1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,~..
' ~ 14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r
:~ ~a, 2 5
1
L
/1
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,.-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
,.~
25

I N D E X
March 12, 2001
PAGE
--- Commissioners' Comments 3
1 . 1 Pay Bills Zca°lo~ ,~Ggtlq 7
1 . ^ Budget Amendments 7.drq~1"' g
1.3 Late Bills 2(9810 10
1.4 Read and Approve Minutes 2~q~~ 11
1.5 Approve and Accept Monthly ReportsZ,leRIZ 12
2.1 Preliminary revision of plat - Tracts 231-239,24gr3
Northwest Hills Phase II, & set public hearing 13
2.2 Preliminary revision of plat - Tracts 6 & 7,2(.1(9
Estates of Turtle Creek, Section One 18
2.3 Preliminary revision of plat - Tract 16,
Silver Hills, & set public hearing date Z-~ ai5 18
2.4 Preliminary plat - Paso Creek Ranch 7~GgIL 27
2. 5 Variance to correct numbering of lots in^,(¢~ ~''}'
Falling Water Subdivision 35
2. 6 Concept plan for Cypress Springs Estates ~,.~Pq (Q7 37
2.7 Public Hearing - Revision of plat, Tracts 5A
and 6A, Whiskey Ridge Ranches 51
2.8 Revision of plat, Whiskey Ridge Ranches ZGa~q 53
2.9 Open annual bids for materials (Road & Bridge)Zl~1~59
2.1G Review annual audit for year ending 9/30/00 Z(~921 60
2.11 Pub]ish notice for bids - depository of County 2,4F22
and District funds 66
2.12 Allow County employees to participate in 457 ~~Z3
Deferred Compensation Plan offered by VALiC b7
2.13 Reclassification of Receptionist position to Z4g29
Administrative Jail Secretary 70
2.14 Accept donations to County to match grant funds q2,'S
for purchase of ballistic vests, Sheritf's Dept ~79
2.15 Go out for bids on video equipment ~(iq Zv 82
2.18 Draft amendment to Kerr County OSSF order
regarding property transfer inspection y6A G v~
procedures, set public hearing on same y~0 86
2.20 Discuss "sunset" workshops regarding coun t~
sponsored or funded programs ~ S 135
2.16 Rescind Court Order #26871 and reaffirm Court ZV~ 30
Order #24184, 30-mph speed limit, CP River Rd. 144
2.17 P,esolution supporting inclusion of locally Z~`~3l
elected officials as majority of any board
existing or proposed by House Bill 7 145
2.19 Proclamation declaring March 18-24 as Natiopal
Agriculture Week in Texas `L ~ ~ '~ 197
'. 21 Membership in Association of Rural Communities
in Texas U~~`~ws>io~ 197
--- Adjourned 150
3
1
2
3
9
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
ly
20
~1
22
23
29
25
On Monday, March 12, 2001, a regular meeting of the Kerr
County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners'
Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the
following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's
9 o'clock in the morning on Monday, March 12, Year 2001, and
we will call to order this regular meeting of the Kerr
County Commissioners Court. If y'all will please stand and
join me in a word of prayer, followed by the pledge of
allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, if there's any
citizen who wishes to address the Court on an item not
listed on the agenda, you may come forward and do so. is
there any citizen who wishes to address the Court on an item
not listed on the agenda"? Seeing none, we'll move directly
to the Commissioners' comments. Let's start with
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll pass. If
Commissioner Letz is going to talk about Tivy baseball, I'll
pass.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to use my
time, Judge for an announcement, and I've got a couple --
1
..~ -
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
some guests here this morning which I'd like to introduce as
South wastewater system nearing getting a little closer to
an approval on the Kerr County application for a quarter of
a million dollar grant. Before we get into that, I'd like
to ask Calvin weinheimer and Janet Robinson, please, to
stand, and Jim Brown, and join with us in this, because this
is a dual project in which we -- we're both going to be
working to hopefully complete this.
Our application for a quarter of a million
dollar system grant from the T.D.H.C.A. has moved another
step closer, and it was recommended for funding in the year
2002. And this, as you know, is one of two grants that will
be -- that the County has applied for to do a portion of
Kerrville South wastewater collection system, which
U.G.R.A., in contract with Kerr County, would be
administering those funds and putting in a collection
system. And the wastewater collected would then be
forwarded on to City of Kerrville, who has, on more than one
occasion, expressed its desire to be a regional wastewater
provider. This is a good step in the right direction, and
it appears that this is the grant that we were fearful we
would not be funded for, and it now appears that we will
receive final approval for this.
5
1
2
,.~.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,.--
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The second grant is a half million dollar
colonias grant, and we should know more about it in April
and May, but we expect, as a result of the work of the
Grantworks folks in Austin, that we will receive final
approval for that. This being the case, then, two grants
for $750 thousand should enable us to do the project, and I
want to express our appreciation to U.G.R.A. for its
willingness to participate and for approving, putting up the
matching funds which are required for this grant. And,
Calvin, Jim, Janet, anybody that needs to say anything with
regard to this?
funds, which are to be provided by U.G.R.A., fund the
beginning of a very important project which is designed to
assure the continuation of that -- of the quality of the
waters of the Upper Guadalupe River, its tributaries, and the
groundwater supply. Hopefully, this first step is going to
be followed by approval of the other grant application that
we have out there, and will mark the continuation of joint
efforts between the Court and City of Kerrville and U.G.R.A.
to address the wastewater issues of the area. I want to
commend the Court and thank the Court, as well as the City of
Kerrville and the U.G.R.A., for their participation and
partnership in addressing these important issues. This is a
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
fine example, in my opinion, of local governmental entities
working together to promote the quality of life for the
citizens of Kerr County. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Calvin.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Very good. Commissioner
Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess after that
introduction from Commissioner Baldwin, I've got to talk
about Tivy baseball. I think everyone -- I don't know if
everyone knows or not, but they've had an outstanding
beginning of the season. They were undefeated going into
the Austin tournament, and they were in the championship
game where they did lose to Austin-Bowie, which is a
tremendous 5-A school, good program. Kind of like -- not to
take anything away from Tivy, but like a college team
playing a high school team, and Tivy got beat 7 to 3, or 10
to 3 -- I can't remember what the score was. But, anyway,
they had a great -- two of the games they won in Austin were
through the tiebreaker setup; had a number of base runners.
There was a time limit on those games. So, anyway, it was a
great tournament, and Tivy's had a great season so far.
And, unfortunately, they do have two injuries coming out of
the Tivy tournament. One is Kyle Yates, who has a hurt

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hand; not sure if it is cracked, broken, or just bruised
badly. And then Trey Russ has a -- probably a hurt -- well,
he has a hurt knee, and whether it's going to require
surgery or not, we'll determine today. But, they've had a
great year and should continue. That's it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Speaking of baseball,
I'd like to commend the Ingram Tom Moore High School on
their tournament played in Bandera this past week. They --
it finished third. They came very close to -- to winning
the game that they -- that could have put them in the
championship game. They've gotten off to a pretty good
start, too, and so baseball in the area is looking good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Well, I'll comment on
the Tivy High School Mock Trial Team. They competed in the
State Championship this weekend, and it's my understanding
they finished in the top 10 and were very, very close to
being in the finals. So, the excellence of that program
continues, as does all the programs with our local schools.
It's a good time of year, lots going on. Okay. Let's move
on to the approval agenda. We have some bills to pay.
Mr. Auditor? Does anyone have any questions or comments
about the bills?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
1
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
:' 1
22
23
24
25
8
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve the bills as presented and recommended by the
Auditor. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget
amendments. Budget Amendment No. 1 is for Nondepartmental,
District Court, 216th.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The first part of this
is for Nondepartmental, and I'm requesting a transfer of
$200 from Contingency to Computer Supplies. The other part
is the transfer of $629.90 from Capital Outlay
Nondepartmental to Capital Outlay in the District -- 216th
District Court. It's for the replacement of a fax machine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are those both for the
replacement of a far, machine?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, the other part of it is
for just some cabling that I had to purchase for the
network.
CUMM1551UNER LE'1'Z: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
~1
22
23
24
25
ser_onded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2 is for the Court Collections
Department.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a request to
r_ransfer Sl.il.!"! from Capital Outlay in Ncndepartmental to
Machine Repair in the Courts Collection Department. It's
to -- it's to extend our -- increase the hard drive on a
computer in that department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Amendment Request Number 3 is for the County Judge and
Commissioners Court.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This transfers $100
from Machine Repair to Postage. It's for -- to pay a -- a
bill for -- to FedEx.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a reason we're
-- our postage is running higher? I mean, is it just --
we're spending -- I mean, is it more mail, or Express --
just more in general? Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have
any late bills, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I have one that I just
received this morning from the Maintenance Supervisor for
the -- for the painting of the courthouse walls. It's for
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lh
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$450 from the contractor. It --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Who's the contractor?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's Ochoa Painting Company.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Ochoa?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That means -- that
means to me that the Maintenance Supervisor has said the job
is complete and he's real happy with it and he signed off on
it and wishes -- wishes to spend the public's money?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
approve a late bill and issue a hand check in the amount of
$950 to Ochoa Painting Company. Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
MR. TOMLINSON: That's all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Tommy. At this
time, I'd entertain a motion to waive reading and approve
the minutes of the February 12th and February 26th
12
i'^~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioners Court meetings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court waive reading
and approve the minutes of the February 12th and
February 26th Commissioners Court meetings. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this
time, I'd entertain a motion to approve and accept the
monthly reports as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Over here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
accept and approve the monthly reports as presented. Any
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. All right.
We'll move directly into the consideration agenda. First
item for discussion is Item Number 1, consider approval of
preliminary revision of plat for Tracts 231-239 of Northwest
Hills, Phase II, and set a public hearing for the same.
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. If you
remember, this -- this plat has been around for a month or
-- actually, more, and they're simply taking small lots and
making them into larger lots. Mr. Johnston, do you want to
talk further about that?
MR.. JOHNSTON: There is three of them; 23~-A
combines two lots, 235-A combines two lots, 239-A combines
two lots. Then 233-A combines a total of three lots. It's
making the lots larger in all cases.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know there's a
change in the name of the road before the cul-de-sac from
Sutherland Drive to Presidio Drive. Has that been cleared
by 911'?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, I think it's
presently -- it's been renamed somewhere along the line.
He's just bringing the plat up to reflect what -- actually,
it's called Presidio Drive.
14
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
2J
COMMISSIONER. LETZ: Franklin, does tYiis fall
under the -- the category of that one paragraph that we had
left out of the Subdivision Rules?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think it would.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you read that
paragraph for us?
MR. JOHNSTON: Paragraph --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, if I could, it
appears that when we recopied the revision of plat language
from Section 232, we left off Paragraph (f), and Paragraph
(f) -- well, Franklin can go ahead and read Paragraph (f).
MR. JOHNSTON: 232.009 of the Local
Government Code, Paragraph (f), "The Commissioners Court is
not required to give notice by mail under Subsection C if
the plat revision only combines existing tracts."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what that does -- and
that's -- it inadvertently was left out, and it will be
changed as soon as we get it back on the agenda to add that
provision back in. It does not eliminate the need for minor
replats, as we used to call them, or minor revisions, but
just if y~u'ce -- if you're eliminating lot lines and making
larger tracts, we do not need to go through the public
hearing prowess. And, I would recommend that we grant a
waiver on this one anal others until we get that --
COMMISSIONER BALUWIN: Public hearing or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
15
public notification?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Public hearing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't that be the
same for ~.2, Jon, as well?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both, yeah. It goes to
the public notification and public hearing process, which is
outlined under Section 232, and it's just an oversight on my
part, leaving that out.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Technically, this time
we would be granting a variance to correct that, and then
we'll get it right in the rules.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's another one,
I believe, on the agenda, maybe two more today of the same
situation. This is not changing lot lines; this is just
eliminating lot lines.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I'd recommend we do
grant a variance, and so that they do not have to go through
the public hearing process, unless --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve the
preliminary revision of plat for Tracts 231 through 239 of
Northwest Hi11s, Phase II, and set public hearing date --
what is the public hearing date?
(Discussion off the record.)
1
2
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do you want a public
hearing?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no. No, we're
waiving that. I'm sorry. Just reading this here. You're
right.
(Discussion off the record.)	
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second.	
DODGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner	
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court	
approve the preliminary revision of plat for Tracts 231	to
239 of Northwest Hi11s, Phase II, and grant a variance	to
waive the requirement of public hearing contained in th	e
current Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations.	Any
questions or comments?	
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only question	is, I
don't think I heard the words "public hearing" in what	he
read. I heard "public notification."	
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that referred to	
Paragraph C, which C -- Paragraph C refers to public	
hearing.	
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, both of those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, at what point
will we -- is notification required?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you're changing --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're changing -- if
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
~3
24
25
17
you`re revising it. Aside from eliminating lot lines and
making bigger lots.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be the reverse,
if you took a big tract and broke it down into small tracts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would require a
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But if you're making
it bigger and you're not changing the lines, you're just
eliminating lines to make them bigger, then you don't have
to go through that, which makes sense.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's a few other little
minor -- in the title block and such, there's some minor
changes I've talked to the surveyor about, and he's going to
make those changes. He's going to take the word "replat"
out and put "revision of plat" in the title.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is the
preliminary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is preliminary, yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any further questions
or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
2 is consider approval of preliminary revision of plat to
combine Tracts 6 and 7 of the Estates of Turtle Creek,
Section One, and consider not requiring notice by mail under
Subsection C, 232.009(f).
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe this is the
same thing as we just did in Northwest Hills, only a smaller
tract of land, and this is a case where we're taking two
smaller 5-acre lots and combining them to make a -- one
10-acre lot, and so I would move that we grant the variance
in the preliminary revision of plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
approve the preliminary revision of plat to combine Tracts 6
and 7 of the Estates of Turtle Creek, Section One, and grant
a waiver to the notice requirement under the -- notice and
public hearing requirement under the current Kerr County
Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Any further questions or
comments? If not, a1L in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tract number -- ltem Number
3, consider approval of preliminary revision of plat for
Tra~~t 16 of Silver Hills and set a public hearing date for
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
24
25
19
the same. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this one's a
little different. This one's a little different. The Court
may recall that this is a companion one to the next one,
which is the Paso Creek Ranch Subdivision, and we'll talk
about that at the right time. But, you may recall that the
owner purchased a parcel of land in the Silver Hills
Subdivision for the purpose of giving himself -- giving his
subdivision another ingress and egress instead of just the
one that -- which would come off of Center Point River Road.
This would take them out through Silver Hills and out onto
Highway 173. And, they purchased a piece of property in
Silver Hills, and that's what this is all about. However,
just this morning, the County Engineer gave me a fax from
Headwaters Underground Water Conservation District, and it
says that upon reviewing that plat, there are some problems
with the septic and the wells. "Due to the close proximity
of the well and septic system on proposed Tract 15B, the
District Field Technician visited the site and evidenced at
the site surface pooling in the area of O.S.S.F. disposal
area, approximately 90 feet from the well. District
requests remediation of this O.S.S.F. disposal area, as the
replat notes state that Tract 16B shall be responsible for
fresh water source on 16A. There is no evidence of any
other well or water source Tor 16A or 16B except the well on
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
^_0
21
~~
L ~
23
29
25
Tra~~t 16B with surface contamination within 40 feet of the
well. Upon notification of remediation of surface pooling
in the area of the O.S.S.F. disposal area, the District will
make another site visit and again review approval of
proposed plat." Any comments on that, Frankt Or I see
Mr. Dominques.
MR. JOHNSTON: Charles Dominques is here this
morning. He probably has mare information on that.
MR. DOMINGUES: I understand from Bob Worsham
that the contract was let to revise the wastewater field and
move it, and that it should be completed at this tune. We
don't -- U.G,P..A. has not notified the Headwaters of it.
We'll have to notify Headwaters that it has been
constructed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't kiiuw
that. The Court doesn't know that. All we know is what
we've got in our hand. It hasn't perked up or perked down,
whichever it's supposed to do.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. IL Lhis ie
a preliminary, can we make that a condition?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we could,
conditional.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And all Lhe paperwork.
Before the final car. be done, it has to be approved and --
and by the right agencies and so documented and so on. Z
21
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
1Z
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
29
25
think on that basis, if the work is being done, we can save
having to revisit the preliminary again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have any
problem with that condition as a condition of preliminary?
MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, yeah, it can be placed as
a condition. The verbiage on lot sizes in the new
Subdivision Rules, are they average with wells? Or are they
a minimum of 5 for the smallest lot? Or can we get water
from the neighboring lot? I'm not rea] --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's an individual
well, it's a minimum of 5.
MR. JOHNSTON: They have 3-acre lots, but
they're saying they're getting water from the neighbor. Is
that something that is not covered in our rules?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but if it's under a
public water system, it's an average. If it's under a
private, individual well system, it's a minimum. And,
I'm -- I'm not going to make the determination that getting
water from your neighbor is a -- qualifies as a public
system.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be the
intention to bring the water underneath the proposed road;
is that correct? Tc 16A from 16B?
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it wouldn't
qualify, but -- to me, that would be a 5-acre minimum there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For its own well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless it'S served by a
public water system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, if it's not served by a
public water system, then it falls back to the 5-acre
minimum.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the '1'.N.R.C.C.
rule with respect to what constitutes a public water system?
Fifteen or more connections?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I think. Is that
right, 15'?
MR. JOHNSTON: Something like that. Some
number, 14, 15.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This falls in
never-never Land, somewhere in between, doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's a -- I think
it could probably -- actually, I think T.N.R.C.C. -- the 15
means it has to meet certain new requirements from the
reporting standpoint. I think if you serve one, you're
technically a public water system; ~s 1_hat right? I mean,
I -- 'cause I know our Subdivision -- or the Subdivision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
23
Rules, tha water availability portion, addresses systems
that have less than 15, and they have to meet certain
requirements -- the same requirement.
JUDGE HENNEKE: They have to be signed off on
by Headwaters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And meet the same basic
requirements that the other systems do from a health
standpoint.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask a
question, Charles. Is there any reason why you would bring
that road through and split this tract that way? Why
cou]dn't you bring the road through closer to the -- to the
right-hand side and eliminate having two separate tracts?
MR. DOMINGUES: There's two major reasons for
that. First reason is, the location of the road as it is
here is the best location for construction and to keep it
maintained. If you move it farther to the north, if you
notice, you're getting into a draw, and it would be more
difficult to maintain the road at that location. And, this
is the location that the owner of the piece of property
would like it to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was thinking more
to the south, not to the north.
MR. DOMINGUES: Oh, to the south? Well, if
you move it farther to the south, then it would create a
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
smaller than 3-acre tract.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move it to the tract
line.
MR. DOMINGUES: The property owner wants the
area on both sides of the road. You're looking at --
Tract Number 16 is a tract on the size of which it can be
divided into three tracts under the new Subdivision
Regulations, because it is over 15 acres. He wants to
divide it just into two tracts, which makes one extra-large,
over the 5 acres, and the other one a smaller tract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no public water
system. Only way you can do an average is --
MR. DOMINGUES: A public water system is a
water system where one person or an entity supplies another
one -- another person or entity with water, no matter what
the size of or the number of lots, or people that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they have to meet the
requirements of our subdivision water availability
requirements still, and there are rules regarding that.
There are rules regarding water systems --
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- less than 15, that
they're going to have to meet.
MR. DOMINGUES: Less than 15, there's not
25

1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
near as much stringent requirements as there is over 15
under T.N.R.C.C. or Headwaters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. So, are you
saying that you're going to have a public water system on
this tract?
MR. DOMINGUES: Oh, yes. There's a lot of
public water systems out there with less than 15 acres. In
fact, I would say most of them are less than 15 tracts.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think the -- what the
developer needs to understand, if he's going to move forward
with this configuration, one, he's going to have to solve
the Headwaters problem with regard to the well and the
septic system, and two, he's going to have to demonstrate
that the -- that the well and the septic system is going to
serve Tract 16A and meets the requirements and water
availability rules, which means you're going to have to go
to Headwaters and satisfy their requirements for a public
water system with less than 15 hookups.
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That would work.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That works.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That works.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So long as he understands
that there's two hurdles he has to jump through now.
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir.
L V
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I guess we're to
a preliminary with these conditions; is that correct?
JDDGE HENNEKE: We can do that.
MR. JOHNSTON: This road, by the way -- this
road going through there will be a public road, and they'll
be built to local public road -- local road standards, to
meet Paso Creek standards, which I believe is 20 foot wide
of paved area.
MR. DOMINGUES: I'm not sure. I don't
remember what the width is, but it will be the same type of
road construction as the roads in the Paso Creek
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move it, with the
conditions that we've discussed, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you going to set the
public hearing for 30 days from now? Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Set a public hearing
for 30 days, the first meeting in --
JUDGE HENNEKE: April the --
MS. ALFORD: 24th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 24th.
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. ALFORD: The second meeting -- the 23rd,
excuse me.
MS. SOVIL: 23rd.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, the developer will
have letters from Headwaters regarding both of the
requirements.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve the preliminary revision of plat for Tract 16 of
Silver Hills, with the condition that the developer satisfy
the problems noted with the septic system and well, and also
that the developer have the well qualified as a public water
system with less than 15 hookups by the Headwaters
Underground Water Conservation District, pursuant to the
Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and set the
public hearing for the final approval for 10 o'clock on
April 23rd, Year 2001, here in the Kerr County Courthouse.
Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. The
next item is Item Number 4, consider the approval of
preliminary plat for Paso Creek Ranch. Commissioner
28
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When last we saw
this, the bulk of the discussion had to do with a hydrologic
study with regard to Paso Creek and its effect on the -- on
the proposed subdivision. Franklin, do you want to pick it
up from this point?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. Hydrology study has
been completed. It's in the form of a 3-ring binder.
Mr. Williams has a copy of it. I think we have four or five
copies floating around.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here it is, if anyone
wants to read it.
MR. JOHNSTON: It establishes the 100-year
floodplain and also talks about the 7-day flood elevation
where it was on the -- on this side. The developer is
proposing to put in a public road through the sire, which
would enter off of Center Point River Road and proceed
through the tract we just talked about, Number 16 in Silver
Hills, which will be the high water outlet, or just another
outlet road; goes right through. I think the road would be
-- the number of tracts would indicate the road would be
what we call local road in our specifications, 20-foot paved
road, 2-foot shoulders. The only comments I would have are
the road, where it enters the subdivision, crosses a low
water crossing, crosses the Turtle Creek. I guess
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
~~
23
24
~5
29
eventually it will cross another creek up -- also, and that
-- I don't think this low water crossing right now is the
same width as the road. I'm not sure low water crossings
need to be the same width. I think they would be; it's a
road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. JOHNSTON: So, have to take a look at
that. I think, based on our Subdivision Rules, that the '78
flood was prominent in that area and discussed in the
drainage study; that, somewhere along the road right-of-way
on a publicly accessed area, there should be a monument that
shows the elevation of that flood, just for reference for
people that live out there, which was 1,591 feet above
median sea level. The -- that comes under 5.05 of our
Subdivision Rules, concrete monuments. That says they're
required within a special flood hazard area to study access.
I have one question. On Lot 15, where there's -- along the
lot line, there's a 15-foot-wide drainage easement, and
that's also access to that lot. It's on a cul-de-sac, and
it's 60 foot of frontage. And, I guess they would use that
-- that drainage easement would be part of that frontage,
and I'm not sure we've run across that before. I don't
think this has been -- this hasn't been built yet, or -- you
kind of know the location, but seems to indicate a drainage
area where the road -- where the driveway comes in. Might
30

1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
~0
L 1
L L
23
24
45
be something to look at to make sure it's done -- not into a
flooded area. I think they were my main comments. I think
there's a tree existing in that road where it comes off of
Lower Turtle Creek that would probably need to be taken out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, where Tract
15 and 13 kind of flag back up to that cul-de-sac --
MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- is that 60 feet
coming off the cul-de-sac? Is that what that 50 is for?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's 60 foot of frontage.
CUMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: My only question was that
15-foot drainage in there in that overlaps the frontage, if
that's -- that's not really contemplated, I don't think.
CuMMI95IUNER LETZ: I don't think we have --
I've never seen it. We don't have any provision against
doing it this way, put it that way. And, it makes -- I
mean, 50 foot, you're only talking about -- assuming it
~pliLS the difference, you know, at most -- well, at most,
15 feet on any tract, and probably 7 to 8 feet. So, it
shouldn't be a problem. It's just kind of like a greenbelt
area between the lots.
MR. JOHNSTON: Does that drainage easement
split that line, or is it all on one side?
MR. DOMINGOES: Put it all on one side,



1
Z
3
4
5
ti
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
mainly due to the fact that this drainage easement is -- or
the drainage construction will not take place down the lot.
What it's really there for is in case the adjacent Tract 13
does build something that prevents the water from going
across, like if putting in his driveway puts a terrace up
there, it will give the water or the easement down through
there the right to be able to go down there through there
and then spread out across the -- the natural ground. It's
not a very large drainage through there, but it's just for
the purposes of being able to put something through there
legally.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it will be on Tract
15?
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has no bearing on the
flow coming off of 14 and 16?
MR. DOMINGOES: It has something to do with
the flow coming off of 15, but. not 14.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: That does dead-end to another
adjacent property, but it's a ranch or something, I guess,
so it's not -- not like it's going to be in someone's back
yard or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that point, I mean,
but it's -- you know, you certainly know this. I mean, to
32
~^^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~9
2`_
me, if your purpose is trying to get that water to go out in
general, once you get down to the tract, open it up, you can
stop it, just have an easement in the -- in an upper area,
and so you're not channeling the water onto the -- but
that's --
MR. DOMINGUES: The -- the intent is not to
channel water. Once it gets past the road, to let it flow
across the ground in its natural state.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move the
preliminary plat approval for Paso Creek Ranch, which is in
Precinct 2, to include the comments and additions as
outlined by the County Engineer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. I have a
comment. I think, you know, looking at this -- I've looked
at it several times. I think it looks like a very nice
subdivision. Good joh.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
approve the preliminary plat for Paso Creek Ranch, Precinct
~. This is not something we need a public hearing on?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is -- no.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor --

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1~
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
33
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's a
comment waiting right there.
MR. DOMINGUES: I have one comment. Really
dcesn't have to do with the approval of the subdivision,
itself. What I'm interested in is the low water crossing
across Turtle Creek. Since there is a requirement to have
crossings the same width as the road, and this crossing does
not comply with that, even though it is a well-built
concrete structure and it has very large cypress trees on
either side of it, the owner, due to the fact that it is
going to be supplying a very minimum property owners, would
like to leave it in its natural state and have the road on
either side a little bit wider for cars to stop, because i~
is a very short crossing as far as length goes, and there is
a good visibility from one side to the other side. IL's nut
something that, you know, you all of a sudden see a car.
There is good visibility. I would like to request that
variance -- a variance from the Court, and what procedures
would we need to go through to be able to do that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the County
Engineer had indicated he's going to go back and take a look
at it.
COMMISSIONEN LETZ: Right. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we want
to do that today, unless -- until he repox~s Lack.
34
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DOMINGUES: Just let Frank report back.
That will be fine. I just needed to know for sure.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think they can request a
variance with the final plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I think -- I mean --
MR. DOMINGUES: Well, we need to request it
kind of before the final plat, at the construction stage, so
that we'll know whether or not we have to build it or not
build it, and to be able to foot -- to supply a final plat,
we would need to know what the cost is in construction to
put up the bond and everything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Franklin can go out
and take a look at it, bring it back as a variance, as a
separate agenda item. And, I would tend to agree. I mean,
because of the -- that being a fairly major tributary of the
Guadalupe, it would probably be easier to leave that bridge,
if it's sound, than trying to tear it out and rebuild it,
then do a lot of --
MR. JOHNSTON: It's a short duration, just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, we've
heard --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You also, 10 years
from now, though, are going to come back and the
Commissioners Court's going to say, "What group of idiots
left the bottleneck here for this highly traveled road?" I
35
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
ly
20
21
-, ,
23
24
25
can guarantee that's going to happen.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We'll know which
idiots it was.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to vote
against it.
MR. DOMINGUES: Buster, you can always come
back and say, well, they have a back entry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just refer them to
the engineer and to the surveyor; they said it's not
necessary.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We have a motion and a
second. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hands.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
5, consider variance to correct the numbering of lots in
Falling Water and change the revision of plat of Falling
Water as recorded in Volume 7, Page 76, Precinct 3.
Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll refer this to Frank,
and I'll -- Franklin, are you looking for --
MR. JOHNSTON: Dale isn't here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dale's on Grand Jury
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
~1
22
23
~4
25
duty. He's upstairs, and it depends on how long Grand Jury
duty lasts; he may or may not be here. But, I'll --
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. Basically, on the
series of replats we've -- we've worked on on Falling Water
over the last year or so, it's up -- two separate sides of
the -- of the subdivision plat has two Lot 98s, and the
owner requests a variance to replat this to change that one
lot number, and asking for a variance and allow the Court to
issue an order and let the surveyor mark on the original
mylar, it's my understanding, the letter "A" on the lot
that's on Settlers Way -- fronts on Settlers Way, to
distinguish it from the other lot.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a numbering
change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't have a
problem with it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JODGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court grant a
variance to correct the numbering of lots in Falling Water
to add a Lot 98A in addition to the existing Lot 98, as
recorded if Volume 7, Page 76, Deed Records of Kerr County,
Texas.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
1/
18
ly
20
21
~~
23
24
25
37
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make -- might just make a
note for the record that the variance is to not have to go
through the whole revision of plat process again, which
would require two meetings, notification, et cetera, and
nothing would be gained by doing that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Commissioner
Griffin, do you want to pass on Number 6 till Mr. Crenwelge
can be here?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, I suspect Dale
needs to be here for that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I visited with him when I
saw him on this. He -- you know, we --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You think we can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, probably, we can
go through it. If there's problems, we can defer it. He
could be up there all day. I don't know how heavy the
docket was on Grand Jury today.
COMMISSIONER GK1r'r'1N: You and I discussed
this, so how about you sort of going through the situation?
COMMISSIUNER LE'i'Z: 'Phis is one of the --

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1/
18
19
20
21
22
Z3
24
25
38
Larry and Dale and, I think, Franklin and I all -- we all
sat down and looked at it. This is in Cypress Creek --
looks like Cypress Springs Subdivision, which is Larry's
area. And, just because -- I got involved because it was
started before Larry got on the Court. And, the basic issue
was, when this was originally platted, it was done and
brought before us in three phases. Phase I, which is kind
of under -- being sold, and basically Phase II and III
were -- I think they even had four phases. The other phases
were just set up into the large tracts, and would -- would
tend to be the same thing being done with them and lot size,
roughly, brought in later. There was even discussion at the
time, as I recall, when Bruce was Commissioner out there as
to the number -- about the road sizes and all that, to
accommodate the maximum number of lots that would be out
there.
Well, since we did that and that was all
done, we r_hanged the Subdivision Rules and changed the lot
size requirement. And, when we -- I guess the four of us,
including -- five of us, including the developer, sat down,
looked at it, and, you know, it's kind of -- it's -- a
question came up as to whether these were under the old
rules or new rules, and there's an argument that could be, I
think, stated either way. And as, I think, an
accommodation -- and Larry and I agree too, and I think
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
z3
29
ZS
39
Frank agrees too, that -- to let Phase II go in under a
smaller -- or recommend Phase II go in under a 3.3-acre
average lot size, and Phase IV could go up to the full
5-acre lot size, 'cause it is a gray area as to whether this
is a -- really grandfathered under 2 and a half acre lot
size.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Phase II was actually
included in the original approval as one big lot, so
that's -- the question, then, is -- is that when you start
to subdivide that as a platted subdivision, that which rule
applies? And Jonathan, I think, has come up with an answer.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we've covered that in
the Subdivision Rules, because the Subdivision Rules say if
you revise your plats so that you increase the number of
lots by more than 20 percent, then you fall under the new
rule, as far as water availability is concerned.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the total
subdivision won't exceed the requirement.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's not the total
subdivision; it's what was platted. I think what was
platted, if -- when you increase the number of lots by
20 percent, so I think that's something we need to look at.
MR. JOHNSTON: That is --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because what we have is,
obviously, the number of lots is going to be -- including
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
what has previously been platted, is going to increase by
more than 20 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the other -- I
mean, the -- the other way the developer could do this,
which would be more red tape for us, as I see it, though,
would be to cancel everything except Phase I, replat it,
because he's got the acre -- all of the densities in Phase
I, and he has these other areas where he's never going to
even meet the 5-acre limit. I mean, he could get more lots
total on that subdivision by going another route, to me, and
canceling the -- and just doing a new plat on --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On the averages.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To play the average game.
If he goes in and cancels and revises that subdivision and
only has Phase I as Cypress Springs, then comes in with a
new plat, he will be able to easily meet the 5-acre
requirement under the scenario we outline.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But I don't see where you can
come in and take in the whole thing under one -- one plat
when he's already platted part of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He'd go in and cancel it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Go ahead and cancel
Phase 11 and 111.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then call that a new
subdivision.
91
1
2
3
9
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: And then have a new
subdivision for II and III.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Isn't that what we're talking
about, basically?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. What we're
talking about now is that Phase II would still be a part of
the original approved platted subdivision, which had Phase
II as just one big lot which had not been divided at that
time. And, so, what this would do is this would essentially
allow the same -- well, not quite the same, because it would
be bigger, but it would allow about the same spacing that
Phase I had. And -- but, as Jonathan says, if you go and
cancel II and then replat it, then he can make -- he could
make them much smaller lots and still meet the average. So,
it's a --
MR. JOHNSTON: 'Cause one's holding the
average down; they're all 1- to 2-acre lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Phase I's real small,
small lots, so he's -- that's hurting. That's pulling the
whole average down for the other 800 acres or 600, whatever
it is that he has left to plat.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, you know, he
can -- to me, its an easier way to do it. And, again, the
42
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~S
other option is -- it may be cleaner to go the other option
and cancel it and replat it, but I think it -- I mean, it's
just -- it's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The net result may be
better this way than the other way, however.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You'd end up with --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fewer lots total.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You'd end up with
fewer lots this way than you could, theoretically, the other
way. So, that's the limit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, that's why -- that's
why it's on the agenda, to make it -- you know, a direction
more than anything else, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody had his hand
up.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else on the Court have
any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. What about this
-- this letter that we got from Headwaters? What about
these concerns -- this list of concerns here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those, as I understand --
well, I -- granted, I didn't read it extremely thoroughly,
but when I read it, it was -- they were looking at this as a
new subdivision. They interpret water availability and
43

1
2
3
9
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those requirements, and there wouldn't be a -- I mean --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Phase III is essentially a
new subdivision.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Phase III.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Phase III would be, yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Phase II --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's already --
the wells are already out -- it's already under a public
water system.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. So, it's under a
public water system, so what we're talking about is having
no more than total number of acreage divided by 5.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what were working on.
Who has the water system? Aqua Source?
MR. JOHNSTON: Aqua Source.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aqua Source. I'm not
sure that Headwaters was aware of the whole -- of the -- of
what is actually out there. I mean, I'm not trying to, you
know, say we disregard them. I just don't think they were
aware that there was -- they certainly weren't aware of the
meeting that Frank and Larry and the developer and I had,
but I think they need to see what the requirements are.
And, there may be a second well requirement; I'd have to
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
look at the actual rules and water availability, you know.
If they're going to -- if Aqua Source may be required to
drill a second well, there may be that well requirement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it's more than
75 acres?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And this is, in
essence, a preliminary anyway, so that -- that would have to
be satisfied before we would grant final plat approval.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is a concept plan.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is a concept
plan, so we're -- we're talking about direction on the
sizing of these particular lots that are now comprising
Phase II. That's the question. And then they'd have to go
off and do all the -- the right Headwaters things and -- in
fact, the whole ball of wax.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when he did
Section 1, he did a whole bunch of real small lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And one great big one,
so he could get around the system later on, which is where
we are today.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. He wasn't -- the
original developer, who is not the current developer --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- laid out, I think,
45

1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
four full phases. And, in the original plat, we just did
Phase I, and at that time met the Subdivision Rule
requirement for lot size in Phase I. And, he just showed
Phase II, which was part of the approved plat, as just one
big lot, 'cause he hadn't gotten to that yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now, the question is,
what can the lot sizes be in the second phase?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if they were
approved as part of the first one, whatever they were under
the rules.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's sort of why we
came down and then said, well, let's talk about that,
though. Actually, they're going to end up larger, on
average, than the --
MR. JOHNSTON: With the water system on the
first -- with the rules in effect at that time, he can put
in 1-acre lots.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could have. And, this
is going to end up with about -- what did we say?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3.3.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 3.3 average acre lot
size. So, it's actually bigger than the rules were for
Phase I.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But less than the
46
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
current standard.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But less than the
current standard would be if you were starting from scratch,
yes.
DODGE HENNEKE: Weil, remember, the current
standard contains a requirement for revising existing plats.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Over 20 percent.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you increase the number of
lots by over 20 percent of the original total, which is
clearly --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, this would certainly be
more than 20 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the -- I don't have
the current rules in front of me, the "ZO percent" language.
Does it refer to lot sizes -- water availability, or is it
more lot size?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Water availability.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, see, the water
availability on this one is --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Public water system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- public water system.
May have to drill a second well. 1 have to look at the
rules. I can't -- believe it or not, I can't remember
everything in there.
47
.~
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No pun intended; let
me just test the water. I'll make the motion that we --
that we approve the -- that we -- 'cause it's a concept
plan. Not approve anything, but we -- we agree that, in a
preliminary plat, that the lot sizing be based as skiown on
this concept plan, which is in accordance with the
average -- that would turn out to be 3.3 average Iot size in
Phase II. And, of course, all the wickets would have to be
gone through after that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, that's the lot sizing in
Phase II?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
DODGE HENNEKE: Are we addressing Phase III
at a11?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Phase III has to be
5-acre.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Phase III is going to
have to be under the new rule, 'cause it wasn't platted with
the original -- it was just shown as a sketch; III and IV
were just shown as sketches.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Vkay. Before we act on that,
we have -- Mr. Siemers, you want to address us on this?
MR. SIEMERS; Yes, sir. Paul Siemers. I
live at HC-l, Box 156N ~n Hunt. I'm having a hard time
following the logic here. 1 guess I have a couple questions
48
T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
14
19
20
Z1
22
23
~4
25
I'd like if I could get an explanation on. I guess I was --
Judge Henneke was explaining how I would understand this.
If you had a -- one large lot, part of an earlier plat,
you're replatting, and that new -- that plat -- new plat
would have to conform to the new rules. But, I still --
even with the further explanation, it wasn't clear to me
that if -- if Phase III goes in, the average lot size iii
Phase II and Phase III still would not be 5 acres, if I
understood what was said.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Phase III is a stand-alone.
You can't lump II and III together.
MR. SIEMERS: Okay. That's what I'm trying
to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: They're goLng to have to
satisfy a 5-acre minimum average.
MR. SIEMERS: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The question is, what do we
do with II, which was originally platted as one subditi~ision
with I.
MR. SIEMERS: How many -- could I ask, how
many acres are in I, II, and 7II? Does anybody know?
COMMISSIONER LETZ; It says here Phase II is
400 acres. Phase III is 362 acres, and I think Phase I was
about 300?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Abut 300.
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was about 1,100 or
1,200 total, I believe. Isn't that about right, Frank?
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
MR. SIEMERS: I guess the only true comment I
could have, 'cause I haven't had a chance to look at this,
is that I just agree with Judge Henneke that -- that Phase
II, because it is a replat, as I remember the rules, would
require this thing to be -- to conform to the new -- to the
new regulations. I'll try to understand this by preliminary
plat. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let me restate the motion.
Franklin, do you have something else you want to -- the
motion that's been put forward by Commissioner GrifLin is
that the Court approve the concept plan of Phase II of
Cypress Springs, with an average lot size of 3.3 acres, and
the concept plan of Phase III would have to meet the full
5-acre average lot size requirement. Is that accuLate?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, that states
it -- really, we don't need the last part, because that is a
totally separate issue. But --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just for --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- with the
understanding that -- yes, that's a proper foam of the
motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
50
~.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioner Griffin. Larry, how does that -- how does your
motion for this concept plan approval comport with the last
paragraph of the letter from Headwaters?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A11 of the
Headwaters -- since this is a concept plan, ali of the
Headwaters -- we don't have a preliminary plat. All the
Headwaters concerns, inputs, whatever, will have to be
addressed in the platting pro~~ess. If we can't meet those
requirements, then we -- you can't plat it on that basis,
whatever. So, Lt does not -- does not take away any of the
concerns that Headwaters raised in their letter. They still
have to be addressed; going to have to be addressed between
Headwaters and the developer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I second it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Seconded by Commissioner
Letz. Any further questions or comments"?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to vote
along with you, because it's a concept. 't'hat does not mean
that I will be with you when we get down to the --
COMMZSSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. I may not be
there either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I agree. I iuean,
some of the -- I think the developer needs to really look at
it, and it may make more sense to cancel it and redo the
51
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whole thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It will give him an
opportunity to take it and do it right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried. The concept
plan is approved. Okay. Seeing as how it's 10 o'clock,
let's now recess the Commissioners Court meeting and open
the public hearing for the revision of plat for Tract 5A and
Tract 6A of Whiskey Ridge Ranches in Precinct 3.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:00 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there any member of the
public who would like to address the Court on the issue of
the revision of plat for Tract SA and 6A of Whiskey Ridge
Ranches in Precinct 3?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Once again, is there anyone
who'd like to address the Court during this public hearing
on the revision of plat for Tract 5A and 6A of Whiskey Ridge
Ranches in Precinct 3? Yes, sir?
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AUDIENCE: Judge, we got notice about the
replat, but we don't know what the replat consists of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Neither does this
side of the bench up here.
AUDIENCE: So I don't know if you want a
comment or not.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what we're doing
is -- go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me, could y'all
share one of those and let us have one too?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't have one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'd like to
participate in this process.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What it does, this Lot SA
and 6A, there's a lake in the back side of it, and they're
adjusting the lot line to put the lake all on one -- all on
Lot 6A. And, it's a -- the change is, one lot goes from
37.75 -- or from 40 acres to 37.76, and the other one goes
from 41.61 to 93.85. So -- but it's just for the lake and
so that all the lake -- the entire lake's on one property,
on one lot.
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Once again, is there
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anyone -- any member of the public who'd like to address the
Court during this public hearing on the issue of revision of
Lot 5 and 6 of Whiskey Ridge Ranches? Sir, are you --
AUDIENCE: I'm satisfied.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You're satisfied? Okay.
Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing and return
to the regular session of Commissioners Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:05
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item for consideration
is Item Number 8, which is consider approval of revision of
plat to Tracts 5A and 5A of Whiskey Ridge Ranches in
Precinct 3. Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just discussed this,
so I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the revision
of plat as presented. Only comment I have is that we should
use the verbiage "revision" as opposed to "replat" it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the
revision of plat for Tracts SA and 6A of Whiskey Ridge
Ranches in Precinct 3. Any further questions or comments?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)

54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is
Item Number 9, which is open the annual bids for materials
for the Kerr County Road and Bridge Department. Do we have
any bids?
MS. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, folks. Pay attention.
First bid is from Joe Drymala, Drymala Sand and Gravel.
Crushed gravel, B, $7.90 per cubic yard. And rock asphalt,
looks like $6.90 per cubic yard.
Second bid is from Rountree Materials, and it
is Grade 1, Type B, uncrushed gravel, $7.75 per cubic yard.
Grade 2, $7.25 per cubic yard. Type C, crushed gravel, $8
per cubic yard. $7.50 per cubic yard for Grade 2. For
f.o.b. Kerr County, Type B, $12.75 per cubic yard, $12.25
for Grade 2. Grade 1, Type C, crushed gravel, $13 per cubic
yard, f.o.b., and $12.50 per cubic yard.
The next bid is from Schwarz Construction
Company for equipment by the hour. Cat D-6 dozer, $70 per
hour. Scraper, $80 per hour. Cat 12-G motor grader, $70.
930 loader, $75. 12-ton flat wheel roller, X55. 12-ton
pneumatic roller, $55. And 1,500-gallon water truck, $50
per hour. No bids on asphalt distributor or chip spreader.

55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Base material bid from Masters Construction,
Type A, crushed limestone, f.o.b. supplier's plant, $8 per
cubic yard; f.o.b. Kerr County, Type A, crushed limestone,
Grade A, $14 per cubic yard.
Next bid is from Walters Building and Supply.
It's for corrugated metal pipe. 15-inch arch $4.85.
18-inch arch, $5.82. 24-inch arch, $7.74. 30-inch arch,
$9.70. 15 coupling -- 15-inch coupling bands, $7 each.
18-inch coupling bands, $8 each. 24-inch coupling bands,
$11.60 each. And 30-inch coupling bands, $14.50 each.
For paving -- for emission oils, we have from
Koch Materials Company. CRS-2, 75 cents per gallon.
HFRS-2, no bids, and AEP, no bid.
From Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions, paving
aggregates, no bids. For emulsion oils, CRS-2, 73 cents per
gallon. HFRS-2, 73 cents per gallon, and AEP, 95.88 cents
per gallon. Corrugated metal pipe, no bids.
From Bobby Jenschke, equipment by the hour.
Cat D-6 dozer, $110 per hour. Scraper, $110 per hour. Cat
1<^-G, $85 per hour. 930 loader, $105 per hour.
1,500-gallon water truck, $65 per hour.
For equipment by the hour from E.J.I., Cat
D-6, $100 per hour. Scraper, $100 per hour. Cat 12-G, $76
per hour. 930 loader, $80 per hour. 12-ton flat wheel
roller, $70 per hour. 12-ton pneumatic roller, $60 per
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
hour. 1,500-gallon water truck, $50 per hour. Asphalt
distributor, $120 per hour. And chip spreader, also $120
per hour.
More bids on -- on paving aggregate and
emulsions from Texas Corrugators. For corrugated metal
pipe, we have 12 -- 15-inch arch for $7.45. 18-inch arch
for $8.75 per linear foot. 24-inch arch, $11.75. 30-inch
arch, $14.25. 15-inch coupling bands, $11 each. 18-inch
coupling bands, $13 each. 24-inch coupling bands, $16 each.
30-inch coupling bands, $19.50 each.
We have a bid from Champion Asphalt Products
on emulsion oils. CRS-2, 66 cents per gallon. HFRS-2, 66
cents per gallon. AEP, 75 cents per gallon.
Next bid is for Bedrock Materials Limited in
Center Point. For base material, Grade B, f.o.b. supplier's
plant, Grade 1, $9. Grade 2, $9.75. Grade C, crushed
gravel, f.o.b. supplier's plant, Grade 2, $9.75; f.o.b. Kerr
County, Grade B -- Type B, Grade 1, $12.35. Type B, Grade
2, $13.10. Type C, Grade 2, $13.10. For hot mix cold-laid
asphalt concrete pavement, f.o.b. Kerr County, black base,
$58 per ton. Cold mix, $59 per ton. Next is also from
Bedrock Materials, for paving aggregates. Type B, crushed
gravel, $8.25 per cubic yard. Type PB, f.o.b. Kerr County,
no bids. No bids on remainder of the items. Okay.
From James D. Reeh in Comfort, a bid on base
57
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
material, f.o.b. supplier's plant, Type A, Grade 1, $5.20.
Grade 2, $5; f.o.b. Kerr County, Type A, crushed limestone,
Grade A, $13.23. Grade 2, $13.03.
Next bid is from Smyth Mines LLP in Uvalde.
Paving aggregates, Type B, Grade 3, $7.95 per cubic yard.
Type B, Grade 4, $8.95. Type B, Grade 5, $7.45. Type PB,
Grade 3, $18.25. Type PB, Grade 9, $18.25. Type PB, Grade
5, $18.25. No bids on trap rock and no bids on the other
items. Next, we have Smyth Mines LLP. On the hot mix
asphalt concrete pavement, we have f.o.b. Kerr County, black
base for $22.23 per ton. Cold mix $21.98 per ton. The next
one is also from Smyth Mines. It is for the hot mix asphalt
concrete pavement. Black base, $22.23 per ton, and cold
mix, $21.98 per ton.
Next is from Vulcan Materials out of San
Antonio, f.o.b. Kerr County. On hot mix asphalt concrete
pavement, f.o.b. Kerr County, $24.11 per ton. I guess
that's for black base. For cold mix, it would be $24.11 per
ton, as well. Another bid from Vulcan Materials Company.
This is for paving aggregates. Type PB, Grade 3, $22.69 per
cubic yard. Type PB, Grade 4, $22.69. Type PB, Grade 5,
$22.69. Trap rock, all three grades, is $28.22 per cubic
yard.
Wheatcraft, Inc., for base material. Type A,
Grade 2, $7 per cubic yard, as well as $8 per cubic yard for

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
three-quarter inch down, and $8 per cubic yard for 3 to 6
inch. Type B, Grade 2, $6 per cubic yard. On the paving
aggregates, Type A, Grade 3, $8 per cubic yard. Type A,
Grade 5, $7.50 per cubic yard. Type B, Grade 3, $8.50 per
cubic yard. Type B, Grade 4, $9 per cubic yard. Type B,
Grade 5, $8 per cubic yard. And no other bids on the other
aggregates.
That completes the opening of the bids. At
this time, I'd entertain a motion to accept all the bids and
refer them to Road and Bridge Department for evaluation and
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
accept all of the bids for materials and refer them to the
Road and Bridge Department for evaluation and recommendation
to the Commissioners Court. Any further questions or
comments? I would like to comment that the -- that Leonard
and Franklin and Truby have obviously done an excellent job
of soliciting bids, based on the number that we have this
year. I think it's about three or four times what we've had
in any of the two previous years, so our thanks and
congratulations for their efforts. All in favor, raise your
right hand.
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: You gentlemen think you'll be
back with us today? Or --
MR. ODOM: I don't know, sir. That's a lot
to assimilate. If you wish to go ahead to -- some of it may
be that I need to check, and I personally think that I
probably need some time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, if you let us know, we
can recess and convene again tomorrow without having to
repost, or we can simply take it up --
MR. ODOM: Do you want to go ahead and set it
for recess, and I'll get back with you and tell you?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll announce that at the
end of today's meeting.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay?
MR. ODOM: I think that would give us a
little leeway. Maybe I can qet it together. Some of this
may need to be checked to see if they even bid properly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Okay. We have a
few minutes before our typical morning break. Tommy, is
Mr. Sundberg here?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
60
,~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can do the audit. Do you
want to do the audit? Let's take up the next item, Item
Number 10, review the audit for year ending 9/30/00 by
Pressler, Thompson and Company.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think everyone has a copy
of the audit. Doug is here to make a -- to present a
summary of findings, or -- and basically address the County
financially and to answer any questions that anybody might
have.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Mr. Sundberg?
MR. SUNDBERG: I'd like to start off on Page
2, which is our opinion letter, Auditor's Report.
Basically, you have an unqualified opinion which states that
these financial statements present fairly the financial
position of Kerr County and its -- and its operations as of
September 30, 2000. On Page 4 and 5 is the balance sheet
covering all account groups and fund types, assets,
liabilities. You've got your governmental fund types and
the special revenue, the debt service. The funds that make
up those are detailed in the back, later pages of the
report. The proprietary fund type, which, of course, is the
Juvenile Detention Facility, and then your general fixed
assets and long-term debt are shown there.
If you'll turn to Page 6 and 7 -- and stop me
if you have any questions as I go through here -- which is
1
.... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
+--.
14
15
16
17
18
19
^0
21
22
23
24
.~
25
61
the revenues and expenditures and changes in fund balance.
We'11 keep mainly on the General Fund. Total revenue of
$8,283,000. Expenditures of $8,082,000, for an excess
revenues over expenditures of $200,000 for the year. Other
financing sources of $105,000, giving you excess revenue for
the year of $306,000. Beginning fund balance of
$2.8 million, ending with $3.1 million as of September 30,
2000. One thing I might note in there, in the other
financing sources and uses is an amount of $1"5,000, which
is the -- which is entitled "Capital Financing." This is
the capital lease that was taken out this last year for -- I
believe it was for the Sheriff's Department vehicles.
There's sir. of them, I believe, that were in there, That's
what that represents.
On pages -- starting on Page 8 is the budget
comparison. General Fund, you budgeted $7,681,000 for
revenue. Actual revenue was $8,283,000, so you brought in
$602,000 more than anticipated. Expenditures, you had
budgeted $8,225,000, and you actually expended $8,082,000,
or $142,000 less than anticipated. Following that forward
to Page 12, which finishes the General Fund budget
comparison, you had budgeted for other financing sources of
$10,450. Actual was $156,039, and you had budgeted overall
for a deficit of $533,000. You actually had an excess
revenue of $306,000, or $840,000 more than anticipated iii
1
^. 2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,~--~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.~
L S
62
On Page 15 is the statement of revenues and
expenditures for the Juvenile Detention Facility. They had
total revenues for the year of $1,800,000, operating
expenditures of $1,282,000. They had operating revenue --
net revenue of $520,000. Other operating income and
expenses was earned and interest paid on the mortgage on tYie
facility out there, netting $158,000, for a net profit for
the year of $361,684. Beginning retained earnings of
$429,000 and ending with $785,000 as of September 30.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent.
MR. SUNDBERG: The rest -- from there on is
the notes I'd just like to point out is on Page 23 is a
detailed analysis of the taxes -- delinquent taxes
receivable as of September 30, what funds are affected by
that, and the amount for each one. And also, on Pages 2h
and 27, Note D & E is relating to the long-term debt. Note
D of Kerr County details the -- the liabilities that are in
existence as of September 30 and the debt requirements over
the next five years. Below there, Note E on top of Page 27
is the same information relating to the Juvenile Detention
Facility, balance due on the mortgage and the debt
requirements over the next five years.
The last thing I'd like to -- to mention
1
,...~ 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
.-.
25
63
is -- is way back on Page 78, which is a new schedule this
year. It details out the federal revenue expenditures that
you received during this past year through the Department of
Agriculture for the lunch program out at the Juvenile
Detention Facility, and then the two smaller grants through
the Department of Justice. That, and -- along with the
management letter that you have, is our report for this
year. Are there any questions on anything? It was a pretty
good year, I believe. Things were in pretty good shape, as
you can see by the management letter.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any
questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A comment, that 1'd
just like to congratulate all the County employees, the
department heads and elected officials for a good year,
because when you take in more than you planned on and you
spend less than you budgeted for, you can't get much better
than that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
MR. SONDBERG: Thank you, sir
nothing else, there's one other note that 1 would like to
just address to you for just a minute. Tommy and I have
talked about this; I don't know it he's addressed it with
1
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~1
22
23
L4
25
64
you or not, but in 1999, Governmental Accounting Standards
Board issued Statement Number 34, which is drastically going
to change the way the financial reporting is done for
governmental entities. It's being phased in over the nest
three years, based on your income levels. There's
revisions -- there's revisions to what we're presently
reporting. There's a whole set of new financial statements
that are going to be added to it, and it's going to be quite
an undertaking, to say the least, and they're going to be
totally different. It wasn't well thought of when it first
came out, but there are some larger governmental entities
that have already put it into effect, and according to what
I'm reading, they seem to like it. It gives them more
information, mcre easily understood, supposedly, and so
we'll see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doug, it's referred to
by some name; I can't remember what it is. What do we call
this new system?
MR. SUNDBERG: Well, it's GASB Statement 34.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: GASB.
MR. SUNDBERG: Governmental Accounting
Standards Board. The big leagues back east decided we
needed to see this, and so here we are. And, like I said,
it's being phased in. Next October lst of 2602 is when Kerr
County will have to have it into effect, and it's guing to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
entail a lot of additional stuff. Now, whether that's going
to require, I mean, additional software for Tommy to account
for all this, I don't know.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know yet.
MR. SUNDBERG: But I just wanted to -- you
know, to address it and make you aware that it's coming and
we're going to ]ive with it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SUNDBERG: So, anything else"?
i JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a motion to accept
I
the annual audit?
i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved -- second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
accept the annual audit for year ending 9/30/00 by Pressler,
Thompson and Company. Any questions or comments? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion passes, Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thanks, Doug.
MR. SUNDBERG: You bet.
JUDGE HENNEKE: BeLore we take our break,
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
li
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
let's take up the next item quickly, consider and discuss
publishing notice for bids for a depository of the County
and District funds.
MR. TOMLINSON: There's the Treasurer.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know if she wants to
break or if she wants to do her item before we break.
MS. NEMEC: Judge, if we can do 2.12 before
the breaY, --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: -- it would really help. Thank
you.
MR. TOMLINSON: This item on the agenda is
actually for the Treasurer, but I will -- when she was
ailing and not at work with her leg, I -- I took it on
myself to go ahead and put it on the agenda, so that's the
only reason I'm here. But, I attached a copy of the -- of
the Local Government Code that -- with the agenda, and all
this is about is to get approval to go out for bids for
depository in -- in conjunction with -- with state law.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
approve publishing notice for bids for depository account
contracts for County/District funds. The way the law reads,
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we have to do this at our first meeting in May; is that
correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
	JUDGE HENNEKE:	So, it's	not only to receive
the bids,	but to also --		
	MR. TOMLINSON:	Publish -	-
	JUDGE HENNEKE:	-- make a	decision.
	MR. TOMLINSON:	Right. I	think we have to
publish at	least 20 days befo	re --	
	JUDGE HENNEKE:	Right.	
	MR. TOMLINSON:	-- the fi	rst meeting in May.
	JUDGE HENNEKE:	Right.	
	MR. TOMLINSON:	And so we	want plenty of time
to get our	-- our spec -- our	bid specs	out to everybody
concerned.			
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments'? If not, all in favor raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUllGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
12.
MS. NEMEG: Thank you, Judge. I'll just let
Diane Moore explain more about it. I think this was on the
last agenda, and y'all asked that it be brought back because
68
~--
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
;3
29
25
of the wording, so --
DODGE HENNEKE: The item is to consider and
discuss allowing Kerr County employees to participate in a
457 Deferred Compensation Plan offered by VALIC, and for the
County Treasurer to deduct from the individual employees'
checks the amount they so stipulate. We got a presentation
on triis last meeting, and because, again, of the wording --
the way the agenda item was posed, we could not take action
on it. Does anyone have any questions of Ms. Moore or our
Treasurer?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a -- I want to
move that we approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRLFFIN: Second -- third.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
allowing Kerr County employees to participate in a 457
Deferred Compensation Plan offered by VALIC, and for the
County Treasurer to deduct from the individual employees'
checks the amount they so stipulate. What are the plans for
educating the employees in this?
MS. MOORE: I will get with Barbara and any
~f the Commissioners that would like to participate, and we
will make a schedule of how you want us to proceed. If we
want Lo go at -- on an individual department basis, the
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
first thing would be to make a presentation, get a payroll
stuffer out to the employees, and schedule a series of
presentations to the employees at their specific locations
at a time that is convenient to the employees and the
department heads where they're working to explain what the
plan affords to them. And then, secondarily, we would meet
individually with those employees that want to participate
to help them to decide how much to put away and how it
should be invested, and then there's a series of seminars
that we can give over the course of the year, plus we would
be doing individual evaluations with the employees as the
statements come out and on an annual basis for review
purposes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara, do we want an
effective d-ate on this'
MS. NEMEC: What are we, in March right now?
Middle of March? I think -- would you be able to schedule
-- be available the next couple of weeks for seminars?
MS. MOORE: Sure.
MS. NEMEC: And we could make it effective
April lsr_.
MS. MOORE: Sure. Yeah, just a question of
getting the information out to the employees that the
seminars are available.
~ JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin, does
70

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
]9
20
21
22
23
24
2 J
your motion include an effective date?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does do that. And
I wanted to note that she talks in chapters, with -- with
one single breath. I don't know if y'all noticed that or
not. I mean, it wasn't paragraphs; it was a full chapter,
with one breath.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, the motion's effective
start date is April 1. At this time, we'll take a break.
Let's come back promptly at 10:45.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Thank you, Buster.
(Recess taken from 10:32 a.m, to 10:45 a.m.)
JUllGE HENNEKE: Okay, it's 10:45 on Monday,
March 12th, Year 2001, and we will reconvene this regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Next item
for consideration is Item Number 13, consider and discuss
reclassification of receptionist position to Administrative
Jail Secretary. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe I gave y'all
71
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
2S
the backup on it and what her job duties would be. This
does not impact the budget this year, as it has been. Where
we're drawing the -- the additional funds from, if y'all
recall, under the old budget last year, the two nurses'
salaries, they were upped to about $31,000-something, which
was budgeted, and they were -- we actually figured them in
at about a 20.9, which was way too high. Since we lost one,
we changed all that back down to a 20.1, which would be
where a new nurse would start when we fill that vacancy.
So, the remainder amount in that -- between the difference
would be a -- the original nurses would have been starting
at $31,682 the way the former Sheriff had it worked out.
The nurses I hire will start at $26,003, which will be a
$5,679 difference.
In this one, the current receptionist -- we
have one full-time and one part-time receptionist, and they
are in the Sheriff's Office part, itself, and her salary
right now is $17,092. What I would like to move her to
would be an administrative secretary in the jail, and you
can see the job description, which would be a 17.1, as being
$21,879, which would leave a $4,787 difference, where the
$5,000 would make that up pretty easily on that. The
problem I'm having, we're doing -- we've worked about 11
months now on restructuring, reorganizing the Sheriff's
Department, and the salary stuff. We did away with a lot of
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
•--
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the upper chiefs, I guess you could say. I thought there
was too much chiefs. We did away with corporal positions,
we did away with a lieutenant position and things like that,
and now I'm starting to work on reorganizing and getting the
jail to run properly and the way I think it should.
And, one thing I've noticed, some of our
stuff, especially our out-of-county housing, mainly on the
medical side of it, has not been getting billed to the
out-of-county -- or the counties where it should be billed
to, because a lot of this stuff is done by either a records
clerk or a jailer. I have no secretary that can oversee and
keep all this stuff going in the jail. I think that's a --
a real concern of mine, because we are housing a large
number of inmates from out of county. Last week it was 38
that we had, which, at a year, if we kept it going for one
year at 30, would average a little over $400,000, not
counting the medical expenses that those counties should be
reimbursing us for. And, with that kind of money moving in
and out of that jail, you know, I really do need an
administrative secretary to help keep things organized and
keep things running correctly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sheriff, did you just
say that -- that you billed the other counties for the
medical expenses?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We should be, yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
_>1
22
23
24
25
73
Yeah, we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You do?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our department does. We
bill anything -- we send them copies of the bills and all
the rest of that on the medical expenses.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not done here in
the courthouse with the Treasurer and Auditor?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That seems strange to
me.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When they get the bill
over here, they don't know whether it's an out-of-county
inmate or an in-county inmate. The bills a lot of times are
sent by the inmate's name when they go to the hospital, but
a lot of that has slipped through the cracks and has not
been billed to these other counties. That's one thing I've
discovered in getting into that, and I don't think that is
right in any way, shape, or form, and we need to -- to get
the organization part going. Now, I'll be the first to
admit, I think we have one of the best jails in the state,
but organizing it, getting things running smoothly where one
person is responsible for all that all the way through and
putting that together is essential.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. It does -- you
said that it does not impact this year's budget, 'cause you
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have the leftover from the nurses' program, but it does
impact the budget next year by $4,700 next year, and then
on?
SHERIFF HIER.HOLZER: It could, yes, depending
on how it was done. Because, see, the original budget for
the two nurses, due to the way the former Sheriff had it,
both nurses were set at 20.9 constantly; this Court didn't
drop that down. When we went through it, the Court said,
look, if -- if we lose one and hire one, don't -- let's try
and get it back down to a normal -- not normal salary, but
an equivalent salary that would work. What happened, the
former Sheriff had taken a jail position and combined it
into -- took one jail position and split that salary to two
nurses, okay? So we lost a jail position, essentially.
And, I still -- I'm not getting that position back at this
time.
CUMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOL2ER: But I am lowering that.
CUMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, that's going to
carry on, so the net effect would still be the same in
following years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIUNER BALDWIN: I don't know if I
agree with that or not, but --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it should. And the
75
1
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
1^
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
L 9
25
Sheriff understands that, you know, the approval -- if the
Court approves this reclassification and higher salary, that
does not automatically increase the personnel budget for
next year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, it does not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- my argument to
all that is that the former Sheriff -- what this Court
approved in the budget for nurses' salaries, she did not
stay in that. She went ahead and hired and spent a lot
more -- hired and paid them a lot more salary than what this
Court approved.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: By alleviating a jailer
position, she did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Without the approval
of this Court, which affected the budget.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That may -- well, it
affected that line item. It did not affect the overall
budget, because she used the funds that were budgeted for
her; she just took a jailer's position and put it into the
nurses, which cost me a jailer's position. And this is not
affecting the overall bottom line of the budget, the way
it's been set, okay? I'm just trying to organize the jail
to where we run a little bit more efficiently with some
things.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, going back
1
.-~
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,.-~
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
~-.
25
76
to the question that Commissioner Baldwin asked earlier
about the billing -- the billing that you do to other
counties for the medical expenses attributed to their
numbers are then applied appropriately and we get a clear
picture of what we actually spend for our own inmates?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The way that works --
and that's one thing the Auditor and I have to sit down and
really get set, and this is part of the reorganization of
that, is the -- the Sheriff's Office -- we send out the bill
on the number of out-of-county inmates, whether it's medical
or whether it's, you know, just their normal housing, okay?
And, most of the time, we don't see what they send back,
because that comes straight to the Auditor's office. So,
their check would come to us -- or come to the Auditor's.
We'll send the bill out, but they send the check to the
Auditor. Now, most of the time, we get a copy of that
check, you know, eventually from the Auditor, and that's so
we can start trying to balance, but there's just -- there's
a lot of organization that needs to take place in
streamlining that and making sure everything runs smoothly
and that all the counties get billed appropriately and Kerr
County gets back what they're supposed to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that -- just a
77
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
quick follow-up, then. It would be your intent to have that
reconciliation take place so we get a clear picture of what
we're spending on our own prisoners, as opposed to the
whole --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
Because, see, there's another part of that billing. If the
inmate is on prescription meds, and part of that medical --
the prescription is deducted from a commissary account, then
the commissary part of the Sheriff's Office -- or of the
jail bills that county for the remainder of the
prescription, okay? If it's an indigent-type. But, none of
that's really been organized to where it's under one person
to oversee and control that, and I need that administrative
secretary to help put all that stuff together in the jail.
A lot of it's been trying to come through the -- through the
Sheriff's Office secretary, which we have -- everybody's
wearing more than one hat as it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. I
agree that you need some help in there, and you've done
right, but I also think that it needs to be billed out of
this courthouse. But -- and, what, we're a month and a half
away from our budget process? It could wait until then.
But, I move we approve the Sheriff's request.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1/
18
ly
20
21
~~
c G
23
24
25
78
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve the reclassification of receptionist -- full-time
receptionist position to Kerr County Jail to Administrative
Jail Secretary.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one more
thought, Rusty, following up on what we just talked about.
If I look at this job description, you've got, "Reconciles
bank statements for the inmates' trust funds."
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you add to that
the reconciliation of the other, as well?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, you'll see in
there, it also -- she's responsible for the out-of-county
housing and medical billing, and reconciling that commissary
inmate trust fund so that we keep track of it all under one
person.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments'?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment I have,
Judge, is the Treasurer has looked over the job description
and it meets with --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, the Treasurer was
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
1`J
20
21
22
23
29
25
gone all last week and she has not looked over it. We used
a guideline of Nash's and put in the actual duties, and
then, of course, she would not be an exempt employee; she
would be nonexempt, and put in the verbiage that Nash has in
the rest of his --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think there's some
more to the format that goes after this, though, that needs
to be included.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we make the
reclassification subject to the approval of the Treasurer of
Lhe actual job description?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? That's a good one. If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is
Item Number 14, consider and discuss acceptance of donations
to Kerr County Sheriff's to match funds provided by grant
from the Bureau of Justice to purchase ballistic vests for
Kerr County Sheriff's Department patrol officers.
~ SHERIFF HIERHOLGER: What this goes back to,
80
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
I came to y'all, oh, a couple months ago on applying for a
50 percent matching fund grant as a partnership grant with
the Bureau of Justice to purchase bulletproof vests. What
that does is they pay 50 percent of the overall cost, and
the County is liable for the other 50 percent if we do the
order. We -- my original intention was -- we had some other
grant money in that $11,000 grant that we get each year for
equipment that I would have liked to have used for the
matching part, but when I get down into the grant
guidelines, no other grant can be used to match the
50 percent; the County has to, and that's what we found out.
So, that $11,000 I have cannot be used to match this
50 percent.
In the Local Government Code -- and with some
research done by the County Attorney's office, there is a
way that the County can accept donations for a specific
purpose of law. And, so, what we are doing here is, there
were a lot of concerned citizens -- there are a lot of
people that did feel like they wanted to donate for this. I
had several calls on it. So, at this time, we've received
an overall donation of $3,005. Now, there's a couple more
that still are contemplating -- or we're waiting on
receiving a few more. The overall County match on 20 vests
is going to be right at $6,000, so we're a little bit short
yet on what -- I want to replace all 20 patrol ofTicers'
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
GL
23
24
25
81
vests. Now, I could still replace, you know, 10 or 15 of
them at this time with this matching, but I'm hoping to get
to replace all 20 of them. So, what the Local Government
Code says is the Commissioners Court may accept donations
for that purpose. Not me, not the Sheriff's Office.
So, what I have done, I have an itemized list
of the people that wish to donate. I have their actual
checks or things like that in my pocket, and if y'all wish
to see -- some of these people want to remain anonymous and
that, but if the Court wishes to see this, I'll -- there'll
be a permanent record of who all donates what and that.
But, I would ask that y'all accept donations at this point
in the amount of $3,OOS so that we can deposit these checks
and that and don't have these people holding out -- some of
them are from back February the lyth, and we're still
holding their check.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that we
need to put a specific number in there, though.
JUll6E HENNEKE: I don't think we do, either.
I think what we -- what's appropriate for us to do, because
this is ongoing, but it's for a specific purpose, is to
accept donations for the purpose of meeting the matching
funds requirement on the ballistic vest purchase. And, I
think what that will allow the Sheriff to do is to continue
to accept donations without having to come back to us every
82
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time he gets a new check.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And tie to it a specific
purpose.
MR. LUCAS: That's right. That's right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
accept donations to Kerr County for matching funds
requirement for a grant from the Bureau of Justice to
purchase ballistic vests for patrol officers. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. And we want
to thank everyone who contributes to that fund. It is a
worthwhile, obviously, purpose. Item Number 15, consider
and discuss going out for bids on video equipment Yunded by
the Hal and Charlie Peterson Foundation grant.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's kind of
e:tactly what it is. The Hal and Peterson Foundation, we
did -- we had asked y'all for permission to apply for a
83
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
grant to place video cameras in all of our patrol cars.
These are unique cameras. They're fabulous cameras. And,
you know, due to the size of the grant and being over the
$25,000 the County is required to send out bids for that to
see what we get back. You have a copy of the bid that we're
asking to send out, and we'll follow all the rest of the bid
requirements, the guidelines on publishing and that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: How long do you want these
bids to be out? What timeline do you want them to bring
back?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I would like to
send them out probably today or first thing in the morning
to -- there's not very many vendors that actually do police
videos that are -- are secured and -- and take care of
patrol car situations, heat and everything else. So, I'd
like to get them sent out and get them back as soon as
possible.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want 30 days? Two
weeks? Thirty days?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can we do two weeks?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That -- that's pretty tight.
Nett Court meeting is March 26th, which means we have to
have the bids in by the close of business on March 23rd. Is
that sufficient time for you to actually get appropriate
solicitation?
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ly
20
21
~,
23
29
25
84
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, because there's
only really, like, five or six different vendors that
actually sell police videos, okay? It's not just a little,
you know, hand-held camcorder that you put in a car. And --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This has got the lock
box for the video --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The lock box that goes
in the trunk, it's got a heater/cooler situation with that
in the trunk there. And, I think we can get those mailed
out within a day, at the most. We already have packages
ready, and then get back --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a camera and
a recording device; is that right?
~I SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, and an audio
device.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff, I'm going to suggest
that that's a -- an unreasonably tight time frame. If you
get them out tomorrow, which is the 13th, vendors won't get
them till the 15th. They have to have them back by the
23rd, so you're -- you have a weekend in there. You're
really only giving them about three days to look at the
specs and prepare a response.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
DODGE HENNEKE: I think we'd be better served
if we waited until the first meeting in April, even though

85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~C
L1
2L
2~
2~
2'
that may be a little longer than you like. We'd have a
better solicitation if we could do it that way.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE; April 9th? Okay. So, we'd
ask the bids to be received in the -- in the County Clerk's
office not later than close of business on April the 6th, to
be opened at 10 o'clock on April the 9th.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Opened and evaluated?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opened and awarded.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved -- or was
that a second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A third.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Come on, guys, someone go the
right way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dadgumit.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize
the Sheriff's Department to go out for bids on video
equipment for patrol cars to be funded by trie Hal and
Charlie Peterson Foundation grant, with the bids to be
received by the County Clerk's office not later than
5 o'clock p.m, on Friday, April the 6th, to be opened and
awarded at 10 o'clock a.m. on Monday, April the 9th, Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
2001, here in the Kerr County Courthouse. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's one other
comment I'd like to make, just for the Commissioners'
acknowledgment. It doesn't really concern this, but it does
concern grants and that. I just think y'all ought to be
aware, my Chief Deputy is the one that's been applying for
all these grants, and -- and we've been very fortunate, and
so far this year the Kerr County Sheriff's Office has
received over halt a million dollars in grant money, and it
has tremendously helped our budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate that,
Rusty. Really do.
JUtiGE HENNEKE: In light oT the fact we have
a number of people interested in Item Number 18, let's take
-- go ahead and jump down to it, take up Item Number 18,
which is consider and discuss a draft amendment to the Kerr
county O.S.S.F. order regarding property transfer
inspections and procedures, and set a public hearing on
same. Commissioner Letz, it's my understanding you're going
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to kick this one off?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll get started on it,
then Larry's going to go through with the details. But, I
wanted to give a little bit of background as to how this
came to be on the agenda. Two things have happened. One,
I've received calls from a number of people that were
concerned about us not having any inspections at time of
real estate transfers. That's one issue that I, you know,
heard. The other one was, U.G.R.A. requested -- or several
board members, Janet Robinson, Tom Myer, requested a -- that
myself and Larry go to a meeting with them, and Jim Brown
was also present, and discuss this issue. And, at that
meeting, the biggest -- the main concern, I think, that was
voiced by U.G.R.A., and I think it's shared by me, is that
they were concerned about quality of the river and the --
its tributaries. And, U.G.R.A. had a concern and -- and,
basically, an opinion that since we have had septic rules in
place under real estate transfers, we have caught a number
of offending -- caught a number of offending systems that
have been corrected, and during that time framework over the
past 15, 20 years, the quality of water in the river has
improved.
Along with that and at that same meeting,
U.G.R.A.'s board and/or members from that board, and Jim
Brown also, advised that they were pror_eeding with
88
1
2
,--~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussions with T.N.R.C.C. to institute their statutory
Out of all
Guadalupe River has been improved through the real estate
transfers -- and I certainly want to continue that. I don't
want to see the quality of that river go down. Two, I also
think -- I think that there is a -- I was very much, I
guess, not in favor of U.G.R.A. pursuing instituting their
own rules within a 1,500-foot area of the river, for two
reasons. I think it would be very confusing to the public
to identify that and having two sets of separate rules for
the county. And, also, I think that the County is in a
better position to handle this, because we're an elected
body; they're an appointed body. I think that I would -- my
preference is to keep it in the County entirely.
When it came down to the final analysis as to
what the problem was, it was just the real estate transfer
inspection that U.G.R.A. thought was a detriment, or
possibly a detriment to the quality of water in the river.
And, out of that, Larry and I have talked back and forth
quite a few times, and we're trying to come up with a -- a
.~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
2G
21
22
23
24
25
89
policy and a procedure that is acceptable to me, and
hopefully the public and the rest of the Court as well.
Right now, I think it's just he and I that have really had
input into it. And, a couple of things to meet my threshold
requirement that had to be met on U.G.R.A.'s standpoint, and
that is that whatever the rules were, they had to be very
explicit as to how the inspection was going to be taken care
of and what the requirements were going to be. And I wanted
to keep it as much under T.N.R.C.C. state rules as possible.
I think we have -- or are coming very close
to doing what we haven't done so far. The -- we did not --
currently, there's a 10-acre acreage limitation under
T.N.R.C.C. rules. That has not changed; we're not doing
anything with that. That acreage limitation is -- still
applies. 't'here is a requirement that all properties be
inspected; however, if your system is not failing and
being -- failing and a nuisance, as defined by T.N.R.C.C.,
you do not have to fix it. If you -- however, if you don't
fix it, your system will not be licensed. It you do upgrade
it to the current standards, it would be licensed. So --
and that was a big concern of mine and big threshold of
mine, to make sure that -- I don't think there's any reason
to require and basically mandate people to upgrade their
systems when they're working, and this rule does that, in my
opinion, or hopefully does it.
1
,~-~ `
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
That's kind of, I guess, a background as to,
forth between T.N.R.C.C. Section 285 and, I guess, 366 of
the Water Code. And, we -- people who have read it -- and
it may be a little bit confusing, but we referred to 285
continually in the new Section 10, and basically every time
we refer back to Section 285, all we're doing is we're
referring back to state law. I mean, it's not changing
anytk-ring. Only thing that we're really adding is -- or
trying to add is that there is an inspection, and it is
hopefully one that will be clearly outlined to the public,
and it will be minimally invasive to their property.
hopefully, minimally invasive to their expenditure as well.
So after that introduction, I'll turn it over to Larry and
let him txy Lo walY, through.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A couple of other
general points is that -- that one of the things that we
looked at was -- and did an awful lot of research on -- and
I, myself, wittr Lhe help of T.N.R.C.C., did an extensive
online search of all of the inspection procedures that we
could find that were used in other states -- in other parts
of Texas, which are -- are few and far between. Most of
them have essentially the same kind of inspection system
91
1
2
3
9
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~
25
that we used to have here, which we didn't like.
One thing that was my threshold input is that
And
approved by court order of this -- of this Court; that we're
not going to just turn that over to anyone, Designated
Representative or anyone else, and say, "Do whatever you
want to do." That the specific inspection instructions
would be approved by this Court. That would also give us
the possibility of changing that order very -- much more
easily than we can change this rule. The rule, we have to
go through the public hearing, we have to go through the --
we have to go through T.N.R.C.C. approval, et cetera, where
this separate document will only -- it would be like our
Subdivision Rules. We can have a public hearing on it, but
it's up to the Court to update it, so we'd have a much
better way of upgrading and updating the inspection
procedures as new technologies come along.
And, in doing this research, we found an
awful lot of new technologies that are out there, some of
which have been very well-developed that I think will pay
off in the long run if we can keep after it, and those are
92
1
2
.-..
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,--~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
things like the use of boroscopes, which those of you who
have ever been around the oil well business know that they
use. It's used a lot in other engineering, where you
actually have a flexible way of looking into -- with a light
to look at things. There's also ground-penetrating radar
that is now down to a little thing about like a metal
detector, where you can actually characterize down to 4 or
5 feet below the surface without invading anything, without
uncovering, without doing anything. That's a little farther
off, but we ought to be -- and our Designated Representative
should be looking for those kinds of technologies and their
availability to us to be able to make the best inspection
with the least invasive process.
There's another thing that's transpired since
the initiation of our new rule, the one that we did last
December, and that is that the real estate community has
asked that we reinstitute some kind of inspection transfer,
because I think they're -- they're seeing the possibility of
buyers and sellers getting crossways; that, actually, the
old procedure of having something that the new owner got,
even if it was just a report that here's the status of this
system the day you're buying it, that that's a better deal.
And, we'll hear more, I'm sure, about that at the public
hearing that we'll have to have for this new rule.
There was a new -- the new draft that I had
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
as of last Wednesday is in the packets here and was
distributed to our normal recipients of -- of that sort of
thing. T.N.R.C.C. had told me, when we started to draft
this one that's in your package, that we had to have enough
detail in the -- in the rule that you could tell how an
inspection is going to be run, and I have asked that we have
this totally separate document that we will just refer to
earlier. And, so, by carefully wordsmithing this thing, I
tried to draft the rule that's in your package to be as
simple as possible, and yet have some meat in it.
I bounced that off of T.N.R.C.C. on Friday
and, to and behold, they called me back and said, "Why are
you putting all that detail in there?" And, so, I said,
"Because you told me I had to." And, as a result of that, I
will make some amendment proposals today to this before we
take it to public hearing, because we can even simplify this
rule further. We'll have a very short statement in -- in
the new version that will refer -- not refer directly, but
it just says that, hey, we're going to do what 2N5 says and
we're going to run inspections accordingly. Then, in the
process document off to the side, we'll be able to say
exactly how we're going to do it. And, so, I'd like to hear
any other discussion we've got right now, and then I'll
propose some amendments to the package that you have. And I
have copies that show all of that. You don't have to write
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L ~
23
29
25
them all down, if you buy them, but I've got copies that I
can redistribute, and I've got a number here that we can
distribute to the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are there any --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- people attending.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- comments from the
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to
comment that the Court knows that I thought that it was a
grave omission to leave those state inspections out of the
rules when we adopted them before, and I want to commend you
both for your work and thank you for the efforts that you
put into bringing this back to us for inclusion in the
rules. I think it's a real positive step.
DODGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I do, and I'm not
going to be quite as nice as my good colleague here has
been. But, I would like to say that the inspection language
that is in here, you've come a thousand miles. 't'hat is one
of the things that we have needed to get -- we can probably
get a little more specific in the separate document, I
think, but if it can outline that thing so that we will know
and I will know and the home buyer would know exactly what
steps we're going to take, et cetera, et cetera, I like the
direction that we're going here. But, I want to go back a
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
couple of questions. At the beginning of Section 10, (a),
"Upon the transfer of ownership or possession of a lot or
tract of land which has one or more O.S.S.F. thereon by
sale, contract for deed, or leasing for a period exceeding
three years..." Where did the leasing language come from?
And, I don't -- I don't see -- I don't see how that works.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: These are -- these --
this would be primarily aimed at long-term lease rentals,
obviously something over three years. Most -- most lease
terms are shorter than that, so they're -- we're not talking
too many properties here at all. But, where a lessee may
move into a -- a property that's a long-term lease, all this
does is provide to the owner at that point -- because a lot
of people buy property, turn around and immediately lease
it. what this is going to do is just insure that if it
hasn't -- if it's not a licensed system, it's just saying,
"Here's the system you got." And -- because, in many cases,
lessees are responsible for maintenance costs. They don't
-- you know, it depends on how the lease is written. So,
this is just an opportunity for the lessee and the owner to
know what the condition of the O.S.S.F. is. It's not
necessarily to license it. In fact, if it's a licensed
system, nothing happens.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
DODGE HENNEKE: Commissioner, this is
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
probably also a reflection from the real estate industry,
because typically in a mortgage, a lease for longer than
three years triggers the "do-on-sale" clause in a typical
mortgage. So, this has probably also been something that
the real estate industry has been interested in, to conform
it to the typical requirements of a mortgage.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was a little
surprised T.N.R.C.C. liked that idea of the long-term lease.
Not short-term. Most leases are written for a year,
sometimes two in most lease properties. But, if it's a
long-term lease, it covers that too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We may go bark to
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you get off of
that, I mean, I have something I thought of when you brought
that up. I would rather have in this language something to
narrow it more to a lease that uses one of the O.S.S.F.
systems, because I can see how most grazing leases and farm
leases are a year in term, but it would be possible to have
a 5-year grazing lease, and that's certainly not
contemplated by this inspection; you know, a rancher's
residence. All he's doing is leasing his graze. So, I
think if we limit it to a lease that uses one or more of the
O.S.S.F. systems on the property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it kind of
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
refers to that in the prior sentence.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean, I
think it makes it a little bit more explicit, 'cause those
leases certainly -- you know, it could be longer term, and
we're not trying to pull any --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's what
this said, but if we can clarify that, we certainly will.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just state an ag
exemption.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
it.
I think it addresses
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It addresses it. If I
could move on now, in your second little box, the first
"yes" box --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Was the license to
operate the O.S.S.F. issued less than 10 years before the
transfer?" I was just curious to know where the 10 years
came from.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was -- that was
in consultation with T.N.R.C.C. They said it's probably a
good idea. But, that inspection, if it's a licensed system,
is a very cursory one. That's to make sure you don't have
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
Z5
ponding effluent and that kind of thing. If it's a licensed
system, you know what's in the ground, so you're not
concerned about having to dig it up and find out what's
there, but you look for just obvious signs of failure in
that case. And then that's all you're going to tell that
new owner, is that, hey, this is a licensed system, and at
the time of inspection there was no obvious sign of failure.
That's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was concerned --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's in our
separate manual over here, when inspecting licensed systems.
That's pretty narrow, because you're not having to dig it up
and find out what's there. That's in the license process,
so you've got the book on that one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was just curious why
it wasn't 7, 8, or 9 and a half or --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, we played with 9
and then 12, and T.N.R.C.C. said, hey, 10 is probably a good
number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten's a nice number.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's a sum that
others have used, and that gives you a minimum of -- maybe
that it the system is less than 10 -- really, what they're
saying is if it's less than 10 years old and it's been
licensed, don't fiddle with it.
1
L
3
9
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Mm-hmm, yeah.
	COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN:	Don't do anything.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Okay. Let's move down
to (b),	Inspection Procedures And Stan	dards.
	COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN:	Mm-hmm.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	On the third line, it
says, .	..and independent research by	Kerr County." What is
that?			
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the independent
research that's been done by U.G.R.A. and moi, primarily.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wondered if it was
your research.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, that's -- in
looking for ways that we can have an inspection system that
makes sense and that's easily understandable to the lay
person, that ends up in this separate document, and
that's -- the independent research is actually done by
U.G.R.A., acting as our Designated Representative, which I
consider part of Kerr County, and the Court itself.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
I'm going to come to that in just a little bit. And the
second paragraph down there, that word "lease" again. And
then, on Page 9, number (5) in the middle of the page, (5)a.
This -- these are things that the Designated Representative
shall conduct when he's conducting the inspection.
100
~"`.

1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some of the steps he
will go througYr. "a. Evaluate the system site for obvious
~ signs of failure." And, to me, this entire thing kind of
hinges on that right there. What is the definition of
failure?
COMMIS5IONEF. GRIFFIN: Okay. The --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I rani find it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The definition at
T.N.R.C.C. -- and, by the way, on what I'm going to propose,
that one comes out. That's no longer there, because we're
going to leave that to 285, but the reason it was in the
draft you have is that T.N.R.C.C. said that that's really
the first essence, even with a licensed system. And, that's
totally noninvasive. That's where you look to see, is
sewage backed up in the house, is it running out on the
ground or that kind of thing. It's obvious signs of
failure. It is totally noninvasive. And, so, I said,
"Well, how about putting that in there?" And they said,
"Yeah, that would be fine." And I said, "Can that be one of
the particulars?" And this is one of the things, Friday
afternoon late, when I talked with them, they said, "Why do
you have that in thcxe' You don't really need to put that
in because that's in 285." 1 said, "YUp."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's also my
101
~-^
•--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
definition of failure. If I walk out in my yard and I see
puddles, there's something wrong. I would think the word
failure fit there pretty well, but I couldn't find the
definition of failure anywhere in the state law.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's not in 366 and --
under Water Code, and it's not in 285, per se, except it's
sort of in 285. If you look back in the tables, in the
figures, it's got it in there, because if you design the
system, it says you don't get these things and the system is
working the way it's supposed to. So -- but that one's
going to come out when we get to that point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And I may come
back to that at a later time. I don't like the word. I
think there would be a better word, unless we define it
specifically.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the reason we
took it out. When they said you could take it out, I took
it out.
Okay. And you've
:here, the state of the
Mm-hmm.
You had been
some things today, the
studies that the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
already covered this Section 8 down
art capabilities.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
talking -- you previously brought up
metal detector thing and some of the
102
.~-~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
Travis County, I think, was --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- doing. Is that
what you're referring to as state of the art?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And they're
looking at -- they're looking at ways of taking small bore
samples. We're talking about a little auger about 3 inches
in diameter, and if you know where the terminal ends of the
drain fields are, for example -- and you find that by
probing. Not digging it up, by probing it. Then you take a
core, and you can read the tea leaves from that to see
whether effluent is making it all the way to the end of the
drain field. If it's not, perhaps it's stopped up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, something like
that, if we -- if we could wait till something like that's
in place, I'd feel a lot better about things, as opposed to
digging up people's yards. Another definition, when we're
doing these things and inspecting them, what -- what do you
Chink the definition of "grandfather" is?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The new -- the
proposed 285 has a better definition than the current one
does. There is one in the works, as you know. A new 285 is
out for public comment now. But, according to the current
one, all it says is that if it's a pre -- I believe it's
1988 system, which was the first year that -- that there was
103
.-~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a state standard -- help me here. Is that right? '88 was
the first --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- first year there
was a state standard. If it was prior to that, then it's
grandfathered, as long as the system is not creating a
public health hazard or nuisance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or failing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever that means.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's as close as you
come to a definition of failure, that it's a -- it's a
threat to public health or a nuisance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You have to sort of
tie those together and say failure is what that really is
trying to define. So, that is grandfathered. You know,
there's a very important point -- in fact, Commissioner Letz
and I had a discussion on it this morning, and that is we
want to make sure, in this separate document, that if we're
dealing with an unlicensed system at the point of
inspection, if it meets the requirements of 285; that is,
it's not creating a public nuisance, it's not creating a
hazard to public health, we are not going to require that
that system be licensed. But it can't be licensed unless
104
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's fully inspected. That's up to the owner. Tf you want
to get a licensed system, then you're going to have to dig
it up and find out what's there to know that -- whether or
not it's -- what you've got to change, if anything, to get
it licensed. So, there is not a thrust here that says we
end up, every time we inspect a system, if it's not licensed
by -- oh, golly, it's got to end up with a license. That's
not going to be the case.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And T.N.R.C.C., by the
way, understands that and buys it, 'cause they said, "Don't
go digging up systems that are working."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would that apply
to the recent variance that we rejected here?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No matter -- the state
law says no matter how you found out that a system has
failed, you've got to have it fixed. So, prior to when we
were doing the very invasive inspections, yeah, it's
possible to find some that have failed and that you must
fix. But, you didn't -- the new rule will not allow us to
do that. "Us" to do that, the Court, Kerr County. We will
not go dig up a system to see if it's working.
COMMISSIUNEK LETZ: I think the one you're
talking about is in Center Point? I believe, Bill, that
would qualify. I mean, it would not be a licensed system,
105
1
2
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 J
16
17
18
1~
~0
2 I
22
23
24
25
but the transfer could go on.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But it would have been
inspected much differently than it was inspected in this
case.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's how I would
have interpreted it. I just wanted to hear it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the reason I ask
about the word "grandfather" is, recently I had a personal
friend purchase a piece of -- a home out in Kerrville South.
There is no sign of failure or a nuisance or anything
hurting the environment. No -- no sign of that at all.
And, at the time of transfer, O.G.R.A. goes in and requires
them to update to an aerobic system, which, in my mind and
the homeowner's mind, for no reason whatsoever, because
that -- I mean, they're grandfathered. They're licensed.
They're sitting there, they're functioning properly.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It was a licensed
system?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe so, yeah.
Been there a long time.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Shouldn't have
~ happened.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shouldn't have
happened. And it happens more than that one time. So, I
106
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think that we need to -- because of that, I'm real hesitant
about going through with this without really defining what
grandfather is, being real clear of what -- you know, those
systems that are licensed out there, that -- you know, if
there's not a -- any sign of nuisance, then they shouldn't
be --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That -- that exactly
is the reason that I think this Court needs to control this
document that's off to the side. We're ultimately
responsible for that. And, the D.R.'s going to do what we
tell him to do in that regard, so -- just like he will with
the rule. And -- and I think the D.R. understands that, you
know, that's the way it has to work. So, if we can control
the approval of that document, though, we would expect him
to have great input from the technical side. r~ltimately,
that document gets approved by the Court so that we can look
over things like that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, I agree that --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And the appeal process
from that homeowner, in the case you're talking about, if we
had a rule that was written -- our process and procedure was
written correctly, that person comes directly to the
Commissioners Court on appeal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So -- and that's the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
way it should be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. A couple
other things, and then I'll be through. When T.N.R.C.C. was
in here in the beginning, the very first meeting, they made
the statement that an inspection at the time of sale is
really not enforceable. The County or a government cannot
hold up a sale.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct. We're
not doing that. That is correct. That's what they did say.
They said, "You cannot hold up a sale for the inspection."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All the rule says --
all the process would say is an inspection will be done at
the time of sale. It does not stop the sale. You can go
ahead and close. If the buyer and seller want to go ahead
and close it, that's fine. All we're saying is the system
then has to be inspected.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that -- can I
follow up on that question?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: By the way, that's the
only rule -- this kind of rule is in several counties in the
state of Teras, and that approach is the only one that
T.N.R.C.C. buys, is that you can't stop the sale. You can't
hold it up, but you can require an inspection.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1S
16
1/
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a follow-up
question. So, you conduct an inspection. You have not
stopped the sale, but if there is remediation that's
required --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. You've got 30
days.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's all in 285.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Unless
otherwise noted in the contract of sale?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause if remediation or
something is required, that's under 285, which is outside of
our rules.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz made
a comment earlier about U.G.R.A. is concerned about the
river and tributaries. I would hope that everyone
understands that we all have those same concerns. I mean,
I'm certainly not in favor of damaging the environment, and
1 know no one in this room is either. I mean, that's not my
point. Did you say that U.G.R.A. had already gone through
the steps to obtain their jurisdiction?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know how far
they've gone along. They have -- I know they've had
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
conversations with T.N.R.C.C. I don't know --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The bottom line is,
yes, they do have that jurisdiction. The only thing that
T.N.R.C.C. was going to require is that they bring their old
rule up to date, because it was like our old rule that was
out-of-date because of the January 1st, '99 changes that
were made to 285. So, if that was the only -- they could do
that, but they didn't -- U.G.R.A. -- I didn't find any
sympathy on their part that they wanted to go write another
rule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As long as we could
get together. That was the reason that Commissioner Letz
and I met with them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It was a very
productive, very positive meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, the fact that
they were moving through that process is -- is offensive to
me, without -- before coming to this Commissioners Court and
visiting about it. The Designated Representative is not
here today.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We have a board
member.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our Designated
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
Yeah, Designated
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The person that works
case I had an interesting question or someone that pays
taxes in this county or a member of the community would like
to ask him some questions, I think he would -- should be
here. I attended a -- a J.P. court Friday where O.G.R.A.
had filed charges against a constituent of mine, and I went
to the courtroom, and the Designated Representative was not
in that meeting, either. And, the court lasted about two
and a half minutes, and was found in favor of my
constituent, that it was just a -- a frivolous -- some kind
of frivolous deal that had absolutely no meaning. But,
nevertheless, our Designated Representative drug a guy into
court and cost him money, and had to take -- took him away
from his job, et cetera. And, it's these little things like
that that, in my mind, has to be cleared up.
The things of -- the young man that works for
the Designated Representative, that a lot of people in the
community have grown accustomed to of calling him personally
and asking him questions, and, "Come out and take a look at
my system," et cetera, simply disappeared. I bumped into
him -- he left, I think, the employment in November, maybe,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
and I bumped into him at Christmastime. He said, "I don't
even work there any longer." Well, our Designated
Representative hasn't been in here yet to tell us that. I
mean, I'm sure everybody knows, but that's the kind of thing
that he needs to come in here and report to the
Commissioners Court. He has since, I understand, hired a
new person. He has not been in here to introduce him to the
Commissioners Court. I don't have a clue who he is, and I
think I should know who he is, and I think the general
public needs to know who he is. But, it's those little
things that drive me crazy, that makes me distrust the whole
system. If we can't take care of the little things, how in
the world do we expert an employee of ours to take care of
these big things? And, this is big stuff, in my opinion.
That's all I have to say.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment, before I
turn it back to Larry, is I concur with what Commissioner
Baldwin says, and I think that is the reason that we have to
have very explicit rules and procedures as to how the
Designated Representative, whoever that person is, operates.
And they have to be clear cut so the public is aware of the
process, the Court is aware of the process, and clearly the
Designated Representative is aware of the process. And, the
problem I think -- or one of the problems we've had in the
past has been ambiguity and inconsistency, and that's -- I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
112
think we can solve that by these procedures.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think by working on
that side of it and working -- and, you know, we can solve
that part, which is certainly -- we should be able to solve
that. And I think the other side of it is then we would,
you know, continue the protection of the surface water in
the county, which I think that's what, as Commissioner
Baldwin also said, we all want. And I think, by the
procedure that's been outlined, with a few tweaks here and
there, we're on our road to getting there. Larry?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a couple of
individuals who would like to address us on the topic, and I
think it would probably be appropriate to hear from them now
before we go into any amendments. Bruce Oehler? You yield
to Mr. Morgan here? Gordon Morgan.
MR. MORGAN: A lot of what I had to comment
on has already been addressed here, and I commend y'all for
doing so. This is really a packet of information. There's
no question that I'm like everyone that appears here, and
that is that I certainly have a biased opinion, and the
literature that backs up my opinion is, without question,
biased also, which is what you received from U.G.R.A. and
Charlie Digges and everyone else. But, that is the real job
1
~-.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.-.
19
1S
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
of the Court, is to take the biased information and sift
Some of the things there that I just want to
make a comment on, if you will -- they're numbered as little
individual pa~~kets, but the first one has to do with the
bill that Mr. Griffin talked about, which was 1875, which
was in 1987, became effective in 1988. And, the intent of
that bill is set forth in the second page on number (e).
And, all of us can argue about whether that is the intent;
I'm just making a contention that it is. And, in (e) it
says, Except as provided by Subsection (f) of this section,
an on-site sewage disposal system may not be required to
comply with the design, the construction, and the
installation requirements of this act if the on-site sewage
disposal system is installed before the effective date of
this act and if no significant increase in its use has
occurred, or it it has received approval for construction
from a legally authorized licensing authority before the
effective date of this act, which would be 1988.
And then in (f) below, which was an
exception, if the authorized agent determines that on-site
sewage disposal system described by Subsection (e) of this
section is a nuisance. And, if you look at the next page,
or two -- actually, it's two more pages, and there is the
definition of nuisance. Now, this is taken from the current


1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
114
state rules. And there, when we read the definition of a
nuisance or failing system, it's sewage, human excreta, or
other organic waste discharged or exposed in a manner that
makes it a potential instrument or a medium in the
transmission of disease to or between persons. And the
second thing, an overflowing septic tank or similar device,
including surface discharge from or groundwater
contamination by a component of the system, or a blatant
discharge of that system. That would mean, I think, what is
-- most people refer to as a walk-over type thing. It
should be blatant. It should be recognizable, obvious to
the person.
'There's one word there in the -- in the (A)
part that says "potential," and I would hope the Court would
see the wisdom in defining that potential, because every
system has potential. One just installed has the potential
of failure, so I would hope that would be defined even
further. And, in (49) down there -- which I don't know
whether it's noted in yours or not, but in (49) it talks
about the permit, and it classifies that as two things: The
authorization to construct, and a license to operate. And,
at the present time, those are considered as one item. I
think they should be separated so that the system, if it's
granted --
CGMMISSIGNER GRIFFIN: I think that has been
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
done. I'll have to verify that, but I think they have been
separated now.
MR. MORGAN: In Number 2, there's a letter
from Upper Guadalupe River Authority signed by Lane Wolters,
and in it is an excerpt from Dr. Carlisle's summary or
strategy of management decisions to be made by Kerr County.
And in that in B, he says, at the bottom, to institute the
county-wide licensing program for all on-site systems to
insure soil and system compliance for all new systems --
and, now, he said new systems. I think in the past, we've
had a problem in defining new standards. Is the term "new
standards" the new criteria that is used to judge a system,
or is new standards the criteria that is used to set up a
new uninstalled system? Food for thought.
To do with the U.G.R.A. Board of Directors
and Commissioners Court in a meeting of June 1988, in that,
they spoke about a 5-year sampling program of springs and
tributaries of the Guadalupe River. And, it goes on to say
that these were found to be contaminated in the high density
areas with septic tanks, and it -- it defines fecal coliform
bacteria, nitrates, phosphates, and chloride concentrations
in excess of the Texas Water Commission Standards. I would
wonder -- this was in 1988. I would wonder if they have a
new study, because a new study might determine whether or
not the program that has been in effect has ever really done
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anything, or if the Guadalupe still has the same conditions
that it was earlier.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I heard it
improved conditions.
MR. MORGAN: Oh, improved?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think ~.G.R.A., to
answer that question, does have additional -- they've told
me -- I haven't seen it, but I think we need to request that
from ~.G.R.A. so the public can see the changes from '88,
when the study was done, to the present.
MR. MORGAN: Yeah, that would be great. The
next page, Number 4, is a document that is put out by the
Texas Association of P.ealtors. It is a document that is
specifically biased towards the information about on-site
sewer facilities. So, in a contract for the purpose oT
purchase of a property that has a septic system, this should
be included. This is normal procedure. And in this, if you
will look, it tells the type of system -- or asks the
question. It says who has done it, who the installer was,
and it goes on down, when it was installed. If you go to
the next page, they will also have a copy or a drawing of
the system.
And, I thought it was interesting, when we
read one of Kerr County's data on License to Operate On-Site
Sewage Facility, down at the bottom, it almost eliminates
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any type of -- certainly, any guarantee that it's even going
to work. It just says it's working as of this very moment,
and I would wonder if that might not be expanded. And I
know from liability, the reason it's not. But, I think that
we ought to -- if we -- if we have an inspection and cost
involved thereof, I think something should be gotten other
than just, "It's okay this minute, but tomorrow it may not
work."
Here is a copy of a diagram of a system.
This is an actual contract that's in the process now,
supposed to be closed the 16th of this month. Under Special
Provisions, this is wording that can well be put in -- or
anyone's wording can be put in that says, "The seller will
provide a current license to operate for the system obtained
from Kerr County's Designated Representative in the
purchaser's name at the time of closing at the seller's
expense." So, that goes right back to the previous
permitting system that we had, and the seller grants the
purchaser the right and permission for an independent
inspection of the system during the option period at the
purchaser's expense. That means he's going to -- the
purchaser, if he wants to have an inspection, can, and it
will be his responsibility to pay for it. He should obtain
the seller's consent before any excavation is done. In
other words, if the inspection is contracted for, then they
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,.,.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
should have the owner's permission for doing any digging up.
In the Carlisle study, which much of what we
subsurface flow, meet the discharge limits reasonable to
protect water quality of the county. Since on-site systems
are routinely installed as close as 10 feet to the
boundaries, this means that all system installations should
insure that the wastewater is treated to a reasonable limit,
and there he sets forth the limits of the ammonium nitrates
and so forth and so on, and these should not go further than
10 feet. And, that may well come into the idea of where we
test it and how can we determine a functioning system
without digging up everything in the back yard.
Number 6, finally, is really, in a sense,
what the subject is today, and that is that there are some
questions that -- many of them have been answered, but I had
a -- I had a problem with the -- the fact of some of the
language relative -- and "concerns," I guess, is more apt
than "a problem." One of the things that concerned me was
the statement about minimum; that, as I understand it, all
of these things are going to be changed in -- in a separate
document. But, it says that on the date -- this is Number 5
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the agenda item today. It says that, "On the date of the
inspection the Designated Representative shall conduct the
inspection of the system to include at a minimum the
following." I would hope that it would be "minimum and
maximum" in there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It has been changed.
MR. MORGAN: Okay. All of the other things,
I would hope the Court would research the dollar impact,
what -- you know, or how much increase in manpower might
that entail and what the other things are, but I hope
that -- that this will stimulate or at least bring up enough
questions that it will thoroughly be thought out before
Section 10 is ever added to the basic rules and regulations.
And, it sounds like you're on that track. I hope that --
that you come up with something that will be reasonable in
expense, something that will be practical and helpful to the
people, and something that will actually make a diYTerence
in the quality of our water. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Does
anyone have any questions before he gets away? Okay,
thanks. Bruce, are you going to say anything?
MS. OEHLER: I just have very little to say
about all this. The one thing that I didn't know that was
in the new proposal was about the lease, leased property.
There's no change of ownership. If 1 have a home that I
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
,..~
25
120
constitute any kind of an inspection, because you have no
transfer. Nothing's really changed. It's still being
occupied, it's still under the same owner, and I don't
believe that needs to be in there at all, period, because
there is no sale. It's a -- it doesn't matter how long you
lease it for. I may change renters five or six times in a
year; you never know about that. You may have the same
family in there for two, three years. I don't see what that
has to do with whether that system needs to be inspected or
not. I think that needs to be left out, but I do commend
you for changing the things I believe that Gordon has talked
about. He spent a lot of time doing this, putting this
together, and I know Larry has and Jonathan, and I just
don't want U.G.R.A. to control what the County does. I
think the County has that right and has that ability to do
what is right for all the people, because you are elected.
U.G.R.A. is appointed by the government. And, I hope that
could change someday and have elections for U.G.R.A.
members,	or it disappear, one	of the	two.	Thank	you.
	JUDGE HENNEKE:	Thank	you.	Anyone	else have
any comments or questions at this time?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I only have one
more. If -- I think that we're not rushing into this thing,
but it's -- this change -- seems like every 30 days, we
121
1
,~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.~-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
begin to change these things a little bit. But, if we ever
formed a committee to really take a look at something, I
think this that this would be the program that we would form
a committee of constituents that would take a close look at
it. And, the first thing that pops into my mind is that
this Section 10 that is being proposed today, is it enough?
Are we sure that it is enough? There could possibly be some
things out there that we're just not -- just not seeing, and
if a -- a group of peers would take a long, hard look at it,
maybe -- maybe we can come up -- come up with a real, live,
firm document that we don't have to tinker with every few
days. So I'd like to see us form a committee to take a look
at it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to
propose some amendments, yeah. On Page 4 -- and, by the
way, I do -- again, I have copies of this that I -- I'll
hand out to you, but it would probably be better to go
through it first. There's not that many, but on Page 4 of
the draft that is in your package, at the bottom of the
page, paragraph -- take the easy one first -- Paragraph (8).
That was a typo. Should be paragraph C and indented further
to the left. That's actually a separate thought other than
the -- what's in (4), (5), (6), and (7) above.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: (8), Sub C?
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sub C.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sub C to Section 10.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sub C to Section 10.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Then, in paragraph --
above that, in Subparagraph (4), there's a through e.
Strike those, all of them.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you're striking all of
Paragraph (9)?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, not all of it,
because the lead-in phrase is still there, but paragraphs a,
b, c, d, and e, you can strike that and substitute -- so
that it reads, "On or before the date of the inspection, the
applicant or applicant's representative shall, a, be
prepared to identify to the Designated Representative the
locations of all components of the system, including
drainfield lines or other effluent distribution components."
In other words, what you know is there, you can point out to
the Designated Representative. And that's -- and that's it.
Then you would have b, "Have exposed for inspection the
clean outs on tanks and distribution systems, and the inflow
and outflow connections of all treatment tanks," which is
not nearly so onerous as digging. A11 you're doing is
getting the excess, just like you were pumping it. The only
thing we're adding to that is the inflow and outflow
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
24
~5
123
connections to make sure those aren't leaking, because
that's where those systems -- any primary tank system in
particular would tend to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Griffin,
may I interrupt you just for a second?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mine reads --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That stayed, with a
little modification. I'll give you a copy.
li COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see any
~ changes quite yet in a or b.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, there is.
There's additions to b.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's additions to b
and then c, which is sort of -- d came out entirely, by the
way. And, c -- c and d in the original came out entirely,
and then the c paragraph, as proposed to be amended, would
be a simplification that says, "Be present for the
inspection and, at applicant's option, arrange to have the
applicant's maintenance service provider present." In other
words, if you have an aerobic system and you're under
contract for maintenance on it and you would like to have
your person there -- your maintenance person there for the
inspection, you can do so, so that maintenance person can
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
hear firsthand what the inspector has to say about the
system. That's all.
A, b, and c, those three that I just read,
replace a through e in the original that you had in your
package. And then, under (5), this one's really changed.
That's also got a through e in the submitted draft. Strike
all of those and replace Paragraph a to say, "Evaluate the
O.S.S.F. site characteristics to determine compliance with
30 TAC 285.1, Table X," which is the minimum number required
separation distances for on-site sewage facilities. That
is, if you'll recall -- I know everybody reads it all the
time. This is -- Table 10 is the matrix table that outlines
how far a well has to be from a -- from a septic system and
how far have you to be back from property lines and that
kind of thing, and that's all that is.
And then b -- Paragraph b will be changed to
say, "Evaluate the O.S.S.F. for signs of failure which
preclude the system from meeting the purpose as stated in 30
TAC 285.1." That's -- that is all of it. So, all that's
saying is -- and now we go to our procedures manual to say,
how do you do that? How do you determine if all of those
high falutin' statements of purpose at the very front of
285, which talks about water quality and protection of
public health and all that sort of thing -- that's the
starting point. 'That's all it now says. And, I've got
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
2j
24
25
copies of this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Larry, on that one, if we
substituted the word "nuisance" for the word "failure,"
since nuisance is a defined term, wouldn't that accomplish
the same thing? 'Cause we're referring to 285 where they
talk about nuisance.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The problem is that
nuisance is only part of the -- it does not -- that doesn't
talk about water quality, and the purpose does, so that if
you're -- if -- you know, you may not be creating a
nuisance, but you could be polluting the tributary to the
river or whatever. If you're doing that, then that's not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could still have
signs of nuisance would preclude the system from meeting
purpose as stated. You're still talking about purpose in
285. I mean, nuisance is a defined term; failure is not a
defined term, and that way, there's less ambiguity.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's a valid point, a
good one. And the reason I didn't do it that way is that
285 can change, but 285.1 will always be what the purpose of
285 is for. And, if the State wants to change that, fine.
And that's the reason I didn't try to get too much in the
definition that says, look, our purpose is the same as 285's
purpose. We want to protect the water quality, we want to
do all the good things that it says. But, that's certainly
126

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
zl
22
23
24
25
something we can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Look at.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to submit
it this way, and we can certainly, at the public hearing
for -- when we post a public hearing, we can certainly
consider that amendment and the leasing question, and
there's several other things we can still address here.
But, I want to get it as close to something that we know
that T.N.R.C.C. buys. And, they like it for -- it you spout
their stuff back at them, they like it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Going to pass those out?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Yeah, I've got
plenty of copies. There's several that you can -- more than
enough. And, I would propose those as amended in accordance
with what you see here now.
COMMISSIONEK LETZ: Two things. Une -- well,
regarding the timetable, and two is the follow-up to
Commissioner Baldwin's comment about a committee. Un a
timetable, you know, I think my preference is -- I haven't
talked to Larry about this point -- is to, rather than set a
public hearing now, to wait till the next meeting when all
the Commissioners have a chance to look at this and read it,
and I guess how it's amended today. I think it's always
better, I mean, especially on an issue that I think is very
127
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
important, that the -- the document that we're going to have
the public hearing on is exactly the document that everyone
has looked at and the public is aware of. So, on time,
that's my preference on that. And, on the committee point,
I share the -- I guess, the philosophy of -- on this point
of Commissioner Baldwin on having a committee review it.
But, at the same time, after having -- going through two
years of gyrations on the Subdivision Rules with a
committee, I almost think that it's -- it might almost be
counterproductive to appoint a committee at this point to
look at the rules. But I would -- I do think that it might
be a real good idea to appoint a committee to evaluate the
rules for the next -- you know, for the next -- for a period
of time. Or, you know, maybe appoint it for six months to
evaluate how it's working, to see if there are problems and
see if we're -- if we have done what we were trying to do.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, after talking --
after the new rule?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, put the new rule
into effect. It will go on for six months or whatever;
appoint a committee, and be sure and have that committee
report back to the Court as to whether they fixed the
problem or haven't fixed the problem. And if we haven't
fixed it, we go back to the drawing board, but at least give
it six months to work without changing it again. Or --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L S
128
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like that, Jon. I
like that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me propose an
alternative, in the interests of sort of moving things
along, but still accomplishing some of the things you talked
about how we handle this. I would like to go ahead and
accept the draft, if you will accept the amendments that I
just proposed. Go ahead and accept and approve that to set
the public hearing, with the understanding that this time
around -- 'cause we learned a lesson -- I learned a lesson
last time, that we are going to have an effective date for
this new rule, if we do end up with one. That we would have
an effective date far enough downstream -- and T.N.R.C.C.
said they will do that for us. We could have a -- a -- and
that gives us plenty of time, then, to have a public
hearing. We can massage it two or three times, if we want
to, after that and still get the new rule written and
adopted so that we can send to it T.N.R.C.C., and still have
a date so we -- everybody knows when it's going to start.
In other words, we won't just wait for their signature and
we have that sprung on us liY.e we did this last time,
because that created some confusion, understandably, at
O.G.R.A. 50, we'll have a date certain that the new rule
goes into effect. It's downstream. If you follow what I'm
getting --
129

1
2
3
9
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1 J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER. LETZ: I think that's a real
good point.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We could go ahead and
set the public hearing for this, because if we are --
really, what this does is, nothing says we can't amend this
thing further afterwards. Well, what this does is gets the
dialogue started, and I don't see a whole lot of reason to
wait for that. We could set a public hearing now to open up
that dialogue, and Yhen throw it out, entirely change it, do
whatever we think is the right thing to do after that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This amended document
would be the one, then, on file for people to get copies?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem
wil.ti it, but I haven't read it. I don'Y know if any of the
other Commissioners object to that because they haven't read
the amended form. You know, I would rather wait.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What is on Page 4 is
all that's changed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And if you'd like to
read it, maybe we can bring this back up later.
JODGE HENNEKE: Well, I -- the substance of
what's here really hasn't changed, so, I mean, I think it's
appropriate For us to go ahead and set the public hearing,
130
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
~~
23
24
25
but we do need to -- to bring some finality to this right
now. So long as we're talking about it, there's always a
question in people's minds as to where do I fall in there?
So, I think for the public's benefit, it's something that we
ought to do with all deliberate speed. So, my suggestion
is, in conjunction with Commissioner Griffin, that we go
ahead and adopt the amendments and set a public hearing, and
we can set it for -- the earliest we could have it would be
April 23rd. If we want to, we could have it the first
meeting in May, if we just want to give a little additional
time.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The 23rd would work.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: First meeting in May would be
too early -- 1 mean April would be too early, so we're
looking at the 23rd. That's the way I think we should
proceed, because of the need to bring some finality to this.
If we wait until the next meeting to approve it, set a
public hearing then, we're looking at -- at the second
meeting in May.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When? Our second
meeting -- we can't -- if we wait till the next meeting, we
can't have it the second meeting in April.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, the second meeting in
March is the 26th and the second meeting in April is the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
z3
24
25
131
23rd, so we have less than 30 days. So, that would kick it
into May.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've read it, and I don't
have any problem with using the document as amended today.
And there's already a hard copy of it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do it that way. Let's
first consider the amendments. Do I have a motion to
approve the proposed O.S.S.F. order, as amended?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I can't, 'cause
I made the amendments -- I guess I can, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You wrote them.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, I just did.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Who was the second?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
approve the proposed O.S.S.F. order as amended. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Griffin
indicated by raised hand that they were in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Baldwin indicated by raised
hand that he was opposed to the motion.)
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I vote no, Precinct 1.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. The next order of
business would be to set the public hearing. And -- and do
we want to set this distinct from our regular agenda by
setting a public hearing for -- say, at 2 o'clock in the
afternoon? So we don't end up being compacted with --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- whatever regular business
we have?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, 2 o'clock on
the 23rd. I'll make that proposal. 23rd of April?
~ JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 2 o'clock on the 23rd
of April. Is that not right?
MS. SOVIL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court set a
public hearing on the proposed revised O.S.S.F. order for
Monday, April 23rd, Year 2001, at 2 o'clock p.m., here in
the Kerr County Commissioners Courtroom. Any further
133

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Griffin
indicated by raised hand that they were in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to qualify my
no vote on that. Recently I, in my mind, voted to set a
public hearing, and somehow it was construed that I not only
voted for the public hearing, but I was voting for the
program, too, so I'm going to be real careful with this one
from now on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, that brings up a
question. And I think -- I mean, it goes back to -- well,
the curfew is where I know -- where the -- and I voted
against that one. Is it a requirement that we approve it
before we can set a public hearing, or can't we set a public
hearing and then approve it?
JUDGE HENNEKE: The philosophy is that in
order for the public to know what the public hearing is
about, you need to have a document on file that's going to
be the basis for the discussion at the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's -- it's not the
final document.
134
,'-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1 J
16
17
18
l~
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Doesn't necessarily have to
be the final document. It can be amended after it, but the
public needs to have something that they can look at in
order to evaluate their position on the issue.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is where we
started from.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that there
ought to be some verbiage where we're not formally approving
it and, at the same time, accepting the document for public
-- or for public viewing, because, I mean, it puts you in a
situation the same way. I mean, it happened on the curfew
issue the same way. That's the one I voted against it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I understand your concern,
and we could probably use the language "accept for purposes
~f public hearing" rather than "approved," and I don't have
a problem with that. I think it's semantics. I think it's
the concept, which is that the public has the right to know
exactly what's going to be debated at the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, it's semantics,
except that you're voting to approve it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's where I had
the problem.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But the difference was
between "approval" and "adopted," but we can use "accept for

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
135
purposes of public hearing" instead of "approved" and be at
the same place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. We've
worked long and hard this morning. Let's come back at 1:30
and wrap up.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, there are a
number of people here, I think, who were standing by just to
hear Item 20. Could we take that up? I don't think --
that's going to go very quickly, 'cause -- could we perhaps
do that one before --
JUDGE HENNEKE: If we do that one, we can
probably just drive on through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather drive on
through.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Drive on through.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll be the guy that
starved to death lying over here on the floor.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's then take up
Item Number 20, which is consider and discuss sunset
workshops regarding County-sponsored or funded programs.
This is something that was on the agenda last time and I
pulled it back for purposes of time management. The
concept, as I've explained to each of you in the memo, is
136
1
2
•---
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
based on the state model. Periodically, you stop and you
look at programs to determine whether this is an appropriate
use of County funds. And, I've provided a -- a list that I
created, basically, out of the budget of programs that we
currently fund that are not necessarily mandated or core
programs. The list can be expanded, the list can be
contracted. The Court can decide they want to have such a
discussion, Court can decide they don't want to have such a
discussion. It's an idea. It's an idea that's based on the
notion that you periodically need to pause and see what
you're doing in order to effectively continue to manage the
public's pocketbook, which the basic charge that we're
given. And, I think it's more effective to do that before
budget season rather than during budget season, because the
pressure in }~udget is not necessarily to evaluate programs,
but to put dollars next to the programs. And, so, that's
the reasuu that I bring it to the Court for your
consideration and action, to see whether this is a program
that we wish to do this year. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I -- I will
speak to it. I appreciate you doing this very, very much.
I agree that we need to follow the state model on the sunset
program. Number 10, EMS, do -- I didn't know that we funded
EMS. I know we fund the First Responder program, but --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
137
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we don't actually
send money there, do we?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We do?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, we do. We fund a
portion of EMS.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Forgive me. And I
don't see R.C.& D. on there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the Soil Conservation
Service, Number 16. That's the old name.
MS. SOVIL: No. R.C.& D. is dues. We belong
to their organization.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But we also provide -- we had
a contract with them for $1,500 this year.
MS. SOVIL: Not R.C.& D.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't fund
R.C.& D. We fund --
MS. SOVIL: They're two different things.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Well, then, I stand
corrected.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we're a member of
it. Should it be on this list?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It should be on the
list.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I --
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's not mandated, and
so, by law, if we're going to look at any of them, we'll
look at all of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In my -- I voted to
join R.C.& D., a great program -- I was one of the original
board members -- that goes out and seeks grants. The reason
I voted for us to be a member is to give these departments,
these agencies, these groups, the people on your list, a
vehicle to go to for grants and get off of the government
teat. Was that a bad thing to say?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spelled t-e-a-t.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: T-e-a-t. And, to me,
that is what R.C.& D. is about. That's what I voted for
them to -- so that these organizations could then go -- we
have a -- the County Commissioners Court has set up a group
now for these agencies to go to and get grants and get --
and start weaning themselves off of the tax dollars in Kerr
County. So, I am big-time in favor of this. And, as we go
along with our meetings, I'm going to ask the question, Soil
Conservation Service, have you been to R.C.& D?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are some
positive answers there. A couple instances.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. That's what we
want to hear.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And it's not to --
139
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
1,
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Particularly a grant
for a new truck, a new funded truck, and it came through
R.C.& D. and doing the work. Soil Conservation, the fire
hydrant program -- fire hydrant -- the hydrant program that
came out. So, there are some instances where that's
happened.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think there would be
a good review, without going into any detail. There's even
some that are on the list where there may be even a legal
question about whether we can make a donation to a
501(c)(3), even though it's a good, charitable, community
organization. That's -- but it's not providing emergency
services to citizens, it's not providing -- but they're good
causes. It's just whether or not we are doing it right.
And, I don't know whether we might want to discuss funding
levels and how, for example, our volunteer fire
departments -- how do we determine how much each one gets?
I think it was decided arbitrarily some years ago and hasn't
been changed. Maybe we need to come up with a formula based
on population and square miles. And square miles.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This Court changed
that one time, Commissioner. We changed at one time. We
improved them all by $1,000.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, we gave a bump
to all of them across the board. But -- but those kind of
1
2
3
4
5
h
8
y
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
140
things. And -- and we know that a good number of these,
we're not looking to cut the program out unless we really
shouldn't be doing it. And, I think it would be a good idea
to sit down and start, ticky-boo, right down through the
list.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've had some members
of the Historical Commission -- not my wife, who just
recently joined that Commission -- ask me why the Historical
Commission was on here, given that someone -- the Commission
believes that once a historical commission is set up by a
county, it is obligated to Lund it to some extent. Someone
want to research the law on that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably true.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's something we can look
at, but it's a permissive tunction. It's not a mandatory,
so I would interpret that to say that it is not something
that you have to do, so at any time you could terminate the
program.
COMMISSIONEk WILLIAMS: By terminating the
Commission?
JODGE HENNEKE: By terminating the
Commission.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But 1 would hope we'd
continue with the library and the airport, being as we own
it.
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't own the library.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, but we're half --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We are obligated to pay half
of the operating costs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're half-owners.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a vested
interest.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the consensus is
to go forward with a workshop to go over these.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we want to -- I think my
proposal would be the afternoon of the first meeting in May.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good, I think.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I will do is I will send
letters to the organizations saying we're having these
workshops and inviting them to come and attend and ask
questions about their programs. I will also ask the
assistance of the County Attorney's office in any -- any
legal problems there may be with continuing the involvement
of the County in any -- any specific program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I would suggest --
MS. SOVIL: Is this the full list in one day?
Or are you going to take kind of --
JUDGE HENNEKE: What's the --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
~3
24
~5
192
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we can do it
all in one day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A lot of them can be
grouped. I mean, you almost have -- I think we could group
them, like City/County, joint ventures, and then a number of
them are --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Emergency services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Emergency services. Then
you have County departments and then you have the kind of
programs on -- and at least the Family Literacy, children --
basically, the programs that the County Judge utilizes for
juveniles -- primarily juveniles, as I recall.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Juvenile programs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, there's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's a lot of
grouping that you can -- and probably, if you're clever
enough, you might be able to group the -- schedule the
groups all in one day, but schedule them in such a way that
the easier ones you'll get done with first. Save the tough
ones for last.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- May 11th?
MS. SOVIL: 19th.
JUDGE HENNEKE: May 19th. 2 o'clock? Do I
have a motion to that effect?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
143
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
MS. SOVIL: Are we calling this a workshop,
or are we going to make decisions?
JUDGE HENNEKE: These are workshops. Sunset
workshops. Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by
Commissioner Letz, that the Court set up these sunset
workshops at 2 o'clock p.m. on Monday, May the 14th, year
2001, regarding County-sponsored or funded programs. Any
further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only question I have
is, Commissioner Griffin referred to some folks in the
audience?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I know there
were some people here that I think were waiting to hear what
we were going to do, I guess whether we were going to have a
workshop. They sat here patiently all morning. I was
hoping we wouldn't have to come back after lunch.
JODGE HENNEKE: Questions?
MR. HINTZE: Sir, if I could make just one
comment in relation to Commissioner Baldwin's r_omment about
the R.C.& D. program?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Would you identify -- excuse
me, sir. Would you identify yourself?
MR. HINTZE: Yes, sir. I'm Dutch Hintze from
Hunt, and I'm with the Hunt Fire Department. The R.C.& D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
program is a very important vehicle to emergency service
organizations, but emergency service organizations -- we
~ have to keep the doors open, so there's a certain base line
budget that we're going to have to have each year. But, it
does provide a very important vehicle for us to be able to
upgrade our services, upgrade our equipment and things of
that nature, but we couldn't rely on it solely to keep the
doors open.
JUllGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate that.
Dutch.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And also, if anyone thinks of
a program that's not on this list -- and this list is not
necessarily intended to be a11-inclusive -- please send it
to me. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay, I
think we caci dispose of trie remainder fairly expeditiously.
Item Number 16, consider and discuss rescinding Court Order
25871, dated 2/12/01, cancel public hearing associated
therewith, and reaffirm the appropriateness of Court Order
24184, dated 9/8/98 establishing HU mile per hour speed
145
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
limit on C.P. River Road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Inside the former
~ corporate limits. After we did the court order in February,
the Road and Bridge people advised me that we already had
that done, and they researched and brought out the -- the
former court order, which was in 1997. So, I move that we
take it out, rescind the one that we just did and establish
the one that was -- reestablish the one from 1997.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
rescind Court Order Number 26871, cancel the public hearing
associated herewith, and reaffirm the appropriateness of
Court Order 24184, which established a 30 mile-an-hour speed
limit on C.P. River Road inside the former corporate limits
of Center Point. Any questions or comments? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Number 17, consider and
discuss resolution supporting the inclusion of locally
elected officials as a majority of any board existing or
proposed by House Bill 7, with oversight of the state
Community Development Block Grant program, and forward same
146

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
zl
22
23
24
25
to Gary L. Walker, Chairman of House Committee on Land and
Resource Management.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The backup material,
Judge, provided to us by Grantworks, our folks in Austin,
who have done some outstanding work on our behalf, calls to
our attention the sense of House Bill 7 drafted by Warren
Chisum. And, the major concern is that this new agency for
the administering of funds in the Community Development
Block Grant program, once that board is set up, as the law
is currently being proposed, there would be no elected
offi~~ials. And, given that the -- the largest percentage of
these dollars are for small cities and rural counties, it
does sort of make sense that -- that any governing or
oversight board have some elected officials on it, and what
this resolution does is urges them to consider that
particular point. I move the resolution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
adopt a resolution supporting inclusion of locally elected
officials as a majority of any board existing or proposed by
House Bill 7, with oversight of the state Community
Development Block Grant program, and forward same to the
Honorable Gary L. Walker, Chairman, House Committee on Land
and Resource Management. Any further questions or comments?
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
147
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Comment, that here's
an opportunity for us to voice our concern that things need
to be run from the bottom up, not the top down.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item number
19, consider and discuss adopting a proclamation declaring
March 18 to 24 as National Agriculture Week in Texas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second -- third.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court adopt
a proclamation declaring March 18 to 24 as National
I
Agriculture Week in Kerr County, Texas. Any further
II questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
~ right hand.
~ (The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Finally, we
have Item Number 21, which is consider end discuss
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
membership in the Association of Rural Communities in Texas.
I received a letter from Judge Herber from Atascosa County,
which is included in your packet, regarding the new
organization of the Association of Rural Communities in
Texas, and inviting us to join it. To me, it looks like
something that's -- it probably could have some benefit.
What are the desires of the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I just -- my
question would be, how does this -- how is this associated
with your organization, your rural county -- I can't
remember the name of it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Texas Association of Rural
Judges?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Is -- this,
basically, is similar?
JUDGE HENNEKE: This appears to me to be --
to include municipalities, which ours does not. It's
probably a little -- takes in certain larger communities
than the Rural Judges does, but I don't think the two really
are in competition or overlap.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does your organisation
have membership? I mean, are we members?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We11, it's not a membership.
It`s an informal association of rural County Judges. There
are no dues. There are no bylaws. There are no
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
199
requirements, which is why it's very effective.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All we do is try to make
things happen for rural Texas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But these folks want
to hire a lobbyist to look after the rural interests?
JUDGE HENNEKE: You've got me. I don't know
that they could hire much of a lobbyist by charging only
$100 a year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't imagine what
they would do, then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My point -- my view is
that we do nothing and look at it at budget time, and
probably then do nothing then.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Only other thing we
can do -- or the other thing we could do is we could go
ahead and join and put it on the list.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of things to cut.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you're going to put it on
the list to cut, I'd rather not spend the $100 up front.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Don't cut the check
until after the workshop.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I get the sense of the Court
that it's not an organization we believe we need to
participate in at this time, and that's fine.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 L
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
150
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless you're just
looking for another meeting to go to.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I was going to delegate
somebody to go to these. I don't believe we have anything
else. Because of the wording of the Road and Bridge
Department bid item, we are not going to recess. The agenda
item does not permit us to accept bids, so we'll have to --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or award bids.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- so we'll have to take that
up at our next regularly scheduled meeting or, if necessary,
have a sper_ial meeting. But, we'll notify Road and Bridge
that, because of the nature of the agenda item, we were not
able to recess, so we'll have to reschedule that. Is there
anything else? If not, we are adjourned. Thank you.
(commissioners Court adjourned at 1:30 p.m.)
1
STATE QF TEXAS
I
151
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
2
C~~~~l ~~ KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and "~mplete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in xay capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr bounty,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 16th day of March,
2001.
JANN7~E/TT PIEP~yE,R~~/~Kerr County Clerk
Kathy Ba-fiik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
151

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
G 1
2.
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS I ,
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 16th day of March,
2001.
JANNE'PT PIEPER, KKerr County Clerk
Kathy Ba-fiik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER N0. 26906
CLRIMS RND RCCOUNTS
On this the loth day of March 2001, came to be considered by
the court the various claims and acco~_ints against Nerr^ County
and the various commissioner's precincts, which said claims
and accounts are:
10-Gener^al Fund for- 882,406.29; li-J~_ir•y Fund far 8294.9;
13-Road $ Hridge Add'1 kegistr-at ion Fee fund for 811,'213.78;
14-Fire Protection Fund for^ 86,250.00; Road R Pridge F~.ind
for 819,381.36; 19-Public Library Fund for^ $29,246.33;
23-J~_ivenile State Hid Fund for 81,000.00; 24-Tr^affic Safety
Fund for 8'5.15; 27-Juv Intensive Frog-State Rid Fund for
~ 8757.50; S0-Indigent Health Care Fund fur 825,383.12;
70-Permanent Improvement Fund for• 88,270.00; 81-District
Rdniinistration Fund for 843.10; B3-State Funded-216th Dist.
Rttorney Fund for• $946.36; 86-5'tate Funded-216th Dist F'r•ob.
Fund for 82,379.50; B7-State Funded-Community Corrections Fund
for 84,403.01; (TOTRL ALL FUNDS-8192,000.45)
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by
Commissioner Griffin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, payment of said Claims and Recounts as recomended by
the County Ruditor.
ORDER N0.66S@7
BUDGET AMENDMENT'
NON-DEPARTMENTAL/DISTRICT COURT:~I6TH
On this the loth day of March c@@1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commisioner Griffin, the Cai_~rt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, to tr•ansfer• Sc@@.@@
from Line item #1@-4@9-571 Contingency, to Line item
#1@-4@~-565 Comp~xter Supplies, and to transfer 8E29.9@ from
Line item #i4J-4@9-57@ Capital O~.ttlay to Line item #1@-435@57@
Capital Outlay.
ORDER NCI. 269N8
HUDGET AMENDMENT/NON DEGRRTMENTRL
COURTS COLLECTION DEGRRTMENT
On this the loth day of March 20x1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously voted by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
$137. t7 from Line item #10-409-U70 Capital Outlay to Line item
#10-42'3-45E Machine Repair-.
URDER NU.~6505
RUDGET AMENDMENT/COUNTY JUDGE
CUMMISSIUNERS' COURT
Un this the loth day of March X001, upont motion made by
Commissioner Gr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-0, to tr•ansfer-
8100.00 from Line item #10-401-4SE Machine Repair-, to Line
item #10-400-305 G'ostage.
ORDER N0.2E~910
RF'F'ROVRL OF HRND CHECK
HENRY OCHDR F'RIN'GING CO.
On this the 12th day of Narch 2001, upont motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court Unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-a, to ai_tthorize
the Co~_tnty Ruditor- and the Coi_inty Treasurer to write a hand
check in the amount of S4i0.N~ to be issued fr^om Line item
#1N-S10-450. i-he check to be made payable to Henr^y Ochoa
Fainting Co.
ORDER N0.26S11
RF'F'ROVAL T^ RCCEF'T MINUTES
RND WAIVE READING
On this the i~th day of Mar^ch x:001, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Let~~ seconded by Commissioner Griffins the L'oi_ir•t
unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-Q~~ to waive reading and
approve the following minutes: Kerr County Commissioners'
Co~_ir•t Regular session, Febr^~_iar^y 1G, 2001 at `3:~~a. m. , and Kerr
County Commissioner^s' Cour^t Special Session, Febr^~_tar^y cE~ ~N~1
at 9:0Q~a. m.
ORDER N0. 26912
APPROVE AND RCCEPT MONTHLY REPORT'S
'~ On this the 12th day of March 2@@1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court Unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, to accept the
following monthly reports, and that said r•epor•ts should be
accepted and filed with the County Cler^k for^ future audit:
S.P.#1 Vance R. Elliott
Monthly Report
Fines, J'~_~dgements, and Jury Fees
Collected for the Month of February, ~@@1
J. f='. #2 Dawn Wright
Monthly Report
Fines, Judgements, and J~_n^y Fees
Collected for the Month of February, '._@@1
J.P.#3 Robert L. Tench
Monthly Report
Fines, J~_idgements, and Jury Fees
Collected for the Month o'F Febr^uary, 2@@1
J.G.#4 William E. Ragsdale
Monthly Repor^t
Fines, Judgements, and Jury Fees
Collected for The Month Of F'ebr•uar•y, ~@@1
County Cler^k- Jannett Pieper
Monthly Report
T'ri_~st Fund Report
Month of February, c@@1
County Clerk- Jannett Pieper
Monthly Report
General Fund/ Fees
Month of February, 2@@1
Sher•iffsr Department
Monthly Report
Civil Acco~_int Report
Month of February, 2@@1
ORDER NO.E6913
AGGROVE PRELIMINARY REVISION OF F'LAl
TRRCTS c'31-c39/ NORTHWEST HILLS pHRSE II R~ GRRNT VARIANCE
Un this the loth day of Mar•ch,_N01, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by L:ommisioner• Let z, the Co~_~r•t
unaimously voted by a vote of 4-Q-Q~, to approve the
pr•eliminar•y plat revision of tracts c31- tracts ~3'~ as
noted, of Northwest Hills phase II and grant variance to
waive the r•equir•ement of public hearing contained in the
current Kerr' Co~_~nt Subdivision R~_~les and Regulations.
ORDER NU. 66914
APPROVE PRELIMINARY REVISION OF F'LR'f/ TRRCTS 687
ESTRTES OF TURTLE CREEK SEC. I/ GRRNT WRIVER OF PUBLIC HEARING
On this the 16th day of March 60N1~ upon motion made by
Commisoner Wi:Lliams~ seconded by Commissioner Letz, the co~_ir•t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept the
pr•eliminar•y revision of plat to combine tracts 6R7 of the
Estates of Turtle Creek, S'ec. I ~ and grant a waiver to the
notice requirement i_inder• the notice and public hearing
requirement under the c~_irr•ent Kerr County S~_~bdivision Rules
and Regulations.
ORDER N0. 26915
RE'P'ROVE THE F'RELIMINRRY REVISION OF PLRT FOR TRRCT 16
SILVER HILLS SUBDIVISION
On this the loth day of March 2001, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner^ Gr^iffin,
the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-0, to approve
the pr•eliminar•y r^evision of plat for^ tract 16 of Silver Hills
Subdivision, with the condition that the developer satisfy the
problems noted with the septic system an well, and also that
the developer have the well qualified as a public water system
with less than 15 hookups by the Headwater^s Under•gr-ound Water-
Conner^vation Distr^ict, pur•s~aant to the Ker•r• County Subdivision
~ R~_iles and Reg~_ilations, and set public hearing for^ final
approval for- 10:00a.m. on Rpril 23, 2001 in Kerr^ County
Commissioners" Courtroom.
ORDER NO. 26916
RF~GROVRL OF VRELIMINRRY pLRT/ RRSU CREEK RRNCH
On this the 12th day of March 2@@1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by L'ommissioner Letx~ the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@~ to approve the
the preliminary plat for paso Cr•e e4< Ranch, Grecinct c.
DRDER ND. ~69i7
APGROVE VRRIRNCE l'"O CORRECT LOT #S UE} FALLING WATER
REVISION OF F'LA"f OF FALLING WATER AS RECORDED IN VUL.7 F'G.76
On this the lath day of March ~001r upon motion made by
L'ommissioner Letz~ seconded by Camniissioner- Gr-iffin~ the coi_ir•t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-@~ to grant variance to
correct numbering of lots in Falling Water- to add a lot 98R in
addition to the existing lot 9B, as recorded in vol~_ime 7~ page
76, Deed Records of Kerr• Co~_mty, 1"exas.
ORDER N0.~6918
GGGROVE CONCEGT F'LRN OF F'NASE II OF CYPRESS SGRINGS
On this the loth day of March c~~l, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz the
Court unanimously voted by a vote of 4-0-~D, to approve the
concept plan of F'hase ii of Cypress Springs, with an average
lot size of 3.~ acres, and the concept plan of phase iii would
have to meet the full 5-acre average lot size requierment.
ORDER NO. 06'31S
RF~GROVE REVISION OF F~LRT FOR FOR TRRC7 SR RNU 6R
WHISF;EY RIDGE RRNCHES, pCT3.
On this the loth day of March cQ~01. upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner- Paldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to approve the
revision of plat for tracts SR and ER of Whiskey Ridge Ranches
in precinct :.3.
ORDER NO. 26920
OFTEN PIDS FOR MRTERIRLS / RORD AND FRIDGE
On 'this the 12th day of Mar^ch 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin the
Cour^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept all
of the bids for^ materials and refer them to the Road and
Pr^idge Department for^ evaluation and r^ecomendation to the
Commissioners' Court.
ORDER N0.2E9^cl
RCCEI='l' RNNURL AUDIT FOR YERR ENDING 9/3@/@@
F'RESSLER, THOMPSON, AND COMF'RNY
Un this the i~th day of March c@@1, upon motion made by
Commissioner• Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Co~_ir~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, to accept the
ann~_ial audit for year ending 9/:3@/@@ by Pressler-, Thompson,
and Company.
ORDER N0. 56955
RE'P'ROVE P'URLIC NOTICE FUR RIDS FOR DEP'USITORY RCCOUNT CONTRRCTS
COUNTY/DISTRICT FUNDS
On this this the 15th day of M
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded
unanimously approved by a vote
notice for bids for depository
Co~_mty/District Funds. The way
the first meeting in May.
arch 5001, upon motion made by
by Commissioner Let z, the Court
of 4-0-Q, to approve publishing
accaant contracts for
the law reads we have to do it
ORDER N0. 26923
AF'F'R04RL OF KERR COUNTY EMPLOYEES TO F'RRTICIF'RTE IN R 457
DEFERRED COMPENSRTION F'LRN OFFERED PY VRLIC
On this the 12th day of March 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Naldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to allow I:err•
County Employees to participate in a 457 Uefer•red Compensation
Flan offered by Valic, and for the County Treasi.~rer to ded~_~ct
from the individi_ial employees' checks the amount they so
stipulate.

ORDER N0. 26924
gF'F'ROVRL OF RECLRSSIFICHTION OF RECEPTIONIST/ SHERIFFS' DEFT.
On 'this the 12th day of March 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner Gr^iffin, the
Coi_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to appr^ove the
reclassification of receptionist- f~_ill-time- r^eceptionxst
position to N.err Co~_inty 3ai1 to Administrative 3ai1 Secr^etary.
ORDER NU.~6925
RF'PROVAL TO ACCEPT llONATIONS TO KERR COUNTY
FOR R GRRNT FROM THE RURERU OF JUSTICE TO PURCHASE BRLLISTIC VESTS
On this the lath day of March c@@
Commissioner Gr•iffin9 seconded by
unanimously approved by a vote of
to Ker•r• County for matching funds
the Hurea~_i of Justice to purchase
officers.
L upon motion made by
Commissioner- Let~~ the Co~_irt
4-@-@~ to accept donations
r•equir•ement for a grant from
ballistic vests for patr-ol
ORDER NO.E69E6
RF'F'ROVRL TU GO OUT FOR RIDS ON VIDEO EG~UIF'MENT FOR F'RTRUL CRRS
SHERIFFS' DEFT.
On this the i~th day of March x001, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Comniissioner^ Griffin, the
Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to go out for'
bids to be received by the County Clerks' Office not later•
than 5:@0 F'. M. on Friday Rpril the 6th, to be opened and
awarded at 10:0N R.M. on Monday, Rpril the 9th,cld0i.
ORDER N0,2E927
RE'P'ROVE ^SSF ORDER AS AMENDED
On this the icth day on March c0~1, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner- Griffin, seconded by Commissioner- Williams, the
Coy-art approved by a vote of 3-1-m, to approve the proposed
O. S. S. F. order- as amended.
•'-
ORDER N0. 26928
SET pUBLIC HERRING ON F~ROGOSED O. S. S. F. ORDER
On this the 12th day of March 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Gr-iffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Court approved by a vote of 3-1-0, to set a public hearing on
the proposed revised O. S. S. F. or'der' for Monday, Rpr-il 23rd,
2001, at 2:OQ~ p. m. , here in the Kerr County Commissioners'
Coi_~rtroom.
ORDER N0.269~9
SET UP' SUNSET WORKSHOP'S
On this the i~th day of March :_001, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner- Letz the L'oiar•t
unanimously voted by a vote of 4-0-0, to set ~_ip s~_inset
worltshops at 2:~4~ p. m. on Monday, May the 14th, c~01,
regarding County - sponsored or f~_~nded programs.
n
ORDER N0. 2693@
RESCENDING COURT ORDER N0.26871~ DATED 2/12/@1, CANCEL PUBLIC HEARING
RE:3@ MF'H SPEED LIMIT CENTER F'T. RIVER ROAD
On this the 12th day of March 2@@1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner 8aldwin~ the
Co~_ir^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@~ to rescind
Court Order No. 26871, cancel public hearing and reaffirm the
appropriateness of Lour^t Ur^der No. 241B4~ which established a
3@ MF'H speed limit on Center F'oint River^ Road inside the
for•mer^ cor^p or^ate limits of Center^ F'oint.
ORDER N0. 26931
RDOP'T RESOLUTION SUP'P'ORTING, INCLUSION OF LUCRLLY ELECTED UFFICIRLS
HOUSE RILL N0. 7
0n this the 12th day of March 2041, upon motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin,
the Cour^t voted unanimously by a vote of 4-0-0, to adopt
the r^esol~_ition si_ippor^ting incl~_tsion of locally elected
officials as a majority of any board existing or proposed by
Ho~_ise Rill No. 7, with aversiyht of the state community
Development Block 6r^ant P'r^ogr^am.


^RDER N0.2Er93c
RDOF'T PROCLfaMfaTION DECLRRING MARCH 18-c':4 AS NATIONRL RG. WEEK
On this the 12 day of March c~01, ~.ipon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the Court
unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-Q, to adopt a
proclamation declaring March 18th to 4th National Rgric~_ilt~ar•e
week in Kerr Co~.inty , Texas.