1 2 3 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 4 and 5 UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS 6 Joint Meeting 7 Wednesday, September 13, 2000 8 6:30 p.m. 9 Commissioners' Courtroom 10 Kerr County Courthouse 11 Kerrville, Texas 12 13 14 15 16 P R E S E N T 17 Kerr County Commissioners Court: 18 FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge 19 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 20 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 21 UGRA Board of Directors: 22 JERRY AHRENS, Chairman PEGGY HENDERSON, Director 23 JOE ARMISTEAD, Director JANET ROBINSON, Director 24 TOM MYERS, Director BECK GIPSON, Director 25 JIM BROWN, UGRA General Manager 2 1 I N D E X 2 September 13, 2000 PAGE 3 1. Consider & discuss appointment of Sub-Committee to discuss renewal of Interlocal Agreement 4 between Kerr County and U.G.R.A. for adminis- tration of O.S.S.F. and Flood Damage Prevention 5 Order programs, effective September 30, 2001 3 6 3. Consider & discuss report on U.G.R.A.'s Regional Utility Project Update 14 7 2. Consider & discuss lease and/or transfer of 8 Ingram, Flat Rock, and Center Point Lakes and Dams by Kerr County to U.G.R.A. 24 9 10 4. Consider & discuss Conflict of Interest Rules for Designated Representative 41 11 (Executive Session in separate transcript) 12 Adjourned 43 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Wednesday, September 13, 2000, at 6:30 p.m., a special 2 joint meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and 3 Upper Guadalupe River Authority Board of Directors was held 4 in the Commissioners Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, and 5 the following proceedings were had in open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 MR. AHRENS: We're now ready to call this 8 meeting to order for the Upper Guadalupe River Authority. 9 We have a quorum. We have Directors Henderson, Armistead, 10 Robinson, Gipson, Myers, and myself. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll call to order this 12 special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Let 13 the record reflect that a majority of the Commissioners are 14 present and in attendance. And, Jerry, what we ought to do 15 is just kind of take these pretty free-flowing, but -- but 16 since we did have to post an agenda, we probably ought to 17 follow loosely the agenda. 18 MR. AHRENS: Okay. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: First item we'll work out is 20 consider and discuss the appointment of a subcommittee to 21 discuss interlocal agreement between Kerr County and 22 U.G.R.A. for administration of the O.S.S.F. and Flood Damage 23 Prevention Order program. 24 MR. AHRENS: This goes back to our regular 25 meeting -- last regular meeting, where we were discussing it 4 1 at some length, and we ended up with a motion asking that we 2 present this to you in person and publicly. What I mean by 3 "present" is -- is to give our estimate of -- of what we 4 think the subsidy might be next year for the O.S.S.F. 5 program, and we think it's about $74,000, which represents 6 about 12 1/2 percent of our ad valorem taxation each year. 7 That was a request made at our last meeting and the stimulus 8 for this meeting, and then we've added some other agenda 9 items to make good use of our time and talk about some other 10 useful things for both of us. 11 We might -- dealing with the numbers, 12 themselves, and the amount of subsidy, which can be looked 13 at in several ways, we might also suggest that the details 14 of researching the numbers be done, you know, in a more 15 quiet setting with maybe a committee of two of you and two 16 of us. And they can meet, go on their own schedule, and -- 17 and delve into the numbers, which are mostly made up of 18 salary costs. And so when you're looking at the numbers, 19 you're looking at salaries and people and performance and 20 job responsibilities, and we'd encourage that, that you -- 21 that you critique our -- our program. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think we'll -- for 23 purposes of starting the discussion, we'll accept the 24 numbers you've presented as a discussion point without, in 25 essence, agreeing upon the fact that they represent the 5 1 legitimate costs of the program. You know, we're in the 2 contract. The contract runs for another year, so I think 3 it's entirely timely for us to set up a working group that 4 will look at the contract and look at the issue of subsidy 5 and performance and bring back a recommendation to both 6 bodies in time for us to incorporate whatever needs to be 7 done in next year's budget cycle. So, with that in mind, 8 I'd like to ask Commissioner Griffin and ask Commissioner 9 Baldwin -- in his absence, I'd like to recommend him to 10 serve. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what he gets. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: As -- as the Commissioners 13 Court subcommittee to meet with -- with whatever group you 14 put together, and over the next six, seven months, to look 15 at the issue and bring back reports and recommendations. 16 Gentlemen? 17 MR. AHRENS: Our subcommittee will consist of 18 Tom Myers, Janet Robinson, and if you'll allow me to ask 19 Granger -- I don't speak for Granger, so I might need to ask 20 him if he's interested. He has been on the preliminary 21 committee that looked into the numbers, and so I think he'd 22 like to stay, but if you'll allow me that -- 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure. 24 MR. AHRENS: -- I'll ask first. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: That would be fine. 6 1 MR. ARMISTEAD: Are you saying these would be 2 our two, unless Granger has a real strong -- 3 MR. AHRENS: He would be a third one. 4 They're not voting on anything, so it's not like three 5 versus two really matters. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's just that we 7 can't have more than two. 8 MR. AHRENS: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because we can't have 10 a quorum. 11 MR. AHRENS: Where we have an abundance of 12 Directors, so we can have four. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 14 MR. AHRENS: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jerry, this $74,000, is 16 that a deficit number, or is that the -- that's the deficit 17 number that you project for next year? 18 MR. AHRENS: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the deficit this 20 year, about? 21 MR. AHRENS: I have that -- 22 MR. ARMISTEAD: Seventy-three? 23 MS. HENDERSON: Sixty-seven. 24 MR. AHRENS: $67,000 -- well, you're on the 25 committee. 7 1 MS. HENDERSON: Yeah. I believe it was 2 $67,000 -- 3 MR. AHRENS: Go ahead -- $67,097, which, for 4 this past year, would have represented about 12.3 percent of 5 our ad valorem tax revenue. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last year when we -- I 7 think it was last year, maybe two years ago, when we looked, 8 we did the fee structure. The hope was to get it closer to 9 paying for itself. Where did it fall apart? 10 MR. AHRENS: I hope these -- this 11 subcommittee will address that, but what I expect will come 12 out of it is that it will only make up a small amount, maybe 13 ten -- $10,000 or $15,000, of reducing that deficit, because 14 I don't think this program -- this kind of program in any 15 county really carries its own. It just doesn't, that I can 16 tell, and so there's always -- there's always a -- an entity 17 that has to make up the deficit. And -- and we're not 18 saying -- you know, we've incorporated this into our budget. 19 I think the vote at our last regular meeting was just to say 20 yes, it is in our budget, and yes, it -- it affects our tax 21 rate, which we expect to be reducing slightly at our next 22 meeting. Hope everyone hears that. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And under the original 24 agreement, 2000/2001 was the last year of subsidy? Was that 25 it? 8 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct. 2 MR. ARMISTEAD: That's correct. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do you have the -- the 4 analysis for next year's budget in a spreadsheet format? 5 Or -- 6 MR. AHRENS: For the whole budget or for this 7 item? 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, for this item 9 that I saw. 10 MR. ARMISTEAD: It's a part of the whole -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can you -- it sure 12 would be handy to have that before we get together the first 13 time, so we can get a chance to look at it and so we start 14 off with better knowledge on how those numbers were -- how 15 the 74-K came up. 16 MR. AHRENS: And Ben Lucas is the one that's 17 crunching these numbers for us, so y'all feel free to 18 communicate. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another aspect of 20 that, Jerry, would be allocation of your staff's time. 21 MR. AHRENS: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Considering that no 23 longer divides your staff between the County O.S.S.F. and 24 Headwaters and U.G.R.A. matters, your allocation of time is 25 important. 9 1 MR. BROWN: That is available. 2 MR. AHRENS: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would assume that 4 what I'm talking about has that in it, so we'll have a 5 chance to -- at least before we get together the first time, 6 to have a little bit of knowledge about where -- how the 7 numbers came out the way they did. 8 MR. AHRENS: Sure. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else on that 11 one? Jerry, I think it might be useful to -- to jump over 2 12 and go to 3. 13 MR. AHRENS: Okay. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Because I think it may lead 15 into 2. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One thing. What's the 17 timetable? Is there a -- just come back when they have 18 something? Or is there a -- a specific time that you'll -- 19 MR. AHRENS: Judge Henneke mentioned six or 20 seven months. I think whenever you guys have time. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What I would like to 22 do is get together and sort of develop a -- a timetable, 23 because we need to get our arms around the problem and how 24 we'll analyze it and how we might present it and get -- get 25 back to your board and get back to court, so I think that it 10 1 would be -- one of our first tasks would be to develop a 2 schedule. 3 MR. ARMISTEAD: Only problem I see is that 4 we're projecting a $73,000 loss this next year. 5 MR. AHRENS: We're not going to correct that 6 this year. 7 MR. ARMISTEAD: And we're going to just have 8 to eat that. 9 MR. AHRENS: Right. 10 MR. ARMISTEAD: And I think we've kind of 11 agreed to do that. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: The only thing I would say -- 13 MR. ARMISTEAD: Even if we -- 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- if you all have any -- any 15 recommended adjustments in the fee schedule that would 16 impact upon that, we would certainly be willing to look upon 17 those. But I've made it public -- I've made it public for 18 several years that my personal feeling is that these types 19 of programs, Headwaters, well inspecting, the O.S.S.F., 20 should be self-supporting by fees. 21 MR. ARMISTEAD: I think that's what Jerry was 22 saying, that even with that adjustment, that would only take 23 a small -- $10,000 maybe towards that. 24 MR. AHRENS: Well, it would be great if it 25 takes more out of the deficit. It would be great if we can 11 1 get it close to being break-even. But I think I've not 2 heard that being quite a possibility yet. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: What I'm saying, again, is if 4 you all have a -- you all administering the program for us 5 under our contract, if you have recommendations as to 6 changing the fee structure, then, by all means, bring them 7 to us. I don't think they have to come through the 8 subcommittee. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: They could come to us -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That could come -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- independently, directly. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- under the current 14 budget, even. 15 MR. AHRENS: Do we have anything like that? 16 MR. BROWN: We have conducted a study of 17 O.S.S.F. -- county O.S.S.F. systems in our adjacent 18 counties. We also went out to counties that we considered 19 growth counties, like Hays and Comal and -- and some of 20 those counties, and we've compared their fees, and we have a 21 spreadsheet that has, I think, maybe 10 or 12 different 22 counties on here. From that, we've looked at what we 23 thought the market in this area would support, and that will 24 probably be our recommendation. 25 MR. ARMISTEAD: We need to keep in mind, too, 12 1 though, that the customers are the ones that are going to be 2 paying the increase, and we ought to pride ourselves in 3 giving the best quality at the least cost. So, if you 4 just -- if you raise the fee just to accomplish diminishing 5 a deficit, we're kind of forgetting the customer. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The other side of 7 that equation, Joe, of course, is that the taxpayer pays for 8 services not rendered -- 9 MR. AHRENS: In the ad valorem -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to a large 11 measure. 12 MR. ARMISTEAD: That's true. Forty-five 13 percent of our budget, roughly, is ad valorem taxes. 14 MS. HENDERSON: Well, it becomes a 15 philosophical issue of slow growth. I mean, do you want to 16 raise them up to push growth into adjacent counties or to 17 discourage growth? They can raise high enough that they 18 become a -- a statement about growth, in themselves, and I 19 guess I would look to you all to see where you are in that. 20 As Jim said, we're not too far off from the adjacent 21 counties. There's a little bit of room for adjustment, but 22 if we go any higher, then we are substantially above the 23 adjacent counties. And maybe we want to do that. I -- 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we would have to go 25 substantially above where we are now to have any impact upon 13 1 growth, because I think when you're talking about a $75,000 2 lot and half-a-million-dollar house, the difference between 3 a $250 fee for an O.S.S.F. license and a $500 fee really is 4 not going to make a lot of impact on that person. 5 MS. HENDERSON: Well, I feel that way myself. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: The customer Joe may be 8 referring to is the transfer. 9 MR. BROWN: If I may offer, staff has looked 10 at what we thought was the market. One of the concerns that 11 we have if we push the -- if the fees are elevated 12 substantially, then we're going to have a problem of people 13 bootlegging systems that -- we already have that problem. 14 We have -- we have installers who are bootlegging systems 15 without permits. I think if the fee -- I think the fee may 16 affect the number of those bootleg systems that will be 17 attempted if we're not careful, and so those are some of the 18 things that -- that we have to keep in mind when we look at 19 these fees. If we raise the fees, as Janet maybe suggested 20 just now, we would probably have to rent a helicopter and 21 hire an officer just to check for bootleg installations. 22 But, I think we can come up with a spreadsheet. We have it 23 on a spreadsheet, and we'll make that available to the 24 committee so the committee can look at it. 25 MR. AHRENS: Ready to move on to the -- did 14 1 anyone else have anything? -- to the U.G.R.A. Regional 2 Utility Project. Okay, which consists of -- we'll give you 3 a two-minute synopsis of what we're doing. Is that okay? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure. 5 MR. AHRENS: The project primarily consists 6 of dividing water on a wholesale basis to I.O.U.'s, 7 independent operating units, water systems that are 8 primarily south and west of Kerrville, not in the city 9 limits. These systems are now all on well water, and our 10 objective is to improve on the conjunctive use of water, 11 whereby we keep as many people on surface water as much as 12 possible, as long as possible, until the point comes where 13 we have restricted flows in the river, and then they fall 14 back on the use of groundwater. That's the underlying 15 premise that we have in -- in undertaking this project. 16 We are working very well with the City. We 17 have a construction committee within our group which is 18 myself, Calvin Weinheimer, Granger McDonald, and we're 19 working with their subcommittee of Stephen Fine and Bill 20 McCrae, and we're hoping to use the City's intake structure 21 at their existing water plant. And, we -- we want to 22 consider that, because it's a huge savings in capital outlay 23 for us, up front. And -- and then there's probably a 24 substantial savings, we hear from 20 to 60 percent, on 25 operating costs of the plant if we're doing it together 15 1 versus separate plants. So, we're very much exploring that 2 to see if we can use their intake structure, and then the 3 treatment of the water will be done in a somewhat -- in a 4 modular fashion, where they treat their water in a certain 5 way, we treat our water. 6 That's where we add on in the modular sense. 7 We would start with about 1.5 million gallons -- million 8 gallons per day capacity, and I think they're thinking of 9 adding about .5. The concept, though, is that you can add 10 on in half-million gallons per day increments, and the 11 technology is such that allows for that to be done fairly -- 12 fairly efficiently, economically. So, we have contractual 13 things that we're working on with the City to see if we can 14 make use of their structure. We're working on a contractual 15 basis with the I.O.U.'s to see that they're interested, and 16 they do seem to be interested, because they know that 17 relying on well water has its limits, and they're finding 18 that out now as they're reworking wells and suffering with 19 dropping water tables. So, we have -- we've had a good 20 reception from them, those people that would be our 21 customers. 22 Then we have the engineering aspects, as far 23 as the plant and the distribution system. There's a lot 24 involved there, but that's fairly far along. We have 25 financial aspects. We have to go out and raise money by 16 1 issuing bonds. The bonds will be paid back from the -- the 2 sale of water to those people, to those I.O.U.'s, on a 3 wholesale basis. So, we won't be mixing our ad valorem tax 4 revenue with revenue from -- from this system. So, Mr. 5 Brown has many balls that he's juggling right now, keeping 6 these all up at the same time and -- and it's really quite 7 difficult. And we, in-house, have no experience on building 8 this kind of system. If you think about it, the water plant 9 was done before any of us were here, staff or board 10 members -- were you here? 11 (Mr. Gipson nodded.) 12 MR. AHRENS: Forever. 13 MR. GIPSON: Old guy. 14 MR. AHRENS: Well, mostly we're 15 inexperienced. So, we're careful. We're proceeding 16 step-by-step. We hope it works, for the sake of conjunctive 17 water use. It's not a sure thing. We'd like to do it with 18 the City's cooperation, and that's going very well, and we 19 really expect that -- that savings by working with the City 20 to result in ultimately a lower wholesale water rate that 21 goes to the I.O.U.'s. So, that's a good reason to try to -- 22 try to work together on this. I think that's a summary. If 23 anyone can add to -- 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Given an average set 25 of circumstances, realizing it's just a guess, but what 17 1 would -- could be the timing on when you might actually see 2 water flow into an I.O.U.'s pipeline? 3 MR. AHRENS: Another year? 4 MR. BROWN: No, we're selling the bonds in 5 2001, we're looking at probably a year for construction and 6 bid. We're looking at maybe construction starting the end 7 of 2002, beginning of 2003. We believe we can start serving 8 those customers near the facility probably in 2003, and 9 that's assuming we stay on the schedule we're on now with 10 the City of Kerrville. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: What's the deadline on your 13 permit for selling water outside your city? 14 MR. AHRENS: 2011, I believe. 15 MR. BROWN: 2010. 16 MR. AHRENS: 2010. You've noticed that, too; 17 there is a deadline. 18 MR. ARMISTEAD: Yep. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: What about the wastewater 20 side? 21 MR. AHRENS: We have a lot of hopes that we 22 can do something. We've done a lot of engineering for 23 Kerrville South area, but we've run into this roadblock 24 where we cannot require any household to hook up to a sewer 25 system. And if you -- if you have no capacity nor ability 18 1 to require someone to hook up, and then only 10, 20, 2 30 percent of the households tie in, you have a very 3 uneconomical situation. It's -- it's very uneconomical at 4 best when you have everyone tying in. It's definitely a 5 hard thing to accomplish, and so we're -- we'd like to make 6 more progress, and we have a little bit going in Kerrville 7 South with your assistance, but as far as anything bigger 8 than -- that we're still limited by our ability to require 9 people to hook up. 10 MR. ARMISTEAD: State Legislature -- 11 MR. BROWN: I might bring an update to that. 12 We -- we are in conversation with some new subdivisions in 13 the county that are approximate -- well, have some close 14 relationship to an established sewer trunk system, and they 15 are out of the city of Kerrville, and they are talking to -- 16 they've spoken to U.G.R.A. about offering service. We've 17 been in conversation with the City, the Mayor and the City 18 Manager, in reference to U.G.R.A. owning the -- if you will, 19 the intercepter system, bringing it to the City's system. 20 At that point, they would take it and treat it for U.G.R.A. 21 The City continues to state that they prefer to be the 22 regional wastewater treater -- 23 MR. AHRENS: Right. 24 MR. BROWN: -- in Kerr County. And, so, as 25 long as they can step up and meet the timelines, you know, I 19 1 don't -- I think that we've got -- should honor that. This 2 subdivision -- and I think y'all are going to see the 3 preliminary plat on this very soon. There is a subdivision 4 planned in the western part of the county that, with 5 wastewater -- centralized wastewater collection and 6 centralized water system, I think they can plat out about 7 200 -- close to 230 lots. Without it, they're looking at 8 105 lots. So, it's very interesting. And the school 9 district in which that subdivision is located is very 10 interested in seeing their tax base expand. So, I think the 11 status on that issue is that -- that I probably -- that the 12 County would probably see a plat submitted -- preliminary 13 plat submitted sometime in the next 30 days. 14 Meanwhile, the City and U.G.R.A. staff are 15 tying to work on some sort of an arrangement to -- to serve 16 that area. We hope that -- that as new subdivisions are 17 developed in the county, that this particular project 18 will -- will serve as a -- if you will, a -- a diagram or 19 roadmap for U.G.R.A.'s involvement, and -- in subdivisions 20 outside of the county. In a new subdivision, when it's 21 platted, if the subdivider in his plat requires that it be 22 served by central sewer, then there is not the issue of 23 mandating people to use it. It's part of the platting 24 process, so it becomes automatic. And, at that point -- at 25 that point, then we can start looking at developing more 20 1 sewer or wastewater collection services in the 2 unincorporated areas of the county. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can a developer -- is 4 it legal for a developer to write into his deed 5 restrictions, for example, that if in the future a public 6 wastewater system becomes available, that the system must be 7 hooked up? Can he do that? I mean, I know you can't, 8 but -- 9 MR. BROWN: No, I -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: U.G.R.A. can't, but -- 11 MR. BROWN: I have absolutely -- that's a 12 legal question, not a technical question. I'm not going 13 to -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why couldn't we do it 15 in the Subdivision Rules? 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was going to ask 17 that question later. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't have that authority. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't think we've 20 got that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be stretching 22 it -- some things. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But a subdivider, I 24 think, might have that ability. 25 MS. HENDERSON: By deed restriction for the 21 1 subdivision. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That says that if it 3 becomes available, that the public system must be hooked up. 4 A person signs that at closing and understands the -- the 5 deal. 6 MS. HENDERSON: I think this is another case 7 where the philosophy that you all bring to your Subdivision 8 Rules that you're working on, the economics of this -- of 9 how many lots the he can get out of his area -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. 11 MS. HENDERSON: -- provide incentive for him 12 to want to put a central wastewater system in. That's -- 13 maybe not directly can you affect it, but by -- in your 14 Subdivision Rules, you can, certainly. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the basic leverage we 16 have in this whole area is lot size. We can't really do 17 much beyond lot size, but the larger -- and if -- we can 18 probably do a 5-acre minimum lot size without individual 19 well and on-site septic, so then it becomes -- the economics 20 will make a big difference. I mean, if you have 500 acres, 21 you put 100 lots -- or 1-acre lots, you can put in 500. So, 22 I mean, the larger the lot size is, we really push 23 developers to look at central sewer systems and water 24 systems. 25 MR. AHRENS: What are you thinking on 22 1 subdivisions with water and sewer? Is it half an acre, 2 acre, or -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Originally, the last 4 draft that I was working on -- I don't know if it's in the 5 one I handed out recently or not, I change them so often -- 6 it had no limit. But, after talking with some Commissioners 7 in Hays and Comal County, they -- let's maybe rethink that; 8 maybe we ought to put a limit. You get in such high density 9 that we start causing other traffic and other problems. 10 That may be good from a developing standpoint, but may not 11 be what you want in the county. So, there may be some need 12 to have a -- you know, 1 acre may be the right number, and 13 it's where we are right now, and maybe half an acre -- I 14 don't know, but you probably want some sort of a minimum. 15 Otherwise, you're going to have zero lot lines, and if they 16 come to us on individual projects or something like that, 17 but we may not want to have that without having some, you 18 know, individual look at it. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: A possible way to -- to 20 address that, too, is to have a 1-acre average, which allows 21 them to do clusters, but leave green areas. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Which I think would be 24 attractive. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. That's a way to do 23 1 it, and we have a provision that anyone that wants to do 2 something with clusters or otherwise can present it to us, 3 and we'll have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, 4 because you get to a point of you can't imagine all the 5 possibilities that the developers can imagine, so you're 6 better off just looking at them as they develop them. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jerry, going back to 8 the Kerrville South project, through you to Jim, didn't the 9 grant that we filed application for -- part of that was to 10 provide hook-up fees to people who -- whose economics might 11 prevent them otherwise from doing this. And -- and if 12 that's -- if we are successful in that regard, that might 13 mitigate against the Attorney General's ruling on the 14 mandatory hook-ups. 15 MR. BROWN: That is an eligible expense, and 16 it is in the -- stated in the grant, that the grant would -- 17 at least there's a project administration line item in there 18 that would allow either the project, itself, to go to 19 another granting source for those, or cover it within the 20 grant. But, hook-up fees or -- or capital recovery fees, 21 all of those fees are eligible in this grant. And, by the 22 way, you'll be getting official notice soon, you and 23 U.G.R.A. will have to defend that grant before the Regional 24 Project Review Committee in San Antonio probably sometime 25 toward the end of this month. There's someone from Kerr 24 1 County on that committee. I don't know who that is, but -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not me. 3 MR. ARMISTEAD: Even given that, they would 4 still have to come voluntarily, would they not? 5 MR. BROWN: The hook-ups? That's correct. 6 We can't force them to. 7 MR. ARMISTEAD: Until Legislature changes. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else on the 9 regional plan? Okay. Then let's go back up to Number 2, 10 consider and discuss the lease and/or transfer of Ingram, 11 Flat Rock, and Center Point Lakes and Dams by Kerr County to 12 U.G.R.A. 13 MR. AHRENS: Okay. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: This was your item. 15 MR. AHRENS: Is it our idea? I thought it 16 was yours. Okay. What can I say? We're here to discuss 17 it. It seems obvious to me that, as receiving -- possibly 18 receiving these -- these generous offers, we might want to 19 do some inspection of the dams. Not that we don't think 20 they're sound, but it seems like the thing to do so that 21 everybody knows what it is that might be conveyed. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's back up a minute and 23 say what -- we talked about this, but what is the -- the 24 philosophy, the desire on the part of the U.G.R.A., to 25 control these -- the lakes, and since the dams make the 25 1 lakes, the dams? 2 MR. AHRENS: I can't think of all the -- the 3 reasons in the future, but one comes to mind, and that is if 4 the water held in those dams, which is currently under a 5 recreational permit, if that could be converted to a -- a 6 municipal permit, that would be an emergency-use water 7 supply for systems that we are putting in where we -- in 8 worst-case scenarios, when the river stops and you're no 9 longer worried about recreation, you actually start pumping 10 that water out as an emergency situation. It may not be 11 that hard to imagine, you know, given that we've been in a 12 drought, that it could get to that point. And that would 13 firm up systems that we have -- don't even have on the 14 design table yet, 'cause we're talking about lakes where 15 we're not withdrawing water from there now. So, that's a 16 way-out, you know, long-term kind of look that I have as to 17 why it might work into a system where we can, if necessary, 18 move water from one place to another. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Would it perhaps assist your 20 regional plan to have those lakes as potential diversion 21 points? 22 MR. AHRENS: I think if we were drawing water 23 -- I was going to say, if we're drawing water out of 24 those -- out of those bodies of water and we were issuing 25 bonds for future water projects, it might help. I'm not 26 1 sure it makes a difference for the current projects. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, but down the line, for 3 instance, if you did something in Center Point or if you did 4 something out west -- 5 MR. AHRENS: Then it would. 6 MR. BROWN: Well, I -- the -- the lakes would 7 serve -- you know, this -- there's a big "if" on this, and 8 that is if T.N.R.C.C. would allow that nonconsumptive 9 recreational permit be converted to an emergency storage 10 permit for drought contingencies -- that's the big if. If 11 that could occur, then, at the time of a severe drought, and 12 we need water for the unincorporated areas of Kerr County, 13 then we could draw out of those pools, as long as there's 14 water there. In order to do that, we would have to get 15 T.N.R.C.C. to issue a permit. Without having some sort of 16 control of that pool, we don't think that T.N.R.C.C. would 17 be interested in -- granting U.G.R.A. that permit. 18 As far as the intake structure, it appears 19 that in order to get water into the eastern part of the 20 county, we would probably have to look at a secondary 21 diversion point in the Center Point Lake. Also, at this 22 time, the Kendall County W.C. & I.D. are exploring the 23 possibility of a surface water treatment plant in which they 24 would need an intake structure. This is something that -- 25 that U.G.R.A. has discussed the possibility of maybe even a 27 1 joint venture with that group in order to lower the -- well, 2 to spread the customer -- the cost of the project out 3 through a larger customer base. So, as far as -- as the 4 immediate project, they are not dependent on the three 5 lakes. In case of an emergency -- you know, if we had the 6 project online today and we reached a situation where we 7 couldn't divert out of -- out of the -- what we call the 8 U.G.R.A. lake -- I don't know what the name of it is today, 9 but, anyway, we could -- in order to meet those emergency 10 needs, we could fall back on the Ingram Lake as a backup 11 source for emergency water. 12 MR. AHRENS: We didn't discuss this a whole 13 lot. Can anyone think of other long-term uses? 14 MR. BROWN: I don't think we have any 15 recreational interest at all in those lakes. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: But that would be an issue. 17 I mean, we could not contemplate transferring those -- the 18 control of those lakes if it prohibited recreational use. 19 MR. BROWN: What I'm saying, that's not one 20 of our desires, to take the recreational issue along with 21 the water. We understand that when you get a gift, you take 22 the wrapping and the bow and the box. But, I didn't mean 23 to -- I didn't mean to imply that -- that we would prohibit 24 recreation. I don't think any of us -- I think all of us 25 love living in this county too much to get into that fight. 28 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, one of the reasons I 2 brought that up is because, in reviewing the draft Region J 3 Water Plan, it has this as a -- a potential strategy, but it 4 includes prohibiting recreational use on those lakes, and so 5 I wanted just to make it clear that, from my point of view, 6 at least, and I think I probably speak for the majority, we 7 couldn't consider that, because they're very important parts 8 of the recreational package in Kerr County. 9 MR. BROWN: I'm looking at the chairman -- 10 MR. AHRENS: Right there. 11 MR. BROWN: I'm looking at the chairman, and 12 I'm on the committee with him, and if that's in there, 13 that's a typo. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: I've got it on my desk, a 15 copy. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On these lakes or new 17 diversion lakes? 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: On these lakes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: News to me. I'll blame 20 it on Bill McCrae from the City. 21 MR. ARMISTEAD: Keep in mind, these are not 22 reservoirs; they don't have a whole lot of water behind the 23 dam. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 25 MR. AHRENS: And we've -- 29 1 MR. ARMISTEAD: That would be ideal. 2 MR. AHRENS: And we've talked briefly about 3 no-wake zones or no-wake regulations. That's in place 4 already? Or are you going to -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With any kind of 6 luck, we'll have that in place before the year is out. 7 MR. AHRENS: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've had it on the 9 last three agendas. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're down to a 11 public hearing now. 12 MR. AHRENS: Okay. 13 MR. ARMISTEAD: That may weigh considerably. 14 MR. AHRENS: That makes sense to me. And if 15 that is part of the package, the wrapping and the bow, as 16 Jim said, if we're required to continue that progress -- I 17 guess the enforcement will go back to the Sheriff's 18 Department, wouldn't it? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 21 MR. AHRENS: But if we're required to state 22 that that's our regulation also, I -- I haven't asked anyone 23 else, but it seems logical that -- that it stay in place. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one question, 25 following up on the same thing. If you change -- if you ask 30 1 the T.N.R.C.C. to change the designation from what it is 2 now, to -- to domestic use or for purposes of processing and 3 domestic use, does that affect the recreational aspect of 4 the lake? 5 MR. BROWN: I would think that whoever is 6 operating a water treatment plant on that lake would 7 prohibit gas-powered engines on that lake. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As they do on 9 U.G.R.A. Lake. 10 MR. BROWN: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that, in 12 effect, does prohibit -- 13 MR. BROWN: If that was your intent. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to some extent. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: But a no-wake zone will do 16 basically the same thing. 17 MR. AHRENS: Fast canoes. 18 MR. ARMISTEAD: People can fish if you don't 19 have a wake. 20 MR. BROWN: You know, you can use air boats 21 or battery-powered boats. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We're talking about 23 the -- in this scenario, we're talking about emergency use. 24 MR. BROWN: That's correct. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would it not be 31 1 possible to not even have that kind of restriction for 2 recreational use until you declare the emergency, and at 3 that point, if somebody wants to go fishing in there with 4 their 3-horse motor, that's okay, unless there's an 5 emergency declared, and then you -- at that point, you ban 6 all -- 7 MR. ARMISTEAD: I think that's kind of Bill's 8 question. If they -- if they declare it for emergency use, 9 does that in some way take away the -- the recreational 10 aspect of it? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Larry's approach to 12 it is -- is a good approach. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That part of it -- 14 that part of it, I think, makes sense. If you've got that 15 bad an emergency -- 16 MR. ARMISTEAD: Yep. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- then the 18 recreational aspects probably are not near as important as 19 if we've got a good, wet year and the water's going over the 20 dam very nicely. 21 MR. BROWN: I would think -- we need to get 22 this out on the table. I would think that if we put a straw 23 in the river at Center Point, then we would want to prohibit 24 all gasoline engines on that lake anytime. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so. 32 1 MR. BROWN: You know, I mean, I think -- I 2 mean, everyone needs to understand that if U.G.R.A. is going 3 to use this lake for a diversion point to produce water for 4 the eastern end of the county, more specifically the 5 unincorporated end of the county, that we would not want to 6 have gasoline-powered vehicles on that lake. Most of 7 them -- anybody that has a boat understands that part of the 8 operation of cooling of the motor is drawing water out of 9 the lake and running it through the motor and discharging it 10 back into the water, whatever it may be, and we would want 11 to prohibit that. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who do y'all envision 13 as being selected to do -- or have you got this far -- to 14 perform the inspections of the dam for structural integrity, 15 and who's going to pay that bill? 16 MR. BROWN: Well, I don't think we've gotten 17 that far. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 MR. BROWN: I don't think we'd want to go 20 that far unless we have -- have some communication with the 21 County, and if the County is even interested in considering 22 it. I would suggest that, just for starters -- and we can 23 work on this -- that -- that we probably get the dam safety 24 inspection team from T.N.R.C.C. to at least initiate any 25 inspection that we would have. 33 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You wouldn't be 2 interested in caveat emptor, would you? 3 (Laughter.) 4 MR. BROWN: That ribbon -- that gift is 5 separate. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the first time 7 that we, as a Commissioners Court, have even talked about 8 this. And, I mean, I have some real reservations about 9 transferring. I mean, I think it's a good idea to try to 10 give use of the water available and to try to get the -- you 11 know, the permit changed from recreational to municipal in 12 an emergency use. And that if there is a need to be tying 13 up some sort of agreement on the water, itself, I don't know 14 that I see -- even though there may be some some sort of an 15 agreement or lease on the dam, but I can't see the reason to 16 transfer title to those out of the County. Doesn't make any 17 sense to me. I mean, I think you could enter into 18 agreements to get access to the water without doing that, 19 but I don't know much about it, really. This is the first 20 we've talked about it. 21 MR. AHRENS: We haven't had a good discussion 22 about it, either. The only thing that comes to mind when 23 you talk about ownership of it, these -- these type of 24 structures, you think of ownership in terms of liabilities, 25 you know. There's not many -- there's -- it's not 34 1 generating income. It's good for recreation, but -- but you 2 really think of liabilities, structural problems, floods 3 that wash them out, and you think of what they might cost 4 you. And -- and, as far as when you have to incur a major 5 cost, your tax base is the County. Our tax base for ad 6 valorem taxation is the County, so we have the same tax 7 base. So, when we think about ownership transfers and 8 liabilities being transferred, actually, we -- we go back to 9 the same source of funds for -- for -- for replacement 10 costs, repair costs or whatever. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my concern is 12 more Kerr County is going to stay here forever; U.G.R.A. is 13 a little bit less permanent. And -- I mean, and who knows 14 what the future's going to bring with the Legislature? And 15 I'm very concerned about transferring the dams, and all of a 16 sudden, having one, all of a sudden, agency like 17 who-knows-what controlling them. 18 MR. AHRENS: Good point. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my concern, is 20 more -- 21 MR. AHRENS: In real estate, it would be 22 first right of refusal, or -- you know, what would you call 23 that in a simple real estate transaction? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you know, the -- you 25 know, the -- 35 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Diversion. 2 MR. AHRENS: Diversion. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- type of division you're 4 talking about is a -- if the U.G.R.A. ever ceased to exist 5 as a separate entity, whether they were leasing the lakes 6 and dams or whether they had ownership, and ownership would 7 revert to the County. 8 MR. ARMISTEAD: Our primary concern is 9 quality of water, and the quantity too, to protect that. 10 And I don't know that -- that us taking the control of the 11 dam would add to the quality of the water, unless we take 12 gasoline-powered boats out of it, maybe. But -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- I'm 14 all in favor; I think it's a great idea to try to -- and we 15 probably should -- one or both should start working on 16 trying to get from an emergency situation to use change. 17 Probably easier to do it sooner than later, I would suspect. 18 MR. ARMISTEAD: Smarter. 19 MR. BROWN: And the one that does that has to 20 have a permit, because in order to do that, you have to be 21 able to prove up your beneficial use. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 MR. BROWN: So that would either be U.G.R.A. 24 or City of Kerrville. And, frankly, we're over here 25 knocking on your door before they come. 36 1 MR. AHRENS: Can water permits be customized, 2 like it can be recreational until there's an emergency, and 3 then it becomes something else? Does anyone know? 4 MR. BROWN: Well, I don't think you want to 5 do that in your permit. I think when do you that in -- you 6 just get the permit to use the water, and then you develop 7 an operating ordinance or order, in the case of the County, 8 that controls that. 9 MR. ARMISTEAD: Who primarily built our dams? 10 I mean, it wasn't Corps of Engineers, was it? 11 MR. GIPSON: U.G.R.A. built, obviously, 12 U.G.R.A. Dam, but prior to that, I guess it was the County, 13 talking about the Ingram Dam and the Center Point Dam. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Flat Rock. 15 MR. GIPSON: And Flat Rock is a Corps of 16 Engineers dam. 17 MR. MYER: Alan Keller? 18 MR. BROWN: They're all -- they're County 19 dams. I'm not sure how they were paid for, but our research 20 on these dams would indicate that they were built by funds 21 made available to the County from some source, either its 22 own treasury or outside. I -- the research that I think 23 we've done on that sort of indicates that the County paid 24 for those dams out of their pockets. The Center Point Dam 25 is probably -- it's the smallest dam, and probably the 37 1 better constructed dam of all of them, because it's a 2 concrete wall with flying buttresses in support, where the 3 others are -- are roller-packed clay encapsulated with 4 concrete, and there's enough scars on Flat Rock and Ingram 5 to indicate that there have been some -- some subsurface 6 failure in those dams in an attempt to secure them. There 7 are -- there are plans for those dams that are here in the 8 County; I've seen them. I don't have a copy of them, but -- 9 and I don't know the politics behind why we did it, but they 10 were built in the mid-1950's, and I suspect it was in an 11 attempt to -- to hold water in case of a drought or an 12 emergency. 13 MR. ARMISTEAD: Keep more water in Kerr 14 County. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In that case, they 17 should be made higher. 18 MR. AHRENS: Be made higher? 19 MR. BROWN: Well, and the river's not been 20 adjudicated -- the flow of the river's not been adjudicated 21 in the mid-'50's, so I suspect that they were not a part of 22 the model that the old Water Commission used to adjudicate 23 the flows of the river. So, they're just there, and they're 24 grandfathered. 25 MR. AHRENS: I guess that's -- we don't have 38 1 anything else to add, because we really haven't gone over it 2 much. Nothing -- 3 MR. ARMISTEAD: How'd this get on the agenda 4 anyway? 5 MR. AHRENS: Granger. He's not here. 6 AUDIENCE: Buster. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It probably was Granger. 8 He talked to me about it about four years ago. That's -- he 9 and I were on another committee; we talked about it. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's mentioned it to 11 me, too. 12 MR. ARMISTEAD: I think one thing coming out 13 of it, somebody's going to have to take some steps in the 14 years ahead to survey the maintenance of them to determine 15 whether they are safe or unsafe. It would be a terrible 16 thing to have one of them just give way and suction a whole 17 bunch of people down with it. So, I think -- I think that's 18 something good that came out of the discussion, no matter 19 how we've split this thing. Where that money comes from, I 20 don't know, like we talked about, but -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jim, does T.N.R.C.C. and 22 their dam inspectors -- is that a state service, or is that 23 a reimburse service? 24 MR. BROWN: Having never used them, I can't 25 answer that question. 39 1 MR. ARMISTEAD: We can find that out. 2 MR. BROWN: There -- I know there is a 3 T.N.R.C.C. dam safety program, and U.G.R.A. was called in to 4 meet with those folks subsequent to L.C.R.A.'s finding the 5 undermining of the foundation that -- was it Granite Falls? 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Marble Falls. 7 MR. BROWN: Marble Falls? They called in all 8 the municipal dam operators at the time. They didn't call 9 the County in, but then -- then -- and I think the County 10 dams would qualify. We were told that, because of the 11 height of the U.G.R.A. Dam, that it didn't qualify in 12 T.N.R.C.C.'s bracketed dam safety standards, and so, you 13 know, we missed that inspection. It's my understanding, 14 and -- and some discussions that I've had with some dam 15 engineers is that T.N.R.C.C. will at least moderate a dam 16 safety inspection, if not maybe conduct some of it. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 MR. AHRENS: We're not going to start the 19 inspection process, though, until we talk about strategic 20 reasons for transfer. If there are any strategic reasons, 21 like your concerns, we have to get past that first, I would 22 think. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think -- I mean, 24 it's something that the County may want to look into getting 25 them inspected -- getting them inspected. I mean, at some 40 1 point, I think we should know the safety of those dams. And 2 I've never really thought about that issue, so -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: We can initiate that 4 discussion. 5 MR. BROWN: I have a memorandum that I will 6 send to you tomorrow from John King, who is with Freed- 7 Nichols Dam Design and Safety Division, and it was King -- I 8 think King was the project manager on the Marble Falls 9 restoration project. He has been here and has looked at the 10 three dams that we're talking about tonight, and sent me 11 some notes of general concern. Not -- not strategic 12 concerns, but general concerns, and I'll send that over to 13 the Court in the morning. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: That would be a good start. 15 MR. AHRENS: Are you ready for the next item? 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Ready for the next item. 17 MR. AHRENS: I'd like to go to Executive 18 Session. Are you ready for that? Or do you want to make a 19 statement first? Or -- 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, let's just go to the 21 Executive Session. 22 MR. AHRENS: Okay. Then, for U.G.R.A., we'll 23 go to Executive Session in accordance with Section 551.075 24 of the Texas Government Code. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: And the Commissioners Court 41 1 will do the same. If you all will excuse us, we will let 2 you know at such time as the Executive Session has been 3 completed. Jannett, would you flip the sign for us? 4 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 5 (The public meeting was closed at 7:10 p.m., and an executive session was held, the 6 transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) 7 - - - - - - - - - - 8 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: The Commissioners Court will 10 now resume -- return to open session, having met in 11 executive session. 12 MR. AHRENS: U.G.R.A.'s back in session. 13 It's 7:46. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: We have been discussing 15 potential Conflict of Interest rules for Designated 16 Representative. Do I have -- is there any action to be 17 taken on the part of the Court? 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion 19 that we -- that the Commissioners Court will draft a -- a 20 set of Conflict of Interest rules, and that we will forward 21 that to the U.G.R.A. board and staff for action and 22 coordination and -- and implementation as part of the 23 contract, so that everybody's dealing from the same set of 24 rules. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. 42 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 2 Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams. Any further 3 comments or questions? If not, all in favor, raise your 4 right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Jerry, anything y'all want to 9 add? 10 MR. AHRENS: No. Do we have anything else? 11 Any comments? Just that we enjoyed the meeting. Thank you. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we -- 13 MR. GIPSON: Move we adjourn. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Before the Commissioners 15 Court adjourns, I will make just a statement of fact, that 16 we -- we've been in contact with T.N.R.C.C. They have some 17 questions about the O.S.S.F. rules that were approved -- 18 adopted by the Court, and they have asked to come over on 19 September 27th at 1:30 and meet with the Commissioners Court 20 in a workshop to discuss their concerns about the rules as 21 they were adopted. And, so, we will be meeting in a 22 workshop on September 27th at 1:30 in the afternoon. Other 23 than that, we want to thank you all for coming. It's been a 24 very productive session, and we might want to do it again 25 sometime. 43 1 MR. AHRENS: Sounds good. Thanks for hosting 2 us. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: If there's no other business 4 to come before Commissioners Court, we stand adjourned. 5 MR. AHRENS: We're adjourned also. 6 (Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.) 7 - - - - - - - - - - 8 9 10 11 STATE OF TEXAS | 12 COUNTY OF KERR | 13 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 14 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 15 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 16 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 17 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 18th day of September, 18 2000. 19 20 21 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 22 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 25