1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, November 27, 2000 11 6:30 p.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 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 I N D E X November 27, 2000 PAGE 2 --- Commissioners' Comments 3 3 1.1 Pay Bills 5 1.2 Budget Amendments 6 4 1.3 Late Bills 8 1.4 Read and Accept Monthly Reports 10 5 2.1 Holding period for animals at Animal Control 6 Facility before euthanasia 11 7 2.6 PUBLIC HEARING - Water Availability Requirements 27 8 2.7 Approve Water Availability Requirements 40 9 2.8 PUBLIC HEARING - Minimum Infrastructure Standards for Manufactured Home Rental Communities 65 10 2.9 Adopt Minimum Infrastructure Standards for 11 Manufactured Home Rental Communities 65 12 2.2 Request for variance to OSSF rules to allow septic system in floodway 77 13 2.3 Minor rev. of plat, Lots 43 & 44, The Horizon 81 14 2.4 Minor rev. of plat, Lots 120 & 121, The Horizon 82 15 2.5 6-month extension of preliminary plat, Shonto 16 Ranch Estates, Precinct 2 83 17 2.10 Added costs for constructing parking lots on courthouse property 93 18 2.11 Resolution opposing efforts to remove restrictions, 19 Transfer of Surface Rights between River Basins 94 20 2.13 Approve contract between County and Turtle Creek Volunteer Fire Department 95 21 2.14 Approve County-sponsored contract between County 22 and Big Brothers and Sisters 96 23 --- Adjourned 97 24 25 3 1 On Monday, November 27, 2000, at 6:30 p.m., a special 2 session of 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: It is 6:30 in the evening on 7 Monday, November 27th, Year 2000. We will call to order 8 this Special Session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. 9 Commissioner Williams, I believe you have the honors this 10 evening. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please, will you rise 12 for a moment of prayer and salute to our flag. 13 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Commissioner. At 15 this time, any citizen wishing to address the Court on an 16 item not listed on the regular agenda may do so. Is there 17 any citizen who wishes to address the Court on an item not 18 listed on the regular agenda? One more time, is there 19 anyone who'd like to address the Court on an item not listed 20 on the regular agenda? Seeing none, we'll turn to the 21 Commissioners' comments. Commissioner Williams. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not much to offer 23 tonight, Judge. Just had one long meeting with folks who 24 were expressing some thoughts about to do or not to do the 25 expansion of the Ag facility -- Extension facility. And, at 4 1 the right time, we'll report all that. In the meantime, 2 we'll get on with this business. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just congratulations to 5 the Tivy Antlers as they continue to proceed to the 6 playoffs. And, other than that, I think the only other 7 comment I have is that the -- 8 (Discussion off the record.) 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that better? I've got 10 a meeting with Len Odom and U.S.D.A. officials about a 11 temporary bridge for the Hermann Sons -- looks like that's a 12 fairly good possibility. Not sure what a temporary bridge 13 really is, but we'll find out Thursday. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Thanks. 15 Commissioner Griffin? 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll just add my 17 congratulations to those great Tivy Antlers. I'll let 18 Commissioner Baldwin do most of the talking about that. 19 That's the only comment I have. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the Tivy Antlers 22 play Friday night at Alamo Heights stadium, 8 o'clock. 23 We're proud of them. Also, I've got news today, and I -- I 24 feel this is fairly accurate, but on December the 23rd, the 25 James Kerr marker for the courthouse lawn would be unveiled, 5 1 and part of his family and all of Kerr County, I hope, will 2 be here. That's two days before Christmas. So -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two days before 5 Christmas. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do you have a time on 7 that? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's in the 9 afternoon. I'm not sure that it's set for an exact time. 10 4 o'clock? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't remember what 12 it is, I'm sorry. But, that's all. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Very good. Well, 14 let's proceed, then, on to the approval agenda. Any bills 15 to pay, Mr. Auditor? Does anyone have any questions or 16 comments regarding the bills? 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Did we forget the 18 visitors' input? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we did that. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't have any. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions 23 about the bills as presented by the Auditor? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 6 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 2 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve 3 payment of bills as recommended by the Auditor. Any further 4 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 5 right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 10 amendments. Budget Amendment Number 1. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is -- is presented 12 by the Constable of Precinct 2. His request is to transfer 13 $60.91 from Office Supplies, $100 from Books, Publications, 14 and Dues, for a total of $160.91 for training. I also have 15 a -- I need a hand check to go along with that, payable to 16 the Constable for -- for reimbursement for that school. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the budget 18 amendment on behalf of the Constable of Precinct 2. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 21 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve 22 Budget Amendment Number 2 on behalf of the Constable, 23 Precinct Number 2, in the amount of $160.91, and authorize 24 issuance of a hand check in that amount payable to Joe 25 Ayala, Jr. Any further questions? If not, all in favor, 7 1 raise your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 6 Amendment Number 2. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from the 8 County Judge's office and Commissioners Court and County 9 Court to transfer $100 from Miscellaneous from County 10 Judge's office, $100 from Miscellaneous in Commissioners 11 Court, $195 from Office Supplies for the Commissioners Court 12 budget, $100 from Miscellaneous for County Court. This goes 13 into the Computer Maintenance in the Commissioners Court 14 budget, for a total of $495. It's for software support for 15 the court reporter. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 19 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve budget 20 Amendment Request Number 2 in the amount of $495 for court 21 reporter. Any further questions or comments? If not, all 22 in favor, raise your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 8 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 2 Amendment Number 3 is for the 216th District Court. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This -- this 4 expenditure is for replacement of a printer that was not in 5 the budget -- original budget. I'm requesting this transfer 6 of $463.85 from Contingency, Nondepartmental, to go into 7 Capital Outlay in the 216th District Court. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's it for? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Printer. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Did we have a printer go out 11 unexpectedly? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 16 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve Budget 17 Amendment Number 3 in the amount of $463.85 for the 216th 18 District Court. Any further questions or comments? If not, 19 all in favor, raise your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have 24 any other late bills? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I have two. One's from Sysco 9 1 Food Services. It's in the amount of $17,232.45, and it's 2 for Prisoner Meals. It's bills for November that we 3 received late that I need a hand check for. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 7 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve 8 a hand check in the amount of 17 -- $17,000 and change 9 payable to Sysco Foods. Any further questions or comments? 10 If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: The last one is payable to 16 Texas Department of M.H.M.R. It's for $27,798, and it's for 17 right-of-way purchase on Sheppard Rees Road. This is to be 18 coded to the Schreiner Road Fund. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I get to do it. So 21 moved. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 24 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve 25 a hand check in the amount of $27,000 and change, payable 10 1 to -- 2 MR. TOMLINSON: 798. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: $27,798 payable to Texas 4 Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for 5 right-of-way purchase on Sheppard Rees Road, such funds to 6 come from Schreiner Road Trust. Any further questions or 7 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: That's all I have. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a giant step 15 toward widening that road out there. A giant step. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's good. At this time, 17 I'd entertain a motion to approve and accept the monthly 18 reports as presented. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 22 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we accept 23 and approve the monthly reports as presented. Any further 24 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 25 right hand. 11 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. 5 Moving straight into the consideration agenda, the first 6 item for consideration is Item Number 2.1, consider and 7 discuss a holding period for animals at the Animal Control 8 facility before euthanasia. Ray Stoffel, come forward, sir. 9 MR. STOFFEL: Larry is going to be my 10 spokesman here tonight, if I may have him. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: You may. Thank you. 12 MR. CORDER: Thank you. I'm Larry Corder. 13 My wife Judy and I live in the Tierra Vista subdivision off 14 Harper Road in Kerr County. Maria and Raymond Stoffel are 15 neighbors of ours. Because they seemingly continue to be 16 somewhat emotionally distraught over the treatment of their 17 animal at the Animal Shelter some week or more ago, they 18 have asked me to provide a statement to you, and with your 19 permission I would -- would like to read their statement, 20 and there may be others in the audience as well. Do I have 21 your permission to read the statement? 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. Proceed, sir. 23 MR. CORDER: Speaking on behalf of the 24 Stoffel supporters and all animal lovers, we're here to ask 25 the Court to enforce the 48-hour holding period at the 12 1 Animal Shelter for all animals, unless they are hurt or 2 sick. The 48-hour holding period is a provision of the 3 shelter's operating procedure. 4 On Monday, the 13th of November, at 4 p.m., 5 the Stoffel's cat was brought to the shelter by their 6 neighbor, who trapped the cat in a baited trap in the middle 7 of the day, and knew it was the Stoffels' pet. And, because 8 the cat hissed at the people at the shelter, he was 9 considered to be a wild cat. This cat was healthy, 10 well-groomed, and had no claws. It is only natural that the 11 cat would hiss at strangers after being trapped, transported 12 for 10 miles, and then confronted by strangers, and any 13 animal would act in the same way. 14 As to why the cat had no collar or tag, 15 they're extremely dangerous for the animal; it could hang 16 itself. Breakaway collars on cats are lost as they become 17 entangled and the rabies tags are lost. The shelter had 18 five empty cages that we know of available at the time where 19 the cat could have been kept. Mrs. Stoffel went to the 20 shelter first thing the next morning, and was told her cat 21 had to be put down. We implore the Court to enforce the 22 48-hour holding period as prescribed in the Shelter's 23 operating procedure so that people can retrieve their pets 24 in time. One other item to mention is the way the animals 25 are disposed of. The dead animals are dumped in the 13 1 landfill. Can the County find some funds to purchase a 2 cremation unit so that the dead animals can be cremated? 3 Following the statement in the packet of 4 information you have, first of all, you will find a -- a 5 page giving you a -- a scenario as to the activities 6 involving the Stoffels' cat. Following that, you will find 7 a -- an example of a form that they are recommending, a form 8 which might be posted in the outer office of the Animal 9 Shelter so that when a person does arrive there, they might 10 be able to immediately look to see whether or not their 11 animal had been there, and if it is there, what the 12 disposition has been. And, with that, I think Mr. Stoffel 13 or Mrs. Stoffel might entertain questions or comments from 14 the Judge or Commissioners. Thank you. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: We have other -- thank you, 16 sir. We have other individuals who've expressed a desire to 17 address us on this. Elizabeth Baker? 18 MS. BAKER: My name is Elizabeth Baker. I 19 live at 575 Scenic valley. Ray and Maria Stoffel are 20 friends of mine. I know them and I know that they care for 21 their pet, so it was very disturbing to me when I found 22 their pet was destroyed. It was even more distressing to 23 find that there is apparently no ordinance to protect the 24 animals or family pets. I find now that there is an 25 ordinance, and that it states here that -- that they should 14 1 be kept for a period of less than -- not less than 72 hours. 2 That's been marked out, and 48 hours has been put in. 3 On the front part of this, it says that feral 4 animals will be considered high-risk and can be euthanized 5 immediately. When I called the Shelter, I was told that 6 this was indeed a -- a wild animal and was disposed of. If 7 I -- I asked if there was an ordinance, and she told me no, 8 we're just kind of free to do what we want. We can just 9 make that decision, and then we do what we want to. And I 10 thought that was a little unusual. 11 I talked to a vet that has been practicing 12 medicine -- veterinary medicine here in Kerr County for 13 about 13 to 14 years; he was trained at A & M, and he does a 14 lot of work in this community finding homes for animals. I 15 talked to him through a door, having surgery today, and when 16 I talked to him about this, he said that there is a 17 mandatory -- and that was his emphasis, not mine -- 18 mandatory waiting period of 72 hours. He added that animals 19 that are brought into a shelter on Monday through Thursday 20 are held for 72 hours. Animals received in the facility on 21 Friday are held until Tuesday to give the family a chance 22 over the weekend to get their -- their animals. And, it is 23 also recommended that the animals be sedated prior to being 24 placed in the carbon dioxide chamber. And, he emphasized 25 that the gas of choice to kill the pet is carbon dioxide, 15 1 and I understand that ours uses carbon monoxide. 2 Another vet that I -- I stopped off to visit 3 with today was very busy, and he said three days with no 4 tags, seven days with tags is the usual before they're 5 destroyed. I personally was told by the worker at the 6 facility that the cat was wild, and she asked me if I'd ever 7 handled a wild cat. And, being a farm girl, I said yes; 8 injured, wild, hissing and everything else, and I never had 9 to kill one. It is distressing to me that the employees 10 could not tell the difference between a clean, well-fed cat 11 that had been neutered and had no claws from a wild or feral 12 cat. 13 I would like the directors and the employees 14 to have the proper training to perform their jobs with 15 safety and properly, with guidelines and perimeters. I'm a 16 nurse and a medical-legal consultant. I like guidelines and 17 I like perimeters, and I like people to be able to work 18 within them. I believe most people, and especially animal 19 owners, expect nothing less in Kerr County. Thank you. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Ms. Baker. Bruce 21 Baker? 22 MR. BAKER: I'm related to her. 575 scenic 23 Valley Road, Precinct 1, the best there is. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amen. 25 MR. BAKER: I simply concur with the need to 16 1 continue maintaining a waiting period for at least 48 hours. 2 My experience has been that people, especially older folks, 3 love their pets, sometimes more than their children, their 4 preachers, or even their County Commissioners. I base my 5 request on the purpose and intentions, I believe, of the 6 Texas Local Government Code, Paragraph 215.026, Article 3, 7 Page 330, where it says, and I quote, "the destruction of 8 the animal if -- IF the animal cannot be sold." Point of 9 reference, the 1987 70th Legislature, Chapter 149. 10 I believe this request is really not 11 unreasonable, since there are other shelters within the 12 confinement of the Kerrville area. I believe if the 13 ordinance cannot be maintained, that somehow the pet owners 14 need to have available from the Court the complete knowledge 15 of existing procedures whereby they can make the necessary 16 adjustments for perhaps potential grief. Thank you, and I 17 appreciate your fairness and your sensitivity. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Baker. Thomas 19 Barnett? 20 MR. BARNETT: Good evening. I'm a radical. 21 First of all, I want to offer my condolences to Mrs. Stoffel 22 in losing someone so dear, but I'd like to make a suggestion 23 that's not very focused, and it's the following: Why do we 24 have to kill animals at all? You say because of danger and 25 we got -- I know all that. If an animal has rabies or he's 17 1 a danger to people or he's a danger to other animals, 2 obviously, it goes without question. But there are many 3 no-kill shelters all over this country. I had the good 4 fortunate to visit one a couple months ago in Fort 5 Lauderdale, Florida. It is sponsored by Wayne Heisinger. 6 His wife runs it. It's an enormous and beautiful 7 establishment. 8 Now, you're saying, yeah, but Fort Lauderdale 9 is a big place, and Kerrville is a little -- that's true. 10 But not too many years ago, Fort Lauderdale was not much 11 bigger than Kerrville, and that's when they started having 12 the vision. But, you say, it's the Humane Society. That's 13 true. But let me tell you another story. A friend of mine 14 in Laredo, Texas, tells me that the Humane Society and the 15 Animal Control are in one very large, very immaculate, 16 beautiful establishment. They have no-kill shelters, 17 neither the Animal Control nor the Humane Society. But what 18 do you do with all these animals we get? We're going to get 19 an overpopulation. Yes, if you don't do something else. 20 Why not pass an ordinance that if you are not a breeder, you 21 should have your animal neutered? If not, we'll give you a 22 nice little fine. You pick them up because they haven't 23 been vaccinated and everything. Why not that? Then you 24 won't have that population thing. 25 The other thing is that when people go to 18 1 adopt a pet, where do they go? They go to the Humane 2 Society out there or they go to the Animal Control, they got 3 to go to Freeman-Fritz, all over town. By the time they get 4 to some of these places, a lot of animals they might have 5 adopted have been -- I don't say "euthanized," I say killed. 6 We have a way out of this. It takes a little imagination, 7 creativity. And I know it's dreaming, but I always say this 8 guy, Tiger Woods, started off with a club and a baseball -- 9 or I mean a golf ball. Maybe a baseball, I don't know. And 10 look where he is now. Dreams are what success is made of. 11 We should think a little bit ahead, because this town is 12 growing enormously, and it's not just the two-legged 13 population that's growing. It's everybody else. 14 I pointed out something else. You say, well, 15 yeah, but Laredo that I mentioned is a city of a million 16 people, more or less. That's true, but they have some 17 problems that we don't have. They have a lot of immigrants 18 coming across the border. A lot of them bring their dogs, 19 or they certainly grab a bunch of them, because that's the 20 nature of the culture. It doesn't have to be that. They 21 have solved their problem. We can look ahead before our 22 problem is that big, and we should look ahead, because 23 there's no need to be killing these animals unnecessarily 24 and have things like this happen, which are -- I think 25 everyone here is sad about it. Because there's -- as 19 1 someone just said, when you lose an animal, you lose a 2 member of your family. I thank you very much for your 3 attention. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Barnett. 5 Commissioners? Questions or comments? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I -- yes. Yes, 7 I have a comment. Mr. Stoffel's a good friend of mine, and 8 I deeply apologize for the loss of your animal, and hurt 9 right along with you. And it appears to me, by looking over 10 -- not an ordinance, but a -- the standard operating 11 procedures of the County, it appears that, like the young 12 lady read there, that the 72 hours is crossed out and 48 13 hours was put there. Each unrestrained, unknown, or stray 14 dog or cat shall be impounded for a period of no less than 15 72 or 48 hours, whatever it is, unless earlier claimed by 16 its owner. 17 It appears to me that we have made a horrible 18 mistake, and all I can do at this time is apologize. I 19 would hope that -- is our Animal Control -- yes, the people 20 are here. I would hope that they could possibly maybe 21 answer -- answer some questions. I've got a couple of 22 questions about this carbon dioxide and monoxide, if I -- 23 yes, sir? 24 MR. STOFFEL: Could I show you a picture of 25 this feral animal? 20 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd prefer not, but 2 we'll sure look at it. 3 (Photographs shown to the Court.) 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a wild rascal 5 drinking out of the sink. Questions about carbon dioxide 6 and monoxide, and -- and about this neutered question. So, 7 I was thinking that there is a requirement that animals be 8 neutered in our county. Is that not true? 9 MR. ALLEN: No, sir, there's no ordinance 10 saying a cat has to be neutered or spayed in Kerr County. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why'd you make me 12 neuter my dog, then? 13 MR. ALLEN: We didn't. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know it. I'm 15 teasing. Relax, just relax. 16 MR. ALLEN: We do enforce a 48-hour holding 17 period for cats and dogs. The cat that came in was declared 18 a feral cat. If we cannot physically handle that cat, we 19 consider it a feral animal. That's -- cats will tear you 20 up, declawed or not declawed. They still got a mouth with 21 teeth, and they're going to tear you up. They can run up 22 one side and down the other. We physically do not have 23 enough room in our shelter to hold the cats that are coming 24 into our shelter. I gave y'all some statistics on October, 25 and in October we had 158 cats come through our shelter. We 21 1 have nine cages for nice cats and two cages for wild cats. 2 So, the previous supervisor came up with this standard 3 operating procedures on this feral cats. Well, that was the 4 only answer at the time that we had to handle all these 5 feral cats that are coming in. In November, this month, to 6 date we've already had 69 cats come in; 33 of those we 7 declared feral animals. We cannot -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the basis for 9 declaring an animal feral? 10 MR. ALLEN: The basis? The aggressive 11 behavior. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does it make a -- does it 13 make a difference if the cat is brought in in a trap? As 14 far as whether it's declared feral or -- 15 MR. ALLEN: Normally, that's the way the cats 16 are brought in, is by trap. We do not go out and chase a 17 cat, if it's a wild cat or a tame cat. I mean, it may be 18 tame to the owners, but it may not be tame to us. If there 19 is no collar and tag and a positive identification, we're 20 going to consider it a feral cat. And we don't have a 21 problem with changing this policy, but Kerr County's going 22 to have to come up with a bigger facility and a lot more 23 cages. If we'd have held all the cats that came in the 24 first three days of October, we'd have had 40 cats holding 25 in there, and we do not have the room for it. We physically 22 1 do not have the room for all those cats. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Marc, have you looked 3 over the overall procedures, this broader question, 4 recently? Or you may -- you know, maybe this would be a 5 good time to do that. I know we did it, I guess, when I was 6 first on the Court, which was four years ago, we did go over 7 it. It might, you know, be a good time to do it again. But 8 I pretty much, you know, concur with what Marc's saying, 9 that we went through this back then and there is a -- a -- 10 you know, a space limitation, which goes back to a money 11 issue for the County. 12 MR. ALLEN: That was also why we dropped it 13 down to 48 hours instead of 72, so we could hold the more 14 desirable animals, instead of having to hold the ones that 15 weren't so desirable. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, on the other side of 17 it, I understand that a lot of people don't have collars on 18 cats. But, if the animals do have a collar, rabies tag or 19 whatever, whether dog or cat, I believe the procedure is we 20 try to contact the owners? 21 MR. ALLEN: We definitely contact the owner. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the -- I think the 23 solution is to try to have rabies tags -- 24 MR. ALLEN: In October -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on dogs or cats. 23 1 MR. ALLEN: Of the 158 animals -- or cats; 2 this is just cats, not counting dogs. I mean, we can have a 3 lot of dogs come in, too. Not one of those 158 cats was 4 wearing a tag. Three of those cats were claimed and four of 5 them were adopted, and the rest were euthanized. I mean, 6 that's a lot of cats. We have a feral cat problem in Kerr 7 County, and we're not the only county that has it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I like Commissioner 10 Letz' suggestion. I think it's appropriate. And, 11 certainly, if it's been four years, for to us step back and 12 take a look at our -- our ordinance and our -- and our 13 practice and policy and make sure that they're in line with 14 where we are these days in Kerr County with regard to the -- 15 to the animal problem that we -- that we have, and make sure 16 that we're up-to-date. And, in doing so, by that exercise, 17 I think we would insure that the new employees at the Animal 18 Control Shelter -- because we've staffed up fairly 19 significantly in the last year; certainly since we took over 20 the problem from the City -- will insure that the employees 21 out there are very familiar with the policy and -- and can 22 assist us in educating the public as to what the -- the 23 adoptive policy is. So, I think it's very timely to do 24 that, Jonathan. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Marc, another question 24 1 kind of in that same area. Does the City of Kerrville have 2 an ordinance in addition to what the County has? 3 MR. ALLEN: There's a lot of variations. 4 Inside the city limits, it's -- say, for instance, cats. 5 Cats are allowed to roam free in the city limits of 6 Kerrville, but in the county we have a restraint order that 7 says they must be restrained to their property or physically 8 located on their property. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be 10 helpful, myself, and probably to the public if we had -- 11 if there was a way to combine -- you know, I mean, the City 12 has their ordinance, but we -- so we have a copy of that and 13 the County's so that everyone is aware of what the rules 14 are, both in the city limits of Kerrville and in the county, 15 since we act as the interlocal agreement, enforcing -- 16 MR. ALLEN: Very confusing to a lot of 17 people, and we have to know the difference in the ordinance 18 all the time; that's one of the main questions when somebody 19 calls. Are you in the city or are you in the county? 20 Because the rules in the city don't apply to the -- to the 21 county. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the rule -- 23 what is the rule or law regarding collars and tags? 24 MR. ALLEN: Well, I've got a copy here of the 25 County order, Section 2.2 -- well, let's see, where am I at? 25 1 Section 2.13, Rabies Tag. "Concurrent with the issuance and 2 delivery of the official rabies vaccination certificate 3 referred to in Section 2.12, custodian or owner of a dog or 4 cat shall cause to be attached to the collar or harness of 5 the vaccinated dog or cat a metal tag serially numbered to 6 correspond with the official rabies vaccination certificate 7 and bearing the year of issuance." If they have a collar 8 and tag on, then we can get ahold of the owner. If there's 9 something -- any kind of sign that they're -- they have an 10 owner. If they come in as a wild animal, we're going to 11 treat them as a wild animal. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How did you receive 13 this animal? What were the circumstances that -- 14 MR. ALLEN: It was trapped. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that you received 16 this animal? 17 MR. ALLEN: It was trapped by a man over on 18 Tierra Vista. In a 13-day period, he brought 10 cats in to 19 us, and not one of them was wearing a collar or tag. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This man doesn't work 21 for the County? 22 MR. ALLEN: No, sir. We have 19 traps that 23 we loan out to citizens in Kerrville and Kerr County, and 24 the majority of the time, those cat traps are all out. 25 Right now we're having a slow time for the holiday, but 26 1 normally they're all out catching cats or other wildlife. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would also like to 4 see -- as a cat owner myself for the last 30-something 5 years, I've always tagged them. And I know of the studies 6 that have been done about the dangers of cats having -- 7 having collars on them, but I've always thought that that 8 risk is a lot less than having them picked up and thought 9 not to be an owned animal. So, we might ought to do some 10 study on that, too, and try to publicize as much as we can 11 what are the safest methods of tagging cats. They are a 12 problem. The one I've got right now covers a big part of 13 west Kerr County on occasion, and he never -- he doesn't 14 hang -- I hope he doesn't, but I still think it's a good 15 thing to look at for us to try to help publicize what -- 16 some better ways of doing that, if there are any. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Jon, you're 18 getting with them to look at the books, did I hear you say? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be glad to. 20 MR. ALLEN: Okay. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Marc. If there's 22 no further discussion, we do have a public hearing posted 23 for 7 o'clock, and so we will move to that. Thank you all 24 for coming. We will let you know when we have the revised 25 ordinance to -- to consider, and we'll ask for your input at 27 1 that time. Thank you all very much. 2 At this time, we'll move on to Item Number 7 3 -- 6. Item Number 6, which is a public hearing on proposed 4 Kerr County Water Availability Requirements for property 5 located in Kerr County outside the city limits of an 6 incorporated or chartered municipality. 7 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 7:05 p.m., and a public hearing 8 was held in open court, as follows:) 9 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: The rules were approved by 11 the Court approximately a month ago and have been available 12 for review in the County Clerk's office. So, this is the 13 public hearing which is required prior to actual adoption of 14 the Water Availability Requirements. We've had a couple 15 individuals sign up to speak to us. Arthur Nagle. 16 Mr. Nagle, are you here? 17 MR. NAGLE: For the -- for the record, I'm 18 Arthur Nagle, a resident of Kerrville, Texas. Judge and 19 Commissioners, I would like to support very strongly your 20 requirement to see if there is sufficient water under a 21 proposed subdivision for the number of homeowners -- homes 22 and homeowners that will be consumers of that water. The 23 basis for this starts in Senate Bill 1 of 1987 -- 1997, when 24 Lieutenant Commissioner Bob Bullock was made aware of the 25 number of subdivisions being created without any knowledge 28 1 as to whether there was water under their area for the home 2 sites, and further, that where there was water, it was of 3 insufficient quantity to provide enough for each house. 4 I understand now that you people have 5 selected a formula for determining the needs of water in a 6 given proposed subdivision, and I understand further you 7 have laid upon the Headwaters Underground Water Conservation 8 District, when they review a subdivision plat, that they 9 indicate to you that they have made this review. I would 10 ask you -- strike that from the record. I suggest to the 11 Court that the Headwaters Underground Conservation District, 12 upon their analysis of the water wells that were provided -- 13 results that were provided with the plat, that Headwaters be 14 required to tell you in writing how many home sites this 15 amount of water will support. 16 What I'm really saying to you gentlemen is 17 that if the subdivision developer desires, for example, to 18 put in 90 houses, and Headwaters' review of the water 19 availability under that particular area of the county will 20 only support, for example, 60, that they tell you that. The 21 example shown, and using the formula, you have determined 22 this subdivision can have only 60 homes. Now, that does no 23 damage to a developer. It simply says the developer of that 24 subdivision has to increase the size of his lots. And, in 25 beautiful Kerr County, with the scenery that we see today, a 29 1 large lot with red oak trees on it and cedar on it is going 2 to go for a prime price. There's no reason in today's 3 market for anyone to proclaim that they must make the lots 4 smaller. But, you will be able to make that judgment, and 5 if you ask Headwaters to tell you in their writing to you 6 how much water can be -- how many home sites can be 7 supported by this amount of water, I support you in what 8 you're doing. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Nagle. 10 MR. NAGLE: Thank you. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: I appreciate that. Paul 12 Siemers. 13 MR. SIEMERS: I'm Paul Siemers, HC-1, Box 14 156N, Hunt. First of all, I want to say I fully support 15 what you're doing, and I guess I'm in about 96 percent 16 agreement with what's written, the latest version that I 17 have. I have forwarded most of my comments to Jonathan via 18 e-mail. I hope you received my e-mail, but I just want to 19 -- the few percent that I don't agree with, I guess, 20 basically is the exceptions, and that's specifically the 21 exception in Paragraph 106, where the min -- 106B, where the 22 minimum number of lots in the subdivision does not exceed 23 five lots, and not more than one well can be drilled on any 24 lot. Because this under -- this is under the Exception 25 paragraph, I'm afraid that that kind of flies in the face of 30 1 the -- of the previous restrictions that were imposed, that 2 if you -- if you only have five lots, you would not have to 3 necessarily -- you would not have to abide by the 5-acre 4 minimum which is required for the recharge of the -- of the 5 aquifer. So, I'm opposed to that specific paragraph. 6 And, there's a couple nitpicks that I passed 7 along in the Exceptions paragraph, 1.06. In the first line, 8 you refer to paragraph 1.03.E. Well, that paragraph no 9 longer exists. There is no 1.03.E paragraph. It's just a 10 1.03 paragraph. The other nitpick is -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was that one again, 12 Paul? 13 MR. SIEMERS: If you read Exception -- 14 Exemptions, 1.06. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 MR. SIEMERS: You comment on Section 1.03.E. 17 There is no E paragraph under 1.03 any longer. And the 18 other nitpick was that you have -- if I can find it real 19 quick -- under 1.05 -- let's see, 1.05.1.B, you talk about 20 -- 1.05.1.A, you talk about if the acreage -- if the total 21 acreage is 74 acres or less, and then in B, you talk about 22 the total acreage being at 75 acres or more. Well, you're 23 missing an acre in there. So -- so, there are my two 24 nitpicks. But I -- you know. But the main point I wanted 25 to make tonight was the exception. I think that needs to be 31 1 looked at in the context of if it's 5 acres. If it's five 2 lots averaging 5 acres, I think that would be okay as an 3 exception, but not the way it's written tonight. Thank you. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Charles 5 Wiedenfeld. 6 MR. WIEDENFELD: Good evening, gentlemen. 7 Charles Wiedenfeld, 205-B West Backacre, Kerrville. And, 8 again, foremost, I want to support your -- your attempt to 9 have development consider adequacy of potable water along 10 with adequate public roads, storm water drainage, erosion 11 control, wastewater disposal, all before receiving your 12 approval. But, I take exception or object to your approach 13 and most provisions within these proposed rules. I don't 14 believe these rules provide you with the sufficient 15 assurance and proposed -- that the proposed development has 16 adequately planned for drought conditions or long-term use 17 from whatever source of available potable water. Simply, 18 these rules lack goals and just provisions to meet these 19 goals. 20 Particular issues and concerns that I have 21 are -- is that, again, one is that Chapter 35, from which I 22 feel the County is drawing their authority, provides for a 23 determination of adequate water supplies, not necessarily 24 available supplies. And -- or it's not necessarily 25 restricted to just groundwater supplies. Another provision 32 1 y'all have is 200 gallons per day per person would seem more 2 than adequate. That, to me, is luxurious. Adequacy from 3 all possible water sources under conditions simulating the 4 drought of record should be the standard; not just 5 groundwater is -- should be considered. Surface water, as 6 we know, may not be available during a drought of record, 7 and should not -- and possibly Kerr County shouldn't be 8 loading up our population dependent upon surface water when 9 we know we have to convert to groundwater once surface water 10 is being restricted or -- or just absent from use. 11 Why should development prove adequate 12 groundwater on tracts greater than 5 acres after Headwaters 13 and Region J and y'all's own document here pretty much 14 already support the theory that it takes 5 acres to -- so 15 that suggests a sustained yield is possible on 5 acres. 16 Thus, why -- why do we need to have development prove any 17 more than you've already accepted as being the standard? 18 Why should developments utilizing surface water as possibly 19 their sole source receive reduced lot sizes and thus a 20 greater water demand, particularly if not available during, 21 again, the drought of record conditions? Are provisions in 22 the document sufficiently flexible for the consideration of 23 rainfall as an adequate supply? Why should a developer 24 prove how much water is under his subdivision when he has 25 the option to purchase water from wherever he feels like, 33 1 groundwater or surface water? Why should 8 to 10 gallons 2 per minute well capacity be the standard, or 8 to 10 gallons 3 capacity for whatever source of water supply, when you are 4 trying to indicate that 200 gallons per day per person would 5 be adequate? 6 Okay. Again, these all -- a lot of these 7 rules that I see in here, I believe, hit at the very heart 8 of my purpose here, is that these are all provisions that I 9 feel the Headwaters Underground Water Conservation District 10 has a greater authority in, and will ultimately be the -- 11 regulating the groundwater. And -- and that definitely 12 is -- again, my point here is, I urge you to eliminate the 13 provisions that regulate the groundwater and proposed 14 standards on determination of water characteristics. 15 Furthermore, I encourage you to allow the Headwaters 16 Underground Water Conservation District to establish 17 standards for the protection and better understanding of 18 Kerr County's groundwater supplies. 19 Okay. Another comment. In these water 20 availability -- again, I'm -- I want to reiterate that I'm 21 very much in belief that you need to have developers prove 22 that there is water for their development through a 23 period -- through a 50-year planning period, like Region J 24 has indicated, and I think these projections possibly ought 25 to be at 10-year intervals through full build-out, in that 34 1 all the water planners in the community and the county can 2 know at what stage this developer feels like his development 3 will be and at how much water at each stage he will be 4 proposing to use. I think, also, in water availability, 5 water adequacy, that a water conservation plan and a drought 6 contingency plan that meets T.N.R.C.C.'s Chapter 288 rules 7 should be something you'll ask for from a developer, in that 8 that's where you're going to see a developer's plans of how 9 he projects and plans to use water throughout his whole 10 subdivision. 11 And, another comment I have is that please 12 consider provisions for the enforcement of these. And, 13 again, I'm saying the remaining Kerr County Subdivision 14 Rules. Again, I believe that you need to establish 15 administration for the program. I think you need to 16 evaluate your cost benefits and impact of these rules. And 17 another comment I have is I urge you to separate yourself as 18 the authors of these proposed rules and then being the 19 impartial body to judge the adequacy of enacting these laws. 20 Again, I thank you for your time. I urge to you reconsider 21 these rules and consider provisions that are fair, just, and 22 appeal to the common sense of the public electorate. Thank 23 you again for your time. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I'll make one 35 1 comment. There is -- two people have mentioned that there 2 is a pretty big typo they've caught. Under the Exemptions, 3 it says Section -- it says 1.03.E. That should say Section 4 1.05. The exemptions or the exceptions for that are 5 intended with regard to individual water wells on property. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is not intended that 8 you waive the acreage limitation or the size of the lot. 9 It's with regard to the -- related to the section related to 10 individual wells. So, I just want to make that -- I 11 appreciate that. I think Paul, I thought, saw it as well. 12 I read it so many times, I didn't see it. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Ken Muller. Mr. Muller? 14 MR. MULLER: Judge, Commissioners, Ken 15 Muller. I live in Boerne, but I own property on Highway 27 16 next to Bluff Creek. The three gentlemen preceding me have 17 all supported the basic concept, and I stand here before you 18 agreeing that this is a good concept. I have a -- a couple 19 of comments, and then I would like to offer a suggestion. 20 Under one-oh -- excuse me, 1.03. The possible effect of 21 that, the way it is written, where groundwater has 5 acres 22 and surface water might be 1 acre or 2 acres, is to 23 immediately increase the value in Kendall County of all -- I 24 mean, excuse me, I'm so used to being in Boerne -- in Kerr 25 County that is close to surface water availability. And I 36 1 didn't know if that was your projection or not, but that -- 2 that would be a problem, because as that land gets 3 developed, and with the problems you had last year, what 4 might you then go to if you didn't have the surface water? 5 I think that you might want to consider changing that to 6 5 acres, whether it's surface water or groundwater. 7 The other comment I have is in regards to the 8 well testing, which is 1.05.1.A. Testing a well like this 9 and trying to restrict the different zones of water as you 10 go down, I think, is going to prove somewhat difficult, but 11 I'm -- I'm looking at the practicality of it. Let's say 12 some rancher wants to sell 200 acres, and somebody wants to 13 buy it. How does he do this testing if there's not 14 electricity there? This rancher doesn't want to have extra 15 electric lines on his property, and the buyer doesn't want 16 to buy without knowing that he's going to be able to get the 17 water. So, I think there might be something else that you 18 want to do there. 19 Another comment in that regard. Normally 20 T.N.R.C.C, at least for public wells, requires 72-hour 21 testing. I'm not so sure 24-hour testing is enough. The 22 suggestion I'd like to put before you tonight is in regards 23 to the adequacy of water. And, I think in order to look at 24 that -- and I'm gleaning my information from the Texas Water 25 Development Board, specifically Reports 345, 339, and 273, 37 1 several documents from the U.S.G.S., and also from the Texas 2 Department of Water Resources. And I think that what 3 happens is sometimes we forget that the upper levels of our 4 water is what is called water table conditions, which means 5 it gets filled and emptied, of course, through the rivers 6 and by people using it, but it gets filled by rainwater. 7 Rainwater from the last couple of days, from the last month, 8 from the last year. Whereas the water that's down deeper, 9 the Hensell and the Cow Creek, is hydraulic. One of the 10 things that we found down where I live, which is only 11 15 miles from here, is simply that this last drought that we 12 had, we found out that the Glen Rose, which -- or whatever 13 you want to call it, the upper levels, are not as strong as 14 we thought they were, and so to be testing them, what a 15 developer is always going to do is wait till we have a good 16 year like this past couple of months, and then go in and run 17 his test, and he's going to have plenty of water, whereas 18 next spring he might not. 19 And, so, my -- my suggestion to you is to 20 consider, either on County property, which is in street 21 rights-of-ways, or on people -- ranchers who will give you 22 the land, to have a test hole dug, which would be 4 inches 23 in diameter or smaller, because all you're going to do is to 24 put an air tube down it and then, monthly, check to see what 25 the level of the water is. But first, of course, you'd have 38 1 to case off everything except the hydraulic water. In other 2 words, these two lower levels are coming up from the bottom, 3 whereas the rest is -- filters down from the top, and they 4 don't meet, 'cause they have shale or clay or whatever in 5 between them. 6 For instance, these reports claim -- and one 7 of these wells that was tested is just east of here in Kerr 8 County -- that the water in the Hensell and the Cow Creek is 9 anywhere from 10,000 to 40,000 years old. It travels at 10 about 3 feet a year. And you can figure out the 11 mathematics, coming down from Llano and Burnet and other 12 places, it would take that long to come down here. So, what 13 I'm suggesting is that you have maybe 6 or 8 or 10 test 14 wells that case off everything else except the hydraulic 15 water, because if that's going down, then we have a really 16 serious problem. And you might want to go to 8 acres or 17 10 acres. The rainwater is going to come and go in those 18 upper levels. The hydraulic water that's down below there 19 is not; it's traveling so slowly, when it gets down to 20 Balcones Fault, which is down by Tarpon Drive in Fair Oaks, 21 it goes down underneath the Edwards. It's an entirely 22 different system than the Edwards. 23 And, so, I'd be glad to sit down with any one 24 of you at a later date, or to work with anybody, but I think 25 you've got a good start. But, I think that somehow you 39 1 could take the lead. No county around here has done this, 2 and that is to simply run some tests down to the lower 3 level. I did on my well; I drilled a new well and I got my 4 permits and so forth and I cased everything off, but the Cow 5 Creek, Hensell. And, all during this year and last year, 6 even in August, that level stayed the same. It is an 7 underground -- it isn't a river, but it's an underground 8 mass of water that's going down very slowly and eventually 9 goes down under the -- the Edwards. And I think that, 10 somehow, if you could consider some of that, these other 11 minor points are just, you know, the practicality of it. 12 But without that, I think that you are not possibly doing as 13 much as you could do for Kerr County over the long run as 14 the acceleration of -- of growth continues up here. I thank 15 you very much for the time to come and speak to you. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Muller. Is 17 there anyone else, a member of the public, who'd like to 18 address the Court on the issue of water availability 19 requirements? 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Seeing no one else, we will 22 close the public hearing on the proposed water availability 23 requirements, and go to Item Number 7, which is consider and 24 discuss adoption of Kerr County Water Availability 25 Requirements for property located in Kerr County outside the 40 1 city limits of an incorporated or chartered municipality. 2 (The public hearing was concluded at 7:25 p.m., and the regular Commissioners 3 Court meeting was reopened.) 4 - - - - - - - - - - 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I see in the audience 6 Mr. Cameron Cornett, who is the General Manager of the 7 Headwaters. Mr. Cornett, at this time, I'd like to ask you 8 to address the Court on your organization's position 9 regarding the rules and your ability to undertake the role 10 that's been assigned to you in these proposed rules. 11 MR. CORNETT: My name is Cameron Cornett; I'm 12 with the Headwaters Underground Water Conservation District. 13 The board, at its last meeting, reviewed a copy -- I believe 14 it was October the 19th, and we then received a few days 15 later the November the 22nd draft. There were only -- there 16 were absolutely no changes other than what y'all had 17 mentioned in your 19th draft, and so the board at that time 18 voted to support the Court in this endeavor. We feel it was 19 a major step forward for Kerr County. I have some 20 familiarity with this program, as we have a similar program 21 in Bandera County. I feel that Headwaters should be able to 22 adequately cover the administrative side of this as far as 23 review, and also comment to the Court on these. At this 24 time, if there are any questions, I'd be willing to answer 25 them. 41 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. 2 Mr. Cornett, was it -- the vote of your board in support of 3 the most recent draft of the Kerr county Water Availability 4 Requirements, was your vote unanimous? 5 MR. CORNETT: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the members of 7 your board supported it? 8 MR. CORNETT: We had two members of my board 9 not present. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would one of those 11 happen to live in Precinct 2 way out there? 12 MR. CORNETT: Very well could. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions for 14 Cameron? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I do have a 16 couple more I really wanted to follow up on, if you don't 17 mind. I've had some suggestions from one of my 18 constituents, who you and I very well may know, as to some 19 elements of the proposed order that could stand a little 20 strengthening, and I'd like to just run these by you to see 21 if you think they're necessary or if they're underkill or 22 overkill. On Section 1.04, on the last line of Section 23 1.04, which begins H.U.W.C.D. proposed system adequate for 24 its intended use, has to do with the review by Headwaters. 25 There is a suggestion that we qualify that by saying that 42 1 the tactical data required by Headwaters and finds the 2 proposed system hydrologically -- hydro -- 3 MR. CORNETT: Hydrogeologically. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hydrogeologically -- 5 I have a hard time with that -- hydrogeologically adequate. 6 Is that a qualification that you think strengthens or does 7 very little for the proposed order? It's a limiting factor. 8 MR. CORNETT: Mm-hmm. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a necessary 10 limiting factor? 11 MR. CORNETT: Well, that's a good question. 12 I don't know if it strengthens it or not. It's one person's 13 view on the subject. By just limiting -- and we're 14 referring to those systems that are less than 15 connections 15 or less than 25 people. The only thing that the District 16 would be able to do would be to basically, as far as 17 technical designs, be able to review the systems that would 18 be -- have to be engineered. The District could not 19 technically qualify whether a system was adequate, so it 20 would have to be engineered. The District would primarily 21 be looking at the local hydrology within that area. Now, 22 that -- I'm going to leave it up to you as to whether or not 23 that actually strengthens that section. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Under six -- 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Any time you qualify a 43 1 statement, you generally weaken it. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That may be true. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you qualify it, 4 then you leave a hole that says, well, hey, this is not -- 5 this is not -- as long as it passes hydrogeologically, it's 6 okay. There may be other considerations that you might want 7 to reject, so you could be, in fact -- you could be, in 8 fact, weakening rather than strengthening by adding that 9 word. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. One other 11 thing that I want to run by you -- maybe a couple, if you 12 don't mind -- again, under 1.04, and it's Number 3. It has 13 been suggested that -- that the sentence portion be deleted. 14 The whole paragraph reads, "All plats which satisfy Water 15 Availability Requirements by utilizing a new or existing 16 public or community water system shall, by deed restriction 17 or other legal means, prohibit the drilling or use of 18 individual wells within such subdivision," and it goes on to 19 read, "except by individual lot holders for agricultural or 20 irrigation purposes only." The suggestion that was 21 forwarded to me was that the exception should be eliminated. 22 Would you comment on that? 23 MR. CORNETT: This could possibly undermine 24 the water availability section. Of course, these 25 individuals would have to come through the District, and we 44 1 are currently working on a set of rules that I hope will 2 address this. Of course, this -- this entire subdivision, 3 we will be looking at water in its entirety, as far as 4 number of lots, and are the wells spaced out enough, are we 5 seeing it recharge and things like that. It could be a 6 possible weakness. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's been suggested 8 to me that the exception gives rise to abuse. Would you say 9 that's a possibility? 10 MR. CORNETT: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'll make a comment. 12 I would agree it gives rise to abuse, but it could also give 13 rise to a shallow well out of Glen Rose which is not potable 14 water being used for livestock, which would -- and if you 15 don't have it -- the ability -- because it's conceivable we 16 would have a 100-acre tract that's on public water, and 17 they're going to have livestock, and if we don't allow them 18 to drill a shallow well, they're going to have to use 19 expensive, rare water out of the Trinity, more than likely, 20 for that livestock, where there is a -- you know, an option 21 to use shallow water during most times. So, I mean, it cuts 22 both ways on it. I agree that it can be abused, but, you 23 know, I think there's always going to be some sort of a 24 loophole, but they can also be of benefit. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And the last 45 1 one that I want to comment on or ask a question about is the 2 suggestion that there be a new Section 1.05 that reads 3 something to the effect groundwater availability as -- as 4 follows: Regardless of the size of the subdivision, 5 Headwaters must review the plan and find that on the basis 6 of the total number of lots and total area of the 7 subdivision, there exists an adequate supply of groundwater 8 as determined in view of Section 1.02. I personally think 9 we've already covered that ground, but I wanted to get your 10 reaction. 11 MR. CORNETT: I feel that you've adequately 12 covered it. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you very 14 much. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one question of 16 you, briefly. Briefly. Judge Muller brought up a point 17 about the test wells. Could you address that? Just 18 briefly. 19 MR. CORNETT: You're going to have to make 20 your question more specific. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge Muller brought 22 up -- suggested that we have 8 or 10 test wells in the 23 county and seal this off and seal that off and just test 24 certain -- certain waters. Aren't we doing something 25 similar to that at this time? 46 1 MR. CORNETT: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge Muller, are you 3 happy? 4 MR. MULLER: Do you have wells that are cased 5 all the way down to the Cow Creek or Hensell? Or do they 6 take the other waters as they go down? 7 MR. CORNETT: No, we have wells -- our 8 monitor wells are set up to monitor Cow Creek, Hensell, we 9 have some Lower Trinity wells, and of course we have some 10 combinations. Of course, the water -- you can't just single 11 out, say, the Cow Creek or the Hensell, because there's so 12 much vertical communication. It's a leaky aquifer, and so 13 generally, whenever you say formation, you're not 14 necessarily specifying out the Cow Creek or the Hensell; you 15 take it as a group, the middle, the lower. 16 MR. MULLER: That would not answer the 17 question, and that's -- taking the middle or the lower, most 18 of these will get intermingled, and what I'm saying is you 19 can't really measure, because when you get a lot of 20 rainfall, it rises and it drops. What I'm suggesting is 21 that the County take the lead and go down to the hydraulic 22 gradient of water, which is the Cow Creek or the Hensell, 23 and measure that, 'cause you can case everything off, and if 24 you follow the -- the restrictions that you have, there 25 won't be anything else getting down there. So, you know, 47 1 whatever you're going to do is fine, but that would not 2 address it. What I'm saying is it wouldn't cost that much 3 and would give you, as the keepers of the public, five, ten 4 years from now, a data basis to show what's happening. I've 5 seen these other kind of wells and I've seen where the State 6 does it, but most of them are intermingled, and they don't 7 prove the same purpose. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you provide us 9 with some property to drill a test well? 10 MR. MULLER: Sure. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The well. 12 MR. MULLER: Well, no, the well is on the 13 property. I think the -- it would benefit the County to 14 have it where you could get to it. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea, 16 test wells. And one of the -- the intent of the -- these 17 requirements are for us to start obtaining more geologic 18 data, and that's why a lot of the testing information is in 19 here, which will -- and through the -- you know, the very 20 specific logging parameters and other testing of the wells 21 will help with that county-wide. That's one of the problems 22 we have is that we don't have that data on a widespread 23 basis throughout the county, the Middle Trinity and 24 especially the Lower Trinity test wells. You know, it would 25 be great to have more. We have very few. I think everyone 48 1 acknowledges that, but the cost is -- is high to do that on 2 a large scale where it's meaningful. And I think we also 3 need to get the actual property to do it. 4 MR. MULLER: You could do it in County 5 right-of-ways, and you're looking at probably less than 6 $2,000 a well, 'cause there's no electric, there's no 7 pumping, there's no -- there's nothing except the case and 8 an air line. So -- I'm not trying to say that in a rude 9 manner; I'm just trying -- so that you know it wouldn't be 10 a -- a large expense. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something to look into. 12 MR. MULLER: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I have. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions of 15 Mr. Cornett? Thank you, Cameron. Any other questions or 16 comments among the Commissioners? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think -- well, 18 I'll pass this around also. The letter from Cameron has a 19 couple of suggested modifications. There's one that I 20 mentioned where there's a pretty major typo. I think my 21 preference would be to hold off voting on this until we come 22 up with the actual draft that we're going to go with, 'cause 23 there are several changes here from Cameron. I think -- I 24 don't think there's any substantive changes. I don't think 25 we need another public hearing, but there are a few typos 49 1 and things that need to be clarified. I think we've 2 received a lot of good comments from the public, and 3 certainly -- you know, someone pointed out some mistakes. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jon, I have one other 5 question. I'll just direct it to you. Someone out here 6 mentioned that perhaps the 24-hour pump test could be of 7 greater duration, suggesting either 48 or 72. What's your 8 thought on that? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll defer to Cameron. 10 Cameron came up with the 24; he thought that was sufficient. 11 If we need longer, you know, I would -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it says that 13 there are greater -- you know, if necessary. It goes on to 14 say that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's something 16 that's beyond my level of knowledge. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cameron? 18 MR. CORNETT: The 24-hour is more than 19 adequate. Generally, whenever we're pumping, what we're 20 looking for is for the draw-down curve to actually come out 21 into a steady state. If it doesn't equalize within four 22 hours, you can go up to 24. If it has not equalized within 23 24, we have a serious problem. That was the reasoning 24 behind it. And another reasoning is that the waste of 25 water. Whenever you run one of these pump tests over a 50 1 24-hour period, that is a rather large quantity of water. 2 We've run into some problems in the past trying to 3 coordinate a system for collection, because there are some 4 people who do have water trucks that are appreciative of 5 this, but by and by, it's generally if we can get the same 6 information with a minimal pump test, we try to do that 7 path. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, can 10 we go back to Page 1 here? And help me with just one 11 sentence here. In 1.02, the Water Availability 12 Requirements. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you there? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "It is hereby adopted 17 by the Kerr County Commissioners Court that before any 18 subdivision plat is approved, the developer must establish 19 to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commissioners Court 20 that an adequate quantity of water of a quality meeting the 21 standards..." That sentence. I can't make it work. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll see if we can make 23 it clear. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, is 25 that -- 51 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what it means is you 2 have to have enough water that's -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good water. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- that's good quality. You 5 can't have gip water. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does it say that? 7 "Adequate quantity of water of a quality..." 8 (Discussion off the record.) 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could just say 10 "adequate quantity and quality." 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like that. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That meets -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, out in Hunt they 14 didn't teach us to read quite like that, but I agree with 15 Commissioner Letz that we need to go back and do some 16 rewriting. Some great suggestions. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm going to disagree with 18 that. This thing -- we've sawed the bone on this thing 19 about seven or eight months now, and the comments are good, 20 but we -- many of the comments, if we really consider them, 21 would require major philosophical revisions to the -- to the 22 approach of the rules. I think what we have here is a set 23 of rules that serves Kerr County. They've been worked on 24 very extensively to serve Kerr County. I'm of the opinion 25 that we need to get these in place so they can begin to -- 52 1 to serve the function of protecting the citizens of Kerr 2 County. To go back and do a substantial rewrite, what we're 3 going to end up doing is going back and doing a substantial 4 rewrite, approving the new draft, having another public 5 hearing before we can adopt the requirements. My preference 6 would be to go ahead and adopt these requirements, which are 7 excellent requirements, and then if we have any amendments 8 to them, that a look at those. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a real 10 problem, I mean, with that approach. I'm somewhat 11 indifferent from that standpoint, 'cause the changes that I 12 see being made are -- are not substantive changes. They're 13 like the one basically clearing up some language issues. 14 The only, I guess, substantive issue that I see is an 15 interesting point that I may want to look at a little bit 16 more. Maybe we should -- it's under 1.03, whether or not we 17 should delete that last portion of that sentence, basically, 18 which says that if you're on surface water, you don't have 19 to go with that -- 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Five acres. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 5-acre limitation. 22 And, you know, that's -- the reason for that, you know, I 23 think, was to -- you know, to encourage people to go to 24 surface water, which I think is what we have -- the approach 25 we've been taking. But, you know, we certainly don't want 53 1 to get things too crowded right along the river. I mean, I 2 think the -- I'm not sure who made the comment, but the 3 comment was made that we're encouraging, basically, 4 development along the river corridor, and that's something 5 that, you know, may not be good, to get too high a density 6 along the river. But, at the same time, we do want to 7 encourage surface water to be probably the primary use, and 8 I don't know how you do the two things. I don't know how 9 you encourage surface water and not encourage development 10 along the river, but that's an interesting point. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't read it, but 12 I like the situation that Headwaters advanced on that very 13 topic, which they suggest changing what we had put in there, 14 the principal source of water. On surface water, from 15 "principal source" to "a planned source." 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the other way around. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have what 18 they -- 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: It was "planned" and we 20 changed to it "principal," and they're saying they like the 21 "principal." 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They say change it. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: It was there, and then it 24 went to this, and they're supporting that. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, leave it alone. 54 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me just -- maybe 2 I'm missing the point here, but it seems to me that we -- 3 we've got less surface water than we've got groundwater 4 available for this kind of use, so I would say take the 5 phrase out. Stop after 5 acres, period. And, I think I've 6 come up with most of these other things. If we want to go 7 ahead and do this, I can form it as a motion. Maybe we 8 ought to take them one at a time so that people can follow 9 along with us, but I would suggest -- I would make the 10 motion that everything in that sentence after "5 acres" be 11 struck, for all of the good reasons that we've heard. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's -- public and 13 community water systems are addressed later on? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we're just saying 15 that you're -- I mean, we're basically saying that there's 16 not -- you don't get, I guess, a development advantage by 17 using surface water when you delete it. You know, just from 18 an acreage standpoint. There may be other advantages to 19 using a -- a community and public water system and surface 20 water. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not the least of which, you 22 don't have to prove the water availability. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a motion to delete all 25 after "acres" under 1.03. Motion by Commissioner Griffin. 55 1 Do I have a second? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second it. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Second by Commissioner 4 Baldwin. Any further discussion? Any comments? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think if we -- it 6 weakens it if we go to that. I think our objective was to 7 guide development toward surface water, and whenever 8 possible. And we understand that it is not always possible, 9 because it's availability or the location of the development 10 from surface water. The distance may prohibit it. So, I -- 11 I think we are diluting it somewhat or weakening it by 12 taking that out. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it only took a 14 second to get you to make that comment. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. I thought it 16 was going to die. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: My argument -- my 18 argument would be that if -- with that phrase in there, what 19 we're saying is that it's okay to go do a -- a 10-lot 20 subdivision with 10 acres, and suck water out of the river 21 along the same waterfront for those, and I don't think 22 that's good. That's what that says. It says if I've got -- 23 if I've got acreage on the river, I can subdivide it. I can 24 make lots as small as I want, other regulations 25 notwithstanding, and they can all pull water out of the 56 1 river, 'cause I've got water rights. That's what that says. 2 Am I right, Cameron? I mean, I'm not a water -- I'm not a 3 water rights expert, but it seems to me that if you have 4 that phrase in there, that what you've said is if you're on 5 the waterfront and have the rights -- have water rights to 6 that river water, that you can make the subdivision as small 7 with as small of lots as you want to, and suck it out. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you have the 9 provisions to treat the water. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Well, you've 11 got to be able to do whatever you got to do to it. But, I'm 12 saying that the water's in the river and you're going to 13 take it out and put it on 12 small lots. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, first of all, 15 you have to have diversion rights. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm saying I got the 17 water rights; I buy the water rights when I buy the 18 property, or I've owned it forever. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: What this really does is it 20 encourages people like Aqua Source and U.G.R.A. -- 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To go to -- 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to develop and sell 23 surface water. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We hope. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: It provides, hopefully, 57 1 incentive for developers to seek out those who have the 2 ability to provide surface water and contract with them for 3 the water necessary for the subdivision, regardless of 4 whether it's on the river or diffuse from the river. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing this will 6 do if we take out that sentence, we're saying basically that 7 we're not going to allow anything under any conditions, or 8 any lot under any circumstances less than 5 acres in this 9 county, and that's going to have a -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Unless you fall under 11 one of the -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the exemptions, 13 right. Which is -- if you're trying to go small, that means 14 you've got five lots, basically. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that means that -- I 17 mean, any development -- I mean, that's setting a new 18 standard which is far greater than we've ever talked about 19 before. And, from an economic standpoint, people being able 20 to afford housing, you go into, you know, middle to low 21 price range homes and you put them on 5-acre lots, the lot's 22 going to cost more than the house. And I don't think 23 it's -- I think you're going to be pricing -- really making 24 it almost impossible for middle level development in this 25 county. And I think that the -- you know, while there's 58 1 certainly not unlimited water in the river, there are some 2 things through A.S.R. programs, the City of Kerrville is 3 looking at off-channel diversion, reservoir. There are 4 things there that there -- it is a much more renewable 5 resource to use the river. And, granted, during a drought 6 of record, there are some problems, but we can hopefully 7 address that through other planning. I think that I would 8 be, you know, happier having a plan in place that encourages 9 people to use surface water when they can. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the basis of what 11 you just said, Jonathan, I agree now we should go back and 12 play with it a little bit more before we enact it. I think 13 we need to play with 1.03 and we need to tighten up that 14 language or make it a little more understandable with 15 respect to those who could develop -- who have diverse -- or 16 could obtain diversion rights or -- and to provide potable 17 water from surface sources, then I think we should work on 18 that to make it a little -- say it a little better. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Close the loophole 20 that I'm talking about. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you can do it. 23 We maybe should put a minimum acreage limit. I mean, we 24 don't have one currently. Maybe say 1 acre. I mean, if you 25 go with surface water, you still have some sort of a limit. 59 1 I guess, you know, the -- even though I initially said I -- 2 you know, I thought we should hold off, we've got to decide. 3 Might as well decide now. I mean, I agree, we need to 4 rewrite it. Might as well go through discussion, decide 5 what we're going to put. Otherwise, we'll be going through 6 a couple more weeks of change. We need to try to figure 7 out -- if 1.03 is where we have some concerns, we need to 8 figure out how to resolve that. Basically, you know, we can 9 go forward at our next meeting with a final version, because 10 I agree with the Judge that it is imperative that we get 11 this done. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we have to look at 13 these as -- as part of a greater puzzle, as opposed to 14 standing alone. We have in the Subdivision Rules a 15 provision whereby you can go under 5 acres if you do certain 16 things. Look at that in context with these, and they mesh. 17 If you take this out, then you have a conflict between the 18 Water Availability rules and the proposed Subdivision Rules. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we have an absolute 20 in the Subdivision Rules themselves? Do we have an acreage? 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a 5-acre minimum if 22 you have a well and a septic. We have a provision that you 23 can't have more than the number of lots equal to the 24 property divided by 5. But, if you have central water or -- 25 central water and sewer, then you can configure those lots 60 1 within a 5-acre minimum -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Average. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- average. However you want 4 to, which will encourage greenbelts, we hope, and also 5 provide another incentive for people to go on central water 6 and wastewater, because it will be cost-effective to provide 7 those services and a portion of your development, as opposed 8 to throughout the development. So we need to remember that 9 these Water Availability Requirements are part of a greater 10 whole, which are the Subdivision Rules. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: We also need to remember that 13 if we back up on these Water Availability Requirements, we 14 back up on the Subdivision Rules, too. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. I was going 16 to suggest that if -- if we don't strike that last phrase, 17 or last part of the sentence after the word "acres," that 18 perhaps what we could do here is refer to that section of 19 the Subdivision Rules that talks about the -- the very 20 acreage limitations based on what you have. Because -- 21 because this is not stand-alone. It's -- as you say, it's 22 tied to something else. And it might just be that we could 23 have a parentheses in there with, "For other acreage 24 limitations, refer to section so-and-so and so-and-so of 25 these rules." 61 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or some -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, we've 4 tried to mirror them as much as we can, but this is a 5 stand-alone document, and we're attaching it as a part, 6 essentially, of the Subdivision Rules. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even though this, by 9 necessity, is separate from the Subdivision Rules. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it will be attached 12 in, I guess, the booklet that we hand out. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the Manufactured 14 Homeowners we're going to talk about. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. They're all going 16 to be in one volume, even though they're three separate 17 court orders. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This has been a great 19 informational exercise, and with that I'd like to withdraw 20 my second. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I'd like to 22 withdraw my motion. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Still, something needs 25 to be done. 62 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: That closes that issue for 2 now. Any other comments or suggestions regarding any 3 revisions to the approved or proposed rules? The ones that 4 I currently have is on 1.02, the fourth line, it would read 5 "adequate quantity and quality of water meeting the 6 standards established by the T.N.R.C.C." The other one that 7 I have a consensus on is on Page 4, 1.06. Instead of 8 "1.03.A," it would read "1.05" as the exception to the 9 provision for which the exception would apply. Does anyone 10 else have any -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There is one on Page 3 12 to take care of the nitpick that Paul found. I think on the 13 top line there, if we change the 74 to 75. And then down in 14 B, say "whose total acreage is more than 75 acres." 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we left an 17 acre out. The way I read it, it says 74 acres or less, and 18 75 acres or more. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What if you had 74 1/2 20 acres? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. I like whole 22 numbers. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we just -- all we really 24 need to do is to change A to 75. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Change that to 75, and 63 1 then you have to say -- in B, you have to say "total acreage 2 is more than." 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, 'cause you end up with 4 the same -- you end up with the same window. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, because if it's 6 7.0001, then B applies. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's right. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. More than -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: More than 75 acres. 11 Take out the words "or more." 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any others? Okay. 13 What's your wish? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for adoption -- 15 Jon, did I step in there too soon? I'm sorry. This is 16 your -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do it. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is your tar baby. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move we adopt the 20 Kerr County Water Availability Requirements, as modified 21 today. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 24 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the 25 Kerr County Water Availability Requirements, as amended. 64 1 Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, 2 raise your right hands. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this 7 time, even though we have a public hearing posted for 7:30, 8 we're going to take a 12-minute break and reconvene at 10 9 minutes after 8:00 and go immediately into Item Number 8, 10 which is a public hearing on the proposed order establishing 11 Minimum Infrastructure Standards for Manufactured Home 12 Rental Communities. 13 (Recess taken from 7:58 p.m. to 8:10 p.m.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's come back to order, 16 folks. Let's come back to order, please, if we can. It's 17 10 after 8:00. We'll reconvene this special session of the 18 Kerr County Commissioners Court. Next item we're going to 19 take up is Item Number 8, which is a public hearing posted 20 for 7:30 on the proposed order establishing Minimum 21 Infrastructure Standards for Manufactured Home Rental 22 Communities for property located in Kerr County outside the 23 city limits of an incorporated or chartered municipality. 24 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 8:10 p.m., and a public hearing 25 was held in open court, as follows:) 65 1 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there any member of the 3 public who wishes to address the Court on the proposed 4 order? Is there any member of the public who'd like to 5 address the Court on the proposed order establishing Minimum 6 Infrastructure Standards for Manufactured Home Rental 7 Communities? 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Seeing none, we will declare 10 the public hearing concluded and move immediately to Agenda 11 Item Number 9, which is consider and discuss adoption of the 12 order establishing Minimum Infrastructure Standards for 13 Manufactured Home Rental Communities for property located in 14 Kerr County outside the city limits of an incorporated or 15 chartered municipality. 16 (The public hearing was concluded at 8:11 p.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 17 meeting was reopened.) 18 - - - - - - - - - - 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any 20 questions or comments regarding the proposed -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one, Judge. 22 Under 1.04.C, at the bottom, the sentence, applicable 23 provision set forth in Kerr County Water -- no, I withdraw 24 that. I'm okay on it. Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think the -- two 66 1 points. One, I think you're aware of it; you found it and I 2 haven't yet found it, where it was in reference to a 3 driveway and that we're requiring a right-of-way on a 4 driveway, and I think we need to correct that. And, the 5 other issue is the actual right-of-way that we're going to 6 require for the roads. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2.1? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure. I tried to 10 find it. The County Attorney mentioned it to us. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Here it is, 1.04.B. The 12 parenthetical on the second line, "including access roads to 13 individual rental sites," which has been construed to 14 totally mean driveways. 1.04.B on Page 4. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To cut "including access 16 roads to individual sites"? 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the suggestion. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I have no problem 19 with that. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take me with you here. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 4. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm there, and I'm in 23 the paragraph, but what was the verbiage? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Second line, it says "roads, 25 including access roads to individual rental sites." Remove 67 1 the portion between the two commas. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Take it out. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Remove "including access 4 roads to individual rental sites." 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: 'Cause that would be 7 construed to mean driveways. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I agree. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: And that is not -- now, 10 Jonathan, did you want to bring up the 60-foot -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 1.04.B.3 12 establishes the -- I guess the specifications for the road, 13 and we have 60-foot right-of-way, and when we started out we 14 were at, I think, 30 foot at one point. And, due to what 15 other counties were doing and due to, I think, comments 16 received from the Association, I would be comfortable to go 17 back to 30 feet there. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that -- does that 19 make the Association happy? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes them happier. 21 MR. MOTLEY: Makes them happier. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They wanted 20, correct? 23 MR. MOTLEY: They were looking at 20. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That, to me, is 25 unreasonable. I mean, I would -- I hate to say that I 68 1 recommend we go to litigation over a 10-foot difference, but 2 I don't see how you can do -- you can have a shoulder if you 3 go down to 20 feet. I mean, I think you can't do anything. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the County 5 Engineer okay with 30? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: I really haven't looked at 7 this since the last time it was up. Are they talking about 8 a curbed street or just an ordinary street? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just ordinary. It's a 10 paved country lane specification. And, to me, I don't see 11 how you can go much less than 30 feet to build that road. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I think the critical factor is 13 if emergency vehicles can turn around in that -- that 14 right-of-way. The roads will need to be at least 20 foot 15 wide, I would think. Doesn't leave a whole lot left on 16 either side for shoulders. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The base is 20 and the -- 18 the base material is 20 foot and the pavement is 16, and 19 that's -- if we go with 30, that gives us basically 5 feet 20 on each side. And, at one point, they were somewhat 21 agreeable to that. 22 MR. MOTLEY: They might go for that. They 23 have pointed out to me that the Uniform Fire Code -- that's 24 what they have looked at, and they said that fire apparatus 25 access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less 69 1 than 20 feet. And that's what they're hanging their hat on 2 when they say that Travis, Bexar, and Hays Counties have all 3 gone to 20 feet on this. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Talking about the road or 5 right-of-way? 6 MR. MOTLEY: The right-of-way, which we're 7 going to be talking about 16 feet of paved road and 2 feet 8 of crushed base on either side is the -- is what we had. 9 But the 60 -- it made them apoplectic, I'll tell you. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: I prefer 60, but I could be 11 convinced to go with 30. But I don't think I can drop much 12 further than that. 13 MR. MOTLEY: The -- the thing that we're 14 dealing with here is, of course, the statute that says under 15 232.007, Local Government Code, that Commissioners Court may 16 only adopt minimum infrastructure standards for ingress and 17 egress access by fire and emergency vehicles that are 18 reasonably necessary. So, if we think we can argue 30, that 19 might be -- as I say, what's -- what's going on is that the 20 attorney for the Manufactured Housing Association has 21 several similar actions or efforts ongoing in counties in 22 the region, and he is contemplating consolidating them under 23 a judicial administration order to try them in a central 24 county, which he hopes and believes will be Travis County. 25 And Travis County is one of the counties that has gone to 70 1 the 20-foot standard. It would be difficult to argue 2 successfully that 30 feet is reasonable, although it perhaps 3 could be done. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Is he trying to make them all 5 standardized? Is that what you're saying? 6 MR. MOTLEY: I think they're probably trying 7 to make them what is minimally necessary to develop this 8 interim use and keep expenses to a minimum, if I had to 9 guess. One of the things that we have in here also is a 10 cul-de-sac requirement that for roads exceeding 99 feet, 11 there has to be a cul-de-sac. Let's see if I can find 12 that -- just a moment. I have 8.04.B.2. I've got the 13 version where it's been changed to 8. That's the only 14 difference, right? It says anything over 99 feet in length 15 has to have a radius -- cul-de-sac, 50-foot radius, surface 16 of 40 feet. And, looking back at our Subdivision Rules 17 under 5.02.E, it doesn't have the language in there 18 regarding the street having to exceed a certain length in 19 order for that cul-de-sac to kick in. So, I don't know if 20 that makes our manufactured housing standard more 21 restrictive, less restrictive, or different, but we specify 22 that on roads exceeding 99 feet -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say it's less 24 restrictive here. 25 MR. MOTLEY: I think it may be. 71 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're saying in that -- 2 in the Subdivision Rules, if it's 50 foot you have to put a 3 cul-de-sac, and here we're saying it has to be at least 4 99 feet. So -- 5 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I think this is less 7 restrictive than our Subdivision Rules. 8 MR. MOTLEY: I think so. On the final draft 9 of the Subdivision Standards, is the most recent one the 10 October 31st draft? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Close to that. There 12 shouldn't have been a major change since then. 13 MR. MOTLEY: The reason I ask is because the 14 Water Availability Requirements are obviously something 15 that's being worked on separately and going to be included 16 in there, but there's quite a bit of very specific language 17 about water availability in the Manufactured Home Rental 18 Community standards that is not present in the Subdivision 19 Rules, at least in this October 31st draft that I have. 20 And, so, I expect that they could be -- they want to be no 21 -- held to no stricter standard than subdivisions, with that 22 one exception, no stricter than what's reasonably necessary 23 to get the emergency vehicles in and out on the right-of-way 24 width. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the water supply, I 72 1 mean, basically, we're just saying the T.N.R.C.C. rules. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is less 3 restrictive. 4 MR. MOTLEY: Well, on 8. -- or 1.04.C? 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 6 MR. MOTLEY: Water Supply Specifications, it 7 goes into -- and it is T.N.R.C.C., but it goes into the -- 8 about a page of requirements out of Chapter 341 of the 9 Health and Safety Code, and I just didn't see a comparable 10 provision in the Subdivision Rules. And I suspect it's on 11 the way in there. I'm not sure -- 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What we just did in 13 the previous item. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Water Availability 15 Requirements. 16 MR. MOTLEY: That's what I'm saying. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which are not technically 18 part of the Subdivision Rules; they're a separate order. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Under 1.04.A, Drainage -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, going back to 21 that -- 22 MR. MOTLEY: Go ahead. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The statute specifically 24 gives us authority for standards for water. All we're doing 25 is citing T.N.R.C.C. rules; we're not being restrictive at 73 1 all. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Well, you're talking about the 3 -- the Manufactured Home statute? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 5 MR. MOTLEY: It just says that in accordance 6 with Subchapter C, 341 Health and Safety Code. So, I mean, 7 I think that's fine. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 MR. MOTLEY: I'm just trying to point out 10 what I see as differences, because that's what they're 11 seizing on. Under 1.04.A, Drainage, it makes reference back 12 to our Subdivision Regulations, Section 5.07. That may have 13 been a typo. That should be 5.06, I think? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: .06? 15 MR. MOTLEY: I'm saying C, Minimum 16 Infrastructure Standards, 1.04.A, Drainage, the first 17 paragraph section -- sentence. Meet same general 18 requirements as Section 5.07. I think it should be 5.06. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can check that. 20 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. That's about all that I 21 saw. There's nothing else I can really think of that -- he 22 was a little upset about the 60-foot-wide driveways, but I 23 think that's been corrected. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Well, then, 25 I'll move that we -- 74 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, before 2 you do that -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sorry. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you change the 5 right-of-way from 60 to 30? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, that's what I'd 7 recommend. But, I mean, they still may not like it, or 8 evidently don't like it. But -- 9 MR. MOTLEY: It's a lot more reasonable in 10 their eyes, I would assume. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: On roads, you know, if they're 12 using other standards to say that the -- the 60 foot is 13 unreasonable, use 30, it -- Bexar County, I think, uses a 14 narrow one, but they also require a 20-foot wide paved area 15 and an inch and a half of hot mix asphalt and 6 inches of 16 base, so it's a different type of street. If they're 17 arguing a narrow right-of-way, maybe we want to, you know, 18 adjust the quality of the street. They can't make an 19 argument for the minimum out of every other county and say, 20 you know, apply that. 21 MR. MOTLEY: They seem pretty unconcerned 22 about the requirements. They like Bexar County's width, but 23 they -- they prefer our road construction standards, I 24 think. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, one of the 75 1 problems we run into, though -- seriously, Frank -- is that 2 if we did that, we would be applying a standard that we 3 don't require on -- on our Subdivision Rules. We would be 4 requiring a higher standard for road construction. And -- 5 and that's what will get us in trouble, because it says you 6 can't do that. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: What this group -- what this 8 group is doing is cherry-picking all -- all the minimum 9 standards out of all the surrounding counties. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's precisely what 11 they're doing, but I don't think we can -- we can't do it by 12 saying, okay, we'll give you a narrower right-of-way, but 13 we're going to require you to build a more structurally 14 sound road or more expensive road than we require in our 15 other subdivisions. We can't do it, because that's the way 16 the legislation -- 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I thought they were trying to 18 be standardized throughout all the counties. Maybe I 19 misunderstood. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the point -- 21 Franklin's point is well-taken, though, that we are -- 22 because of the nature of the road and the base, it does -- I 23 think logic can say it does require a wider right-of-way, 24 because there's more chance of, I guess, problems because we 25 are not building the road to near the standards that they 76 1 are in Bexar County. 2 MR. MOTLEY: You just have more road for the 3 lower quality, though, it seems like. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you're protecting 5 the edge. If have you a lot of concrete and you drive on 6 the curb, you're not going to have failure. If you drive on 7 the curb a lot or continually, you'll have failure. 8 MR. MOTLEY: I hear you. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: May need to go and do 10 some work and protect that, make sure there's access to it. 11 MR. MOTLEY: One of the things that they said 12 during our meeting was that -- and it's stated in the 13 statute that authorizes these standards to be made, is that 14 they urge it as not a subdivision. And it is, you know, of 15 course, a use of -- a permitted use for -- has to be a -- 16 you know, the individual leases cannot be more than 59 17 months in duration, so they stress that it's sort of a 18 limited use, and that these communities may be converted to 19 other uses, so they don't want to spend a tremendous amount 20 of money putting an infrastructure that would match certain 21 subdivisions if they're just going to turn around and use it 22 for something else when the market changes. So -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that we -- you 24 know, from my conversations with them, I mean, this is -- 25 we're pretty close. I think they should -- would agree to 77 1 this. They agreed to this at one point. 2 MR. MOTLEY: I think -- and so what we have 3 now is 30 foot, and then the change in width of the 4 driveway. Only two substantive changes; is that correct? 5 And the 5.06 and 5.07 to the drainage. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, those three 7 things. 8 MR. MOTLEY: That's the only thing I can see. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move that we adopt the 10 Manufactured Home Rental Communities, as amended. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 13 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve -- 14 adopt the Manufactured Home Rental Community Minimum 15 Infrastructure Standard Order, as amended. Any further 16 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 17 right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. We'll 22 now return to the -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 1. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, Number 2. Next item is 25 Item Number 2, consider and discuss request by Charles 78 1 Flores, Wharton Road, Precinct 2, for a variance from Kerr 2 County O.S.S.F. Rules to allow installation of a septic 3 system in a floodway. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Flores is here, 5 Judge, as is Mr. Wiedenfeld. I'd ask Charlie if he'd come 6 up and tell the Court a little bit more about Mr. Flores' 7 request, along with Mr. Flores. 8 MR. FLORES: Well, since last July, I've been 9 trying to get a septic tank. I bought -- I got all of the 10 permits, the engineers and this and that, and put out about 11 $1,100 just on permits and engineering fees. And I think 12 I've got everything, according to Mr. Wiedenfeld, 13 up-to-date. And I brought my septic tank man here in case 14 there's any questions on septic tanks; he'll have to answer 15 them. So, that's about it. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to hear from 17 Charlie. Would you come up and tell us -- 18 MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- if this meets the 20 standards. 21 MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes. His proposal for 22 septic system has met the scrutiny of the -- my office, and 23 y'all as designated representative, and he has met the 24 standards and guidance that T.N.R.C.C. provides us for 25 having septics in a floodway. Again, this is requesting an 79 1 exception, because the Kerr County Septic Regulations 2 prohibit a septic system to be in the floodway. He is on -- 3 in a marginal area, I suppose, of the floodway. It's right 4 on the edge. His home that he has put there is just about 5 18 inches -- 12 to 18 inches above the floodway. I'm -- or 6 into the floodway, so it's -- he's right on the edge, but it 7 does qualify as being floodway. And, he has made provisions 8 to anchor the tanks. He's anchored his house and he's made 9 provisions to seal the lids so they won't have -- any of the 10 contents inside won't get out during a flood event if dirt 11 washes away from the top of the tank and those kind of 12 things. And, he's even gone a little further on providing a 13 little better drain field or treatment unit, which is a low 14 pressure dosing. The soil would have probably qualified for 15 a conventional system there, but I just didn't feel good 16 about having come to y'all with a recommendation allowing a 17 standard septic system. It's just going to be 75 feet from 18 the Guadalupe River, which is minimum standards. So, 19 otherwise, he has met minimum standards. It's not -- it's 20 not a very comfortable situation here, but he has met 21 minimum standards, and I do recommend that -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This comes under that 23 provision for equivalent protection, as I recall? 24 MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, sir, equivalent 25 protection having been provided and demonstrated to me 80 1 adequately. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just like the one that 3 we approved two months ago? 4 MR. WIEDENFELD: This one, as I say, is a lot 5 closer to the Guadalupe River, but it's actually higher in 6 elevation, so it's not as far into the floodway as the one 7 we had earlier, where it was 8 feet under the floodway 8 situation. But in that case, he was, like, 1,000 feet from 9 the Guadalupe River, but in elevation it was in worse 10 condition than this one is, just right on the -- the fringe 11 area. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How high is 13 Mr. Flores' proposed -- 14 MR. WIEDENFELD: His floor meets minimum 15 standards. It is exactly one-tenth of a foot above the 16 100-year flood elevation, according to the engineer that did 17 the determination. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And your 19 recommendation is that we approve the variance? 20 MR. WIEDENFELD: My recommendation is that it 21 meets minimum standards, and thus, I feel like I can support 22 a recommendation. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we 24 approve the request by Charles Flores on Wharton Road, 25 Precinct 2, for a variance from Kerr County O.S.S.F. Rules 81 1 to allow installation of a septic in floodway. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 4 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 5 approve the request by Charles Flores of Wharton Road, 6 Precinct 2, for a variance from Kerr County O.S.S.F. Rules 7 to allow installation of a septic system in the floodway. 8 Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 9 right hands. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good night Charlie. 15 MR. FLORES: Thank you. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 3 is consider a 17 minor revision of the plat of Lots 43 and 44 of The Horizon, 18 Section One, in Precinct Number 1. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gentlemen, you 20 remember this came before the Court a month or so ago, and 21 the -- and the agenda request language was a little wrong. 22 What was on there before, Franklin? I can't remember. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: It had the word "preliminary." 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Preliminary. And now 25 the words "minor revision" is on there. Nothing else has 82 1 changed. We're still taking two lots and making them into 2 one. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: This still falls under 4 existing -- existing rules. Until the new ones are in 5 effect. Last one, perhaps. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve 7 the minor revision of plat of Lots 43 and 44 of The Horizon, 8 Section One, in Kerr County. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 11 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 12 approve the minor revision of the plat of Lots 43 and 44 of 13 The Horizon, Section One, in Kerr County. Any further 14 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 15 right hands. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item, 20 Item Number 4, is to consider the minor revision of Lots 120 21 and 121 of The Horizon, Section One, Precinct 1. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve 23 the minor revision of plat of Lots 120 and 121 of The 24 Horizon, Section One. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 83 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 2 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 3 approve the minor revision of Lots 120 and 121 of The 4 Horizon, Section One, Precinct Number 1. Any further 5 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 6 right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See if you can do 12 yours that fast. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item Number 5, 14 consider 6-month extension for preliminary plat for Shonto 15 Ranch Estates, Precinct Number 2. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This should fly 17 through pretty easily. It's an extension request for an 18 extension before the six months deadline, not after the 19 fact, as we've had some in the past. And that is for Shonto 20 Ranch, and the County Engineer has reviewed it. Don Voelkel 21 is here also to speak of it. I think the interesting thing 22 about it -- Franklin and Chris might want to address and 23 tell the Court why you're asking for the extension, but I 24 think the interesting thing about it is that, unlike other 25 occasions, here's a developer who's proposing to take the 84 1 land and -- and do fewer lots rather than do more lots. And 2 I think that's something we should -- should note. Franklin 3 and Don, do you want to make some comments about the reason 4 why the extension is being requested? 5 MR. VOELKEL: I'm Don Voelkel, representing 6 the Childs. The main reason we're wanting the extension at 7 this time is we're right in the process of having the road 8 tested, and we've talked with Franklin about it and about 9 this type of material and the width of the -- there's an 10 existing road that was built that probably is not going to 11 be totally sufficient, but we want to see what we need to do 12 to upgrade it to the country lane standards. The -- in the 13 same vein, we've -- Bill and Chris have talked, and in this 14 -- for some of the same reasons we've been seeing here 15 tonight, we felt like this would be a better way to develop 16 this property with the larger tracts. The only change we've 17 got on this is we've taken, where Lot 2 and 3 -- the new Lot 18 2 and 3 are, we've consolidated 10 lots into just two lots. 19 Now they're 10-acre minimums. The lot on the left, Lot 20 Number 1, was originally 7 1/2; now it's 11 acres. We've 21 incorporated, you know, 11 or 12 lots into just three lots. 22 And we didn't really -- this is the same piece of property. 23 It's just a little bit different concept, going with larger 24 tracts. Bill -- I mean Chris Childs went ahead and went to 25 all of the -- the people that are on the normal routing slip 85 1 when you do a brand new preliminary plat and took them a 2 copy of the revised plat. Charlie Wiedenfeld, Raymond 3 Botto, 911, Headwaters. Everybody's looked at it and signed 4 a routing slip, even though we weren't really doing a new 5 preliminary, just to show that they all agreed with the same 6 concept and -- and had no problems with consolidating those 7 10 lots into two lots. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we can assume 9 that if the extension is granted tonight, for purposes of 10 you to define that, when we see this again it will be final 11 and it will show these three lots in the final configuration 12 in the larger size? 13 MR. VOELKEL: As opposed to the 11 lots. 14 This will essentially be the final plat. Once we get the 15 road situation squared away and the signatures, we'll be 16 bringing back this final plat. If -- if that's agreeable 17 for y'all tonight. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move that we grant 19 Shonto Ranch Estates in Precinct 2 a 6-month extension on 20 their preliminary plat, as described here this evening. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: I want to raise a 23 philosophical issue here, because we're not extending the 24 preliminary plat. The preliminary plat that was approved 25 has been substantially revised. While I don't disagree with 86 1 the revisions, I want to raise the issue that we're not 2 extending the previously approved preliminary plat. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Extending the time 4 limit. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: 'Cause it's been -- because 6 it has been substantially and probably, you know, for the 7 better, revised. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good point. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: And, from a procedural point 10 of view, I want us to stop and think a minute about whether 11 what we might want to do is -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have a recount. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- rethink whether we just 14 want to approve this as a preliminary plat, or however we 15 want to proceed. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, 17 the key is, you know, is this a substantial change to the 18 development? And, while we're changing the lots, the road 19 doesn't change. The boundary doesn't change. Whereas it's 20 just basically like a -- I mean, and I don't know. I mean, 21 it just depends -- I look at the language, and it's about 22 whether it's substantially the same as the preliminary when 23 final. And, I don't know, you know, what the -- I think 24 there's enough leeway to do it the way we're doing it, 25 because I see this as not a substantial change. I mean, 87 1 everything is the same except the number of lots. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're being 3 renewed. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're being 5 changed. So, to me, it's in that gray area, but I -- and it 6 can be argued either way, whether it's a substantial change 7 or not a substantial change. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, would it then be a 9 natural extrapolation of what you're saying, then, if the 10 situation was reversed; that if the original preliminary 11 plat had three lots and they were bringing us back for 12 extension a preliminary plat that had 10 lots, that that 13 would be considered a substantial change? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the difference 15 maybe there is drainage and some of the other requirements. 16 I mean, I think that when you're going in this direction, 17 you're not -- I mean, the road and the construction, the 18 drainage issues and all those would be less stringent with 19 fewer lots than with more lots. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Drainage. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On both of -- but, you 22 know, either way you're going to have the same road. Under 23 this second scenario, both the same road, you know, 24 standard. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is the question 88 1 whether we should word the motion that it would just be to 2 approve this as a preliminary plat? 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the agenda item is such 4 that I don't believe we can do that. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: To me, it's -- it's a 7 philosophical question, because I don't have a problem with 8 the proposed revision, but we're doing something which 9 someone may say, well, you did it for the Childs, why don't 10 do you it for us? The other consideration, we're on the 11 brink of adopting new Subdivision Rules, so are there any 12 changes in the Subdivision Rules that we're on the brink of 13 adopting that would -- that are stronger or would impact 14 upon this proposed development? And I'm thinking about the 15 water availability rules. I think there's at least one of 16 the exceptions under the water availability rules that would 17 apply to this piece of ground, because there's less than -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Less than five. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- less than five lots. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't think 21 there's anything that's more strict in our new rules that 22 would affect this particular development, but I think that 23 from a -- a cost standpoint, is it reasonable to require the 24 developer to go through a process which is -- you know, new 25 fees to the County and all over the place for a development 89 1 that is an improvement? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's precisely why 3 I think it's appropriate, too. It really doesn't make a lot 4 of sense to ask them to go through the whole -- put all the 5 fees up, when we're saying all I want is a 6-month extension 6 so I can develop my road criteria, do it right. I'm going 7 to come back with fewer lots than I had before. I don't see 8 any reason to put them through those hoops. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, another way to do that, 10 perhaps, might be not to take action on this, have him come 11 back and, first meeting in December, ask for a preliminary 12 plat approval on this. What concerns me is we're extending 13 something we never approved in the first place. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, we approved the 15 preliminary. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: We approved the preliminary, 17 but this is not the preliminary we approved. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How about this as an 19 out? We are approving -- we are approving -- just as the 20 agenda item says, we are approving an extension of the 21 preliminary plat, because they can come back in the final 22 with three lots instead of 11. They can come back with a 23 road engineered and ready to go. So, what -- technically, 24 what we are extending is the old preliminary plat; we're 25 extending that authorization for six months. And we'll see 90 1 you for a final that will look like this one. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly right. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: I think the agenda has on 4 there "as changed." 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: As amended. 6 MR. JOHNSTON: As amended. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's the problem 8 for me. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, then, it's not 10 amended. 11 MR. VOELKEL: The basic thing we need, 12 because of time constraints and to fix the road and get 13 everything ready, whether we do 11 lots or whether we do 14 three lots, is to get the extension. So, I don't think we 15 want to leave here tonight without getting, like Larry says, 16 the extension. Now, if you are saying you have a problem 17 with the three lots, then we may be stuck with doing 11 18 lots. We don't have a problem with that. We would rather 19 do the three lots. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think you've heard 21 anybody say we have a problem with three lots. 22 MR. VOELKEL: No. But, I mean, the 23 preliminary plat -- 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But you can -- 25 oftentimes people will come in here with a final plat that 91 1 has a different lot configuration than they had in the 2 preliminary. That's all I'm saying. We can approve the -- 3 and if it's as changed -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's changes. There 5 is -- I mean, there are frequently changes, yes. There's 6 a -- in fact, we've done a lot of them, and one I can think 7 of is the one off Highway 27 on the -- right past Center 8 Point, that large tract. What's the name of that place? 9 MR. VOELKEL: Bluff Creek. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bluff Creek. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just did it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The preliminary on that 13 came in with a line -- a road going up the middle with all 14 square lots, until they went out and actually surveyed them 15 and changed the configuration of every lot in that 16 subdivision. But, we didn't change what we were doing. 17 Still one road, each lot having roughly 20 acres, whatever 18 it was. So, we have changed lot size, certainly, from time 19 to time between preliminary and final. 20 MR. VOELKEL: At the end of that we put two 21 large 100-acre tracts, because we just couldn't take any 22 more road back there, so we consolidated the roads -- the 23 lots to just two large lots, and that is similar to what 24 we're doing here. I don't think that we're asking y'all to 25 do anything that -- that is illegal or not correct or going 92 1 to set a precedent. But, what we want to be able to do is 2 to get the extension, is the main thing we want to 3 accomplish tonight. And if we -- if you allow us to bring 4 in a final plat which is three lots, that's what we'd like 5 to do. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Perhaps what we can do -- we 7 often put conditions on preliminary plats -- is we can 8 extend the preliminary plat with the condition that it be 9 reconfigured to three lots. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 13 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 14 approve the extension of the preliminary plat for Shonto 15 Ranch Estates, Precinct 2, with the condition that it be 16 reconfigured to three lots. 17 MR. JOHNSTON: As to your philosophical 18 argument, somewhere in the literature -- I think it's in 19 TexDOT specifications -- it says if there's a change over 20 35 percent, that it's considered a new -- whatever, a new 21 plat or new plan. Maybe we should put that in the new 22 rules, put in some percentage that will take -- kind of take 23 the guesswork out. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think, though, if 25 you -- if you put in a percentage -- I mean, it's like in 93 1 Bluff Creek, you changed every lot, so it's 100 percent 2 change, but we really didn't change anything; just didn't 3 know how the road was going to lay until after we got a 4 bulldozer. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: That would be a little 6 different. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I like our 8 current language. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if it's 11 "substantial change," it leaves a little bit of discretion 12 to the Court, which I think can get you in trouble, but at 13 the same time, it also gives a little bit of leeway. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion's been made and 15 seconded. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, 16 raise your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item 21 for consideration is Item Number 10, consider and discuss 22 added cost for construction of parking lots on the 23 courthouse property. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is really 25 just -- Judge, this is just really an F.Y.I. Some of the 94 1 expenses for doing that had not been provided the last time 2 we took up the agenda item. Where are we, on Number 10? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, since the last 5 time we talked about it, Road and Bridge has given me some 6 numbers for striping, concrete, and plat work, signage, and 7 the only thing missing is tree removal, and we don't know 8 about that. And so I just brought it to the Court F.Y.I. 9 The funding for it is going to come out of Special Projects, 10 most of which has a designation of Precinct 2. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any questions on that 12 informational item? Okay. Next item is Item Number 11, 13 consider and discuss resolution opposing efforts to remove 14 restrictions on transfer of surface water rights between 15 river basins. This is an issue that I believe has been 16 addressed in a number of forums, including the South Texas 17 Commissioners and Judges Association. I think it's useful 18 for us to be on record for Representative Hilderbran and 19 Senator Wentworth to know what the opinion of the Court is 20 on this issue, which is undoubtedly destined to come up 21 again in the next Legislature. Do I have any questions or 22 comments? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could you make it 24 stronger? 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I'll move that 95 1 we -- are we approving or adopting? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Adopting. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We're going to adopt 4 this resolution effort as written. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 7 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 8 adopt the resolution opposing efforts to remove restrictions 9 on transfer of surface water rights between river basins. 10 Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, 11 raise your right hands. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 16 13, consider and discuss -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could we have the 18 resolution to sign? 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's in your book. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we going to each 21 sign our own? 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll circulate. I 23 guess Maggie has got it. Item Number 13, consider and 24 discuss approving the volunteer fire department contracts 25 between Kerr County and the Turtle Creek Volunteer Fire 96 1 Department, and authorize County Judge to sign same. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll move we do that. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 5 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 6 approve the volunteer fire department contract between Kerr 7 County and Turtle Creek Volunteer Fire Department, and 8 authorize County Judge to sign same. Any further questions 9 or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 14 14 is consider and discuss approving the County-sponsored 15 contract between Kerr County and Big Brothers and Sisters, 16 and authorize County Judge to sign same. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any changes? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No changes? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: We already have a motion. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 24 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the 25 contract between Kerr County and Big Brothers and Big 97 1 Sisters and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any 2 further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise 3 your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Any other 8 business to come before us tonight? If not, we stand 9 adjourned. 10 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 8:50 p.m.) 11 - - - - - - - - - - 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 98 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 1st day of December, 8 2000. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25