1
".. 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
.- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
'~ 2 5

1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
~.
25
1 N U E X
April 9, 2001 PAGE
Commissioners' Comments 3
Pay Bills ~ (:~ t S S~ 6
Budget Amendments„ w ~ ~ 5 __ ~ ~ G' ~ ~, 6
Late Bills -i'~ ,v~. 8
Read and Approve Minutes -~'(;; rr,S ~' 8
Approve and Accept Monthly Reports , t ~°-i-~ 3~ 9
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.9
l.S
Approval/execution of Amended Child Care Local	
Initiatives Agreement ~ is ~~S ~i	9
Participation in W.E.T. Education Taskforce..?U~i'C:	;';14
Initiate discussions with OGRA Board of Director	s
	'~' ~`'~
for interlocal agreement to construct wastewater	"
collection system in Kerrville South	19
Review status of current budget (County Auditor)	25~J~ou~>
Approval of FY 2001 budget schedule ,~ (L,~c; ~ ~	29 - ~
Approve preliminary revision of plat, Tract 53A,	
Kerrville Country Estates, Section II ~~ (~,~'G> ~	30
Approve preliminary revision of plat, Lot 1-A,	
Creekwood I-B ~ ~ ~, y 4' `~ K ~~~ (c j 1 L'	32, 50
Approve final revision of plat, Lots 6 & 7,	
Estates of Turtle Creek, Section One..~(w%4"S	36
Project Agreement with NRCS for Hermann Sons ,--~,	_.,`,~,
Bridge, authorize County Judge to sign same ~	37
Status of temporary bridge and permanent bridge	
\~, -
at Hermann Sons Crossing
-, :5,0.1	40
;
`
Approve Final plat of Mountain Home Oaks,	
Section II ..~(~, ~'(~, ~~	46
~
Variance to Section 5.01 of Subdivision Rules,	<<c,,,
J
discuss concept plan for Cutoff Business Park	47,54
Abandonment of 'Treiber Trail in Japonica Hills ..	
Subdivision, set public hearing for same,~~r i'(Lr	48
Open bids for video cameras for patrol cars~!c~%	; 51
Clarification of Section 5.01.E of Kerr County	
Subdivision Rules & Regulations ti'' "cr~-,i c%-~~	78
Authorization to purchase two printers from	
unexpended Ballot expense line item . ~- J% ~ ~	90
Discuss County Government Week, April 23-27;~ r`,	.a;92
Budget amendment request to purchase computer	
for Commissioner Precinct 1 r 4 ~i :' `~-	99
Discuss accepting bids for video cameras, and	
award or reject same ,~{W ~' Ja	102
Approval of response to '1'.N.R.C.C. regarding	
Mooney Aircraft wastewater permit renewal	107
_n~I~ ~~,	
2.1
2.2
2.19
2.3
2.9
2.5
~' . 6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.1U
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.17
2.15
2.16
2.18
2.14
2.20
Court adjourned
Reporter's Certificate
110
111
3
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
On Monday, April 9, 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. It's 9 o'clock
on Monday, April 9th, Year 2001, and we'll call to order
this regular session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court.
Commissioner Baldwin, I believe you're leading us this
morning? I mean Commissioner Williams, pardon me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll defer.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you please rise
and join me in a moment of prayer, please.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, any
citizen wishing to address the Court on an item not listed
on the agenda may come forward and do so. Is there any
citizen who wishes to address the Court on an item not
listed on the agenda? Once again, is there any citizen who
wishes to address the Court on an item not listed on the
agenda? Seeing none, we'll go to the Commissioners'
comments. Let's start with Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only one quickie. As
the Headwaters race heats up, there are going to be some
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^2
23
29
2~
forums conducted, I believe, regarding the candidates in
that race, and one of those is being sponsored by the Center
Point Alliance for Progress, and it will be April 19th. I
think that's the day after early voting begins. It will be
April 19th at the Center Point High School. They're going
to kind of double up; they're going to do their school board
candidates at 6:30 p.m. and Headwaters candidates at
7:30 p.m. So, I invite any and all to attend that forum and
enlighten yourself.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think. I have any
this morning.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd just like to pass
along congratulations to Mr. Peter Thomas, the math teacher
at Ingram Tom Moore High School, who is the March recipient
of Kerrville Daily Times' Golden Apple award. He's a great
teacher; the kids love him, and -- and good on you, Peter.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'd like to
offer my condolences to Commissioner Letz and his family on
the loss of a member. And we'd say, Jon, if there's
anything we can do, or I can do personally, don't hesitate
5
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
to call.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that is all.
Fou're welcome.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I also would ofter our
condolences to our Commissioner in the loss of his family,
and hope everyone's doing as well as can be expected. wick
reminder, our next meeting is April the 23rd, It will be a
rather extensive meeting, in that we have scheduled at
4 o'clock the first briefing by our consultants on
redistricting. So, bring your lunch, plan to stay for a --
an interesting discussion on the topic of redistricting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, we have our
regular Commissioners Court in the morning also, though?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just -- we're just going to
schedule the meeting as part of the regular court. It will
simply be at 4 o'clock, and plan to spend about two hours
with the consultants and the Redistricting Committee. And
the letter has gone out to the Redistricting Committee
advising them of the time and the place.
MS. SOVIL; Public hearing at 2:00.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We also have a public hearing
at 2:00, I believe, on O,S.S.F. Is that correct --
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
]9
^0
21
L 2
~' 3
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When?
JDDGE HENNEKE: On the 23rd. That will be a
full day, lots of fun. Okay. Without any further ado,
let's pay some bills. Mr. Tomlinson, do we have any bills
to pay?
MR. TOMLINSON: Always.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have any questions or
comments about the bills as presented?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Cormissioner Baldwin, that the Court
authorize payment of the bills as presented and recommended
by the Auditor. 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
amendments. Budget. Amendment Number 1 is for the Jury Fund,
County Court at Law.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. We have a need to
7
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
transfer $1,202 from the Jurors line item to Court
Interpreters in the 16th -- I mean the 198th Jury Fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any further comments or
questions? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.j
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Number 2, County Treasurer's office.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from
Barbara Nemec, the Treasurer, to transfer $421.12 from
Telephone line item to Computer Supplies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 2 for the County Treasurer's
office. Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question.
Tommy, it seems that we're -- a lot of the computer-related
items are short this year. Is it my imagination, or is it
1
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
8
-- I mean, supplies?
MR. TOMLINSON: I know that hers -- that the
Treasurer's has something to do with the purchase oI some
check stock that we anticipate, and I know that that's part
of this problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seems -- I was
wondering if there was something that's happened in the --
it seemed --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know of arrytkiing
specifically, no.
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. Do we have
any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Ht this time, I would
entertain a motion to waive reading and approve the minutes
of the March 12th and March 26th meetings of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
1
2
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court waive
reading and approve the minutes of the Monday, March 12th
and the Monday, March 26th meetings of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court. 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 Lliis
time, I would entertain a motion to approve and accept the
monthly reports as presented.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve the monthly reports as presented -- accept and
approve. Any further questions or comments? If rrut, 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.
Moving right into the consideration agenda, we'll take up
Item Number 1, consider and discuss approval of discussion
of the Amended Child Care Local Initiatives Agreement.
10
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
]2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
<1
22
23
24
25
Brenda? Good morning,
MS. CHAPMAN: Good morning. How are you?
DODGE HENNEKE: Fine.
MS. CHAPMAN: I believe everyone got a copy
of the -- the agreement that was originally signed, and then
the amended agreement. Just real quick, the reason for the
board contact changes that I highlighted for you, originally
we were working with the Alamo Workforce Development Board,
but they have now turned this over to AACOG, which -- Alamo
Area Council of Governments, which is now A.A.D.C., Alamo
Area Development Corporation. So, we're just changing our
contract. Our contract, we're going to actually be filing
with A.A.D.C. rather than A,W.D. The pledged amount on the
original contract, they had $90,000 on this for the match
contribution, which was incorrect. The original -- that is
our total. Our pledge match amount is the correct one,
$58,588, and the $90,000 is the total that we'll have
dollars available for child care -- subsidized child care in
Kerr County. So, that was just a correction -- complete
correction where they had done the contract incorrectly.
The dates that were changed down at the
bottom, the original dates were October 2000 to
September 2000, which obviously was a problem within itself;
it should have been September 2001. With the new contract,
it's now dated March 2001 through August 1001. The
11
1
2
3
9
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
~~
23
24
ZS
difference between the August and September dates is
A.A.D.C.'s fiscal year end is Auqust 31st, where Texas
Workforce Commission's was September 31st. This allows
A.A.D.C. time to close out their year end and report to
T.W.C. by September 31st -- September 3Uth, I'm sorry. This
delay was caused by agreement between Alamo Workforce
Development Board and AACUG or A.A.D.C.; just a matter of
getting all the logistics and the paperwork done before they
could filter down to redo our contract. No children lost
their care during this time. They've worked very well with
us to make sure that that happened, that no children lost
their care. So, we're kind of starting a little bit late on
our contract, but they say that it should not affect us at
all when it comes time for contract renewal in August.
COMMISSIUNEk WILLlAMS: Very good. Judge, I
would move execution of the Amended Child Care Local
Initiatives Agreement and authorize the County Judge to sign
same.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griftin, that the Court
approve the Amended Child Care Local Initiatives Agreement
and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any further
questions or comments?
CUMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Brenda, how long have
12
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
you all been with the Workforce folks?
MS. CHAPMAN: This is probably our -- let's
see, probably fourth year -- fourth or fifth year that we've
been doing this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And prior to Workforce
Development, you were with AACOG?
MS. CHAPMAN: Right. Well, actually, it
started out with Texas Workforce Commission, and then it
became Alamo Workforce Development Board that we dealt with,
and now they have contracted out with AACOG to actually run
the rural counties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. CHAPMAN: So, it's evolving into where
we're in -- ending up still being able to have a good
working relationship with AACOG, so I think it's -- the
whole situation is getting a little bit smoother.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you satisfied
with the level of commitment that AACOG has to this -- to
the rural counties?
MS. CHAPMAN: Yes, sir, very much so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you had any
trouble raising your matching funds?
MS. CHAPMAN: No. We already have $90,000 of
that raised right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
13
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: This change actually is the
result of the rural judges raising Cain about the fact that
all of the child care funds were lumped into one pot, and
even though the rural counties were supposed to get
20 percent of the money for child care, we were, in essence,
getting somewhere between 9 and 11 percent. So, the rural
judges on the AACOG Board raised thunder, and what you see
now, you have you two separate organizations; you have
A.A.D.C., which does the rural counties, and then you have
the A.W.D., I believe, which does Berar County. So, we now
actually get 20 percent of the funds for child care.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: City of San Antonio
gets 80?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right, but at least we're
getting 20 now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, I understand.
I would hope y'all would hang in there and -- and keep --
'cause you outnumber them.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, in one respect we do,
but in another respect we don't. There's this little thing
called weighted voting which they pull out whenever we win.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: But it's a good step forward.
MS. CHAPMAN: Right. It's going the right
direction. We still continue to struggle every once in a
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1N
20
21
22
23
24
ZS
14
while, but it's going the right direction.
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. Thank you,
Brenda.
M5. CHAPMAN: Thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You're welcome. Next item is
Item Number 2, consider and discuss participation in the
W.E.T. Education Taskforce with a goal towards future water
needs through conservation. Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is something we
discussed briefly. I think Sherry Cunningham brought it up
during her update and mentioned that it would be on the
agenda. The backup that I received from Janet Robinson was
originally a request for both Region J to participate, and
the note on the bottom there saying get it on the
Commissioners Court agenda for the County to participate as
well, if we choose. Region J, I'm sure, is going to, and
we'll discuss it at our meeting this week in Del Rio. But,
for an update on it, I'll turn it over to Janet Robinson;
she's here this morning, and kind of explain a little bit
about what the Water Education Taskforce is and what she
15
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
would like the County -- or how she'd like the County to
participate.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you, Commissioner Letz.
Thank you for allowing me to be here. This is an effort to
move forward on the Region J's, I think, quite generous
hopes that we'll achieve a lot of water conservation to come
up with our water for the nest SU years, in that, although
there's a number of entities working in the area of water,
nobody was actually focused on conservation education. We'd
love to have your participation; that would allow us to
distribute our literature through your office in east Kerr
County, Commissioner Williams, and through Bill Ragsdale's
office and the tax office in west Kerr. We have our first
piece of literature ready to distribute. It was developed
by John Coleman, the Environmental Education Committee of
the City. It's recommended plantings for the area. Very
well-done, from grasses through natives, and that is the
kind of thing that we hope to distribute. Trying to change
social policy through education is our goal.
And, at this time, we're not going to develop
any legal structure; it will be an alliance. At some point,
we might need to do that in order to receive any grant
monies that might become available, but we're in the
developmental stage, and we're looking for founding members,
and it -- I think it would be wonderful if the Court would
16
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2^
23
24
2~
participate in this effort. Do you have any questions?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions of
Ms. Robinson?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- what would
participation for the Court mean?
MS. ROBINSON: We11, to perhaps -- we'd love
for you to send someone to the meetings, and to agree to
distribute, through the courthouse and through these other
outlets that you have in the county, water conservation
materials. And, mostly -- since you are the highest office
in the county, mostly we're looking for your -- your support
to say that this is an important goal, that we should be
working together on it, and to lend your -- your support for
that effort.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's very
important, I mean, for the County to do this. And Janet
referred to Region J's plan. About a -- 20 percent of the
total savings in the future comes from conservation. It
didn't really outline exactly where it's coming from, but
this is the type of thing we were hoping would develop;
everything from landscape changes, to my mind, more than
anything else, to new technologies that we anticipate coming
on line, and, you know, household appliances, things of that
nature. So --
MS. ROBINSON: And through the Convention and
17
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
Visitors Bureau, we hope to invite our visitors to Kerr
County to participate in this effort, too. We plan to keep
everything very positive, not using words like "scarcity" or
things that would perhaps alarm visitors, but to -- there
are a number of efforts -- many of you have probably stayed
in those kinds of hotels where they ask you if you don't
want your towels washed tonight, would you please hang them
up and we won't -- we'll save water. And I've stayed at
those kinds of facilities in Colorado and Arizona, and we
want to launch that effort here as well, to invite our
visitors to participate with us --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MS. ROBINSON: -- in these efforts.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we need a motion?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have -- would you like
us to designate someone to represent the County on the
committee, or --
MS. ROBINSON: Well, I think that would be
helpful, if we had a point of contact.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a volunteer to be
the County's --
MS. ROBINSON: Another meeting to go to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will probably be
attending from a Region J standpoint, so I don't have a
problem attending from both standpoints. Both --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
~_
23
<4
^_5
18
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Very good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I think we need
a motion to authorize participation and delegate the
participation to Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
DODGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
participate in the W.E.T. Education Taskforce with a goal
towards future water needs through conservation, and
designate Commissioner Letz as the Court's representative on
that taskforce. 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: Thank you, Jannett.
MS. ROBINSON: You're welcome. I also laid
at your places this morning the April 21st -- is that
right? -- Earth Day celebration. And a number of groups
will be coming there, and the focus is on water and native
plants for that, so we hope you'll spread the word and
participate. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, while Janet is

1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
19
still here, since she is a member of the U.G. P.. A. Board, we
have another issue. Would the Court object to taking up
2.19 right now, get that out of the way?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any objection?
COMMISSIONER BALUWIN: I would not.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. The Court, then, will
take up next Item 2.19, which is consider and discuss
authorizing initiating contract discussions with U.G.R.A.
Board of Directors for interlocal agreement to construct and
operate a wastewater collection system in a section of
Kerrville South as a result of grant approval from Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs. Commissioner
Williams.
COMMISSIONER WZLLIAMS: When last we spoke
about this issue, Judge, we had received notification from
T.D.H.C. of preliminary approval of a $250,000 grant. Today
I'm pleased to tell the Court that as of MarcYi 28th, we have
been recommended for funding -- officially recommended for
funding by T.C.D.P. program, and the T,C.D.P. program for
the half a million-dollar grant, as well, which means that
we will have fulfilled our objective of obtaining Loth of
those grants for the purpose of initiating wastewater
collection services in a small portion of Kerrville South.
In that connection, I spoke with the
president of the Board of U.G.R.A. with regard to
20

1
3
4
5
6
7
a
q
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
2Q
G 1
2z
23
24
25
initiating -- at the proper time, initiating discussions
with U.G.R.A. for an interlocal service agreement to get.
that project moving when all of the paperwork filters down
on the two grants, which we anticipate will be very soon. I
have a fax here this morning from Mr. Brown, who tells me
that President Jerry Ahrens will assign what he notes as his
"Project Committee" to work with the County in the
development of the interlocal agreement. The committee is
composed of Calvin Weinheimer, Granger McDonald, Tom Myers,
and Jerry Ahrens, and so the purpose of the agenda item
today is to authorize -- have the Court authorize our
participation in these discussions for the interlocal
agreement. It would be my suggestion and hope that the
Court would approve my participation and the County Judge's,
with the assistance of the County Attorney, and that's the
reason we have it on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize
contract discussions with U.G.R.A. for interlocal agreement
to construct wastewater collection system, and designate
Commissioner Williams and the County Judge to represent the
County in those discussions with U.G.R.A. Any further
questions?
21
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you run over the
members from U.G.R.A. Board that are on that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. According to
this memo this morning from Jim, he -- Jerry Ahrens will
assign Granger McDonald, Calvin Weinheimer, and Tom Myers as
the three participants, with Jerry also participating as
ex-officio.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. This
collection system, would it be an adjunct to Kerrville's
system? Or is it totally separate?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What it's intended to
do, Commissioner, is to take -- if at all possible, utilize
the transmission line that the County participated with the
City in putting in -- or the County participated with
K.I.S.D. and the City in putting in years ago to service the
Nimitz School. There is a transmission line there. First
thing we need to do is determine that that's sized
appropriately to be able to handle the new --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- percentage of
effluent coming in. Then I believe we would work up -- the
grants would allow hookups for folks living within the south
~^
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
side of Ranchero all the way down around towards Nimitz
school and in that area, which is -- is the very worst in
that area in terms of pollution and failing septic systems.
One of the grants provides funds for hookups, itself, so
that that takes away from folks who might wish not to
participate, for any reason not to, 'cause they don't have
the money to hook up and all that stuff. It's been solved;
the money is available for that. So, this will be the first
phase, and then that effluent then goes over to the trunk
line, which I think is at about Camp Meeting Creek and 16.
Probably there's a lift station there, and the lift station
will probably have to be upgraded to take it to the City of
Kerrville's wastewater treatment facility.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. But -- and my
second question is, 'cause I know we went through this about
a year ago, about the Attorney General's opinion on whether
you	can make folks	sign up,	and you	can't.	So,	even	under
this	condition, if	somebody	says, I	don't	care	if it'	s free;
I still don't want to sign -- I still don't want to hook up,
that they can still do that, correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think, ter_hnically,
they could do that. I think it's U.G.R.A.'s plan -- and
we'll define these things a little bit more when we get into
discussion, but I think it's their plan to work with the
water providers to couple sewage charges with water service,
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1^
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
so as to mitigate against arbitrary refusal to participate.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think, again, that's
a real educational thing. We just need to make sure we get
the word out that that -- that the hookup is at no cost
because of this grant, and -- and see if we can't really get
a lot of -- 100 percent. Hopefully will.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the goal.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So people that can
hook into the system get hooked up to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only comment is
actually a request, and that is that -- that in our
interlocal agreement, that we outline in detail what
O.G.R.A.'s function is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're going to go
down, I mean, every letter, every step of the way so we can
all see, everybody -- everybody in town can see exactly
what's going on, and five years ~9own the road, whoever sits
at this table will understand exactly what is -- what's
going on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. That
will be our commitment to do that, outline everybody's
responsibility and commitment. I think, interestingly
enough, the River Authority advises that they are receiving,
24
1
-- 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~--
25
as a result of what's happened thus far and information put
into the public before the first grant, and now the second
grant and so forth, that according to the memo, we are
receiving calls from owners -- property owners outside of
the project area regarding the possibility of participating
in wastewater services. It would appear, according to the
memo, that O.G.R.A. may have to, at some date in the Tuture,
issue some debt to extend the project beyond the grant area.
And, in that connection, they, the r~,G.R.A., are asking
their bond consult to advise them accordingly as to how that
might happen if and when we get to that point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, did you get a
list of those names that requested --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have -- I'm sure I
can.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to see where
those people are, how far out they are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll request it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only other comment is
a general comment. This is really the first step. This
effort's been going on, I guess, longer than I've been on
the Court, trying to get that system -- or the situation
fixed in Kerrville South from a septic and sewer standpoint.
And, it's also -- this is a -- certainly a new ground
starting with the County. The County's never been involved
25
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
in sewage collection anywhere that I'm aware of in the
county, and it's also a new ground for U.G.R.A., so it's
kind of going into an area that neither agency has spent
much time. And we're doing it, one, to fix a problem, and
because of the economics, the City has not chosen to go out
into this area, but it's a way for to us do grants that
we're able to get the County to work in this direction,
getting into a new area for a lot of --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what makes it
exciting, Commissioner. It's the first opportunity. I
think that it also should be noted that the City has, on
many occasions, expressed its willingness to be a regional
wastewater treatment provider. That's the first step in
this direction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's all three entities
working together to fix a need in the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good.
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. Next item is
Item Number 3, consider and discuss review by the County
Auditor of the status of the budget. I believe each of you
26
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
have a spreadsheet from Tommy regarding where we are at this
time. Tommy, how we doing?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think the numbers pretty
much speak for themselves. I don't really see any
surprises. I think, if we go over the numbers briefly, that
on the first page, the first three columns concerns the tax
revenue collections. Through -- through March 31st, we have
total collections percentage, 88 percent. Historically, we
collect 9 1/2 to 10 percent from April through September, so
if -- if that holds -- if that holds true, then it -- it
looks like that we are going to collect at least 98 percent.
Now, I think that's conservative, too, because when you add
in the delinquencies that we've collected in the past, over
the past five years, I think the lowest collection rate
we've had was slightly over 98 percent. Some years it's
been over 100 percent. So, we've collected -- the
collections of delinquencies have -- have been more than --
than what we've levied, plus -- plus those delinquencies.
Any questions about that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question
about the expenditure side, though, when you -- just what
is -- what is the percentage number that we should be today?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there -- on the tax
collections, there's no -- no benchmark, really, as far as
where we should be.
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
2<
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Expenditures. I just
want to know --
MR. TOMLINSON: I'll get to that when I --
when I get through here.
(Discussion off the record.)
DODGE HENNEKE: Tommy, on the big book that
came around last week, it showed that other taxes, which I
presume to be sales taxes for the most part, are down, it
looks like, about thirty -- $35,000 over the last year. Are
we seeing a slowdown in sales tax collection?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. We have -- if you
consider the -- the accrual basis --
DODGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- that that report you get
is on the cash basis, so we don't -- the collections that we
receive in October --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- are booked the prior year.
So, we're -- we're actually on an accrual basis; we're a
month behind.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. So, this is a 5-month,
as far as those averages are --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on a 5-month
average, what are you seeing? Anything in this regard?
28
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
Sales tax?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think we'd probably be
ahead --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- in sales tax by the end of
-- by the end of the fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The City's showed a
pretty steep decline.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. The City told
you and me --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First quarter of the
year, they were off more than they thought they were going
to be.
MR. TOMLINSON: They're -- the first quarter,
from a cash basis standpoint, we don't -- we don't get our
-- in fact, I don't think we get our Christmas sales tax
until January/February. They're far behind on --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- on admitting from the
state. So, I think -- I think we'll see an improvement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions on the
revenue side? Okay. Commissioner Baldwin, let's go to the
expenditure side.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, if I turn
29
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the page, I can read it. It's right there in front oY me.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Again, this is -- this
is on a cash basis, the expenditures are. As you'll see,
the total expenditures through March are at 47 percent. I
don't -- I don't see any -- anything out of the ordinary,
any surprises in expenditures to come. I think if you -- if
you add the accrual to this, then you add another -- another
3 percent, so we're actually -- if you add the 3 percent,
then we're very close to -- to being --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And if we were
straightlined, it would be 50 percent.
MF,. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the answer to
Buster's question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? Okay. Thank you, Tommy.
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Appreciate it. Next item is
Item Number 9, consider and discuss approval of the FY 2002
budget schedule. And, the proposed schedule is outlined in
your packet. It's essentially the same schedule we've used
historically, updated for the changes in calendar. Does
anyone have any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we approve the
schedule.
30
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: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the
2001/2002 budget schedule. 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. Okay. Item
Number 5, consider and discuss final revision of plat for
Tract 53A of Kerrville Country Estates, Section II, Precinct
1, which is in Precinct 1. I would also -- I will note that
this was originally posted as a preliminary revision;
however, that was corrected and posted as a final revision,
so we are taking this matter up as a final revision this
morning. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. I had a couple
of questions. Seemed like to me in our -- in our previous
meeting for approval of this tract, there were some
questions about ETJ and Planning and Zoning in the City of
Kerrville.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's been through the Planning
and Zoning. They had their public hearing last week. It's
all been approved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
]8
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. JOHNSTON: I believe Lee Voelkel was
supposed to bring the signed-off mylar. 7 don't see him.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's hard to get good
help anymore.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Isn't that it right
there?
MR. JOHNSTON: Those are two I brought in. 1
recommend approval, pending receipt of the final mylar with
all the signatures on it. It meets all of our size
requirements. There's no new roads or anything to be built.
JUDGE HENNEKE: When are they supposed to
have the final mylar to you?
MR. JOHNSTON: He was supposed to bring it to
the meeting this morning.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we
approve -- let's see -- the final revision of plat for Tract
53A of Kerrville Country Estates, Section II.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
approve the final revision of plat for Tract 53A, Kerrville
Country Estates, Section II, and authorize County Judge to
sign same upon receipt of the mylar signed off by everyone
else. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
~3
~4
25
32
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
6, consider and discuss approval of preliminary revision of
plat for Lot 1-A, Creekwood I-B, Precinct ?. Commissioner
Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: r'ranklin, what do we
know about this?
MR. JOHNSTON: This is dividing a fairly
large tract into two lots, 31.3 acres and 25 acres. This,
again, is in the ETJ. I think it was acted upon also last
week. Had a note here, the public hearing was 4/5/05, last
Thursday -- 'O1, sorry, last Thursday. It was approved.
So, it's a simple division of a lot facing a county road and
a private road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
To the er,tent that you know or -- or the applicant knows,
are there any deed restrictions that prohibit this type of
subdividing this lot without the prior approval of the
homeowners' association?
MR. JOHNSTON: I rani answer that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there anybody here
who can --

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
33
MR. JOHNSTON: The surveyor's not here yet,
so I do not know that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We could ask that
before the final comes in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 't'his has to
come back for one more crack? No, this is a replat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Revision.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's a revision.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Says "preliminary
revision."
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, it's preliminary.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It does have to come back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has to come back.
Would you make a note of that question, Franklin? See if we
can determine the answer, please.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- my mind is just
slow this morning. Dces this require a public hearing?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe it does. when
you combine you don't have to, but when you divide, I
believe -- we haven't figured out --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the City had a public
hearing, 'cause part of it's in the ETJ. Do we have to also
have a public hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have to notify
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
L 1
22
23
24
25
34
all the property owners.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go through the hoop.
Let's go through the hoop to be safe.
MR. JOHNSTON: Set a public hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To revise a plat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then we can determine
the answer to that question at that time.
MR. JOHNSTON: Part of the Creekwood lots --
I think that they were Phase II, III, IV, and V -- did have
deed restrictions on SO-acre lots due to the roads were not
paved. I think this section of the road is paved up to the
end of that lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it is. Well,
everything out there, as far as I know, is paved now.
MR. JOHNSTON: But at the time it was
platted, it was not paved, and I think they had deed
restrictions on 50-acre lots. But, I don't think Phase I is
covered, but I'll double-check on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, let's
double-check so we know for sure. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a comment on
format. If it's preliminary, it should say "preliminary" on
it, and it uses the word "replat" instead of "revision of
plat."
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
MR. JOHNSTON: I have that noted here.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, you've already
got it. We need to set a date for the public hearing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Approve the preliminary
revision and set --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the approval
of the preliminary revision of plat Tor Lot 1-A, Creekwood
I-B, Precinct 2, and we'll set a date for public hearing
of --
DODGE HENNEKE: May 29?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May 19th?
MS. ALFORD: No, 29th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May 29th.
MS. ALFORD: The 14th is the first meeting.
The 29th is the second meeting. The 28th is a holiday, so
it will be the 29th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May 29th.
JDDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Period.
MS. SOVZL: What time?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Semicolon. 10 a.m.
JDDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JDDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
36
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
approve a preliminary revision of plat for Lot 1-A,
Creekwood I-B, Precinct 1, and set public hearing for same
for 10 o'clock a.m. on Tuesday, May 29th, here in the Kerr
County Courthouse, Commissioners' Courtroom.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the only comment I
have -- and, I mean, I'm comfortable with voting on -- or
setting the public hearing based on the posting. It doesn't
specifically say it, but since it's part of our Subdivision
Rules on the preliminary revision to set a public hearing, I
would think that it would be covered under that. I mean,
I'm just making it for the record, that since our rules
specifically say that under preliminary process, that should
cover 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. Item Number
7, consider and discuss approval of the final revision of
plat for Lots 6 and 7, Estates of Turtle Creek, Section One,
Precinct ~. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is an easy one.
Franklin can explain, this is combining two smaller ones
into one 10-acre; is that correct?
37
1
Z
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
14
15
16
17
]8
19
~0
21
22
<3
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: This is the one that, you
know, could have come, I guess, under that new Section F, or
combining two lots into one, with a resulting 10-acre lot.
But, it has come twice. This is a final -- final plat. I
recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move approval of
the final revision of plat for Lots H and 7, Estates of
Turtle Creek, Section One, Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve the final revision of plat for Lots 5 and 7, Estates
of Turtle Creek, Section One. Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
~'1'he motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
S, consider the Project Agreement with N.R.C.S. for Hermann
Sons Bridge and authorize County Judge to sign same.
Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple things we're going
to discuss here. First -- well, actually, only one thing on
this item. It's the next agenda item we'll discuss a little
bit more at length. The project has changed a little bit.
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~l
~~
2i
24
zs
When we get into that one, I'll explain it. You know,
originally it was going to be, I guess, a rebuild of the
temporary structure, with gabions and all kinds of different
stuff. Turned out to be pushing the price to about $250,000
for that temporary structure. The County, TexDOT, and
N.R.C.S., we looked at this situation, didn't like that
expenditure amount, and also the engineering report on the
old structure was such that we didn't think we could do what
originally was planned, so the new plan is to put railroad
cars a~~ross the river, side-by-side. They're 89 feet long,
and they pretty much will make the entire span; I think
4 feet short. We can put a concrete abutment up there.
But, the bottom line is that the -- the
agreement changed, so the N.R.C.S. has requested that we get
two new Project Agreements signed by the County Judge. And,
I just received these late last week. We may run them
through the County Attorney's office, but because of the
time sensitivity of it, I would request that we approve the
new Project Agreement. The total cost -- stated cost of the
project is $65,000. The County's responsible for 25 percent
of that. Almost the entire amount, if not the entire
amount, will be in-kind services. The County Road and
they'll do a lot of the work. Basically, we're not going to
go out to hire outside contractors to do it for us, except
39
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~, ~,
23
24
25
some crane operators.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know, is that
$16,000 that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $65,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think our share was
16.
CUMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Is that the
same number that we were always --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. We were up to
$50,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When the project was up
to $250,000, our part was 25 percent, or $67,000, actually,
so it's cut back quite a bit. The -- anyway, that's it.
I'll make a motion that we approve the new Project Agreement
with Natural Resource Conservation Service and authorize the
County Judge to sign same, subject to the County Attorney's
oltice reviewing the contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
DODGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the
new Project Agreement with N.R.C.S. for the Hermann Sons
Bridge and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any
questions or comments? Jonathan, a question I would have

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
is, does this compli~~ate in any way the permanent
reconstruction of the bridge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. That will be, I
think, addressed under 2.9, and we have the TexDOT
representative here; he's going to kind of go over where
we're going --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- with the permanent
structure. But, no, the answer to the question is no, it
will not, and it's actually -- the N.R.C.S. and TexDOT and
the County are all working together. We had a joint meeting
last week where we -- everyone is aware what everyone else
to doing, looking at timetables. Everyone is supportive of
the other agency's work.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 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. Item Number
9, consider and discuss status of the temporary bridge and
the status of the permanent bridge for Hermann Sons
Crossing. Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda
because, one, we kind of discussed what I discussed on the
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
._, 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
temporary structure, but also, based on the meeting I had
along with Road and Bridge Department, N.R.C.S., and TexDOT
last week, I wanted to have TexDOT primarily come in and
update the current thinking, what they would like to do, and
I think what I would recommend that the County do as well,
turn it over to Bill Tucker or Mike Howard, whoever is going
to make the presentation, to kind of explain what their
thoughts are on timetable, cost, and County's participation
in the permanent replacement.
MR. HOWARD: Good morning.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Morning, Mike.
MR. HOWARD: Just a relatively quick update
on where we are on the Hermann Sons Bridge project. Back in
October, when we had the flood, this bridge was on our list
of off-system bridges, but it was neither classified as a
Priority 1 or Priority 2, meaning that it was not in our
current picture of funding. When the flood happened and the
bridge was washed out, we were able to move that up in the
list of priorities, actually bypassing Priority Z and going
straight to Priority 1, and now we do have funding
identified for this bridge. We've been given approval to
begin the survey for this bridge. I've had the preliminary
meeting with the surveyors, and we'll begin surveying here
42
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the next couple weeks. We'll begin design shortly, of
looking at the bridge and trying to -- to make sure the
County got their money's worth out of the temporary bridge.
We're now looking at several different
options for a permanent structure. Not sure which -- we're
going to do some quick preliminary studies before we start
the survey, but we believe we should probably build the new
bridge on a realignment so that we can allow the
permanent -- or temporary bridge to remain in place during
the whole time while we're building the permanent bridge,
and then there'll just simply be a time when we'll switch
traffic to the new bridge and then remove the temporary
bridge. I think we have worked up some preliminary cost
estimates. I kind of hesitate to put those out in public.
We're not sure exactly where we want to put the bridge, but
we're looking in the neighborhood -- we have set up
originally about a half a million dollars, and the County's
share would be in the neighborhood of $75,000 of that, plus
or minus.
If we're -- we believe that once the
temporary bridge is put in, the emergency status of this
project kind of drops down, which gives us a chance to take
a deep breath and to actually pick the best route for the
structure, a structure that we hope will be in place for,
you know, the next 80 or 100 years. That's the current
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
43
status. We're -- you know, we -- as we pick a route, we
find out what challenges we'll have on any route that we
pick. We'll be able to come back and give y'all a better
schedule update and to give you some firm numbers on cost
Mike, on the timetable,
we're looking at a possible start of the permanent structure
sometime 2002/2003 time period?
MR. HOWARD: Yeah. 1 feel like -- I mean,
you know, depending on whether we -- you know, we make an
alignment, that may require the acquisition of
right-of-ways; those could add some time delays to the
project. And, you know, depending on, you know, some of the
issues we've got with FEMA on the bridge, some of those
items like that take a little bit of coordination time. But
I feel certain, you know, we're going to aggressively move
forward with the plan here, and we feel certain we can have
a bridge	ready	for you by then.	
		COMMISSIONER LETZ:	My other comment is tkiat
N.R.C.S. is doing everything they can to support TexDot's
permanent bridge, and including, if possible, helping do a
little bit of the funding; it wouldn't be a lot, but on an
emergency standpoint, they might be ab]e to do some of the
abutments and a few things like that, or -- you know, which
would -- and it may help the County trying to figure out
44
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
exactly the -- you can't leverage federal dollars with
federal dollars, but if we can get some federal funding in
through N.R.C.S. and then use that same funding, it may work
out or may work to the County's benefit. But, everyone at
N.R.C.S. is really very supportive of both the temporary
structure and the permanent structure and helping in any way
they can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one quick
question. About how long will it take to get the boxcar
temporary facility up and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The plan is to have it
functional before the camps open, which is the first of
June, so it's looking like having them in place sometime iii
May. Hopefully sooner than that, but the cars -- the two
cars have to be transported from Arkansas, and it takes
quite a while to move an 89-foot railroad car, you know,
that far, interstate. The actual installation will go
relatively quickly, The Road and Bridge Department`s come
up with a plan to do it which will not harm cypress trees.
We can do it with the current right-of-way that we have.
And, I'll just leave it at that. It's -- it will be
interesting to watch, if anyone has the time available that
day. I think it's a 300-ton crane they're going to bring
in. They'll build a temporary pad, slide them in down the
road, and put them across and pour concrete on both sides.
45

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
DODGE HENNEKE: A classic example oT Aggie
engineering?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- they say it
will work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's interesting that
somebody asked me last week, "Why don't they put a couple
boxcars there for a temporary bridge?" Don't ask me, I
don't know anything about it. Here we are with boxcars.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another good thing about
this is these cars will be -- the County will own them, and
the planning is that once the permanent bridge is built and
these are taken out, they will be put in Road and Bridge's
yard or somewhere in the county, wherever we can store two
90-foot railroad cars, to be used in this type of event in
the future.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Great.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wherever they use them.
MR. HOWARp: If I may, Commissioner Letz, I
think I promised you a drawing here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd Like to make a
comment. This is another example of two government entities
working together. I appreciate you, TexDOT, jumping on this
thing and moving up parts of this, 'cause I know that
Commissioner Letz is sometimes unpleasant to work with when
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it comes -- on behalf of his constituents, and I believe
that. I mean, he gets a little grumpy, doesn't he?
MR. HOWARD: We've never experienced that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, right. But I
appreciate you guys doing that.
MR. HOWARD: We're glad we're able to help in
this instance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, I appreciate iL.
Anything else on that item? If not --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Aggie engineering?
Now, that's -- if it was worth doing, it's worth overdoing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, there's a good
one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 10, consider the
final plat approval of Mountain Home Oaks, Section II, in
Precinct 4. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Franklin, I think this
one is straightforward, and you've got it. I think -- is
this the mylar right here?
MR. JOHNSTON: That`s the mylar.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
MR. JOHNSTON: This was Phase lI of that
subdivision. It's an unpaved country lane, large lots.
They've been inspected, the roads put in to standards. A11
47
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the signs are up, ready to go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All the signs are up.
And, I saw -- I saw a note come through -- across my desk
sometime a couple weeks ago to someone about signs or lack
of signs or --
COMMISSIONEP. GRIFFIN: That was to get it
right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And those things have
been corrected?
MR. JOHNSTON: They've been put up.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Everything's put up
that was on the list. And, I'll make a motion that we
approve the final plat for Mountain Home Oaks, Section II,
Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second,
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve the final plat of Mountain Home Oaks, Section II, in
Precinct 4. Any further 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. Next item is
Item Number ]l, consider the concept plan of Cutoff Business
48
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Park and request a variance to Section 5.01 of the Kerr
County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Precinct 4,
Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a second, Judge.
Could we do Item 17 --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- as a clarification
of the rules, and then go back to that, please?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was going to say the
same thing. Either that, or we can address it later. I
think, for now, we have to do this one as a variance, but we
do need to get the essence of Item 17 for a more permanent
solution. So, we can do it, I thought, saying the same
thing; we can go ahead and go for the variance on this one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let me make a suggestion
here. We have a bid opening in 5 minutes. Why don't we
take up Item 12, which is abandonment of Treiber Trail, and
then do our bid opening, and then we'll have a little more
time; we can take up the other two more or less in
conjunction. Is that acceptable?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's fine. And that
will get Mr. Townsend out of here a little quicker.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's take up Item Number 12,
which is consider and discuss abandonment of Treiber Trail,
an undeveloped platted road easement in Japonica Hills
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
49
Subdivision, and set public hearing for same on May 14, 'Year
2001. Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. The Court will
recall that last year, the Japonica Hills Subdivision,
represented by Don Townsend, who is here today, came in and
we did approve several abandonments of roads that were never
developed in the subdivision. This is sort of a cleanup of
that. This -- this probably is the last one, Right, Don?
MR. TOWNSEND: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think one sort of
fell through the cracks first time around. These roads have
never been developed. I've got petitions -- notarized
petitions from, by far, the majority -- all but one, in
fact, in the subdivision that -- that they just can't locate
the owner on. But, these are notarized petitions, ready to
go. We just need to set a public hearing and try to get
this last one of these roads abandoned tha*_ were never
developed. So, I'll make that motion that we do that; that
we -- that we set that public hearing for May 14th. Do we
have anything scheduled yet?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a 2 o'clock
sunset workshop.
COMMISSIONER GP,IFFIN; Okay. Why don't we --
can we do 10 o'clock in the morning on that one, then?
We'll do this one at 10 o'clock in the morning on the 19th.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
set a public hearing on the abandonment of Treiber Trail, an
undeveloped -- undeveloped platted road easement in Japonica
Hills Subdivision, for 10 o'clock a.m. on Monday, May 14th,
Year 2001, in Kerr County Courthouse in the Commissioners'
Courtroom.
MS. SOVIL: See if that's a night meeting.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's not. The second orie in
May is night.
MS. SOVIL: Okay. We've already set a
10 o`clock for the second --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll go back to that in just
a minute. Does everyone understand 10 o'clock a.m. on
May 14th? 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. Now, we need
to go back to 2.6. We had set a public hearing for May ttie
29th at 10 o'clock a.m. That is our regular scheduled
evening meeting. Do I have a motion to amend the previous
51
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
order to set the public hearing Tor Lot 1-A, Creekwood I-B
in Precinct 2 for 7 o'clock p.m.?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
amend its previous order to set the public hearing on the
preliminary revision of plat of Lot 1-A, Creekwood I-B in
Precinct 2 for 7 o'clock p.m. on May the 29th, Year "001, in
Kerr County Courthouse in the Commissioners' Courtroom. 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. Okay. At
this time, seeing as how it's 10 o'clock, we will take Item
13, which is open the bids for video cameras for patrol
cars.
(Unopened bids handed to Judge Henneke.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: First bid is from O S.S.I.,
and the total bid is $92,925. Next bid is from Custom
Signals, Inc., and the bid is for $90,390. Next bid is from
Mobile Vision Systems. It does not appear to give a total.
There's several different varieties of systems. One is
52
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$3,995 per unit, with some add-ons. Next bid is from Law
Enforcement Specialty Products, Inc. The bid is for
$98,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's three from the
same people, it appears.
DODGE HENNEKE: Another bid from Law
Enforcement Specialty Products for $78,000. We have a third
bid from Law Enforcement Specialty Products for $126,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept all bids
and refer them to the Sheriff for recommendation.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we accept all bids
and refer them to the Sheriff's Department for evaluation
and recommendation. 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,
what do you think your timetable is for having a
recommendation?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We can look at them this
afternoon, but in the case -- I notice there was one -- that
one company that bid three different times, those are three
53
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
different systems. If we do not accept the lowest bid, what
else do we have to do?
MR. LUCAS: If you don't accept the lowest
bid, the Court has to provide an opportunity for that lowest
bidder to come in and present evidence of why he thinks that
he should be declared or not declared. Y'all just listen to
that and vote up or down.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you think you'll have your
recommendations today? Or tomorrow?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can have the
recommendations -- doesn't take that long to go through the
specs and get what each one of them's providing, provided
they give us enough material to actually see that. But,
when do you want us to do it?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, at the rate we're
rolling, I think we'll be done here by about 11:30 this
morning, I would say. If -- if necessary, we can recess and
reconvene tomorrow.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll try and get them
back here by 11:30. If not, I'll let you know before then.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Now, let's go back
to -- do we want to do 11 first or 17 first, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe we can consider
them at the same time. What do you think of that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give it a try.
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: I really don't think we can
consider them at the same time, technically. But --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, when I say
consider them at the same time, obviously, we know what's in
17, but we can go ahead and address the variance, 'cause
that's what we decided to do, if you recall, at the last
meeting, was to approach it as a variance, We can go ahead
and dispense with that and then talk about a more permanent
solution by considering and discussing the clarification
rule.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's go back, then,
to Item Number 11, which is consider and discuss concept
plan of Cutoff Business Park and a variance to Section 5.01
of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations,
Precinct 4. I will say, historically, we've had no
considered variances on concept plans. We've given a sense
of the Court based on discussions, but we've never actually
taken action on a variance to a concept plan, so you may
want to keep that in mind. Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Franklin, why
don't you sort of do this one from the top down? Because
there are some other issues here I think that we dLscussed
earlier, other than the variance that we're talkinq about --
potential variance. So, go ahead and sort of --
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. I think the reason they
55
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
wanted you to consider the variance at this point, if the
lot size didn't work out, I guess they didn't want to invest
a lot of money in developing a plat that would just be
thrown out. So, I think that's the key to doing this
project, is to have the variance to the small lot sizes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also on that point, I
mean, I visited with Larry Richter on this, and it's my
recommendation -- I said, "Get it before the Court."
Whether we actually do the variance or not, I think we need
to give a sense to the developer as to what the Court's
going to do on this, because this is a different type of
development than we've looked at before.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this commercialY
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is commercial
property, and it seemed like to me that we had agreed
that -- that commercial property is -- comes under the same
regulations as any other, except for the mobile home
program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, you know, I
just -- you stop and think about a commercial piece of --
piece of commercial property, and let's say that there's a
little strip mall. I mean, how would you put each business
on 5 acres?
55
1
G
3
9
5
6
7
2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's got to be some
kind of --
COMMISSIONER. LETZ: There's a way --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I guess a variance
is the tool.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: In strip malls, you don't
have -- each business is not individually owned. The whole
thing is owned, and each business is leased out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that.
Strip mall just popped in my mind; I really didn't mean a
strip mall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the thing to
remember on this is that our Subdivision Rule lot sizes
are -- we came to them based on water availability. Water
availability came about based on residences. So, I mean,
the mind-set that got us to the lot size that we use right
now is -- doesn't fit, I mean, if you follow the whole logic
back. These are not residences. They use a different
amount of water, and they probably should be looked at on a
case-by-case situation. I mean, there's -- an industrial
park, as I understand this is, is not going to -- most of
it -- probably most of the occupants are not going to use
very much water. Now, if someone was to put in a -- you
5~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.. 13
14
15
15
17
18
19
2g
21
22
23
24
25
know, a	high-use water facility, well,	then	they would	use a
lot of	water.	So, I think we kind of	need	to look at	the
from a case-by-case situation. But, from an economic
standpoint, you know, you couldn't -- it would never work.
I don't think you could put them on 5-acre spacing unless
it's a large manufacturing of some sort. Just doesn't work
economically.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Also, there is a thing
here that -- and this goes more to the other item, the
general discussion of it, and that is, I think we need to
take a look at the way we are interpreting the rule -- the
new subdivision rule. I mentioned this very quickly to
Jonathan the other day, but one of the problems we have here
is that this will be supplied with water by a commercial
water company, and when that's -- you know, that commercial
water company has to meet T.N.R.C.C. requirements for the
number of hookups that it can have on a particular system.
So, why is it necessary -- rhetorical question -- why is it
necessary that we further restrict the water availability
issue by some arbitrary -- and this is what would I call in
this case arbitrary -- lot size? Because the T.N.R.C.C. is
already regulating that commercial water provider for a
certain number of hookups, no matter how many acres there
are. So, there's a -- there's a regulatory issue here that
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sort of underlies this a little bit that I think we need to
clarify in our rules, because if we say that anytime
somebody goes out and does anything with a piece of land,
that it's got to be 5 acres because of water availability, I
don't think that's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either.
DODGE HENNEKE: That's not what we say. We
say that if it's surface water, they can do anything they
want to. The water availability rules only apply to
groundwater.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, in the case of a
commercial company, we don't know, and nor should it be any
of our business, where that water is coming from. That
commercial company deals with the T.N.R.C.C. They either
poke a hole in the ground or take surface water.
MR. JOHNSTON: But our Subdivision Rules
specifically say surface water if it's smaller than 5,
though, right?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's a discrepancy there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But let's just take
Aqua Source, for example. Aqua Source can pipe the water
from Alaska. It may not even be water that runs through or
under Texas. So, what I'm saying is -- is that if -- as
long as the T.N.R.C.C. has a handle on commercial water
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
providers, I don't think we need to look at necessarily a --
a draconian acreage.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The T.N.R.C.C. is not looking
at the water that's available to that commercial water
provider. They don't go out and evaluate the supply from
that commercial water supply.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. They --
JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, if -- if Aqua
Source is piping in water from Alaska, they don't fall under
these rules, 'cause that's not groundwater -- that's not
groundwater in Kerr County. Our Water Availability Rules
apply to groundwater, not the surface water.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Groundwater from Kerr
County. What if it came from Gillespie County?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think, under our rules, we
wouldn't have an issue. But, you know, T.N.R.C.C. does not
come out and -- and evaluate the sources of water for
commercial, as far as our needs are concerned. As far as
T.N.R.C.C.'s concerned, they could have a great, huge well
in the middle of the aquifer and be pumping it dry. As far
as T.N.R.C.C.'s concerned, that's fine, but what does that
do to our local situation? T.N.R.C.C. does not take into
consideration the supply equation of the local condition in
approving specifically the necessity -- convenience and
necessity, or their ability to service other customers. so,
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
60
you really can't say that since it's regulated by
T.N. F..C.C., we shouldn't be concerned about where they get
their water, because that's not addressed by T.N.R.C.C.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is addressed by
T.N.R.C.C.?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whether that well will
produce enough --
JODGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- by itself.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In that connection, I
would ask --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like the same
thing to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- what would your
rationale on this be if there wasn't an independently-owned
water company out there and the developer was going to drill
a well to service this development?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There again, if -- in
this case, it would have to be done commercially if you're
going to drill one well to service all of them, which would
come under, you know, whatever rule that comes under. But
-- and there I see a -- a lot size restriction being -- you
know, lots being larger is -- makes sense, philosophically,
or intellectually. The idea that -- that -- that we
don't -- that we're doinq water availability because we --
1
"" 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
,... 13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
we're sort of doing it on the fly. We say, "Well, hey,
5 acres is a good number." You know, I -- I know that
there's some data out there that says 5 acres is what it
takes to recharge for one family and -- and so on, but this
is a totally different deal, and water is not being supplied
groundwater from somewhere in Kerr County, 'cause Aqua
Source is totally a groundwater supply company. I don't
think they have any connections outside of Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or surface water
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, in that sense, it does
strong formed opinion about this particular project yet. I
think I'd like to hear whether -- other issues, like is it
in the ETJ? Is it -- is the roads and things like that --
and I think that we need to add a commercial variance basis,
because it is a different breed. And one thing I think that
Jonathan brought up, very appropriately is, we don't know
what the commercial application is going to be in here. If
you're going to have a very high-intensive water use company
coming in here, then perhaps we have another issue, as
opposed to, you know, a flower shop -- well, that would be
Ez
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
water-intensive. Not a good example.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I tell you what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A construction office.
JUDGE HENNEKE: A construction office, that's
right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm going to be in
favor of a variance on this, but let me say what bothers me
about it is -- is that, let's say we do this and it goes all
through -- we get all the other -- everything met according
to our rules and we've granted the variance, and the owners
get halfway through the project and say, "Hmm, this is not
going to work. Let's change horses in the middle of the
stream, and we'll just sell these lots off and people can
put houses on them." What's to keep it from being done?
You know, not that it would happen. I'm just saying, 20
years from now, that could happen.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we have the ability
to condition our approval upon a deed restriction preventing
residential use of a property.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, which we might
want to consider, too. But, in the concept, I think -- I
think I would -- and I don't know how we do this with a
concept plan, but I would like to give the owner/developer a
sense of the Court that we would grant a variance.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's ask -- before we
63
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
get to that, I'd like to ask Franklin if there are other
issues?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, there are a few.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's get the whole thing on
the table before we start talking about specifics.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: Just looking over the drawing
they submitted, there are some other issues that have to do
with that. The -- they show a road with a cul-de-sac. They
show a 50-foot-wide easement, which, according to our rules,
needs to be a 50-foot right-of-way -- deeded right-of-way,
not an easement. Lot lines don't go to the center of
that -- that property. There's a lot that shows in the
bottom righthand -- about in the middle -- bottom middle of
the -- it says, "Transferred to A.A. Tire Company,
Volume Page ", blank. They're left blank. But, in
the location map, that shows that's part of the subdivision,
that lot, and down here it's got a dotted line. If it is
part of the subdivision, they have to have access. Not --
you know, even if they sell it off, it's still part of the
subdivision. It could be resold. And that doesn't show any
access to Goat Creek Cutoff by any means. If it's not part
of the subdivision, it wouldn't matter, I guess.
Another issue is, they dedicate the roads --
under the note up there, dedicate the roads to the public.
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
64
I wasn't sure if these were public or private roads, that
little cul-de-sac road. I wasn't clear on that.
(Discussion off the record,)
MR. JOHNSTON: They say it's not in the ETJ.
They -- in fact, it is in Ingram ETJ, so Ingram would have
to act on it also.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there any problem
-- have you discussed the 60-foot versus the 50-foot
right-of-way, and is it a private road? Is it a public
road?
MR. JOHNSTON: I talked with Larry about it
on the phone, but didn't have -- really have a chance to
have a meeting with him. We're going to get together, but
didn't have a chance to do that yet.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, let me just ask
a question. Is there any problem with a 60-foot
right-of-way versus a 50-foot?
MR. JENSCHKE: I don't think so. I think
this was -- the engineer that drew this up, we were -- when
I went out and talked to Mr. Johnston, we were probably
given the old rules, and he -- he went off of the -- the
book that he -- that I bought, you know, were probably the
old set of Subdivision Rules, and that's probably -- that's
what he went by, I'm sure. Because I know that he went by
all the rules that were -- were in the book. And, of course
FS
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
since then, they were changed, so I'm sure that's why you
don't like it. The lots are to the center, you know, to the
center of the roads. And that was a private -- it was a
private drive.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, this will be
private -- a private road, but the public will have access
to it? Is that --
MR. JENSCHKE: Well, yes, the public would
have access to it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Obviously, if it's
commercial property.
MR. JENSCHKE: But, you know, since we were
going to -- we were going to maintain it, but, you know,
since this is all changed and everything, I might as well --
you know, I was going to build it to County standards
anyway, but -- and we were going to maintain it, but I might
as well deed it over to the County, you know, if we do get
this variance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, as part of the
variance -- I mean, since we generally don't look at
commercial, our road standards are based on residential.
This would probably have -- I think I'd defer to Road and
Bridge to figure out what type of road -- I mean, not the --
the construction of ir, that will handle commercial traffic.
That would be a different level than we would generally have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
56
for sir, lots -- five lots, six lots in a residential
subdivision.
MR. JOHNSTON: Truck traffic and all that.
Have to be a wider road and heavier-based road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, that's just part
of the mix, I think, is the different type of community
commercial development.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we get the
right-of-way right and if we get the -- the lot lines back,
you know, where they ought to be, what -- I guess that
leaves the other question that I have. Is this -- that
piece of Lot 8, or what looks like it was a piece of Lot 8,
is that -- is that actually part of the subdivision, or is
it not?
MR. JENSCHKE: It was part of that property,
yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's part of the
property. Would it be part of the subdivision?
MR. JENSCHKE: No.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. So, you have --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So the location map is
a little bit -- that shouldn't be in here,
(Discussion off the record,)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Will these lots be serviced
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
67
by individual septic systems?
MR. RICHTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, you've got to meet
that. That's another hoop you've got to go through with our
Designated Representative. But --
MR. JENSCHKE: Also, to answer your questions
on, you know -- you know, what if we were to build
residential in there, you know, after that was approved and
everything, we've even -- in our restrictions, we've even
got, you know, down to -- we've minimized the number of
lots, not maximized. And, even the amount of -- of area
that can be covered in each lot is 50 percent. No more than
50 percent of any lot can be covered by a building, and --
and, therefore, any runoff that you get off of a -- you
know, that you get off of a building, you know, can be
absorbed, you know, within that property. And, of course,
we have -- we'll have the prcper drainage and everything.
And right now, one of the lots is going to be my own
construction office, and then there's -- another one of the
lots is probably going to be, 1iY.e, mini storages, and we've
got another person looking at three of the lots -- Larry
does -- for, like, construction warehouse-type stuff.
MR. JOHNSTON: Where is that? I can't really
locate it on here. Is that along the back side?
MR. JENSCHKE: Yeah. It's right along --
58
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
MR. JOHNSTON; There is a floodplain
associated with that. It says here there's no floodplain.
These lots probably need to show that on here.
MR. JENSCHKE: Yes. Our next plat will show
the -- will show where the floodplain is.
MR. JOHNSTON: On the preliminary plan?
MR. JENSCHKE: Yes, uh-huh.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Additionally, we have
deferred to the City on things on the ETJ. Si~i~e this is in
the City of Ingram's ETJ, Mr. Jenschke will have to also
first actually comply with any requirements they may have.
Is that correct, Jonathan? Historically, we've always
deferred to the City.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have, but --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Have to meet our
requirements, too.
MR. JENSCHKE: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We've always said we must
meet the City's -- the City has to sign off before we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't the City of
Ingram use the County's rules? They don't have their own.
JUDGE HENNEKE: They have their own septic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they don't have their
own subdivision,
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know if they do or
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
~5
not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, but that`s -- it
can be done concurrently.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It can be done
concurrently.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Our approval is nut -- if
they have standards, and I know they have their own O.S.S.F.
rule, then they have to satisfy those --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. RICHTER: I'm Larry Richter of Richter
Realty, and to that comment, I checked with Danny Edwards
and brought Danny up to speed with what we're attempting to
do. And, basically, he said, "Well, Larry, our rules follow
along with the County's," and so I think that -- that
stands. We still have to go through them, but I think it's
almost pro forma. I mean, you just got to do it, but I
think they will accept our standards, and I think that's
exactly what they --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, since you're
requesting a variance from the County, I would get that
before them and get that variance at least, you know, where
there's a formal vote or whatever as early as possible so
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
73
14
15
16
17
18
19
L U
21
22
23
24
25
~o
you don't get held up by them by saying, "Well, we'll be
able to use the County rules, but we're not going to give
the variance; the County gives -- the County gives the
variance.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How do we proceed
here, Judge, as you see it? Do we -- we can, quote,
"accept," I think is what we've used in the past. We accept
a concept plan? We don't really do anything --
JUDGE HENNEKE: No.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We accept it. And
what do we --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think what they're looking
for is whether or not those small acreage will work.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, that's -- and
that's an O.S.S.F. issue. That's -- that's got to be
evaluated by our Designated Representative, Charlie
Wiedenfeld, at O.G.R.A. They will evaluate whether or not
you can put and what kind of systems you have to put, and
that's right out of the book. I mean, that's -- either it
works or it doesn't. So, that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think this thing is
-- you know, we have kind of given them some thoughts of
things that need to be changed, and they simply go change
those things and come back in here with another plat.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or a preliminary.
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's right.
MR. JOHNSTON: The feedback I had from
Headwaters was that Cameron says -- this is -- I hadn't
talked to him, just had a note that said he wants them to
have an engineer's estimate on water consumption. We were
talking about water consumption earlier. He wants that to
be part of the preliminary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who wants that?
MR. JOHNSTON: Cameron, Headwaters.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How are they going to
do that without being able to define who the occupants are
going to be?
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, you can make
some reasonable
MR. JOHNSTON: A mini storage wouldn't take
any water, where a car wash would take a lot of water.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Make a reasonable
estimate. That's all you can do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Car washes, also, they
can recycle their water. Most of them do. I mean, I don't
know how -- I don't know that they'd use that much if you
had a car wash. But -- Larry?
MR. RICHTER: I think once you were to do
~z
1
..~ 2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your profile and get U.G.R.A., your on-site septic facility,
to rate it -- and I'll give you an example. Village West
Industrial Park, located right off of Highway Z7 West.
about here, you're -- you were rated by U.G.R.A. as no
greater than 500 gallons consumption per day. And, if yon
look at the size of those lots and those commercial users,
you're probably looking at 250 gallons maximum consumption
per day. So, you have another entity there to regulate,
obviously, consumption of water and water that's going back
into the ground, and I don't think we'd be any different
going through what we're attempting here with the
restrictions and covenants and identifying the type of
commercial user. We're looking for that person that,
obviously, is not going to be consuming greater than
500 gallons a day. It just won't work on that size lot, per
their regs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 1 mean, actually,
as to whether we can give a variance or not, I reread the
language about concept plans, and it doesn't say you can't
give a variance to a concept plan. It just doesn't say -- I
mean, the way I read it, our Subdivision Rules are -- it's
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
73
open on that point. I mean, I think we certainly have tfie
authority to give a variance if -- if we choose, or we can
just give a direction to the developer. I mean, I ttiiiik, as
I understand it, that the development -- without the
variance, this development will not work from a commercial
standpoint. Therefore, I think it's appropriate for us to
give a variance on the concept plan for that one point only,
and then have them come back with a preliminary plat and
work on -- ycu know, work the rest of the details during the
preliminary platting process, like we would any other
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I disagree with
you, Jon. I think the thing is designed to -- this -- this
part of the whole is to give them some ideas and for them to
go back, you know, and build a preliminary plat, and then we
make the decision whether there's a -- and it's just the way
I -- I view it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That should work, too,
because you've got to go through the preliminary platting
pro~~ess anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anyway.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I think that I --
nct speaking for everybody on the Court, but I thin Y. you caii
see the sense of the Court is that we will grant a variance
at the time of the -- of the presentation of the preliiiiiiiary
74
1
2
3
9
5
6
r
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
plat if everything else is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- is ready to go.
So, I don't see any reason that we wouldn't, is what I'm
saying at this point.
(Discussion off the record,)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Will this require a drainage
study?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's up to Franklin. I
mean, every subdivision requires drainage studies. Details
of it is deferred to --
MR. JOHNSTON: I just gave them -- marked up
a set of the plat and pointed out all those items in the
rules that we need to look at.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: Drainage, runoff.
MR.. RICHTER: Once again, I think our
concerns -- the developer's -- is exactly what you're about,
I believe, to talk about, is the interpretation of the
rules. Basically, 5.Ol.D identifies surface water as your
primary source of water to be allowed to plat a subdivision,
whether it be residential or commercial, on less than
5 acres. Groundwater being a source that we were looking at
through Aqua Source to supply this commercial subdivision
under that rule, the interpretation is somewhat confusing to
1
2
3
9
5
5
r
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7s
me. It just seemed like if -- the way it was worded, if we
acquired our water through a source that was approved by
T.N.R.C.C., and additionally, that our septic systems
to go through this, I think the developer's trying -- we're
trying to get a clear interpretation of what it means and
how it will apply to us so we know exactly which direction
to go in. So, it appears, from what I'm hearing, that there
is somewhat of a consensus that the way the rules are
written, that commercially, we -- it affects commercial
greatly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what you would --
particular project with regard to the 5-acre rule. Doesn't
extend any further than that.
MR. RICHTER: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not a variance generically
for commercial, not a variance generically for anything. If
you brought a specific project to us, and it's a project, I
think, that looks attractive, we are disposed, I believe, as
a consensus, towards a variance from the 5-acre rule.
76
1
2
3
9
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LE'1'Z: 1 think -- and just a
little bit of follow-up on that. And I've talked with some
other counties on commercial/residential, and other counties
do have different rules for commercial versus residential,
and I think it's something that we need to look at. And,
you know, hopefully in the next month or so, we will have a
revision to clean up a few errors and possibly clean up the
language in S.O1.D and E.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, ll and E.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There seems to be some
confusion the way it's worded right now, but I think that
the -- you know, we need to specifically have an area for
commercial development in our Subdivision Mules, and that
may be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but I think that
there should be, you know, at least a specific paragraph for
that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One thing that would
help, too, is I would like to see when you get your deed
restrictions written up.
MR. RICHTER: Copy?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd like to have a
copy of that. In fact, if we could have it at the time of
the preliminary plat approval, that would be very helpful.
And we might --
MR. JENSCHKE: I've already got a rough
.~ . - -
77
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
draft.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. JENSCHKE: And I can fax them over to you
or, you know, whatever.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I think --
well, at the time of the preliminary plat would be early
enough, because -- 'cause then we can see how that plays
with the concept, the way you've got it and all that. And
that might help us in generating -- in developing rules that
would cover commercial properties.
MR. JENSCHKE: Sure. Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Be very helpful. Is
there anything we need to do at this point, then?
DODGE HENNEKE: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't think so, but
I think you can see when you come back with a preliminary
plat, we'll consider the variance at that time on the lot
size.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- you know,
whether we go under 5.O1.G, which is other developments, or
just -- it would probably be cleaner to request a variance
to S.Ol.D and E.
MR. RICHTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because that's where the
78
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
acreage limitation exactly is. But I would --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Until we add a
commercial paragraph.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Until we write a
commercial paragraph.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? If not, let's
take ten and we'll be back at quarter till 11:00 and we'll
take up Item 17 right off the bat.
(Recess taken from 10:35 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. It is 10:95 on Monday,
April 9th, and we will reconvene this regular session of the
Kerr County Commissioners Court. Next item we are going to
take up, per our announcement before the break, is Item
Number 17, consider and discuss clarification of Section
5.01.E of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. I want to
go back to S.Ol.D first, and we all understand that that is
our 5-acre rule, unless surface water is a primary source of
water for the subdivision. And then we go down to 5.O1.E;
particularly, in my opinion, Number 2. It -- first of all,
I've -- last week I got a couple of calls from two
~9
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
developers and one lawyer, so -- and it really started
triggering my thinking. And, if I was a -- if I was a
developer and I was looking through these rules, I would go
to 5.01.E and I'd see right there, it says "lot size."
That's where I would go automatically. I wouldn't -- I
wouldn't at that moment be concerned about water
availability -- availability requirements, et cetera. I'm
concerned about the lot sizes. So, I start reading 5.O1.E,
and Number 2 says there is no acreage limitations for lots
served by community or public water. And 3 says no acreage
limitation for lots served by community or public water.
I -- I guess it's -- you know, to me, if --
if there is going to be -- I mean, it's -- I understand
how -- what it's about and how it works with the surface
water, et cetera, but I don't think that a developer just
moving into town or any -- really, anybody could be -- we
could expect them to cipher through it all and figure it all
out. And I'm sure that there's a reasonable solution to it.
You may want to -- Jon, did we talk about adding the
verbiage down through there, like in 1, 2 and 3, adding the
words, "unless surface water"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did. And, I mean, we
tried to make it, you know, less verbiage and simpler by
saying the first sentence of lot size -- the minimum lot
size is as follows, subject to Section S.Ol.D above. I
80
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
mean, you can't get much clearer, but -- in my mind. Bur_,
the -- the way to get around it -- 'cause I can see your
point, that, you know, people don't like to read, I guess,
that go -- if I'm looking at lot size, I don't want to read
the paragraph and go to the numbers and read that, and it's
confusing. But, I mean, it's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What if we had --
Jonathan, I'm sorry to interrupt, but what if we just
combined, in essence, what's in D and E into one paragraph?
Because I think that's part of the problem, is just the
format for it. If we had one paragraph that says lot sizes,
and then what's -- then 5.Ol.D sort of becomes, maybe --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paragraph A?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- Paragraph A or
something. I think if we format it -- because I think I --
I'm very much like Commissioner Baldwin. I look at that and
I say, "Gee, lot size says I don't have any acreage
limitation if I got community water."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I think
we -- I -- we certainly can do that, but I don't think
that's going to solve the problem just by formatting. I
think we have to change the verbiage somewhere, because if
you -- if you reformat, you're going to end up with the same
thing; going to look at the Number 2 and say --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. We're talking
81
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
about some changes with some caveats about surface water and
that sort of stuff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought I recalled,
in our earlier discussions on this, that when we set the
5-acre lot limitation for individual water well and septics,
obviously, although it doesn't say that, we also talked
about reduced ar_reage for situations where you had public
water, but O.S.S.F., and then even further reduced size
where you had both public water and public wastewater
collection. Seems to me I recall that we talked about
5 acres, 2 and a half acres, and no limitation on the latter
when you had both public= water supply and public wastewater
collection. This doesn't reflect that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We changed that. The
reason we changed it was we tried to give flexibility, that
if they were going -- if the new -- if the septic rules
allowed them to go on any spacing they wanted, it would give
developers a lot more flexibility to not put that 2 and a
half acre limit on there from an infrastructure standpoint.
They could put their houses in a -- you know, on one street,
on half-acre lots if they wanted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We talked about
clustering lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Riqht, clustering, and
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L 2
23
24
25
then leave everything else as a greenbelt. The reason the
change was made was to try to give developers more
flexibility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But clustering does
take into consideration the total of sum of the parts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twenty-five acres
divided by 10 gives you 10 lots on 2 and a half acres. You
have them on smaller lots, but you've left the rest of it
green or park land or whatever. So, clustering takes into
consideration --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- these things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but it -- but if
you go with ~ and a half acres, you're -- you need to change
the whole water availability requirements, if you're using
groundwater.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, we started from the
point of view that you need 5 acres to recharge the average
household use, so we said, Okay, we can it do one of two
ways. We can stamp out 5-acre lots throughout the county,
or if you're going to have a community water system, where
you're not poking a straw in the ground every 5 acres, we'd
allow to you cluster them, to do something creative, so long
as you have enough acres in your subdivision to recharge the
83
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 subdivision on the typical residential use. We
offered the flexibility to the developers --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Average.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- in that way. Exactly. It
could be a -- just so long as the total divided by five is
the number of lots. You can have a half acre, you can have
quarter-acre lots.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So long as they meet all the
other rules.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's good --
from the O.S.S.F. point of view, that is good, because the
O.S.S.F. rule, the way it's written, it's objective -- 1
mean, it's an objective rule. It's not subjective. If you
can't -- you can go to the book, and you characterize the
soil and you find out what it can be loaded to per day, and
that tells you whether or not you -- number one, whether you
can put any kind of system, but it also says whether you got
to have an alternate kind of system, aerobic or low-pressure
dosing or whatever it may be. You really don't need a --
any further restriction on lot sizes because of O.S.S.E'.
You need it because of water.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. That's why we
couched them the way we did.
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~l
22
23
29
2`
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the reason this
is the way it is. I think, though, with a little bit of
reformatting and some rewording, we can make that much
clearer than it is, and the way it's done now. And, this
is -- and, we can do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would probably
recommend, also, to make it clearer to the public, to put an
acreage limit back under both 2 and 3, rather than --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even if it's 1 acre or a
half acre, just because I think when you say no acreage
limitation, I think it's confusing to people. And if you
put a limit in there, even if it's, like I say, half an acre
or 1 acre, it would help on that point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That might be the
answer. That might be the answer; put a number there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other part of it
is -- and this is the other area of -- I'm just bringing
this up from a -- I get probably as many developers --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just -- but let's be clear
that the 2 and a half or the 1, if we put that back in,
still comes within the umbrella of the 5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, on the average.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
DODGE HENNEKE: So it doesn't eliminate the
85
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5; it just allows some more guidance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Clustering.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Now, on the -- on
the issue of the 5 acres -- or the surface water issue
really is the issue. I get beat up pretty regularly by
developers on that point, is that they look at that and go,
Well, that's not -- you can't do that in this -- in the
county right now. And they're right. There's not any water
system -- the only person who has a water system using
surface water is the City of Kerrville, so that is a useless
provision to the developers right now, and 1 don't know if
we want to -- you know, I guess one thing that could be done
if we wanted to -- this is going back to the other direction
a little bit -- is to have a -- to have a lower limit in
your underwater system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it looked
forward -- it was a forward-looking situation --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- situation, in that
there has long been talk that U.G.R.A. would use some of its
water rights and operate a water system for surface --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In other words,
looking at this potential out there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: U.G.R.A. has to, because the
86
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
water rights they hold --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- are --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For outside the city.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- only for sale outside the
city of Kerrville, and they lose those in 2010, I think it
is, if they don't have these contracts in place. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's
forward-looking, but it's so forward-looking that it's not
usable, you know, from a current standpoint. I'm just
wondering if it's -- you know, it's adding verbiage that
can't be met.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it may be better,
almost, to -- just to leave it under the water availability,
if we want to leave that 5 acres for everybody, 5-acre
average, to delete the surface water language and just say
this is the way it is, 5 acres, and then put it under the
water availability requirement, the intent behind it, just
so that it's clear. Because right now, it's -- all I do is
get yelled at: "That's a stupid rule; you can't do it. It
can't be met."
JUDGE HENNEKE: It can't be met in the sense
that you can't go out and tie onto someone, but
theoretically, a developer with a large enough development
87

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
could go and acquire surface water rights --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- and do their own treatment
plant.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's at least theoretically
possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or another way we could
handle it is put it under a separate heading here. If a
developer has surface water -- if the developer figures out
a way to use surface water, those cases will be handled on a
case-by-case situation.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Make that the key
thing. Put it in a positive way and just say, if surfar_e
water is used for development, that there are no
restrictions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it is positive
now. It says that these are the rules for 5 acres and water
availability, unless surface water is available. If it's
not available, it's not available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be
clearer to put it in a separate paragraph so it's not
confusing lot sizes right now, because it's really -- I
think lots of developers have looked at it and -- and they
don't know. Also, I mean, the reality is -- or the -- the
88
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
developers probably know, but the public doesn't know where
their water comes from, a lot of it. It would be nice if
they did. Who does it come from? Aqua Source. They don't
know where Aqua Source gets their water. So, I think it
would be -- maybe leave it in there as a subparagraph, but
not have it in with the lot size.
DODGE HENNEKE: I don't have any problem with
that. I think it's good qualification.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and, you know,
it -- regardless of where we put all those things -- and I
agree with what you're saying, doing all those things.
These words right here, "no acreage limitation for lots
served by public water," I mean, that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all you see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that's not -- just
not true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it is true if you
read the whole paragraph.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's -- and that's
what we need fixed. We can make that clearer so that
it's -- we don't jump at that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll just get it -- it
will be very redundant. Well, but we'll make it redundant
so that it's -- you can't pick out a section of a paragraph
and say, "Oh, I can do this." One of the things you can't
89
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
do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could write it to
where even a lawyer would understand it, you mean?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We made it too simple.
Made it too simple for them, see.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else on that
one?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we've got a
comment from the --
MR. RICHTER: Does the Court have a
definition of what is surface water?
JUDGE HENNEKE: T.N.R.C.C. defines -- Water
Code defines what surface water is. It's water from a flow
or stream.
MR. RICHTER: That would be our definition?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
MR. RICHTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You can't pump it out
of the ground into a stock tank and say it's surface water.
That wouldn't work.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try, though.
MR. RICHTER: Darn.
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'11 try to get this
either by our next meeting or the meeting after that, some
new language, and I'll present it to the Court, and if the
Court likes it, we'll set a public hearing to revise this.
And there's a couple further changes under Section 5.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Since there's an
O.S.S.F. piece in there, I'll be glad to help you on that,
just to make sure we don't cross -- get crossways with
O.S.S.F.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you,
Commissioner.
DODGE HENNEKE: Okay. Item Number 1S,
consider and discuss authorization to purchase two printers
from unexpended Ballot Expense line item, transferring
$3,200 from 10-402-210 to Capital Outlay, line item
10-403-570. Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, I have two printers
that have gone down. One of them is -- we've already had it
sent in for repairs a couple of times, but I -- it's just
getting too much use, so we have to use the -- two of the
printers from our election machines. But I've got three
elections coming up, and I've got to start preparing for
that and I need to replace the printers that we're using and
put our other printers bark on my election machines. And
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
L O
21
22
23
24
25
these printers that we're using from the election machines
are the Okidata 320. I'm kind of worried if we don't hurry
and replace them, with the large volume that's going
through, it's not going to be able to handle it much longer.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Dot matrix printers,
aren't they?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They're dot matrix
printers, and that's quite true. You know, they are very
load-dependent on wear and tear. What kind are the two that
we would get for $3,200?
MS. PIEPER: Heavy duty laser printers.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Those are heavy duty
laser printers?
MS. PIEPER: Yes. They -- one printer would
be -- would go into the County Court at Law. Of course,
that printer goes eight hours a day in there. The other
printer would serve the front section of the office, which
is my bookkeeper, my Commissioners Court, my Vital
Statistics.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion
that we approve the request as submitted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
92
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
amend the Capital Outlay list for County Clerk to include
two printers, and that the Court transfer $3,200 from Ballot
Expense line item to the Capital Outlay line item for the
purpose of purchase of such printers. 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.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Jannett. Item
Number 15, consider and discuss County Government Week,
April 23rd through April 27th. Ms. Sovil.
MS. SOVIL: Thank you. I'm sorry we've lost
our crowd. I was hoping we'd have a whole bunch of people
at least interested. You have in front of you an agenda,
kind of a temporary schedule. I think it's pretty well
self-explanatory. I need to add a couple of things. The
shadow officials, at 9 o'clock the Judge will do a
welcoming. We will have a presentation of colors. We will
have a -- I think it's a ride-by first, and then a
presentation of colors by the Hill Country Mounted Posse,
and they have agreed to it. They'll be here at 9:00 to do
that. The Holt Machinery people are bringing some
93
I
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
z3
24
25
horse-drawn equipment -- road equipment to have on display
for us. I need to ask everyone to remind their employees to
please park behind Grimes Funeral Home that day. We've made
those arrangements, and he's graciously told us we could use
that parking lot that day. And, the demonstrations, each
one of these will have demonstrations going on at 10:00 and
1:00.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only question I have is,
the last sentence, 't'hey will miss their lunch; we ask that
each of you provide them with lunch.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Did we get a --
did we get a volunteer to do some cooking?
MS. SOVIL: Yes, I did. The ladies that are
doing --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What we're being asked
for is a little financial contribution for the hot dogs and
stuff for the kids.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's good. That
was my question. I was hoping it would be something like
that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Along with the public.
MS. SOVIL: Right. The ladies that do the
Dutch Oven cooking have offered to do the cooking, and then
they'll -- the kids can just go out there, and part of the
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ly
20
Ll
22
23
24
25
demonstration will be their lunch.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's going to be a
fascinating day on the 27th.
MS. PIEPER: Can we involve the County
employees in this? Is this -- would that be a good idea?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure.
MS. PIEPER: The county -- you know.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure, I would hope so.
MS. SOVIL: Money will get us involvement
into anything.
(Laughter.)
MS. PIEPER: We can -- I mean, for hot dogs
and chips or something. It wouldn't take that much to do
hot dogs to feed a couple people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've only got 16 kids
to feed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would encourage all
elected officials and department heads to have their
employees go out, and so -- I mean, we want people out
there. The more people you get, the more -- it kind of --
it builds on itself.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Are you saying kind of
chum the audience? Of course --
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
95
JUDGE HENNEKE: Each department has been
asked to do a display which explains what they've done and
some historical stuff, and that will be throughout the week,
as well as on Heritage Day.
MS. SOVIL: The Historical Commission is
going to have a display here also to bring, you know,
Kerr -- what Kerr County is, how it was started, the
different things, you know. We're not the first. We have
to honor our predecessors and remember they have done a lot
for us also.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that the
County Progress Magazine, which is the statewide county
government magazine, is interested in running photos and an
article.
MS. SOVIL: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which, by the way,
next month we'll have two articles in there about Kerr
County.
MS. SOVIL: I'm looking forward to it. I
think it's going to be an exciting day and week. You know,
we want you all to participate during the full week. You
know that people will be in and out all week long to check
our displays. We'll put out a display. Commissioners Court
does a -- oh, the budget book and different items that we
are involved in. We'll put out a little display, and I have
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
]4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
that book, you know, that says county government -- some of
you used it when you were running for office. It tells you
what you can do and what you can't do.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mostly what we can't
do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We may need to look at that
again one of these days. We may -- do you think we ought to
have a Commissioners Court meeting that morning?
MS. SOVIL: I think it would be really
clever --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Heritage Day, and let the
kids participate.
MS. SOVIL: I think it would be really clever
if -- you know, it will be a way to interest your kids,
unless y'all are planning on driving them around your part
of the precincts.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll sponsor a
resolution that, you know, it's -- all kids under a certain
age in Kerr County get a free Snickers or something. Then
you'L1 be -- you'll have constituents for life. You know,
start them in the 4th grade.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably, if we did have
a Commissioners Court that morning, real brief, you know, do
a resolution welcoming them here. Then, you know, have that
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
be it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want my little
student up here with me.
MS. SOVIL: Yeah, exactly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Absolutely.
MS. PIEPER: We could probably put little
chairs --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN
see.
Little chairs.
Big chairs so they can
MS. SOVIL: Now, I need a commitment of funds
for the lunch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I was
going to ask about. Now, each one of us are going to kick
in some money to buy lunch for the whole thing for the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for young people's
lunch?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sixteen people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sixteen people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two packs of hot dogs,
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Package of hot dogs
and some --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got my $2. Do I
have any change?
98
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
MS. SOVIL; I was thinking $5 apiece, and
that would kind of buy your --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Those kids are hungry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's to help feed
my kid. Since I won't be here, he's going to have anotfiex
hot dog.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: These kids are from
Hunt.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell them to eat
before they come.
MS. SOVIL: But I think $5 a person. If Lhe
employees want to go for it, then we can maybe drop it down
to about $3, but I think --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We'll need to buy some
drinks and things, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe make some brownies
or cookies.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The employees could
maybe make some --
MS. PIE PER: Desserts. Cookies, brownies.
MS. SOVIL: I'm really looking forward to iL.
I think it'll be a fun week.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can eat what's
left.
MS. SOVIL: Oh, and everyone will be
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
]2
13
]4
]5
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
99
dressed -- the ladies are all going to wear long skis Ls here
in the courthouse. If you gentlemen would wear jeans and a
string tie and boots and that kind of thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about coveralls?
MS. SOVIL; If that's what you want to
represent your portion of the county with is overalls, go
for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thea, don't get cute.
(Discussion off the record.)
DODGE HENNEKE: Anything else? It's going to
be a good day. Thanks, Thea. Item Number 18, consider and
discuss budget amendment request to increase Capital Outlay
expenditures to purchase a computer for Commissioner,
Precinct 1. Commissioner, Precinct 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. As you
know, the computer and printer in my office is owned by the
South Texas Judges and Commissioners Association, and I am
in the process of closing down my presidency. In the next
couple weeks -- about two weeks from now, I'm going to
Corpus to turn over all -- all finances, all computers, all
bookshelves and all those things that I have to the next
president. And, believe it or not, I did not plan for this
and didn't see it coming when we were doing the budget last
year, so I would like to purchase a computer and printer for
Commissioner Precinct 1's office. And, as you see in the

100
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
request form here, there -- I'd assume that a computer acid
printer is around $1,500,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1 think mine was a
little less than that, but close.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Phat will buy lunch
for those kids, then, if we go over a little bit here. And
my conferences, I think I've spent $70 out of it and will
not spend any more, because the Association picks up all my
travel and hotels and meals and all those things. Ste, I'm
going to have that 600-some-odd dollars -- $664 left over
from our conferences. And then, as you know, the FiLSt
Responder program, we've been holding out those payments.
There will be a total of three. There is two payments right
here, I think, of $836. I wanted to transfer those two into
the Capital Outlay line item for the purchase of a computer
and printer, which is not a -- it's a one-time pop. It's
not included -- not increasing the budget next year in airy
way, and it's a fixed asset for the Commissioners Court.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve amending the Capital Outlay for Commissioners r_ourt
to include a computer and a printer for Commissioner,
101
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
Precinct 1, and transfer $664 from Commissioners Court
conferences and $836 from First Responders to Capital Outlay
line item for purchase of said items. Any questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My
it should be a budgeted item, and as I
Commissioner Williams' purchase of his
I'll also vote against the purchase of
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
comment.
only comment is that
have voted against
computer this year,
the computer for
I have one other
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you hear all those
nice things I was saying about him this morning? I take
them all back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you're planning to
get a set of speakers with yours, I didn't have speakers
with mine. You better find room to get another set of
speakers.
DODGE HENNEKE: Any further pertinent
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Griffin
indicated by raised hand that they were in
favor of the motion.)
DODGE HENNEKE: A11 opposed, same sign.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Commissioner Letz indicated verbaly and by
raised hand that he was opposed to the
motion.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries 3 to 1.
Sheriff? we don't typically allow nattering during our
meetings.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had to because of the
bids, Your Honor.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you -- do you have a
recommendation to us at this time?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I do. The -- when
you break down the bids to actual unit cost, Custom Signal
is the one that came in with the lowest bid at $3,535 per
unit, but they do have one of their others that they put in
here on an alternative bid, and it's Alternative Bid Number
3, which is $3,930 per unit. And, the biggest difference in
that is the security case that the main equipment -- the
recording equipment comes in in their bid, Alternative Bid
Number 3, is a stainless steel vault, environmentally
controlled, tamper-proof, fireproof, half-inch layer
durablanket, and bullet-resistant. It has a double layer of
Teflon, and so that is just about -- no matter what happens,
at least the tape recording would be protected, which the
other bids do not offer in what they specified. But, doing
the $3,930 per unit, the 0 S.S.I. actually has a lower bid
of the $3,717, but it does not give that -- that vault
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
Z4
25
103
security on it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Was the vault a part of the
bid specifications?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, it was not in the
specifications.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So we have to give the
other person an opportunity to match it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We11, and then there's
also the other bid from Law Enforcement Specialty came in at
53,900, which would be $30 lower. I have just talked to
both of these companies, the presidents of the companies,
the ones we've been dealing with, and told them that I would
rather award the bid to Custom for the security vault that
they`re proposing, and advised them, per the County
Attorney, Local Government Code, that they had an
opportunity if they wished to come in and protest that, and
both of them informed me that there would be no protest on
it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We still have to go Lhi~ugh
the -- do we still have to go through the hoops, or are we
covered, Travis?
MR. LUCAS: We11, I think we're covered.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. LUCAS: I really do. Just because he's,
you know, contacted them, they know that they have the right
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
]6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
to come in here, and they choose not to do that. Su, I
think we're okay. Any discussion? Do y'all have any
questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question, I quess, is
that, I mean, it's -- there's no documentation; that Lf they
were to come back later and challenge us, basically, he
said -- you know.
MR. LUCAS: Well --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, the only other
thing -- and I'll do this, 'cause it may be something the
Court -- if you went to the same thing, okay, that all the
other ones did, it -- the lowest bid would -- the actual
lowest bid would still be Custom. Okay'? Same company.
This is just Alternative Number 3. But the actual lowest
bid, per those specs that we sent out, would still be
Custom's at $3,635 per unit, compared to the $3,717, I
think, of -- of --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, technically, they
are the low bidder?
MR. LUCAS: Yes, that's right.
DODGE HENNEKE: Can we accept the low bid and
then authorize --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Authorize the Sheriff
to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the Sheriff to purchase
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
the additional equipment?
MR. LUCAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To negotiate a Luy
from the low bidder. That's all you have to do, and the
State regs allow that.
MR. LUCAS: Let me answer your question.
There's nothing that says it has to be written or oral.
It's smart to do written. Remember, last time we had
Commissioners Court, we had, 1 believe, the engineer come in
here when we had those massive amount of bids for road
materials, and he did not -- or you guys did not accept
the -- the lowest. He never sent out a written memo. And,
so, I did a lot of research looking at A.G. opinions, case
law, and even conferences with TAC, legal counsel, and,
Bexar County purchasing agents, and we were all in agreement
that there's nothing that says, technically, you should have
something in writing. Smart to -- it's a good thing to do.
What I've counseled Rusty is to write a memorial -- or
memorialize the discussion he had with all of these entities
within the last half hour, send that to them, you know, qet
it checked off and everything like that. And --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's a good
idea. I'm not -- but we can couch our acceptance to say
that we will accept and approve purchase from the low
bidder.
106
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
MR. LUCAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And authorize the
Sheriff to negotiate a final -- the final terms of the buy.
If that means upgrading, downgrading, whatever, we're
awarding to the low bidder.
MR. LUCAS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's how I move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
authorize the Sheriff to -- or the Court to accept the low
bid from Control --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Custom Signals,
Incorporated.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Custom Signals, Incorporated,
and authorize the Sheriff to negotiate the purchase of the
equipment from such low bidder.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. And that's at
the -- $3,635 is the low bid price per unit.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And you can negotiate the
upgrade. 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.
107
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
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. For the
record, that was Item Number 14, which is consider and
discuss accepting and awarding bids for video cameras for
patrol cars. The remaining item is Item --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your Honor, just to
clear up something, sinr_e there were -- was such a variety
of prices that went from $78,000 to 120-something thousand,
one of the big differences in why, when I looked at the
bids, I went back down to the unit price, because some were
bidding for 20 units, some 25, some 23. So, I broke them
down and just looked at the unit price and covered the big
differences.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Remaining item is Item Number
20, which is consider and discuss approval of response to
T.N.R.C.C. regarding Mooney Aircraft wastewater permit
renewal. You have in your packet a letter and corresponding
materials that the City is proposing to send to T.N.R.C.C.
in response to a permit renewal request for Mooney Aircraft.
I met with the City in their capacity as the -- well, I met
with Mr. Motley and Mr. Lucas and the City people in their
capacity as manager of the airport to discuss our common
response to Mooney Aircraft's request to renew their
108
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
industrial wastewater permit. This is the result of that
for many years, and in many ways Kerrville is associated
cannot close our eyes to any environmental problems and the
need to upgrade Mooney's facilities. Back in 1998, Mooney
did commit to hook up to the city if they ran a sewer line
out there. Sewer line's been there since spring of 1999,
and Mooney has not yet taken the steps necessary to hook up
to the city. The permit that Mooney has requested would be
renewed until the year 2005, and would not call for testing
of their retention pond and line or system until after the
permit was renewed, which is getting hard before us, I
believe. So, we have taken the step of drafting this
letter, which raises concerns and questions to T.N.R.C.C. in
response to their notice of the Mooney renewal request.
This item is also going to be on the City Council agenda
tomorrow evening. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, in fact, I have,
through the -- inferred through the Airport Board that --
that Chris Dopp, the new president of the company, is
working hard to try to get this done. I mean, and they've
got -- internally, they've got some issues that they've got
to get resolved. I know that they -- they want to get
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
109
hooked up. The question is -- is going back, you know,
since this was supposed to have been done in '98, whatever,
we're sort of cleaning up the mess, literally, and the
paperwork.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why -- if Mooney is
trying to get hooked up, why are they going for a 5-year
permit?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Money.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, they -- our impression
is they really were trying to get hooked up until this whole
issue came up, because of the funding issue. And, the City
-- the City has the ordinance in place which requires them
to hook up within a year, and they have put Mooney on notice
of the fact that they intend to enforce that ordinance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think we need
to do what we need to do, within reason, to get them to hook
up. If they need a little bit of time, I don't have a
problem with granting them a year or something like that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'd certainly work with
them.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I make a motion we
approve the response as submitted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
110
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
]0
11
]2
13
14
15
76
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approve the response to T.N.R.C.C. regarding Mooney Aircraft
wastewater permit renewal. 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
anything else? If not, we stand adjourned. Good meeting.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:23 a.m.)
111
1
2
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1S
2C
2]
2L
7'
2~
11
L
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 16Lh day of April,
2001.
JAN jNE~TfT~P.IEFER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : __I-~G~_~ - -- --
Kathy B k, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER NO ^c6954
CLAIMS ANR ACCOUNTS
On this the 9th day of Rpr^il 2001, came to be considered by
the court various commissianer•'s pr^ecincts, which said claims
and accounts are:
10-General F~_ind for $75,673.28; 11-J~_ir^y F~.tnd for• $67.38;
13-Road R Bridge Add'1 Registr^ation Fee for $335.00; 14- Fire
Pr^otection Fee for $16,136.34; 15- Road ~ Bridge Fee for'
$38,708.59; 18- County Law Library Fee for^ $40.00; 19- Public
Libr•ar•y Fee for 529,246.33; 2^c- Flood Control Fee for
$3,800.00; 23- Suvenile State Aid F~_ind Fee for- 5600.00; 27-
J~_iv. Intensive Prog-State Rid Fund for^ $574.06; 50- Indigent
Health Care Fund for $53,052.72; 64- Lake Ingram Estates Rd.
Dist. Bond F'r•oceeds Fee for 59,icc.77; 70- Permanent
Impr-ovement Fund for• $62,858.95; 83- State Funded-c16th Dist.
Attorney Fee for (319.88; 86-State Funded-216th Dist. Prob.
Fund for $8,937.75; 87-State Funded Community Corrections Fund
for 56,328.66;(TOTAL RLL FUNDS-$305,801.71)
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, payment of said Recounts as recommended by the County
Ruditor.
ORDER NO 26955
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY COURT AT LAW-JURY FUND
On this the 9th day of Apr^il 20@1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, to transfer
81,202.0@ from Line item #11-436-492 J~ar•ors, to Line item
#11-436-496 Court Interpr^eter.
ORDER NO 26956
BUDGET RMENDMENT
COUNTY TRERSURER
On this the 9th day of Rpr•il c001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Letx, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Co~_irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer- E4c1,1c
fr^om Line item #1Q-497-4^c~ Telephone, to Line item #10-497-565
Computer Supplies.Co~_{nty Treasurer°s Office.
ORDER NO 26957
APPROVAL TO ACCEPT MINUTES
AND WAIVE READING
On this the 9th day of Rpril 2@@1, ~.ipon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner^ Let z, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, to waive
reading the minutes and accept the following minutes:
Kerr' County Commissioner's Court Regular session, Monday March
12th 2@@1 and Special Session Monday March 26th.
ORDER NO 26958
ARPROVE MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the 9th day of April 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Co~ar^t unanimously by a vote of 4-0-0, accepted the following
r•epor•ts and directed that they be filed with the County Clerk
for future audit:
Texas Agr•icultur•al Extension Service
Monthly Report
Febr•~.~ar^y 2Q@1
ORDER NO 26959
RPF'ROVE AMENDED CHILD CARE LOCRL INITIATIVES RGREEMENT
On this the 9th day of Rpr•il ^c001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin,
the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to approve
the Amended Child Care Local Initiatives Rgr•eement and
author-ize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO c696@
APRROVE PARTICIPATION IN W.E.T. EDUCATION TRSKFORCE
On this the 9th day of April :?@@1. upon motion made by
Commissioner- Gr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner- Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a voter of 4-@-@, to participate
in the W.E.T. Education Taskfor^ce with a goal towards f~atur^e
water needs through conservation, and designate Commissioner-
Letz as the Court's representative.
ORDER 26961
INTERLOCAL RGREEMENT WITH UGRR
WRSTEWRTER COLLECTION SYSTEM IN N.ERRVILLE SOUTH
On this the 9th day of Rpril ^c001, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Let z, seconded by Commissioner- 6r•iffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-0, to a~athor•ize
contract discussions with UGRA for- inter local agreement to
constr^uct wastewater- collection system, and designate
Commissioner- Williams and the County Judge to r^epr•esent the
county in those discussions with UGRR.
ORDER NO 26962
APPROUE FY 2002 BUDGET SCHEDULE
On this the 9th day of April 2Q~01, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let x, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the
Court approved unanimously by a vote of 4-0-0, to approve
the 2001/2Q~Q2 budget schedule.
ORDER NO ^cE9E3
RPPROVE FINRL REVISION OF PLRT FOR TRRCT 53R
I~.ERRVILLE COUNTRY ESTRTES
On this the '3th day of Rpr•il X001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Williams,
the Court i_inanimo~_~sly approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0 , the final
revision of plat for- Tract 53R, N.err-ville co~.~ntry Estates,
Section II, and authorize County J~_idge to sign same upon
receipt of the mylar• signed off by everyone else.
ORDER NO 26964
APPROVE PRELIMINARY REVISION OF RLAT LOT 1-R
CREEi;W00D SUBDIVISION IB
On this the 9th day of
Commissioner Williams,
the Court unanimously
preliminary revision o
set public hearing for-
29th, here in the N,err
Cour•tr-aom.
April 2001, upon motion made by
seconded by Commissioner Griffin,
approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the
F plat for• lot 1-A, Cr•eekwood IB, and
same at 10:00 R.M. , on Tuesday, May
Co~.rnty Courthouse, Commissioner's
ORDER NO 26965
RPPROVE FINRL REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 6 & 7
ESTRTES OF TURTLE CREEK/ SECTION I
On this the 9th day of Rpr•il 20Q~1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner' Baldwin, the
Court i.inanimously approved by a vote o f 4-0-0, the final
revision of plat for• lots 6 R 7, Estates of T~_n^t le Creek,
Section I.
ORDER NO 2696E
PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH NRCS
HERMANN SONS CROSSING
On this the 9th day of April 2Q~01 , upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the new
Project Agreement with N. R. C. S. for• the Hermann Sons Rr-idge
and authorize County J~_idge to sign same.
ORDER NO 26967
RPPROVE FINAL PLAT OF MOUNTAIN HOME OAN,S
SECTION II
On this the 9th day of April 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Griffin, seconded by Commissioner- Baldwin, the
Court ~_inanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the final plat
of Mountain Home Oaks, Section II, in precinct 4.
ORDER NO 26968
A$ANDONMENT OF TREI$ER TRAIL
JARONICA HILLS SU$DIVISION
On this the 9th day of Rpril 2@@1, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Gr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Co~_ir-t unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-@-@, to set public
hearing on the abandonment of Treiber Trail, an undeveloped
road easement in Japonica Hills S~_ibdivision, for 1@:@@ AM , on
Monday , May 14th year 2@@1, in Kerr County Courthouse in
Commissioner^'s Cour^tr^oom.
ORDER NO 26969

CLERICgL ERRORS DUGLICgTE WITH ORDER NUMBER 26970
ORDER NO 26970
AMENDED PUBLIC HEARING ORDER/ CREEKWOOD
PREVIOUS ORDER NUMBER 26964
On this the 9th day of Rpr^il 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Coi_ir^t unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-0, to amend
previo~_is p~.iblic hearing Co~_ir^t Order^ No. 26964 and for• order to
be set for^ 7:00 P. M. on May 29th, Year^ 2001 in Kerr County
Courthouse, Commissioner's Courtroom.
ORDER NO 26971
ACCEPT BIDS FOR VIDEO CAMERRS/ SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
REFER RIDS TO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FOR EVALUATION
On this the 9th day of Apr^il cOS~I, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept all
bids and refer them to the Sheriff's Dept. for• evaluation and
recommendation for• video cameras for^ patrol car^s.
ORDER NO 2E,972
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHRSE PRINTERS
BUDGET AMENDMENT/ COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
On this the 9th day of Rpril 2@@1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, to amend the
Capital Outlay list for' County Cler-k to include two printers,
and that the co~_~r•t transfer $3,c@@.@@ From line item
#1@-4@2-cl@ capital outlay to Line item #1@-4@3-57@ for
purchase of printers.
r
ORDER NO 26973
CLERICAL ERROR, DISCUSSION ONLY
ORDER NO ^cE974
BUDGET AMENDMENT/ COMMISSIONER°S COURT
INCREASE CRGITRL OUTCRY TO PURCHRSE COMPUTER FOR COMMISSIONER
PRECINCT 1
On this the 9th day of Rpr^il '~0~1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner 6r•iffin, the
Court appr^oved by a vote of 3-1-0, with Commissioner Lets
voting against, to amend the Capital Outlay budget
for• Commissioner° s Co~.ir•t to incli.ide a camp~.iter^ and a pr•inter^
for• Cammissioner• of F'r•ecinct i, and transfer 56E4.00 fr^om
Commissioner° s Coi.~r•t conferences and ~8?6.00 from First
Responders to Capital Outlay line item for• p~_ir^chase of said
items.
ORDER NO 2E,975
ACCEF~T RND RWARD PIDS FOR VIDEO CANERRS
SHERIFF'S DEF~RRTMENT PATROL CARS
On this the 9th day of April ^c~b01, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Co~ar^t
unanimously appr-oved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept the low bid
from Custom Signals incor^porated, and to a~_tthorize the Sher^iff
to negotiate the pur^chase of the equipment fr^om si_~ch low
bidder for^ video Gamer^as and eq~_tipment for patrol car^s.
ORDER NO 26976
AGPROVE RESPONSE OF TNRCC RE: MOONEY AIRCRAFT
WRSTEWATER PERMIT RENEWAL
On this the 9th day of April 2Q~01, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
co~ar•t unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-4~, to approve the
response to T. N. R. C. C, r•egar•ding Mooney Air•cr•aft wastewater-
permit renewal.