as passed by the Court. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There it is. This is 18 verbatim what we adopted? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully. It's intended 20 to be verbatim for what we adopted. 21 MS. HARDIN: I think there were some changes 22 right at the very beginning. I don't remember what they 23 were, but seems to me there were. 24 MR. ODOM: This takes into consideration the 25 letter that the Judge received from -- 35 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not yet. 2 MR. ODOM: -- the lawyer? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we haven't modified 4 it, and that's still -- I mean, that language may be worked 5 out if we can ever get with the County Attorney. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, refresh my 7 memory as to why, on 8.01, we went to 60 days as opposed to 8 30 days. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: That's what it says. The law, 10 that's what it says. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm saying why 12 shouldn't it be shorter why shouldn't it be 30 days, as 13 opposed to 60? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we adopted almost 15 verbatim on this one the State-recommended version. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sixty? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: State says 60 -- or 18 says not more than 60? 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: State says within 60, so -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Within 60, so it 21 could be 30. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: It could be, yeah. It could 23 be 14. 24 MR. ODOM: Just can't get any later than 60. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, my point is, why 36 1 couldn't it be short -- a shorter timeframe than 60? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, there's no reason to 3 tie ourselves in. It can be less than 60. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I mean, if they put the plan 6 in and -- and Franklin goes out, or whoever goes out and 7 reviews everything and everything's done, then, you know, it 8 could be approved right away, but you want to give yourself 9 time to take a look at it and work it in with the regular 10 work schedule. I don't think 60 is unreasonable. I'm going 11 to say, though, that one thing that's missing in this 12 section are the definitions that are actually in the order. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the order. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Things like "development 15 plan." 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Those definitions need to be 18 a part of this so that there's no confusion as to what to -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I don't know about 20 back in the definition section. It's probably better back 21 in this section. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd have a separate 23 definition section from this section -- definition part. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there may be some 25 tweaking on this based on our earlier discussions with David 37 1 Motley. The other thing we're looking at is the routing 2 slip. I really wanted to make some changes to it, but 3 people keep -- keep on telling me they don't want to -- the 4 Judge wants to change it; everybody else wants to leave it 5 the way it is, more or less. But, anyway, we're going to 6 look at that during this -- once it's out for public 7 inspection. That's just who signs and when and all that 8 stuff. All right, going back to -- 9 MR. ODOM: Water. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- water, which is 11 Section 5.03. Let me just briefly make a comment as to what 12 I did on here, and it's kind of different. I'm sure we'll 13 have lots of opinions from other members of the Court. Kerr 14 County is in -- has two statutory authorities for regulating 15 the water in a subdivision. We're in PGMA, or Priority 16 Water -- or Groundwater -- what's the acronym stand for, 17 Dean? 18 MR. MITCHELL: Priority Groundwater 19 Management Area. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We're in one of 21 those, which gives us specific authority through the -- 22 through the Water Code, and then we also have additional 23 authority through the Local Government Code, which came out 24 of the most recent session of the Legislature. And both of 25 those, we can -- you know, in a nutshell, we can require 38 1 developers to provide certification that there is available 2 groundwater in the subdivision and make that a condition of 3 plat approval. My personal feeling on it was -- and a lot 4 of this is based on my work as chairman of the Region J -- 5 is that we do not know a great deal about groundwater in 6 Kerr County at this point. The -- our spacing is based on 7 Headwaters' well-spacing requirements, and my view is to -- 8 what we need more than anything else, I think, is more deep 9 penetrations into the Lower Trinity, which would give us a 10 lot more information as to the depth of the Middle Trinity 11 and the availability there, and also an idea of the Lower 12 Trinity where there are very, very few penetrations outside 13 the immediate City of Kerrville. And, until we learn more 14 about those aquifers, I have a real hard time requiring 15 developers to have real strict requirements and 16 certification, because there is no science to back it up in 17 detail. 18 The -- what we have on the Trinity, from what 19 I've been told and what the Regional Water Plan is going to 20 probably end up showing, is that there are problems with the 21 Trinity. Its water is -- does not move very readily. It's 22 not a -- not very, I guess, transmissible through the 23 aquifer very much. But that's a general, broad statement, 24 but at the same time, there are areas where it recharges 25 very, very quickly. And, long-term -- half the droughts of 39 1 record, historically, the levels in the Trinity do rebound, 2 which goes very contrary to the -- I guess, the -- you know, 3 the -- what you hear frequently is that it takes a hundred 4 years for water to move an inch in the Trinity. Well, it 5 may in portions of it to move laterally, but it -- somehow, 6 water is moving through fractures and does recharge after 7 significant rainfalls. 8 Another problem is that the water models 9 currently used by the Water Development Board, the U.S.G.S., 10 just about everybody else, say that the Lower Trinity is 11 isolated from the Middle Trinity, based on -- there's a 12 shale. But it is also known for a fact that there are Lower 13 Trinity wells that respond immediately to surface rainfall 14 and surface water, so that there has to be some sort of 15 movement from the surface to the Lower Trinity for that to 16 take place. It's almost done -- and these are wells that 17 are in the far southeastern part of the county, and one of 18 them happens to be somebody who knows a great deal -- John 19 Helmer's property, his personal well. It's been monitored 20 for -- for Spring Hills, and they agree that this well does 21 not act like a Lower Trinity well, which it's definitely 22 Lower Trinity. 23 So, what I'm saying is there's a lot that we 24 don't know about the Trinity, and that creates -- presents 25 this Court with a problem and developers with a problem. If 40 1 I came up with some -- I kind of got as far off the wall as 2 I could on these to try to get a point across, that rather 3 than come up with strict regulations, why not try to do 4 something to encourage developers to drill wells -- deep 5 wells where we need them, and give them some sort of an 6 incentive to do so, and also an incentive to hook up -- put 7 in water system scenarios. And I -- my method of 8 encouraging on both points was to give a tax abatement for 9 the value of what their improvements were for up to a 10 12-year period, and I just did that. 11 It's something I thought of, put it up here 12 as a way to -- rather than be -- basically, to try to 13 encourage developers to do what we want in areas of the 14 county where we need information, and that's the thing that 15 we're most short of. And I'll leave it at that, 'cause 16 really, I think we're at the point now where, rather than 17 try to go over the actual language as to philosophically 18 where we're going to end up exactly on this, then we can 19 worry about trying to write the language to get there. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd like to -- 21 I'd like to offer another philosophical perspective, if I 22 might. I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I 23 think if we're trying to encourage conjunctive use of 24 surface water and well water for the purposes of saving our 25 aquifers, preserving them, I think then it is incumbent on 41 1 us to have language in here that encourages the use of 2 surface water as opposed to encouraging the use of drilling 3 more holes in the ground, and I really would like to see us 4 elaborate on that philosophy. This is a bully, but if it -- 5 if we don't say it, nobody says it. I think we've got to 6 say it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. I 8 think that there are areas -- or any area, basically, near 9 the Guadalupe River, or area where there are going to be 10 water lines that depend on surface water, we should do what 11 we can to encourage those developers to get on that surface 12 water. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, there's also -- and 15 this is just an information thing which kind of impacts 16 that. We have been putting a lot of marbles in the bag of 17 getting water out of the Guadalupe, but in the future, the 18 counties in agreement -- U.G.R.A.'s going to enter into more 19 agreements. Well, a big -- potential problem has come up 20 recently between what study they're going to use. There's a 21 40,000-acre-foot difference between the U.S.G.S. models and 22 some water development models and T.N.R.C.C. models right 23 now, and these are all being worked on in Austin, where that 24 comes down as to how much water's in Canyon Lake is going to 25 have a big impact on us in the future. It's something we 42 1 need to really monitor. Jim Brown and I are very much aware 2 of it, because it's a big question, whether it's the 90,000 3 acre-feet that G.B.R.A. says is available, or 50,000 4 acre-feet, which I believe one of the U.S.G.S. studies says 5 is available. And -- and there's a conflict because -- and 6 we found this all came out during the -- a regional meeting 7 we had with San Antonio, when they were using 50,000 8 acre-feet as the amount of water available to Canyon Lake, 9 and we were using 90,000, trying to figure out why we 10 weren't balancing, and we found out. So, anyway, that's 11 just an aside. That's something we need to watch, 12 because -- but I do agree with Commissioner Williams that we 13 need to get anyone who can on surface water. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, one way to do that is 15 through these rules, because the water availability rules, 16 either the PGMA rules or the blanket State certification 17 rules, only apply to subdivisions that are going to use 18 groundwater for their water for people to buy, so these 19 rules don't apply to subdivisions that are going to use 20 surface water. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but I think a lot 22 of these subdivisions -- what I see is they're going to have 23 a -- hopefully, a system to switch back and forth. I mean, 24 that's what U.G.R.A. is doing, as I understand, in Kerrville 25 South; they're going to have groundwater and surface water, 43 1 so they're going to have to come under these -- I think 2 that's the best of both worlds, if we can get subdivisions 3 to have a pipeline structure so we can -- they can switch in 4 these local, small treatment plants or water plants, 5 distribution plants. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of what 7 we should be encouraging. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- I mean, but there 9 are also -- the other thing is -- that we have to look at, 10 if we push too hard in that area, there are areas of the 11 county away from the Guadalupe River and where the main 12 highways are that you're never going to get surface water 13 there; you're going to have to rely on groundwater. And, is 14 it such a good idea to push so hard to get all the 15 development right along the Guadalupe border? That's 16 probably doing more damage than if we let them go at random 17 around the county, so we've got to be careful we don't push 18 it so much that, you know, we start directing where 19 subdivisions go. I mean, they're -- the studies that I've 20 seen show that there is -- there's a lot of water in the 21 Trinity, and 2 1/2 acres probably isn't way off. I mean, 22 maybe it should be, you know, 3 1/2, 4, something like that, 23 but a well at that spacing probably is not way, way out of 24 line, from the numbers that I've been seeing. 25 MR. MITCHELL: Well, I'd remind y'all of two 44 1 or three things. One is that both Kendall County and 2 Bandera County have already seen fit to write very strict 3 rules requiring developers to approve water availability, 4 because they're seeing the advantages to that. Another is 5 that these rules are written such that it would generally 6 encourage developers to put in community water systems 7 instead of permitting individual wells, and that has a 8 variety of advantages from the standpoint of water 9 conservation, drought contingency, water planning, and 10 understanding how much water is developed in those 11 subdivisions, and for our planning processes and for future 12 control. If you can control the amount of water the system 13 pumps, but you can't control the amount of water the 14 domestic wells pump, we're talking about future drought 15 problems. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to require 16 subdivisions or developers to prove water availability in 17 their subdivision. We have had instances in the Hill 18 Country at this point in time of developments being put in 19 at a greater density than there was water under the ground 20 to supply the people that lived in those subdivisions, 21 and -- and this rule -- these rules are designed to prevent 22 that from happening. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But even though those are 24 done, if it was done under well spacing set up by 25 Headwaters -- I mean, if the problem is our well density, 45 1 that's a problem that Headwaters better address and tell us 2 what the spacing should be, and we'll adjust the lot size to 3 that. 4 MR. MITCHELL: Well, our spacing regulations 5 are more built around safety than they are around 6 availability. We're looking at a well-spacing and -- and 7 well-production rule, but we don't actually have one based 8 on water availability at this point in time, Jonathan. 9 Those are built around safety factors, around offsets based 10 on where potential septic systems lie, et cetera. That was 11 the reason for the spacing rules that we have now, not water 12 availability. That rule is not written. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A member of your 14 board, Dean -- which I may or may not agree with him, but 15 he's a knowledgeable gentleman, and he's very sincere and 16 earnest about his convictions -- gave me a letter this 17 morning before Court opened, and it has a lot of things in 18 it with respect to the issues we're talking about, but not 19 the least of which is -- it talks about a summary of 20 estimated dry year water balance for the Trinity. In the 21 Year 2000, the rural demand on the aquifer, according to his 22 calculations and his research, is 6,000-acre feet per year. 23 The safe water supply out of the aquifer for the year 2000, 24 by his calculations, is 4,600 acre-feet per year, leaving us 25 with a deficit of 1,400 acre-feet per year, in terms of 46 1 dropping or not being recharged. If you want to extend that 2 out to the year 2020, which he does, it gets pretty serious, 3 and you're looking at a rural demand in the year 2020 of 4 9,300 acre-feet with a safe water supply, again, of 4,600, 5 creating a net deficit of 4,700 acre-feet a year. That's 6 serious. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill -- 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which model was that 9 based on? Which model? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ferret out 11 where he got it here. He gets it out of a Bluncer -- some 12 study that's done by somebody named Bluncer, the Texas Water 13 Development Board. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the other side of it 15 is based on the tables that Region J is putting together, 16 which it's using John Ashworth, which I think few can 17 disagree with him. At the end of every decade, then it's 18 just because of 10-year increments, the Trinity Aquifer has 19 as much water as basically it's ever had, minus a certain 20 amount that you lose because it recharges. There is not -- 21 there may be a deficit from a year -- from one year, two 22 years, even three years. I'm not saying there's not, and 23 there will be a problem. But that full deficit is gained 24 back when rain starts again. It's not -- we're not finding 25 water. We are basically -- that's what the tables are 47 1 showing. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's true, but the 3 point is -- the water table may be a constant pool -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- but you're putting more 6 straws in it, so at some point it will -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I know, but based 8 on the population projections, it's -- you know, we are 9 basically -- well, you know, in the draft I handed out -- 10 we're still in draft version. We're still -- until our 11 board approves it, I don't want to hand it out. A piece of 12 the puzzle, I can tell you, is that the Trinity is 13 recharging itself, and that's based on 35 percent recharge, 14 I think. 15 MR. MITCHELL: I can't speak to the Trinity 16 overall, but I know that the wells that we monitor over the 17 last 20 years have steadily downtrended. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They've never -- 19 MR. MITCHELL: They have never recovered. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jonathan, this 21 particular study says it's 22 percent annual recharge? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cameron Coronet, who's 23 with Spring Hills, and I believe John Ashworth, I believe, 24 have settled on five or six years, is what they feel the 25 adequate recharge is for that, and -- but it's -- I mean, 48 1 but the thing -- I mean, a lot of what I'm saying is that, 2 you know, I just am reluctant to put too tight of controls, 3 because we're nine months away from having this planning 4 completed, which will have a lot more information published 5 about the Trinity, and I just hate to see us go too far when 6 we don't have the facts. And I just don't think the facts 7 are there on the Trinity right now to warrant -- I think we 8 should do what Commissioner Williams said; encourage water 9 systems, encourage conjunctive use, encourage test wells. 10 Even to the point, maybe, of the counties starting to 11 develop a fund where we start helping Headwaters or Region J 12 for T.W.D.B., someone drilling some deep wells so we can get 13 the information. 14 Lots of things we can do that are proactive, 15 but I'm just not in favor at this point of saying -- or 16 requiring developers to certify that there's water down 17 there. Just because Kendall County and Bandera County have, 18 I'm not there. I'm not -- you know, I'm not convinced that 19 they're right. I'm -- you know, unfortunately, I haven't 20 had time to talk with Cameron why they did it in Bandera 21 County. It was under his recommendation, and I value his 22 opinion a great deal when it comes to these matters, but, 23 you know, I'm not there yet, that we know enough to require 24 that. And -- and I will also give a granted that the -- the 25 language is -- there's another kind of -- certification 49 1 means professional opinion. You know, who knows what that 2 means? But, you know, it's kind of like, you know -- I 3 don't know. If we're trying to get them to certify that 4 there's water, they should certify there's water there, and 5 I don't think you can -- we have the knowledge to do it and 6 in a cost-effective way, or require them to do it at this 7 point. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That would be my 9 question. If we do, what data set do we use to certify that 10 there is water there? If we don't have the facts, how do 11 you certify? 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's -- you know, 13 this is a -- you know, we can sit here and say we don't have 14 enough information to require water availability standards, 15 but Bandera does, Kendall does, Comal does, Case does, Hays 16 does, and Blanco does. So, the eight counties that are in 17 there PGMA, five of them have adopted water availability 18 requirements. Are we that unique? 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. No. My question 20 is -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: All around us -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would be in favor of 23 doing that, but my question is, what criteria do the 24 developers or those who -- who the developers contract with 25 to go drill wells and certify -- how do they certify it? To 50 1 what standards or criteria? Maybe Dean can help us on that. 2 I don't know how they do it. If we -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they require wells 4 to be drilled; they require a test well. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And then what? It has 6 to flow -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, based on the flow 8 of that well. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So much per -- do we 10 know what these objective factors are? 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Bandera basically requires 12 drilling two test wells as far apart as they can in the 13 development, and then do quality and quantity test flows 14 and, based on those results, to predict whether there's 15 water availability. In Bandera County, the developer 16 actually gives the information to Spring Hills Water 17 District, who makes a determination as to whether or not 18 there's sufficient water. Under the law, we have two ways 19 we can go. We can do like Bandera does, which is require 20 the developer to develop the data and give it to us, and we 21 evaluate it under contract with somebody, or there's the 22 statewide thing, which sets forth very detailed rules for 23 what the developer has to do, which rules are based on what 24 Bandera and the others are doing. And then, the developer 25 has to give us a certificate from his engineer which says 51 1 there's sufficient water. On the one hand, we don't get 2 involved, except to the extent of getting the certificate. 3 On the other hand, we receive the information and we have to 4 find a mechanism to evaluate the information. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was my question. 6 Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the cost side is 8 probably substantially higher if it goes -- if we use the 9 state form, based on -- I went through with the -- you know, 10 the information that's required under the state form, and 11 it's pretty extensive. I mean, I can't -- that's going to 12 add a lot of cost, I would think. But -- and the other 13 thing, something unique about Kerr County -- yes, there is 14 something you unique about Kerr County compared to everyone 15 except Bandera County, and them to a degree. None of 16 them -- and the Water Development Board doesn't even 17 acknowledge the existence of the Lower Trinity; Lower 18 Trinity doesn't exist. They're looking at one formation. 19 We have another entire formation, which has as much water, 20 likely, somewhere -- I mean, close to it, and there are 21 virtually -- or very, very few penetrations into the Lower 22 Trinity. That, to me -- and that is also, in the future, 23 going to be probably our greatest source of groundwater, 24 additional groundwater, is going to be down there, it looks 25 like. So, there is something fundamentally different 52 1 between us and the well penetrations and the information 2 known because of that one formation. One, we don't have the 3 well penetrations that they have in Kendall County dispersed 4 geographically the way they do in these other counties, and 5 also, second formation of the Trinity that they don't 6 have -- they may have a thicker formation or thicker portion 7 of the Middle Trinity, I don't know. But I know that they 8 don't have and don't really care about the Lower Trinity. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jonathan, to what 10 extent will the -- will the unveiling of the models -- 11 Trinity model study, which I think is due for March 17th -- 12 is that right? To what extent will that shed some 13 additional light on this topic for us to be beneficial? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At this point, based on 15 the data that I saw -- I had a presentation from Water 16 Development Board within the last month on that model. 17 They're -- the model is fine, except they don't have the 18 well penetrations in Kerr County. They are just short -- I 19 mean lacking, and I think -- it's come to mind, like, it's 20 13 lower Trinity penetrations they're looking at, something 21 like that. It's very, very few. Dean may have a better 22 idea as to about how many. I'm sure he's aware of the -- 23 MR. MITCHELL: There's not too many. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's such a little number 25 that it's a real problem, because -- and for us, it's going 53 1 to be an important future source of water, the Lower 2 Trinity. 3 MR. MITCHELL: Well, I would like to comment, 4 though, that the Lower Trinity and the Middle Trinity, as 5 far as we can tell, do communicate and, in some 6 hydrologists' opinions, are really the same aquifer, and 7 therefore you're -- you're not talking about a separate 8 aquifer. You're talking about still the same aquifer 9 everybody else shares. And that, again, I would -- I would 10 make the point that it does encourage the developer to go to 11 a community water system, as opposed to individual wells. 12 There are simply myriad advantages to that that we don't 13 have to prove. There's so many different advantages to a 14 subdivision being on a community water system as opposed to 15 individual wells, it's just no contest, from our standpoint. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I agree with that, 17 and I think that we can encourage that, and that's the 18 direction we go. We figure out some way to encourage them 19 to do that. Especially -- 20 MR. MITCHELL: That's what this regulation 21 does. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Especially in areas where 23 there's an option to get surface water, as well. That's 24 even a -- I don't see any big -- the real big plus, other 25 than control. If you're way out in the middle of nowhere, 54 1 you don't have any option for surface water. If you have -- 2 you can switch back and forth, it gives you a lot more, you 3 know, I guess, option of surface water in the future. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is the basis of 5 U.G.R.A.'s plan, the model. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: We can get the -- one of the 8 ways I think we have to look at this is, what's our 9 responsibility as Commissioners here? Two summers ago we 10 had wells go dry in Kerr County, quite a few of them in the 11 Greenwood Forest area. I'm not sure what my response would 12 be if we don't adopt some sort of water availability 13 standards, and 10 years from now wells go dry in a 14 subdivision that we've approved, and a homeowner with a well 15 that's dry has got to go down another 100, 150 feet to get 16 decent water, comes in and says, Why didn't you exercise the 17 powers that you were given back in the year 2000? 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know what my answer 20 is to that. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can we get copies of 22 what some of the other counties have done as far as this, to 23 look at as part of this exercise? And maybe -- oh, is that 24 in our packets? I saw that. Maybe we should take time to 25 look at that and see if there's language out of there that 55 1 we're comfortable with, and perhaps include -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: I certainly -- I share the 3 uncertainly over the science. I mean, that's what held the 4 Headwaters back from doing a well production and spacing 5 plan for the five years I was involved in it, because they 6 didn't have the science to go down in the ground and say, 7 What's down here? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can -- 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: The point is, at that point, 10 we didn't have the authority do this either, and now I think 11 if we -- all we can ask the developer to do, if we want to 12 do our own standards, which I think is probably more 13 appropriate, assuming we can come up with a solution to who 14 evaluates the information, is to provide us with the 15 information and give us their best opinion as to the 16 availability of water. I don't think we can ask them to 17 guarantee water. But, by the same token, I don't think we 18 can continue to allow people to go out and develop large lot 19 subdivisions without doing some study on whether there's 20 available groundwater. And, again, all of these rules only 21 apply if that subdivision's water is for those people; 22 that's going to be based on the water that's under that 23 subdivision. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's probably 90 25 percent of the -- if not more of our subdivisions right now. 56 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, right now. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: And those are the ones we 4 need to take a look at. So, I -- and I don't know where we 5 want to go on this. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess two things I 7 wanted to say in response to something Commissioner Williams 8 said a minute ago to as to what we're going to know in 9 March, and my answer was not much more. But I think a year 10 from now or two years from now, I think we'll know a whole 11 lot more. They're -- I think the Water Development Board is 12 actively tying to get more penetrations. They can -- or 13 they, through Region J, are looking seriously at drilling 14 two Lower Trinity test wells in Kerr County in the areas 15 that we just don't have any idea, really, how -- the 16 thickness or anything else, and give us a -- and help in 17 some of that evaluation. So, I think as time goes on, we 18 will know more and more and more about the Middle and Lower 19 Trinity. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: But -- but adopting water 21 availability standards would actually help that, because you 22 look at what Bandera's doing; the developer has to drill two 23 wells. That information comes to us. That information goes 24 into the database; the depth, the quality, the quantity. 25 So, you're adding to our science, to our ability -- 57 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're also adding to 2 the costs of the developer substantially. That's why my 3 opposition to do too much. Therefore, I just don't think it 4 is appropriate -- proper to put that kind of a burden on a 5 developer. I think we're getting into a property rights 6 issue at this point, really starting to push when the -- 7 what they give you may not even definitely tell you one way 8 or the other. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: My response to that would 10 be -- and my conversation with Judge Evans in Bandera, he 11 says that originally there was some resistance, but it's 12 just part of the cost now. No problem any more; it's a cost 13 that's passed on to the ultimate lot purchaser. 14 MR. MITCHELL: Well, and also, usually those 15 wells can either be sold with the lots that they're drilled 16 on, increasing the price of -- the value of those, or they 17 can be part of a community water system. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's true. 19 MR. MITCHELL: So you don't lose the value 20 just 'cause you punch a hole in the ground. It is an 21 up-front cost, I agree with that, but I think that it -- it 22 behooves us to protect the underground water in Kerr County. 23 That up-front cost just needs to be part of it. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the other side of 25 that is, if it's that important for to us find that out, 58 1 then maybe the County should start looking at drilling some 2 test wells to find this information out for ourselves. If 3 it's that big an issue to the public, protecting the public 4 interests, maybe we should find some budget funds to do 5 that, as opposed to some of the other things we do. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wouldn't be opposed 7 to that. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Isn't there any technology 9 besides taking well samples to find out what water -- they 10 can find oil a lot cheaper than water. Why can't they use 11 some kind of zoning/mapping device? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're working -- well, 13 I -- a friend of mine is working at Exxon, and they're 14 working on that very problem, which would do it. I don't -- 15 I think they'd be willing to give it to the state of Texas, 16 Kerrville, or Kerr County. And also the seismics, the 17 way -- these are also very, very expensive. The combination 18 of seismics to do something that specific is very, very 19 high. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And it's not just 21 cost-driven, but the one thing I would have -- I'm a little 22 concerned about the County getting into the business of 23 drilling wells just to get the data. As we already know, 24 we'd have to drill a lot of wells to get enough science to 25 be able to adequately map the aquifer, so maybe you -- I 59 1 sort of like the idea of having the developer do that as the 2 up-front cost, pass that cost along or sell the wells, but 3 that way we sort of get the data as we go in developments, 4 instead of trying to map the whole county, which would 5 require a tremendous number of wells. It'd be great if we 6 had the money to do it. I just don't think we could afford 7 it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think more 9 funding through Water Development Board -- I don't think we 10 should get in the business of developing the board's funds 11 for other agencies to do it. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we could develop 13 something -- the language for this thing, you know, that 14 reflects our current state of the art and understanding of 15 the current state of the art and get this in there, there's 16 nothing says that a year from now, when we have a bit better 17 data, or two years from now, we can't modify this section. 18 And I -- and I think maybe that's -- we're going to have to 19 look at this -- at some kind of incremental deal, because 20 this technology is going to change, and our knowledge of 21 it's going to change pretty rapidly. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the language I put 23 in here did that. I mean, it puts -- a certification is 24 required. It doesn't require a -- it's based on the well 25 data and the knowledge of the aquifer. Certification has to 60 1 go on the plat that, in their opinion, there is likely 2 water. That's in the language that I put in here. It does 3 not require additional wells to be drilled. And there 4 are -- there are certainly areas where I think it would be a 5 waste of money to drill additional wells if you're doing -- 6 you know, I mean, I just hate to make developers, because we 7 think they have money, spend it and drive the property 8 values up, you know. And in those developments -- I mean, 9 if there was a -- that's why I'm much more in favor of an 10 area where, if we need data, let's figure out a way to try 11 to get the developer to do it and give him some sort of 12 incentive, and maybe it's through a fee structure that, you 13 know, would help do that. Then we can build up, maybe, a 14 fund -- we could spend some money to, you know, help in some 15 respects in getting the cost of that -- of test wells 16 drilled where we want them. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm not against that, 18 you know, but if there is a finite supply of water -- and 19 that's sort of an assumption that you have to make. If 20 there is a finite supply of water, then the supply and 21 demand engine ought to be what determines -- you know, in 22 other words, if it costs more because we're running out of 23 water, it's going to cost more, because we've got to make 24 sure that we've got enough water. That's the market. 25 That's why, you know, if we assume that there's only a 61 1 finite -- and there -- there could be some limit that we 2 just couldn't take any more building, because there's not 3 enough water. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're running out of 5 water in locations. If you take someone who's going to 6 divide 10,000 acres into 10 ranches, there is absolutely no 7 reason, from a water availability standpoint, on those 8 1,000-acre tracts, that the developer should have to drill 9 two wells on 1,000-acre tracts. And then, based on the 10 Bandera model, if there's a request -- I forget what the 11 percentage difference between the data is; Spring Hills 12 requires a third well. So, you're potentially having to -- 13 on 10,000 acres, having to drill three wells on 1,000-acre 14 tracts. I just -- that does not -- 15 MR. MITCHELL: I don't think the rules are -- 16 I think the rules are predicated around smaller lot sizes 17 than that, Jonathan, and population densities. You know, I 18 think you could write a rule around any lot size or 19 population density you wanted to. I don't think you -- I 20 don't think that would be to the point, what you're speaking 21 of. And, if I remember right, I think it was written around 22 25 acres or less; may have even been 10 acres or less. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Another point I'd make is 24 that if we use some model, like what we're talking about, 25 there's no requirement, per se, that the -- the developer 62 1 drill two more wells. I mean, if there's an existing well 2 on the property, we can certainly craft rules such that 3 the -- that well could be used, so long as it's -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- you know -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's not -- 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- adequate. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that isn't getting us 9 to the point, because there's too few Lower Trinity wells. 10 We need the science to -- just to encourage a deeper well to 11 be drilled. I mean -- 12 MR. ODOM: Where are those areas at, 13 Jonathan? You know, could you not form this around those 14 areas that -- I don't know where the Lower is, or the -- I 15 don't even know what mine's in. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of the deep -- of 17 the Lower Trinity penetrations are probably within the 18 E.T.J. of the city of Kerrville, almost all of them. 19 Probably, they're almost all city wells. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mo Ranch? Yeah, Mo 21 Ranch has one. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What depth are the 23 wells, roughly? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably about 700 feet. 25 MR. ODOM: Six hundred and something. 63 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably 700. I mean, 2 you'll hit the Middle Trinity at five -- four to six, 3 somewhere in there, depending on where you are. And the 4 Lower is probably six to eight, something like that. And 5 then you have areas where you can drill 1,000 feet and not 6 hit the Middle. I mean, our property -- we're at 1,100 feet 7 and we're in the Upper. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Supposedly. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fortunately. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll be glad to 11 volunteer to take the data from it, if anybody can figure 12 out what it does when you -- pump comes on, water comes out. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, you know, I 14 agree, we need to have something in the Subdivision Rules, 15 and we need some sort of certification on the plat, just how 16 far we go down that road with -- you know, with the lack of 17 knowledge that we have right now. I think, though, the time 18 that we need to start informing the public that there's a 19 potential problem is now. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't I take a -- with 21 your permission, take a stab at kind of doing something 22 which has minimal teeth in it. I think we want some data; I 23 don't think we just want a certification, if nothing else 24 than to use in the science. Let me take a stab at something 25 that has some requirements in it. I'll modify it by lot 64 1 size. I'm sitting here thinking -- I think if we have a 2 development with a -- where the smallest lot size is 25 3 acres, if we'd probably keep it, I think, within 25 acres, 4 you really don't have a problem with water, unless you get a 5 Mo Ranch 360,000-gallon-a-day well, in which case, nobody 6 else has any water for miles around. Let me take a stab at 7 that, and circulate it and see if we can't come to consensus 8 on -- on a requirement that will satisfy the needs of the 9 public to know, as well as the uncertainty and the desires 10 of the developer to do quality projects at the least 11 possible up-front cost. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And then, as a 13 wrap-up, at our next meeting we could have a revised draft. 14 Can you have it done by the -- by the next meeting? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next meeting, have a 17 revised draft, and if the Commissioners -- or the Court's in 18 agreement, put it out for 30 days public inspection at that 19 point. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: You all are welcome to stay 23 and chat. I have a detention hearing. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we're done. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: If there's no further 65 1 business, we stand adjourned from this workshop. 2 (Workshop adjourned at 3:17 p.m.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 5 6 7 STATE OF TEXAS | 8 COUNTY OF KERR | 9 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 10 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 11 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 12 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 13 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 20th day of July, 2000. 14 15 16 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 17 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 18 Certified Shorthand Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24 25