1 ~. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~, c L 23 24 ~-. 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Regular Session Monday, February 11, 2002 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 ABSENT: LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 9 z 1 I N D E X February 11, 2002 2 PAGE --- Visitors' Input 3 3 --- Commissioners Comments 4 9 1.1 Pay Bills 7'~1~ 1.2 Budget Amendments ~7~~~ ~ ~1y~-11 ~, 4,~ 7 5 1.3 Late Bills ~~ `111 ~ ~~-'~'1`-l`3-G 10 1.4 Read and Approve Minutes 12~~'~1~ 6 1.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 12',114. 7 2.1 Consider waiving fees, multi-year lease with '~ ~ N~~ 8 Kerr County Fair Association 13~~~ ~~ 2.2 Consider waiving fees for Hill Country Arts & 7` ~ ~ ~ 9 Crafts Festival 26~ ' 2.3 Consider cancellation of Vista Ridge Estates I 1 27~~'T~(i 10 2.4 Consider allowing landowner to install additional . ~ Cn cattle guard to Honey Creek Road, Precinct 4 ~ 1~~? 33 1'~~~ 11 2.5 Preliminary plat, Stablewood Springs Ranch 41~ 2.17 PUBLIC HEARING - application by W.E. Burgess for f,~~ 12 revision of preliminary plat, Lots 18, 19, & 20 ~~y_u ~ ~u of Twin Springs Ranch, Precinct 2 75 ~~~ 13 2.12 EMS/First Responders quarterly report ~ 85 2.6 Final plat, Holcomb Ranch 89`~~`E~ 14 2.7 Set public hearing to abandon Moore Lake Road 89~7+~7f~ 2.8 Consider division of property without platting 15 off of Lehmann and Rim Rock, Precinct 1 93p~SCu ~^~ 2.9 Consider duplicate road names presented by 911 98~~c~u U 16 2.10 Consider name changes for privately maintained county roads in Precincts 3 and 1 100~~~'~ 17 2.11 Consider authorizing 911 to finalize duplicate names and submit to U.S. Postal Service 101~~~,ED 18 2.13 Consider authorizing Sheriff's Department to participate in 2002 U.S. Department of Justice 19 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant 101~~~ ~'~ 2.14 Consider purchase of new high-band radio for 20 Animal Control Department 107~~~~ 2.15 Consider providing electrical service to Flat 21 Rock Lake Park 109~1`~33 2.16 Consider approving publication of official 2001 22 precinct map in local newspapers Feb. 27, 2002 130`74 --- Adjourned 133 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 F 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 On Monday, February 11, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's 9 o'clock in the morning on Monday, February 11th, year 2002. We'll call to order this regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Commissioner Letz, I believe you have the honors this morning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. If everybody would please stand for a moment of prayer? (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 regular agenda may come forward and do so. Is there any citizen who would like to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? Yes, sir? MR. SMITH: My name's Eugene Smith. I've been a resident of Kerrville and Kerr County for about four years, and I intend to run for City Council. And I'm a supporter of cooperation between the different governments. I think y'all were doing a good job trying to cooperate with joint plans. I'm a believer in regional planning, and I 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 4 just wanted to make that statement to you. Thank you very much. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? One more time, any citizen who would like to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda may come forward and do so at this time. Seeing none, we'll start with Commissioners' comments, and start with Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have two comments this morning. First of a11, I'd just like to publicly thank all of the candidates that are running for the various offices, some of the members of the City Council right now, and others that are challenging them and running for other offices. I think everyone who's in the middle of that -- those races right now, I understand it's not easy to run for political office. You take a lot of shots from the public, and I think you should all be congratulated for agreeing to do it. It's not easy. And the other comment I have is, Tivy baseball season's here. Scrimmage tomorrow. JUDGE HENNEKE: Very good. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, thank you. 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 5 I'd like to offer our congratulations from the Commissioners Court to the Tivy Antler basketball team that secured the District Championship this last week. They are -- they're really, really fun basketball to watch. If you enjoy a good brand of basketball, it's right here at Tivy. A couple more games and they're again into the playoffs, if I remember correctly. Judge, I want to do something a little bit different this morning. I wanted to urge the Commissioners Court to -- let's get a report in here on two items. One, on our radio system, the tower, et cetera. I think there was some -- there were some timelines set up early in the program, and I think we are stepping over those lines. We're getting out on the edge of getting in trouble, and I just think the public needs to be made aware of that issue, as well as the Youth Exhibit Center and the Lion's Camp partnership program that we had talked about previously. I think that needs to come back to our table, and let's have a look at it. And, last but not least, I want to offer congratulations to our good friend, Commissioner Griffin. I have a press release here; I don't know where it came from, but Commissioner Griffin has been named County Chairman for the Governor -- by Governor Rick Perry. So, what a -- what an honor is it for one of our members of this Court to be appointed to such a neat program. So, our congratulations to Larry Griffin. That's all. 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 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You stole any thunder, I was going to announce that -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can take it all back, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Commissioner Griffin being announced as Kerr County Chair, and I wore my maroon jacket in honor of the occasion. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy, you did, didn't you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS; That's it. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, bill. JUDGE HENNEKE: On behalf of Commissioner Griffin, he is -- is obviously not here today. His wife is having some exploratory knee surgery in Houston this morning, and he has gone down to Houston, obviously, to take care of that with her, and our best wishes and prayers go with Larry and Sandy as they go through what is a painful procedure, from what I understand. I'd also remind everyone that our next meeting on February 25th is our first evening meeting. Zt will be at 6:30 in the evening here in the Commissioners Court courtroom, and we urge each of you to ,~-, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 1~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attend and participate in your local government. Without any further ado, let's get on to the business at hand and pay some bills. Does anyone have any questions or comments regarding the bills as presented by the Auditor? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to second that motion. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court authorize payment of the bills as presented and recommended by the County 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. We have a couple of budget amendments. Budget Amendment Number 1 is for Rabies and Animal Control. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This amendment is required in order to pay a -- an automobile premium for the 2002 GMC pickup, so I'm requesting a transfer of $120 from Capital Outlay to the Insurance line item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5o moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 for Rabies and Animal Control. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 2 is for the Nondepartment -- Nondepartmental. MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this request is related to a bill that's from our -- our attorneys representing us in a -- in a civil action concerning the Sheriff's Office, prior years, and it's for legal fees and it's -- this transfer is for $351.0 from Contingency line item to Professional Services. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is this their final bill, or will there be other bills? MR. TOMLINSON: I believe it is. There was cne prior to this for $3,425. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this a suit against Kerr County, or is the Sheriff named? MR. TOMLINSON: The Sheriff's named. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 9 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Not the current Sheriff. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The previous Sheriff. MR. TOMLINSON: Previous Sheriff. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the budget amendment. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2 for Nondepartmental Professional Services. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 3 is also for Nondepartmental. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This request is to transfer $5,000 from Nondepartmental Contingency to Professional Services in the Commissioners Court budget. This -- this is to pay a bill to Continental Casualty. This represents the deductible in a suit concerning claimant Mark Seider. JUDGE HENNEKE: This is a jail suit? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 10 COMMISSIONER WILLlAMS: The same suit? MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's a different one. Different one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Williams, that the CouLC approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3 for Nondepartmental Professional Services. Any further questions or ccmments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do you have any late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: Two. First one is to U.S. Postal Service. It's for $500, for the Tax Collector. It's for her annual Business Reply Mail permit. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the late bill, and I presume a hand check'? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: In the amount of? 11 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 MR. TOMLINSON: $500. JUDGE HENNEKE: $500, payable to U.S. Postal Service for Tax Collector's postal needs. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number two? MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This one -- this one is also for the U.S. Postal Service. It's for $125. It's also for the Tax Collector's Presort Fee permit for presort mail. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve a late bill and hand check in the amount of $125 payable to United States Postal Service for the Tax Collector's Presort Eee. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Is that it? MR. TOMLINSON: That's it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, I would entertain a motion to waive reading and approve the ~'^ 1 2 3 4 5 ti 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 minutes of the January 14th, January .8th, and January 31st meetings of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. GUMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: SO moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court waive reading and approve the minutes of the January 14, January 28, and January 31 meetings of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next, I'd accept a motion to approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. 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. That takes r^ 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 care of the consent agenda, and we'll next move into the consideration agenda. The first item, Item Number 1, consider and discuss waiver of fees and multi-year lease for use of Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center by Kerr County Fair Association. Sandra, are you here? MS. YARBROUGH: Yes, sir. JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning. How are you? MS. YARBROUGH: Fine. So, where do I start? JUDGE HENNEKE: Jump right in. We have your letter in the packet, so we understand what the -- MS. YARBROUGH: Okay. The Kerr County Fair Association requests the waiver of fees. We feel that we bring a lot of revenue back to Kerr County. All the proceeds are given back to scholarships in Kerr County. Our vendors, our petting zoo, our carnival operator all collect and pay the sales tax as a result of holding the fair out at the fairgrounds. We have done some in-kind type contributions back to improving the grounds, and we're always available to do some sweat equity to help keep the grounds up, and we would like to be considered to waive fees. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sweat equity? MS. YARBROUGH: Yeah, work. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've heard of it. COMMISSIUNER W1LLlAMS: Judge, I would offer 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 14 a motion that the Kerr County Commissioners Court waive the fees for the Kerr County Fair Association and enter into a multi-year lease for the use of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we split those apart? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we split those into two motions? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Waive fees? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Waiver of fees. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court waive fees for the use of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center by the Kerr County Fair. Any further -- any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (NO response.) DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carried. Now we'll turn to the issue of a multi-year lease. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to defer to Commissioner Letz. He apparently has something on his mind 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about a multi-year -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I don't -- I'm not opposed to it. I just think that we need to, you know, look at the big picture before we enter into anything. And, I mean, I think for this one year, let's qo ahead and get this year behind us. There's a possibility of -- Arts and Cratts Fair has, you know, sent some feelers out towards this. We're looking at a renovation project. I just think we need to hold off on tying up anything out there until we figure out our -- basically, what we're going to do out there from an improvement standpoint, or nonimprovement standpoint, 'cause I think that will be -- have an impact on the fair and what they do. So, you know, I'm not opposed to it. I just wanted to -- I think we need to hold off on it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Plus we need -- probably need to have a lease lying before us to approve. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we amend that second part of what was the first motion, and make a second motion to enter into a lease for this year's Kerr County Fair? I don't disagree with what the Commissioner is saying. JUDGE HENNEKE: Sandra, I think, you know, Commissioner Letz makes a good point. There's no one here who will ever object to the use of -- MS. YARBROUGH: Right. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L 1 22 23 29 25 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the facility by the Kerr County Fair. That's a given. But at this point, since we're in discussions about renovation, improvement, we need to be cautious about tying ourselves into something. I think the better part of valor is -- MS. YARBROUGH: Okay. We're talking about the fees right now? JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we -- we've already waived the fees for this year. Now we're going to have a motion to enter into a lease agreement for the coming year. MS. YARBROUGH: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: What we're reluctant to do is do a multi-year lease, because we don't know exactly where we're going to be after this coming year. MS. YARBROUGH: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: So we want to hold off on that and take a look at that after our firm -- our plans firm up with regard to what we're going to do out at the Youth Exhibit Center. MS. YARBROUGH: Okay. So the carnival operator I'm dealing with, I need to tell him that it's going to be a year-to-year, or what? Because they -- they schedule years out, and we have finally got a reputable carnival that said that they can come, you know, if we can get a date -- a reoccurring date set. And it's been -- I've 17 1 2 9 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 been working -- going on my fifth year finally to get to this point, to get someone that is a reputable carnival that -- you know, that the public responds to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your dates essentially don't change from year to year, do they? MS. YARBROUGH: No, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're basically in the same block of time? MS. YARBROUGH: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Year to year? MS. YARBROUGH: We're looking at going to the fourth weekend of October rather than the second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the concern probably is -- is that if -- if renovations and/or anything else takes place on a large scale, there is some concern about it interfering -- MS. YARBROUGH: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the construction and renovations interfering with your project. It's not that your project won't go on. You may have to make some adjustments somehow. MS. YARBROUGH: Well, I understand that, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's hard to enter into a lease until we know what we're doing. That's my issue with it. So, I mean, I don't have -- I mean, I think, you know, 18 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 the Court probably will continue to waive the fees out there, and certainly want you to use the facility. It's just that it's hard to do -- well, one, I think what Commissioner Baldwin says, we need a lease to look at. MS. YARBROUGH: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't have a problem on, you know, starting down the path to create a lease agreement that we can both agree with. MS. YARBROUGH: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's just -- I think it's premature at this point to approve a lease. For one, we don't have a lease, and two, we don't know exactly what the makeup of that facility is going to be. MS. YARBROUGH: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: What do we do, though, with Sandra's concern about this carnival? I mean, you know, is the Court willing to express the intent of the Court that the fourth weekend in October would be -- the fair would be given first opportunity to -- to schedule that time? Or -- 'cause I understand what she's talking about. She's trying to get someone to commit to come here, and the question is will they commit to come for one year, or do they need to have a long -- a longer commitment out of the Fair Association? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would it be 1 -- 2 3 4 5 ' 6 7 8 9 r 10 11 12 .~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 appropriate if we approved a -- a lease for this year, to be forth that might take place, and it is our intention to renew something along that line? Would that work? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem with that. I think we still need to figure out, one, who's going to draft the lease, 'cause we need to have a formal agreement somewhere, whether it's going to be the fair or the County Attorney or outside counsel somewhere. I mean, so we need that, I mean, and based on the experience with the Stock Show Association, these -- it takes a while. I mean, there's lots of issues that have to be addressed in the lease, so, I mean, it could take, you know, several months just to get a lease agreement finally approved for form and, you know, all the -- even for one year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sandra, when do you MS. YARBROUGH: We already -- he's tied in And he -- he has the fourth weekend of October available, because he's made his circuit and he's coming back this direction. And we would like to go ahead and, you know, firm it up with him. He understands where we're standing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 1/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 zo right now, too. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What does he need? I mean, what does he -- MS. YARBROUGH: Well, when we sign the agreement, we just sign for "X" number of years out, and he needs to know, because he has contracts 10 years out with other places too, and we can't be just changing back and forth. That's where we've gotten in trouble in past years, is not, you know, keeping same dates. And this year, we're with a -- in a five-year period, with the third carnival company because of this. Now, we've just been lucky to pick them up, 'cause they didn't have any other place to go, but most of them want a 5- to 10-year out somewhere. This company is a very good company, and he understands where we're coming from, so at this point he's holding things for us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you checked with the scheduling out there? Is that weekend that you want to use totally free? MS. YARBROUGH: That's the weekend we want to use out there. I've already talked to them. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have nothing else scheduled in future years? MS. YARBROUGH: Not at this point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not at this point. I 21 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't have a problem with, you know, committing to Lhat date for future use out there. And I still think we need to get a lease before us and negotiate the terms. JUDGE HENNEKE: Perhaps what we could do is to reserve the fourth weekend in October for use by the Kerr County Fair Association, subject to negotiations of a proper lease. Does that satisfy -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If it satisfies Sandra's needs, that's fine with me. MS. YARBROUGH: The main thing is, we need to be assured of the date, you know, to go to them and say, you know, "Yes, we have it," and to get worked into their schedule. Because more and more, carnivals are scaling down, and they're just not available. COMMISSIONER LETZ: From our standpoint, I think -- I mean, we want these dates set too, so we can schedule other uses out there. That's why I asked to make sure that date is available for, you know, future years. MS. YARBROUGH: I had talked to Janie about it through 2007, kind of till today's satisfied. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why couldn't it be something like a 5-year lease with first year firm, and the other options to renew the same dates, a lease like that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I don't have any problem with us entering into an intent, but zz 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we still need a lease. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, we can commit to the date, but we still need to have a lease, come back and -- MS. YARBROUGH: And who -- where do we start with that? Do we do that? Is that something we do out at the office? Where do we go from here? JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd like to see the County Attorney's office do it, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, can I otter a suggestion? Since you know what some of the unusual conditions are or circumstances are putting on a fair, more so than we know what they are, would it be inappropriate for you to provide a draft for to us take a look at and the County Attorney take a look at, which should have all those various items in it that are unique to the fair, as opposed to the stock show or some other event? Would that -- MS. YARBROUGH: We can get the information together. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- get us started? MS. YARBROUGH: We can supply him the information and let him put it together. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would probably be helpful. z3 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MS. YARBROUGH: So it's in the correct format. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what's the motion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me try again. I move that Kerr County enter into a 5-year lease with the Kerr County Fair Association, first year firm, and an option for renewal of the dates in the remaining four years, and that the Kerr County Fair Association provide us with the details have to be contained -- unique details that must be contained in the lease agreement for review by the County Attorney. JUDGE HENNEKE: And I'm sure your suggestion is that the lease be for the fourth weekend in October? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. Didn't I say that? JUDGE HENNEKE: No, you didn't say that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- that's fine. JODGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court authorize a 5-year lease with the Hi11 Country -- with the Kerr County Fair Association for the fourth weekend in October, with the first year of such 5-year lease being firm, and the remaining years subject to confirmation by the 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 Court, with the Fair Association to provide the specifics of the lease to the County Attorney's office for preparation of the document before approved by the Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly what I said, Judge. (Laughter.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would prefer us running this by the County Attorney and do it properly and have a document drawn up to bring in here next meeting, and to vote on -- this is -- to me, is kind of off out there somewhere. But, if -- Judge Henneke, if you feel like that this is a legal way to go, I'll go along with it. I just think it could be a lot cleaner. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the motion would always be cleaner if we had the actual document, but the motion authorizes us to enter into a lease; it doesn't commit us to enter into a lease until we see the actual document. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could wait till next meeting, though. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we could -- if we had any expectation of having a document for next meeting, we might do that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, you have 25 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 a good point there. I'll back off on that one. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think Sandra needs to have the date locked in so she can go ahead with her negotiations. So -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you have a carnival telling us how to conduct business here all of a sudden. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could we lock into a date to commit to a lease? JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? 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. YARBROUGH: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Sandra. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is on the -- just another comment on the overall topic. I don't want to -- I'm not trying to be difficult on this, but on waiving fees, I think we also need to ask the County Attorney to make sure that there's no problem from a legal standpoint of us waiving fees for an association. I think it can come under -- I think we have the authority to develop other areas, but I think we need that from the County Attorney, 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 26 we would request that opinion. JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Next item is Item Number 2, consider and discuss a waiver of fees for the use of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center by the Texas Arts and Crafts Festival. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is one I put on the agenda at the request of Mr. Miller, the present chairman, and I told him he did not need to come, in my opinion, 'cause I could represent what he's requesting. And what it is, it's the waiver of the fees for the tables and chairs. The facility -- the fair is still going to be at Schreiner University; it's not changing that at all. We're not waiving any fees for that location. It's just that in the past, they've always rented the tables and chairs from us at no cost, and it was -- he asked that we put it on the agenda to waive the fees again. Under our current guidelines, they would get a 75 percent reduction as a nonprofit in the county, so I just put it on the agenda for that discussion, that we waive the full fees. And, you know, I think that if we did waive the fees -- I'm in favor of waiving the fees. I think they, like the fair, do a great deal for the economic development and benefit to the county. But I do think, though, that if any tables and chairs are damaged or lost, that they're responsible for those costs, and we have an agreement with them to that effect. But I think I'll z~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 make a motion that we waive the fees; however, they will be responsible for any damage and loss of tables and chairs. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court waive the fees for use of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center tables and chairs by the Texas Arts and Crafts Festival, with the understanding that the Arts and Crafts Festival will be responsible for any loss or damage to such tables and chairs. Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 3, consider the cancellation of Vista Ridge Estates, Precinct 2, in accordance with Section 5.05 or 6.06 of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules. Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Johnston? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Crawford over in Pass Creek Ranch owns this entire subdivision, and he wishes to abandon it as a subdivision. There's no -- no houses or anything built in the subdivision. There is a road built into it. I'm not sure if it would come under undeveloped or developed, but in either case, it would require a notification in the newspaper. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which leads me to ask 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 a question, Franklin. I notice that the -- that the documents that we have in the backup calls for notice of public hearing, cancellation of Vista Ridge, et cetera et cetera, and it advises the public that if they wish to protest, they may appear here March 11, 2002. This being February 11, anybody out there who wants to do that may not know about it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that again? MR. JOHNSTON: They don't know about it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we talking about two different months here? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Yeah, the date -- if this is on Yor today, the public hearing notice says March 11th, if I'm reading correctly. MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. We're setting the public hearing date of March 11th. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So -- all right, so we're not going to do it -- we're only setting the hearing date? MR. JOHNSTON: Right, we're approving -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good enough. MR. JOHNSTON: -- the newspaper article. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I move that we set a public hearing -- MR. JOHNSTON: And it will appear three times 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 in the paper. question: Being as the owner is willing to pay for this ad, can we authorize him to pay that, or is -- does that have to come out of County funds? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think he can donate the money to the general -- I mean, into our General Fund. I don't know that he can earmark -- in my unlegal opinion on that. JUDGE HENNEKE: We'd have to ask the County Clerk's office, but it -- if he's willing to put up the money for it, I don't think we'll -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't object. JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, we wouldn't object. I don't think we can require him to, under previous precedent, but I think if he wants to, we'll certainly accept his generous donation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. I can't imagine us going out hiring a lawyer fighting him over that. MR. JOHNSTON: Kind of a follow-up question to that. Normally, when notices were published in the past by Road and Bridge as a public sale, we've taken it out of our budget, but I notice -- I think the Clerk takes them out of the Commissioners Court budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We like our budget. MR. JOHNSTON: Are we doing something wrong? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, you're doing it 30 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 1/ 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 exactly right. However, I do have a question here, because this is -- well, what I guess is what got me confused, we're talking about a public hearing and notice of public hearing to set the public hearing for March 11, but the agenda item says "consider cancellation." It doesn't say "consider setting a public hearing." Are we all right, Judge? JODGE HENNEKE: I think we're all right, because cancellation would require a public hearing. So -- MR. JOHNSTON: Public hearing is for the purpose of cancelling the subdivision plat. May not be worded correctly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6.05 and 6.06 is what's stated, that those provisions require a hearing, so I think we're covered. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move that we set a public hearing for the cancellation of Vista Ridge Estates according to the Subdivision Rules of Kerr County, and set the date for March 11 at 10 a.m. in the Kerr County Courthouse. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion, with a question. JODGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court set a public hearing concerning cancellation of Vista Ridge Estates in Kerr County, Texas, for March 11, Year 2002, at 31 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 10 o'clock a.m. in the Commissioners Courtroom of the Kerr County Courthouse. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. I guess my question is directed to Commissioner Letz, and his -- because of his knowledge of the Subdivision Regulations. He wrote them. We're having a public hearing to allow the public to come in and comment on a cancellation of a subdivision where there are no other property owners? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty stupid, huh? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6.06 there is out of state law, "Cancellation of Subdivision if Land Remains undeveloped." The Commissioners Court may cancel, after notice and a hearing, a subdivision for which the plat was filed before September 1989. There's that provision there also, which does not apply. This is a 1999 subdivision, I believe. 5.05 is cancellation of subdivision. I mean, it's under state law. We have no leeway under both provisions. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who could possibly come in here and argue the point? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I want -- that's a good question. It really is. I'm wondering whether or not, based on -- whether it can be waived, based on the -- the letter which is in the backup material from 32 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Crawford that he is the sole owner of all the property, all the lots within the Vista Ridge Subdivision, as platted. JUDGE HENNEKE: State law requires notice and public hearing. MR. JOHNSTON: You probably can conjure up a scenario where one subdivision -- to cancel one subdivision will affect another, but I don't think that would apply in this case, since it's a dead-end road that goes into it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- and then one other question. It says the road through the subdivision has been abandoned, vacated -- we've already done that particular road? MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm through. I seconded your motion, I think. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's real clear. I mean, it's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. The law is the law. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 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.) 33 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: The public hearing is set. The next item is Item Number 4, consider permitting a landowner to install an additional cattle guard in Honey Creek Road, Precinct 4. Franklin? MR. JOHNSTON: All we have on this is that little note that you -- you probably have in your backup, that little sketch. I think we probably want to hear more information on this from the people involved. They're here. Would that be all right? JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure. Morning, Bill. How are you doing? MR. HENDERSON: How are you doing? JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Tell us what's going on. MR. HENDERSON: We want to put that rattle guard in, move it back -- I don't have a drawing with me. I gave mine to the Road and Bridge deal. MS. HARDIN: They have a copy. MR.. JOHNSTON: They have a copy of it. That's the one you sent. MR. HENDERSON: There where the cattle guard goes in there, Mr. Odom came out, I guess it was Thursday or Friday, and looked at it. We're having trouble with our stork and stuff getting over this cattle guard that's down past there. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 DODGE HENNEKE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. This is a brand-new cattle guard? This is not an existing cattle guard; there's another cattle guard up here? MR. HENDERSON: That way. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, down here. MR. HENDERSON: Down at the end where that other -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right here? Okay. And Commissioner Griffin called me from Houston this morning and said there was some -- he said something about an oversized cattle guard that you all had requested. MR. HENDERSON: Mm-hmm. It's 15-by-8 to keep the stock from jumping. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 16-by-8. And how long -- how big is a regular cattle guard? MR. HENDERSON: The one that's down here is maybe 5-by-12. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we know -- a 16-by-8, what the load-bearing is on it? MR. JOHNSTON: No. I -- I think -- you know, I guess one question comes up, if the one down there doesn't work, you know, why not repair that one or enlarge it at that location rather than moving it up the road? I don't know how that would help, but as far as keeping -- 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 35 MR. HENDERSON: Well, I think if we move it up here, see, and get this up here, then our stock won't come out. See, they come around this way, and they come down in here and they jump. Having trouble with the cattle jumping this way over it. We need it up here where it's wider; they have more room. See, the hill is right here, and they're kind of bottled in when they come up here. MR. JOHNSTON: I wasn't out there to see the tract. Yeah, I think -- I think, you know, as far as our offices are concerned, we'd like to see the actual plans and specs on what -- the cattle guard you're proposing -- they're proposing to install, so we'd have a chance to evaluate it. At this point, we really don't know enough, how it's constructed or what. MR. HENDERSON: We're going to get the cattle guard over at Uvalco in Uvalde. I don't know if any of you -- this is oil field cattle guards. They use them for them tanker trucks and stuff to go over; they're sound. MR. JOHNSTON: But if they have some drawings or something that we can look at and evaluate and see exactly how they're made, there's a lot of different ways that they do it. We'd just like to check it. We like to discourage cattle guards -- new cattle guards on county roads. I think that's the Court's -- MR. HENDERSON: Can we put a gate in? 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 MR. JOHNSTON: -- direction in the past, but -- MR. HENDERSON: A gate serves my purpose better. MR. JOHNSTON: Not on a public road, unless you want to abandon the road. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. Summers Dream, can somebody enlighten me on what that might be? Is that the camp -- is that the new camp, Summers Dream? (Mr. Henderson nodded.) MS. HARDIN: Actually, it's Summer Dreams. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, Summer Dreams. MR. JOHNSTON: Got the "S" in the wrong place. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this your drawing, Henderson? MR. HENDERSON: Not mine. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, looks to me like they're wanting to put a cattle guard probably before the main gate into Summer Dreams. MR. HENDERSON: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, therefore -- so, therefore, it -- I think that would probably have some large trucks, delivery trucks going in and out of that camp, so I 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 37 think the -- the load-bearing part of the cattle guard is really, really, really important. MR. HENDERSON: It's just past their entrance. You're going the wrong way, Buster. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here's the cattle guard and here's a gate. MR. HENDERSON: Their main entrance is over there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Their main entrance is over there? MR. HENDERSON: In that corner. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In here somewhere? MR. HENDERSON: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. HENDERSON: I guess that's where it's going to stay; is that right? Is that entrance going to stay? AUDIENCE: It's going to stay there, depending on -- according to the drawing we had, there was a high fence going in right through where our main entrance is now. If that happens, we'll have to move our entrance toward where that cattle guard he's talking about is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- I'm getting confused, but, I mean, I don't have a problem -- one, I think the old cattle guard ought to come out, and two, the 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 38 new cattle guard needs to meet Road and Bridge's specifications. If that's done, I have no problem with it. MR. JOHNSTON: Their road -- I'm not sure how wide that road is now, but 16 foot, that's kind of a minimum subdivision width of a road. It's a paved road, I understand, but I don't know how wide it is. But normally cattle guards are, like, 2 foot wider than the pavement, I think, on each side to give -- so they probably should be, like, 20 foot wide instead of 16 foot wide. MR. HENDERSON: Well, Mr. Odom told me I didn't have to put in but a 14-foot. That was the specs on that. I told him I wanted 16-foot, so if they did need to get in there with -- to move a trailer house and stuff out and move some in -- we had to pull all the posts up of the cattle guards that are there to let them get through, and this one's 2 foot wider than the widest one on the road. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, really kind of, Jonathan, for you, in terms of if we -- if the motion ends up being to remove the old cattle guard, which I think is probably appropriate to do, at whose expense the road repaired? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I would think -- MR. HENDERSON: of this, on this cattle guard We're offering to pay for all Y'all aren't going to have 39 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 to pay for it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's the new one. I understand that, but the -- Commissioner Letz suggested that the old one be taken out, which, if I understand cattle guards, leaves kind of a -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hole. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- hole in the road. Who fixes the hole in the road? MR. HENDERSON: Well, I guess -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- MR. HENDERSON: -- if y'all want to take it out, y'all can. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's our road, isn't it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our policy, I think, on cattle guards -- correct me if I'm wrong, Franklin -- I think we require the person who wants it to pay for the cattle guard, and we install it. Is that correct? They pay for installation too? Then I think that we would want y'all to pay for the -- for the repairing it, as well. I mean, I think it just -- that's the logical way. If you want to move to a different location, then you'd pay for the repair to the road right there. MR. JOHNSTON: All the expenses. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't think -- r~ 1 L 3 4 5 F 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 40 we're not talking about, I don't think, much to repair it. MR. JOHNSTON: That's not a paved deal, that part, is it? It turns into gravel down there? MR. HENDERSON: No, it's paved. MR. JOHNSTON: Paved all the way? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just think that we need to bring -- come back with a little more information. The load-bearing part of it's what really bothers me more than anything, because if you have trucks going in there and if something bad would happen, we're -- there's some liability on us too, so we want to do it right the first time. So, you know, run him out of here and tell him to come back with better information. But I remember -- MR. JOHNSTON: They should be familiar with, you know, what highway loading is on it, so they can come back and give us some information. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- years ago there was two gentlemen on this Court that thought that cattle guards were human, and they couldn't figure -- they were so opposed to hiring people to stand around and guard cattle. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've come a long way, fellows. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you make it clear that I was not one of those? •-- 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 41 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, years ago. Years ago. MR. HENDERSON: So, you just need the specs on the cattle guard, right? JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what we need you to do, Bill, is to get the -- get the specs to Franklin or Leonard and let them look at it, and then bring it back to us at the first opportunity. MR. HENDERSON: Just take it to the Road and Bridge -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Take the specs to Road and Bridge and let them look at it. Then they'll put it back on the agenda and then we'll take care of it, okay? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And make it clear who's paying for road work -- clear who's paying for it. MR. HENDERSON: Well, they put on here that it would be our expense on that deal that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. MR. HENDERSON: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay? MR. HENDERSON: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thanks. Appreciate it. Next item is Item Number 5, consider the preliminary plat of Stablewood Springs Ranch in Precinct 4. Franklin, do you want to introduce this for us? 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2J 24 25 92 MR. JUHNSTON: This is a subdivision in -- off of -- it enters off of Cardinal Road between Ingram and Hunt. It's a little different than some subdivisions we see, because the -- the land has a lot of common area. It's not actually part of any lot. And the lots are small; we've got 1 to 2 acres. But the -- if you take the total acreage and divide it by the number of lots they have, it averages six, so -- JUDGE HENNEKE: And it's served by a -- it's served by a community or public water system? MR. JUHNSTUN: Yeah, they're putting in community water to serve all the lots. I think there was an existing well on the site in that area in the middle. There's another well in the first one you come in the entrance, which has a small sanitary easement. I'm not sure why it's less than the other one. Should be 150 foot, I believe, instead of 75. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, did you ask the same question about septic tanks"? I just -- JUDGE HENNEKE: No. COMM1SSlUNER BALDWIN: I wasn't listening. JUDGE HENNEKE: I have not asked about septic tanks. I would presume there are going to be septic tanks. MR. JOHNSTON: There'll be septic tanks. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And how -- what size 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2^ ~ L 23 29 25 43 are the lots? MR. JOHNSTON: If -- well, if you're looking at the blue line, you don't see any lots. You have to look at the other drawing; it shows the lots drawn in. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1.5 acres? MR. JOHNSTON: They're all between 1 and 2 acres. All the area that's not a lot is common area. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What -- how does this tie into the water availability? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, like we said, total land out there divided by the lots is 6 acres, so it averages over 5 acres. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. JOHNSTON: I think they need to specify no additional lots be inserted later on. Keep it, you know, at that level. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said it's going to have community water? MR. JOHNSTON: They're planning on putting in a community water system. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many connections? Over 15, the way it looks. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. It will have to be approved -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be approved by T.N.R.C.C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2q L S 44 from the water standpoint. MR. JOHNSTON: There is a concern about drainage. We had a -- we have a study that may be in your packet about sizing culverts, but we don't have an actual study on -- there's a valley that comes down the entire side of the subdivision, and there's a lake -- existing lake in the -- right at the entrance where you drive in, drive over the lake -- the dam part of the lake. But, during flood events, you know, we need to have a study done on that, which has not done been done to date, I think, to the extent that we need in that area. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this -- I mean, this says preliminary plat. And -- MR. JOHNSTON: Preliminary, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It sounds like it should be more of a concept plan that we're looking at right now. I mean, it sounds like there are a number of things that need to be done still, and it's difficult to do a preliminary approval when you don't have the hydrology, you don't have a lot of the other information. I mean, from a concept plan, it looks good to me, but I'm not sure we're at the point for a preliminary plat approval. Just my opinion. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have -- MR. JOHNSTON: Charles might want to address the Court and make a presentation on behalf of the owner. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 MR. DOMINGUES: Charles Domingues. The hydrology study will be done, but according to the Subdivision Regulations, at the preliminary plat, the hydrology study is not required at preliminary plat. That's part of the construction of the streets, and in connection with that and the drainage, the way that I read the Subdivision Regulations, and it's not required at the preliminary plat stage. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't argue that point. It's just -- you know, it seems like it's going to -- I mean, iT there's -- it seems early in the process to me. If you need it for some reason, I mean, it looks like a good plan to me. MR. DOMINGUES: You know, if you read the preliminary plat regulations, according to regulations, everything is on the -- this platting. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. JOHNSTON: As long as they're -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And everything will be done within a year? MR. DOMINGOES: Yes, sir. MR. JOHNSTON: They're aware of the rule where it says that the post-development runoff will be a fraction of the pre-construction runoff, I think, on the 2-, 10-, and 100-year frequency, and reduce it by 50, 75, and 46 80 percent. That may require some kind of impoundment. I'm not sure where that would -- I think the owner actually owns some of the lots in Bumble Bee Hills, in that area. Is that right? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1~ lE 1S 2C 2 2: 2: 2 2 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. MR. JOHNSTON: That may be a required area for some impoundment to make those requirements work. MR. DOMINGUES: Well, right up in here, they are kind of putting some -- some dam-type structures in here to identify this area here, which there could be impounding placed in this area here, and also there is a large draw here that can't be used for anything, and a large impoundment can easily be put into this draw here. MR. JOHNSTON: 7 think that's what we need to be included in our hydrology study. MR. DOMINGUES: This draw that's right there, it drains down -- it's a big draw there, and it's easy to put anything there necessary to handle the problem. MR. JOHNSTON: I just wanted to bring that to -- you know, that's what we're expecting on the final platting. And everything else, I think we've covered. JUDGE HENNEKE: What about the high water access, Franklin? ~ MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, that's another issue. A i lot of subdivisions with only one entrance across an actual 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 floodplain, during a flood event, they would be -- you know, couldn't get out. They do have a little road shown up here on the very top, kind of goes off to the side of the plat. Not sure where that goes, or if there could be an easement there somewhere, if they could get out on another exit. And, no, we haven't talked about that. MR. DOMINGUES: That adjacent property there is Cypress Springs, which will probably have future developments in it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Adjacent to the east? MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir, to the east up here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. That's the -- I think they have a preliminary plat approved on that back part of that. MR. DOMINGUES: They do. MR. JOHNSTON: Part of it, I'm not sure what phase. But I'm wondering if they can work out and coordinate, you know, a way for high water access through that -- as far as tying subdivisions, that's part of our rules, to tie them in. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good point. I think that's a real good idea, to visit with the developer and see if you can't have an access there to tie 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 the two developments together. MR. JOHNSTON: For emergency exit and ingress. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either way, emergency or other access. I mean, just -- I mean, we're -- MR. JOHNSTON: We're working on both plats at the same time here. It seems like they can work something out to make them tie together. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think our policy has been that we, one, try to have roads interconnect as much as possible in the county to avoid other areas of problems. Franklin, so you recommend preliminary plat approval, subject to -- MR. JOHNSTON: Subject to what we just discussed, yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a number of people who want to talk. We have a number of individuals who have signed up to address the Court on this issue. Before we do that, do any members of the Court have any questions for Franklin or Mr. Domingues? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a question. I'm not sure who it's to, but I know on the routing slips here, it just kind of struck me as a -- as a large number, and I'm kind of concerned about this. U.G.R.A., the fee amount paid is $440. What -- what's the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 29 25 49 -- what do get for that $49n? I'd be interested in knowing. What did they get -- what did you give them for $440? MR. BARRON: I'd have to follow up on it. I think our routing is usually $75. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, the -- when I saw the $940, I thought, whew, that was pretty high. It's a large number. It may be something -- and then I'm wondering, if they come back for the final plat, is there another $440? I'm -- it just seems like kind of a large number to be there this early in the ball game, when they -- when they're really talking about concept here. Am I the only one on earth that thinks that way? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many are they reviewing? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. MR. JOHNSTON: Did you work on the floodplain? MR. BARRON: We worked on the floodplain and the O.S.S.F. I think they're $75 apiece. I'll look into it and see where -- where the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. BARRON: -- additional money's going. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: I might make one comment about the form of the -- of the plats. I know it's presented 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as -- like an architectural drawing, and they have a little note there that said they would -- you know, it says -- on a subsequent letter, it said it would be okay for this approval. They said they would sign and seal the final plat. Really, we don't want an architect to sign the final plat; we want a surveyor to sign off on the final plat. So, they need to review the form, I think, of the final plat. Should be -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I had that same concern. This letter here from the architect to Judge Henneke said once all necessary regulatory agencies have reviewed, then we will do the final. I don't think that's the way it works. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think, you know, as far as that issue is concerned, we have to rely upon Franklin and Leonard. MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, we'll work -- JUDGE HENNEKE: They won't allow anything to come before the Court until it's in the proper form „ with everything signed off on the proper approval. MR. JOHNSTON: It's just kind of a heads-up. It's -- we probably won't accept it if it's not right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just want to make sure that the final sign-off is here. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's hear from some 51 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the members of the public on this issue. David Jackson? Did you want to address us on this, sir? MR. JACKSON: Good morning. I'm here primarily to answer any questions you've got with respect to the high water issue. We can certainly investigate that alternative, but it's not likely, 'cause we don't have control of that property. I mean, it's possible and so forth. It's my understanding that the flood event and the issues of which the entrance road would not be available under a flood event would be the same as Highway 39. That is to say, if you -- even if you got out, you couldn't go down the highway, because it too would be flooded at the very same time. Let's see. You -- it is septics. You can use the common area for a drain field. You talked about the hydrology; we understand we've got to work on that. And there was one other question. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Water availability. MR. JACKSON: Water availability is assured through Bumble Bee -- I actually checked with the T.N.R.C.C. before -- or as part of our preliminary evaluation of the project from a legal point of view, and much, if not all, of this area is in the Certificate of Convenience, a necessity for Bumble Bee Hills' water system that Vlasek's company operates. But we've got to go -- we understand we've got to go through the drill of getting actually approved. But that 52 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 is -- that's, A, true from the State's point of view, and B, we have an agreement that that, in fact, will happen. Other than that, I'm here to answer any questions you have, and my clients are here as well. Got any questions of me? JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions of Mr. Jackson or the owners? COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, you made a comment that it's unlikely to be able to tie into Clear Springs -- Cypress Springs. MR. JACKSON: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a reason you think it's unlikely? MR. JACKSON: Sure. I don't think the development has come that far, and so Cypress, if you're looking at your plats off to the right, is over here somewhere. And if you conditioned our plat on developing that access, it might be years before they actually got to the boundary. I wouldn't want to mislead anybody and say, sure, we'll look at that, but I don't think -- even if those discussions began tomorrow, I don't think anything would happen for several years, just because of the topography and all that. It's possible, but not probable, is what I wanted to say. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know, what could be done on both developments is that the -- in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 zl 22 23 29 25 53 platting process, the roads could be showed to adjoin. Whether they're built or not, who knows. MR. JACKSON: That would be -- sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You wouldn't have control -- MR. JACKSON: Sure, that's easy to do. This is a gated community, and so you'll have that issue as well, but so is Cypress, so it's not an unthinkable thing. Sure. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or concerns? MS. FUX: May I make a reply to what Mr. Jackson just said? JUDGE HENNEKE: Just a moment, okay? MR. JACKSON: I'll be available if you have any questions. JODGE HENNEKE: Okay, thank you. Next person who signed up to address the Court is Andrew Bachofen. MR. BACHOFEN: Bachofen. JUDGE HENNEKE: Bachofen, sorry. MR. BACHOFEN: Good morning. JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, sir. MR. BACHOFEN: First of all, I'm Andrew Bachofen; I'm one of the many property owners of the property that sits right in here. It's a property called Pleasure Hill. Pleasure Hill is the 20-plus acre tract that 54 1 ,-- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 r-. 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .--, 2 9 25 adjoins the proposed development to the south, between it and the Guadalupe River. My grandfather, great, great-uncle, and Edwards cousins built many of the homes in Pleasure Hills during the 1920's and the '30's. In the stripped of most of its vegetation. 't'his drastically changed the water drainage through our properties, and particularly the county road that served us is being eroded. The plat over here does not show that county road. All along the road, the sides are being washed away. The drainage gully, which handles most of the runoff from the Stablewood plat is widening and threatening to collapse the county road near where the county road joins Highway 39. This has already happened; it's not a matter of "maybe it will be a problem." I am concerned because increased uncontrolled runoff from any development that would take place upslope from us, particularly from the 26 or 27 septic systems that are planned, will have a catastrophic effect on our property and the county road that serves us. Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, sir. Catherine Fox? MS. FOX: Yes. Before I begin, I would like to disagree with what Mr. Jackson just said about it was his understanding during the flood event, that entrance and exit 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 55 would be the same as Highway 3y, and you wouldn't be able to go anywhere. An example might be that you could have an extremely heavy rainfall with a large amount coming down very rapidly on the north side of the proposed development, near Mountain Home, and Bumble Bee Creek would be flooded immensely. Those people, if there were an emergency, would not be able to get out. However, the Guadalupe would not have had a large amount of rain, say up past Hunt, and you would still be able to cross the Bumble Bee Creek bridge on Highway 39, and thus continue on to Ingram and Kerrville. Thank you. I am a native of Kerr County. I was raised on a hill situated below and south of Sites 22 and 23 of the proposed development. My family and I currently live on this property near my parents. I have firsthand knowledge of the proposed development, because my grandparents were once caretakers for this proposed development property for over 10 years. I have explored every inch of this proposed development on numerous occasions. I'm opposed to the development of Stablewood Springs Ranch for the following reasons: Number one, during the course of my lifetime, over 40 years, our property has never experienced the flooding from the north side that it has experienced since the developer has cleared cedar and underbrush for home sites and roads, et cetera. My father and I, with permission, 56 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 viewed this clearing. Where cedar had once been thick, sites are now cleared and prepared. Number two, due to the clearing directly above us, we are now dealing with, A, soil erosion problems on our property; B, undermining of our asphalt private driveway, which connects to Highway 39; C, destruction of landscaping projects; D, flooding in our two-car garage and my husband's office in areas that have never in my lifetime had problems. In addition, my father and I have spent over four hours on two separate occasions wet-vacuuming water out of our neighbor's summer home. Number three, the proposed channeling of much of the development's excess runoff into their lake, which then flows into Bumble Bee Creek, will ultimately speed the natural erosion of the creek's banks. The excessive increase of water flowing down the creek will also contribute to increased flood damage of the following, especially when the Guadalupe and the Bumble Bee Creek are cresting at the same time: A, the bridge structure proper; B, Highway 39's roadbed for the southeast-bound lane, which Bill Tucker has already looked at. I have informed TexDOT of this in writing. They have come out and looked at it. C, our rock pump house; D, our private drive entrance; and E, our riverfront property, which is at the confluence of the creek and the river. This is of grave concern to me, 57 1 ,~ 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,-. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2^ L 23 24 25 because the above are either at or very close to the confluence of Bumble Bee Creek and the Guadalupe. Four, and finally, the lives and property of numerous people -- please look at the handout that I've existed pre-Stablewood Ranch plans. As we and numerous neighbors are already experiencing flooding and/or erosion, I have serious, valid concerns about what we would experience with roads and homes in place on the proposed development. I also challenge a w ater drainage plan that uses Bumble Bee Creek, within the limits of how flooding occurs now, to insure that said plan will not contribute dramatically to the flooding of neighboring properties in times of great flood events, like the floods of '32, 'S9, and '78, or in times of extremely rapid rainfall amounts when water runoff does not always flow where projected, as was apparent in the October 2000 flood, which proved to be very problematic for us and several neighbors. Ten inches fell in less than five hours, the first rapid rainfall event since the development's clearing. You will recall that Kerr County, to that point, had been experiencing a major drought pattern. I implore you, the Commissioners, to remember that it is your duty to protect the welfare and safety of the citizens of Kerr County, myself and my neighbors inclusive. 58 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 I urge you, the Commissioners, to examine the Stablewood Springs Ranch proposal with intense scrutiny given to runoff and drainage issues, and either deny or considerably downsize this development. Thank you very much. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Ms. Fox. Anyone have any questions? Okay. Next is George Vlasek. MR. VLASEK: My name is George Vlasek. I've lived in the area in question for 52 years. My parents ranched that piece of property, so I know it like the back of my hand. And, for starters, you know, they are dividing up the total acreage to the number of house sites and saying, you know, it averages such. Every side of that place just falls right off into big hollers and hillsides except the north side, and that water's got to go somewhere. And I've watched the flow of this water on this creek for years. I'm interested in it. I'm horticulturally trained. I'm not degreed, but I know a lot about plants and water and all of that, and I've watched this through the years. And, right on our piece of property, bedrock outcrops there, and in years past when we'd get good rains, water would seep out there in this natural escape deal, depending on the rain, for days, and then sometimes for weeks. And we have a little ornamental bridge below the house where some conglomerate rock juts out, and through the years that has always seeped water to the point of a 59 1 .- 7 3 4 5 ti 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~-- 25 delicate maidenhair fern and wood fern being able to this fern. Well, as numerous people have acquired that piece of property and started hacking on it, the first thing -- there was a number of acres on a flat right behind our house denuded, and we had a pretty damn good rain, and the next thing you know, there was mud and rocks right up next to my house. Too late in the year to plant any other kind of grass. Children were small. I raked it off the best I could and planted in oats and barley and every dadgum thing that would grow during cold weather. And, some other observations. You know, when water -- water falls and there's enough trees in an area that have left a sponge, so to speak, that naturally decays and fills up with billions of particles from the cellulose in the plant, the -- the trees break that rain, it falls on all of this big sponge and has time to sit there a while to percolate down. Water percolates down until it hits something impervious, and then it finds its natural escape routes, vis-a-vis just leaking off into the creek gradually, seeping out, hitting bedrock and seeping out, getting in springs and going down, and they usually wind up in the river. And, you know, when I was a big old kid, after a good rise, we could take a quarter and throw it in the river 60 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 and see it down there. And Commissioner Baldwin can attest to that; he also knows that. He's lived there, and he's Bumble Bee Creek oriented also. He could dive down there and get that quarter with no problem. The river's getting greener every year, no matter what they do up there. They can blow it up in the air and evaporate it or put it here and there. What's going to happen to these nitrates from all of those septic tanks? They're going to get in the river when it rains one way or the other, and what that does is make the algae explode. And the only contributing good factor to that may be on some St. Patrick's Day, we won't have to stain it green; it will be green. This time of the year, when it's cold, it's too cold for algae to grow in the river. The rest of the time, it's just getting worse all the time. And where all the -- I have never had water in my shop until here recently, when we've had these hard rains. I've had rocks as large as softballs in front of the door, and water in it, and it's running in places it has never run before, and I've watched it for 52 years. So, I think that this would be a bad thing for not only us, but for Kerr County, to let people continue to do this, cutting it down and burning it up. Ashes are extremely fine, and anybody that's been around it a while, they get in cracks and stuff, and they make water impervious 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 to percolation. It just can't go -- it's sort of like cementing it up. What Kerr County really needs to do with all of these tracts is make them grind it up and blow that mulch on the ground. Most of us are all schooled, vis-a-vis radio, about how important mulch is today, and when they do that, they're getting rid of nature's mulch. The runoff is going to be greater no matter what, and if they funnel it somewhere, somebody's going to bear the brunt of it anyway. Thank you. DODGE HENNEKE: Thank you, sir. Mary Fox? MS. FROST: Frost. DODGE HENNEKE: Frost, I'm sorry. MS. FROST: Mary Hart Frost. You have a copy of my statement, and you also have some pictures that I'm submitting to you to review. My husband and I are owners of a home on Lots 27 and 28 in the Bumble Bee Hills subdivision. Let me show you where that is. It's right here. We got a Release of Easement so that we could put a house across that line. The other lots I'm going to talk about are directly behind our house. They're the ones that are Lots 49, 48, 97, 46, and 45. These lots share a common boundary along Bumble Bee Creek with lots in the proposed Stablewood Springs Ranch development. I also share ownership of property with my cousins at Pleasure Hi11, which is a family development established in the 1920's. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .-. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 62 Both of these properties abut the proposed Stablewood Springs Ranch site, and have been and will be further adversely aftected by the proposed development. Our Pleasure Hill property has already suffered from runoff flooding in cabins located there from the proposed development site. A home located on Lot 40 in the Bumble Bee Hills subdivision also suffered runoff flooding damage in October 2000. Our property will suffer significant additional runoff flooding damage during construction of roads and home sites. The clearing already done has damaged the natural drainage qully by the Pleasure Hill road that, for years, has carried the rain runoff to the Guadalupe River under Highway 39. This natural drainage gully has been eroded by the increased rain runoff due to the bare caliche left by the bulldozing and burning of all the cedar. Dirt from Stablewood Springs Ranch site has been dumped on Lots 45, 96, 47, 98, and 49 of the Bumble Bee Hills Subdivision, a subdivision of Kerr County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Volume 4, Page 187, Plat Records of Kerr County, Texas, to construct a berm along Bumble Bee Creek. These lots are owned by the developer of Stablewood Springs ranch, Thomas Fat~o. These lots are 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 63 The site development plan of these lots states that the Flood Insurance Rate Map Community 480419, Panel Number Ol`,OB, dated May 1st, 1979, indicates the creek area is located in Flood Zone A, which is a 100-year flood hazard significantly affect the drainage in the floodplain and cause severe erosion to our property, and erosion and flooding to the property and homes of our neighbors along Bumble Bee Creek. I have pictures of the Bumble Bee Creek flood of October 2000 showing how the creek filled the floodplain on Lots 45 through 99, and how near the flood waters came to a house on Lot 35. This berm under construction will significantly change the flow of water in Bumble Bee Creek, and this home, the one on Lot 35 -- I say "could" be underwater. It will be underwater in the next flood. In a letter to the Kerrville Daily Times on July 4, 1995, Burt McAShan stated that in 1987, Bumble Bee Creek rose 28 feet, and that in 1978 he saw rainfall of 27 inches in a 24-hour period. This could happen again. Developing the Stablewood Springs Ranch site without providing controlled runoff and flooding protection for the surrounding home and property owners must not be approved by 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ L ~ 23 24 25 this Commissioners Court. Do you have any questions for me? And, by the, way I have talked to -- are you Stuart Barron? MR. BARRON: Yes, ma'am. MS. FROST: I have talked to Stuart Barron about this berm that is already under construction on those lots. He is requiring the developer to submit a permit, because no permit was filed for before they started building the berm, and he is requiring an engineering study. And I'm -- I appreciate that very much. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions for Ms. Frost? Thank you very much. MS. FROST: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anyone else who wishes to address the Court on this issue of preliminary plat? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'll just make some general comments. I think -- appreciate the concern of all of the citizens. Our Subdivision Rules, fortunately, are some of the stricter probably of the state, and we address, because of the topography, drainage issues probably more so than almost any other county. And that is why we -- I had the earlier comments that you all heard regarding the drainage issues. And our Subdivision Rules will require that very strict standards be met regarding runoff. With that being said, I understand people's objection to 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 65 development, but the owners of this property also have the right to develop their property, and it's certainly -- one of y'a11 said something that we have the obligation to protect the citizens of the county, which we do, but we also have the obligation to protect citizens from the standpoint of allowing them to develop their private property. So, you development in any way, but I can assure the public that we will do everything we can within our Subdivision Rules to protect the other property owners in the area. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only comment is that I have had that attitude for a number of years, that as long as a private property owner complies with state law and local rules and regulations, there is no -- there is no way I can stop it, anyway. But you're right, Mr. Vlasek, I did grow up on that creek, and I -- my heart still is out there in those hills and with my good neighbors like Mr. Vlasek that I grew up around, and I can assure you that I will assist our Engineer's office in any way I can to provide intense scrutiny to runoff and drainage issues. I think that this -- on this particular issue, the County should require the developer to dot every I and cross every T before it even comes back into this courtroom. But it appears that they're meeting all state laws and rules and regulations of the county, so I don't see any legal way that 66 1 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly 20 G I 22 23 24 2S I could deny it. I mean, I can be a horse's butt and vote against it for fun, but it doesn't mean anything. JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, sirs MR. BACHOFEN: Yes, sir. I understand what you say, and I believe in private property rights also, and the right to develop. However, this particular developer twice now has commenced working on this property in such a way that it impacted us without having any permits or any right to do that, if -- if he was going to go by the -- by the county and the state law. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My only comment would be in support of Commissioner Letz and Baldwin. We will look very carefully at the hydrology issues, the runoff issues, to make certain that there is not corollary damage to other people's property. That's important. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you saying to me that -- that it is actually being developed without approval oT the government? Is that what you're saying? MR. BACHOFEN: The first project -- first project that cleared this and put roads in there was done without any prior approval. They then came back and attempted to get approval. It was turned down. All this site development that has already taken place up here has already taken place. 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 CUMM1551ONER WILLIAMS: I don't recall this being here before. Has it? MS. HARDIN: 1995. JUDGE HENNEKE: David? MS. HARDIN: 1995 and again in '97, I believe. MR. BACHOFEN: It's been here before. MR. JACKSON: It is true that my client has been here before for another kind of development, and it was abandoned because it probably could not comply with your regulations. And, as you've already said, the -- the difficulty with development is if you comply with the rules, you should be allowed to do that. In terms of beginning work before, anybody has the right to clear their property. Anybody has the right to put a road, whether it be your own house or whatever. What happens under your regulations is that you must comply with the Subdivision Regulations at the time when you begin to split the property up. That is, sell it. And we've not made any sales. So, we -- we understand perfectly well, as I know you know that I know that we can't move forward with the development without your approval. But, with respect to the criticisms of clearing and drainage, A, it's already happened, B, it could have happened without any permit whatsoever. I understand the berm issue, and that's quite right. We are dealing with 68 1 1 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that issue, and that's a fair criticism. So, I don't want the Court to get the idea that we're any different than anybody else who conceives of a development, but to clear cedar to understand what your development is, is all that's happened here. If there are drainage issues, you bet, I think each of your comments is absolutely correct. We understand we need to comply with each and every aspect of the regulation and the state law. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Have the roads been, you know, constructed, or just basically cleared? I mean, because there is an issue, if the roads are being -- we have the right to, and we'll test the roads to make sure they're meeting our standards. MR. JACKSON: Right, absolutely. We went to Franklin and said, "We're going to begin our roads," so that we could get some idea of what the development would look like. In order to see how it works, you've got to get in there, and I believe we've set up a mechanism by which you can inspect. We understand that it has to comply, and second, it has to be inspected. Thank you. MS. FROST: I have another comment. This is the road, Bumble Bee Drive, that comes into Bumble Bee Hills and then goes across to the back property. The developer has a gate across that county road, and the road that goes off to the left, if you see what I'm talking about, that is 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 69 still a county road. We made an agreement -- the Bumble Bee Hills Property Owners Association made an out-of-court settlement with Mr. Fatjo in return for his not continuing to try to put a road through a residential lot, which was Lot 39, but we did not release these lots from our plat. These are still under the deed restrictions of the Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions of the Bumble Bee Hills Property Owners Association. And this road which he is apparently going to make part of Paddock is a county road called Mabee. It is not -- it is not paved, but it is still a county road. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we -- Franklin, do we recognize that as a county road? Do you know, Truby? Is -- MS. HARDIN: It is a public access road, but not county-maintained. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, it is not a county road, per se, but it is public access. There's a question whether there should be a gate or not. MR. JACKSON: And all of that's true. I -- those lots are not part of this plat. JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. MR. JACKSON: But all of what she has said is correct. Those are all subject to those restrictions. They're all sitting there just as they have for years, although they are in the floodplain, as she points out. JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, sir? One more time. 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 ~o MR. BACHOFEN: One of Mr. Franklin's comments, I think, represents sort of the attitude of the developer of this property, and that is it's all right for me to go ahead and do something as long as I haven't yet applied to the County Commissioners. The damage that he's done to our properties was done prior to his application, so therefore it was legal. However, it still has caused damage to our properties. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I might address that. I'm hearing a couple of issues -- that particular issue, sir, you made, and the other one regarding complying with the rules of Bumble Bee -- Bumble Bee Subdivision, that's a civil matter. That's really beyond the scope of this Court. And if -- if there's an issue on either of those, if he's done something to damage the property, that's a civil matter that you need to take up directly. And, likewise, if he's not complying with some requirements in your subdivision, that's another civil matter that we really have no jurisdiction over, I don't believe. I want to -- MS. FROST: Could I ask Truby something, just for my clarification? What is the -- the situation, then, with this Bumble Bee Road? Do you mean the county -- this is all paved, and the gate is across a paved, county road? JUDGE HENNEKE: It is not a county road. It's not a county-maintained road. ~l I 1 J 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. FHOS'1': At dll'? JUDGE HENNEKE: No. The Road and Bridge Department is telling me that is not a county-maintained road. We do not accept -- MS. HARDIN: I was told this morning that it went up to the gate. JUDGE HENNEKE: But the County -- MS. FROST: All of our roads in the Bumble Bee Hills Subdivision are county-maintained. MS. HARDIN: I asked this morning. They said that they maintained Bumble Bee Drive up to the gate. JUDGE HENNEKE: But not beyond the gate? MS. HARDIN: Not beyond the gate. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it a public road beyond that gate? I don't care if -- MS. HARDIN: It is a platted road. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it a public road? Doesn't need to be a gate across a public road. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's -- that's a different issue. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There does not need to be a gate across a public road. JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's go back to the agenda item, if we can wrap this one up. The issue before us is the preliminary plat of Stablewood Springs Ranch in Precinct 7L r 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 4. What's the Court's pleasure? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we approve preliminary plat, approval subject to the comments made by Road and Bridge Department, and specifically note that there are significant concerns about the hydrology issues on this property, and those will need to be resolved prior to final plat approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is -- I'll second it, but this is a preliminary plat, correct? JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And there is one more round of this before anything is authorized, and that's considered the final plat, where everything needs to be in and done. Everything needs to be done before it reaches approval at that point; is that correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I'll second the motion. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the preliminary plat of Stablewood Springs Ranch in Precinct 4, subject to the comments by the Road and Bridge Department, particularly of the emphasis upon the hydrology concerns and study for that property. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I could make 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 73 one more comment, probably to Mr. Jackson. If there are significant changes between the preliminary plat and the final plat, I would suggest or recommend that you bring it back prior to final plat approval, 'cause I don't see us approving a final plat if there's significant changes to what we're looking at right now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. I agree. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One member of the public still wishes to speak, Judge. MS. FOX: One little thing. I thought you said this was more of a -- of a concept plan. A preliminary plat -- it doesn't have a seal on it anywhere, and I don't know the law, but I was under the impression that this really didn't qualify, per se, as a preliminary plat. Could you please clarify that for someone who doesn't know the law? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm relying on the Road and Bridge Department for details, and if they're recommending it based -- subject to their letter, I'm going by that basis. MR. JOHNSTON: The preliminary plat, we changed it to make it less formal. I think in the old days you had to actually survey the preliminary plat, and I think l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 now, in our current rules, the preliminary is less formal, so changes could be made at this stage. But the final plat will definitely -- definitely be sealed and surveyed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason for that change was to make sure that we got these to us earlier in the process so we could have input, because we were -- prior to our last Subdivision Rules change, it was just -- subdivisions were kind of moving along and work was being done before we ever knew about them, and we couldn't make a lot of these recommendations and changes. So, we moved the preliminary plat process Torward so we would have more input into the final plat approval. But -- and the -- I guess the difference between the two makes for the final plat approval -- a lot more work has to go into that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion's been made and seconded. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The next item we're going to take up, we need to take up very quickly. We had a hearing posted for 10 o'clock. It's Item Number 17, public hearing to consider the application filed by W. E. Burgess for the revision of a preliminary plat of Lots 18, 19, and 20 of Twin Springs Ranch in Precinct 2. Franklin? Commissioner Williams? ~s 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 regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:29 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Johnston? MR. JOHN S'1'ON: This is a public hearing only. I don't think they're asking for any plat approval. DODGE HENNEKE: This is a public hearing on the application for revision of a preliminary plat of Lots 18, 19, and 20 of Twin Springs Ranch in Precinct 2. Is there any individual who'd like to address the Court regarding the issue of the preliminary plat of Lots 18, 19, and 20 of Twin Springs Ranch in Precinct 2? Is there anyone who -- once again, is there anyone who'd like to address the Court regarding the issue of the preliminary plat of Lots 18, ly, and 2U of Twin Springs Ranch? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, there were two gentlemen from the Twin Springs Ranch in the -- they may be in the annex outside the door. Can we have somebody see if they're out there? 'Cause I saw them both step into the court earlier. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I saw Mr. Voelkel. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The gentleman I recognized -- he just stuck his head around the corner. MR. DONS: If you need me, I represent the developer on Twin Springs Ranch, but I don't have anything 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 to say. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thank you, Mr. Jons. Okay. This is -- this is the public hearing on the issue of the revision of a preliminary plat of Lots 18, 19, and 20 of Twin Springs Ranch in Precinct 2. Is there any member of the court who'd like to address us on the issue of revision of preliminary plat of Lots 18, 19, and 20 of Twin Springs Ranch? Yes, sir, come forward and identify yourself, please. MR. LIDIAK: My name is Tim Lidiak. I'm an owner of Lot Number 2 in that subdivision. I guess our -- we had a meeting -- Mr. Williams was there -- with the principals. And I guess our concern, as several members of the homeowners of the subdivision are here, we were not aware that this was going to be done. We've never been consulted about the plan. There is additional road being added to our subdivision, of which we will be responsible. That adds cost to us. The way the plat was asked to be changed, it increases the total road miles. I just have a little exhibit. Can I give it -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, sure. MR. LIDIAK: -- present it to you guys? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. MR. LIDIAK: That's an assumption on my part, is basically the travel distance from each lot to our front 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 77 gate. Assuminq one vehicle per day, per lot, just to be able to compare apples to apples. Shows the present situation, where the total road mileage for the subdivision will be 31 and a half, basically. With the way the new lots would be added, and then the Lots 18, 19, and 20 would be are now, it increases the total road mileage to 48 miles, which is about a 54 percent increase in our road use. Adding four lots to our subdivision adds four paying members to our subdivision, which, out of -- we have an existing 21 right now, so that's about a 19 percent increase in our moneys that we would receive. Then adding 3,050 feet of road to our subdivision adds roughly 18 percent to our road system, which basically covers what they would add, and doesn't allow anything for this increased mileage on our road. This is just the economic point of view that -- that they're going to create a burden on the existing lot owners as far as maintenance, substantially increasing our maintenance that we'll be responsible for. The other aspect is just that it's kind of -- as we understand, this addition is being sort of open-ended to us. We don't know how many more lots could be added. basically don't have any control over it; we haven't been 1 2 3 4 5 H 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 asked. No one's -- the developers of the subdivision, or the man that's adding these lots has never approached the homeowners, most of which -- or several of which, anyway, live out of state, to talk about what's going on about this, and basically we don't like it, and basically, you can see that there is an added cost to us of which we won't be covered. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to address the Court during this public hearing? Yes, sir, come forward, please. MR. SUESS: My name is Gene Suess, and I currently reside on Lot Number 6 in Twin Springs Ranch. I also attended the meeting that Tim was at with the principals of the new addition to the subdivision, and I concur with his assessment. And I also object to this thing, and particularly the way it's been handled. And I -- as I understand it, the covenants and restrictions for Twin Springs Ranch allow these people to add whatever property that's contiguous to their property, whether they own it or not. I also understand that the covenants and restrictions states quite specifically that any changes to road arrangements, locations or otherwise, have to be approved by the owners. And the road that they're going to put from this new addition attaches to the existing road that's in Twin Springs Ranch. Therefore, I saw that it needs owner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 1/ 18 ly 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~9 approval by the current owners, and there has not been any meeting that that's not a change to the roads, but I'm sorry, since the roads have a right-of-way, although it's private, that road does cross Twin Springs Ranch 1 property to get attached to the existing road. And, furthermore, the developers of Twin Springs Ranch, I find, have not lived up to their responsibilities so Tar as required by the planning that you folks approve, in the sense that I went to the Road and Bridge Department to find out about road markers and signs, and I was told that there's supposed to be a plan submitted with a final approval, and they couldn't find a plan, and basically told me there probably wasn't one. So, I'm a little disappointed in the fact that there is no plan for the roads and the markers, and nothing was done, but finally they did put a road sign at the corner of Spur 100 and Twin Springs Road. So, I'm a little disappointed in the people that subdivide land and have the restrictions and covenants and rules and regulations, and they don't seem to be able to get them all done. And now we're going to go ahead and add to the existing plat, and they don't seem to live up to their old plat. That's my objections. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Court during this 80 1 3 4 S 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 public hearing? MR. CANTER: Commissioners and Judge Henneke, my name is Ron Canter. I'm -- my wife and I are owners of Ranch Lot Number 13 in the Twin Springs development. I object to the approval of the replat on consideration for several reasons. One, there is no agreement between the parties that the replatted lots and new lots from the Creekwood land will be subject to the exact same deed restrictions and covenants as the property owners in Twin Springs Ranch. It is my understanding that Mr. Burgess' legal counsel has stated they will be substantially the same. That, to me, is legalese, and we should not have to parse words. They will either be the same or they will not be. And I think that if they're going to have access to our roads and we're going to be paying for it, they need to be the same restrictions and covenants that we currently have. To my knowledge, there's no agreement for the owners of the new lots to bear their fair proportion of the increased cost to maintain the subdivision roads and the upkeep of the common areas. This has already been covered with Mr. Suess' comments, and also by Tim, but it does appear that the current property owners will be the ones to shoulder a higher proportion of the increased costs, and this is just not fair to the current owners. And Mr. Suess brought up a moment ago the existing covenants have not been 81 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 20 21 2L 23 24 25 followed. They call for a vote of the property owners to approve any road changes. It is my understanding that Mr. Burgess' legal counsel believes this does not apply, because in his opinion, the roads aren't being changed, and I - I, like Mr. Suess, disagree. If you tie 3,000 feet of new road into the existing roads, that is a change to the roads. If the new road is stopped short of our current road by several feet, then there is no change to the existing roads, but obviously this is not going to be the case. So, I think the existing property owners have the right to expect the developers to follow the rules that they wrote into the covenants, and I request the Court require this provision for a vote to be enforced before any decision is rendered by the Court. It is unfortunate that this new project has been handled in the way it has. I believe a lot of acrimony and bard feelings that now exist regarding this matter could have been easily avoided. Instead of beginning this project and tkien presenting it to the property owners as a fait accompli, it would have been much better for the original developer and their representatives to have been up front about this matter. All it would have taken would have been a letter before the new project began explaining what was proposed, what benefits they saw to the existing development, and information of how the maintenance costs a2 .- 1 3 9 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1H 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 could be worked out and a few other items. All it would have taken would have been some honest, up-front communications, and I believe things could have been -- have been resolved without acrimony. But sometimes the ring of the cash register is much louder than the inner call for good judgment and common courtesy. Unfortunately, I think that is what happened in this situation. Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, sir. Anyone else who'd like to address the Court during this public hearing? MR.. LIDIAK: Judge, 7 had a letter from one of the other property owners. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is it from Mr. Lousma? I've got it. MR. LIDIAK: Oh, did you, from Mr. Lousma? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have other copies of it'? DODGE HENNEKE: Tim, do you have other copies? MR. LIDIAK: Just this one. That's fine. DODGE HENNEKE: Yes, sir? MR. BOMAR: I'm James Bomar, and my wife and I both owii Lot 11 and 12 of the development. And we're against it and want to protest it, based on what ali of them said here. 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, sir. Anyone else who'd like to address the Court during the public hearing? One mire time, is there anyone else who'd like to address the Court during the public hearing on the issue of revision of Lots 18, 19, and 20 of Twin Springs Ranch? MR. DONS: Your Honor, let me say a couple words. JUDGE HENNEKE; All right, Mr. Jons. MR. JONS: This -- this matter -- my name is Rit Jons; I'm an attorney in Kerrville, Texas. Seen here for quite a while. I represent the developer, Mr. Gene Burgess. Most of the complaints -- all of the complaints that you hear are similar to the complaints in the previous issue that was before the Court, which relate basically to matters whicYi this Court does not have jurisdiction over. First of all, let me tell you that my client -- Mr. Voelkel is engineer and surveyor involved in this subdivision plat -- will and intends to comply with the Subdivision Regulations of the county of Kerr, and also, of course, particular state law that relates to the subdivision property. Phe -- also, I can assure the Court that it is our intent that, as far as this -- the Court has no jurisdiction over this, but the existing restrictions, as provided for, will be complied with as they're set out in the restrictions with respect to the annexation of 84 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 additional property. And that's all we're talking about. The only other point I wanted to make, I just -- I think the Court -- although, again, this is not something that the Court has any jurisdiction over, the -- Lkie roads that are in Twin Springs Ranch -- that's the er.isting subdivision that's right here right now -- in the covenant of conditions -- covenants of r_onditions and restrictions, a declaration that`s filed with respect to Twin Springs Ranch that relates to and defines roads, the definition of those roads, if you read the restrictions, relar.e to the roads that are set out on the plat for Twin Springs Ranch. I can assure this Court that we're not changinq, modifying, or altering any roads that are described on the plat. What we're doing are new roads, which have to comply, and we will insure that they comply with this Court's regulations with respect to subdivision roads. It you have any questions; otherwise, I -- I don't JODGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to address the Court during this public hearing on the issue of the revision of Lots 18, 19, and 20 of Twin Springs Ranch? If not, we will conclude the public hearing and return to regular Commissioners Court. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:45 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) 85 1 L 3 4 S 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, we're going to take a break, come back at 11 o'clock. When we come back, first we'll hear from our EMS Coordinator, make a quarterly report, and then we'll take up the regular agenda at that time. (Recess taken from 10:45 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) JUDGE HENNEKE: We'11 return the meeting to order. Next item we'll take up will be, as we announced, Item Number 12, the EMS/First Response quarterly report. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. As per the request, the EMS Coordinator, Ky]e Young -- his promise was to come back and give us quarterly reports, and he's kind enough to do tYiat. And, Kyle, please come forward and give us a -- give us a brief report. And, I guess -- as you know, you see the president on TV talking about the new moneys that he is wanting to provide to First Responders throughout tYie nation. I think it's kind of neat. So, even the most powerful man on earth recognizes the need for First Responders. MR. YOONG: Right. Good morning. That's interesting that you brought that up. I've gat a letter in my office from the President. Right after he took office, he cut funding for the Fire Act, and after September 11th, 1 ~- ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 •-- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 he's doubled and even tripled the money, so I think he's realized where -- where things need to be. Our police, fire, and EMS are the first on the scene for these things. Your paid people are going to be there, of course, but in Kerr County, you've got a bunch of volunteers that, I guarantee you, if anything happens, they're going to be there. It's your First Responders. We need more of them. There's a couple of zones in the area that are real short of First Responders. We're actively recruiting First Responders. When I came before you around budget time, we had talked about a need for training. I would like for you to keep that in your mind, maybe putting together an EMT class for some of the people who are not certified at the EMT level. A lot of the volunteer firefighters in the area want to be a Kerr County First Responder, but they're not certified to the EMT level. I think if we could have a class, there's -- I've got numerous calls of people wanting to have this class. So, if there's any way possible that the County could -- could fund a class and sponsor a class, we've got more than enough instructors in the city and in the county that could put the class on, and then actually teach these people how to be First Responders. We have had meetings since I last talked to you, individually and as a group. We've had some training 1 .--. 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 25 87 sessions. Training is one of our big priorities where we're lacking. There's a lot of problems in trying to get, logistically, people together all at one time to do training, but we're trying our best to overcome those is, we have a -- a Kerr Lounty First Responder list server on the Internet, where I can send out one list to all the First Responders. It's a lot better way to communicate, where you send out one e-mail, everybody gets it. They can subscribe to the list and learn more about what's going on and keep everybody up to date, and it's worked really well. They're really responding well to that. At our last meeting, several of the First Responder organizations and seeing what they're doing, seeing how they can better serve you, and that is probably going to come up here within the next month. Several of us are going to go around and look at some of the other First Responder organizations to see what they're doing that we could be doing better. And, that's the initiative that these people have; they're wanting to do this on their own. They're wanting to really try to do this. They're looking into a lot of the grant funding and becoming a nonprofit organization so that they can apply for funds as a group and 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 88 help with some of the equipment needs that we have. The American Heart Association every year has an AED placement program for First Responders, but it's a matching grant, so you have to pay half and then they -- the American Heart Association will pay half to fund AED's, and that's maybe something that we'll approach you with at budget time, too, if we want to do that. Especially in the far end of the county, AED's would be very helpful in cases of full arrest. These things are life-savers, and they're very technologically advanced, you know, where people are saving lives everywhere with them. I'm also in the process of purchasing some of the equipment that you funded. We do have a couple of First Responders that don't have gear at this time, and we're going to try to get them up and going and responding here within the next month or two. So, that's about all I have. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you very much. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any questions for Kyle? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. Appreciate it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See you in three months. 89 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 MR. YOUNG: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item we'll take up is Item Number 6, consider and discuss approval of the final plat for Holcomb Ranch, Precinct 4. Franklin, is this one -- MR. JOHNSTON: I believe this was finally approved and signed off by the City of Ingram, 'cause part of it's in the ETJ. I think it's ready for approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was that last sentence? MR. JOHNSTON: Ready for approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve the final plat for Holcomb Ranch in Precinct 4. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve the final plat for Holcomb Ranch in Precinct 9. 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. Next item is to consider and discuss setting a public hearing to abandon, discontinue, and vacate Moore Lake Road in Precinct 4. If 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 we look in trie back packets, we have affidavits from both of the owners of property that are affected by this road, and they're requesting that we abandon, discontinue, and vacate that county road. Franklin, do you have any concerns about this one? MR. JOHNSTON: I talked to David Jackson just a minute ago about somewhere along the -- when we finally do it, we need to add a legal description of the part that we're abandoning to make sure we don't -- we give away what we intend to. And they're planning on doing that, having it surveyed, and the different parts -- give them back to each owner. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then you're satisfied that we can proceed with that? It's not a "subject to" motion? Or is it a "subject to" motion? MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think that has to be in a public hearing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I didn't mean as a public hearing. I mean subject to the -- you receiving the -- MR. JOHNSTON: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- legal description. MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. David, do you have anything to say? MR. JACKSON: That's absolutely right. We're 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 91 going to get a survey. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The way I understand it -- MR. JACKSON: That particular road comes off of Felix Fisher Road and runs down to the creek. MR. JOHNSTON: Dead-ends in the creek, right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we repaired that four or five, ten years ago or something. MR. JOHNSTON: Got a big gully in it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all we're talking about, is that little stretch right there. And the Eastlands had access to Camp Mystic, and a couple of other people. MR. JACKSON: Right. Just one of the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We really want that out of our system, I can tell you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Make a motion, and I'll second it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we -- oh, no, we're going to set a public hearing here. MR. JACKSON: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What date? JODGE HENNEKE: March 11th at 10:30. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we set a 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 yz public hearing for March 11th at 10:30 to abandon, discontinue, and vacate Moore Lake Road in Precinct 9, Kerr County, Texas. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court set a public hearing regarding the abandonment, discontinuance, and vacation of Moore Lake Road in Kerr County, Texas, Precinct 4, said public hearing to be March 11th, Year 2002, at 10:30 a.m. in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. And I probably should know. Do we need 30 days or two weeks for this one? MR. JACKSON: I think it's 20 days. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twenty days? MR. JACKSON: That's my -- I mean, the statute says you got to post it for 20 days, I think. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 'Cause, I mean, I just want to make sure we're not 30 days, because we're short a month. MR. JACKSON: I think it works. I did that the other day, and I think you got 20 in there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 93 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is Item Number 8, consider the revision of property without platting off of Lehmann and Rim Rock in Precinct 1. Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Mr. Johnston? (Discussion off the record.) MR. JOHNSTON: We were approached to have that road on this little map that you have in your packet, that little dark line there, named -- for 911 to name that road. And it has a lot of lots facing -- facing the road, but that area is not in a subdivision. It's just out there, kind of between the city and between Kerrville South subdivision, kind of a no-man's-land. I guess our question is, can we name that road if it's not properly subdivided? That's what, really, we brought it to the Court for. And, if so, you know, do they need to file a subdivision? It's in the city ETJ also. Does it need to be dealt with by the City? Or -- we're kind of questioning what the procedure might be here in this. Lots are very small. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's my opinion that, being as it's in the ETJ, and these are -- this is not a platted subdivision, and there's -- you can go through here and see some of the values in there, and there's some pretty nice places there. My opinion is that we need to get the l 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 County Engineer to notify the City, as far as -- you know, get their recommendations on the platting procedures, and notify -- as well the County Attorney. I'd want -- I'd want our County Attorney or a legal adviser, whoever that might be this week, to tell us what is -- what really is the procedure on naming the road. I mean, can we name a road that -- I mean, is it a private road? Is it a public road? Does it run into a subdivision? Does it run into a non-subdivision'? 1 just think that there's some legal things that need to be cleared up before -- before we go too far with it, in my opinion. MR. JOHNSTON: One lot's kind of interesting. The white part of this little map is in the city limits, and the darker part is in the county. The lots right at the boundary line, Blevins and Parker, I think one actually sold the other one part of his lot, which is in the city, to a county lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused, which is not uncommon around here. I'm hearing two issues. I mean, one issue is a 911 naming a road issue. MR. JOHNSTON: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other one is what do we do about an unplatted subdivision. Is that my understanding? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we're hoping 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 that this unplatted subdivision -- some of the answers to that will come along with this -- with the road question. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, from a 911 standpoint, I don't see what difference it makes, I mean, a named or unnamed road. I don't understand -- it's like, I don't see -- it's like, if it's a private road, or -- I just don't understand the issue there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, go with me in your mind here. We're not to 911; we're dealing with the County Engineer's office. Should we name that road or not? COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if I want to name -- under 911 guidelines, if Leroy Pressler wants to name his driveway going into his house, with several homes or structures off of it, he can do it, and we don't have any -- I mean, unless we designate it. But I don't see how -- I mean, if someone's living -- I wouldn't know why -- I can't figure out why we wouldn't want every road where people live to be named from an EMS standpoint. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you know, I see what the question is, clearly. You know, they -- they have come and asked, you know, we need to name this road. Some new purchasers have come in and said, we'd like -- we need an address, so we'd like to name this road here. And then Franklin, as the County Engineer, says -- you know, I'm sure he agrees, as well as I do and you do, that they need to 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 name the road, but there may be something wrong here. Let's check and find -- make sure everything is legal and in order before we take any steps. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we on 2.8 or 2.9? (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2.8's talking about a division of property without platting. JUDGE HENNEKE: 2.8. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- MR. JOHNSTON: Y"es. And there's also a road there -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. I'm glad I'm on the same page. MR. JOHNSTON: There's also a road there that's never been named. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if it's an unplatted subdivision, we need to do whatever we can legally to make them plat it. That's an issue, but I -- and if that's what the agenda item is, I really don't -- MR. JOHNSTON: There are actually houses on this road. I don't know what they've been doing all these years. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think the road-naming is not affected by the issue of platted or unplatted. I mean, if it's a road that's not named, then -- and it meets the 97 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 definition of "road" within the 911 guidelines, then we have the ability to -- MR. JOHNSTON: Name it. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to name it. If it's a private road, we can do it without a hearing. If it's a public road, we have to have a hearing. COMMISSIONER BALDWZN: Give it a name. JUDGE HENNEKE: On the issue of platting, you know, there aic lots of areas in the county that aren't platted. I don't think we can go bark and require somebody to plat after the fact, unless they do some further subdivision. Is that correct, Franklin? MR. JUHNSTON: I don't know. This just kind of came to our attention. We -- I don't guess we knew it wasn't platted. We thought it was part of the Kerrville South subdivision, but apparently it's not. I don't know if we can gu back and retroactively make them do anything or not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Depends on when they did it, as well, as to what rules were in effect at the time. You have to look at that. But on the road-naming issue, we can't proceed on that today, because, one, it's not an agenda item, and two, we have to go through the 911 process, filling out the forms and all that stuff, to get a name to it. But, you know, from a subdivision standpoint, look at 98 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 rules when -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, I, as the County Commissioner of Precinct Number 1, would like for you to inquire with the County Attorney about the -- about the subdivision, please. MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. And then y'all can name the road anything you want to; I don't care. Couldn't care less. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Baldwin Drive. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not Baldwin. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Are we done with that one? Okay. Let's go on to Item Number 9, consider and discuss duplicate road names presented to Commissioners Court by 911 vn January 28, Year 2002. Okay, what progress have we made? I guess -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A11 mine's done. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In Precinct 1, there were four roads. There are two that we're still in the process -- I got an answer back from one of them this morning. We're just in that process of renaming it. There was two -- the Canyon Road in Precinct 1, it was decided that it's riot a duplicate; there's not another Canyon Road in that area. And Ranchero was mapped incorrectly, so two we can scratch through, and two are still in work. 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As far as Precinct 2 is concerned, Truby and I spoke this morning, and we're clear. Camp -- Camp needs to be remapped. The camp map and 911 maps don't match, but that's being -- in work, I believe. Right, Truby? MS. HARDIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is in work. Ranchero is incorrect, as you noted a moment ago. And Silver Canyon has been addressed, so okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Regarding 3, there's a little bit ~f an issue regarding the name of -- what's going to happen with Cypress Creek Road, but I think I sent an e-mail back to 911 and Road and Bridge which says -- I think I was pretty clear. I mean, the name "Cypress Creek Loop" stays. The name "Cypress Creek Road" stays. I don't see that it's -- I couldn't see any confusion there. And I -- in addition, 911 had requested we change Cypress Creek Loop to Cypress Bend, I believe, and I talked to EMS or the fire chief in Comfort, and they thought that would be a very big mistake. He thinks those two road names should say Cypress Creek Loop and Cypress Creek Road, Boulevard, whatever the name should be. Lazy Valley will be addressed in the next agenda item. Schladder is not a duplicate. I think that's been addressed with 911 as -- that's one of the roads they tiad that are still there. It was actually a driveway. 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 Silver Canyon is addressed in the next agenda item, and Wilderness is a spelling error on 911's map. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. Let's keep working on them. Let's go, then, to Item Number 10, consider and approve name changes for Kerr County roads, privately maintained, in Precinct 3 and Precinct 1, in accordance with the 911 guidelines. The roads that are under consideration, the existing road name is North River Park, changed to Riven Rock. South River Park and River Park Spur changed to Comfort Valley. South River Park changed to Fisherman Bend. Lazy Valley changed to Faitin Road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Faltin. JUDGE HENNEKE: Faltin Road, thank you. 2934 changed to Baker Lane. Silver Canyon changed to -- Road changed to Silver Canyon Loop. And Silver Canyon Road changed to Pewter Lane. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And all of these in my precinct are private roads, so we do not need any public hearing or anything. Yours okay? I'll make a motion that we approve the road name changes as submitted. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the name changes for Kerr County privately maintained roads in 101 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 Precinct 3 and Precinct 1 as submitted. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 11, consider and discuss authorizing 911 to finalize duplicate road names and submit the names to the U.S. Postal Service. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to pull that until the next meeting, when we -- there may be some in Precinct 4 that I don't -- I mean, we need to get them all done at one time, so put that on the agenda for the next meeting, and hopefully by then we'll resolve the Cypress Creek issue as well. JUDGE HENNEKE: Will do. Next item is Item Number 13, relating to Sheriff's Department. I thought we'd skip over that till the end. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Ahem. JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh. Glenn, you woke the Sheriff up. Item Number 13, consider and discuss authorizing Kerr County Sheriff's Department to participate in the 2002 U.S. Department of Justice Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program. Sheriff Hierholzer. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is the same grant we did last year. Each year we can go out for a bulletproof grant, matching funds. Last year we did approximately 102 i-- 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 one-half of the department, and we got bulletproof vests for half. We're trying to get the other half this year. We're replacing the old ones and getting everybody up to date on a little bit better vest. Total price of the grant that we want to go out for -- our total price of the vests is $14,525. That's 28 vests for everybody else. Last year -- we're doing a little bit more than half this year. Last year we did half of the patrol. This year we're trying to also get the warrant officers and the investigators and other half of patrol, so it does add the numbers up a little bit more. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty, I think you've told us before, but remind us again. What is the useful life of a bulletproof protective vest? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About three years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I didn't ask for any in last year's budget or the year before -- or this year or last year's budget. We were able to get this. What we do, I don't have the funds to match the County portion of that, but if y'a11 will recall, last year we went out and -- and the Court specifically authorized us accepting donations from the public for this purpose, and at which time we got enough public donations then to supplement the other half of the grant. And that's, again, what I would hope to do this 103 1 2 3 4 J H 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 year. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, today you're just asking for us to approve the application? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just to approve the application for us to go out for the grant, to send it off. JUDGE HENNEKE: Just out of curiosity, do you have a policy that vests are to be worn at all times by officers on duty, or is it up to each individual officer? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 1 do have a policy that they are required to wear their vest anytime they're in uniform. JUDGE HENNEKE: And that is a policy that you enforce'? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Good. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wanted to ask a question, Rusty, but I'm still a little bit angry from the last issue here. But if I were not angry, I would ask the question something like this. Do you have the $7,272.50? SHERIFF HlERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. Do you have any of that left in that fund that you collected from a few years ago? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're -- that 104 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 fund is zeroed out, and -- but you feel comfortable that the public will come along and -- and give you $7,272.50? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I feel -- yes, I do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if they don't, that you're going to be back here asking us for it? Is that what the plan is? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't do that last year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm just asking what your plan is. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We were able to find some. What happened last year, and I wouldn't doubt it if it doesn't happen this year, we applied for a certain amount from the Department of Justice for the grant, and they cut that in half, so it ended up -- we only went out for half as much again for the public donations. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Again, I'm too angry to ask that question, so I won't at this time. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Too angry? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my only concern is -- a little bit, is -- this is just more, I guess, a request. I hope that when you go out for requesting the funds from the community, that you're not -- that it's not done in the light the that Commissioners Court wouldn't fund bulletproof vests. 105 r--. 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 SHERIFr' HlERHOLZER.: No, it wasn't last year. We didn't -- we didn't say that last year. I would expect the Court would tund portions of those vests if it were needed, but I think we also have a good support for a one-time expense like this every three years. I think I also need to do my part in trying to acquire funds other than just from the general budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because when we go to budgeting, 1 would cut some of your other expenditures to get this done, you know, and so it's -- this is a high priority to me, and I'm glad you're going to the community to get the funding, but I think we would fund it if we needed to, and -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is a -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- maybe lose it somewhere else. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is probably one of the highest priorities, as far as officer safety goes. We do have current vests for every officer, okay? In fact, I have some officers that would rather wear their own vests that they purchase, because it's a little bit lighter weight, or one of the more expensive ones that they've gotten from somewhere. But I'm trying to get all the vests the same so we up the protection. Last year -- we were at Level 2 vests last year, and the grant will hopefully pay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 for Level 3 vests, which offer a little bit more protection. We do have some private funding already, or grant money, but there are some stipulations on using grant money on top of grant money, which is where you get into that also. But I have no problem in -- in doing it this way. And, don't think that the officers would go without vests. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court authorize the Kerr County Sheriff's Department to participate in 2002 U.S. Department of Justice Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program. Any other questions or comments? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One last thing, Jonathan. If I were to come to y'all and ask you for the money first, and you provided it, then I could not apply for the grant. We have to show a need for it, too. And I think the government can help us provide that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I knew you were looking after us. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~~ L J 107 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 14, consider purchase of a new high-band radio for the Animal Control Department to replace the existing one. Mr. Allen. MR. ALLEN: The old radio has burned up, and Advantage has advised me that they can't get the parts for antique radios. They've quoted me a price of $455, and I do have the money in my Capital Outlay budget, from which I saved $1,500 on buying the new truck. JUDGE HENNEKE: We're proud of you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good man. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court authorize the purchase of a new high-band radio for the Animal Control Department and amend the Capital budget for said department to reflect the purchase of a new high-band radio. Before we vote, I want to ask you, have you talked to Road and Bridge? MR. ALLEN: Have I talked to them? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, because this radio is actually part of their system. MR. ALLEN: No, it's not. This is a totally 1 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 different radio. JUDGE HENNEKE: Totally different, okay. MR. ALLEN: It's a high-band. Theirs is low-band, which we're on their system -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. MR. ALLEN: -- for our car-to-car. But this is a police radio. See, we can talk to the Sheriff's Department and the Police Department. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Because they'd expressed to me a concern about making sure that this didn't have -- MR. ALLEN: No, it doesn't have -- doesn't interfere with them at all. JUDGE HENNEKE: Good. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think, since it's a police radio and he saved so much money on his truck, he could buy two or three of them and give them to us, too. DODGE HENNEKE: Doesn't he have a bad guy to go chase somewhere? (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You mean a million dollars won't go around? JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions about the Animal Control item? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 109 1 3 9 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you, Marc. Item 15, consider and discuss electrical service to Flat Rock Lake Park. This is a bring-back from the last meeting, regarding the chili cook-off out there. Glenn? Oh, Mr. Beuchler, you're here today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This should be a Glenn Holekamp deal, though, I think. He's trying to hide. MR. HOLEKAMP: I wasn't hiding. Per the request to Commissioners Court at the last meeting, you indicated that you wanted some prices on electrical service to Flat Rock Park. You have two different -- should be two different memos or proposals in your packet. The first one is from KPUB, which is service -- if you're familiar with the area there, it runs parallel -- or it runs horizontal to the -- from where the W.W. Fireworks stand is, is where they're going to -- to catch the electrical there on Highway -- on Memorial. And it will go to the property line at the park, which is a -- up on the top up there by the guardrail. At that point, there will be a transformer placed. They -- they indicated that that would be the least expensive route to go. And, from there, we would be required to run our electrical to wherever we chose, which 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 was the second bid, which was the $2,319 Guadalupe Electric gave, which would run apparently parallel to the Riverside to the site of the proposed restrooms. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From the KPUB transformer? MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. That is service to that proposed site of the restrooms, from the service that KPUB proposed. So, there's approximately $5,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then how do we get it down to the park where Mr. Buechler needs it? MR. HOLEKAMP: That could be done with temporary service. It would have to be, anyway, because the floodplain -- 'cause you're down in a -- this is all on the top. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glenn, in the letter here from Guadalupe Electric, it says -- it gives the price, and there will be a $300 discount if you can provide the 270-foot trenching and cover-up. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you planning on doing the 270-foot trenching and covering up? MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, no, I had not -- I had not done any -- any estimates on trenching or anything, no, sir. I just -- just gave you the proposals as submitted. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I understand 111 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 that. Well, I just -- I can't imagine us being in the trenching business, to be honest with you. MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir, we're not. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Just wanted to make sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple of comments and questions. One, when you talked to KPUB, I know there's a -- you asked them, as I understand, the least expensive way to get power over there, but if they were to set another pole and move the transformer right to the restroom, I know it would be another pole, but I think that additional pole would be probably less than Guadalupe Electric's charging for an underground service. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. The problem is, is that they would -- they're talking about two more dead men, is what KPUB indicated that they would have to place, and it still would be the service coming down from the pole, is where your main expense is. It's not necessarily in the underground line. Now, I could -- I could get them to price it both ways. I mean, that's really -- when I talked to Mr. Cowan, the engineer, he indicated to me that that would probably be the best bet. That way the County could -- if they do electrical, he could go either way at some point in time, instead of being -- moving to the east, then you would not be able to go to the west with your service. ,~-~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 112 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is the power coming from right now? MR. HOLEKAMP: From Highway 27, which is -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, across the Ag Barn property? Or -- MR. HOLEKAMP: No, it's right on the edge of the County property, between there and the Highlander -- the old V.F.W. hall. It's right there along the County property line. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Closer to Riverside Drive than 27? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question mark. MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, it's -- it's on the furthest west property line of Kerr County. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Closer to 27 or closer to Riverside Drive? MR. HOLEKAMP: It's -- well, it runs across it. I mean, from 27 to Riverside, the line does. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. HOLEKAMP: They're catching the electricity on 27, there on Memorial. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. HOLEKAMP: And taking it across. The reason for that, instead of taking it from the other side, 113 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is the amount of trees that would have to be removed, and KPUB really said, you really don't want to get in a position of having to take all your pretty trees out. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If it's coming off of our -- in the vicinity of our westernmost property line -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- then where will it come into the park? Or -- MR. HOLEKAMP: There at Riverside, at the very top. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Near the entrance to Flat Rock Lake Park? MR. HOLEKAMP: No. No, it's about halfway down, about in the middle of Flat Rock, is where that will run. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's closer -- it comes in closer to where the boat ramp is. I mean -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, it's about middle of the -- well, the original park. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Between the restroom and -- about midway between the restroom -- proposed restroom location and the boat ramp. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, about halfway. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is the proposed restroom going to be positioned? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know where the rodeo arena is? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Outside rodeo arena, just about across -- isn't it pretty close to that? MR. HOLEKAMP: It's -- yeah, it's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Little bit further to the west. MR. HOLEKAMP: It's across, and then it will be to the west approximately 100 feet. There's a little turn-in right there, looks like a little parking -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Parking area already made right there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. HOLEKAMP: By a big live oak tree. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the south side of Riverside Drive? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice little place to pull off there and throw trash out of your car. 115 1 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ?? 23 24 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, okay, we get it to that point, right? And the restroom will ultimately be there at some point in time. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you going to do, then, to take it down to Mr. Beuchler, wherever he is? Take it overhead, or take it -- MR. HOLEKAMP: That is going to have -- whatever they do is going to have to be temporary, because that's floodplain down there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I'm getting at. It's going to be temporary, going to -- if we need another pole to string a line -- MR. HOLEKAMP: No, no, no. Wait a minute. I don't think -- this is my personal opinion, is I don't think Kerr County really should be placing the poles down there, because the water comes up in there all the time. I mean, all the time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, what -- Mr. Beuchler is wanting to talk now. He's wanting to -- I think he has a plan of some sort. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He has a pole. He knows where to get a pole. (Laughter.) 116 1 r-. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BEUCHLER: It was my understanding that y'all was going to bring the electricity to the -- to the restroom site, and then it was our responsibility to go from there down to where we're going to use it. I have a couple of companies that will do that for me, a temporary site, a temporary wiring. Also, Mr. Fritz with Mini-Mart, he also indicated that he would donate poles and lights, if y'all would like to have a couple of them down there in the park. That would be used -- it's going to be disconnected when it's not in use, but when somebody wants to use it, they're mercury vapor lights. If you want to turn them on, you can turn them on. If you don't, cut the power off. But he suggested he would put the poles up and the lights free of charge if it was -- if the Court approved it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I know Junior has some poles available. They're out there on his lot on the corner of the Loop and 27. He's offered to give me some for Center Point Park, and I know they're there. He wants to get rid of them. MR. BEUCHLER: But this is -- this is not -- I was at a meeting the other night where he was at. I was telling him about this, and he offered that. That's -- if that doesn't go with y'all, we still have these people that's going to take our temporary service from y'all's pole down the hill to where we have our tent and our bandstand, 117 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 so that -- I mean, that's -- but that's just a temporary deal. CUMMISSIUNER LETZ: The other issue is paying for this. There is currently $19,075.89 left from the L.C.R.A. grant, which is not -- I just had Mindy go run that number for me, $19,075.84. If we took $5,000 out for the electrical, I do not believe that will leave enough money for the restrooms. You know, and I'm bringing it up 'cause I don't know -- I don't think you can have a restroom without electricity. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Shouldn't. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, I don't know how we resolve that at some point. I would be interested to see if -- you know, if KPUB could get it there -- add another pole to cut out Guadalupe Electric. It doesn't make any difference to me. To me, it would be no worse from the County's standpoint to have the transformer right at the restroom. There's a couple of guy wires you're going to need there. I really don't know -- well, you know, their engineers decide what they need. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much do you think that restroom's going to cost? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looking at -- it was going to be $10,000 or $15,000, but the other thing is I'm looking at getting a block bid, as opposed to tilt wall, and 118 1 L 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 maybe if we can -- you know, there may be some ways that we can get -- through trustees or something doing some work and stuff like that, lower that cost some on the block work. I don't know if you have a trustee that can do block work or not, but it is an issue. And I'm not sure that -- not saying we shouldn't do it, and I think it would qualify under the L.C.R.A. grant either way. I mean, to spend the money on electricity, you kind of need both of them over there, but it is going to possibly leave a little bit of shortfall on the restroom. And -- and there's no -- and I don't know how much funding we have in the Parks line item. There is a -- we could deplete that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got $2,500 in mine, and I probably will spend somewhere in the vicinity of half of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is your park. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, you gave it to me? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in your precinct. I just, for some reason -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think you're right about can we get the electric service there a little less expensively. If we can, I think we should figure out a way to do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And Commissioner 1 ~~ 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~, I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 119 Baldwin's comments about the ditching, their ditching price is very good. I mean, you know, I don't think you'll find anyone to do that for $300, and -- you know, ditch, lay conduit, and cover it up. So, I mean, that -- you know, I'm not saying the Guadalupe Electric price is all that out of line. I don't think -- their price seems pretty reasonable to me. It's just if we can get the transformer closer, we could cut some of their cost a little bit maybe, 'cause theirs would be underground cable, 270 feet. That's a pretty long run for underground cable, and it's pretty heavy. It's a high copper line, and copper's a lot more expensive than overhead. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have another everybody else, to the point where the restroom facilities are going to be positioned, right, and if we accept Junior Fritz' offer for a pole to be planted somewhere in the vicinity of where Karl's going to have the stage, that's going to be overhead, and who's going to pay that cost to bring that up overhead? How is that going to get from the restroom position to the staging position? MR. BEUCHLER: I'll have to get one of those companies that had offered that other run to commit to that, which I haven't yet, because I didn't know that that's the way we was going to go. That -- this Junior thing come up 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 just the other night, and I had already talked to these two electric companies that was going to do it temporarily. So, we would have to go -- I guess, at this stage of the game, being as I'm working on a time frame here, that -- that I need to go ahead and go with the temporary guys that I've already -- it's already been committed, and let this Junior Fritz thing -- maybe next time, do it his way. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 'cause I'd want to look -- I'd want to know what kind of poles you're talking about. Will the -- will water bring them down? Will they just lay down? MR. BEUCHLER: This is going to be a temporary, you know, and we'd better go to that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're telephone-type poles. JUDGE HENNEKE: What I'm hearing is that we'd like Glenn to talk to KPUB again and see if -- follow Jonathan's suggestion, and get the transformer closer to the restroom site. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other option is, is there any way we can come off of the Ag Barn or rodeo arena -- off our current power, and just run an overhead, so-to-speak, private line off of one of our existing meters? I mean, we're not talking -- from the restroom standpoint, I think that we don't need much power for a restroom, just a 121 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 little. I don't know if we can get enough amperage for what is needed for the chili cook-off, but -- and I just -- I just don't know, really, where we have power over on the other side of the road. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot would depend -- to answer that question, a lot would depend on how much he's going to use down there at the entertainment site. MR. BEUCHLER: We wouldn't need but a 30-amp breaker, or not even 30-amp. Probably 20 amps. Just -- it's just for P.A. system and a microphone and lights, just some lights at the tent. 'That's it. It's not very much. No R.V. hookups, no nothing. Just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: When's your -- when is this? MR. BEUCHLER: March JUth. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, it's March 30th? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jonathan, as far as your restroom stuff goes, as long as they have somebody that can design the buildings themselves, I'm sure we could have some trustees and other inmate help that could actually build that type of cinder-block restrooms, it that's what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll get with you on that, Rusty, 'cause that would be a big help, probably cut the costs quite a bit. 122 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your $19,000 left in your grant money, it seems to me that the priority would be the restrooms, and then bring electricity to it. So, if there -- that's my opinion. I would be hesitant about spending it on electricity and then trying to figure out how to build the restrooms. I'd go ahead and build the restrooms and then try to figure out how to get the electricity, is the way I would do it. I think it would be kind of neat to -- or interesting to find out if you can come off of the rodeo arena, come off the Ag Barn with some electricity across there. MR. BEUCHLER: Too far. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It just is a temporary, one-week deal. MR. BEUCHLER: That's too far down the road. That's a quarter of a mile. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're talking about the outdoor arena, aren't you? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The outdoor arena is positioned pretty well straight in line with the proposed restroom site, I believe. MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, this will be -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not talking 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 about the big arena, Karl. We're talking about the outdoor arena. MR. HOLEKAMP: Whatever we do -- excuse me, I didn't mean to overrun. One of the things is -- that we'll have to do is, one of the heighth requirements that we have to go over the top of River Road -- Riverside, I should say, there's going to be some poles that are going to have to be set. Some trees are going to have to be cut to make it through that. MR. BEUCHLER: Lots of trees through there. MR. HOLEKAMP: That was the concerns that KPUB had when I asked them about running from the old arena. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we need to look at this as a permanent thing, not a temporary fix for Mr. Beuchler's situation, although that's driving us to get it done. Because, you know -- MR. BEUCHLER: The power coming to the restrooms of y'all's will be permanent. JUDGE HENNEKE: The public restrooms down in the park are going to have to have lights. You cannot have public restrooms in the dark; too many things that you don't want to contemplate. So, this is -- this really relates to the restrooms, so I think we want to do it permanently and do it once. The other thing is, we need to be conscious of Karl's timetable so we can try to accommodate him the best 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we can. I don't know how long it will take him to do whatever we're talking about doing. MR. HOLEKAMP: If we do not have to involve KPUB in this -- in this change, it can be done probably a lot faster. But, there again, there's some serious tree trimming that's going to have to be done, and poles that have to be set and that sort of thing, so -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the poles -- I mean, if we did some sort of a temporary fix, which -- and I know it's certainly not the long-term solution, but we're going to have to set -- I think Guadalupe has a 16-Moot pole in here. That's our meter pole. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. That's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: With -- you know, so we need a pole there, so it wouldn't be wasted. We might need to get a little bit taller one to start with. I don't know how much more power there is. I know we have power for lights there, so -- but the electric cost may be more to try to patch it -- patch into that than to, you know, do what we're doing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the total again, Jon, that you've got? COMMISSIONER LETZ: $19,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $19,000. This project, as outlined, is just a tad under $5,000? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'm not saying we would run out of money. I'm just saying it's going to be real close. And I -- you know, and I kind of look at it as the chicken and the egg. You can't have restrooms without lights, either. I mean, you could do it physically, but from a security and a liability standpoint, we don't want to do it at a11. And I also -- I was thinking, just to sort of -- before I forget something else, if Junior Fritz wants to donate some mercury vapor lights, those would be great on the meter pole right newt to the restrooms. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Light up that whole area. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And his offer does include mercury vapor lights? MR. BEUCHLER: That's what he told me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what he told you. Along with the pole. MR. BEUCHLER: But, you know, that wasn't -- that wasn't up there by the restrooms, but that don't mean I can't talk to him to see if I can't get him to do that. This was down there where we was going to have our tent. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you ought to talk to them about putting some mercury vapor lights on that pole near the restrooms. MR. BEUCHLER: Why couldn't we even furnish 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the pole? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The meter? MR. BEUCHLER: The meter. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would save a fair amount of money off Guadalupe's. But if we put a light pole there, and then we do talk to him in the future about another pole in the park -- I think, as Commissioner Baldwin said, we need to find out where these poles are going before we just arbitrarily put poles up, but that one would be a -- you know, if Junior's willing to donate a pole up near the restroom with a light on it, if we use that for a meter pole also, we could save on that expense. JUDGE HENNEKE: Where do you want to go? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now what? Still got to make a decision. What's the question? COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference would be, if the timing would allow for this, is to talk to KPUB and see if they put the transformer closer, how much more that's going to cost. 'Cause that offset of the underground line -- I mean, it may be cheaper for us to bring the power to the restroom, which I think is really better to have the transformer right at the restroom, because if we have to do anything on the road out there, you know, we -- it's just right there. Plus, that's a -- ditching on that slope, and it's a narrow -- I mean, where the cable's going to have to 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 127 go underground down on that slope, kind of the guardrail, which you just have to get -- it's just lots of issues there. So, I'd rather get the power to the restroom. So I'd like to see that come back, and then also, we can visit with Mr. Fritz and see if he's willing to donate a meter pole. We can put a light on it at the restroom, and bring it back on our next agenda and decide at that point -- and hopefully by then, we can get a better idea of cost of the restrooms for the materials. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're saying to this man here, though, you will have electricity to the restrooms, and then you provide it from that point on. Is that -- we are going to get you electricity to the restrooms area? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think we need to do that anyway, so might as well do it now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. And I think, however, in coming back, because time is of the essence here, once we determine what Karl's needs are, I think we need to have a commitment from KPUB and Guadalupe Electric that, immediately upon Court approval, they'll start work, boom. Give them a start date. MR. HOLEKAMP: KPUB won't do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 128 MR. HOLEKAMP: Because theirs is scheduled. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you could work the schedule between now and then so that they can give you a commitment to start as soon as they get the final approval. MR. BEUCHLER: I might be able to help with that a little bit. I know somebody there that might help us get that done. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do too. I think we're talking about the same fellow, probably. I'm just saying try it, Glenn. MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or set a budget amount you can spend on getting it there; go ahead and approve it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Set a budget amount that Glenn can go ahead and -- that Glenn can get to go ahead and put it there. That may work better with KPUB. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could go -- you know, it's kind of hard when you don't know the amount for -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could be a "not to exceed" amount based on number of -- combined numbers of today. Hopefully, we can bring it in less. MR. HOLEKAMP: I'd use it less. Give me less. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 COMM1SS1ONER LETZ: Give him $9,000 -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Give me four-two, four-three; 1 can get it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I hear a motion? MR. HOLEKAMP: That way I can go ahead. 'Cause I guarantee, KPUB -- that was one of the things they indicated to me very, very plainly, is don't -- don't come in here and say, "I need it tomorrow." They were very, very plain about that, 'cause of the way the construction crews work. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. MR. HOLEKAMP: So -- but, I mean, I'll do whatever y'all -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to authorize expenditure of up to $4,000 to get electricity to the proposed location for restroom facilities -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- at Flat Rock Park. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the expenditure not to exceed $4,000 to provide electrical service to Flat Rock Lake Park. Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Karl. MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank y'all. JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item, consider and discuss approving the publication of the new official 2001 precinct map in newspapers on February 27, Year 2002, et cetera, et cetera. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Won't take but a minute of your time. That's it. It's big, and I've spoken with both newspapers about the publication of the map. Both have agreed to do so. However -- and here's where the little problem comes in -- it is so big that if you reduce it down to fit, as we originally thought, this way on one side of the page, you might as well not do it, because you're making it so small people can't understand. Both newspaper publishers have agreed to give us what would be the equivalent of four pages of newsprint, and we will split the map, take it down to 90 percent. We'll split the map, and half of it from here on will be on one side, with the appropriate legends and legend box here. The other half will be on the other side, with appropriate legend boxes in this area right here. Okay. 'Cause it's got to come down to here. And if both do it, that's zero cost to Commissioners Court and Kerr County, and it will be published on the 27th day of February, in plenty of time for people to orient themselves for the voting on March 12. We 131 ,~^ 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 don't need to do it prior to early voting, 'cause early voting county-wide is at Zion Lutheran Church and will be advertised as such. So, with that explanation, I would ask the Court to approve the publication of the new 2001 precinct map in the local newspapers on February 27th, as prepared by KCAD. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court authorize publication of the new 2001 Kerr County precinct map in the local newspapers on February 27, Year 2002. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, you had the newspaper laying out here. Was -- did you have two pages -- I mean, they're kind of goofy about all this column talk and that all that, but did you have two pages laid out here? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I had -- no, actually four. In the vernacular of newspapers, it's called a double-truck. You're going to get two pages here and two pages here. You're going to get four pages. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that that I'm looking at right there? Is it two pages? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two pages. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, twice this, then. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 132 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to actually use four pages, a map on both sides. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is fantastic. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In both newspapers on the same day. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is fantastic, great. JODGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one other comment. This legend box will go away, and we'll rework the legends with the -- with the directional reference that I asked you to provide, and half will be here and the other part will be right here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When do you need our directional reference? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just got Commissioner Letz', so I need them A.S.A.P. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to give you mine before -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I need them both. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I'll give you mine right now. 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: One remaining bit of business. Names and addresses of the members of the salary commission, if you could turn those in to me. My nominee is going to be Lindsay Duff. Commissioner Griffin gave me his; it's going to be Charles F. Browning from out in Hunt. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got mine right here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mine is Mr. Bill Tennant of Connally Drive. That will be Northwest Hills. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mine is Mr. Granger MacDonald, Fall Creek Road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mine has not accepted, so I'll give it to you later. JUDGE HENNEKE: What I'd like to do is send out a letter this week offering to expedite the first meeting with Tommy, and just turn it over to them. Okay. Anything else? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's it. JUDGE HENNEKE: We're adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:03 p.m.) 134 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 1c 2C 27 2~ 2: 2 2 STATE OF TEXAS l CO(JNTY 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 15th day of February, 2002. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter ORDER h10. ~741~i CLRIMS RND RCCOUNI-S On this the 11th day of Febr•~.xa'ry 'r'00c, came to be considered by the Court varinus Commissioners' precincts, which said Claims and Recounts are: 1~--General for X114,885.77; 14-Fire p'r•otection for• 'b B,JUJ.JJ; 15-Road R 8r•idge for 4'~9,E00.51; iB-Coy-inty t_aw Library for• X81.50; 19-F'~-iblic Library for 831,431.33; 'a3-,Juvenile State Aid F~.tnd for 81,715.00; E4-Traffic Safety F~-md for 8130.00; E7--J~-iv Intensive F'ro-S'ta'te Aid F~-ind fior 8481.50; 133-State Funded-c7.E,TF-I Dist Attorney for• 88, 16::.'3'x; 8f-,--State ~-, F~-ended-c16TH Dist F'rob for 83,38c.50; 87-Stated F~_inded-Comm~_inity Corrections for $~r,54~.66; TOTAL CASH IiEG!UIRED FOR ALL FUNDS IS: 8c:0~,747.02 Upon motion made by Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Coy-ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0, to pay said accounts. ORDER NO.c7416 PUDGET RMENDMENT RANTES AND RNINAL CONTROL On this the 11th day of Fe6r~aar•yc'@@c, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of .3-@-@, to transfer ~1~@.@@ from Line Item No.i@-64'L-~7@ Capital O~_itlay to Line item No.i@-E4~-48@ Insurance. ORDER NO.c'7417 BUDGET RMENDMENT CDMMISSIONER' S COURT NON DEF'RRTMEN"fRL On this the 11th day of Febr~.tar•y ~VJOE, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0, to transfer- 3351.7ih fr-om Line Item No. 10-4N9-571 Contingency to Line Item No. 1D-4@1--486 Nondepartmental F'r•ofessional Services. OI;DER N0.'E7418 BUDGET AMENDMENT COMMISSIONERS' COURT NON DEF'AR"fMEN'fAL On this the 11th day of Febr~.iar^y ~@@~, ~_~pon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Co~ar•t unanimously approved 6y a vote of 3-@-@, to tr^ansfer^ ~5,@@@.@@ fr^om Line Item No.i@-4@9-571 Contingency +,o Line Item No.i@-4@1-488 Nondepar-tmental professional Services. ORDER N0.c7419 LRTE PILL U. S. F'USTRL SERVICE On this the 11th dray of f=ebr•~..rar•y c0kc, ~_tpon motion made by Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Co~_~r•t unanimously appr-oved by a vote of 3-~-~D, to pay the following late bill to U. S. Postal Service in the amo~_int of ~SQ~U.00 from Line Item No. 1~-~F99-309 Ann~_tal P~_~siness Reply Mail permit. The County R~aditor• and The County Tr•eas~_ir•er ar•e hereby a~_tthorized to write a hand check in the amo~_~nt of SSO~.U~ made payable to U. S. postal Service. ORDER N0. c74',='~ LRTE BILL U. S.F'OS'fRL SERVICE On this the 11th day of Febr•~_iar•y cVJ02, upon motion made by Commissioner L.etz, seconded by Commissioner- Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-Q to pay the following late bill to U. S. Postal Service in the amo~_~nt of ~155.~0 from Line Item No. 10-459-309 1st Class F'resor•t Fee Permit for cO~S. The Co~_mty Ruditor• and the L'o~_mty Treasurer are hereby authorised to write a hand check in the amount of bicS.Q~O made payable to U. S. Rostal Service. ORDER N0. ~7=r~1 AP'P'ROVE TO ACCEPT MINUTES RND WAIVE READING On this the 11th day of Febr•~_rar•y '002, upon motion made by Commissioner- Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Co~_rr•t unanimously approved by a vote of ~-0-0, waived reading and approved the following minutes; Ker'r• Co~_rnty Commissioner's Co~_rr-t Regular Session, Monday, Jan~_iary 14, 2002-9:00 a. m. ; I'.err- County Commissioners' Court Special Session, Monday, January 28, '000c-9:00 a. m. ; Kerr Cn~.rnty Commissioners' Go~_n'•t and Kerrville City Council Joint Meeting, Thursday, January 31, cc^002-6:30 p. m. OI~DER NU. ~7~r'c'? RE'P'ROVE RND RCCEGT NUNTHLY REF'URTS Un this the 11th day of Febr•~_~ar•y 'S~0'~, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner- Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Co~_ir•t unanimously appr^oved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, to accept the fallowing r•epor•ts and direct that they be filed with the Co~_mty Clerk for f~_iture a~_idit: Dawn Wr^ i ght - J. F'. #_ January c01~12 Robert Tench - J. F'. #~ Jan~_iary cN2~c Williams Ragsdale - J. F'. #4 .- Jan~.rary c~Q~c W. R, Hierholzer--Sheriff Civil Report-Jan~_iar^y 5~~ Jannett Pieper, County Clerk General-January ~~Q~c Tr~_ist-January SUO ORDER N0. ~74c,? APPROVE USE OF t-ICYEC FOR N,ERR COUNTY FAIR ^ RND WAIVE FEE On this the 11th day of February cO~E, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by C:ommissioner• Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of .'~-0-0, waiving fees for the use of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center by the Kerr Co~_mty Fair. ORDER N0.?74c4 RRp'ROVE F=IVE YEAR LERSE FDR 4l"H WEEF;END IN OCTOBER FOR KERR COUNTY FRIR On this the 11th day of Febr-~_~ar-y c00c, upon motion made by Commissioner- Williams, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the Coi_ir-t unanimously approved by a vote of ~-~-0, to author-ize a 5-year lease with the Ker•r• Co~.inty Fair• Rssociation for• the four-th weeF