.,~-,.
n
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
KERR COUNTY CC>MMISSIONERS COURT
Workshop
Monday, June 16, 2003
10:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
O.S.S.F. Committee Status Report
Subdivision Rules Update
~i
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.,.-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 ?_
23
24
25
2
On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., a workshop 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 TINLEY: Okay. Let me call to order
the workshop of the Kerr Comity Commissioners Court posted
for this date at 10 a.m. It's a couple minutes after 10:00,
so we'll go ahead and commence. If there is no objection,
I'm going to take these out of order and do the O.S.S.F.
portion first, since it appears that the vast majority of
those that have elected to join us today are interested in
that issue, as opposed to the other one. Is there any
objection from anybody on the Court?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nit here, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY,. Okay, we will take up the
workshop portion to review and discuss status report of the
Court-appointed O.S.S.F. Committee. That committee was
comprised of Commissioners Metz and Nicholson, and I'll now
surrender to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'll go ahead and
lead off. And the Judge had mentioned half of the
committee. U.G.R.A. Board appointed two of their board
members onto the committee ~~lso; they are Ronnie Pace and
Jerry Ahrens.' Arid then Stuart Barron and John Washburn from

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
3
U.G.R.A. kind of advised when we asked for specific
information. The -- kind of the charge of the committee
from this Court was -- and I think from U.G.R.A. Board was
to try to come up with a set of rules that hopefully both
entities can agree to, and -- and at least a framework to
work within, and then also :Figure out how to administer
those rules, whether they were done by the County or by a
contracted agency with the ~~ounty. And the whole time
remembering that in Kerr County right now, two entities are
the authorized agent. U.G.I~.A. has or is the authorized
agent for an area 1,500 feet on either side of the Guadalupe
River and its tributaries. There is some debate as to how
far that goes. There's several different maps, and we
really chose not to go into that on the committee. I mean,
it's -- you know, it's -- you get into a debate that I don't
think would ever, hardly -- if we try to define where these
tributaries start and stop and things of that nature.
But, you know, clearly both entities have
responsibilities in Kerr County, and I don't think we really
-- Commissioner Nicholson and I can ask the Court, but our
feeling was that this Court is not going to give up our
authority. And I don't -- riot sure if the two board members
from U.G.R.A. gave -- or asked their board, but their
feeling was that U.G.R.A. d:idn't want to give up their
authority. So -- and I think the reason is both agencies
E-i6-u3 wk
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4
want input into O.S.S.F., a:nd which leads into water quality
in the county. So, that's kind of, you know, the parameters
we worked in. And we've, I guess, met three or four times;
long, usually an hour to two-hour meetings, and very
productive. And we got to a point where the committee felt
that, before we went any further, we need to get back to
both of our bodies, 'cause we didn't have any authority to
really do anything, and kind of set up some status report as
to where we were to make sure we weren't way off base, and
that there was going to be support from the full Court, or
at least a majority of the Court and majority of the
U.G.R.A. Board. That's kind of where we got the -- where we
,,-. 13 ~ a r e .
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And I think the easiest way -- I prepared
a -- and I apologize for not getting some of this
information out on this one and on subdivisions, but with
our administrative assistant's computer being on the blink
part of last week, and me being out of town the latter part
of the week and the weekend, we weren't able to communicate
by e-mail, so I was lost. But, anyway, we do have -- I do
have a handout for the Court, and we'd be glad to hand these
out. I don't know if I hav~a enough for everyone in the
room, but just kind of a status report as to where we are.
Stuart, you haven't seen it?
MR. BARRON: No, sir.
6-in-0~ wk
5
1
2
3
4
5
H
7
8
9
1C
11
12
r.., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thea, you might hand
these out and kind of spread them around. I'll go through
that and kind of discuss ea~~h one as we go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are these
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a --'it's more an
update of where we are. I would say it is a recommendation,
real close to a recommendation. I mean, the -- we were not
in full agreement on mainly just one point. And there's
several items that we're real close to full agreement, but
there's this -- you know, a little bit of difference, and
there's also some things that are very new for Kerr County
and that have -- will definitely have budgetary impact, and
for that reason, you know, we just wanted to get it to the
table while the budget process was working for both
agencies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, you
mentioned the budget. Whenever you're ready, I have
prepared a spreadsheet on tYlree categories of cost analysis
that you had asked for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we went into the
cost -- good point; I'm glad you brought that up,
Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Williams is going tc>
look at the dollar side of ~~t, what it would cost or what it
should cost to kind of run an O.S.S.F. program, looking into
6-16-C3 ~~,~~_
6
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
both U.G.R.A. and others arsund the state. We looked at
that very briefly just to g.=t an idea as to where we were,
and it's in this handout. But let me -- you know, before --
I'm going to go jump through here, but let me start at the
top, go through it, and kind of get an idea as to what we
came up with, basic points that we agreed on. And I will
say where there is full agre=ement or non-full agreement as
we go through this.
Real estate t=ransfers. Some members of
U.G.R.A. weren't real happy,, but I think everyone has agreed
to eliminate Section 10. The new rules will not have any
required inspections at rea_L estate transfers. We would
create or recommend creation of a volunteer program where we
would recommend, basically through title companies, public
awareness, and realtors, to encourage people to get their
systems, at a real estate transfer, inspected. It's a good
time to do it; you can catch systems. But the -- it wasn't
-- the current system we have clearly, in my mind, isn't
working, and there's just not a good way to do it. In fact,
there's no way to do it witriout doing a totally invasive and
very costly method, and it was just -- it was felt that it's
better to try to do it on a voluntary basis, encourage
people to do it, but not require it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a side question
here. When you delete Section 10 -- if we delete Section
6-'6-03 wk
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10, does that require a public hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, yes. My answer
would be yes, it would. An~~ another thing, I see several
installers in the audience ,ss well. We had one meeting when
we invited every installer :hat I think we were aware of to
come and participate and give us some feedback, and there
was no -- I would say that out of that group, there was no
clear direction as to where they felt we should go with
these rules, or any direction, for that matter.
Number two, public -- program administration.
I think we're -- the committee is leaning on leaving the
system -- or for the County to contract the system kind of
through U.G.R.A. But it's keen a misnomer throughout that
our relationship is really tiaith a U.G.R.A. employee. At the
current time, it's Stuart Barron, who's the Designated -- or
Designated Representative. So, we really focused a lot on
trying to clear up who reports to who a little bit, and I'll
just go through these. Clo:~er communication between the
D.R. and Commissioners Court:, probably more monthly or
quarterly updates as to kind of what's going on. All
communication from the D.R. would go on County letterhead,
not U.G.R.A. letterhead. A]_1 handouts and things of that
nature would be primarily Cc>unty. I mean, some of these may
mention U.G.R.A., but it's going to be the County. We're
flipping -- it's currently li.G.R.A.'s letterhead; they're
6-'_6-03 wk
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the main contact or agency, as noted, and we're going to
switch that to the County b~=ing the main agency.
Appeal process. We go -- and this is not --
we were not unanimous on this point. I wrote on here,
"Appeal process direct from Designated Representative to the
Commissioners Court, with c~~py to U.G.R.A. Manager of the
appeal." There is some discussion to having that -- the
General Manager at U.G.R.A. first and then the Commissioners
Court, so that's something that we really need to think
about it a little bit, whether we want those to come
straight to us or, you know,. have one appeal process
internally at U.G.R.A. My ~>reference is to have it come
straight to us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. A public awareness
campaign which stresses change in the process. And a lot of
this is -- you know, it's kind of a hard way to -- to put it
on paper, but a lot of the complaints I think I've heard and
Commissioner Nicholson's he~~rd, and probably others, go a
lot into the way things were done at U.G.R.A. We really
don't want to waste a whole lot of time during the workshop
process and public hearing process going over things that
happened in the past. We need to move forward. We're
trying to create a -- a system that works better for the
public, that is fair to the public, and that the public has
6-16-03 wk.
9
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
more confidence in. So, that's just in here, that we're
going to -- we really don't want to go back to what the D.R.
prior to Stuart did, what Stuart's done in the past. Let's
concentrate on how to set i~ up so we can improve it for the
future.
More emphasis on enforcement. That's a
double-edged sword; we have some budget consequences in
there. Try to figure out a way to coordinate with the Kerr
Appraisal District, and this ties in with the enforcement.
One of the problems in the ~>ast has been trying to figure
out what people are doing to their systems, and by -- under
current rules or current law, and I just may give an example
there. If someone goes in and adds two bedrooms to their
home, that system has to be brought up to current standards.
Whether it's a 100-year-old system or not, whether it's
working or not, that system has got to be brought up --
Stuart, if I misstate some of these, please correct me. You
certainly know the rules better than I do. So, it's
something that -- the problem is that we don't know when
people are doing things, whether they're -- you know, any
size of acreage. And there's -- it seems to me that if we
can figure out a way to work. with the Appraisal District,
they're going to pick up these larger homes from the taxable
value standpoint. If we can figure how to tie that in,
figure out how to do that, there's a way for us to -- you
c-lb-G3 w}:
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, to basically insure campliance with the current rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when -- when
there's an addition on a borne, and the Appraisal District
picks it up one time a year, once a year when they go out
and valuate their property, that is the only time that we're
going to be notified of it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, and that's -- we're
not even sure -- I mean, it's not a great system, because
they're not always -- they don't always pick them up. But
it's better than nothing, I think. I mean, it's a way --
it's a start. We need to start figuring out how to enforce
the rules we have. There are -- there's a lot of teeth in
our current -- just the current rules we have, but we just
don't have a way to enforce them, really, because we don't
know what people are doing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems to me that
that -- that is a way to replace Section 10, possibly, or a
large part of it.
COMMISSIONER ~ETZ: It is. That is -- it was
clearly thought that that is a -- I mean, and a lot of it is
public education. People -- we need to, as a Court or an
entity, explain to the public what the rule -- what the law
is, is that if they add on to their house, they have to
update their septic. You can't just go out and add on two
bedrooms and not do anything. That's just -- that's just
h-tF-c~ Wk
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
11
current rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do y'all see that --
that this one time a year that the Appraisal District goes
out -- is that enough? I mean, I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just the only way
that we can figure out where there's some mechanism in place
that we could piggyback as t:o wYien things are being done for
real estate. That was kind of why we used the Appraisal
District. If there's -- we certainly would be, I think,
welcome to -- between that Gnd the public awareness, to
figure out other ways. But, I mean, we have to have -- I
mean, we can't afford to have people just driving around the
county looking for people doing construction. I mean, that
doesn't work. I don't think we can afford that. Certainly,
if you see it, you may be able to, you know, find out whose
property it is and send them a letter and just notify them.
And also, on the whole enfor~~ement side is to not be, you
know, heavy-handed. That is the idea, to be proactive. My
idea would be to send a letter out saying, you know, we
picked it up through the Appraisal District; we saw it on
the side of the road, you were doing something, you know.
Have you -- are you aware of the septic rules? We'd kind of
inform the public on it.
(H) under Program Administration is track all
permits between Kerr County and U.G.R.A. areas. Currently,
6-16-03 wk
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
12
U.G.R.A. and the Appraisal District, working together, have
the ability to determine by R numbers, at least on a tract
basis, whose area is it is, if it's the U.G.R.A.'s area of
authority or the County's area of authority. We want to
start tracking that, and the reason is for budget reasons
down the road. Do we start dividing things up actually, and
not just throwing out $30,000, saying, here, you know, this
is for the program administration. And then that goes --
ties in with the next item, (I), program costs are shared
proportionately between Ker;° County and U.G.R.A., and that's
based on where the -- the permits and the construction and
the work is being done. If 90 percent of the work is being
done in the County's area, then the County should be the one
responsible for 90 percent cf the cost. If it's 90 percent
done in U.G.R.A.'s area, U.C~.R.A. should be responsible for
90 percent of the cost. Ana. that's why (I) would tie back
with (H) above, is to try to start keeping track as to where
the new permits are being done, inspections and things of
that nature.
Let's go on through, and then we can see if
-- what questions people may have. Number 3 is Financial
Assistance Fund. This is a -- it's create financial
assistance fund to assist hardship cases in repairing
nuisance O.S.S.F. systems and consider county grants,
low-interest loans, or other means. The problem -- the
h-1h-03 wk
1
~-. 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
reason this came up is that we all know, and there are
well-documented situations in Kerr County of nuisance
systems, systems that are -- they're -- by any definition,
they're failing. They're open cesspools. There's raw
sewage on the surface. The -- and those are currently
pending down right now, I think, in the County Attorney's
system somewhere. The problem is, on most -- the reason
most of these systems aren't fixed is the people can't
afford to fix them. Putting the person in jail doesn't fix
the problem; it makes it worse, 'cause then they lose
revenue. So, the idea was that if we can come up with some
way to either give a partial. grant to get it done, some sort
of low-interest, guaranteed loan, something of that nature,
that is -- the goal is to clean up the systems.
Now, I'm not a big proponent of free handouts
from government, but this is clearly a government good or
county good to clean up these systems that are clearly
failing. These aren't systems that aren't up to
standards -- I mean, the, quote, state standards. These are
truly failing systems. There are just, probably, based on
the -- I guess maybe 10 to 1'~ in the county, somewhere in
that area. It's not a huge number. But, you know, I think
the estimated cost is from $3,000 to $5,000 for a system to
be totally repaired. I mean,, these systems really don't
exist, so you have to build a new system, so you're talking,
6-16-d3 wY-_
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you know, $5,000 or so, and that means a budget consequence.
And we don't -- we don't really have a way to pay for it.
We just think it's something that needs to be done, because
these people can't afford to do it. And that's -- and a lot
of this came from Stuart's communication with them, is that
it's not that they don't want to do it; they just don't have
the money. They don't have $5,000 to lay out for a new
system, and they can't -- c<~n't borrow the money because of
their credit situation. So, it's a problem that we
identified, and I think U.G.R.A. and Dave and I agree that
we need to figure out how to address it, but we don't have a
good answer.
Number 5. This is one that was not
unanimous. There's -- you know, I'd say U.G.R.A. would --
their two representatives probably thought -- ranking it,
thought it was the -- they liked this a lot, getting rid of
the 10-acre exemption. I'm somewhat on the fence. You
know, I see a lot of benefits to getting rid of it, and
Commissioner Nicholson stands a little bit further; he
doesn't probably think it's a good idea, but he thinks it
has merits. I've had many discussions with him on it, but
let me go over it a little bit, eliminating the 10-acre
exemption. And part of the reason that I am not opposed to
it, and I'm not necessarily in favor of it, is that I'm not
sure people understand it. rand I think this clearly came
6-16 G3 w}:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
from the -- when we had some of the installers there, their
opinion that it's not clearly understood all the time. And
I'm not sure -- Stuart, I might ask you to help a little bit
on this one. Do you have the handout? Do you have one?
MR. BARRON: The one that you gave out? Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will you make sure that I
cover the points on that? One of them, the requirements to
meet the 10-acre exemption, you can only have one O.S.S.F.
on the entire property, and it has to be a residence. Is
that correct?
MR. BARRON: You want me to just go through
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you just go
through all four?
MR. BARRON: Shall T address the Court? I'm
Stuart -- for the record, Stuart Barron with U.G.R.A.
The -- to meet the 10-acre exemption, you must meet four
criteria. You must have one habitable structure on the
property, and only one. It's got to be 10 acres or larger.
The septic system has to be more than 100 feet from any
property line. It cannot cause a nuisance condition, and it
must be built to minimum state standards.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I had a 100-acre
ranch and I have a residence and a -- a hunter's
25 ~ cabin/guesthouse out there, I cannot have a separate system
6-1r-U3 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r-.
25
16
for my guesthouse?
MR. BARRON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONEF; LETZ: You could have it, but
you're not exempt.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I
understand. Talking strictly exemption.
MR. BARRON: The only time this applies is --
would be building on lots -- or tracts greater than 10
acres.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can my main house be
exempt, but my guesthouse has to be registered?
MR. BARRON: Yes. If -- if the guesthouse
isn't built -- if the main ]souse is in place and then you
come back and build a house -- guest house, then the
guesthouse does not meet thE~ exemption.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stuart, the items that I
had, I said in the comments, since everyone in the public
has this under Item 4, any and all repairs to current system
requires system to be brought up to state standards. It's
only major repairs, that should read; is that correct? If
you -- if you go in and repair your system, then you've got
to bring it up to the current rules, whether you're -- I
mean, whether it's 10 acres or not.
MR. BARRON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then, on 5, any
6-16-03 wk
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
17
additions or remodeling of residence requires system to be
brought up to state standards.
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Stuart, when we had
the T.C.E.Q. septic expert up here from Austin, we
specifically asked him that question. Do -- if a system is
inspected, must it be brought up to current state standards?
And his answer was no.
MR. BARRON: If it is inspected, must it be
brought up to current state standards? I guess it depends
on why it's being inspected. What would the purpose in that
scenario be for inspecting it?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, currently, real
estate transfer would be one reason.
MR. BARRON: Yeah. If -- if it has not been
altered due to the -- increasing the size of the system or
the house, then no, it woul<~n't have to be brought up to
state standards. Just 'cau;~e it's inspected through the
real estate transfer, the way the real estate transfer is
written, no, it does not have to be.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For example, when
they're inspected now, if th.e -- if the septic tanks do not
have risers on them to extend up to within one foot of the
surface, the way we are administering it, you and I, is that
we're required to put these risers on there. And the state
5-16-03 wk
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
18
standards, at the time those systems were built, did not
require those risers, so we're misapplying that rule. And
I'm -- I might add, the ri~;er doesn't have any impact on the
effectiveness of the systen..
MR. BARRON: No, it does not have any impact
on the effectiveness of the system. However, when somebody
buys the house, we feel that they're not going to know
historically where the septic system was, and that's more of
our reason for putting a riser on there now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But under this, though,
if have you a repair -- say you're -- I don't know what --
you know, say a backhoe goes through and trencher cuts right
through your drain field. [~7hen that repair is -- when you
have that repaired, it has to be done to state standards at
that time?
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir. Any time it's
altered, amended, repaired, it has to be brought up to
today's standards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's the thing that
I think that a lot of people and myself didn't understand,
is that -- I mean, the 10-acre exemption, all that does is
mean you do not go through the permitting process. I mean,
if you're -- either way, whether we have it or don't have
it, you're grandfathered, whatever you have out there. It
never has to be inspected. It's there forever, as long as
6-16-v3 w,~
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
it works. But if you add on to your house or have -- make a
repair to it, at that point it's got to be brought up to
state standards, and that's the case whether or not we have
this clause. I mean, if you build a new system, it has to
be within state standards, being our adopted standards.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I have an older
system -- grandfathered older system, and I sell my place,
and through the transfer policy here, we find out that I
don't have those risers on -there that are new, and so you
require me then to go and put risers on it. So, I've
upgraded my system; therefore, the whole thing has to come
under compliance?
MR. BARRON: No, sir. Under these rules --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no transfer.
MR. BARRON: There's no transfer rule. It's
optional. You can do it if you want to. In your --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As of today, we're
still under the transfer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. BARRON: Xes. So, is this today's
scenario or in the future?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, under today's
transfer. If -- if I sell my place and it's -- and it's an
older system, but in my mind working well, and I don't have
those risers on there, and you -- and you go out and inspect
6-1n-~3 wk
20
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
them to see if there's risers and you say I've got to put
these risers on there, ther_ the whole system automatically
has to be upgraded to today's standards?
MR. BARRON: No, it hasn't been altered.
What Commissioner Nicholson said, it's not a substantial
change in the system, and it doesn't affect the way the
system works.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that's not a major
repair?
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Might be a good time
for me to say why I don't support the elimination of the
10-acre exemption. It's basically two things. One, I don't
think there's any credible evidence that systems, even older
systems, that are on 10 acres or more out there are --
there's any substantial risk that they're contaminating our
environment or harming their neighbors. And the second one
is simply an issue of cost to people in Kerr County;
unnecessary cost, in my belief, and more government. If --
unless there's a convincing case that the environment's
being harmed, then I'm not --- I'm not supportive of
additional costs to the people that live on 10 acres or
more. And I'm not supportivE= of trre -- of additional
government bureaucracy invol~red in it. So, that's my case.
COMMISSIONER I~ETZ: And that's -- and the
6-i6-03 wk
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
21
difference is, it's the government -- the County or the D.R.
or whoever's administering the program gets involved if you
eliminate it. What's done doesn't change. It's -- one's
kind of a -- the government is inspecting to make sure it's
done; the other one is people are at their word that it
should be done. If someone goes out on a -- you know, on a
tract and buys a virgin 100--acre tract, builds a house, they
don't have to get it inspect=ed by the County, but they still
have to build it to the same exact standards that the County
would require.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, it's a
permitting issue, not a -- what should be on the ground.
You know, and I believe most. people are honest; that's why I
don't have a real strong feeling one way or the other. I
think people are good and do what's, you know, right, unless
they're -- as long as they're told, you know. Those that
are out there that work witrl it -- I see two people shaking
their heads no, that people aren't honest. Anyway, I tend
to think people are better until they prove otherwise.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if we could
go through this first, and t=hen we can open it up for
comments. Otherwise, we're going to get sidetracked, I'm
afraid. Is that all right?
G-1~-u3 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
JUDGE TINLEY:: Yeah, I'd prefer to go ahead
and go all the way through what you've got, and then we'll
go to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the other
thing -- I didn't put this =Ln. It really should be a point,
though, and it is a consideration; it goes right into the
budget. When we eliminate the real estate transfer, we
eliminate about 30 percent of the revenue from fees. By
eliminating -- if we were to get rid of the 10-acre
exemption, there would be additional fees in there that
would help balance out those two. And that is a budget
consideration that we're -- both agencies are going to have
to deal with, because where we're going to -- anyway, we can
get that on the next one. Item 6 is Program Budget.
Current-year O.S.S.F./Floodplain budget is about $207,000.
$15,000 of that is attributed to floodplain, and the balance
to O.S.S.F. Current estimate, $117,000 in revenue from
fees. And, Stuart, is that right, about 30 percent comes
from real estate transfers? My notes were unclear. Or do
you -- it's a substantial ---
MR. BARRON: I think it's just slightly less
than 30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Slightly less than 30?
MR. BARRON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you assume either
6-16-03 wk
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
23
way, the current deficit is about $75,000 that we're faced
with this year to be borne, and that does not include the
$30,000 that the County is getting --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does not include
$30,000?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. So, I mean, if you
split it fifty-fifty, it would be 37,5 to each, and the
County's giving 30, so it would be $7,500 additional. But
it depends on how we split the fees. And this is just a
real rough summary, and on our current administration. On
personnel, 25 percent of one administrator is billed to or
is -- is attributed. That':> basically -- this part is what
goes into the $207,000 from the U.G.R.A. standpoint, is
25 percent of an administrator, and that person is Scott
Loveland; he's kind of a manager. 25 percent of his salary
is attributed to this. We nave a Designated Representative,
Stuart, his salary entirely, one field person, and two
clerical. And one position in the clerical side is
primarily monitoring the aerobic systems in the county.
There are about 1,000 systems; they need to be inspected
three times a year, so that's a lot of what the second
person is doing. Things that are not included, there is no
provision -- or no account on U.G.R.A.'s side for
accounting, part-time help, and reception. Those items are
just borne 100 percent by U.:~.R.A. And, on the service
'c-16-03 wk
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
24
side, phones, copiers, rents, utilities, insurance, and any
time from the General Manager are not in there as well. So,
there are -- and those are just listed because those are --
if the County -- those are :items that are costs that are
just being borne by U.G.R.A. because it's probably easier to
do it that way than try to break it all out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, let me ask a
question. In the personnel end of it, the administrator,
you say 25 percent of that person is -- is committed to this
program?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about those other
folks, like Stuart?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hundred percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's 100 percent. And
the field person is 100 percent?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And two clericals.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the two clerical
people are 100 percent O.S.S.F.?
(Commissione~° Letz nodded.)
MR. BARRON: And floodplain.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And floodplain. So
that's kind of, you know, w~Zere we are. And I think what we
really need is, by the time we leave today, at least some
direction to Dave and I as too when we next meet with the
6- 1 6- 0 3 w k
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
25
U.G.R.A. portion of the committee, as to what the feeling of
the Court is. U.G.R.A.'s t~ao members are going to present
the same basic information i~o their board this Wednesday, so
we'll -- both agencies are --- managing agencies receive this
information about at the same time. Bill, why don't you --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In addition to the
work that Commissioner Letz and Commissioner Nicholson have
done on this project to-date, the Court asked me to put
together some analysis of costs, so what I did on this
spreadsheet is to take a look at what the total cost was for
the last time the County budgeted entirely for
Environmental Health Department, which was in the 1995-96
approved budget. I obtained the figures, which total the
same as Commissioner Letz has been talking about, from
U.G.R.A. regarding its direct expenses for U.G.R.A.'s
Environmental Health and Sai_ety, and in its 2002-'03 budget,
I took a look at what a projected cost might be if Kerr
County were to return this x~rogram to its own direct
administration and fund it in a projected '03-'04 budget.
Without going into a lot of major details, the column on the
left shows that the last time we did it entirely ourselves,
our costs were $109,902, or $110,000.
U.G.R.A. curz-ently, with all the various
personnel that are attributed to this program and so forth,
has -- it has expended or has budgeted this year $207,300,
6-~6-03 wk
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
for the program, of which $30,000 comes from Kerr County.
So, I took a look at the '03-'04 should we return the
program directly to Kerr County for its administration, and
I did not charge an oversight for -- for administration,
which is Scott Loveland out there. Only -- only to include
in our personnel count a department manager, which would be
Stuart Barron, somebody who would head the O.S.S.F., one
field personnel, and I had one clerical and one part-time
clerical, and the rest of a_Ll of the items in there are
pretty standard and straightforward. Tracking what was in
our case before and what U.G.R.A. currently has, I took a
look at the fringes, and took our current estimate of what
would be about 25 percent o.E direct labor costs to come up
with the fringe benefits, added all the other things in
which are typical for the administration of a program, and
then added on to that what our capital expenditures would be
if we had to return the program to our direct
administration, and ramp up for -- for that, and that brings
the total to $199,752. If we were to lease the vehicles, we
would be eliminating our capital outlay by $30,000 to
$40,000, depending on what kind of vehicles we were to
acquire.
So, that's k:Lnd of it, Commissioner. Tracks
what you said. In terms of O.S.S.F. costs, we would be
jumping from $110,000 to almost $200,000 if we were to
6-16-G3 wk.
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
27
return it from what it was before. Now, the $199,752 can
nip down to $169,752 new funding costs, because we currently
have $30,000 in our budget for O.S.S.F., so the new funding
required of the County, if we were to return it, could be as
much as $170, 000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you take any stab at
fees generated?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I did not,
because I thought you guys were doing that. I did not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the fee side -- and we
do know that this year's go_~ng to be about $117,000, pretty
close to that. One of the ~~roblems is that we've changed
the rules quite a few times in the last 10 years, so it's
real hard to see exactly -- you know, trying to compare or
get a -- a historical data ~~hat's real accurate for fees.
Because if we -- we change --- the real estate transfer was
done two years -- I think t~ao or three years before that,
you know, so things have changed as to fee structure. It's
pretty much of a moving target, and we're not sure exactly,
you know, when we get rid of- the fees -- or assuming we get
rid of the real estate transfer provision, what we'll do.
We know about a little under 30 percent that's currently
from that, so presume that you lose that, but you make it up
somewhere. We really don't have a good idea what the
enforcement -- if we would coo additional enforcement, what
6-16-p3 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,.- 2 4
25
28
that's going to cost. Any }rind of a grant to kind of help
these people that have failing systems, we really don't have
an idea of probably what it would cost, a one-time -- we
might have $50,000 to get the systems brought up, but
there's going to be ongoing there. How do you fund that?
So, there's lots of issues on the budget that we're not real
clear on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you talking
about -- this grant program, you're talking about taking
$50,000, put it in a line item in the County budget, County
taxpayers' money. I mean, is that kind of what we're
saying?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would probably -- yeah.
I mean, yes, the answer in ~~ nutshell. You know, it's
either -- that would be a gl-ant. The other way would be --
and I don't -- we clearly have to go through the County
Attorney on legally what we can do in this area. I mean, I
don't know if we can do a grant. This other thing is -- you
know, my preference would be to probably do some sort of a
low-interest loan where we c:an put a lien on the property
and require them to pay it back. I'd like that a lot more
than giving money away. But I think something -- somewhere
as we're going through this, we need to address that issue.
One other thing; we did some other work -- or
Stuart actually did some work with other counties. I think
6-16-~3 wk
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
29
there's a sheet handed out as to what their -- you know, and
this is kind of interesting. There's a spreadsheet that
shows just the surrounding counties, what their budgets are,
and also a question on the 10-acre rule. None of the
surrounding counties, being Kendall, Kimble, Gillespie, and
Bandera -- we didn't talk to Real, but -- but of those
counties, none of them have a 10-acre exemption. But it's
interesting; some of them, I probably should say, don't
enforce the 10-acre exemption because their rules are so
out-of-date that they're kind of -- it was unclear, I guess,
to Stuart and probably to their people in those counties as
to what rules they're actually using. Didn't seem to match
what they had on file, didn't seem to match what T.C.E.Q.
had, didn't seem to match what they were doing in the field,
and we didn't really want to go into that and try to point
fingers at those counties. But, in practice, none of the
counties surrounding us are enforcing a 10-acre exemption.
And everyone can look at what the budgets for those counties
are. I mean, it's everywhere from -- I mean, Kendall County
is the highest, and I guess Kimball's the lowest. But you
have to look at population and ratios and things.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me talk about
the survey for a minute, 'cause I think it -- it helps point
us in the right direction. :~ close analysis of it says to
me that the only real apples-to-apples comparison with Kerr
6-16-G3 wx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
is Gillespie County. Kendall is not a good comparison
because there's a whole lot of things other than floodplain
and O.S.S.F. in that. So -- subdivision development well
permits, for example. Kimball's not a good comparison, just
because it's too small. Barldera, the same thing; it's
apples and oranges. County river authority groundwater
district being described there, instead of just O.S.S.F. and
floodplain. So, Kerr and Gillespie are a good comparison,
and you can see a lot of similarities there. Kerr is twice
as big as Gillespie County, and administering these two
programs, we have twice as many employees, which is close to
appropriate, if you would issue approximately twice as many
permits. Twice the populat:ion, twice as many permits. And
the ratio of permits per-employee is about the same as it
necessarily would be. The ~~nly difference is that Kerr's
program costs about twice as much as Gillespie's.
JUDGE TINLEY: I read four.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Four times as much,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's CSD? I can't
remember. Under Gillespie, 154,000 plus CSD.
MR. BARRON: It's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or CSD wages?
MR. BARRON: He goes out and he does -- I
can't remember what the initials stand for, but he goes out
6- l o' - 0 3 w k_
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and helps all the -- let me address all of those. You can
see there's one full-time person in Gillespie County, Dwayne
Boos, and he wears a number of other hats. He does
O.S.S.F., he does floodplain, and does a couple other
things. The two part-time people are not in his budget.
The CSD men -- community service person is who that is -- is
not in his budget, but he is cross-trained to be a
designated representative, ~~nd Dwayne does utilize him for
inspections. The other person -- the other part-time
individual is a clerical person that does Gillespie County
911, and she enters data for Dwayne on computer. Neither
one of those two individuals have any impact on his budget,
but he does utilize them al7_.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So, my
conclusion from these two comparisons is that Kerr County
should be able to administer the -- the O.S.S.F. and
floodplain for a cost signi=icantly less than $207,000. A
possible way to get there will be to take O.S.S.F. and
floodplain and combine it with the Environmental Health
Department -- into the Environmental Health Department, if
we include our current Solid Waste program, and staff the
department with three employees; a manager, inspector, and a
clerk. And, by my calculations, and they're close to what
the more detailed calculations that -- that Commissioner
Williams has given us, whicr. we could probably save
6-16-G3 w}:
32
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
somewhere between $30,000 and $60,000 a year from what the
current costs are. That would not include the -- there
might not be any savings the first year, because it doesn't
include the -- envision the capital expenditures, if there
would be capital expenditures, probably in the order of what
Commissioner Williams has indicated. So, the option we have
is to -- is to make the administration of O.S.S.F. and
floodplain more efficient; I think, at the same time, more
effective, at least in terms of -- of being more
user-friendly. We could do that by combining with Solid
Waste, bring it back into the county, and probably reduce
the costs on the order of $30,000 to $60,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our Solid Waste
program now employs only one person, and he's part-time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. And costs
about $25,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At max.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that -- you would
pick it up in the clerical, but not attributed to that is
the secretary's time who goes and sends the bill to
Maintenance, 100 percent, I believe. So, I mean, there's a
-- there's another amount out there. That's like -- kind of
like we do like Gillespie County. It's not in the budget.
The County's paying it for, but putting it in a different
budget, so it's kind of -- ~~ut if you're going to look at
s-ie-o3 ~~~:
33
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
true costs, you have to figure out exactly what all the
components are.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And in those
estimates, I -- I figured about a 20 percent reduction in
user fees, attributed to the abolishment of Section 10. So,
I've only got 115,000 -- I',Je only got $95,000 in calculated
as revenue for fees, comparE=d tc the current $115,000.
That's an option. Putting options on the table. We're not
here today to vote and make decisions, but I think it's
particularly useful, considering we're in our budget
process, that we look at everywhere we can to find ways to
reduce our costs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- you know,
our charge, in our minds, i~~ to come back with a lot of
answers, and not necessarily -- I didn't see it as a clear
direction as to what to do. And the other thing that -- you
know, on the budget side, my view is -- is and always has
been, you know, I have no problem with the County taking a
line; we just need to have a. system that works. That's my
priority. Whether it's done through the County or U.G.R.A.
doesn't make that much difference, or U.G.R.A. employees.
My -- and I've told Commissioner Nicholson this. And this
is -- you know, I wish there -- maybe there is another
option to contract out to another entity, a private entity.
Have the County do it, and then contract it out. Because my
6-i6-^v3 wk
34
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
experience as a Commissioner has been the makeup of a court
makes us a very bad boss. We -- you know, as an example,
anyone that reports to the Commissioners Court has five
bosses, and none of us have any authority unless we're in
this room.
So, they call the Judge and ask the Judge a
question; he says one thing. He calls Commissioner Williams
and asks the same question, gets a different answer. All of
a sudden, that person has two -- told two different things.
And if I was that person, I'd say time out and call an
emergency Commissioners Couri~ meeting, you know. Because --
because none of us have authority, Judge included, to give
direction to an employee by ourselves. We can, you know,
give input, but when it comes down to a definite thing, I
think it makes it very, very cumbersome for this Court to
have employees. That's why ]: kind of, throughout the budget
or through the budget process; -- and I think the Judge I and
I have talked about this several times in court. If we can
contract it out, that's probably a good option, because then
we can have -- whether it's Li. G.R.A. or another entity
doesn't make any difference from that standpoint, but if you
contract it out, then we have a contract. We're telling
them, "This is what you do," and it's a clear direction to
that person. And they either do it or they don't do it.
MS. COWDEN: May I ask a question?
6-lh-r~ W~.
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm concerned about
the stability of the program. That's the biggest hurdle I
think we would have to overc~~me.
COMMISSIONER G~IILLIAMS: Are we open for
comments, Judge? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER I~ETZ: I'm finished.
COMMISSIONER LJILLIAMS: I want to thank both
of you to start with for your efforts that you put into
this, research on a very sticky topic that's been plaguing
us for some time. I do, in fact, appreciate it. It's been
an emotional issue for a lot of folks for a long time.
Probably always will be. Ano. I thank you for your efforts.
I think you've done a great job in getting us this far down
the road. If I had to characterize my thoughts about where
we are today from where we were six weeks or so ago, or
eight weeks ago, I would say that we have made great
progress, but I am concerned about one element. And I'm not
so certain if I'm disappointed or intrigued by what I'm
hearing, and that has to do with the elimination of Section
10. I know Commissioner Letz and Commissioner Nicholson
both have strong feelings about that, and I respect their
feelings for that, but I'm curious about one thing that
Commissioner Letz said in terns of enforcement and -- and
tying into Section 10. And you stated a while ago you don't
know what people are doing, and I'm curious as to how we
6- l r- G~ w k
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
will ever find out what people are doing or have done with
this -- in this regard if we don't have the ability to -- to
ask questions or look into ttie situation if a piece of
property changes ownership.
I'm not so certain -- in fact, I'm very
certain that the current Section 10 leaves much room for
improvement. I -- I acknowlE=dge that, hands down. I'm not
the guy who should write that:, because when I flush my
commode, I've finished thinking about what happens. Because
I know what happens. But I know it's important, and I know
that if we have to try to fir..d failing septic systems in
this county, with a view toward clearing up the problems
failing septic systems create in terms of our environment, I
personally don't know a better way to do it than to try to
identify those and correct them at the time of real estate
transfer. I commend you for what you have done. I
seriously do. I'm hopeful that the final analysis will --
will result in some sort of accommodation that may be a
little bit better than voluntary, but not as strict as where
we were before. And I recognize the problems that the rules
being in place now have. I've talked to Stuart. He has a
whole memo, two pages long, I think, of the problems he has
encountered over the last thr~°e or four years, trying to
administer Section 10 the way it is currently written. So,
it has to be rewritten, has to be defined so that it's
ti-16-03 w}.
37
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
clearly understandable, and .if it comes back to the Court
that we are going to eliminate it or make it voluntary, I'll
reserve until that time when I hear your final report what
my position on that may be.
Only other comment I'd like to make at this
point is, I agree with Commis;sinner Letz, and I hope that
Commissioner Nicholson ultim~~tely does too, that the county,
as we are currently constructed, we are not a good boss.
Commissioners Court is not -- is not the place for strong,
firm directions to the enforc:ement people to come from. It
just won't happen. Too many times in the past --
Commissioner Baldwin knows this from his personal
experience; he's probably the only one on the Court that
does, is that when we were the direct enforcement agency
running the program directly, the poor guy out there doing
the work didn't know who his boss was half the time. And
what he was told by one was countermanded by another, to the
point that he finally resigned and the program was in
disarray, and that's why we ended up contracting with
another agency to do it. So, my personal hope is that, to
avoid revisiting those problems, that we continue to
contract the program out to an agency who has the
responsibility to do the Court's bidding and make it happen,
and then, if there are disputes, they come back here
ultimately.
h- l b- C 3 '~,'k
38
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
In the past five years, I think we've had two
disputes that have come back to Commissioners Court for
resolution, and I don't think. got resolved. I think one of
them -- same guy twice -- ended up in District Court. So, I
think it's appropriate for it to come back here f_or
resolution, and I firmly agree with that. So, again, I want
to thank you for the work you've done. I hope we can find a
resolve. I hope you keep up the work good work at your next
meeting. I'm glad to see that the emotions of the issue
have subsided somewhat to where we can be objective about
it. That's all I have to say today, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, I do not at this
time. I may later on. T have some thoughts and made some
notes, but I kind of want to hear what's going to ultimately
hit the table here before I make any comments. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think only -- I'll make
one, I guess, comment to Comm--ssioner Williams' comments
regarding Section 10. The problem that I have with Section
10 is that there's no way to enforce it. The only way you
have a real estate transfer rLlle is if you're required at
that point to bring the system to state standards, period.
And I'm not willing to do that;, because that means, to me,
that you go out and find systems that are working perfectly
fine and make them to be brought up to state standards for
6-1h-03 wk
39
1
...~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
no reason. There's -- you know, from talking with Stuart
and from what we've heard from T.N.R. -- T.C.E.Q., there's
no way to do a -- a noninvasive inspection of a system. You
either -- basically, you either -- by the time you go in
there, dig up enough of it, you might as well go ahead and
bring it up to standards at that point.
So, to me, you either -- you know, and I
guess I was naive last time around when I reluctantly voted
for Section 10. I thought that we could do a passive
inspection and see if things were working, but you can't do
it. I mean, I've -- now I'm convinced that you either bring
them to state standards or you don't inspect them. Now, I
think you can encourage the public to do it, but to bring it
up to standards -- and, you know, and I think that's the --
the only one who does have a -- I think Kimble County has
a -- a real estate transfer, and theirs is they bring it up
to state standards. I mean, there's no ifs, ands, or buts.
It's inspected and it's brought up, period, you know. So
that's kind of -- that's why --- I guess the main reason that
I can't go with the Section 1C, because I'm not willing to
require everyone to do it, 'cause I think it's a waste of
money and invasion, and I don't see any other way but that
way to do it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a system
that I commissioned in -- in December of '97, I think it
6-1F_-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
was. If I sold my house today, the buyer would ask for an
inspection, and we'd go out there, walk around, inspect and
see that there's no water coming to the surface, and pay
$250, $300, whatever, and you're okay. That doesn't tell
that buyer whether or not my system's working. To find out
whether it's working, you have to come in there with a
backhoe and destroy about half my landscaping, tear up my
yard, and maybe damage the system while you're inspecting
it. So, it's not doing the job for us.
JUDGE TINLEY: I want to thank you two
gentlemen for your willingness to take on this task. It's
certainly been a hot-button issue, and I appreciate your
work on it. And you've -- you've ferreted out all of the
various considerations that I think are important to the
public and the Court, both for regulatory issues and for
budgetary issues. The -- the problem that I've had with --
with Section 10 is that I can't find any correlation between
the real estate transfer inspections and the resolution of
failing systems. Now, there's obviously a correlation
between real estate transfers and the identification of
systems which, otherwise appearing to be working properly,
may not, from a construction standpoint, be up to then
current state standards. But when it comes to the issue
of -- of polluting the environment or the river, the streams
and neighbors, I can't find any correlation between those
r-1 r,-G3 ca}:
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
two. And that concerns me.
With regard to the issue of enforcement that
Commissioner Williams mentioned, I have every confidence in
the citizens of this county, t=hat in the event there is a
neighbor of a citizen who has a system that is bubbling up
or not functioning properly, that's a potential health or
pollution hazard, I think olfactory senses, and maybe just
looking out there on the ground and seeing that pretty green
moss-looking substance growing, will -- will tell that
individual that my neighbor's got a problem and I don't want
it to become my problem. And I think that's our first line
of defense to failing systems, is the citizens of this
county who, I am convinced, are all concerned about our
environment and our water quality, because that is our way
of life here, and they want to protect it. And I believe
their motives are pure and correct, and I think that's where
our enforcement will legitimately come from, is from the
citizens themselves, policing themselves and their
neighbors. And that's what we're trying for them, and I
think that's how we need to approach the enforcement aspect.
But, again, I want to congratulate you guys for your -- your
hard work on this issue. And it appears that you've
maintained your sanity through it, and I commend you for
that. I'm not sure I could have done likewise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a brief comment on

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
42
the enforcement issue. I mean, I think that -- and I can
point to Camp Meeting Creek as an example. There were not
that many systems in Camp Meeting up above Ranchero -- off
Ranchero Road where the pollution was bubbling to the
surface. There probably were some, but Camp Meeting Creek
clearly was a polluted stream, more so than I think we want
in this county. So, I don't think you can always rely that
it's on the surface. I mean, I think we have areas in the
county, throughout the county, where, under the old
Subdivision Rules, dense deve-opment was, you know,
possible, and there's problems in those areas because the
soils cannot just -- you know, have not been able to --
based on what I've seen, Camp Meeting Creek and also some
other areas, you know, cannot clean up the waste quick
enough.
And the other concern I have is wells. We
rely and are going to continue to rely on groundwater, and
when we get into a system or a situation like we had off
Ranchero Road, where we have a -- there was clearly
pollution going around underground, and if we did have wells
in there or, you know, new -- or I mean current wells or old
wells, there is a real chance of contamination to the
aquifer, and all of a sudden t=hat becomes a much bigger
problem. So, I think that the -- you know, I think we need
to figure out a way to have better enforcement, and I think
E,-Lc~-o3 w~~:
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
43
that the enforcement can be anything from water sampling,
water quality samples on tributaries -- on the river itself
and tributaries. I think we also need to -- you know, when
we -- clearly, this isn't -- when people are doing -- adding
on to their house, regardless of the size of acreage,
whether they're exempt or not exempt or what we do with
that, to advise them that they need to have their septic
system cleaned up. I mean, I think that it's our obligation
to the county, to the citizens, to get the systems working,
you know, to the best that we know they can or should. And,
you know, we're going to have to rely on the state rules
right now.
I mean, that's kind of -- you know, we are
told that if a system is built to state standards under
these -- you know -- you know, this size house, if you build
this system, it's not going to pollute. And I think we have
to trust that that is true, 'cause we don't have anything
else that we can rely on legil~imately. So I think that, you
know, the -- the key in my mind on the enforcement side is
to figure out how to educate the public and encourage them
to make -- to follow the rule. And I think by -- through
real estate transfer is a good time for people to do
updates. I think it is a -- I think it's logical; there's
money changing hands. It's a good time to do it. I think
it's a valid point, but that doesn't mean we go up and tear
6-i6-03 wk
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
44
up a good system just to make them update it. I think it's
a good time. So, I think public awareness. And I think,
you know, there's a trade-off from our budget standpoint.
We're going to have to spend more money out of our budget on
the enforcement side if we're not going to have a Section 10
or we leave the 10-acre exemption in there. I mean, the
fact that -- you know, we loo}s at these numbers. We --
neither Commissioner Nicholson's or Commissioner Williams'
budget analysis did anything with enforcement that I could
see, and I think that's somet]zing that we have to look at.
Because, you know, if we're going to have state laws, to me,
we should -- we should follow them. And that means that if
you build a new house on 100 acres, that system should be
built to state standards. We need to educate that that's
the law.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good point.
You know, you never -- history shows here that you never
really get -- you can't get specific on everything about the
program. Number one, I don't think it's "failed" or "failed
system" or -- the word "failure" has never been identified.
You know, what does that word mean? We talk about the grass
is always greener over the septic tank. That could be gray
water. And, see, you don't know. There could be a hole in
the bottom of the septic tank and running directly into the
aquifer, you know, through the caves in this area. You
6-1c-03 wk
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
45
know, you just never -- you don't know. You never can get
totally specific. But whatever we do, it has to be
enforced. I think enforcement is the major part of it. And
I'm like most people at this table and in this room, I'm
sure, is that we have to trust people to do the right thing
on their own property for their own health, their own
family. So, you know, I still think I want to hear from the
public what they -- what they think. I think there's a
couple of them have some thoughts out there. But the only
thing -- the only bad thing about bringing the program back
to the County is -- is the politics of it, and then -- and
it gets ugly. Does it not, Dr. Morgan?
MR. MORGAN: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It can get ugly. But
if that's what the majority of people want to do or try, I'm
certainly here to do it. But we have to build in -- build
in some kind of safeguard that -- you know, a document that
says, "Here's the procedures; live by these." Don't come to
this Commissioner and ask me to go around one of them. And
that -- that is going to happen. And that's where the thing
falls apart and things get ugly, because if I say, "No, you
live by the rules like everybody else," then -- then there's
-- there's this little war begins. Or if I say, "No, here's
a way to get around the rules," then Commissioner Williams
doesn't like that, because his precinct has to live by it.
o-1e-03 wk
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So, if -- if this Court is in charge of it, there has to
be -- and I'm not -- I'm not trying to do away with my
duties. It's just -- it's a crazy thing to do. It
politicizes the system, and that should not be. And we just
have to build something there,, a set of rules. You have to
either privatize it or put it somewhere that there is, for
lack of a better word, a buffer between the system and this
Court. And that's -- that's the negative part of it. I
don't mind -- you know, if you want to bring it over here,
if we can build a buffer there, I don't mind it being here
at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: well, Commissioner, I think if
this Court is in charge of the administration of that, and
if this Court sets policies that these are the steps you
take, and you don't go around, then it is incumbent upon the
members of this Court to abide by that policy. And -- and
then it's squarely on our shoulders in that case, as it
should be. But if -- if that's the decision that's made,
certainly, it then becomes incumbent upon us to play by the
same rules we're mandating to the public.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have one
question. I have one more question before I ask to be
excused for another engagement at noon. If the Court were
to consider bringing the administration of the program back
directly, does that mean that Kerr County will be facing --
6-"~6-03 wk.
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
47
the residents of Kerr County will be facing one set of rules
or two sets of rules? Because, as you noted early in your
comments, U.G.R.A. has authority given to it by the State
for regulation of septic within 1,500 feet, I think, of
tributaries and the river. So, does that mean one set of
rules or two sets of rules? :If it means two sets of rules,
I -- I don't believe I can bring myself to support two sets
of rules.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your point's
good. I was going to bring up that point, that the County
go full-circle. I think we're probably about ready to let
the audience, you know, comment. But your point is
well-taken, that I think it is a disservice to the county
and residents if we end up with two sets of rules out of
this. And that's why I have been willing to spend as much
time on this committee as I have, and to spend -- you know,
and countless hours with memb~=rs of U.G.R.A. Board and
Commissioner Nicholson to try to come up with something that
both sides can live with. And that's kind of what, I guess,
the purpose of this is. This is kind of where we are. Now,
I don't know if the 10-acre exemption's a -- a deal breaker
from their standpoint or not, you know. I just don't know
that. You end up -- but you get into a -- we're currently
in a -- I think we need to continue to try to negotiate with
U.G.R.A. on this, because I think it would be the wrong
6-i6-~ 3 ,~~k_
48
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
thing for the County to have 'two sets of rules and two
agencies enforcing different rules. I think it would be
nothing but confusion. I thi:~k that's -- so I think we need
to try to avoid that. And that's why I think also the Court
needs to, you know, give a little bit of direction back to
Commissioner Nicholson and I, and then let us go back to the
committee and try to come up with a definite proposal to
take back then to both entities. Because I really think it
is a disservice if we -- if we can't do that. And I think
it's a -- we're not doing our jobs as elected officials,
from our standpoint, or appointed board members, from their
standpoint, if we cannot come to one set of rules that is
best for Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER NiCHOLSON: I'll let the
U.G.R.A. Board speak for itself, but on this issue of
whether or not we should have two programs, it's been
reported to me by one of the board members that she would
not support having two programs in Kerr County. She said,
"If you take it back, then we're not going to administer one
within 1,500 feet." Now, the two board members that we're
dealing with now indicate that maybe they will have their
own program, that they will administer it. I don't really
-- I don't know the answer to that. I think the current
situation with U.G.R.A. is that they don't have a set of
rules. They have the County rules. They held a hearing
5-15-U 3 cak
49
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
some year ago or so in order ~=o try to establish the rules
as required by the T.C.E.Q., but they have not yet followed
up on that process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They had authority to
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they have. They
have deferred to the County in the past because our set of
rules, by their definition, were sufficient to get the job
done. On that happy note, Judge, if you'll -- Court will
indulge me, I have an engagement -- I have a speaking
engagement at noon.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Got a tee time?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Course is closed on
Monday. Thank you for your efforts, both of you.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this point, I would -- did
you have something further to offer?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to say,
I would say to the committee that I would like to see you
lean toward more enforcement.. That's the key to the thing.
I mean, why do it if you don't enforce your rule? And this
thing with coordinating with Kerr County Appraisal District
has been my belief for years and years, that we'd -- all
agencies should be connected in with the Appraisal District
for a number of reasons. And maybe you all can use that --
6-lE-Gs wr:
50
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
r.., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
use your committee to kind of get that -- move that process
along, 'cause there's so many things that we can do if we're
connected a little bit, computerized, computer-wise. That's
all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Stacy? You've been very
patient in waiting upon us to say what we've had to say.
Let's hear from you.
MR. STAGY: Well, thank you. Pardon me. But
when I speak -- I raised my hand when I saw the waiving of
the 10 acres. And I want to remind you gentlemen, what
about the camps? And they -- Buster brought it up obliquely
about a 100-acre ranch, but these camps have many septic
tanks, and you got to have them exempt. Point two --
period. You know, anything -- when you start messing with
the camps, you're talking about something -- the economic
lifeblood. I can tell you this from the rules that
Commissioner Morgan and I worked on that were thrown out the
window by the previous Court. Until the so-called aerobic
systems came in, we didn't have many problems. When they
started putting in these aerobic systems over the
conventional systems, then the problems came.
Thirdly -- and I argued with Stuart on
this -- the leach lines that they ask you to put in are
there for the sewerage to evaporate. And when they start
telling you what kind of soil your leach lines should be in,

51
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
then you're getting it back t:o they'll throw out the whole
system because it's not the x-ight soil, when actually that
leach line should be there for evaporation. That water goes
up and not down with evaporation. Now, obviously, if it's
in the floodplain, it's undex-water, and that's wrong. But
gentlemen, basically, when you tell them -- U.G.R.A., on the
enforcement, they're going to tell you, huh-uh, you got to
have the risers and you got to have a different -- different
soil for your leach line, so then it goes downhill from
there, from cost and to get your -- your certification.
Now, I still say that I would rather have this bunch of
elected officials be the judge of whether it's right or
wrong, and not a bureaucrat at U.G.R.A. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any
other -- Mr. Richter? As each of you speak, if you would,
if you'd identify yourself for the court reporter.
MR. RICHTER: My name's Larry Richter. I
reside at 152 Oak Wood Road in Kerr County, also own Richter
Realty, Inc., have been involved in the real estate business
here 18 years, and have been through many transfers. Also,
presently I serve on a committee through the local Kerrville
Board of Realtors that has worked very closely with the
Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District in formulating
a voluntary method that the realtors would use to advise
their buyers, if they're representing the buyers, or advise
6-16-03 ca};
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
52
their sellers, if they are listing their property to sell,
as to a voluntary system of registration of their water
well.
Now, I think that we could take this a little
bit further as to discussion as to how that could be
incorporated with unlicensed septic systems. So, I want to
make the -- the Commissioners Court aware of what work the
local Board of Realtors has contributed as to an ad hoc
committee. That committee is still working with Headwaters
Underground Water System to formulate out a good voluntary
system. It's a voluntary system. I heard Mr. Letz mention
that, as well as Commissioner Baldwin. I think that that
could be incorporated. I encourage the Court to do so, to
formulate something there that goes back to what Judge
Tinley did say, that he trusts the citizens of this county.
And I think that's where we reed to go back to, to see if we
could not use realtors, use the pumpers of Kerr County,
anyone that's connected with real property involving septic
system and/or water well, to use those to advise -- or not
to be the one to turn in that person; that's not their job,
but it's just to advise them of the rules and regs that --
that everyone in this county has to -- should follow.
I want to go one step further. As to the
overall issue of coming up with a workable system, that you
may consider the private sector as a method of discussions
h-16-o~ ~N}~
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
53
to see if it could be a doable situation, where the private
sector -- if you look back at the private sector,
Commissioner Baldwin is concerned over enforcement. When
you, as a property owner, have a septic system, whether it's
through failure or whether it's through -- all of a sudden,
it's backing up, who do you call? You call a pumper. The
pumpers are under state guidelines that, once they pump a
system, they register that. And when they dump it,
obviously, it's registered at the dump site too, so you have
a private sector of control there of following up, of
records to see which systems are being pumped quite often.
So, there is other methods through the private sector. If
you have a plumbing problem, you call a plumber. They're
licensed through the state of Texas. So I'm just saying, as
another alternative, that we have discussions as to can this
work through the private sector? If I am a private property
owner and I have a problem, I'm going to call a pumper. If
he comes out, those pumpers -- if you talk with those
pumpers, they can tell you very quickly if that system is
performing its intended function or not as to what they see.
So, they're your first clue that your inspector from
whomever -- U.G.R.A. or whomever we use, where their first
lilies ~f identification of what that system is doing or not
is -- what their discussions are with that pumper. So, I
think there are many different avenues that we need to
6-lE-os ~r_
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
54
discuss to come up with the possibility through the private
sector that this method of keeping up with septic systems
possibly could work. If we were to investigate that as to
the feasibility, you're talking -- you're always talking
about your budget crunch. I mean, we're trying to save tax
dollars, so I think the private sector, through a voluntary
system, through all that are involved with a sale, could be
something that we would discuss further. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Mr. Bernard
Syfan?
MR. SYFAN: Thank you, gentlemen. I know
where I live today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What road you live on?
MR. SYFAN: Yeah, thank you. I'm a proponent
of water is water, and I think it ought to eventually all be
administered at one point. I think that the wells and the
river and the sewage all ought to end in one point.
Unfortunately, in the past, we had an administration by an
appointed board, and I heard it said that some of them,
maybe a majority of them, misunderstood the governor when we
said "appointed" and they thought he said "anointed," and
that -- that caused a lot of problems that we had. You
recall about a year ago, there was quite an upheaval, and I
don't want to see that again. It can be worked out if we
will lead instead of trying to beat our way through this
6-~6-03 w}:
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
thing. God did a good job when he designed this earth.
When people, animals live on this earth, he provided a
method to take care of waste, animal waste, and it works
very, very well.
Man has been able to harness God's biological
system and has brought things together, organized them, and
if you've got a -- a brought-together system, you can put
together a -- an aerobic system, as we have out here
south -- or east of town, and if it's properly administered
and watched every day, it works very well. There is
technology coming on board where we can shortcut that, but
that's a way off, and that's not what we're talking about
today. This natural, biological balance, I think, was
recognized by the State of Texas when it said, hey, we
really shouldn't be spending our time on areas that are
greater than 10 acres. That's not where the problem is. If
you took and you put one house in the middle of every
10-acre parcel in this county, and they all had slit
trenches, you would not have a problem. It wouldn't occur.
The country would take care of itself. It takes care of the
cows I've got ou.t there and the goats and the deer. It
takes care of them, because it's disbursed. And when we get
any problems, it's where we get too tight, too close
together.
This county has made some very, very bad
6-16-C3 w}.
56
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
decisions about treatment. These aerobic systems take a lot
of watching, and they were pretty well indiscriminately put
out that people were not properly informed as to what was
going to happen to their system and what it was going to
cost them over a long period of time. And if we had put
that same money .into putting in some sewer lines and
gathering it and putting in treatment plants that could
afford -- big enough to afford somebody to watch them, hey,
we'd have no problems today. But the problems are occurring
a lot because of what happened at this desk right here.
You're solving for the future, I think, pretty well, but you
do need to take care of places where people are tight.
Spend your time and your money where the problems exist. I
think that we ought to be spending more -- more money on
going out and checking the water quality than we are on
attorneys. A lot of attorney's fees going on in this
business, and it's not necessary.
We ought to be checking the water and going
where the problems are and so:Lving the problems, and not
going out and digging up good systems. It just causes a
riot. And you -- you've seen that riot. It was an attitude
thing. It was heavy-handedness rather than even-handedness.
There was no even-handedness to what was going on with the
last administration. It was not even-handed, and it was
heavy-handed, and it caused a backlash and a backfire. I
-l~-o~ Wk
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think that the real estate transfer thing, as it was set up,
ended up being blackmail. You get somebody in a corner and
then you whip them, and that's not the way to do it. You
ought to be leaders. You shouldn't be beaters. Enforcement
is an attitude. It's an attitude. If you inform the
people, I think Mr. Letz is 100 percent right, most of them
are going to -- going to adhere and protect themselves. But
if you take over like they've been doing in the past year --
or year past, I'll put it, you're going to have another
blowout. I would I agree with all of you that this would be
better administered by a private group, but I'd like to see
it controlled by an elected group, not an appointed group.
And we're working on that. Maybe that will come to pass.
I'd like to see water as water, and we live in harmony.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else
wish to be heard on this issue?
MS. CCWDEN: I have one little -- I'm sorry,
I didn't -- I should have read my Roberts Rules of Order. I
just wanted -- I'm Kitty Cowden, one of the owner-partners
at Remax. I want to thank yogi guys for the progress things
you have made. You've made our lives a lot easier so far.
But ~n a real practical note -- and I want to agree with
Larry on the private sector. If I'm representing a buyer, I
do want them to be informed. I mean, I hire -- we hire --
h-ih-c~ ~~,-~:
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they hire property inspectors, appraisers, home inspectors,
and if there's a septic system on the property, to protect
myself and my business and my -- my client, I recommend that
something be done about the septic. We look at it, we find
out as much as we can find out about it. Now, the only
avenue we had in the past, and have had, is, okay, you've
got one guy. He -- or two guys who -- who are God. They
tell you exactly what has to be done to that system.
Now, when I am -- when I'm dealing with a
home inspection or an appraisal, any other facet of the real
estate transfer, I have a choice. They're licensed
inspectors, home inspectors; they're licensed appraisers.
These are all people who have their credentials to approve
any portion of that real estate transfer. Now, why can't we
have a choice in who inspects that septic system? I want
them to be a licensed sanitarian. I want them to know what
they're doing. But I don't want it to be only Mario or Joe
or whoever is the final say on that, or my only other option
is to go to court. Why can't we have a choice of a licensed
sanitarian out of Bandera, out of Gillespie County, whoever
-- whoever my client wants to hire? And I would think that
that would take a lot of burden off of you guys. I mean,
this is the choice of the buyer. He has to be licensed. He
has to -- he has t~ have met some kind of state credentials
to make this inspection, but-t doesn't just leave it up to
h-1 h-03 w'._
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this one almighty entity. Anyway, just a little, simple
thought. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Cowden.
Mr. Syfan?
MR. TOM SYFAN: With your permission, I'm
going to remain seated. My name is --
JUDGE TINLEY: Please speak loud enough for
the reporter Lo hear.
M.R. TOM SYFAN: My name is Tom Syfan. I live
in west Kerr County, and I've been pretty interested in this
sort of thing for 40, 50 years. I only want to state to the
Court that you please remember that all the rules,
regulations, and laws and stipulations that you place will
relate to your children and grandchildren. Be careful. The
rules could be so overbearing to your public and to your
children that you need to give that ample consideration. I
know you're trying. Try harder. Thank you.
JUDGE 'TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir?
MR. DIGGES: Charlie Digges, Guadalupe
Wastewater Company, 21~ West Water Street. I just have a
suggestion. When it comes to Section 10 and the real estate
transfer, one area you could -- you could do to take a step
back and not have it be so obtrusive to -- to all the
systems is simply inspect those that are unlicensed. And,
basically, an unlicensed system means that we don't have any
5-16-G3 wr.
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i2
.- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
data on that system at all. There's no records at U.G.R.A.
or at the Environmental Health Department that was ever
produced, so you don't know what size tank is there. You
don't know what size drain field is there, what type of
system it even is, or that it may be a -- a cesspool. And
so, you know, the -- the idea of the real estate transfer
was to slowly upgrade systems over the course of the years
to help the -- the creeks that were already being impacted.
And one way to -- to be as kind to the public as you can,
but still get to probably the systems that are problematic,
is those unlicensed systems.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MS. SOVIL: I just have a question regarding
the aerobic systems. It says here that they have to be
inspected three times a year. Who does that inspection? Is
that the County? Or is that who you pay your fee to -- your
annuity, when you have -- when you pay an annuity for the
installer for the rest of his life, 'cause you have to have
a -- a system in place, inspection. So why are we doing
this? Why aren't the installers or the person that holds
that inspection deal notifying us that this isn't renewed or
this isn't being done? Why are we doing it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll answer the first
part of it, and probably let Stuart follow up. I mean, the
private sector is doing this, the inspections, as I
E- l n- 0 3 w k
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,., 2 4
25
understand it. But -- Stuart? You know, and we're just
monitoring the -- I guess keeping track of the paperwork, as
I understand it.
MR. BARRON: We just keep track of the
paperwork. They -- the homeowner will hire an individual to
do the inspections; it's a maintenance agreement. He goes
out there three times a year, once every four months, does
the inspection, and reports back to the homeowner and
U.G.R.A. of his findings. We monitor that he's actually
gone out there and done the work, and we monitor that they
do have a maintenance agreement in place at all times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the part of that
-- I guess the reason for it is that -- it's the enforcement
side of it. People won't get the agreements to keep their
systems, or a lot of them -- or some people. Now, Charlie
can probably answer how many cr percentage, but some people
that aren't getting their systems inspected like they're
supposed to, then their system, you know, starts failing,
and they don't have any enforcement authority. They -- I
mean, they can -- Charlie can call them up and say -- oh,
the person may say, well, I have -- so-and-so did it, not --
you know, not Guadalupe Wastewater. I mean, so it's a way
to -- an enforcement issue, as I understand it. Is that
correct?
MR. DIGGES: Yes.

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
62
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess a related question
would be, would it be more appropriate for -- for those with
aerobic systems, if one of these clerical personnel that is
currently in place -- primarily, all of the duties of that
clerical person are consumed in keeping these maintenance
records. Would it be more appropriate that those persons
requiring maintenance be required to offset that cost?
MR. BARRON: During the last rule change that
we had, there was some cost implications that we associated
with aerobic systems, and we charged an additional $50 to
every aerobic system that went in at the time of
installation to help offset some of those costs.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm thinking more about
on an ongoing basis because of the three times a year
inspection and the clerical costs associated with that.
Just a thought.
MR. BARRON: That would be an additional
cost, like Thea was saying. Usually costs them around $150
to $250 to have the maintenance contract, and then the
County may associate -- may want any fee that they're going
to get, too, and it gets more and more costly for the
aerobic owner.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just a thought.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I think you're
saying, and what I think Thea was saying as well, is that
E~-16-Q3 wk
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
63
it's an area that we maybe have to look at doing it more
efficiently for less dollars. I mean, there may be a way
MR. BARRON: We're looking at buying some new
software next year that could possibly help us with all the
letter writing that we do for that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see what the
problem is, what y'all -- what y'all are talking about. The
way I understand it or the way it's worked for me is
Charlie -- I have a contract with Charlie for my
maintenance, an annual maintenance, and if I fail to renew
that, which I have, he simply contacts U.G.R.A. and U.G.R.A.
writes me a letter and says, hey, it's time to get it done.
I mean, what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just the cost for a
person to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that has to be
done, though. I mean, if I fail to renew my contract,
somebody needs to let me know that I need to -- you know,
somebody needs to force me into doing that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has to be done.
JUDGE TINLEY: What I was referring to,
Commissioner Baldwin, has to do with the -- we've got one
F, - 1 5 - c;~ s ~ :~:
64
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
clerical individual at U.G.R.A. currently that spends
virtually all of that person's time monitoring these --
these inspections and posting them, making sure that they
occur. I think my question went more to, should the costs
of that employee be allocated to those persons having
systems which require that sort of activity?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You want an additional
fee charged through the -- I guess through the maintenance
contracts to those that have the maintenance. That's where
the revenue would come in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't charge me any
more.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, you'll be charged some
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe the root issue
is, did Commissioner Baldwin need an aerobic system? Or
would one of the traditional systems that have worked for
centuries have done the same thing without a maintenance
contract and the parts going out? Here we've created -- we
have created a whole industry around aerobic systems. We
got 1,000 or so people out there paying $200, $300 a year
plus their -- the breakdowns they have, and we got a -- a
clerk working full-time with somewhere between the County
and U.G.R.A. paying for that. I think there's a real
n-le-o~ tip:
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
legitimate question about whether or not these aerobic
systems may be -- whether or not we always need to install
aerobic system where the advisers tell us we do. I think
not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with you on that,
but I think part of the problem is on the installer side.
The installers are the ones selling the systems. And I
think, you know, that gets into -- that's a -- goes back to
the public awareness, that we need to let the public be
aware as to -- you know, I mean, just on things they should
do, that they should probably go out for two or three
proposals on what should be done, rather than listen to the
first person, and they don't need to be sold a Cadillac many
times, you know. I mean, I've never been on a sales call
with an installer, but I can imagine they're promoting their
most expensive system, I mean, you know, that's going to
work. Charlie's saying no, but --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a system that
keeps on giving.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, we don't
need to get into a big debate on that, but I think it's an
issue -- that's not, you know --
MR. BARRON: We can't address that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- our authority
directly. It's under -- it's an installer issue, and public
~-_6-0~ ~~~:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
awareness. Inform the public as to what their options are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You could take that
question even a step further back. Does -- will caliche
treat effluent? You know, what kind of soils really do?
JUDGE TINLEY: Where is Dr. Carlisle when you
need him?
CUMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is Dr. Carlisle
when you need him? Bless his heart.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anyone else here that
has any more comments on -- on the matters that we're
discussing? Yes, you may come forward.
MR. LANDRY: My name is John Landry, and I
live in west Kerr County. On this aerobic system, somebody
didn't do their homework on these things. They're costly.
They're useless. And that's it. You talk about the
inspection. And he can tell you, he's familiar with me.
Your inspectors -- takes you 250 bucks for three or four
inspections a year. He comes maybe one time. Way after, I
haven't renewed it. I get a message that I have to. That's
fine and good, but I've paid for three or four inspections.
The only time they notify me -- and the inspector -- I'm
quite sure we need inspections -- has to send them papers
telling that he's inspected it. Somewhere in the system,
the guy that's inspecting -- and I've talked to several
people with aerobic, and they have -- some of them don't
6-~ h-03 ~~k.
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.-, 2 4
67
have any problem. And these are all licensed inspectors.
Who licensed them, I don't know, but it comes that-a-way.
But as a public figure in this county, it's not working.
It's a costly --. it runs utility 24 hours a day. It's
useless, as far as that is. Your animals won't go where --
if you're maintaining it properly and putting the chlorine
in it, your animals are not going to go over there. Mine
don't. You got pretty green grass or you got dead grass,
but it's not a system that's working. And if you got a
thousand of them in Kerr County, you got a thousand
failures. That's even worse than what you got now. It
ought to be outlawed. It ought to be against the law to put
them in. And it's -- they're not working, and the
inspection people are not working it right. The system I
have now is dead. We've moved a house from there and we've
got permission to just leave it like it is. When we get
ready to sell, I will pump it out, do whatever I have to do
to sell that place. We had a different system, and it
wasn't okay for another building. But the thing is,
aerobics are not the way to go. I don't care who -- whoever
done this has just put a burden on the public. And I can
tell you, mine is a burden, and -- and I feel for anybody
that's got one. And I understand that we're not putting as
many today as we used to in Kerr County. And that's all I
25 ~ have to say. Thank you.
6- l b- G 3 w ~:
68
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We're trying
to get this wound up here; get another item to hit here. Is
there anyone else who has comments to offer that have not
been previously offered, some fresh thoughts, or who feels
compelled to be heard at this point? Thank you for your
participation, and we appreciate it. We'll move on to the
other item that was on the agenda for today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before we move on
from that, I guess -- he left. Dave? Where do Dave and I
go from here? That's my question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've qot your comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Williams
has -- has given you his statement. I gather that can only
mean that you're looking to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm looking at
Commissioner Nicholson. Dave, do we have clear direction,
in your opinion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we can
report back to our two partners on the committee what we
heard here on this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's enough.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As far as
speculating about where we're going, I, frankly, on two or
F~-i6-o~ ~,~~_
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
69
three issues, don't know where we're going.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think one of the big
concerns is the two sets of rules. I'm --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Big concern.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is a huge
concern.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you're looking for
particular guidance from me, I don't think there's any great
secret where I stand on -- on Chapter 10. With respect
to -- I don't want to see two sets of rules. I think we're
defeating our purpose. With respect to who's going to be in
charge, my heels are not dug .in one way or the other. And,
very frankly, private outsourcing kind of intrigues me. If
you can maintain the appellate authority before this Court
under just a very simple but firm set of policy rules, that
Commissioners stay completely out of it until it is on a
perfected appeal directly before us, that outsourcing kind
of intrigues me. But my heelti; are not dug in, whether it be
a U.G.R.A. individual who is our Designated Representative
or whether it be in-house with us, or outsourcing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it's a good
point on the outsourcing. I don't know if, legally, we can
do that. I don't know if we can contract to a D.R. I
thought there were some rules about -- Stuart's saying
E-16-03 w};
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
,-- 13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
,..._ 2 4
25
~o
there's no rules. I thought there was something along that
line, that it had to be either the County or someone who had
authority throughout the county administering the program.
MS. SOVIL: You have the authority to
administer the program, and you are the administrator of the
program. You're hiring somebody that is a licensed
sanitarian to administer your program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our Designated
Representative.
MS. SOVIL: De.,°~ignated Representative.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't know -- we
need to find out. That's a question that we need to get the
legal side answered, if we care contract to a private company
to be -- if a private entity can work under contract as a
D.R.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we privatize other
things. I can't imagine not being able to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you'd hate to start
marching down the path and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got a major question
on something really important.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we going to try to
rush through this other item and get out of here, or are we
going to call out for pizza? Or am I going to get out and
e-1n-03 a~}:
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
71
walk out on my own, or what's the goal here? How long is
this next one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should we take a lunch
break?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd assume that you had
already made that decision, judging from where you are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kind of have. I'd
kind of like to know what y'all are going to do, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, let me, I mean,
kind of, I guess, say where we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not without a quorum, you
can't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's only two of us
here right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Technically, there's a third
one here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do not have a handout
prepared like I did on O.S.S.F. I have met with Franklin,
and we've gone through page-by-page of the current rules. I
have, in my illegible handwriting, three pages of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; -- changes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; So, I mean -- you know,
6-i6-~3 w}_
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
72
and I wish I was -- you know, I know Leonard and Franklin
have been here all morning. I'm sure they're here for this,
rather than listen about O.S,S.F., and Jannett's here on
some issues too. We can clearly go through them, make sure
that, certainly, on some things tike commercial development,
condominiums, things of that nature, that we address that.
We can kind of -- I can walk through the changes fairly
easily, as long as somebody has their book with them. And I
think maybe that would be worthwhile, but it would take,
certainly, more than 10 minutes to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would hope so. I
hope we take our time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
Yeah.
And deal with all the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other option
would be -- yeah, I think I'd recommend we do that. Let`s
break for lunch and then come back and do this. I would
think would it take about an hour.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll stand in recess,
then, until about 1:30.
(Recess taken from 11:49 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.}
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I will call back to
order the Commissioners Court workshop scheduled for this
6-i c-03 cak
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
73
date that was recessed at approximately 10 minutes until
noon. It is now a minute or two after 1:30 in the
afternoon. Next item up is the workshop to review and
discuss the status of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations update.
COMMISSIONER NICIIOLSON: Jonathan's the
expert on too many things. He has to carry a big load
around here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that I'm an
expert on anything, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put a different hat
on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Subdivision Rules. I
went through with Franklin page-by-page and we kind of went
through -- there's not a lot --- there's a lot or changes,
but they're not substantive changes for the most part. What
I thought we'd do is just go through -- I, unfortunately,
did not have a handout prepared which will make it easier.
We'll just have to go through ~t page-by-page, and there
is -- we're really -- if we do need a little bit of
discussion, I can bring it up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse my temporary absence;
I'm just going to go run get my set of rules. Why I didn"t
bring them is -- I don't understand, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jon, are we working
5-16-03 w}:
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
74
from the revision of June 10?
COMMISSIONER LETZ; 2002. That's this --
should be the current.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got so many sets
of these, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Throw all the old ones
away. If they don't say 2002 -- whatever that was -- June
10, throw them away.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gosh, mine doesn't. I
do have the wrong one.
MS. PIEPER: This one's December 2000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aren't you glad I
asked?
MS. PIEPER: Which one is it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's June 10th, 2002.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it is.
MS. PIEPER: Excuse me --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should be -- it's on the
bottom of every page. That's an old one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an old one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's this date?
Oh, "Revised June" -- okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's wait for Buster to
get back.
r-fir-U3 w}:
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
75
MS. SOVIL: He's trying to find his rules.
JUDGE TINLEY: Y'all didn't wait on me, just
went right ahead.
(Commissioner Baldwin returned to courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you find your new
ones?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hell, no -- I mean
heck, no .
M'S. SOVIL: Write that down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If y'all would clean out
your office a little bit more often --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think I've got rules
running out my ears.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Me too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As a matter of fact, I
have too many. Does anybody need a set?
MS. ALFORD: Jannett might when she comes
back in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can`t believe it.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And anyone that wants to
look at it, I also have a -- a hot-off-the-press, about a
week ago, Section 232 in its entirety, which is what we base
all of our -- based all of our law on this on, all of our
rules on. Okay. On Page 4 -- everybody on the same page?
6-16-U3 w}:
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
76
Under 1.02.C, we were going to add to the -- and this is
basically -- 1.02 is the definition of a subdivision, what
requires platting in a subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is straight out
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Straight
And, for clarification purposes -- and this
know, Franklin's request -- we're going to
language: "Dedication of a right-of-way or
included under this heading."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it
Which --
out of law.
is, I think, you
add the following
easement is
goes on C?
goes on C.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dedication of a
right-of-way or easement is included under this heading.
What that means is that, the way I have interpreted this --
and I think when Travis and I went through this last time,
-- Travis Lucas -- the road doesn't have to be built. It's
the access, is the key. And we base that on -- on where it
says under the words "dedicated to the public," as I think a
transaction. So, what triggers it in many situations, the
subdivision or the platting requirement, is when they --
it's not that the road exists; it's that they provide access
on that road. For example, if you take a private ranch,
5-16-03 wk
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~~
it's owned by, you know, Mr. S:zyder, that road up to his
house, and he's going to, you know, subdivide it. Road is
already there, but he owns -- once he gives someone else
access to that road legally, that is what triggers the
platting, 'cause that gives access to the other people on
the property. And I don't see how you can interpret it, and
Travis agreed, any other way. When it says "streets,
alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of a tract intended
to be dedicated for public use," wouldn't make sense
otherwise. You would never have -- you would just follow an
old trail or a cow trail through a ranch instead of -- "Oh,
we're using an existing road," so no platting would ever be
required.
MR. JOHNSTON: So, all the exemptions on 1,03
that refer back to trat as part of the exemption would not
apply to, like, private roads? Has to be dedicated to the
public?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be dedicated for
use by an individual. Doesn't have to be -- it's not a --
not talking about county roads. We're talking about, like,
Falling Water Subdivision. Those are public roads that are
private public roads.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there is a deed
somewhere in there, or through the platting process, that
6-16-G3 ~~ak
78
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
gives people access though that road. Once we give access
on a road that there wasn't access previously, that's what
triggers the platting under that provision.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right. But that's in a
subdivision. The exemptions are to keep from subdividing.
That would -- that would limit it to public county or state
highway? Not a private road?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, private road.
Doesn't make any difference; I mean, county -- you know,
what kind of road it is. It can be a -- once you -- once
you make it -- once it comes ~~nder the platting requirement,
there's minimum standards of that road.
MR. JOHNSTON: It could be dedicated to the
owner or future owners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be dedicated to
one other person. You can dedicate -- I can dedicate a road
to Buster, sell him a plat. That's going to trigger
platting on that tract, but .it's a conveyance of the -- it's
the interest in the road, nom the road itself.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Interest in the road is
probably not the right terminology. I see the Judge sitting
back here as I'm butchering the -- the legal --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Interpretation of the
law.
E-1c-03 wD~
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Butchering the legalese.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got -- I know the fact
that you're making it available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, legally available.
Legally -- yeah. Anyway, so that was where it was just --
MR. JOHNSTON: The type of road specified.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, type of road
doesn`t matter. It's just the dedication of a right-of-way
or easement, you know. That's what really triggers it.
Or -- or deed. Maybe we should -- dedication of a deed,
right-of-way, or easement.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, easement or right-of-way,
Because it may be, if it's in a deed, it's still a
dedication of a -- of a passageway or some such --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, I mean, that
was just -- that's just a clarification I was going to put
in parentheses after this heading, just to make it real
clear to the public and to the developers that that's what
we're talking about. We're not talking about the road
itself; doesn't make any difference.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Jonathan, before you
go on, I need a Government 101 question. You start off by
saying that this language ir_ 1.02 is -- the language is
required, so that means that the Local Government Code says
to counties, you must have Subdivision Rules and Regulations
c-16-03 wk.
80
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.., 2 4
25
and plat and regulate subdivisions. Is that what you're
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, Section
232.0001 of the Local Government Code says when a plat is
required. Now, there is some flexibility to counties --
COMMISSIONER NI.CHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- under the provisions,
but that -- what we tried to do, when we -- you know, the
December rewrite, which is what this is all based on, is to
capture the exact language of state law as much as possible.
You know, we have to modify it for county use.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The other side of
that is, then we don't have the flexibility to say we're not
going to have Subdivision Rules. State law requires it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is a -- a broad
provision --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Academic question, I
guess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and I'll read it to
you, 'cause we've never really used it, but it does give us
flexibility. But whenever we get to this flexibility,
Section 232.0015, Exceptions to Plat Requirements, there
are, I think, 10 or 12 that are listed in our rules that are
6-16-03 w~:
81
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
state exceptions. You know, you cannot require platting for
those situations, but (a) under that heading is, "To
determine whether specific divisions of land are required to
be platted, a county may define and classify the divisions.
A county need not require platting for every division of
land otherwise within the scope of the subchapter." So, it
gives us, you know, flexibility if we wanted to, you know,
decide that if -- you know, you're born on the -- on the
10th of July, you know, we're not going to require you to
plat. I mean, you know, or something. You can come up with
other things other than the ones that were listed
specifically in our rules and state law. We have never
chosen to do anything on that provision, just because it
seemed easier to follow state rules than try to invent some,
but that's something to remember on some of these
situations, that, you know, we can -- we can modify them --
some of these exceptions, or expand them.
The next -- going through it, on Page 5 under
Section 1.05, we're going to update the language to make
sure that -- you know, here we just reference what we're
basing our rules on. We're going to update these to make
sure that our citations are correct. That's really -- you
know, we have not dome it yet, but we will do that. Under
the definitions, which they begin on Page 7, we don't have
any changes. Definitions are -- seem to be working fine.
6-16-G3 w~:
82
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 12 --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think there's one definition
that -- T.N.R.C.C. was -- initials were changed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Well, we're going
through -- both Headwaters anc T.N.R.C.C. have new acronyms,
so there will be -- those will be throughout changes. On
Page 12, under 3.07 on the bottom of that page, we say, "The
penalties and enforcement for noncompliance are set forth in
Section 232 of the Local Government Code." Frank and I
thought it would be better for. to us take that out of the
Local Government Code and put that enforcement -- what's --
it's a Class B misdemeanor here and Class C, just so it's
clear in our rules.
verbiage is?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What the actual
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we'll take it right
out of the law, rather than just referring to it, because we
frequently have the question as to, well, what can we do?
And we have more power than we think we do, if you actually
refer back to it. So, just to make it easier for us --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we'll recite that.
Under -- on Page 14, under 5.01.E, lot size, under Item 3,
we currently have no acreage limitation. We're going to
5- l b- 0 3 w k
83
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
change that to a 1-acre limitation for lots to be served by
a community or public water system and a community sewage
collection system, or as approved on a case-by-case basis,
based on development plan. It's just -- strengthen that a
little bit, 'cause there have been some situations where it
was uncomfortable having no minimum acreage for lot size.
Put 1 acre as the minimum, but we could -- you know, based
on a case-by-case and development plan, we could have a
lower. We will be -- once Thea gets her new computer, we
can communicate. We will go through, put this in revision
mode, and all of these changes will be typed into the -- in
red and then handed out for us to look at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you saying that she's got
you held hostage on this, leverage for a new computer?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe it's the
second time it's been brought up this morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: I seem to recall it at least
on one prior occasion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Hostage is a good
word.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, relax. She told
me she'd already ordered it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be here soon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Should have been here last
c-16-03 wk.
84
1 week.
2
3 quest
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--,
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm glad I --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What does this
say -- what does 5.01.F,.3 say? It says that -- oh, for lots
of at least 1 acre served by a community or public water
system --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's it say now, or
what do I propose it says?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What does it mean?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It means that if you have
a public water system and public sewage system, there is
no -- currently there is no minimum lot size. Now, there
is, under the provision right above it, a maximum number of
lots you can have based on the total acreage available.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it says that you --
there's no minimum lot size.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How did you arrive
with 1 acre, though? Why not a half acre?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out of thin air. It just
seemed like a -- you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice number?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nice number. There's no
basis for it, technically. And that's also -- I thought we
6-16-U"? wk
1
--~ 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
should put in there, you know, or as approved on a
case-by-case basis, based on development plan. If someone's
going to put in a -- a cluster-type development -- or, you
know, not necessarily cluster, 'cause that's other
development, but a situation where they're half-acre lot
sizes and everything else is open space, I don't -- I think
we have the flexibility to put it in there, but just kind of
as a rule of thumb, 1-acre minimum lot size.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is kind of a sad
question, but when you talk about case-by-case basis, who --
are you talking about the Commissioners Court granting --
not a variance, but a -- granting some kind of variance? Or
does the County Engineer have that authority?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference would
probably be to give it to the County Engineer, but the
County Engineer probably prefers it to be the Court, and I
have no problem with that. And I think there's a big
advantage to making it be the Court, in that it requires a
developer to go -- to really go through some hoops to ask
it. If they wanted to vary t'.-ie rules a little bit, they
have to come to us and ask fo:r it. I do not think it's a
variance; I think we approve it -- we approve it subject to
provision ~.01.E.3.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, and I agree with
that.
6-1n-03 w}:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know. But that's why
it is -- whenever it's a case-by-case, it's the
Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should we make a
reference to that, saying lesser lot sizes will be
considered upon presentation --- or may be considered upon
presentation?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can say that,
you know, or as approved by the Commissioners Court on a
case-by-case. That way it's clear that -- who has to do
that approval. And I think Fr_anklin's correct, he would
rather have us than you on some of these areas.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think so. I think that
would be a better forum. That way that they have -- other
people can have input if there's problems with it and such.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, I think Frank
says -- good point -- he's to.1d me before that if we do it,
he can't be accused -- or we can't be accused of showing
favoritism as to, "Well, you let so-and-so do it this way."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that same page,
5.Ol.G, Other Developments. That, I propose that we would
change to read as follows: "Other Developments.
Developments such as planned unit developments, cluster
developments, or condominiums are not covered under these
5-~6-0~ wk
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
87
regulations and will be reviewed on an individual basis by
the County Engineer and the Commissioners Court. It is
noted the that condominiums shall be subject to Subdivision
Rules and Regulations and to provisions set forth in the
Uniform Condominium Act." And that is specifically back to
the Fatjo property issue, where it was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't specifically
say that we were covering condominiums.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the Condominium Act
going to be outlined somewhere else in this document?
(Commissioner Letz shook his head.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the only --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do it right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason is -- I
mean, one, I don't want to have to track what's going on in
the Condominium Act, 'cause we've dealt with it once in six
years. And this way, it just gives us the authority to get
into there if we need to. If someone else -- you know, and
I think if we start getting a lot of condominium
developments, I think we may want to look at it again. At
this point, I think we just want to make sure we say that
we -- we control that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, when
6-16-03 wk
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you read that and addressed the condominiums, you left out
commercial subdivisions. Was that on purpose?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's on purpose.
COMMISSIONER NI:CHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I know, but
tell me what we're doing there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then 5.01.H is a new
provision.
COMMISSIONER N=CHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it will say
Commercial Developments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5.1?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5.Ol.H. It will be a new
provision, new paragraph.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another -- now, this --
I'm only taking one stab at both of the language here. We
may have to adjust it slightly, but "Commercial developments
shall be required to follow the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations set forth herein, except as modified under this
section. Section 5.01.D shall not be applicable." That's
the minimum -- that's the provision about the number of lots
based on the amount of acreage. And then Section 5.Ol.E,
there shall be no minimum lot size for commercial
E-16-03 wk
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
89
development; however, water, utility plan, and wastewater
disposal plan must be submitted and approved by licensed
engineer and approved by the Commissioners Court. Driveways
and roads will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and will
likely -- well, I'll quit. I think the plane's getting
ready to land. We review it on a case-by-case basis. I
think we do need do have a tougher road standard. We may
want to actually put a standard in for commercial, because
most of those will require trucks; would have trucks or
heavy vehicles, so I think we need to --
MR. JOHNSTON: Might want larger cul-de-sacs,
if that applies, to turn trucks around.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think it depends a
little bit on what the type o:E commercial development is.
But I think that we -- you need to spell that out a little
bit more clearly. I think it doesn't make sense, to me, to
have a minimum lot size for commercial development, really.
I mean, I think I we just have to look at them case-by-case.
And it puts us in a little bit of a gray area, but I think
if you try to write a provision to cover all areas, you just
get yourself in more trouble.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think both of those
are good additions; because we recall David Jackson trying
to tell us we had no authority over condos, so I think
that's a good issue.
n-16-03 wF.
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
90
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I -- as you know,
Commissioner, I agree with dropping the 5-acre rule on
commercial; it wasn't designed for that. It doesn't make
sense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. On Page 17, 5.06,
this is drainage. Let me look at my notes. Under 5.06.D,
this relates to a storm drainage plan, and this is where the
minimum lot size is less than 7.5 acres. I was going to add
a provision here, "This paragraph may be waived by the
County Engineer for subdivisions less than five lots." If
it's smaller -- you know, regardless of the lot size, if
it's a small subdivision, the County Engineer can waive that
requirement to have a storm drainage plan. I think that --
and, in practice, we've been doing this, I think, already,
but this just gives the County Engineer a little bit firmer
ground. If you're going into real small developments, I
don't think someone who`s going to divide one lot or a
piece of land into three tracts, that it makes sense to
require them to go hire an engineer to do all kind of storm
drainage --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Less than five lots? Or five
lots or less?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than five lots.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask you, this
E-15-0~ w~:
91
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
-- this was the root of the problem out there at Stablewood,
was the stormwater runoff damage to the neighbors. They got
12 or 15, something like that, lots there, so this change
wouldn't apply there. But are we saying that that same kind
of situation won't apply -- shouldn't apply if there are
five or fewer lots? That you don't have the opportunity to
do that kind of damage?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think that you're
saying that -- I mean, the way I look at it, that's why I
said the County Engineer may watch it. If it's on the high
side of it, I think he'd requ_re it.
MR. JOHNSTON: It could be four. In some
situations, it could.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Potential impact.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but I don't think
to say -- I think what has happened is that I think Mary
Frost brought up that it's -- you know, I don't know if it
was her; someone brought up one of the times that we didn't
do something. And she was right; we didn't do it. But it
didn't make sense to do it. So, we're just saying here
we're giving the County Engineer authority to waive it in
small subdivisions. Also in this paragraph, I had a 5.06.F,
which I guess is a new provision, and it says, "The
developer shall be required to comply with all provisions of
the Federal Clean Water Act during construction phase of
6-ih-03 wk
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
28
24
25
subdivision." They're required to do that whether it's in
here or not, and I'm not sure if we want to say -- I tend to
be a little bit leery of putting, you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd recommend that you leave
it out, because if you include it, but you don't include
something else of a similar nature in there which might be
waiverable, for example, by the Commissioners Court, it
might be construed as an implied waiver if you don't go back
and pick up that other one. So, if this is a mandatory
requirement under the law anyhow, I'd just recommend you
leave it out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JiJDGE TINLEY: That way you don't get into
that problem -- problem of a potential implied waiver.
COMMISSIONER LF~TZ: I don't have any problem
with that. I mean, that's what -- I think that's a good
point.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a good observation that
you made, though. It is required, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And we have
another -- well, actually, we'll hit it right away. Under
the next section, Section 6, Platting Procedure. I can't
read my notes.
JUDGE TINLEY: I knew you were having a
problem with it.
6-16-03 wk
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,-,. 2 4
25
93
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good god, I got things
written everywhere. Okay. Six point -- under Concept Plan,
6.01, this -- we'll add a sentence there, "This provision is
only applicable for proposed t~ubdivisions with more than 10
lots." We're going to eliminate concept plans for small
subdivisions. We weren't doing it; it didn't make sense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's --
JUDGE TINLEY: More than 10.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- more than 10.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know, Mary Hart
Frost and some of the others that were -- had been involved
in the Stablewood thing pointed out to me that they think
that -- that the concept plan requirement is not being
complied with. What they say to me is that maybe we could
avoid a lot of these disputes if there'd' been a concept
plan filed and we would have had access to it. Is that a
legitimate concern?
COMMISSIONER LJTZ: I think Stablewood is
a -- is a bad example, in my mind. The reason is, I think
we did a concept plan, but we did so it long ago and it
crianged so many times, went through so many reiterations
that, you know, we never required a -- a new one be done
every time they came back and changed the concept. We
didn't make them go back, so we were kind of -- that's one
F.-~ E-03 w}.
94
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
where we were working with them for a long, long time. Now,
there were some other reasons -- I think we are going to
correct some of the other issues that are, to me, the real
problems out there. But concept plan, you know, I think
it -- a concept plan is real good on larger developments, I
think, and we should have had one. I think we did at some
point.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think we did. We had three
preliminaries on that one, so this was well-studied before
we got to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Again, this is 101.
So, the requirement is that a copy of that concept plan go
to the Commissioner of the precinct, so next week I get one
of these concept plans on another Stablewood. What do I do
with that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do -- it's set up
to work one of two ways. If you're comfortable with it,
that they can -- you think it's a pretty vanilla-type
development, you can just let them sail through it. If you
want the Court to look at it, get input, put it on the
agenda. Generally, larger ones, I'd recommend putting them
on the agenda so we're aware of them, 'cause we'll all have
different ideas, and the -- the idea is to -- to prevent the
developer from starting doing too much before he has
feedback from the Court.
E-1 E,-03 wr:
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NI_CHOLSON: So this is
protection for the developer as well as the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mostly for the developer.
So -- and also because, I mean, in reality, it's hard for us
to make them undo things, if we do undo things.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I usually start by
letting Franklin take a look at it with me.
COMMISSIUNER NICHOLSON: Yeah, it would come
-- come from Frank, so he wou=_d --
MR. JOHNSTON: We usually meet at the office
and sit around, talk to them about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, in this also, I was
going to recommend that we delete the end of the second
line. T_t says, "One concept plan in sketch form to the
Designated Representative of Kerr County O.S.S.F., and an
additional concept plan in sketch form to appropriate
utility company." I don't think we need to do that.
COMMISSIONER B,~LDWIN: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to delete
those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Talking about a
concept? Are you talking about an authority of some sort?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think we need to --
it's purely a Commissioners Court issue ~n that. And that
last sentence, I think, doesn't say anything; it should be

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
deleted too. It says, "The developer will be responsible
for fulfilling all the requirements set forth herein," blab,
blab, blab. That's just a garbage sentence; doesn't say
anything. I can call it garbage, 'cause I wrote it. Under
6.02, Preliminary Plat and Dat=a, Jannett had just informed
me that we can delete 6.02.A and delete the fee that goes
with it. There's no reason for tier office to get a copy of
the preliminary plat, and no reason for us to collect a fee
for that. All she does is throw it away when the, you know,
final plat in her office is ire here and she is aware of it,
'cause we deal with it as a preliminary plat. So, it's a
way to make it a little bit simpler and save a little bit of
money for the developers. Under -- let's see. Really no
other changes until we get to 6 -- Page 21, 6.02.D.4. It's
a new provision.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What is that?
6.02 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: D.4.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: D.4.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Drainage Plans. And this
is a pretty significant change. "Drainage plans shall be
submitted if required by Section 5.06 of these regulations.
The drainage plans where required will be submitted prior to
preliminary plat approval," as opposed to now, it's prior to
final plat approval.
r-16-03 wk.
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
... 2 4
25
JUDGE TINLEY: If required by what section?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5.06. Which goes --
COMMISSIONER BF,LDWIN: What's the difference
if you do it preliminary plat as opposed to final plat?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're -- the practical
difference is they're out there doing construction
throughout the preliminary plat phase, and this means they
have to have their drainage plan done before they start
doing the work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it's a -- may
slow them up a little bit, but I think it's something that,
you know, it's kind of --
(Commissioner iVicholson's pager beeped.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 30 days? That might
be a welcome relief.
JUDGE TINLEY: No phones.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Without a cell phone?
JUDGE TINLEY: I should do like one sitting
judge we have here. He -- he'll confiscate the phone and
give them a little time to think about it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sorry about that.
This is another change that might have had an impact on
Stablewood.
6-16-~ 3 ~sr};
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This would have had a big
impact on Stablewood.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, very much so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this is probably
the most -- really, the most beneficial change we're doing,
and it's very simple, just moving when it has to be
submitted. You know, I think there's going to be a little
bit of leeway; you know. You can't -- may not be able to
get the final -- kind of a chicken and egg situation.
You're not going to know exactly where the roads are going
to be until you get the preliminary plat approved, so you --
you know, you do have the drainage plan before you know
where the roads are going to k~e. So I'm not -- I think we
have to have part of the plan presented, but we may have to
-- may not be the full plan. But it does mean that, you
know, I'm not -- and Franklin is going to have to think
through that; the rest of us, too. We need to add some
language as to exactly what needs to be submitted with the
drainage plan as preliminary plat, but I think we clearly
need to move some of it up at this point.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a practical matter, what
you may be talking about is a preliminary-preliminary plat,
informal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think
the -- I mean, the sooner we can get the drainage plan to us
E-16-03 w},
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
99
and make the developer follow it, the better our chances and
the community's chances of having -- or not having the
problems we had at Stablewood. That's something we need to
look at a little bit.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Another question.
If a developer starts moving dirt before he has the
preliminary plot plan approved, he's taking a risk that that
could --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But there's
nothing --
COMMISSIONER LF;TZ: Right. He can go all the
way through and build the roads ahead of time and do
everything; he just can't -- only thing we can keep him from
doing is selling the lot.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- and that's what's
hard for a lot of the public to understand, is that people
can do what they want on their private property.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. That's not
necessarily wrong.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. But it's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, do you see
any problem with the laying out of the roads -- let's say a
guy came along and laid out h.is roads where he wants them;
E ~ E o3 w~:
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
going to miss some oak trees, et cetera. And then we say,
okay, we want a drainage study now, and that would affect
his -- the layout of his roads, possibly.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you see any problem
with that, and then going in, as opposed to doing it with
the -- doing it with a final plat?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think he needs it with a
preliminary plat. Otherwise, he's going to be redoing
things. I think that would help him lay out the roads.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: If he knows how to, you know,
build the drainage and where the structures go and -- he can
figure out if he wants, you know, different size of
culverts, different crossings and that type of thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Things would be more
clear earlier.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Cool.
JUDGE TINLEY: Drainage may have a whole lot
to do with how and where he does his roads.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what my point
E-'_C-03 w1_
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
was, is opposite of that. Yotz know, I could see a problem
with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think that would be
hard for developers to buy into. I think it will help them.
They have to do it anyway. I think it will help them to
have just something they have to turn in. It will actually
be a part of their design.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Cool.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. On Page 22,
6.02.E.5, we're going to move that paragraph. It will be
renumbered, move it to the very beginning of the section.
It just says that no sale of lots in any subdivision shall
begin until Court has approved final plat. It's just going
to go to the very beginning, probably just under a little
heading. I don't know really why we stuck it here. It
needs to be more clearly set out up front, but same
language.
MS. PIEPER: Commissioner Letz, on Page 21,
do you want to take off the County Clerk's for that one, and
just have, "The approved preliminary plat shall be filed
with the office of the County Engineer"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, we'll let
the -- and the County Clerk's office --
MS. PIEPER: We will keep a copy of the
6-16-03 wk
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
102
backup for our Commissioners Court records.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. On Page 26,
revision of plat of existing recorded subdivision. 6.04.B
will be deleted. There's really no reason for us to get
copies of the restrictions and covenants. We don't do
anything with them.
COMMISSIONER B.ALDWIN: Amen. Bill, do you
agree with that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I agree with the standpoint
that we get -- get the calls asking the County to enforce
the covenants and restrictions, and you tell them that you
don't have the authority to do that, and they point to that
section and say, "Well, what did you want them for, then?"
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got a question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER
does keep copies of the res
subdivisions, right?
MS. PIEPER:
COMMISSIONER
just dealing with a copy.
COMMISSIONER
NICHOLSON: The County Clerk
frictions -- the CCR's on all
Only if they're filed with us.
NICHOLSON: Yeah. So this is
LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, under this -- I'm
6-16-C 3 w'~.
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
103
going to probably refer to thf~ County Attorney again, maybe
the County Judge, anyone else that wants to weigh in on this
Section 6.04. You'll note that we're going to have a public
hearing required on a revision. Overall, the concept of
this provision is that we have a public hearing required,
notification and all that, and that's based on Section
232.009. It's a very ambiguously worded sentence, and every
time I read it I interpret it a different way, even though
it's a pretty short sentence, as to whether this is intended
to apply to all counties except big counties, or only to big
counties, being like a Harris County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's an important
difference.
COMMISSIONER LF'TZ: It is, yeah. But it's --
to me, it's not real clearly worded, and it wasn't to Travis
Lucas. So, we felt that it does apply to us. If it doesn't
apply to us, it makes it easier.
JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't.
It doesn't? He's reading
JUDGE TINLEY: This section applies only to
real property located outside municipalities or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of municipalities with a
population one and a half million or more.
6-16-03 wk
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
104
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's us. We're outside
of -- we live outside one and a half million.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Applies to Harris County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think that, too.
The County Attorney and I came up with it applies to
everyone except Harris County last time, basically. So,
anyway, if we can get in agreement that it doesn't apply to
us, we can get rid of the pub]_ic hearing requirement for
revision of plat, which should be fine.
COMMISSIONER B_ALDWIN: It does not apply to
us on this end of the table.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And all that -- but I
think, you know, all it does is -- I think we would still
handle the original plat the same way. It's just like a
revision of plat, just the same as first time you plat, so
if you go through it, we can modify that down a little bit
in procedures. But, anyway --
JUDGE TINLEY: You can get the legislative
history on that. That should give you some --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good guidance.
JUDGE TINLEY: The statute should be clear on
its face. Obviously, it wouldn't be the first time the
Legislature failed to make something crystal clear.
E-1~~-03 wk
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
105
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. Anyway,
that's just a point. I think it would be -- it will be of
benefit if we can make it not -- or have it not apply to us,
'cause it is -- it's onerous to the County and to the
developers -- or, really, it's not to the developers; it's
to the individuals, 'cause usually individuals are the ones
that do these divisions, not developers. And it's --
there's no provision for us is recoup that money, so it's
costing the County money as well. Under Section 7 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 30. He greatly, I
think, enjoys when I have my notes scattered; I can't find
things. I wrote -- I clearly recall rewriting this
provision, somewhere. But, anyway, the bottom sentence,
minimum lot is related to access, and minimum lot
frontage -- the last sentence of the page says, "Minimum lot
frontage distances in subdivisions with high-density
development where the above minimum lot distances are not
practical will be considered on a case-by-case basis."
Somewhere in my notes I have rewritten that to be a little
bit clearer. And I had read something -- where did I read
-- it's being revised to make it a little b.t more clear
that that's going to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis
based or. topography and lot density. But to give us -- with
the variances that we have recently granted, to make it real
5-16-G3 wR
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
clear that we -- under this provision, we can grant less
than 200-foot minimum lot frontages.
JUDGE TINLEY: Without calling it a variance?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Without calling it a
variance. And it will be done by the Court on a
case-by-case basis based on topography and -- what do you
call it? Lot density.
JUDGE TINLEY: A variance is what chapter?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Variances are way back at
the beginning.
JUDGE TINLEY: 1 or 2?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah -- 3, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: 4.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 4? Yeah. I think the
main reason is that -- well, we've discussed that in court
numerous times.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question
before you leave that Section 7.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 7.01, Permitted Roads,
you have a publicly dedicated road that's built and the
County maintains, and then we have a public road the County
does not maintain.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that listed there?
6-1C-03 w}c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
107
No, is the answer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yes, public -- what
was your question? Public, not maintained?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, second one.
Private, paved, and to be maintained by homeowners'
association or property owners in perpetuity.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, there's such
a thing as a public road that is not County-maintained. You
have public roads that are County-maintained, you have
public roads that are not maintained. Am I right or wrong?
MR. JOHNSTON: That is true.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think what's
here that all public roads here have to meet
and a subdivision has to meet (a) -- the sta
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -
you're saying exists, but we're not going to
do that now.
-- we're saying
this standard,
ndard of (a).
- I mean, what
allow anyone to
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm thrilled to get
COMMISSIONER iti'ILLIAMS: That's the key. No
23 more.
24
25 non-Count
E-i~-~ wk
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No more public roads,
with that.
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
108
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hallelujah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In subdivisions, we're
either going to have public, County-maintained roads, or
we're going to have private roads.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Private, okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's sill some old ones
like that. We're trying to resolve those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember now raising
hell, and y'all agreed with it. That's good. I remember it
now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Aren't there a whole
lot of current public roads not County-maintained?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Old ones, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But nothing new from
now on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You probably have more
than anybody else.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if somebody's
going to have a new road, it's going to be County-maintained
or it's not going to be public?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, public is kind
of -- I mean, you get into a variance, like you go into many
E-1E-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
of these -- of our private road subdivisions; if they don't
even close the gate, ever, is it public or is it private?
What's your point?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know. This
is educational. Franklin, that -- that road we've been
looking at way out there on Goat Creek that's got about 8 or
10 houses on it, you and I --
MR. JOHNSTON: That's probably one of those.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's one of them.
So, we wouldn't -- we would disallow that in the future?
(Mr. Johnston nodded.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's one of those --
what? Non-maintained, but public?
MR. JOHNSTON: Non-maintained, probably
public road. I don't know whether it's dedicated or not,
but --
JUDGE TINLEY: I could have told you.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got a whole lot
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If every one of
those came in and asked us to take over these roads, we'd be
in a heap of trouble.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Many of them have
F 16 C3 wk
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
110
been here already.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Okay, thank
you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the road section,
there are no recommended changes other than, you know, that
one on lot frontage.
MR. JOHNSTON: 7.05.031, are you going to
take that and put that in the commercial section?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commercial driveways?
We'll probably leave a reference here, but have the language
in the -- up in the front by commercial, or vice versa. You
know, we'll reference it in both spots. And it may be
better to put the actual -- it depends what Road and Bridge
really -- if they want to set a specification, or just -- if
we're -- if it's going to be .reviewed case-by-case, I think
we leave it up in the front. If we're going to set specific
standards at this point, I think we should leave it back
here and then refer back to it, 'cause it kind of depends.
MR. JOHNSTON: If you drive trucks on it, it
probably does need to have a better standard.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and y'all -- Road
and Bridge needs to come up with the standards to meet that.
If we have to do something different on cul-de-sacs, we need
to mention that, too. Back on Page 43, this is a guarantee
of performance. We're going ~o rewrite this to include
F-1~-n3 Wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
Letter of Credit. We -- I guess business has changed over
time. This is more geared towards bonds, which I don't
think Frank's ever seen a bond; all we get is Letter of
Credit, so we're going to gear that language to include both
bonds or Letter of Credit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Letter of Credit's not
mentioned here anywhere?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so, but it
is allowed for in the Sectior_ 232.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Section 10, Miscellaneous
Provisions. Actually, Buster grabbed me right before the
meeting. I had a note, add new state statute. City/County
working together. Read out provision citing or referencing
the state statute t~tiat we're required to work under to have
one set of rules in the ETJ for the City and the County. I
think this will be the spot where we would reference it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And while we're there,
where is that? Does anyone know where that -- exactly where
that is? Is it being written by anyone?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- the answer is no.
And it's -- where it is, we'r_'e probably waiting on me to get
with Ilse to get it off high center. I think I was directed
by the Court to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To get with Ilse or

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,.1 2 4
112
our own attorney? Why couldn't we just drive it from here
so we can get it done? Get it done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that we -- you
know, we can certainly do it that way, but I think -- or do
it both ways, you know, drive it from here, but we also --
they have to agree in the City as well. And the holdup has
been in their master plan rewrite there, they were changing
all of their city regs, and they wanted to wait until that
was done. Well, that may take years, so I think the -- we
need to move forward and, you. know, get something in place
to be in compliance with state law.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It seems to me maybe
we could get it started from here, get some kind of document
on the table.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then let the two
lawyers negotiate it through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My mind is -- I mean, I
think we need to use our rules, and that's the end of the
discussion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason is not
that I want to be hard-nosed cr I think cur rules are that
much better, but I think that if you don't use our rules and
25 ~ you start using curbs, streets, and some of the other
5- l b- 0 3 w k
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
113
requirements in the city, yoLi're asking residents of the
county that will never in my lifetime, or probably in
anyone's lifetime, ever get annexed, to build -- do things
even way beyond putting sidewalks in across from the
airport. I mean, there are things -- and the ETJ goes out
so far now because of the airport and because of some other
finger developments like Comanche Trace, Whiskey Canyon, and
the airport. You know, Center Point's basically in the ETJ,
and there's lots of ranches and lots of property in those
surrounding areas. And it's a big mistake, and I would --
you know, to make those people follow city rules, or, to my
mind, deal with the City. I think they should deal with the
County, because they're county roads; going to remain county
roads.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In other words, we're
not big fans of the ETJ program at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's one way to say it.
COMMISSIONER E~ALDWIN: Yeah. But also, we've
seen -- we've seen problems -- Franklin and I have seen
problems in my precinct where the -- you may have a
different width of a city road going in, and when it hits
the outside, the ETJ hits the county line, then it changes.
You go down a goat trail and turn into a highway, or vice
versa.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you have that
6-l r-G3 ca}:
114
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
problem in Horizon out there:'
COMMISSIONER E~ALDWIN: Yes, sir, exactly that
one. And --
MR. JOHNSTON: City population, I think, is
getting very close to 25,000. I think the last census was
just close below that. I think once it goes over, the ETJ
goes to 2 miles instead of one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have mercy on us,
Lord.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's coming.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It definitely --
in the next 10 years, it will definitely happen. So, I
think the --
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I think it's an open
question whether or not you're going to have to wait till
the next --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Census.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- decade census. I think
there may be some authority out there to indicate that when
-- when it's estimated that it's hit that, they can start
asserting it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right.
And we're also a year past-due what the law said we were
supposed t~ nave done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
6-16-03 wk
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't worry about
that stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: They can wait on us, right?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are.
JUDGE TINLEY: See? I told you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, Buster, what's
good is for us to say we feel our rules are -- here's our
current set. Here they are. Hope you adopt them -- or not
even say "hope." Adopt them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the other thing that
that accomplishes is that, whereas you would otherwise maybe
have different sets of Subdivision Rules from different
cities out in the ETJ, this way you've just got one set to
worry about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you could have four or
five different cities within the same county, all of which
would have different ones, and may be pulling their hair
out. But if these county rules prevail, we've just got one
set to worry about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's lots of reasons
to use the county rules, but to me, the first one is that
there's just no reason to require some of the burdens, so
many things that cities require, way out in the county.
They're never going to be annexed. If they're going to
5-1~-~i3 wk
116
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
annex it, that's one thing. But, you know, they're not
going to. There's as much property -- it's all over the
county. There's property there together; they're not going
to annex.
COMMISSIONER h?ILLIAMS: If they're going to
annex it, they're going to require it at that time.
MR. JOHNSTON: Ingram's written a document
where they incorporate the ETJ rules in their city
Subdivision Rules, and they essentially tried to summarize
all the county rules in about one page, and it's just
totally confusing. I don't know why they just don't refer
to it and say, "Use that."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to do the
same with thing City of Ingram; just say, "Why don't you
just use our rules?"
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause our -- and they
provide, I mean, the minimum standards. You know, I don't
know what the City's current rules are, but ours may be
stricter in areas of road construction and things of that
nature. I think they probably are. We don't require curb,
but we -- the actual road construction, ours are pretty
strict.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sidewalks.
COMMISSIONER LF~TZ: We don't require
6-16-G3 wk
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
sidewalks. You know, I mean, seems real hard for me to have
sidewalks put in who knows where off Lower Turtle Creek.
MR. JOHNSTON: City used to have a separate
standard for ETJ suburban subdivision or something, and they
didn't require curb and gutter on those, but they required,
like, lampposts and that type of stuff, which we don't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's see. Under the --
looking through the appendices, we have to do some updates
there, just on -- from Letter of Credit forms, so there will
be some changes to the routing slips. The County Clerk will
not be on the preliminary plat any longer. Turn to Page 12
of the appendices, Appendix F. The -- one of the problems
we have had, or I guess criticisms, is the cost on a
revision -- on a minor revision, the cost. And, as I read
it, we have a $50 fee, which I don't think is too onerous.
I think you can't hardly do much less than that. I mean,
what the other entities charge, O.S.S.F. -- not O.S.S.F.,
but wells and utilities and those, they're beyond our
control.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's real easy just to -- if
you have a single transaction, residential deed of trust, it
costs you $25 for filing that. It's not unusual at all.
MS. PIEPER: $50 is extremely cheap.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. PIEPER: Most counties, it's way above
E-, E o3 w~;
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, for the final plat
it's $50, but $10 per lot, so if you have, you know, 50
lots, then you're at $550. This was worded this way
originally so that, you knew, the bigger developers pay a
bigger fee, versus the, you know, mom-and-pop shop type
developments.
MS. PIEPER: They also used to pay for the
notices in the paper in addition.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We received a -- on the
revision of plats? Yeah. We received an opinion from the
County Attorney that we couldn't do that. That's why, if we
can get rid of that whole provision, we can solve that
problem too. I believe that's -- that's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, that's
one -- that's really absolutely ridiculous that the county
taxpayers are having -- are being caused to spend their
money advertising on a plat revision, when it really affects
the subdivider and one other person, usually. You know, I
mean, we shouldn't be having to pay for that. This
developer needs to be paying for that.
JUDGE TINLEY: What was the basis of the A.G.
opinion? I'm not familiar with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What?
JUDGE TINLEY: The A.G. opinion that said
c-lE-o~ ,N~:
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,_.. 2 4
25
that the County had to pay for plat revision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wasn't A.G., it was a
County Attorney opinion, and his basis was that there was
nothing in Section 232 that provided for us to recoup that.
It says that we shall -- under the provision, the question
here, it says the County shall do it. It doesn't say that
we can recoup that.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about under the fees
section? You might be able to add that in here if you're
not prohibited. If you're not limited as to fees, you can
charge fees or expenses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are -- let me see.
COMMISSIONER B.~LDWIN: I think the law used
to read the County shall cause -- the word "cause" was in
there, and we stumbled over wY7ether we were responsible for
paying the fee or we'd make the developer. That "cause"
word was there. Never did get that straightened out, I
don't think. Do you remember that, Thea? Was that before
you were born?
MS. SOVIL: That's before I was born.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. There were no
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't have a
specific fee section.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we make another
6-16-~3 w~:
120
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
run at that? I just, in my mind --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm thinking we ought to -- we
ought to specifically provide that developer shall be
responsible for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- all notices,
publications --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not something
that we're causing.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and other fees as may be
incurred.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but if we aren't
subject to it because of the -- the Houston -- that
provision, if we're not subject to i.t, that's the only
section that requires us to do a notice of a public hearing.
So, if that isn't applicable ~o us --
MR. JOHNSTON: Isn't there something in the
Property Code, though, that says in a subdivision, when you
change the layout, people all have --
MS. PIEPER: Have to send certified notices
to all landowners.
MR. JOHNSTON: People all have rights in
common; they have to be notified or something if you change
roads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Property Code,
5-16-G3 wk
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.-_ 2 4
25
not -- I knew we found -- the County Attorney's office told
us we had to do it this way, but that doesn't mean we
can't -- we can't make another run at them. Well, it's
something we need to look at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it was something
that the government was doing, I could see that we would be
responsible, but if a developer's coming along and changing
a lot line and changing the makeup of the subdivision, he
should be responsible for notifying everybody.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I see
it.
COMMISSIONER B;~LDWIN: He or she, whichever
the case might be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, it says here after
application's filed with the Commissioners Court, the Court
shall publish.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Court shall what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shall publish notice.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't that be
interpreted to mean the Court shall cause it to be
published?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says we shall publish
5-1~-03 w}.
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,~ 2 4
25
it. I think that's --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think that prohibits
you from getting reimbursed for it. If you put it back here
in the permitting and regulatory fees. In addition to the
foregoing, the applicants or the party desiring to file the
plat shall reimburse the couni~y for all public -- all
publication fees, notices, and other -- actually, expenses
incurred or something of that nature.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We'll still be
publishing. We'll be sending it to the newspaper.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds reasonable.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I'll quit doing it, if we
do that, if the Fourth Court says we shouldn't and Supreme
Court denies the writ of error.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That work for you, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a
suggestion that's probably more form than substance. I'm
looking at the Kerr County application for preliminary plat.
I'd suggest that everywhere we have -- we refer to -- when
we're talking about O.S.S.F. and floodplain, we refer to the
Upper Guadalupe River Authority, that we change that to Kerr
County's Designated Representative. And Jonathan and I
6-15-~3 wE:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,,,~ 2 4
25
123
looked at this, included it on the plot plan where the
signature is. He's signing for us, not U.G.R.A., so we take
U.G.R.A. off of there and put Kerr County on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Whether or not we
continue to contract. with them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think that
goes to one of the problems, is that -- and U.G.R.A. reacted
this way, that they were handling the program. In reality,
at least in my mind, they were contracting to do our
program. But I think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Always been a public
problem understanding it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think any way we can
help clear that up, the better. But, you know, I would say
computer purchase pending, we will have this, probably by
our first meeting in July.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Computer purchase
pending, installed and working.
JUDGE TINLEY: Operational.
MR. JOHNSTON: I had a note back on Page 15
that we skipped over.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 15 of the appendix,
6-1n-03 wk
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~.., 2 4
25
MR. JOHNSTON: The rules. 5.02.F, where it
talks about lot and block numbers. I think we're going to
add something in there, according to 911 guidelines or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Page 15, 5.02.F.
I -- I had that note, and I deleted that note, Franklin,
because --
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I started reading
about this. Lots and block numbers have nothing to -- on a
plat have nothing to do with 911.
MR. JOHNSTON: Not addresses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, these aren't
addresses. When you and I we_.e going through it, I think in
our minds, we changed -- these were addresses, and
addresses -- that's not what we're talking about. We're
talking about lot and block numbers on the plat, and 911 has
nothing to do with that. And they are mentioned about the
road guidelines, addressing guidelines --
MR. JOHNSTON: One time they actually put the
addresses on the lots, and then they stopped doing it after
awhile.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know if we want to get
into that or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a lot of
F.-1 E-G.5 Nr '~
1
2
3
4
5
6
_~
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
extra work on a plat to put an address on a plat, 'cause
then if something gets changed, it -- I don't see a reason
for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think -- I don't think
we need to refer to 911 on lot and block; there's no
correlation between the two --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- under their guidelines, so
it doesn't make any difference. Mr. Digger had something he
wanted to say, I believe.
MR. DIGGES: Yeah. I just want to get
clarification, because sometimes we get confused when we're
talking about the public. They'll call in -- they'll be in,
like, Spicer Ranch Subdivision, where maybe, say, they have
100 existing tracts there, and maybe the whole subdivision
totals 600 acres. And, you know, we're going to take two
lots and we're going to divide them into four lots. Well,
individually, those lots may only be 2 or 3 acres by the
time that we're done, and so that is in violation of the
5-acre minimum if we're going to use water off of the
aquifer. And so -- but I don't know if we can use that. In
the -- in the big picture of the whole subdivision, is a
replat still part of that subdivision? How do you all
interpret that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The way I believe that
E-1E-03 w}:
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
126
our rules specify, and the wav I think it's interpreted, or
we have been interpreting it, is that a replat comes under
the current rules, not the rules of the original
subdivision. So, they have to meet the minimum lot. I
mean, if it's -- you know, obviously, if it's a 3-acre lot
and they want to, you know, change a lot line, they can't
make two 3-acre lots into two 5-acre lots. That doesn't
work. So, some reasonableness there. But you can't divide
a -- like, an -- you can't take a 5-acre lot in an old
subdivision and divide it into two 21~-acre lots.
MR. DIGGES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unless there's a -- you
know, that's kind of the way we've been looking at it. Now,
I know it's been done in some situations, because a lot of
times, especially some of these older, bigger subdivisions,
people buy and sell lots and trade them, and we just don't
know a lot about it. I know there was one down in my
precinct not too long ago, one person tried to do it right
and can't do anything, and the other two of her neighbors
have done it illegally. I mean, you start buying and
selling. But I think the rules should be that you're --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me give you another
scenario. You have a 5-acre lot and you want to cut it in
two, make two 21~-acre lots. There's a well already on the
property under the 5-acre rule. In doing so, the
6-16-G3 w~_
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.,_, 2 4
25
prospective new owner of the other 21~ acres has said, well
-- has told you, well, that's too bad. No, you can't. I
don't know where you're going to get your water; there's no
water system. He says, not to worry; I've made a deal with
the owner of the other 21~ acres. I'm going to tie onto his
water. Or, worse yet, take a 10-acre piece, and it's going
to be divided into two 5-acre pieces, and the owner of the
new 5-acre tract says, I'm go=ing to make a deal to tie onto
his well. He can drill his own well, but he's not going to
do it. Do you see any problem with either one of those?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see. I mean, on the
second one I wouldn't, because you can have a private --
that would qualify, in my mind, as a private water system,
which is not subject to T.C.E.Q. rules 'cause of the number
of connections. And you can pretty much do what you want
under that scenario. We allow for private water systems. I
think that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Under 10 connections.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under 10 or 15?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under 15 connections.
So, I mean, the acreage limit is -- would be the control
there. On the other one, on your first example, if you have
the current 5-acre, I don't think you can divide it into two
at this point. Under our current rules, you cannot divide
6-16-03 w};
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
that, you know, into -- period. You can't divide it,
period. You're stuck with a `~-acre tract.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, what we have done
numerous times is, you go into some of these older
subdivisions that have 2-acre lots, and if they decide that
they want to take three lots, which total 6 acres, and make
two 3-acre lots, the view of the Court has been -- or
precedent is, well, that's better than we were with three
2-acre lots. So, even though 3 acres certainly doesn't meet
the minimum standards, it's better than what they currently
are under, and it's moving in the right direction.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going the right
direction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the 5-acre subdivided
21~ is probably not a good example. The problem that you
have there is, if you take water from that one well, if I
understand the current Headwaters rules, you can't ship it
next door. You know, they'll let the guy next door drill
his own well, and so that you got two wells sucking out of
there for two 5 -- for two 5-acre tracts, but you can't have
one well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think Headwaters
has that authority. They can't prevent you from having a
n-lr-G3 w}:
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
water system. I wouldn't know what their authority would be
based on.
JUDGE TINLEY: You mean they don't have
the -- well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I would think
that --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think they've done it in the
past, is the reason I mention it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't deny that. But I
think that -- you know, I'm not certainly up to the Water
Code and a lot of their rules under the Water Code that they
fall under, but I don't see why -- how they can prevent you
from having a water system if you want to have a -- a water
system of -- whether it be two connections, so be it. I
mean, I think that that would be beneficial.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Surely you're not
suggesting some water authority enforce an authority they
don't have.
JUDGE TINLEY: You know, I hadn't thought of
that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only on Sunday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're headed downhill
here.
MR. JOHNSTON: I have one more question;
Charlie reminded me of it. Back on S.Ol.D.
h-16-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page?
MR. JOHNSTON: 14. Where it says the minimum
lot size, 5-acre average, unless surface water is a primary
source of water for the public water system. Then we go
down to 5.O1.E.2, where it says 1 acre served by community
or public water system. That means that water system has to
have surface water, right? As their primary source of
water?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, that's what it
means, but that's -- it's -- :it doesn't make sense, you're
correct.
13
14 to?
MR. JOHNSTON: Should we clarify that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We should. Do we want
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER L~TZ: The problem with that is
that there's no source for surface water in the county,
other than the city of Kerrville.
MR. JOHNSTON: Other than the city.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's not totally true. I
know of some folks out on Upper Turtle Creek that have
spring boxes and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I have a
spring box and a nonchlorinated system, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's probably better.
E-16-03 w~:
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stick a pipe in the
ground and the artesian well comes out; you just pipe it
down to your house. I know people that pull water out of a
stock tank still and don't chlorinate it. That's true.
But -- so there are some, but they're very limited in their
application, put it that way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Responding to Dave's
suggestion --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Bill's got another
tee time here real quick.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From a practical
standpoint, on the third line, where it starts with, "Unless
surface water is a primary source of water for the public or
community water system," that "unless" to the end of that
sentence should be deleted, because it's just not practical.
I mean, I think the intent was to encourage people to get on
surface water, but that was when we thought that we were
going to have a source for surface water, and it never has
happened.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hasn't happened
to-date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To-date. And I think
that, to me, the -- the key on it is the -- the 5-acre
average. That's over -- and we're using ground water; we're
trying to go to 5-acre average. The lot size is really not

132
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
that important. It's more the average, in my mind. That's
what -- and by doing that, we hopefully encourage public
water systems, as we have in Cypress Springs, Falling Water,
some of these other subdivisions, by having huge areas that
are basically greenbelt-type areas, thus giving the
developer a little bit more -- same as Stablewood. So, I
think we just have to -- I mean, it doesn't make sense to
require surface water when we clearly don't have a source
for surface water.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Franklin. I
see the attention span quickly waning of the members of the
Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm walking out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll follow him.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thanks, Jonathan.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you again for your
efforts, Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Engineer.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was not being -- I was not
being critical of your inability to find your notes. I
thought it amusing, however, that someone had the same
problem that I commonly have.
COMMISSIONER LE;TZ: But I wouldn't be one to
comment. I would never, never bring that up, I'm sure, that
6-16-C~ w~:
133
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
you had a problem finding your notes.
JUDGE TINLEY: You'd only do that under two
circumstances; if we're alone or with somebody, I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Well, we'll
have this back on the agenda with a draft probably the first
meeting of July. If everything looks okay, we'll set a
public hearing for early August.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, what are you
going to do about the ETJ issue?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm going to go -- I'm
going to probably advise Ilse, as the person writing it,
that we think our rules need r_o be the rules adopted, and we
will be glad to have any input from them during our public
hearing process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So long as they agree
with our rules.
JUDGE TINLEY: I got a deal for you.
Anything further? If not, we'll stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court workshop adjourned at 2:47 p.m.)
r-15-03 wk
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
134
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
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 7th day of July, 2003.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
r
Kathy B rrik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
E-1e-03 wk