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 COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, May 17, 2004
11:30 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
JI
r
V
2
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
I N D E X
May 17, 2004
1.1 Consider and discuss approval of expenditure of
funds and/or other requirements to finish the
Hermann Sons Bridge Right-of-way Acquisitions
Project
1.2 Consider and discuss approval of Resolution for
condemnation of Right-of-way for Hermann Sons
Bridge Project
--- Adjourned
PAGE
3
15
24
3
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
On Monday, May 17, 2004, at 11:30 a.m., a special meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let me call to order the
special Commissioners Court meeting posted for this date,
Monday, May 17th, 2004, at 11:30 a.m. It's 11:31 or -2 now.
First item on the agenda is consider and discuss approval of
expenditure of funds and/or other requirements to finish the
Hermann Sons Bridge right-of-way acquisition project.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. There was a --
previously, we approved a certain amount of funds for the
acquisition of right-of-way, and there were two tracts that
we did not have the exact amounts. We have those amounts
now, and we're ready to close on those two. And, Tommy, you
got the amounts that we need?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- I have one for --
to Fidelity Abstract for $2,925.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
MR. TOMLINSON: $2,925. I need to do a
budget amendment to increase the expenditure line item in
Flood Control budget by that amount, so I can do that at the
same time. And then I need you to authorize a hand check to
5-17-OG
4
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
Fidelity Abstract and Title.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move all three of
those items.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the amendment to the Flood Control budget as requested, and
hand check to Fidelity Abstract and Title Company in the
amount of $2,925, and authorize the disbursement of those
funds to Fidelity Abstract and Title Company for the purpose
of -- of finalizing the remaining tract acquisitions -- or
one of the remaining tract acquisitions --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is for two. This is
for two of the --
JUDGE TINLEY: For two of the tract
acquisitions for the Hermann Sons project. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion
concerning the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before we move to
the next item, another area -- or item that kind of falls
s-i~-oo
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
under this, after, I guess, three months of not being able
to get hold of one of the individuals, Mr. Tijerina, I
talked to him yesterday evening, and Mr. Motley has talked
to him today, and we have a meeting set up tentatively for
tomorrow afternoon. Based on his conversation with
Mr. Motley this morning, he wants more money, which probably
will be no surprise. The amount we offered is the amount
under the appraisal that we have furnished. But I'd like a
little guidance as to -- from the Court as to whether the
feeling is we should offer a little bit of additional funds
or -- or not. We are -- and the next agenda item will
further this along. We are pretty much, and have been from
the beginning, prepared to condemn that piece of property.
The next motion will be the final piece of paper that we
need, the resolution to do that.
As -- as I understand the condemnation
process, Mr. Motley's prepared all the paperwork, petitions,
such that three commissioners -- three commissioners are
appointed -- David? Three commissioners are appointed, and
they're not us-type commissioners; they're more -- they're
appointed by the Judge to hear the case. And they will
determine -- those three commissioners will determine the
value, and that is the value. That value may be higher or
lower than our appraised value. That is the amount that he
would receive. That being said, I just -- I don't know if
5-17-00
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
we should try to avoid that through a little bit of --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How long does a
condemnation procedure take?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, when you go -- there's an
appeal provided for after the special commissioners. But
you file your petition, and right away file a request for
commissioners to be appointed -- special commissioners, and
the Judge, as soon as they see the stuff, will name three
people. They have to get these three people in; they have
to sign an oath, and they have to sign notice forms of when
and where the hearing will be. Those have to be sent out,
served, and an 11-day waiting period between then and the
date of the hearing, and then you have your hearing. And as
soon as they make their -- render their award, we post that
amount of money in the registry of the court. You can take
that amount of money down.
If he takes that amount of money and accepts
it, at that point he no longer has a right to contest or
appeal the amount of the appraisal. Excuse me, have I got
that right? Not the amount of the appraisal; I think he can
only contest the right to take. I may have that backwards;
it's been a while. But, in any event, he -- once we put the
money up -- most importantly is that we -- once we put the
money up, we have the access to the property to do what we
want to. We could go to court later on an appealed case and
5-17-00
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have to pay more for the property. I mean, that's a
possibility, but the property is ours at that point. We
have the right to take. The right to take that has been
established.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If what he's asking
is not a whole lot more than the appraised value, it's not
likely to be worth it to go on through the process.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley, we've got a --
we've got an appraisal -- I guess my question goes as much
to the timing as to the legalities. Are we prohibited from
offering -- offering the landowner more than what our
appraisal shows?
MR. MOTLEY: Not that I'm aware of.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay? And that appraisal, by
the way, is as of a date back when. And, technically, we
would make the appraisal value as of the date of the
condemnation hearing, so there would be an updating process,
and whatever the general value of the land in the area has
appreciated, the appraisal -- the updated appraisal may
reflect a certain percentage. This man is contending
there's -- there are other sales in the area showing a much
higher value per-acre, and I don't know if that's accurate
or not. I mean, I don't know if that's accurate. I can
talk to our appraiser about it and see.
5-17-OC
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
JUDGE TINLEY: But, to your knowledge, we're
not prohibited --
MR. MOTLEY: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not bound by our
existing appraisal?
MR. MOTLEY: No. No, we can go --
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the total size of the
tract that we're talking about?
MR. MOTLEY: .41 is what we're taking.
JUDGE TINLEY: .41, four-tenths of an acre?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the floodway.
JUDGE TINLEY: In the floodway?
MR. MOTLEY: All of it is?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's proud of that
land, isn't he?
MR. MOTLEY: It's all in the floodway; is
that right? Or just
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the floodway. It
-- I'd say it's got to be in the floodway, 'cause every time
it floods, it gets destroyed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What kind of numbers
are we talking about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $12,000, we're offering.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twelve offered?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A little over.
5-17-00
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
MR. MOTLEY: Twelve and something.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're offering him over
$25, 000?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's --
JUDGE TINLEY: For property in the floodway?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And that includes
some damages. There's a --
MR. MOTLEY: Barbecue pit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- fence and a barbecue
pit and some other stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
MR. MOTLEY: $700 for the barbecue pit, and I
don't remember how much for the fence.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's 16 -- valued at
16,000 per acre. The land value of $6,720, $700 value of
the barbecue pit, because we're reducing the size he has
left. There's a .2 acre remainder. There's another --
MR. MOTLEY: Economic --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- $3,200 damages to the
remainder interest. It's a total -- then the cost for the
fence is $1,400. So, it's a total amount of $12,020.
JUDGE TINLEY: For Commissioner
Nicholson's -- in response to his question, we've -- we got
some other factors we need to consider. We got to pick up
the cost of the special commissioners, and a Judge makes
s-l~-oo
10
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 an award for -- for their work, and traditionally
that's run about $500 per?
MR. MOTLEY: It can get up -- it's whatever
that Judge says it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand.
MR. MOTLEY: It's whatever that Judge says it
is. And then there'll be other costs, the costs of the
lawsuit itself. There's going to be a cost of updated
appraisal, you know, from now to the time of the
commissioners hearing. I can't think of any other costs.
I'm thinking costs, and I told Jonathan I thought costs
might be in the neighborhood of $3,000, something like that,
but I asked him not to hold me to that. But I thought --
you know, I think costs would be about in that neighborhood
for the condemnation.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, we may be
getting into developing negotiating strategy in open court.
Are we okay --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was thinking the same
thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we're talking about
property acquisition. We may want to --
MR. MOTLEY: Well, in any event, the agenda
item is to give -- reaffirm or provide --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're on the expenditure
5-17-00
11
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
item. We're under the first item, which is just dollars.
MR. MOTLEY: Oh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- I thought we could
get the Court's feeling on spending additional dollars on --
MR. MOTLEY: That was on this parcel and
another? Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's two agenda items.
The first one, which we're on right now, is consider and
discuss approval of expenditure of funds andlor other
requirements to finish the Hermann Sons Bridge right-of-way
acquisition.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The second one is just as
to the resolution.
MR. MOTLEY: But then -- I mean, the
additional funds was for one parcel or -- or two?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two. That was the two
parcels, the Roerig and the Rancho Avacienda tract.
MR. MOTLEY: The other ones, I think money
had been put up and everything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Now, I don't
know -- Judge, do you think we ought to go in executive
session under -- for real estate acquisition?
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll, if we're going to talk
about negotiating a matter involving acquisition of real
5-17-00
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
property, that's certainly a permissible item. We can do
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, what do you think?
Do you think we ought to? Or --
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think, you know, we're
going to probably just go listen to what he has to say when
we talk to him. Mr. Letz and I are supposed to go talk to
him. And, I don't know; we might have to come back at that
point and, you know, see what the Court says about it. I'm
a little concerned about executive session, 'cause I don't
think our -- our agenda posting has any executive session on
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, clarify a
point for me. If -- if we approve this resolution, we have,
in fact, tendered an offer; is that correct? By reason of
-- by reason of this? And at that point, by law, we can --
we can take the property and proceed?
MR. MOTLEY: No. The only time we can
actually take possession of the property and make use of it
in our project is after he accepts the -- if he accepts our
offer, whatever that is, and signs a deed, we're okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. MOTLEY: If not, we go to condemnation.
It would be after the special commissioners hearing and
s-i~-oo
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
after they render an award, after we put that amount of
money in the registry of the district -- of the court, the
registry of the court. Once that money is put up there, we
give them notice it's there, then we can get what's called a
writ of possession and start working on the project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the time frame to
do all of that would be?
MR. MOTLEY: Two months? It depends on how
fast our Judge acts to appoint the commissioners. How --
you know, the -- the absolute length of time and how fast or
how long it takes those commissioners to all come in, to
sign an oath. They have to agree on a hearing date, place,
time, and send out notice of that. Then we have to get
those served on him. He's -- he and his wife live in San
Antonio. We're -- we're going to be serving -- cost of
service is an item. We're going to be serving our -- our
taxing entities, because they may potentially -- they don't
owe; everything's paid through 2003 on that land, but
there's taxes accumulating now for this -- for this fiscal
year, and so we're going to have to serve, you know, the
school district and -- and, I guess, Comfort school
district, and Kerr County and any cities -- or there's no
cities involved, but any -- I don't know; maybe U.G.R.A. I
don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: U.G.R.A., Headwaters.
5-17-00
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOTLEY: Headwaters, probably. Serve
those entities, and they'll probably say, "We're not going
to worry about that little bit of whatever. We'll get our
taxes from the guy based on what he's got remaining."
But -- they probably won't put their hands out and say,
"Give us this little bit of this share," as much, but we
still have -- I think have to serve them, out of caution,
because I think they have an interest.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, basically, we're left with
two options here, as I see it. One is to go into executive
session, give some preauthorization on a negotiation, but
you have a concern about the executive session aspect. The
other one would be for you and Commissioner Letz to have the
meeting, see what you can come up with, and then come back
to the Court on whatever that proposal is. Is that what I'm
hearing?
MR. MOTLEY: I think we can do that. I would
tell you what; I would defer to Jonathan's judgment on this,
because he's been working on this for a long time. And I'm
-- I told him I'm available. I went over Friday -- my car's
clutch is giving me fits, and I went over Friday and I ran
around town trying to find Mr. Tijerina Friday. I chased
him; I couldn't find him, but I thought, well, I'm here
waiting for my clutch to be fixed. I'm going to just see if
I can find the guy, and I couldn't get ahold of him.
5-17-00
15
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: You know, I think
probably the best course of action is for David and I to
meet with him. I will say that, because of the way the
transaction was agreed to the with the Hermann Sons -- Grand
Lodge of the Hermann Sons, we have some excess funds that
were budgeted. we have about $3,600, so there's a little
bit of, you know, money there that can go, you know,
essentially towards Mr. Tijerina or towards the cost of the
condemnation. So, I think we probably should just leave it
as it is right now with this agenda item, and move on to the
resolution, which is the next agenda item.
MR. MOTLEY: I know time is of the essence.
I mean, I realize that it's very important to proceed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it as to the first
item?
MR. MOTLEY: As far as I'm concerned.
JUDGE TINLEY: Second item is consider and
discuss approval of resolution for condemnation of
right-of-way for Hermann Sons Bridge project. The
resolution is -- is attached to the notice of your meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David gave me some
guidance on what we needed to have, such as the magic word,
"public necessity," things of that nature.
MR. MOTLEY: I think we've done a lot of
this, but a lot of it is going to just be reaffirming these
5-17-00
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
things. I think it's all been done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I went through -- I
don't think I need to read the whole -- all the Whereas's.
I went through the history. I cited all of the certified
letters with the offers. You know, I cited all the court
orders that approved the various things, such as surveying,
appraising and all that. But the -- the guts of it are the
first four of the Revolved's, and I added a kind of broad
resolve at the end, in case it was needed. I will read
those. First resolved:
RESOLVED, the Kerr County Commissioners Court
declares and reaffirms that the construction of the
replacement Hermann Sons Road Guadalupe River Bridge and the
acquisition of right-of-way pursuant to same is a public
necessity; and may it further be
RESOLVED that the Kerr County Commissioners
Court declares and reaffirms that it has authorized Kerr
County Commissioner Precinct 3, Jonathan Letz, to make
offers to purchase the necessary right-of-way for the
construction of the replacement Hermann Sons Road Guadalupe
River Bridge, and Kerr County Commissioner Precinct 3,
Jonathan Letz, made offers to purchase the right-of-way at
the appraised value to Raul P. Tijerina and wife, Lorene R.
Tijerina, by letter dated August 20, 2003; by certified
letter dated September 16, 2003, and by certified -- cited
5-17-00
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the number -- and by certified letter dated November 13th,
2003, cited that certified letter number. And may it
further be -- and may it be further
RESOLVED, the Kerr County Commissioners Court
declares and affirms that it authorized Kerr County Judge
Pat Tinley to execute all deeds and other necessary
documents to finalize the acquisition and closing of the
right-of-way tracts; and may it be further
RESOLVED, Kerr County Commissioners Court
declares and reaffirms that it has given the Kerr County
Attorney the right to file a condemnation action, if
necessary, to acquire any or all of the right-of-way tracts
designated for the Hermann Sons Road Guadalupe River Bridge
construction project; and may it be further
RESOLVED, the Kerr County Commissioners Court
declares and reaffirms that Kerr County Commissioner
Precinct 3, Jonathan Letz, is authorized to make any
decision and take any actions to facilitate the acquisition
of right-of-way for the Hermann Sons Road Guadalupe River
Bridge construction project within the confines of the
aforementioned court orders. And adopted by Kerr County
Commissioners Court this 17th day of May, 2004.
I added the last one as just a little bit of
a general, because we have -- a lot of the court orders kind
of address the construction and things of that nature,
5-17-CC
18
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
and -- and thought I'd limit it to the confines of the
aforementioned orders.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That number four is
broad enough -- number four is the last Resolved -- that you
would have the authority to -- to negotiate the price.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of what I
was thinking, Dave. That gives you what we probably would
have given you had we gone into executive session.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- I don't
think that gives me the authority to -- for -- to approve a
price. I mean, I have the authority to go in and negotiate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really what
you want, and bring a number back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think that's the
only -- that would be -- the only thing possibly lacking
would -- 'cause you've got it tied to the existing order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you know what the
alternative costs are, so you know what your field of
negotiating is all about.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MR. MOTLEY: That's probably broad enough --
"make any decisions and take any" -- you know, "take any
actions." I think that may be broad enough to authorize him
5-17-00
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to make an offer, if --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make an offer, I think,
but not --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Certainly broad
enough that you can say, well, we got a deal subject to
approval -- final approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: The other thing that it might
be good to keep in mind is that, if Mr. Tijerina wants to
carry this thing to the ultimate, he's going to have to be
represented, and traditionally, lawyers that handle
condemnation proceedings for landowners work off of the
difference between the award of the commissioners and what
they're able to get upon trial of the case. And, generally,
it's a -- it's a contingent fee of the difference between
those two. And I don't see much difference here, and so
he's probably going to have --
MR. MOTLEY: I've seen it before there's --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the contingent
representation. Otherwise, he's going to have to be paying
out of his pocket. And hopefully he's figured this out.
MR. MOTLEY: I've seen the difference between
the offer and a commissioners' award before trial, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. MOTLEY: I don't -- when we update, I
5-17-00
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
don't see it going up a whole lot. I mean, I think it could
go up a little bit. Jonathan is -- I've told him about this
-- this other comparable, and he mentioned some factors
about it that made it not that comparable, really. I
thought I would talk to our appraiser and just make him
aware of it so he can be running it down and looking --
looking at this sale, and seeing what he thinks about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Tijerina has told
David that there -- he has a comparable near Center Point of
49,000. But --
MR. MOTLEY: Smaller acreage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Smaller acreage. But he
had -- his worries, I think, were over access. One is he
had to go over a bluff. That probably means it's out of the
floodway, if it's over a bluff, which would increase the
value substantially for any tract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He is -- the first time I
talked to Mr. Tijerina was probably four or five years ago,
and he wanted me to try to intercede with Bandera Electric
Co-op and Hill Country Telephone to try to get power and
phone service to his tract, and they refused because it's in
the floodway. They said absolutely not.
MR. MOTLEY: He used to have -- I believe
when he purchased it, it was 1.8 acres. Now that is about
5-17-00
21
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.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. MOTLEY: So, he lost over an acre to
whatever -- corrasion, whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The river.
MR. MOTLEY: The river done swallowed it up.
So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's got a lot of
false pride about this piece of land.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval of the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the resolution as -- as tendered. Any further
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One comment. It's
part -- and it's cited in the -- in the resolution; the
legal description of Mr. Tijerina's tract is attached to the
resolution.
MR. MOTLEY: I saw a typo in there in the
first part of it; put a 6 instead of a G somewhere up there,
but I don't think that's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that was it.
5-17-00
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- like I said, David
and I will hopefully meet with Mr. Tijerina tomorrow, and if
he does not agree on the spot and sign it on the spot, I'll
instruct David to proceed with condemnation. The timing of
this, we have been dealing with him for, obviously, months
and months and months. This bridge has been -- or project
has been released for letting by TexDOT, and that was
done --
JUDGE TINLEY: Good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's good that it's
released, but if we don't have the right-of-way, it gets
shelved pretty quick.
COMMTSSIONER NICHOLSON: How long will it
take?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Six to nine months.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the estimated
cost?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1.3 million.
5-17-00
23
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 WILLIAMS: They're going to
elevate that bridge this time a little bit?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it will be similar
to the Lane Valley bridge.
MR. MOTLEY: I think we can get this thing
done pretty quick. I'm not too worried about it. I -- he
wants to go -- he was asking if there was a board of some
sort that he could go to, like a -- you know, a tax
appraisal deal, and -- and I said the board is the special
commissioners that are part of the condemnation process as
I've talked to him this morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, he's a little bit
familiar with the process?
MR. MOTLEY: I guess he is. But I've
explained it to him and told him how it worked, and tried to
be very up-front with the guy, and just told him we really
need to move on this. And -- but Jonathan and I can talk to
him. It sounds to me like we may not make a lot of headway.
I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: His concerns -- I mean,
I've explained condemnation to him. His other issue was
with access. I told him we will provide access; it's in the
deed that he will get access to the road. He wants to know
exactly where it is, and we're not at liberty to do that
until the road is rebuilt. We're not sure exactly where it
-i~-oo
24
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 be, but he will have access; that's guaranteed to him
in the deed. You know, I've gone over with him -- I
actually had a deal worked out with the neighbor where he
could -- we would have used the money and he would acquire
the same amount of acreage that we were taking, so he would
have been left with better property with access and
everything, same location. He turned it down. So, he's
been unwilling to deal on this project, so --
MR. MOTLEY: I think that it would be good
evidence to offer to the commissioners in the trial -- in
the event of an actual trial.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? We'll stand
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:56 a.m.)
5-17-00
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS I
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 19th day of May, 2004.
JANNE//~~T~~T~~II PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy B~ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
5-17-00
ORDER NO.28650
RESOLUTION OF CONDEMNATION OF
RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE
HERMANN SONS GUADALUPE RIVER BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
On this the 17th day of May, 2004, upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0, of Resolution
for condemnation ofRight-of--way for Hermann Sons Bridge
Project.
..._ ORDER NO.28649
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
FLOOD CONTROL
On this the 17th day of May, 2004 upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0, to transfer
$2,925.00 from Surplus Reserves to Line Item NO. 22-670-450
Repairs to Dams and authorize a hand check in the amount of
$2,925.00 made payable to Fidelity Abstract & Title Company for
r-- R.O.W. expenses for Hermann Sons Road Bridge.