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
Workshop
Monday, December 12, 2005
2:00 p.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
Subdivision Rules/Water Availability Requirements
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
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
On Monday, December 12, 2005, at approximately 2:00
p.m., a workshop meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners
Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on to our 2 o'clock
timed item now, a workshop on Subdivision Rules and
Regulations and Water Availability Requirements. I think this
is your bailiwick, is it not, Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It appears that way.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex? I'll swap you. Here's one
that's got -- the lines came through better.
MR. EMERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then, for anyone in the
audience that wants them, here's some copies of the draft of
the Subdivision Rules and the Water Availability Rules we'll
be talking off of today. I don't know if we have enough
copies for everybody, but there are some there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10 dollars a piece.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First, the workshop was put on
the agenda to discuss at our last meeting, and for the
Commissioners to kind of go through and write the outline
where the changes were made. There was a request that I
12-12-05 wk
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
provide a red-line version of the changes, and I said that is
just not possible. There's too many changes and they've been
done at too many different times. But I did try to highlight
it on the left margin of some of the copies that were handed
out and some of the ones I know that the Court has. There's
gray lines, and those gray lines indicate where changes were
made in that area. I don't really know the best way to go
through it. From the Court's standpoint, I think we can
probably go through page by page and kind of let me discuss
the changes a little bit. I really think, though, the best
thing would be for everyone to show where the changes are, and
then if -- maybe read them. It's very hard. I mean, you
really need to be able to focus and concentrate on these and
kind of read them in context to be able to really understand
what's being said.
Probably, in my mind, more important than going
through them and identifying the changes is for us to decide a
process from here on out as to how we're going to proceed.
The -- both the Water Availability and the Subdivision Rules
are at a point they're probably 95 percent ready for, I guess,
public input. I don't know -- I talked with Bruce Motheral;
he's the one that happened to call, but I think his feelings
are probably shared by others, and it's as to when we want to
get the -- for the Court to turn a document out to the public.
Obviously, there's -- every draft's a public document and can
12-12-05 wk
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
be viewed, and some of them have been looked at by various
individuals. I told -- I think the concern is that we're
going to come out with a draft that, by the time it finally
gets presented to the public, it's a draft that is sort of
etched in stone, that it's hard to change. And I think the --
the reference was we don't want to get in the same situation
that the City did with the U.D.C. A document was drafted, and
then it was very hard to make changes to it. I totally agree;
we don't want to get in that situation. So I don't know,
really, you know, when the time is right to turn this loose
and really say, "Okay, here's the version that we're fairly
comfortable with; now we'd like to get public comment on it,"
if the time is now or a week from now, or how we do that. I
mean, every time I go through this, I'm going to make changes
again; I find little things that I -- you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's take it away from you,
then. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Take it. And there are -- but I
would think that most of the main things -- I think that, you
know, I'm happy with it. I'd be willing to recommend these
out to the public. So, anyway, just a matter of how we
proceed with that. Probably, unless there's any other
questions from the Court -- Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it our intent to take
25 ~ public comment today?
12-12-05 wk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, I mean, I certainly have
no problem receiving public comment, but for me to really
absorb it, I need to get it in writing. I mean, it's very,
very difficult to have someone talking and saying, "Look at
this page." And, for example, I know both Commissioner
Nicholson and Len Odom went through it and handed me a draft
version back with comments in it, and there really weren't --
you know, some of them were typo-type errors, but a lot of it
were questions more as, you know, "Is this what you want to
say?" Or, "Is this how I'm interpreting...," things of that
nature. And I really think that trying to receive that and
for me to really understand the comments, it's much easier for
me to receive them in writing. So, any comments, I really
would prefer to get them in writing from whoever they come
from.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask, how many -- how many of
those here today have had an opportunity to actually review
the document that we've got before us now?
MR. MOTHERAL: Well, the one he just handed us is a
later date, but I had one that was -- over the weekend.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. So, there's two, maybe
three of you that have had an opportunity to review something
at least similar to this.
MR. MOTHERAL: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: It appears to me that we -- we're
12-12-05 wk
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
probably not ready for public comment yet. Most folks are
maybe talk amongst yourselves about what it contains and what
you think the intent is. You may have some more of these "Is
this what this means?" questions that's on your mind.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my view or thought would be
that, even though I know there's some new changes that I'd
like to make to this document, they're not real substantive.
They're kind of more moving paragraphs around, is where I am
at this point. I'd really like to open it up. We have -- I
handed out copies to most people that are here today. We can
certainly get more copies available, and then, either at our
next meeting or sometime -- set a date. You know, with the
holidays coming up, maybe you ought to go to the first of
January, something like that, to try to get comments back.
And then we can maybe look -- I can go back through and come
up with a final draft by our first meeting in January, and
then put it out for a second public comment period or an
actual -- you know, for public hearings.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm very interested in
getting public comment on this, particularly from those -- a
lot of those are here, you know, who have a vested interest in
it; developers, people in water, engineering. Not often, but
occasionally we have a -- have citizens who oppose certain
12-12-05 wk
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
provisions or don't understand them or want to change them,
and this -- this is a good opportunity to hear all that. I
mean, we may not necessarily take action that would satisfy
their grievance, but I think it's really important that
everybody that's got an interest in this has an opportunity to
study it and give us their input.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. The other comment, Rex
has not looked at this at any great length. I think he's
looked at it. He and I have certainly not sat down on a lot
of these issues, and that's been somewhat intentional. I
don't want to waste a whole lot of his time by tossing out
some provisions and then us have to take it back out if it's
not something that we're really somewhat serious about going
through with. So, I think we definitely need his comment as
well. Mr. Harvey?
MR. HARVEY: I was going to ask, before I forgot to
later as the meeting went on, does the Court have a preferred
way of receiving written comments after people review it?
Like, through an e-mail address, or do y'all have a
preference?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I suspect
that the Court will probably forward those to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: You suspect correctly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, that being the case, it --
12-12-05 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 two, I guess, formats that I prefer, you know, are either
a letter or e-mail, or marking up the copy that we handed out
today with notes written on it in the margin, as long as I can
read the writing.
MR. HARVEY: The only reason I suggested e-mail is
that there may be some items in here that, to really give true
comment, is going to require a little bit more room than
what's available to mark up on these pages.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anticipating lots of mark-ups,
huh? (Laughter.)
MR. HARVEY: I just -- I want to make sure that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My e-mail is -- I don't know the
county -- both of them go to the same location, but I never
can remember my county e-mail. But the other one is
ccr@hctc.net. Or you can call Kathy for whatever my one here
is; they both end up at the same location.
MR. HARVEY: ccr at?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: hctc.net. Any other --
MS. HARDIN: Where would copies be available for the
public to pick them up?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where?
MS. HARDIN: For review.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can probably have some here
or some at your office, are probably the two logical
locations, in my mind. I mean, I don't know how many -- are
12-12-05 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
all the ones that we had here gone?
MR. HARVEY: They're gone.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're gone. If we can get one
of them back, we can give it to Ms. Mitchell.
MR. MOTHERAL: A suggestion on that. If somebody
has an e-mail system, let them ask or request through your
e-mail a copy, and you can -- can you do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, the problem I have with
that is, it's real hard to track changes when they come back
on a full e-mailed document. I mean, if someone has a -- and
so I'm reluctant to start e-mailing documents. As Truby
knows, the first time we did that, we got in a real problem.
The document comes back, and either I don't see it or I don't
realize another change that was made, and all of a sudden, it
gets -- so, it's easier to --
MR. MOTHERAL: Maybe through a cover letter, as
opposed to changes within the document.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I wouldn't mind -- you
can send out the e-mail if you show me how to make it so it
can't be changed, but I don't want to receive comments back
with a full document coming back with an edited version. That
doesn't work, because I can't find them. It's got to either
be a hard copy with comments, or -- but we can give --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we have copies
available with Ms. Mitchell and with Ms. Hardin out at Road
12-12-05 wk
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
and Bridge, and any comments that come back come back to those
two sources, and then we coordinate them from that point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that will work. We'll get
some copies out to Road and Bridge and out here by the end of
the day.
MS. HARDIN: I can make copies from what I have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. All right. Well,
let's go through -- let's do water availability first, 'cause
it's short. Shorter, anyway. The draft -- the current
draft -- let me make sure everyone's looking at the right one.
Both of them should be drafts, 12-12-05. The last version of
this document had, under 1.02.B, a section on the developers
could choose to operate under Chapter 230 to prove water
availability. Since that draft, I met with, at a workshop
setting, the Headwaters board, or most of their board was
there, I believe, and kind of by consensus, it was decided to
take that provision out and replace it with a new provision,
and it probably is going to have to be expanded on if we keep
this in. Basically -- let me back up a minute -- what we've
done, we've created a county-wide standard that if you follow
a county-wide standard, you're deemed to have met water
availability requirements and you don't have to do anything
outside that on the science side. Then I added this provision
on monitor and test well requirements.
Headwaters, one of their concerns -- one of their
12-12-05 wk
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
needs is to receive more data from test wells, and what I
arbitrary size; anything greater than 20 -- maybe it needs to
be 50 acres, but any subdivision over 20 acres, the developer
will be required to provide a test well or monitor well
location. I didn't specify whether it would be a deeded
location or by easement. By easement would be more -- easier.
And then, under Item 2, developments where the total acreage
is more than 20 acres could do one of two things. They could
drill a monitor well, and specifications that, again, have to
be worked out by Headwaters, or they can pay a $30-per-lot fee
in lieu of drilling a monitor well, and then Headwaters can
drill monitor wells wherever they choose. And that may be in
the subdivision; it may not be in that subdivision. It was
worded this way because I'm pretty sure we have authority to
require a monitor well. I'm not sure we have the authority to
charge a -- the fee. But I think if we give them a choice, it
probably gives us the ability to do it. The intent is really
for them to pay a fee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon? In the -- and then, in
the subdivision regs somewhere, would it be required, as part
of the platting procedure, to -- for the development to
provide an easement for that well?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would that be in the --
12-12-05 wk
12
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: Yeah, I think it probably needs
to. And there's actually -- there's that, and also some
certifications under the water availability. Even though they
refer to it back and forth, I think it's cleaner if both of
those are in both documents. So, I think it is -- it would
need to be added into the Subdivision Rules just to make it
clear.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want me to say that to
you in writing? Would you take it in e-mail form?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: E-mail form is all right. After
thinking about it -- I put 20 acres in there last night; it
was getting late and I was tired. After rethinking this
morning, I probably think 20 acres is too small. I think it
probably ought to be 50 acres. I think that's more of a
reasonable size, 'cause 50 acres would be a subdivision with
10 individual test wells -- 10 individual wells, and I think
that is a reasonable size where you start really getting
concerned about localized possible problems with groundwater.
So -- you know, but that amount, whether it's 20 or 50, is
more the concept at this point. And then the fee, whether
it's $30 or $10 or $100, I think it's -- again, it's a -- it
needs to be reasonable. My idea is that, after talking with
Headwaters and their board, that they don't need a monitor
well everywhere; they don't want a monitor well everywhere,
but if there's a certain area that -- that they think they
12-12-05 wk
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
need one, this does help provide funding for a monitor well,
and there's clearly a need for more monitor wells in the
county to help. And that will hopefully, long-term, ease up
on the water availability requirements, especially in the
western part of the county.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, what's the --
probably everybody here but me knows the answer to this. What
is the rationale for requiring a test well?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Test wells are the only way to
-- or, certainly, these aren't test -- well, test wells,
monitor wells are really the only way to monitor -- you can't
use a well that's pumping up and down to record or monitor the
level of the aquifer. If you have a monitor well in a
subdivision -- for example, say, you know, you have a 20-lot
subdivision; you put a monitor well in the middle of it. You
can kind of monitor what the pumping is or what the effect is
on that aquifer by the pumping, and it'll -- it will assist, I
think, Headwaters in determining their pumping limits, as to
what those pumping limits should be. And also, you get more
data on the aquifers. One of the problems I believe that
Headwaters has -- and I don't mean to speak for them. There's
several -- one board member -- two board members present and
the General Manager. Is that right now, the County and
Headwaters are forced to use kind of county-wide rules,
25 ~ because we don't have enough specific well information to be
12-12-05 wk
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
able to say this part of the county should have this -- you
So, we're kind of using county-wide
And I think the intent is, down the road, if we get
enough information and Headwaters completes their project of
groundwater availability modeling, that then you can start
splitting out and saying, okay, this area, we know we have a
problem, I mean, relatively good certainty, and we may want
to -- they may want to either change pumping limits; maybe we
need to change lot size, maybe do both. But in this area,
there's plenty of water, a lot more than we even thought there
was, so we can go with a higher density development in those
areas. And the general thinking at the moment is that if you
get kind of east of Kerrville, there are areas where it looks
like you're going to have some problems, and if you go west of
Kerrville, you probably are in pretty good shape. And when I
say that, I think -- I was talking to Lee Voelkel before the
meeting started a little bit. I feel, personally, that
there's -- you know, for domestic or for household use, you
can drill a well anywhere in the county and get water, enough
for that. The problem comes in when you get some of these
homes that do -- start filling up lakes, which is a -- you get
into other issues related to proper use of water, but it is
done. Or if you get into landscaping or, you know, lots of
12-12-05 wk
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
different things, that's where you start running into
potential problems.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sort of playing the devil's
advocate a little bit, would it be correct that the
requirement for a monitor well is essentially of no value to
the developer or the people who are going to purchase lots and
build there? It's a way of funding data-gathering for -- for
local governments and water agencies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you look at it two ways.
I tend to probably agree with you, the latter part of your
statement, more. But I think there are others that say that
there is a value to the developers or to the -- to the lot
purchasers to know how much water is there. If they go into a
subdivision and they want to, you know, put in a catfish farm,
it's going to be pretty helpful to them to know if there's a
monitor well in an area that says, "Hey, this is a good spot;
we have a whole lot of water over here," or, "No, it's not a
good idea." So, it does provide information to the public
that is beneficial to them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's go another direction
with that, Commissioner, if you will. Let's just take a
hypothetical, but we'll base it on a subdivision that's
platted, that we approved platting for, and the breakdown is
5 acres, and there was something just under 20 lots, so we'll
say 100 lots (sic) for the sake of discussion. If there were
12-12-05 wk
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
in place that 100 lots -- I mean that 20 lots on 100 acres,
that would yield about $1,000 to Headwaters for a future well,
not a -- not an immediate well. And, so, they'd have to amass
a pot to be able to drill a well at some point in time in a
location of their choice. So, my question really is, for a
particular developer, thinking about the one we completed, for
example, will he -- would it be understood that water
availability, as far as he's concerned, is based on whatever
data is in the possession of either Kerr County or -- or the
Headwaters people based on information they got from some
monitoring well somewhere in eastern Kerr County?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I understand your question, I
think the county-wide rules are set up -- and they kind of
mesh with the pumping limits of Headwaters from an acreage
standpoint -- set up that we think, based on the knowledge
that we have right now of the aquifers, that you have water
under your property, and it should be able to sustain itself.
If you have a monitor well, you're going to get a greater
feeling of comfort and a greater ability -- level of
knowledge. Headwaters -- you know, I think it is
unreasonable, personally, to require every development to
drill a monitor well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A test and a monitor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either/or.
12-12-05 wk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either/or. But I do think that
there are areas, as this Headwaters groundwater modeling comes
along, where it will be really helpful to know. Hey, they are
there, because there have been some problems in some areas
around Center Point. It's no secret there's been some
problems with water levels in Trinity wells in that area. A
monitor well there would be very helpful to every -- to that
whole area, including the developers -- that specific
developer or developments around, but also beyond that. And
this is a fee where Headwaters can then accumulate the money
and say, "This is where we have a concern. We need to drill a
monitor well here, and this subdivision will provide us that
location." Whereas they're collecting the fee on some of
their -- you know, maybe over outside of the city, west of
Ingram, where recent wells have shown there's quite a bit of
water right there. Well, they may collect the fee out there.
Then they can use that fee, in addition to the other fees, to
drill the well where they actually need it. I see it as a way
to -- it's probably -- to me, it does -- it gets monitor wells
and information wherever they need to be drilled, and it isn't
overly burdening the developers, which gets passed on to the
purchasers, the ultimate property purchasers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gordon?
MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't there -- won't there
12-12-05 wk
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
come a time when there are enough test wells through the
county that -- I mean, enough is enough?
MR. MORGAN: I would hope so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And do we have any idea what
that number would be? Or, I mean, are you -- how do y'all
look at that? Is the county broken up into quadrants, or how
do you do that? My point is, it seems like to me that, at
some point, there will be enough test wells to where you will
know that there -- how much water's under there, and then
after we reach that point that there's "X" amount of wells --
test wells out there, then do we stop requiring people to put
test wells in? Or is that so far down the road that I'm just
spitting in the wind here?
MR. MORGAN: Well, I think what I said, "I would
hope so," would be the answer to all that you said, which was
when they had enough data, I would think that it would be only
logical that then they wouldn't make those charges any more.
But, on the other hand, that's very seldom the case. Usually
a charge that's put in place continues to exist for some
period of time, unless it's specified in some manner that it
will be terminated in some special way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a pretty good
point, and I would -- I would think -- well, let me make two
comments here. The whole Paragraph B with monitor and test
25 ~ wells was not voted on by Headwaters that they want it, and
12-12-05 wk
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
there are some members, including Mr. -- Dr. Morgan, that
probably don't want it. I'm not going to speak for him; he
can speak for himself, but it was kind of an idea during the
discussion that came up, and I said I'll be glad to put it in
the rules. I'm not -- as most people find with most of these
things, I'm not strongly married to most of it. A lot of
these concepts, I listen to a lot of people and I write down
what I hear and try to get down what people -- what the
overall direction where we want to go is. I do think that --
that Commissioner Baldwin's comments are very valid. I think
it's very easy to put a sentence in there and put a limit
on --
MR. MOTHERAL: Five-year limit. Then, if you want
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, put a five-year limit on
it that it stops in five years, or stops in three years.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much would it -- would
you guess it costs to do a monitor well?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gene, what's a monitor well cost
in the -- for the Middle or -- yeah, the Lower Trinity in east
Kerr County?
MR. WILLIAMS: It will run $10,000 to $14,000.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm trying to put this in a
practical application. We just approved a, I think, 8- or
10-lot subdivision on F.M. 1340, and if they'd have been
12-12-05 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
required -- I know the location; there is water -- plenty of
water available there. If they'd have been required to do a
monitor well, then that would increase their costs, and they
may or may not pass that on to the consumers. But what if
there were somebody that comes along and wants to develop the
same thing right next door to it? Is there going to be any
value to doing another monitor well 1,000 yards away from this
one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, under the rules, they
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's really my question,
kind of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, see, that's the rules. If
they have -- I cannot imagine that any developer's going to
drill a monitor well. They're going to pay the $30-per-lot
fee, so that developer's going to pay $240 and walk away from
it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Headwaters will then decide how
often they need monitor wells, 'cause they're going to get the
money.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I cannot imagine the developer's
going to want to drop down $14,000 when they can pay $240.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of your paragraphs says
12-12-05 wk
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
they have to provide a location.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have to provide a location,
which is a -- and that's -- you know, and that -- a location
could be the -- I look at it as probably an easement, would
make the most sense, so that Headwaters could drill a monitor
well at that location if they choose. It could also be that
they have to make a decision at the time of platting if they
want that location or not. And if they don't want it, it's
not on the plat, then they don't get it.
MR. MOTHERAL: Jon? I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back to his question, though.
You have the subdivision here, and 1,000 feet away you have
another subdivision. Are we going to -- are we going to drill
two wells into the same aquifer?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think that Headwaters
would drill any wells in an area where they have some recent
good wells. They're going to accumulate that money and drill
the well in eastern Kerr County, where they need one. See,
the way it works, they -- the fee's paid per lot, but the
well's drilled by Headwaters wherever they want. And it
probably -- or very well may not be in that subdivision or any
subdivision. It's drilled in a location that Headwaters
wants. We are providing locations in subdivisions, but it
doesn't have to be in that subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
12-12-05 wk
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That takes me back to my
question. Assuming that is not going to be drilled on that
developer's property, or the adjacent property, what is --
what are we relying on for -- to prove out the water
availability for a particular subdivision under these
circumstances?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're relying on county-wide
rules until Headwaters has more data to come back to the
County that they're going to get -- change pumping limits or
recommend to us we change lot sizes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. MOTHERAL: Jonathan, I just asked the gentleman
about the 1 acre, and they don't need 1 acre, according to
them. If I am not misstating what they just told me, a
quarter of an acre would be fine, if that -- I mean, it just
saves them some land that they can use for development. If we
don't need it, why charge it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. If a quarter acre is
what's needed and it's just -- it's -- I said 1 acre. It's an
arbitrary number, like 20 acres. I think it's a size -- you
need a certain amount of acreage. If it's a quarter acre,
that's what you need. That's all.
MR. MORGAN: Gene, you --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you talking about the
12-12-05 wk
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 LETZ: Yeah.
MR. WILLIAMS: Actually, we need about 20-by-20
square feet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rather than a quarter? But
the -- I guess the -- and this is something that -- the intent
is to get a well location. I'll rely on Rex to figure out how
to legally -- or Mr. Mosty, how to get -- how you make -- put
that on a plat. I think it needs to be -- you've got -- that
spot has to be identified on the plat, and how it -- you know,
how that's done, I'll leave that to the legal gurus of
Headwaters and the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And ingress/egress.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And ingress/egress.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To that spot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ideally, the other way may be
just to put it in the -- put the location, make the
right-of-way a little bit wider in the location, and have it
in the right-of-way for the road, you know. I mean, that's
a -- that's probably easier, as long as it's a big enough
little -- carved out right there. I mean, that's -- that way
you're not infringing on property rights. It's going to be
owned by some public entity, whether it's the County or the
homeowners' association or an individual that has public --
you know. But, really, I mean, it was more conceptual. If
everyone -- I won't say everyone; if the majority like it,
12-12-05 wk
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
then we can proceed as if -- we can keep something along this
line in there. If the majority think it's another bad idea,
we can get rid of it.
MR. MORGAN: Jonathan, just kind of an aside --
excuse me, but looking at -- at what revenue that we're
talking about right now, how significant is that revenue
relative to a $10,000 well? Relative to the efforts involved
in and for -- and it's not much money, your statement of $240.
I would just ask the Court to look at the amount per lot, the
numbers of subdivisions a year or in five years that will be
done, and what the total revenue would be that it would bring
in. How many monitor wells would it drill?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're probably looking at --
14
15
16 two years.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You may get one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, you might get one every
MR. MOTHERAL: So, you're getting about 250 lots a
year? Is that what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say that's on the high side.
MR. ODOM: So it takes 500 to -- to do a $15,000
well, so it's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The way I look at it -- and if
Headwaters -- and if that dollar amount -- you know, the other
options are, if it's not significant enough to help
Headwaters, then you take that provision out or you increase
12-12-05 wk
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
the fee. Those are the two options. I mean, you know, if
it's -- I mean, I know trying to get these wells drilled has
been an issue for Headwaters, and, you know, maybe $3,000 a
year is not a whole lot of money, but that will be put away
for the monitoring equipment in a well. So, I mean, it does
-- it helps. It depends if it's enough help to worry about to
put it in the rules. That's more a Headwaters call, totally.
I toss it back to you, Gordon. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Happened to you the same way last
time, didn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe they'll learn not to come.
AUDIENCE: Just a fleeting thought, but could a
hydrologist specify what, basically, the density would be in a
distribution that's required to know? And then -- and you
could just state that up front and say, you know, here's our
ultimate goal, and when the goal is met, the fees go away?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You mean -- yeah, we can do it.
I mean, so you're saying once we raise $20,000 off this fee,
then the fee disappears?
AUDIENCE: You wouldn't even be stating in terms of
dollars; it would be stated in terms of infrastructure.
Here's what we -- an expert can specify, "Here's what we want
to really monitor." When that --
MR. MOTHERAL: You don't know till you start
12-12-05 wk
26
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
drilling.
AUDIENCE: Okay. So maybe specify it in that way;
say it's unknown.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like -- I like the idea of
putting a time certain; it just stops at a certain period, if
we have it in here at all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The provision sunsets after
a certain date?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, you had a
question in the back of the room. Back there, I think, on the
far left.
MR. SIEMERS: I'll make one comment. Good to be
back, but I wish I weren't here. The monitor wells aren't
worth the value -- the value of a monitor well is not worth
the trouble you're going through. I could give you a long
dissertation on monitor wells and data, but you don't want me
to take the time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
MR. SIEMERS: I will make a statement that a monitor
well's not worth the trouble you're going through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm probably somewhere in
there, too. Right around there.
MR. SIEMERS: I got the background and technical
12-12-05 wk
27
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
expertise to say that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So do I.
MR. SIEMERS: Thank you, Buster.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other --
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The rest of the water
availability we'll discuss with the subdivision, except for --
go over 1.05, Plat Certifications. These are new, and they
need to be included in the Subdivision Rules, and they're not
right now. I'm proposing that three certifications get added
to the plat. First one is that "Kerr County Commissioners
Court does not certify that complying with Kerr County Water
Availability Requirements insures the developer or prospective
lot owner that adequate groundwater is available under any
subdivision or lot." This is just basically a disclaimer
saying until you drill a well, you're not going to know what
you have, and the fact that we have set a lot size based on
water availability, that does not insure you're going to have
water. Second one states, "Individual water wells shall not
be permitted on any lot in this subdivision." And that
pertains to lots that have community water systems. It
prohibits having a community water system and individual
wells.
And then the last one, there's a blank, "(Blank)
Subdivision shall be limited to a maximum number of (blank)
12-12-05 wk
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
lots pursuant to Kerr County Water Availability Requirements."
This is so it's clearly on the plat. We do so many replats
here that it will be right in front of us every time, "Okay,
this subdivision can only have 14 lots," and -- rather than
wondering, did we go in here and divide these lots and combine
these and change this? So we -- it's very clear, this is the
maximum number under our current rules that will be allowed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably the smartest
thing in the whole document.
MR. ODOM: Who makes that determination?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just take -- it's just a
mathematical equation. If it's 20 lots --
MR. ODOM: By 5 or 3 or 2? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, 20 acres, you get four
wells. And it's just -- you know.
MR. MOTHERAL: That will be affected by whether or
not it's in the ETJ or whether it's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it will be based on the
other language in here. I mean, but if you're on individual
water well, it's -- it's going to be divided by five. So,
like I say, the only -- I mean, I won't say the only thing,
but the real difference here, again, is the monitor and test
well. It's -- as a result of my last meeting with Headwaters,
25 ~ I see value to it. But it's -- it doesn't raise a whole lot
12-12-05 wk
29
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
of money, and it is a fair amount more work. It's more
documents you have to keep track of, so if it's not worth the
effort, there's no reason to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, does
Chapter 230 go in the trash?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it doesn't go in the
trash; it's still Chapter 230. It's just not in my rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mine can go in the trash.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just doesn't go in the
rules.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just not in our rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Subdivision Rules. Yes, I will
make a couple of comments. There's still some formatting
issues. Whoever created Word just did it intentionally to
make my life miserable, I've decided.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill Gates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I can't figure out --
I'll be typing away, and all of a sudden it will reformat
paragraphs, and all of a sudden you have a number over here
and something changes over here. Then I can never get it
12-12-05 wk
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
undone. That's why we have indents all across the page. I
have to rely on Kathy to get that all straightened out. I
have gone through the table of contents; I think I've got it
to match all up a little bit, but there are probably still
some discrepancies there. On Page 4, Section I, this is --
subdivision is, what the exemptions are. We'll go back
through -- Rex and I hopefully will go through it and look
real carefully back at Chapter 232. They have made a few
changes. Hopefully, I've picked them up, but there's no
changes on Pages 2 or 3.
Under Section II, Definitions, the only changes here
were a few name changes of entities, like Headwaters,
T.C.E.Q., things of that nature. Didn't really add anything.
There was a comment from, I believe, Commissioner Nicholson as
to whether we should define "high-density development" in
here. I think it's just as easy to -- it's not a normal term.
I think we just define it in the text of the document where
it's been defined under that section that it applies.
MR. MOTHERAL: Jon, in the definitions there,
Community Sewage Collection System, you have, "An on-site..."
That's really not a community collection system, is it? If
you take --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on?
12-12-05 wk
31
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. MOTHERAL: I'm sorry, Page 6. The definition of
community system. If you take the word "on-site" out of
there, doesn't it make more sense?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On-site is more of an
individual lot issue.
MR. MOTHERAL: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Making it read "a sewage
collection" system.
MR. MOTHERAL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 11, Section III,
Applicability and Enforcement. We had a section in the very
end of the previous rules for enforcement, and a lot of that
verbiage was duplicated. I moved it all into one section,
trying to make it a little bit simpler, put it all together.
The area -- the section for Paragraph 3.03, quite a few
changes in that paragraph as to -- it's tracking a little bit
with state law changes. And then on Page 12, 3.07, the new
provision related to sub -- illegal subdivisions, bringing
them into compliance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- does that carry
12-12-05 wk
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
with it a penalty as in 3.03?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. It's just -- it's not --
it's a -- the enforcement -- the general -- the penalty
portion is in 3.03; then the other ones are some other related
paragraphs, but the actual enforcement and penalty is in 3.03.
MR. VOELKEL: 3.07 is dealing with older lots?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, and illegal subdivisions.
MR. VOELKEL: Something that was done 20 years ago?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. ODOM: What about that timeline that we had,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's
that if you're an illegal subdivis
you're subject to our rules. It's
bring it up into compliance. It's
you're an old subdivision, you're
just saying that any --
ion and you do something,
not saying you have to
saying that if, in fact,
-- and you do something new,
it needs to -- you're under these current rules. You're not
under the rules when your subdivision was --
MR. VOELKEL: But the rules say you have to file a
plat, so you have to file a plat?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you do something, yes. If
you want to sell a piece of land or you want to convey
something, yes.
MR. VOELKEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex -- I'll get with Rex. He is
12-12-05 wk
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
hopefully making notes on some of these, and maybe the way I
worded it -- he's nodding his head.
MR. MOTHERAL: The section before that, just a
question for my edification. 3.06, "including costs related
to engineering and inspection..." Are you talking about the
County's inspection, or are you talking about an independent
inspection of construction? What are you -- what are you
talking about there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the County's rules. It's
pretty -- if the County -- the state law has been changed that
we can recoup all of our costs of monitoring subdivisions.
MR. MOTHERAL: Is that a part of the fee that's paid
for in the initial stages? Or is that in addition to?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be. The fee structure
has not been worked out. It will be in the original fee
structure, and there's some provisions in there that if we
have to go into -- under, like, a road, if we disagree,
basically -- you know, I don't want to get way ahead of
ourselves, but say a road's been built. Leonard, who everyone
knows is not an engineer, thinks that it's not being built to
specifications. We'll then go hire -- the County will hire an
engineer. If the County's correct and the road was not built
to specifications, the developer pays for the engineering
cost -- the new engineering cost. If the developer was
correct and it was, the County has to eat that cost.
12-12-05 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
MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. In other words, to me, it
wasn't clear what portion of the inspection we were talking
about, and I -- that was the reason I raised the question. I
hear what you're saying. Yes, I agree that if the developer
doesn't do it correctly, he should pay for it. But, on the
other hand, if he has, then he shouldn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll just write "clarify"
on mine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should that clarification
not say also, "including costs related to engineering and
inspection of infrastructure construction?" Isn't that what
we're talking about? Stormwater and roads, essentially.
MR. ODOM: Stormwater was the engineer. The
developer has to pay for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I'm talking
about. We're not talking about -- it says costs related to
engineering, inspection of construction. We're not talking
about house construction. We're talking about stormwater,
perhaps, construction, road construction, things of that
nature. Infrastructure-type items. Isn't that what we're
trying to say?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think what -- yes to
that. But, I mean, you have to read the whole sentence,
"construction within the subdivision as set forth herein."
25 ~ Just saying you have to look to the rest of the document.
12-12-05 wk
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
There's a lot of costs that the developer's going to have to,
you know, spend on engineering, whether it be road
engineering -- drainage and engineering are the two big ones.
And there's also -- I think it also covers on this that it's a
-- the County can recoup its inspection costs. And --
MR. MOTHERAL: Somewhere later on you break it out,
and I don't remember where it is. I read the thing so
quickly, I don't remember where it is, but wording similar to
that in this place would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: Maybe that 3.06 could end along the
lines, "including costs incurred by the County," relating to
engineering and inspection of construction within the
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: The developer needs to -- I would think
the developer needs to know, and it would be clear that those
are costs incurred by the County because the County questions
something. And if nothing's wrong, then the County pays for
it. If something is wrong, the developer pays for it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go back to 3.07.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm reading that to say
that -- that any of these old subdivisions that aren't
recorded would be required to come in and -- and bring each
12-12-05 wk
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
subdivision or lot into compliance under the current
standards. Does this mean that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that's not the intent.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's simply if you want to
change something in the old subdivision, then you'd have to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- bring it in? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, if it's an illegal
subdivision within the last year, then they do have to come
into compliance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if it was subdivided
by metes and bounds before the regulations came into effect,
you don't call that an illegal subdivision, do you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably, Rex will need -- Rex
and I need to work on this language, exactly how we're going
to handle illegal subdivisions.
MR. ODOM: Anything prior to December 11, 2000, is
not going to be grandfather clause any more?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are new rules, so we don't
know. That's the date we have right now.
MR. ODOM: Yeah, by court order, that's what we're
going by now. It's grandfathered if it's prior to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And -- well, probably, I
think we need to -- if we're going -- I think it makes sense
to pick a date that anything older than that, we're just not
12-12-05 wk
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
going to -- I mean, whether it's illegal or not, we can't do
anything about it. But anything since a certain date, if we
catch it, we're going to make it be brought up into
compliance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Leonard just hit on
what my concern is. I'm saying that if you were once
grandfathered, you're still grandfathered, unless you make
changes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Unless you do something new.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I don't think we've
ever grandfathered illegal subdivisions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, how do you define
"illegal"? Prior to 1988?
JUDGE TINLEY: One that should have been platted
under existing rules, and was not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Prior to 1988?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Prior to '88? No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't that when the
Subdivision Rules came into effect, 1988?
MS. HARDIN: 1984.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '84, I'm sorry. Prior to
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anything before '84 is
grandfathered.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my point.
12-12-05 wk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then if you're -- you know,
but we -- beca~zse of just logistics and manpower, the Court,
by court order, said we're not going to pursue anything before
2000.
MR. ODOM: 2000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is the date of the current
rules. Just because -- I mean, yes, they're out there. Yes,
they got away with it. But, I mean, you -- you can only go
back so far.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, what about the comment
you made about if the subdivision's only one year old, then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we need to clarify that
and have that in writing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying. I think
we'll have to go back to that date and say anything --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- prior to that date will be
grandfathered unless it's changed, and anything after that
date, you know, will be subject to these rules. I don't see
Rex writing any notes down. He must have a good memory.
MR. EMERSON: I wrote it down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Next page is 13,
Section IV, Variances. No changes, I don't believe, were made
to that section. Page 14, Subdivision Standards.
12-12-05 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
Essentially, Pages 14, 15, and 16 were rewritten completely,
and this is where we have totally changed -- not totally
changed; we've changed the -- it's still 5-acre lot size for
individual wells, 1 acre if it's served by community water
system and O.S.S.F., 1 acre if served by a community water
system and a sewage collection system, and then a little bit
smaller in high-density areas. And the high-density areas are
the areas within the ETJ. We're going to have to modify this
language about the City of Kerrville ETJ, but it's basically
going to be around the city of Center Point and Comfort, will
be the high-density areas.
MR. MOTHERAL: So, does the high-density area
designation, then, just the cover the ETJ's within the various
cities?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it covers the areas
around, basically, Comfort and Center Point that aren't
cities. They're not in municipalities, so they don't have an
ETJ.
MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. The reason I bring the
question up, as I understand it, the County does not have
zoning powers, and could this be considered that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. I mean, we
have authority to -- around Center Point right now to set lot
sizes just in the county.
MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. I was talking about the
12-12-05 wk
40
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
designation of "high-density area."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. But all that does is
provide for a greater density around there, and the
justification for it is the likelihood of surface water, and
also some other economies that come. And it -- basically,
without doing something like that, it really makes it
difficult for those communities to develop.
MR. MOTHERAL: I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The qualifications of public
water and public sewer.
MR. MOTHERAL: I understand what the need is. What
I'm saying is, is it -- and Rex will have to answer this. I
don't -- didn't want to step into an area where the County was
not -- didn't have the ability to make that kind of a ruling.
It's a zoning issue, really.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think if we went
beyond lot size, I think we'd have some issues, but I think
lot size based on water availability, we're on pretty good
ground.
MR. HARVEY: On, you know, this 5.01.E, High-Density
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes?
MR. HARVEY: -- was there some guide where 1 mile is
reached?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The guide was used because for
12-12-05 wk
41
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
up to 25,000, that's the standard ETJ by state law, so 1 mile
MR. HARVEY: Well, yes, but there's also another
classification for less than 5,000, which is a half a mile.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you speaking to the
subject in general, or to Number 3 under that paragraph?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Subject in general, I think.
Well, the 1 mile that was in here.
MR. HARVEY: Well, Item 3 and 4 that applies to
Center Point and Comfort.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The area --
MR. HARVEY: Basically three classifications; a half
a mile for 5,000 or less, 1 mile for up to 25,000, and 5 miles
for, like, up to a million or a half a million, something like
that. I was just wondering if maybe 1 mile was --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Too much?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We talked about that
specifically with reference to Center Point, and I think, in a
practical sense, what we're trying to say, and we can be more
definitive about it, in relation to Center Point, is that --
is that area which has been identified in mapping which is now
in front of the T.W.D.B. as a proposed service area for a
centralized sewer system, that can be identified. But if you
really get into a broad, generic definition, it's probably 1
12-12-05 wk
42
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
mile from 480/27, which takes you almost to Verde Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was -- it was kind of done
based on the ETJ, the -- for Kerrville and Ingram, but it
could be -- actually, east of Kerrville. Not Ingram, just
Kerrville. Ingram is smaller. So, it's somewhat arbitrary,
but that's where it came from.
MR. HARVEY: Well, you know, I suppose Center
Point's a little different situation than Comfort, because if
you go 1 mile from Center Point back towards Kerrville and
look at the ETJ of the City of Kerrville, everything's taken
up.
COMMISSIONER
MR. HARVEY:
COMMISSIONER
the ETJ of the City of
go half a mile, it wou
COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Everything's what?
Everything's taken up.
LETZ: I think if you go -- if you take
Kerrville around the airport and then
Ld take up the entire area.
WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or very close to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's a -- I have no
strong feeling. I think that it's a -- I think we need to
enable higher density around those communities. Whether it's
a half mile or a mile doesn't -- you know, I'm open for
discussion on it. I just think we need to provide something
to enable higher density and to also encourage the extension
12-12-05 wk
43
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
into the Comfort area, Kendall County Water District Number 1
by sewer and water.
MR. HARVEY: So, 5.01.E is something that is
allowed --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
MR. HARVEY: -- within these areas?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HARVEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, --
MR. MOTHERAL: In -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the sentence structure
on 3 and 4 needs to be changed. On 3, it should be defined as
"an area in Kerr County within a 1-mile radius."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the same change on 4.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
MR. MOTHERAL: In the definition of -- for -- in the
last paragraph in that section, E --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. MOTHERAL: -- it says, "A water utility and a
wastewater disposal plan must be submitted and approved by a
licensed engineer." Well, if it were an engineer that
designed it, he's going to approve it. What engineer are we
talking about? Or should we simply say, "submitted by a
licensed engineer"? And then, if -- if there's some concern
12-12-05 wk
44
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
or differential there, then we -- then we go down the road
with it. But it's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably should say -- and we
made a change earlier; I didn't catch this one. In another
spot, we made a change, "submitted and sealed."
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. Okay, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Sealed" as opposed to
"approved"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Talk about 5.01.G.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both G and H are also -- we'll
just change them. You have G?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How -- I'm thinking about
condominiums. Say do you a vertical condominium project. How
can they make the acreage -- minimum acreage and minimum lot
size requirements?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In fact, we got a developer
looking to do --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doing one in the county? I was
hoping they were all going to be in the city.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's why he was going to
the county; he can't afford to build them in the city.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably right.
12-12-05 wk
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We get into a situation
developments and commercial developments are kind of reviewed
on a case-by-case basis. And I think it's going to have --
something like a condominium, high-density type condominium, I
think, is going to have to be something worked out from a
water standpoint, really, more with Headwaters on pumping
limits as to how much water is going to be available for that
project and how they're going to get those pumping limits.
Trying to go in and -- and really try to anticipate what may
be on the horizon in both commercial and condominiums or other
types of development, I think we just end up with a document
that would be so large, we just couldn't do it. So, we just
kind of say we're going to try to go with the spirit of what
we have, but look at it on a case-by-case basis.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you want a condominium,
you need to get your concept plan and get in here and find
out --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Start talking to us and the
other entities, such as what Miguel's going to require, what
he's going to have from a septic standpoint, what Headwaters
is going to require. It's going to have to be a collaborative
effort.
MR. MOTHERAL: Shouldn't that last sentence address
that, in that direction? Instead of "analysis of groundwater
12-12-05 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
availability," really, it should say -- or address the issue
of coordinating with Miguel and with Headwaters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think I kind of -- I
said water availability, public welfare, public safety, and
all other authority to regulate subdivisions. I just kind of
put it all in there. We could add Environmental Health in
there as a specific -- in addition, before we get to "all
other." Okay. On Page 17, Roads --
MR. MOTHERAL: There's another one down there,
"approved by the engineer," in 5.01.H.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same change, "sealed" as
opposed to "approve."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Page 17, under the Roads,
no changes. On Page 18, under Roads, the changes are changing
the lettering on the signs from 4 inches to 6 inches, which is
going to be a new state law requirement. There's a minor
change on the verbiage on the size of the sign, 24 inches wide
as a minimum, just adding addition of the word "wide." Waste
Disposal Systems. This is a different paragraph than we had
in the last version. I ran this by Miguel. He's added or
suggested some additional language in there to make it a
little bit more clear as to what the state law requirements
are.
MR. MOTHERAL: There's a spelling typo in the middle
12-12-05 wk
47
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
of the -- 5.03.A, the second paragraph, about two-thirds of
the way down. "Easement as," there's no space between it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Easements identified. Okay.
Page 19, there's another -- at the very top of the page,
there's a change from 45 days for the Health Department -- or
for Environmental Health to get back to a 30-day requirement,
shortening that period a little bit. The bottom of the page
under Drainage, the drainage section has been changed.
MR. MOTHERAL: Pardon me. 5.04.C is talking about
30 inches, and then the word "feet" --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which do we want?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Inches.
MR. MOTHERAL: It's inches.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. MOTHERAL: Thirty feet's pretty deep for a
utility line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The drainage section has been
changed substantially from our -- what we currently have. And
we've gone to a -- rather than have a mandatory detention
system for all lots, it allows a certain amount of flow --
increased flow out of subdivisions. A lot of this was -- kind
of came about after my discussions with Les Harvey of some
things that work, and he's helped a lot. Appreciate his help
12-12-05 wk
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
on that. I think I've captured most of what he and I agreed
to, though I know we made -- we had a later meeting, and I
forgot to change some changes that he wanted, so hopefully
he'll give me those again.
MR. MOTHERAL: I mentioned to you earlier, Jonathan,
in that Section C, you talk about lot sizes greater than 5
acres, and then right down in the second paragraph, you talk
about smaller lots, and then you go down to Number (2) down
there and you repeat the thing. It probably would make more
sense to scratch out one section -- Section (1) and use
Section (2), take the definition out of there, move it up, and
make it the single portion of 5.06.C.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I haven't read through it,
but you're saying that (1) and (2) are --
MR. MOTHERAL: They are very similar. There are
some slight differences. The percentages of the runoff rate
change are different, but as far as the paragraphs themselves,
they are -- they talk about less than 5 acres, they talk about
5 to 25, and then over 25, both paragraphs do. And so it's --
it's -- they really overlap.
MR. ODOM: Yeah, 5.06.C, (a) and (b) -- I mean
(2) (a) .
MR.	MOTHERAL:	(1) and	(2)	Sections	(1)	and	(2)
under 5.06.C	are very --	I mean,	they'	re darned	near	the	same
thing, with the exception of percentage allowed.
12-12-05 wk
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
MR. ODOM: Percentage allowed from 20 to 10.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Percentage allowed is pretty
important.
MR. MOTHERAL: Well, but one of them, if you read
it, the point is that you're --
MR. ODOM: 5 acres.
MR. MOTHERAL: In (a) in both cases, you're talking
about less than 5 acres. In (b) in both cases, you're talking
about 5 to 25 acres.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. MOTHERAL: In (c), you're talking about over 25
acres in both cases.
MR. HARVEY: No. No, it's not saying that at all.
No, (1) is talking about the lot size.
MR. MOTHERAL: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: (a) is talking about the area of the
drainage basin.
MR. ODOM: Of the basin.
MR. MOTHERAL: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: Now, one thing I would suggest that you
all consider on (a), (b), and (c) of both, 5.01 -- of 5.06.C
(1) and (2), where it says, "If the pre-development drainage
basin area..." and continues, you might consider changing that
to, "If the post-development drainage area..."
MR. MOTHERAL: Well, no, that's different,
12-12-05 wk
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because --
MR. HARVEY: Because subdivision -- I mean, the
installation of subdivision improvements increase or decrease
the boundary of an existing drainage basin.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good point.
MR. HARVEY: Because the balance of all your wording
of those three items is related to post-development
conditions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
MR. HARVEY: You ought to start out with
post-development conditions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, would you suggest
changing "pre" to "post"?
MR. HARVEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Throughout.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: (a), (b), (c)?
MR. HARVEY: (a), (b), (c) on that page, and (a),
(b), (c) on the next page.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Okay, I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about Bruce's concern?
Did you ever get your question answered?
MR. MOTHERAL: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't think so.
MR. MOTHERAL: You still got the same problem. In
12-12-05 wk
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
the title, the heading on (1) is for tracts that are 5 acres
or greater. On (2), it's for less than 5 acres. That should
be the title -- the heading, but the individual items, (a),
(b), (c) and so on, are the same areas, 5 acres or zero to 5
or whatever you want to call it, and 5 to 25. But you got a
different percentage allowed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And that was intentional
because of the --
MR. HARVEY: Lot size.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- lot sizes. I mean, I think
the -- it's done this way basically to give more latitude on
bigger lots. The smaller the lots, the less you can start
doing the changes. It is redundant, but I worded it this way
just because people -- my experience has been when they read
these rules, they don't read the whole rules; they go to a
paragraph -- a heading that they see and they read that part,
and that's all they're going to read. So, then it will be --
okay, there's no drainage after they read 5.06.C(1) Then
they go on to another section on roads. So, I just made it
redundant intentionally.
MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. Then you can take out (a) in
(1) and take out the (b) and (c) in (2).
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll have to look at it again
and get with you, Bruce.
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.
12-12-05 wk
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 22, I think there were
some minor changes in that verbiage, but it goes on with
the -- changes throughout on the drainage. I think the main
one --
MR. HARVEY: Commissioner, I had one quick comment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: Back on Page 20.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: 5.06.C, next to last line in the
introductory paragraph, it says calculations shall be done in
feet per second.
MR. MOTHERAL: Cubic feet per second.
MR. HARVEY: That should be cubic feet per second.
Next to last line in the introductory paragraph to that, it
should be cubic feet per second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I see. I changed the -- in
the parentheses.
MR. HARVEY: Then in the parentheses, it should be
CFS.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take out the P?
MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you.
12-12-05 wk
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. And same in the
MR. HARVEY: The same thing is true in the top
paragraph on Page 21.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Maybe on the third time,
I'll make that change; I'll get it right. I tried last time.
All right. Anything else under Drainage? Any comments?
MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir, but it's more appropriate in
an e-mail. (Laughter.)
MR. MOTHERAL: You got plenty of ink and paper,
Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Section VI, Platting
Procedure, the first item, Sale of Lots, that was listed later
buried in the text of the document, the previous version. I
just moved it up to the beginning. Concept Plan --
MR. MOTHERAL: Whoa. I'm sorry, go back to 5.06.J.
When you're talking about -- in the prior ones, in C we were
talking about 25 acres, and then in J we've got -- suddenly
got 20 acres. They need to correspond, whatever we're going
to use.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have to look back and read it.
25 ~ Some of these things I've got to really sit down and --
12-12-05 wk
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put a question mark by it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Page 23, under Concept
MR. MOTHERAL: Just prior to that -- well, let's
see. Did you catch that page change? Sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page change?
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. In the first paragraph, you
refer to "Sale" on Page 10. It's actually Page 9.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you. I don't -- I
can't remember the exact change; might just be some wording
change here. Not much of a change in the concept plan.
Leonard, do you remember what the -- oh, it's basically the
same as it was before. I think we might have changed the
number of lots, possibly. I can't recall --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably the title,
Subdivision Administrator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the change that --
MR. ODOM: That's what that 5.06.J was about, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5.06.J?
MR. ODOM: What was it? It had --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we're on concept.
MR. ODOM: Okay. Up under notes, it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm on 6.01. But, anyway,
concept plan is basically the same as we've had previously,
you know.
12-12-05 wk
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: But if you have 10 lots or more than --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's more than 10 lots,
there's no such -- I mean --
MR. ODOM: Have to be to go to the concept plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have to come to court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it needs to say that,
right? For concept plans of fewer than 10 lots?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it says this section is
only applicable for proposed subdivisions of more than 10
lots, or -- or at the request of the developer. In other
words, if we're just doing a minor replat of two or three
lots, they don't need to prepare a concept plan and bring that
forward; they can just start with a preliminary plat. But on
any kind of a larger subdivision, they have to have a concept
plan so we get on the same page early on. 6.02.A, just a
change a little bit with, I think, the fees. There's some
changes there as to the way the County Clerk, as I recall --
but nothing significant there. I would ask that on 6.02.C,
that for the Clerk's office to make sure that those are the
size mylars that we want.
MR. EMERSON: She checked that just a minute ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're correct.
MR. MOTHERAL: That's what they have, but in the
12-12-05 wk
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
past, I have talked -- way back when even Pat Dye was here,
they're available in the 24-by-36 size, which is a standard
sheet for us. When we go to the 21-by-26, we have to cut
them, trim them, and lose a lot of paper and time, which is
not efficient. And a 24-by-36 would be -- would fit the
standard that we purchase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll defer totally to the County
Clerk. Whatever the Clerk wants to fit the racks that we own
is what we need to do. You know, I'm more concerned about
fitting that than accommodating surveyors. Sorry. I didn't
11 say that.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, you did, and I'm behind
you 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in the record.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6.02.C.3 on the next page, on
Page 24, it's a slight change because it refers to the
interlocal agreement we have -- Kerr County has with 9-1-1.
But 9-1-1's still going to be in the process of road-naming,
which we have discussed that with them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think, Commissioner,
previously -- or currently, we don't require addresses, do we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we don't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And this would require
12-12-05 wk
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We want to scratch that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want addresses on
plats, I don't think. That should be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Street names and road names.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- street names and road names.
The addresses change too much when you start -- depends where
you put it. On a big lot, it depends on where you put the
house. On 6 -- on Page 25, first one is just a change in the
wording slightly. It used to say "accompanied data." I
changed that to "accompanying data" to be submitted with
preliminary plat. The next one, there is a change here saying
that drainage plans are submitted with preliminary plat, not
final plat. That's a big change from a developer's standpoint
as to when they get submitted, but it was -- it was felt that
-- I mean, it doesn't really do much good to the County to get
that at the end of the process. We need to have that -- it
needs to be something that we're involved with early on. Page
26 --
MR. HARVEY: Commissioner, back on 6.02.D.4, the
drainage plan with the preliminary plat, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HARVEY: -- you might consider a preliminary
drainage plan, because you can't -- you can't issue a final
drainage plan with the preliminary plat. There's too many
12-12-05 wk
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
things that can change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: As a result of developer desires
between preliminary and final, between road and drainage
design, and even during construction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good point. If you
would -- disregard that.
MR. ODOM: You need the plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As to what the -- what would be
required -- what's reasonable to require in a preliminary plan
versus the final plan. I mean, we say preliminary plan. What
does that mean?
MR. MOTHERAL: Well, you can conceptually do it, but
to have it finalized --
MR. HARVEY: You can't call it a final drainage
plan, though; that wording is not used here. It can be read
into it that --
MR. ODOM: It's a working -- it's a working document
that the contractor can go out there and that you've got it.
And, like Les says, there will be some changes, but the
final's going to come in, and that's what he's going to take
that data off of to -- to make sure those calculations and all
are right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Les, wouldn't you -- wouldn't
you apply all those things that you just said to the -- up
12-12-05 wk
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
front of the subdivision as well? I mean, in other words, you
MR. HARVEY: But, by the same token --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just asking a question.
MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. But from the other side of
preliminary plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, I understand. I can't
ever tell if this guy is angry or not.
MR. VOELKEL: He's not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, he's not at this point?
MR. MOTHERAL: Buster, really, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can fix that.
MR. MOTHERAL: -- what the concern -- or what it
develops into, the final plat is really an as-built of what is
done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. MOTHERAL: Because the construction is done
between the preliminary plat approval and the final plat.
These things can change and do change on a regular basis, and
so, yeah, you can have a conceptual plan or an idea or a
direction that you would like to go, but to have a final
drainage design at that point is not practical.
12-12-05 wk
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we say "shall be
submitted prior to submission for final plat approval"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we need to have it in
early. I like --
MR. HARVEY: Yes, there should be something in
8 there.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Call it a conceptual plan.
MR. HARVEY: For submission of a preliminary
drainage plan to accompany the preliminary plat.
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah.
MR. HARVEY: And later on in some of this verbiage,
there -- in some of this regulation, the engineer has to
certify to the County that all of the drainage improvements
have been built to what was designed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All we need to do is just
change the start of the sentence saying "a preliminary
drainage plan, if required."
MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Change that, and we can --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. From my perspective, I
would -- you know far as the preliminary is concerned, I would
just simply want y'all to be thinking that there's -- you
know, what the drainage is going to be.
12-12-05 wk
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nothing more.
MR. HARVEY: Well, in the natural course of events
in a project like that, a preliminary drainage plan is
probably a little conservative, because the developer wants
the engineer to price out all of the improvements.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. HARVEY: So he has a pretty good idea of what
his construction costs will be before he proceeds too far into
the project and gets past a financial point of no return.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. I would, too.
MR. HARVEY: So, just the natural development
process, even in the background that the -- the Court never
sees, that -- I guarantee you, any preliminary drainage plan
that I do, I know it's going to work. And, if anything, I'll
shrink some of the improvements down in size so that they
still work, but save the developer a little money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we just have to add --
"preliminary" will work, and we can maybe identify what
preliminary is in that drainage section, or maybe just leave
it open as it is. We just want to see that something's
happening on the drainage. Page 26, I'm not really sure what
the change was here. It's not significant, just a slight
25 ~ wording change.
12-12-05 wk
62
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. ODOM: Had to do with the definition. Oh, for
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It's not -- I believe
it's saying that construction can't start till we have
preliminary plat approval or a conditional approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge? Bring those juveniles
in here and let Mr. Harvey handle them for a couple hours.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's not angry enough.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we can fix that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. VOELKEL: You can get there.
(Judge Tinley left the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 27, what I marked is a
certification that we've taken out, and that's the utility
companies. I'm not sure if they're going to want -- they may
get real upset, but I still don't understand why they need to
sign off on the plat. They need to be in on the distribution
of the plats, but I don't -- long as I've been involved, I've
never known of a sub -- of a utility company making -- or
requiring us to make a change. And it's because -- drawing
out the process and sending people -- developers all over the
place trying to get signatures.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which section are you
12-12-05 wk
63
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
talking about, Jon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- it's not here. Page 27.
I deleted the certification from the utility companies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you.
MR. ODOM: Would it not be appropriate to -- not
necessarily for them to sign off, but something that they
received a set of plans somehow, that they get something for
their engineering department?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's distributed on final. When
we do final distribution on a final plat, that's the only
thing they -- that I can tell from -- all they need is to know
what they're planning. Once the final plat has been approved
by us, they get a copy of it. Unless there's something I
don't understand about the utility system.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you've got it
right.
MR. MOTHERAL: You get into easement concerns and
that kind of thing, and they need to be early on. But usually
we, as -- as the designers, engineers and things in that
respect, I go and talk to each of the respective utilities and
get their input before I ever go forward with it, because they
can change a whole layout if they require an easement in a
location that won't work the way we were thinking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we should change it to
they get distribution of the preliminary plat.
12-12-05 wk
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
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah, that would be better.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And final plat; distribute both
of them. I just don't -- I think they need to be proactive.
Let them come to the developer if they want something done,
rather than us having to run and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Chase them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- chase them all over three
counties around here.
MR. MOTHERAL: You got another typo in 6.03.C.3.a,
the next to last line. You got "set forth" in there twice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, so what?
MR. VOELKEL: Jon, talking about utility companies,
if you'll skip forward to 6.03.F.2, would that eliminate that
one also?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one?
MR. VOELKEL: 6.03.F.2, Page 29.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, 29. Not there yet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6.03 -- yes.
MR. VOELKEL: Okay. I was just curious.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you eliminate that whole
line?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Say again?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6.03.F.2.
MR. VOELKEL: Talking about certifications.
12-12-05 wk
65
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: Delete that whole thing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also above that, 6.03.E.1.c
is also deleted. Drainage plans are -- well, actually, we
need to add that back in. The final drainage plan needs to be
here and the preliminary, then.
MR. HARVEY: Can we go back to Page 27 quickly?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. Okay.
MR. HARVEY: Upper third of the page, 6.03.C.3.c.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. HARVEY: What's the purpose of certifying
topography that can so easily be changed? Which topography?
Before?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was in the old rules.
MR. VOELKEL: There is no topography on the final
plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true, too.
MR. VOELKEL: Just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take it out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, surveyors are
certifying the topography.
MR. ODOM: That's in the preliminary.
MR. MOTHERAL: It's in the preliminary, but that's
not certified.
12-12-05 wk
66
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: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, did we --
MR. HARVEY: And the certifications should be for
existing conditions that are going to be certified -- I mean,
that are going to be subdivided. But in a final setting,
there's no topography shown on the plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HARVEY: And who can certify to past topography?
'Cause it's been changed by development, and you certainly
can't certify to what topography would be in the future.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the suggestion is to
remove it?
MR. HARVEY: Remove it entirely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Remove that one, yeah. Anyway,
I can't imagine, in the preliminary phase, for an engineer to
go to the trouble of drawing topography that's not accurate.
MR. HARVEY: Well, more accurate than that. It's
the surveyor that draws the topography.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They might do it. (Laughter.)
Okay. On Page 30 --
MR. MOTHERAL: Whoa. 28 up at the top of the page,
6.03.D.2. I understood it after I read it the third time, but
the -- down towards the bottom, "...otherwise, the approval of
the Court shall become null and void, unless an extension of
time is granted by the Court." It's approval of what at that
12-12-05 wk
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
point? Approval of the preliminary plat?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Right. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you just looking for a
little language change there? A little structure change?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Change the word "Court" to
"preliminary plat"?
MR. MOTHERAL: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Page 30.
MR. MOTHERAL: 6.04.C.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. MOTHERAL: I like your wording later on where
you used "in the English language." And that could -- if
you're going to use it once, let's use it all the way through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not following you.
MR. MOTHERAL: After that, "The Court shall publish
a notice of the application in the English language in a
newspaper of general circulation."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is that? I'm sorry,
I'm not there.
MR. MOTHERAL: 6.04.C. Insert, if you will, "in the
English language."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I see what you're saying.
MR. MOTHERAL: Because later on, he uses that in
another paragraph, and what I'm saying is be consistent.
12-12-05 wk
68
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: Okay. After "Court
shall..."?
MR. MOTHERAL: After "application."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still -- I don't even see
the word. 6.04 --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's saying C; it's in B.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
MR. MOTHERAL: In the second line after the word
"application," between the "application" and "in a newspaper."
AUDIENCE: It's B.
MR. MOTHERAL: Okay, I'm sorry. I was using the
last night's version.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, public notice in the
English --
MR. VOELKEL: He was referring to this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what you're saying?
Shall publish a notice in English?
MR. MOTHERAL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why do we want to do that?
I'm sorry, I'm just kidding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, there's a couple of times
we had required, here and in another area, to receive
subdivision covenants, and I've deleted all -- every time that
I could find that we were requesting subdivision -- or
12-12-05 wk
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
homeowners' association, not subdivision. Homeowners'
association covenants. I've deleted those, 'cause I don't see
that they have anything to do with us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree 100 percent.
MR. HARVEY: You can't -- the County can't enforce
them. Actually, it can just bring you into an argument where
you should have never been in the first place.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does all the time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like I said, we don't want those
any more. That's why the numbering change, Bruce. Page 31
and 32, basically just --
MR. MOTHERAL: Go back. On last night's copy -- I
don't know where it is in today's copy, but the 6.04.D,
talking about during a regular term, Commissioners Court shall
adopt an order permitting the revision of the subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. MOTHERAL: Under (2) there, it says, "Each owner
whose rights may be interfered with has to agree to the
revision." Let's make an assumption that you have -- you, as
a developer, have sold six lots, ten lots, whatever, and you
have one individual who, for whatever reason, is mad at the
developer. He can create a real problem for the developer. I
can see a majority or two-thirds majority or whatever, but
12-12-05 wk
70
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
each individual could be a major problem for the developer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We used to have something
like 90 percent or something like that; I can't remember what
it was.
MR. ODOM: 7
COMMISSIONER
basically contained in
COMMISSIONER
MR. ODOM: I
COMMISSIONER
the --
~.
WILLIAMS: Isn't that language
the deed?
LETZ: I believe this is state law.
think statute.
WILLIAMS: It requires a majority of
MR. MOTHERAL: Majority, I agree with. But each?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe that's what it says in
state law. Both the revision of plat and the cancellation of
plat are pretty much -- I just took out of Chapter 232.
MR. MOTHERAL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll verify that, but I think it
comes into the -- the one on there does not -- well, the one
the Court has used a lot is, does it interfere with their
established rights?
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if they were in the back of
a subdivision, they really don't have a say.
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's right nearby, you know,
12-12-05 wk
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's something we have to take into consideration. The next
two pages, 31 and 32, there's no change; just state law. Page
33, we used to call them permitted roads, which I never really
could -- I couldn't figure out why we had this term,
"permitted roads," cause "permit" to me means something you
get a permit for, so I just changed to it "roads." That's
what the first note is. Dedication to the public; I can't
remember exactly what that -- I think I changed the wording a
little bit on some of the right-of-way and the easements on
that one. On 7.04, our current rules have minimum lot
frontage of 200 foot. The last draft had 120. Len thought
120 was a little bit too short, so we went up to 150.
MR. ODOM: May I say something? For water and all,
isn't there a 75-foot radius off of property line?
MR. MOTHERAL: Center line of the road.
MR. ODOM: No -- well, I'm just talking about on the
plat itself, I think water availability. Gordon was telling
me --
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
MR. ODOM: -- that
there's no space in between.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
few subdivisions, if any, th
county. That's the reason.
Right.
it's 75 foot, so that's your --
I haven't seen -- I've seen very
at had rectangular lots in this
I mean, you know, if you go -- if
you -- with 5 acres, I can't --
12-12-05 wk
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Five acres, probably not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But if you have
individual water wells, it'd be 5 acres.
MR. VOELKEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I can't imagine someone's
going to ever come up with a lot 150 feet wide and 2,000 feet
long -- or whatever, 3,000 feet long, which it would have to
be to get a 5-acre lot.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, how it comes in to us
most of the time is due to topography. Roads have curves and
wind, and we get on the inside of a road is where we usually
get hit with this frontage issue more. And there is a -- as
you know, a -- let me put my glasses on so I can read.
Minimum lot frontages can be reviewed by Commissioners Court
and lesser amounts can be granted based on lot density and
things, so we can go smaller without doing a variance, is what
this is saying. 150 is kind of -- more of a planning rule
than anything else. Next page, on 34, Road Construction
Design, Construction Specifications and Testing. I didn't
change much that was here, but I did move it around. We used
to have -- it seemed to me that the testing requirements and
some of that we had in kind of different areas, some of it
some subgrade preparations, some of it doing the grading. I
tried to put it all up front and then list the subgrade
12-12-05 wk
73
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
preparations in a subparagraph and grading in a subparagraph.
There is the provision here that additional -- it's the last
paragraph under 7.06. It says, "Additional testing may be
required at the discretion of the County Subdivision
Administrator with concurrence of a licensed engineer hired by
Kerr County." If additional -- "If necessary, additional
testing will be made at the request of the County Subdivision
Administrator and cost thereof paid by the County if the test
passes, and paid for by the developer if the test fails,"
which we talked about earlier. Seems like a fair way to go.
I don't know if it's worded very well.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you doing okay, Kathy?
Want to stop? Okay to go on?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The next page, on 35, it's, I
believe, just the heading change. I think it was called
something else; wasn't called a cross drainage culvert in the
last rule. Next page, on 36 --
MR. MOTHERAL: On that one right at the top of the
page, Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm?
MR. MOTHERAL: You can get a -- a deformed pipe with
the same cross-sectional area you're talking about that has a
lower height so that you can get in some of these driveways
and things.
MR. ODOM: Arch.
12-12-05 wk
74
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. MOTHERAL: An arch pipe, and that's not
addressed here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where do we need to put that?
MR. MOTHERAL: The very top line there. "No pipe
structure shall have waterway area of less than 1.76 square
feet." That's fine, but then in parentheses you have "18-inch
diameter."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get rid of the "18-inch
diameter"?
MR. HARVEY: No -- or just say "18-inch diameter or
equivalent."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or equivalent?
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: We agree. An arch is better, anyway.
MR. HARVEY: Well, there's arch, there's elliptical.
There's multiple shapes, so if you say "or equivalent" --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which page is that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 36.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I got it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe most of these changes
are changes in the heading title, on 7.06.5, .6 and .7 there.
None of those changes are real significant. On Page thirty --
MR. HARVEY: Under bridges --
12-12-05 wk
75
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: Bridges?
MR. HARVEY: -- I guess that they still fall within
the five-year hydraulic design?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll have to defer to Leonard on
what we need to say here. I mean, it's -- this is pretty much
the same as it was in our last rules.
MR. HARVEY: Well, that -- I've never done a bridge
in Kerr County, but if I would have -- if one of them would
have come up, I would have asked the question, is -- a bridge
over a county road is going to be considered cross-drainage.
Cross-drainage is set up to be designed for a five-year storm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we need to say "designed for
a five-year storm frequency"?
MR. HARVEY: Well, there --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Versus a 100-year frequency?
MR. HARVEY: Well, there -- I would suggest that
there be a hydraulic design criteria for bridges, and a
structural design frequency.
MR. ODOM: Bridge span.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Send me an e-mail on this one,
Les.
MR. HARVEY: I can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I understand what you're
saying, but -- 'cause I think it does need to be --
MR. HARVEY: I don't --
12-12-05 wk
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
AUDIENCE: The difference between surface loading
and hydraulic loading is what you're saying.
MR. HARVEY: Well, structural loading and hydraulic
loading are two completely different things.
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
MR. HARVEY: But you can't -- well, it's just not
practical to design every bridge for the 100-year storm.
MR. ODOM: Oh, no.
MR. MOTHERAL: No.
MR. HARVEY: I mean, the Highway Department doesn't
MR. ODOM: No. And I can't think of the wording we
need right now, but there is -- part of that, I think, was
that the hydrologist would take a look at that. And in some
cases, we may not even have pipe; a swell may be sufficient,
but I don't -- he'd have to show that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, I'll look -- I have
copies of Bandera, Kendall, and Kerr County rules, and I'll
look at what they have for bridges, see if they have some.
MR. HARVEY: Well, I can suggest to you right here
what the language should be, in that it should -- it should be
able to hydraulically pass --
MR. ODOM: Pass a five --
MR. HARVEY: -- a five-year event, but water over
25 ~ the roadway, water over the driving -- you should still be
12-12-05 wk
77
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
able	to	drive over the	bridge in a	15-year	event. It still
needs	to	be vehicular	passable in a	15-year	event.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. MOTHERAL: It also needs to be structurally
sound so it doesn't get washed away.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's why we have
engineers here, to help us with this.
MR. VOELKEL: Jon, before you turn the page, excuse
me. Under the 7.06.8(b), Construction Methods, just to be
consistent, you've got no base of less than 6 inches.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Riqht.
MR. VOELKEL: You go to your country lane on Page
40, and it's got 4 on both of those, so one of those needs to
change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. VOELKEL: Need to be consistent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Six.
MR. ODOM: Where was that? Where was that that you
caught the 4 inches?
MR. VOELKEL: On Page 40 and 41, under Paved Country
Lane.
MR. ODOM: The description of the country lane, but
not the unpaved.
12-12-05 wk
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
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir, both of those have 4-inch
base. I guess they should be 6?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, correct. Okay. On Page
37, most of the changes here are written out by Leonard, and
they're very slight, referring to the terminology of -- there
was some wording here that was not commonly used, or I guess
materials not commonly used any more, or not in this area; I
can't recall what they were, but the changes here are -- are
related to the way the County builds roads, and to make them
consistent. Page 38, again, it's a terminology change under
(b) and under (c).
MR. MOTHERAL: Under (b) on Page 38 there --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes?
MR. MOTHERAL: -- third line, "described provided."
Shouldn't it say "described above"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take out "described"?
MR. MOTHERAL: No. No, add -- add "above" after it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: And then just "provide" a sealcoat, not
"provided."
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think, under (c), as I
12-12-05 wk
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
recall, there's a slight change in the number of -- used to
be -- it went from 2 inches to inch and a half, and then it
was lowered -- or inch and a half to 2 inches, the latter
part. Can't remember which way, but something like that.
That was a recommendation that Leonard made on slopes.
Related to paving thickness, Page 38 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the one we're on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 38, but on the last one on
the page, it's just a minor word change. The previous one
said the Commissioners Court "shall" authorize. I said "may"
authorize.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Change "may" to "shall"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Change "shall" to "may."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mine says "may" already.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know; I already changed it.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to point out that we
-- at one time we had a -- a Yankee commissioner here that
wanted to know -- in the budget process, he wanted to know why
we hired so many people to guard other people's cattle. I
swear to it. Couldn't believe it. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Must have been in Precinct
2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't in Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Precinct 1.
12-12-05 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
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 39, the change here is
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it was 60.
MR. ODOM: I don't think it was specified.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, it wasn't specified; it was
blank. It was to be determined.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now it goes to 80?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It goes to 80.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You like that, Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The State would like 120.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the next page, the base
material, we modified that. I think it used to say caliche.
Doesn't say caliche any more; it says Type A, Grade 2.
MR. ODOM: Crushed limestone.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then on the -- that's under
Local Road.
MR. VOELKEL: Yeah, that didn't change. Local road
never was caliche.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there actually was a
caliche road. Anyhow, there isn't any longer.
MR. ODOM: I think Type C.
12-12-05 wk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or Type C.
MR. ODOM: Type C, and eliminated that.
MR. VOELKEL: Type C, Grade 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, it eliminated --
raised that standard a little bit.
MR. ODOM: Raised the standard.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the -- under Local
Road, I think I raised the pavement width from 18 to 20 feet.
Isn't that right, Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then, under Country Lane
pavement, we went from 16 to 18. And I'm not sure if that's
the right amount. I think our roads were too narrow. I don't
know if we need to go, you know, a little bit wider or not.
But there was -- both of those were increased. And on country
lane, I think we've reduced -- I can't remember what it was.
I don't have the old rules in front of me, but now it says 8
lots with a minimum of 10 acres. I think it was 15 lots
previously.
MR. VOELKEL: It was.
MR. ODOM: It was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we've tightened that up quite
a bit as to what a country lane -- or the number of lots a
country lane can serve.
MR. HARVEY: On these tables for right-of-way and
12-12-05 wk
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the different dimensions and stuff, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HARVEY: -- I'll try to explain it the best that
I can in an e-mail, but it's really impractical to allow a
maximum grade of 12 percent on a collector road. Every -- and
I'll try to do this in the e-mail, that each different road
classification is based on average daily traffic, and that
average daily traffic is based on acceptable safe driving
speed limits. And the plan and profile of roads, the
horizontal alignment of roads are all based on speed limits,
and speed limits differ by road classification. And it's
probably been three years ago, but I provided Franklin
Johnston a table that addresses all of this stuff based on
road classification, and it -- in here, how does somebody
determine what's an arterial, a collector, or a local road?
There's no criteria.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think "collector" is defined
as lots or a traffic count.
MR. HARVEY: Well, what traffic count? It's all --
it's all -- it should all be based on average daily traffic
count, and that comes from a traffic study that's done for a
development. That traffic study will dictate the roads that
you need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How can you do a traffic study
25 ~ before you have a development built?
12-12-05 wk
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
MR. MOTHERAL: You know how many lots.
MR. HARVEY: If you know how many lots that are
going to be in there, whether it's a residential development
or commercial development, depending upon the end use, you can
do a traffic study to come up with the average daily traffic.
That average daily traffic is going to dictate the road
classification, the speed limit, horizontal curves, vertical
curves, speed limit, everything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I guess I don't -- I don't
-- I think we're doing that. I mean, our collector road has a
minimum of 60 lots, and then a country lane is 8 lots, so if
you're between 8 and 60, you're a local road. I mean, I think
we're doing it based --
MR. HARVEY: Well, and I don't want to use the word
arbitrary, but it could be. Those could be arbitrary numbers
that really don't apply to this collector cross-section.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if -- what you -- what
you referred to that you sent to Franklin, we need to look at
that. We can -- is it a state or some engineering document?
MR. HARVEY: It's based on a national design
criteria for rural roads --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that --
MR. HARVEY: -- used all over the country.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be good to look
at that, and get Leonard to look at that, if you'll give him a
12-12-05 wk
84
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
copy if he doesn't have one, and align these and our road
names with that standard, if we're not right now. I think --
and I think you have to do it on number of lots; that's the
only way you can do it at this point.
MR. HARVEY: I think you should allow that it also
be done on an average daily traffic count, because not every
development has -- as time goes along, especially in the ETJ
of the city, or just outside the ETJ, you're going to have
more developments that are mixed use. They're not strictly
just residential; they can be residential combined with
commercial. Sure, we haven't seen that many out in the
county, but you need to allow that option to base all of this
stuff on an average traffic count. And traffic count is a
function of not only the number of lots; it is also a function
of the size of the lot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I look at it as a -- I'm
not disagreeing with anything you're saying, but I think it's
hard for us to -- we need to make something clear and concise,
and I don't know how a developer is going to always know
what's going to happen with his property. I think you have to
have basic criteria, and we tend to use lots -- number of lots
as our criteria. And if they're -- at some point, the roads
may have to be upgraded. It tends to be -- if the roads are
for -- most of the purely residential roads, a lot of those
are private roads, and not that much of an issue. If they're
12-12-05 wk
85
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 be used for a lot of other purposes, I would think
they're probably going to be county-maintained. The County's
going to have to be the one responsible for doing the upgrade
at some point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Letz, help me understand what
homes there, and we can probably figure two cars per home,
maybe. That's before anything is built. So, how do you get a
full traffic count at that point?
MR. MOTHERAL: You don't. It's calculated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Off the number of lots?
MR. HARVEY: Off the number -- you do it by -- you
do it by -- there are various formulas that you use. For
example, if you have a residential subdivision 15 miles from
downtown, and you assume -- I know it sounds weird, but you
assume throughout this entire development you have two and a
half vehicles per lot. Living that far from certain everyday
human services, they're going to make one trip into town and
then one trip back home. Now, if that subdivision -- the same
subdivision, same number of lots -- is 2 miles from town,
they're liable to be making three and four trips a day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With both -- same number of
lots, two and a half cars?
MR. HARVEY: Sure, same number of lots, same number
12-12-05 wk
86
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
of cars. That's why you can't base it -- well, you can. But,
therefore, there's too much play in taking the total number of
lots and applying it county-wide. The average daily traffic
count in a subdivision 15 miles from town is going to be
completely different from somebody 2 miles from town.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but I don't know how
you write that down here. How do you --
AUDIENCE: Just cite the engineering standards
from --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we just refer to the
standards or the formula you're talking about that you
provided? Can we just make a reference to that?
MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir, we can make reference to
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to have -- I
mean --
MR. HARVEY: But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HARVEY: That's why I was --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the problem we're
trying to --
MR. HARVEY: -- going to send a long-winded e-mail.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the problem we're
looking to solve? Sounds like a solution looking for a
problem.
12-12-05 wk
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HARVEY: I'm not sure I understand that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What problem are we trying
to solve if we go
MR. HARVEY: To be clear about road classification.
Once you have a road classification, that establishes the
design speed limit. Once you have a design speed limit --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MR. HARVEY: -- for the safety of the driving
public, that should dictate horizontal and vertical alignment.
traffic count is and what size road you need, is it -- are
things going to be better and different?
MR. HARVEY: Well, the County would not dictate the
formulas.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know that. But what I'm
saying is, we're doing okay the way we've got it now. Why --
what is the need to change?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Les says we may not be doing
okay, or thinks we may not. As we get more and more growth, I
tend to -- I mean, I agree conceptually with what Les is
saying. The problem I have is coming in with a -- trying to
keep a -- a set of Subdivision Rules that are simple --
relatively simple and easy to understand. And our rules -- I
mean, if we get a complaint now, it's that our rules are too
12-12-05 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
confusing, and if we make them more confusing, it's kind of --
simplicity.
MR. HARVEY: Well, those should be one and the same,
public good and public safety.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, public good and safety on
one side, then simplicity on the other. Because, I mean, we
need to protect the public safety, but we don't want to get
something that's so complicated that -- I mean, that we're --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can see us getting into,
within 2 miles of the ET J, you got to have black rocks, and
then from 2 miles to 3.5 miles, your rocks are going to be
red. And, you know, I mean, that's what I'm seeing here. It
would really get complex. You're probably on to something,
but not with this commissioner.
MR. HARVEY: I'm not trying to make it complicated;
I'm trying to explain the background behind why average daily
traffic count should dictate what road classification you
have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. HARVEY: And that's all based on a traffic study
that the developer has to prepare. TexDOT requires developers
to do it that front on their highways. Other counties around
here require large developments, depending upon their ingress
and egress, for a traffic study. The County would want to
12-12-05 wk
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know that just -- and even good developers would want to know
that so they design the proper road classifications within
their own development.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's take a peek and see how
other counties do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll look at the counties around
MR. HARVEY: They ask -- counties around us leave
the option open to the county administration to require a
traffic impact analysis based on the type of development that
comes in on a preliminary concept plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that you -- I mean, one
of the things that I -- we strive to do is to -- is to get
the -- the subjectivity out of our rules. 'Cause I hear,
primarily with Kendall County, that they have a lot more
subjectivity in their -- not trying to pick on Kendall County,
but I hear a lot of complaints about the way Kendall County
does a lot of their subdivision rules. Some of it's
personnel, probably, so I think we need to keep the
subjectivity out. I don't have a problem with putting some
sort of traffic study in here, you know, if it's something we
can do pretty simply, you know, without having something so
complicated. And if -- if average traffic -- if a normal
engineer	-- or I	shouldn't	say "normal"	engineer; I	don't	know
if there	is such	a thing.	(Laughter.)	An engineer.	If	an
12-12-05 wk
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
engineer that's going to be hired by the developer can, at a
relatively reasonable cost, develop a traffic study, I don't
have a problem with doing that and using that, but I don't
want to overly burden the process, and I think we probably
need to put a set number of lots in the development. I mean,
I don't want to require someone putting in five lots to have
to do a traffic study. I mean, I just --
MR. HARVEY: No, I'm not suggesting that at all.
Like I say, what other counties around us do, they leave it to
the option of the Court, depending upon the nature of the
development. They can or cannot request a traffic impact
analysis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My sentiments are just like
yours. If it's something new that's a good tool for us and it
can be applied simply, without a lot bureaucracy, then let's
do it.
MR. HARVEY: And it can easily be applied
county-wide.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you that the --
the type of roads you build -- the base, you know, all the
materials that you use and the type of road you build should
be based on traffic count. What else could you base it on?
25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's related to
12-12-05 wk
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
proximity to services, right? That's in the frequency.
MR. HARVEY: And the -- and what's being developed,
you know, 5-acre subdivision or a 500-acre. You know, there's
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Traffic count's different on
MR. HARVEY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me go back. I wrote "begin
traffic study" on this to move on, so we can get out of here.
Under Country Lane, we still permit Type C, Grade 2 base or
caliche Grade 3. Leonard would like me -- or like us to
eliminate caliche Grade 3.
(Judge Tinley returned to the courtroom.)
MR. ODOM: There's enough pits -- or limestone pits
that are crushing now all over the county. You know, they can
-- can take that. That Grade 3 is real hard to meet anyway,
and it's tough. You know, it doesn't end up with a good one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the way that I look at
this -- I don't want Leonard to get mad at me when I say this.
The County, I know, does not -- they make their own base
on-site using river gravel, creek gravel. They have done
that, and it makes a great road. But if we put a requirement
on here that we have to use base, that means the County also
is going to have to haul base to every road.
MR. ODOM: Well, we just about do. But let's get
12-12-05 wk
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something straight now. What we're talking about is new
construction, not -- (cell phone rang.) I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to get in --
MR. ODOM: You know, but we're talking about road
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: Road betterment is totally a different
thing than new construction, and I'm taking something that's
out there to make it work. And in most cases, we haul base.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know.
MR. ODOM: We bring it in. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know we do.
MR. ODOM: -- road construction, not road
betterment, rehabilitation on something.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, you base your theory
here on availability of material, as opposed to -- see, I
would -- I look at this country lane being built out of
caliche as a convenience. I mean, there's nothing wrong --
there's nothing wrong with a caliche road, in my mind. And
you're thinking of it in terms of availability of material.
Did I not hear you say that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MR. ODOM: Talking about my road betterment, you
mean? If I have a road that I need --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're saying that they're
12-12-05 wk
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
crushing rocks everywhere now.
MR. ODOM: Right, crushing base.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- so the reason that you
would want to take out caliche is because now there's a lot of
crushed rock out there that is available? There's more
MR. ODOM: It's more available than it was when I
first came here 15 years ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And so most of it is pit rock, and that's
the reason we had the Type C in there, was to give people that
availability, was Type C.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I think there
is more availability, but I think the -- you know, if a
caliche Grade 3 road is as good as a road with hauled base, we
should still allow it, because there are areas that are -- I
mean, the freight is very, very high on hauling truckloads of
base. If you're building a road and you can use on-site
material that meets the criteria, I don't know why we
shouldn't allow that, because otherwise you're not -- plus you
have another problem when you're building a road in some of
these areas in far west Kerr County, and actually throughout
the county in the more remote areas; you've got a lot of
material you got to do something with anyway. I mean, you got
25 ~ -- you know, so I just -- you know --
12-12-05 wk
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MR. ODOM: If your gradation -- remember, we're not
talking about caliche; we're talking about TexDOT standard for
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, which is a lot of --
MR. ODOM: Which has a lot of aggregate or rock in
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: And some places do have that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: But, again, if you have to maintain that
country lane, the same garbage trucks are going to be running
up and down it, which may be five different trucks, 'cause
24 class?
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cost. I mean, road construction
somebody's saving a dollar from not hiring so-and-so. It's
going -- and that's worth 3,000 cars. One garbage truck is
worth 3,000 A.D.T. So, you take that and we have to -- we're
going to have to maintain that. We're going to have to build
that. We're going to have to scorify that up, 'cause it's
going to rut or it's going to move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess if you're -- like
I said, if you're saying that a Grade 3 caliche road is a
substantially lower quality than a base road --
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, than a type -- Type A, Grade 2,
is lesser material than that Type A, so why not go first
12-12-05 wk
95
1 is --
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. ODOM: What is the cost to the taxpayers if I
have to maintain that road?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just look at -- most of
the roads that you do maintain are on base -- are on caliche.
MR. ODOM: Sure they are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're not breaking the
county right now. And I don't know -- I mean, I don't know
that requiring a much higher standard than the county
currently has -- I guess I don't see us having huge road
failures, at least in my precinct. After we get a huge amount
of rain, we could get some, but I suspect those are things
that are going to happen whether you have base under there or
caliche. Roads are going to fail due to springs developing in
the middle of the road.
MR. ODOM: That, or no drainage.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or heavy traffic.
MR. ODOM: Or heavy traffic, that's right. It's
going to grow. The county's growing.
MR. HARVEY: To me, the big difference between -- on
Page 40, the big difference between (aa) and (bb), both of
them allowing caliche Grade 3, is one of them is paved and one
of them is not. One of them is sealed. The other one is
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you think, under Paved, we
available to breathe with Mother Nature.
12-12-05 wk
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
should eliminate the caliche?
MR. HARVEY: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
MR. HARVEY: On unpaved -- on the unpaved, use
caliche to your heart's content.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you.
MR. HARVEY: But when you seal something off, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. HARVEY: -- no caliche.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: And it's got more clay in it, and if it
doesn't have the chance to breathe like an unpaved country
lane, you're going to have maintenance problems.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't looking at the paved
and unpaved.
MR. ODOM: Yeah. And I think what I submitted to
you was that right there. I left the unpaved --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. ODOM: -- as Type C. I could go along with
that. But the paved part, we're going to have to deal with
that. And there's nothing worse than the west end of the
county that freezes out there, and anything that's on top of
it pops off.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That tune on your
telephone, was that "That Good Old Baylor Line"?
12-12-05 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
24
25
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That tune on your
telephone, was that "That Good Old Baylor Line"?
MR. ODOM: No, it wasn't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a few more pages to get
through.
MR. ODOM: So, are we saying that we're going to go
with that -- unpaved is all right to go with that caliche,
then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like a solution to
me.
MR. VOELKEL: And that's not a road he'll maintain,
only a private road.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
MR. VOELKEL: You don't have to worry about it.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Under Page 41, 7.07,
there was a requirement, I think, that you receive the
homeowners' association covenants. That's been deleted. I
think it's the same on the next page, on Page 42. That's why
those marks are there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
12-12-05 wk
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: 7.11, that's a provision -- I
changed the wording slightly on it. I really don't know --
it's probably good to have in here, but it's really nothing to
do with our Subdivision Rules. It's more saying that if we're
going to accept a road for county maintenance, it sets the
criteria, and we probably need to pass a separate court order
setting the criteria for accepting a road for county
maintenance so we get that clear. We may have done one a long
time ago, but just to make it clear that right now we say it's
in our Subdivision Rules, but it probably really needs to be a
separate court order.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll add that. Page 43, there
is a change, financial guarantee. Used to say bond. New
state law calls it a financial guarantee; gives a little more
flexibility. On Page 44, again, that's a financial -- it's
changing the word from bond -- or letter of credit to
financial guarantee. Section VIII on Page 45, I did not
change anything here, but I think those two provisions need to
be moved into the Inspection section up in the -- they need to
be moved to other parts. I don't think we need a whole
separate section for these two items; they can be put into
other areas where needed. Section IX, Guarantee of
Performance, the change here throughout is changing the
terminology to financial guarantee to go along with state law.
12-12-05 wk
99
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 then Page 47, it's just adding a provision related to the
ETJ. And a question I have is city of Ingram. What are we
doing with the city of Ingram? Is it ETJ? We're just
ignoring the whole problem; they don't exist.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what we've done so
far. I guess we need to deal with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Same law applies,
right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But in the ETJ of Ingram, don't
we -- haven't -- hasn't the City of Ingram adopted the county
rules?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're using us. They
don't have their own department. Is that correct, Leonard?
MR. ODOM: They have a Public Works Director, but
I -- but I think he's a combination of several things. I'm
sorry, I don't --
MR. VOELKEL: I thought they were letting the County
take care of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We see the plats in Ingram's
ETJ.
MR. ODOM: In the ETJ, we have been.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We probably need to get an
interlocal agreement with the City of Ingram telling them that
we're doing the platting. Or he has it in his hand?
12-12-05 wk
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
MR. EMERSON: April 7, 2003, Memorandum to Franklin
Johnston from Don Bonner, re: interlocal agreement with the
City of Ingram.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: Now, I don't know if it ever went
through Commissioners Court, but I have the original draft.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it has.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we need to probably get that
on our --
MR. VOELKEL: Does that give it to the County for
review, that document there, saying to the County, "Take care
of it in the ETJ"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's something like, "Please
take care of it."
MR. EMERSON: They may have, but by the same token,
we got a phone call probably six months ago, you know, from
their City Attorney basically chewing our tails because we
were doing something in their ETJ.
MR. VOELKEL: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember they came to us on
bended knees wanting us to take care of all that.
MR. ODOM: I'd love for them to take care of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If they want it.
12-12-05 wk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we need to get -- I think,
probably, state law -- we need to maybe formalize that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As to the one with
Kerrville, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As with the City of Kerrville.
All right. I look forward to comments from everybody.
MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for your review.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. VOELKEL: Buster? When Les left, he was mad.
Did you see him?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Finally.
MR. VOELKEL: He couldn't handle it any more; "I'm
out of here."
MR. ODOM: That was a good job.
(Commissioners Court workshop concluded at 4:26 p.m.)
12-12-05 wk
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 21st day of
December, 2005.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: _ __ ~~~-----------
Kathy Banik eputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
12-12-05 wk