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 Regular Session Monday, March 13, 2006 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 ABSENT: DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 Q M 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I N D E X March 13, 2006 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 5 1.1 Consider/discuss 150th Anniversary Parade options 6 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to authorize 6-month review of '05-'06 Kerr County budget at workshop March 27, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. 10 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action certifying to Secretary of State ownership by County of Turtle Creek Cemetery 13 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve Final Revision of Plat for Lots 5-9, Block 8, Greenwood Forest Subdivision 18 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for exemption from platting for approximately 249 acres off Upper Turtle Creek 19, 63 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set a public hearing for Revision of Plat for Lot 51, Kerrville South Ranches Two, Precinct 1 26 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set a public hearing for revision of Lots 117A & 116D of Falling Water, Precinct 3 27 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for approval of Cooper Cove Addition, Precinct 2 28 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to grant a variance from platting and/or a concept plan for 16.07 Acres, Precinct 4 32, 72 1.23 Update public and Commissioners Court on Kerr County vs. EBA lawsuit 35 1.24 Consider/discuss potential litigation/liability regarding Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility (Executive Session) -- 1.5 Public Hearing concerning Regulatory Signs in Kerr County 38 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to increase speed limit on Klein Branch Road from 30 MPH to 45 MPH 40 1.7 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for Lots 3, 4, & 5 of Japonica Hi11s, Precinct 4 42 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for Revision of Plat of Lots 3, 4, & 5 of Japonica Hills, Vol. 5, Page 199, Precinct 4 42 1.9 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for Lots 4 & 5 of Byas Springs Ranch, Precinct 4 43 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for Revision of Plat for Lots 9 & 5 of Byas Springs Ranch, Vol. 5, Page 250, Precinct 4 49 _.~.~... ...~.~... J 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 I N D E X March 13, 2006 l.ll Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for Lots 79 & 80 of Cypress Park, Precinct 3 45 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for Revision of Plat of Lots 79 & 80 of Cypress Park, Vol. 3, Page 95, Precinct 3 96 1.18 Consider & approve bylaws of Advisory Board of Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library; consider & take action on recommendation by the Board that the 2005-2005 agreement be amended 47 9.1 Pay Bills 85 4.2 Budget Amendments 89 4.3 Late Bills -- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 99 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 103 1.19 Public Hearing on Subdivision Rules and Regulations & Water Availability Requirements 113 1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations 134 1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Kerr County Water Availability Requirements 134 1.22 Reports from the following Departments: Information Technology 152 Road and Bridge 154 Facilities and Maintenance 159 Collections 168 --- Adjourned 170 4 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Monday, March 13, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S I JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled and posted for this time and date, Monday, March the 13th, 2006, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. If you'd rise and have a word of prayer with me, and I wanted to let you know that it is not my turn, but I'm going to pray anyway, because it's an honor. But I get -- in two weeks, I'm up again. Okay. That's -- I just wanted to make that clear and get it on the record. Pray with me, please. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. If there's anyone present who wishes to be heard with respect to an item or a matter which is not a listed agenda item, you're privileged to come forward at this time. If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we'd ask that you wait until that item is called, and we would also ask that you fill out a participation form located at the back of the room. It's not essential, but it helps me 3 - 1 .i - V h 5 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 not miss someone that may want to be heard on an item. But if there's anyone who wishes to be heard on an item that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time. (No response.) '~. JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, we'll move on. Commissioner Baldwin? What do you have for us this morning? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just want to remind the Commissioners Court and all the masses of Kerr County that we will be out of town next week. Most of the week, I guess. And I think all -- everybody here today will probably be gone. So, beginning -- I'll be out there on Monday, and I guess y'all are coming on Tuesday? Is that the plan? But I'va always heard that it -- it's safe on the general public when the government body's out of town. So, that's all. JODGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 2? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is -- is that by way of saying Wir_hita Falls is not burning? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, I don't know. I forgot to check on that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to express my congratulations to Judge Tinley on his re-election, and Barbara and all of the other candidates who were re-elected for another term on the Republican primary. I want to thank all those who ran. Putting yourself out there for what I term 3-i3-ne 6 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 29 25 or call the silly season, and doing that for the better part of six months, that takes a lot of -- a lot of doing. I commend everybody for their efforts, and particularly commend those who were victorious. I look forward to having the opportunity to work with you, Judge, for another four years. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was just going to echo what Commissioner Williams says. Congratulations to all candidates, especially those that won. And it'll be kind of like when I first got on the Court, with -- Commissioner Oehler will be next to me starting in January, which is -- I look forward to that as well. That's the only comments I had. Hope we get some rain this week. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I, too, wish to congratulate all of those who participated in the process, and particularly those that received their party's nomination; Ms. Nemec, Commissioner Williams. And maybe we can get on with the serious business at hand now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Thank you. Let's get on with the agenda, if we might. First item, consider/discuss the 150th anniversary parade options. Commissioner 2, what do you 1~-nF 7 1 "' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ." 2 4 25 have for us there? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, when last we spoke about the sesquicentennial parade, I shared with the Court pictures of a couple vehicles that were restored, one of which was a 1922, I believe, T-model Ford paddy wagon. Commissioner Baldwin and others didn't particularly want to be hanging off the side of that, and I guess I can understand that, as we're tooling down the street. So, I mentioned to the Sheriff that it would be perfect for the Sheriff to be seated next to the driver in this vintage paddy wagon, and he sort of took to the idea, so I've arranged for that, for Sheriff Hierholzer and I to go out, take a look at it, see where the signage could go. And as far as the Commissioners Court is concerned, if we're going to end up on a trailer, I do have one option available to us. The same gentleman has a 1952, I believe, Farman Cub Cadet tractor restored in vintage condition, which he would be willinq to allow us to use in the parade and pull a trailer. And he says that even I could drive it, so I know if I can drive it, Commissioner Baldwin can drive it. And if he had on his overalls -- I don't know about the beard, but that might not be a bad float. Those are the options I've got. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I still think that some of the Commissioners ought to wear black and white stripes and get in the back of the paddy wagon. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A couple of them could. is or, 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 cG 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought you would be in the paddy wagon in the stripes. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll be in the front seat wearing a star. Y'all have to be in the back. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. (Laughter.) JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin and I made a pact; we're going to remain silent about what we know abcut the other to avoid being in the back of the paddy wagon. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just thought Buster would feel like home away from home or something. JUDGE TINLEY: That's not the issue. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does lock, the back, and it does have bars over the windows. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, does the individual have a trailer as well? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He has a trailer, Commissioner, but it's not in all that good of shape. I thought perhaps our friend Charlie Bierschwale at Back 40 might be persuaded to let us borrow a trailer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know I talked -- the trailer I was thinking of needs a tire, but I'm sure I can persuade the individual to fix that, being a local developer and my neighbor, Mr. Crenwelge. He has an old -- he has, like, a hayride-type trailer which would probably be pretty i~ or J L.. .. ._..._._..._~.. -.. _ _ 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appropriate. There's another one I can probably get in Comfort, but when I saw the price, I didn't need the trailer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Speaking of a hayride trailer, I also know where there's one, a hayride-type trailer. I think we can find one. The question is, who's going to decorate it? How are we going to decorate it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think hay bales and a few things like that. I think, you know, keep it pretty simple, and hope for good weather. But I've talked to Dale; I'll talk to him again about his trailer. And also, to me, I think a tractor's a good idea. That's kind of -- I think that's appropriate, to be pulled by a tractor, and some sort of a trailer that's from the appropriate period, if possible. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can certainly arrange for a tractor. Are you cool with that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I am cool with that. I like the tractor. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, is -- the other thing, Harry Seidensticker has an old -- I think it's a Case bulldozer, basically like the size of a trailer. It has rubber cleats on it. I have not talked to him, though. I know it's pretty neat, too, but a tractor's fine. We're probably better off just going ahead and making a decision and going with it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Especially if it's an antique a-i,-oa 10 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's painted up pretty, and probably the original colors and all that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so. All spiffied up. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Tractor and trailer seems like -- like i t's doable. I'm not sure about Buster driving it, though . That gives me the willies. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah , me too. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can certainly flip for that. It's not going t o be me, I can tell you that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I drive it, I want a sign on it that says, "Here' s Commissioner Baldwin pulling the load again. " COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That takes care of that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or, "Still pulling the load." SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You let him drive, and he'll be in that paddy wagon before the end of the parade. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I saw where Kinky got popped for drinking in a parade. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If that's what the Court likes, I'll see if we can finish up the arrangements. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on the to the next item, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to authorize a six-month review of the '05-'06 Kerr County ~ 13 un 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 G1 22 23 24 25 budget at a workshop to be held March 27th of this year at 1:30 p.m. This is the off-season drill -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JODGE TINLEY: -- that we've heard about? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This would be about midterm for the budget. And my thought would be the second meeting of the month, and a workshop setting, beginning at 1:30. I'll make that in the form of a motion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to hold a work -- budget workshop to review -- hold a six-month review of the 'OS-'05 Kerr County budget to be held on March 27th, '06, at 1:30 p.m. Any question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm thinking that Commissioner Nicholson had started a list of issues, so we may want to touch base with him at some point to -- I'm not real clear in my mind if that's true or not, but seemed like he had said something like that, that he was starting a list of things to discuss. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We also have that survey that's out which will be back. I think we asked -- MR. ODOM: 20th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for it back on the 20th. MR. ODOM: The 20th, I believe. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that'll be an 3-13-U6 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 appropriate thing to go into, look at that as well, 'cause it's all budget-related. I think probably we could look at that under the posting as a budget workshop, because I think it -- maybe we ought to add organizational budget, just to make it real clear, if Commissioner 2 doesn't have an SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can I ask what the purpose is don't understand what you're really asking me to provide the Court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: For you, your office, I don't -- I think it's probably virtually nothing. 'Cause I think -- I think it goes into some of the things that Barbara's office does, just like -- at least my understanding -- or Linda. Linda Uecker's probably the simplest one. Passports. That's not something that the Constitution says Linda Uecker needs to be doing, so it's something I think the County needs to be doing or someone in the county needs to be doing. I think that's the only spot -- only individual. And I think there's -- like, I don't believe the Treasurer's constitutionally responsible for personnel. But, it's that type of thing, just to see who's doing what. Because every year we get into looking at budget and personnel, and -- and there's -- you know, the law says, as I understand, that we 3-is-aE 13 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 need to fund what constitutionally needs to be done, and some of these other things, maybe we do or don't need to do them. That's the purpose of it from Commissioner Nicholson and my standpoint. So, I think from your office, there's a minimal amount -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that -- I mean, I can't think of anything you do that's not constitutional. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't do anything that's not constitutionally required. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Item 3, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action certifying to Secretary of State ownership by the County of Turtle Creek Cemetery. MR. EMERSON: Morning, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning. MR. EMERSON: Sometime back, a question of the Turtle Creek Cemetery was presented to this Court. Subsequent to that, I met with Commissioner Baldwin and Mr. Neunhoffer, J - : ? - U l 14 1 '~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 '° 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 "~ 2 4 25 and we discussed that cemetery. And the issue, what it boils down to, is in April 1977, K.I.S.D. deeded the land for the cemetery and the schoolhouse to Kerr County. Subsequent to that, the State passed a statute in the Health and Safety Code that exempted pub -- or that said that public funds could not be used for cemeteries, except for cemeteries that were owned during a very specific time period from September 1st, '76 through January 1, '79. This cemetery was acquired during that time period, and in order for the County to be able to spend public funds on that cemetery for maintenance, we need to send a declaration to the Secretary of State that says we acquired it during that time period, and that's what I'm asking the Court to do today. I'm trying to go back and slowly clean this thing up. JUDGE TINLEY: Is it your opinion that the County did not need to own it for the entire period inclusively, but only to have acquired it during that time -- at some point during that time and then own it presently? MR. EMERSON: Correct. That's what the Attorney JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. EMERSON: Any time in that three-year period. 3-i3-nF 15 1 ,._ 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "~ 2 4 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem with doing this, but I thought that we had decided we weren't going we need to take this action here, but we're -- we're having ongoing meetings and ongoing negotiations with the community out there of where we're going to end up with this thing, and we are -- the surveyor is looking into defining the actual property boundaries, and - - and, actually, I'm -- I'm trying to talk the community into forming a cemetery association under another law that would -- I don't know about giving them ownership, but certainly the ability to maintain and -- and do all the things that a cemetery needs. Otherwise, I'm thinking -- and Rex and I visited about this some -- if they don't do the cemetery association and the county government strictly takes over the ownership, I don't think the community's going to like what's going to happen out there. I mean, we're really and truly going to take over, and -- and decide who's buried there, and you can't -- you can't restrict it to the community people only and that kind of thing; you have to open it up to every -- I mean, just all kinds of things happening out there that I don't think that that community out there is going to like. So, we're just -- we're still in that process -- 3-13-115 16 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- of going -- but, Rex, you're saying that we need to -- we need to take this action today? MR. EMERSON: We really do, in order to clarify the -- this probably isn't the right wording, but to clarify the title. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. EMERSON: Right now, we're kind of in a gray area. K.I.S.D. deeded it to us, but we've never told the Secretary of State that we accepted the deed and acquired the cemetery, even though we have a court order that says we did. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one quick question for the Commissioner. In what state of maintenance is it -- is it currently? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Condition? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is, I think we need to clarify a little more the agenda item. I mean, I -- I think what the -- I think we need to be voting on that we are is-a r. 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 certifying or requesting certification be made to the Secretary of State that we took ownership of the cemetery April 25th of 1977. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good, sir. Thank you. MR. EMERSON: And that's -- the Commissioners Court order that I attached basically says that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. We may be -- if we don't do this, even spending any -- uti]izing any County employees or spending any funds to even survey it, we might be acting outside the law. Is that correct? MR. EMERSON: That's correct. We'll be in direct violation of the statute, and the Attorney General, in multiple opinions, has stated that. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good point. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion? All in favor of the motion as restated, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: A11 opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you, Mr. Emerson. MR. EMERSON: Thank you. i- l i- U 6 18 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Emerson. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's qo to Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the final revision of a plat for Lots 5 through 9 in Block 8 of Greenwood Forest Subdivision located in the Ingram ET J, located in Precinct 4. MR. ODOM: Good morning. On this item, the public hearing for this revision was January the 9th, 2006. The property's located in Ingram's ET J, and they do not wish to sign the plat. They were supposed to have signed the plat and sent it to us, and they haven't done it. They asked for us -- for the Court to sign it, and then they would sign off on it. This is the property where the new Dollar General store was built, and they are waiting for approval to operate the O.S.S.F. At this time, we ask that you approve the plat as presented, and we ask that the County Clerk's office notify Ingram the plat is ready to be signed. And what we're doinq is taking five lots and reducing them down to four lots. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question -- or comment related to this. Does the Court -- anyone on the Court recall -- I mean, I know this is the ETJ. We're -- it's in the -- I ~-i~-oh 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 fl 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 believe in violation of some statutes right now that we don't have an agreement worked out with Ingram on the ETD. And I -- I'm trying to recall who's trying to resolve that as a precinct -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do remember a conversation when Mr. Danny Edwards was present in court, and I thought I understood or remember understanding him saying that -- that they would be willing to agree to whatever our rules are and so forth, and they're -- well, I don't remember him saying that we could do it for them. That's what I don't remember. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, that's -- okay. Well, we need to -- I think Commissioner 4 was the one that was going to pursue that with Danny. We'll check on that. Okay, Rex is nodding. That's what my recollection is. We just need to make sure this happens. DODGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) DODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to Item 13, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for exemption from platting under Section 1.03.C of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules for approximately 249 acres off Upper 3-ls ua 20 1 2 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2q 25 Turtle Creek between Downing and Colinas Roads. MR. ODOM: I was asked -- I'll just briefly say a little bit. I don't -- is Charlie Digges here or Mr. Mayo? I guess not. They had asked -- they were supposed to get in touch with me and asked, if they hadn't set anything, to pass on this. But for general information, this is a subdivision that was proposed. Mr. Baldwin and I met with them in a concept plan, and that they were wanting to divide it in 5 acres. They've changed it up to have larger acreage of 10 acres, but the question has to do with Downing Road. They're calling the road a driveway that was up in there, and if Commissioner Baldwin remembers, we asked the engineer, Vordenbaum Engineering, to certify and to see if it was built to standards, which it is not. As I see it, anyway, size and all. But at this time, I don't know whether they wish to go forward, and I would ask the Court to pass on this 1.13 to another time if they wish to proceed with it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. Mr. Mayo called me over the weekend, and I was out of town, so I have not returned his call. I thought that this would be an appropriate place for you and the County Attorney and I to drive to, to take a look at this road. MR. ODOM: All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And look at the cemetery on the way. 3-ii-nF 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 MR. ODOM: Okay, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This week, if possible, 'cause I'm going to be gone next week. MR. ODOM: I have no problem. I just have -- in the morning, I have, I know, two meetings in the morning, and other than that, at this time I'm open. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, anyway, we're passing on this thing now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question. I mean, is this plat -- does this mean anything? Are those lot lines? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know what that is. The question -- I think they're kind of okay with the way the thing's laid out and the size of lots and that kind of thing. It's just -- it's just this road. He's calling it a road, and we're calling it a -- MR. ODOM: Driveway. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- a driveway and not road. And that's what we have to clear up before we can do anything. MR. ODOM: Before we go anywhere. This was not built to any standards. We have nothing there that is a road, even by 9-1-1, when I had Truby look at it. What the gentleman has is probably a 12- to 14-foot pavement in here, and he's not wanting -- when we met before in a concept plan, he was wanting to call that a road and not bring it up to standards. And even at this point, he's not -- he is saying -13-06 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 G V 21 22 23 24 25 that's a road. It's a driveway. And now he's wanting to go under 1.03.C, I believe it is; it's 10 acres or more. Maybe it's D. And which, if this was construed a road, then he could subdivide this property off of it without having to build it if he could use that, just that this road meets standards. Which it is just a driveway. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. We'll deal with it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- what's the 1.03 -- C? MR. ODOM: It's either C or D. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not D. MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, let me pull it; we'll see. 10 acres or more... COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Rex, can you look at this? And the reason I brought this up, Senator Wentworth, who is the author of the current rule, sent a letter to one of my constituents saying that our interpretation of this was wrong, and I disagree with Senator Wentworth's interpretation. But that doesn't mean anything. He said -- and I think it's very pertinent to this. He said that under C, it can be any kind of a road. It can be a driveway, it can be a trail, and that it qualifies under that exemption. I disagree. I think that road has to be built to the standards for the number of lots that are being served by it under our -- under the County's rules. Senator Wentworth sent a letter to a constituent of mine as to, no, you do not have to plat this if 5 i~ o~ 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you have access to it by a road. And I think we need clarification as to that language, as to whether a road is defined as we define it in our subdivision rules or whatever the individual who chooses to do it is defining as a road. So -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm with you. I disagree with Senator Wentworth as well, that -- former County Commissioner Wentworth, on top of that -- that you can't -- in your wildest imagination, you can't build a subdivision off of a goat trail. That's crazy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: An d. I'm -- and while I've seen the letter he -- Senator Wentworth wrote, I'm not sure he was provided the true facts. So, you know, I'm not saying that -- you know, I don't know, but I think we need clarification as to exactly what that C exemption is. MR. ODOM: Right. And when it's ambiguous, and sometimes they are ambiguous, at that point you have to have -- to me, you provide that higher law. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. ODOM: And that's our subdivision rules. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there any clear-cut distinctions between what was cited to Senator Wentworth that caused him to write the letter in this particular situation? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very similar, almost the exact same situation. The other one was a driveway that got to a ~ 13 CF 24 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 back lot, and it was -- and subsequently he sold that lot to another person, and they wanted to use that driveway that was never platted or -- you know, it was clearly a private driveway. But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had one of those. We had one of those in Precinct 2 involving that property out -- and Jay Colvin was involved. Same thing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, it's a question I think we need to resolve once and for all. And, you know -- well, we probably need to go back -- depends on how the County Attorney responds. We may need to go back to this individual off Wilson Creek Road as well. MR. ODOM: Well, I have another one, too, that Lee Voelkel brought to me that is off a piece of property that was 40 foot and goes into theirs, and easements have been granted, utilities, and -- and it's a driveway. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. MR. ODOM: You know. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, wouldn't the better -- or one alternative be, as we're now in the middle of our subdivision rules, merely providing that -- that it be served by a road which conforms with -- however we've got it defined there, referring to a particular section? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that's -- we could clarify that more, but the letter from Senator Wentworth s-1~-a6 zs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~3 24 25 basically said state law trumps county law, and he said that if they're exempt under state law, under the law that he wrote, we can't do anything to it. MR. ODOM: That opens a large can of worms. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I agree. MR. ODOM: Our precedent has been that it was a road, even -- it may have been a trail. I wasn't here then, but I had -- while I have been here for 15 years, one came up, but it was an old road in Precinct 9 that did go through back over -- the wildlife and all back off by Hunt there. But it was an old road, and it was abandoned. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- to me, my interpretation is that when it talks about a road, it means a road as defined under our rules. MR. ODOM: Under our rules. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we just -- I just think we need clarification before we pursue this. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What we're talking about is providing ingress/egress to citizens. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. ODOM: Which will be subdivided -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Someone purchases a piece of property and expects to get there. MR. ODOM: Health, safety, and welfare. 3- ].3- ii 6 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. EMERSON: I was justgoing to say, for what it's worth, our subdivision rules mirror exactly the state statute language in 232. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whose do? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ours. MR. EMERSON: Ours. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's interpretation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's interpretation of what a road is; a road as may be defined under our rules, or a road as may be under some other law. I don't know how you define a road. I've never come up with a definition of a road anywhere from a legal standpoint, and that's the problem. MR. ODOM: We have used public road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've used the meaning that it's got to be a road under our subdivision rules. MR. ODOM: That's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that standard. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is the way it should be and the way we should do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree. But, anyway, I think this is a good -- probably a good time to look at this. MR. ODOM: To do something, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 19, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to set a public hearing for revision of plat for Lot 51, Kerrville is o6 27 1 2 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 South Ranches Number Two, located in Precinct 1. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The division of property, what you have before you, this plat, is -- falls under exemption 1.03.B, the family division. However, the owners choose to file a plat. Therefore, we are doing the revision of plat under the alternate plat process, and ask that you set a public hearing for April the 29th, 2006, at 10 o'clock. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a public hearing on the agenda item for April the 24th, '06, at 10 a.m. MR. ODOM: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to Item 15, if we might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to set a public hearing for the revision of Lots 117A and 116D of Falling Waters located in Precinct 3. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This may be where our parade trailer comes in. 3-13-i;6 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MR. ODOM: This is a revision of plat done under the alternate plat process. Requires a public hearing. Therefore, request the public hearing be set for April 29th, 2006, at 10:10 a.m. It is taking two lots, removing that and reducing two into one lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item, to set a public hearing for April the 24th, '06, at 10:10 a.m. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) DODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) DODGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to Item 16; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for approval of Cooper Cove Addition located in Precinct 2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When did this come about, Leonard? MR. ODOM: Sir, this has been an ongoing thing that was brought to us by, I believe, O.S.S.F. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Headwaters. MR. ODOM: Headwaters. 3 i3 uc 29 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Headwaters? MR. ODOM: Headwaters. And what they did was take this -- the original plat, that Lot 1, Block 1. They added this 208 feet to this property. They originally had 103.5 feet, and they added this triangle to it, and so it was illegal division of property. We were trying to rectify it. Something had been sold to some people, and when they removed this here, we're trying -- we're trying to get it platted. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does it give you, total acreage now? MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, I don't have -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 3.38 plus 10.63? MR. ODOM: No, sir. No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It' part of the 10.53. MR. ODOM: Just part of 10.63. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. MR. ODOM: 208 by five is 10,000. A quarter of an acre, probably, additional to that. Half of that's -- half of a quarter, so thirteen-hundredths of an acre, maybe. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do they -- how do they get to this lot? MR. ODOM: Sir? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the access to the lot? MR. ODOM: The access is right up on the state highway at Stubblefield Road. 3-13-06 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. MR. ODOM: We abandoned that back to the property owners at one time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, it's that right here, that road? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, that dotted is the road right there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. One person owned the whole thing? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They abandoned it, Stubblefield Road back to the property owner? Is -- MR. ODOM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And now they're proposing what? The incorporation of it into this lot? COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's adding acreage into the -- they're basically making a larger lot. MR. ODOM: Larger lot. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, yeah. I'm trying to understand where. MR. ODOM: See the residence right there? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. MR. ODOM: That's what they're adding, that triangle part, that 208 feet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The triangle right below it that goes to the river. 3-13-~~' 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. ODOM: It was real narrow. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, hold on a second. Tell me, clear in my mind -- clear up my mind about what Headwaters thought was illegal about it. They cut it up, sold some of it off, and we haven't approved it? MR. ODOM: What they had was a water system, and I guess they called and wanted to clarify, because it was not a platted lot. We get that sometimes from Headwaters or O.S.S.F. That this was not platted; they just sold it by metes and bounds, and so when they went for water and all, that was how we ended up. They called Truby over there; we started investigating, Eric Ashley. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've seen it before. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is an alternate plat I process? MR. ODOM: Right. 3 1-s-u~ 32 1 2 3 4 5 H 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Coming through at one time? I MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.} JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to Item 17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to grant a variance from platting and/or concept plan for 16.07 ar_res located in Precinct 4. MR. ODOM: Well, this is -- Mr. Carswell is the one that requested this. I don't know if he's here or not. He presented a plan to us, and we told him that it would not work because there was only 16 acres, and he was trying to divide this -- I believe it was 4 acres, I think. I'm sorry, I've got so many -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see how you tell. MR. ODOM: And Truby's not here. Anyway -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here comes somebody. Is that who you're looking for, Leonard? Is that the gentleman you're looking for? MR. ODOM: I'm not sure. Are you Mr. Carswell? AUDIENCE: No, sir. 3-13-U[ 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 <5 MR. ODOM: Okay. Well, part of the reason was that I wanted a cul-de-sac at this end, and that there would be a variance on this. He would like an exemption from platting off an existing road, but each lot will not be 10 acres. In ~ other words, he was trying to come to us at 16 acres and divide this up into two -- two sections. He has an existing road easement down the face of that first lot, and then he was trying to make this neck, so we told him under 1.03.C, that it would not go as far as 10 acres are concerned, and that he would have to come to the Court to get a variance. And I don't see how you can give a variance off that 1.03. It has to be 10 acres, state law says. So, also, that I felt like maybe if he did this, he could subdivide this and put a cul-de-sar in here at the end, maybe, if the Court would go with that. And he could bring this lot at 5 acres or more, still possibly do that. I would not give a variance off that ].03.C, and he would like for you to consider his concept and allow him to proceed with the plat -- what that concept may be, I'm sorry. I -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure I understand where any roads or anything is. MR. ODOM: Well -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's hard to figure out. MR. ODOM: Let's see. This -- that's a private easement. This comes in up here at High Point, where High 3-l:t ~h 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Point -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here's the road. MR, ODOM: That's an existing, and that's another easement. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And he wants to sell off -- MR, ODOM: He wants to buy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wants to divide the piece of tract -- MR. ODOM: The gentleman that owns this, Mr. Carswell, I think, wants to buy part of this 16 acres. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I bet we should wait and let Number 4 do this. MR. ODOM: I would like to hear what he's got. Other than if he's trying to go off 1.03.C, just no way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's no objection on this, we'll pass. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to wait and let Commissioner 4 be here, I think. MR. ODOM: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything further to offer on Item 17? Okay. Okay. Mr. Emerson, do you have an idea about how long it's going to take on 23 and it 24? I was thinking we could go ahead and -- MR. EMERSON: 23 would be probably two minutes at the most in public session, and executive session, five 3-13-UF 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L 1 22 23 24 25 minutes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. EMERSON: 24, I don`t know. Maybe ten minutes at the most. ' JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. In the interest of time, I'd I prefer not to go into executive session too early, but where we are time-wise, we've got -- got some things to do. Let's go to Item 23, update public and Commissioners Court on Kerr County versus E.B.A. lawsuit. Mr. Emerson? MR. EMERSON: This Court, a while back, had stated that they had received a lot of questions about exactly where the E.S.A, suit stood, and that the public was interested. And, from a very generic standpoint, because it is pending litigation, you know, I'd like to give an update on that. January 4th of 'O5, Union Labor Life was pled in as a third-party defendant, meaning that we're now suing E.B.A. and Union Labor Life. December 15th of last year, our attorneys filed the demand for a jury trial before the court, and on February :'3rd of this year, we were countersued by Union Labor Life, basically alleging a number of different items that are in public record. Where we stand at this point is that we have an agreed scheduling order between all parties concerned, and agreed scheduling order is as follows: All discovery will be complete on or before August 1st, 2006. All motions will be filed with the court on 3- 1 3- J 6 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 or before August 1st, 2006. Deadline for mediation in this case is July 3rd, 2006. The final pretrial conference is set for September lst, 2006, at 9 a.m., and we are scheduled for jury trial on September 25th, 2006, at 9 a.m „ barring a settlement prior to -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rex, where is this court? MR. EMERSON: District Court. 198th District Court upstairs. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In Kerr County? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. ~ MR. EMERSON: And that's about the limit of what I can say in public because of the pending litigation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- Can I -- I'll ask a question. If you can't answer it, I understand. Where is E.B,A. in this? Didn't they dissolve? I mean, we're -- sounds like it's -- now it's between Union Life and the County. MR. EMERSON: Be happy to talk to you in executive session. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any further questions of Mr. Emerson at this point? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy, he clams up real good. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Like an oyster. 3-13-CE 37 1 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, we will recess the Commissioners Court at 9:43, and we will go into closed or I executive session to talk about a couple of items that are listed on the agenda for that purpose, so those of you who are present in the courtroom, other than the court personnel and the reporter and Mr. Emerson, if you'd be kind enough to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff also remain. JUDGE TINLEY: You want the Sheriff? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do you want him here for 23 also? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I didn't want him here for 23. 24 only. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's going to be executive on 23. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just for 24, is all I'm -- JUDGE TINLEY: We'll give you a holler, Sheriff, when it's time for you to join us. I SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sounds good to me, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't go too far. (Discussion off the record.) (The open session was closed at 9:44 a.m., and an Executive Session was held, the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go ahead and break until about, -13-Oo 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 oh, 10:35, and then we'll take things up. Let me open it up into open session first, and we'll be in recess until 10:35. (Rer_ess taken from 10:20 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We were in recess. Let`s come to our timed item for 10 o'clock. I will now recess the Commissioners Court meeting and open a public hearing concerning regulatory signs in Kerr County; specifically, the one for which public notice was given relating to the speed limit on Klein Branch Road in Kerr County. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:37 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G Jr)DGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard with regard to the regulatory signs regarding Klein Branch speed limit here in Kerr County? Any member of the public wishing to be heard on that item? Mr. Harris? Please come forward and give your name and address, and we'll be happy to listen to what you have to say. MR. HARRIS: My name is Larry Harris, 4192 Klein Branch Road, Harper, Texas, 78E31. Basically, I just want to raise the speed limit to a reasonable and prudent speed on Klein Branch. It's set at a 30 -- a speed limit of 30. I consider that extremely too slow, The rest of Klein Branch 3-13-On 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 Road is 45. And that's really all I've got to say. It's a good, straight road. Mr. Odom and has taken good care of the road. There's one thing I wanted to talk to him after the meeting, but I think he takes good care of the roads out there. We've had some problems with illegal dumping, but we're trying -- trying -- I'm trying to catch it. I'm trying to help it out. It's my home. It's my front yard, and we all try to take care of our houses. And that's basically all I got to say. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're saying you have an illegal dump in your front yard? Is that what you're saying? MS. HARRIS: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not what you're saying? MR. HARRIS: No. There was some illegal dumping going on, and, actually, I think maybe we've got -- I would II like to -- this isn't anything to do with it, but I would like to see if we can get a camera or something, somehow or another, to -- to help catch these people that are doing dumping. I -- you know, I find it very offensive, all the trash on the road, and I try to clean it up. I actually get -- get a plastic bag and walk around and clean the roads up, and I enjoy doing it. And they have a son that takes his four-wheeler down the road, cleans up. We care about our community. We care about our area out there. And, you know, -i1-oE 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 we constantly - - it's a trash problem. I wish people wouldn't do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Harris, well, we can tell you more about that when we get out of the public hearing. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MR. HARRIS: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can tell you more about that issue when we get out of the public hearing. MR. HARRIS: Okay, good. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Harris. We appreciate your comments. Any other member of the public wishing to be i heard with regard to the regulatory signs, specifically speed limit on Klein Branch Road? Seeing no one else coming forward, I will close the public hearing, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:40 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: And I will go to Item 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to increase the speed ]imit on Klein Branch Road from 30 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour. Mr. Odom, the publication notice was given as required by law to that effect? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. l~-ne 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval, Judge. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item, to increase the speed limit in Kerr County on Klein Branch Road from 30 mile an hour to 45 mile an hour. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, just let me address Mr. Harris' -- DODGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- point, 'cause he brought the point to us before with respect to illegal dumping on Klein Branch Road, which has been a problem. I became aware that some grant funds were available through the Resource Recovery Committee -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: This isn't an agenda item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's just information. I can't talk about it? I'll talk to you later. MR. HARRIS: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: I had the same thought. Thank you. Appreciate it. -13-Oc 92 1 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: You'll never know what the answer is. JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. At this point, I will -- I will recess Commissioners Court hearing -- meeting and open a public hearing concerning the revision of a plat for Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Japonica Hills, as set forth in Volume 5, Page 199, Plat Records, located in Precinct 4. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:42 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard on the revision of a plat for Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Japonica Hills, as set forth in Volume 5, Page 199, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:43 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting and go to Item 8, which is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the revision of plat of Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Japonica Hills, as set forth in Volume 5, Page 199, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 9. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I would move that the Court 3 13 u6 43 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would approve this revision of plat. It is three lots. Still be into lots, but Lots 5 and 3 were reduced to make 9 a little bit bigger. They're still nine -- 9- to 8-acre lots. So, ask for approval of them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I will now recess the Commissioners Court meeting and open a public hearing concerning the revision of plat for Lots 4 and 5 of Byas Springs Ranch as set forth in Volume 5, Page 250 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:44 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of a plat for Lots 4 and 5 of Byas Springs Ranch as set forth in Volume 5, Page 250 of the plat Records, and located in Precinct 4? Seeing or hearing no one to be heard, I will close the public i3 n5 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hearing. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:44 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the Commissioners Court heating meeting and go to Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the revision of plat for Lots, 4 and 5 of Byas Springs Ranch, as set forth in Volume 5, Page 250, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4. MR. ODOM: This was a -- I guess before I start, I'll ask the direction of the Court. Right now, I do not have the mylar, and that Gary Brandenberg asked me if we could pass, but I'm wondering if we couldn't go ahead and have a contingency to have that. He had to send that mylar to California, and for the owner to sign it and to get it back, and it's not back. So, do you wish to pass on it until we, I guess, get that signed? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it were me, I would want to pass on it, and let's do it -- do it right and up front. MR. ODOM: That's what he asked to do. Just ask the Court to pass on it, then. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any member of the Court have anything further to offer on Item Number 10? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who is the owner of that 3-13-nH 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 property? I can't figure it out. I see Jack Clark's name joining there, and I see Syfans joining, but I can't -- I can't tell exactly where that is. MR. ODOM: Should have a signature. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, is this it here, McClintock? MR. ODOM: Yes. It has a signature block in there, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Never heard of him. MR. ODOM: California. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-oh, get a rope. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will open a public hearing concerning the revision of a plat for Lots 79 and 80 of Cypress Park, as set forth in Volume 3, Page 45 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 3. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:45 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of a plat for Lots 79 and 80 of Cypress Park, as set forth in Volume 3, Page 45 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 3? Seeing or hearing no one wishing to be heard on this, I will close the public hearing. -ia-uc 46 1 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 S (The public hearing was concluded at 10:46 a.m. and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: And we will go to Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the revision of plat of Lots 79 and 80 of Cypress Park, as set Eorth in Volume 3, Page 95 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 3. MR. ODOM: Okay. This was two lots. We're not increasing anything. We're increasing the size of one and reducing Lot 79A. There was -- my understanding from Mr. Schwartz out of Boerne is basically, this is bringing this lot line closer to the well. The gentleman in Lot 80 had owned this, but it was clearing it up as far as platting was concerned, was taking that strip of land, and I'd ask the Court to approve this revision of the plat. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One well serves two lots? MR. ODOM: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One well serves two lots? MR. ODOM; No. Well, one well belongs to another gentleman. You just decrease that property. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we -- basically, we're moving a lot line. We're -- MR. ODOM: Clearing -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- getting the well further in -- further off the property line. -1 _ ~1 47 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MR. ODOM: That's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. MR. ODOM: There's another one, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 18, consider and approve the bylaws of the Advisory Board of the Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library and consider and take action on a recommendation by the Board that the 'OS-'06 agreement between Kerr County and Kerrville be amended. This was placed on the agenda, apparently, by -- by Commissioner Nicholson, who was unable to be with us today because of a death in the family. We do have other representatives here that have an interest in this matter. Mr. Lipscomb, I believe you're the chairman of the Library Board; is that correct, sir? MR. LIPSCOMB: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Is this a matter that you wish to address the Court on? MR. LIPSCOMB: Well, I can. Yes, be glad to. 3-13-Oi' 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 <<^4 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Please feel free to come forward. Give us your name and address for the record and proceed. MR. LIPSCOMB: My name is John David Lipscomb. I reside at 909 Lake Drive here in Kerrville. After the reconstituted board met the first of this year, one of our early objectives was to look at the bylaws and -- and try to come up with some changes that we felt were meaningful and needed, and that is what we have passed on through Commissioner Nicholson to you today. Just highlighting a couple of points, one thing we incorporated was the -- under Section -- Article II, Section 2, the definition of -- as we had pulled, I believe, from the agreement, on how the expenditures were going to be divvied up, so to speak. We also made changes relative to the -- to the board members and to the chairperson and vice chairperson, as to we now have a succession. Should the chairperson fail to -- to perform duties for some reason or another, then the chairperson can step in to get these things lined out. We've also drafted a section in here about setting up commissions. If we need some special action taken, we can now form a -- a sub group of the board members to go off and study and come back with a -- to the full board with recommendations. Anyway, these are all changes that we feel like are -- are helpful and good for the board, and so we've -- we've come to you today to ask for your approval of those. I'll be glad to answer any questions, 3-].3-05 49 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 should there be any. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question with respect to the note that Commissioner Nicholson wrote to the Court in introducing the item. Maybe you can enlighten us a little bit and help us understand a little better. He says to the Court to take note of the next-to-the-last sentence of Article II, Section 2, which he goes on to quote, "Shared operational expenses exclude any capital expense in excess of $5,000, with the exception of expenses for the purchase of library materials and any other projects City and County may individually negotiate." In your discussions in trying to determine that language and its meaning, what falls in that category, essentially, of 5,000 or under? MR. LIPSCOMB: Well, I believe -- and Antonio can possibly correct me if I'm wrong. I believe the $5,000 was the criteria set by the City on what constitutes a capital budget item. Is that it? MR. MARTINEZ: That does represent the City's capitalization threshold, $5,000. So, 5,000 and above would be considered capital items in the City budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, where are we in terms of purchasing books, manuscripts, and other media for use in the library? And -- and what do you typically budget for that line item each year, average? MR. MARTINEZ: We've been doing 90,000-plus for s-i3-r~E 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 library materials. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you're going to continue to consider that as a capital expenditure? MR. MARTINEZ: That's required by accounting practices. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I heard a yes and saw a no. Now, where are we here? MR. MARTINEZ: Library materials are considered a capital expense. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're going to be considered a capital expenditure? MR. MARTINEZ: Right. And that's why the statement here says except for library materials. Exclude any capital expense with the exception of expenses for the purchase of library materials. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I'm unsure, based on Commissioner Nicholson's comment, whether he thinks that this is a -- maybe y'all can enlighten me. He agrees with the new bylaws? Or if he thinks the bylaws are -- MR. MARTINEZ: I think his question -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- are contrary to the agreement that we have with the City? 3 19-00 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 MR. MARTINEZ: His question, as I understood it, was, is the County's capitalization threshold 5,000, or is it different from the City's? That was the question I heard him express. JUDGE TINLEY: I think our capitalization threshold is normally to be considered at 1,000. However, the -- the problem I'm having with it is from an accounting -- from an accounting standpoint, standards of accounting. Certain items are capital; certain items are expense or operational. The -- and, certainly, we can agree -- the City and the County can agree that, irrespective of where they would otherwise fall, we can agree as to particular items or category of items, to characterize them differently. I don't see the need to put any threshold amount in there. Exclude -- operational expenses shall exclude capital items, except, one, books and other educational items, or whatever the contract provides, and two, those other items that the parties to the agreement, or that the City and the County may mutually agree upon shall be considered as operational. I don't think we need to even talk about this threshold in there, because capital is capital; operational is operational. And if we're going to do something different, we need to agree on it. MR. MARTINEZ: Well, previously, the question had come up due to the City's requirement for calling it capital. Now, if I could give a little background on that, the sum s-is-nh 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ L L 23 24 25 total of the library's collections -- books, tapes, whatever -- have to be capitalized due to general accounting office requirements. The individual items as they're purchased are not capital, but the sum total of what is purchased becomes a capital item in the City's accounting procedure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with the Judge. I, frankly, don't think we've solved that issue. I think a subsequent Court's going to look at this and is going to look at the court precedent in terms of our capitalization, and they're going to see 90,000, or perhaps a number even greater, and the argument's going to continue as to whether or not our intention was to fund the basic purchase of library materials; books, manuscripts, et cetera, and other media that's used in the normal course and the conduct of library business. So, I'm not so certain we've solved the problem, is kind of what I'm saying. We may have confused it even more, in my mind. MR. MARTINEZ: Well, I certainly -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Am I -- maybe I'm the only one confused; I don't know. MR. MARTINEZ: I certainly don't disagree with the Judge's evaluation of -- you know, if you get rid of that 5,000, then the rest of the language is clear to me. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, if -- if the Court wants to make a decision -- the current contract between the City and the 3-13 06 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ LL 23 24 25 County, the current provision of the contract, if it provides that the purchase of books and -- and similar educational materials, notwithstanding the requirement under accounting practices that they be capitalized, shall be considered as operational expenses for purposes of shared expenses, I think that's got it covered. MR. MARTINEZ: Well, in the opinion of the Board, the agreement did not very clearly specify that library materials were included. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Current agreement or proposed agreement? MR. MARTINEZ: The current agreement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. JODGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. I think the issue is -- what we're talking about is, do we need to go back to the drawing board between the City and the County to clarify that issue? And I think at that point, it's going to resolve -- it's going to resolve your situation, then, would it not? MR. MARTINEZ: Well, again, you know, what I heard the Board saying was this proposed addition to Section 9 would clarify the language in terms of library materials are included. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Section 9? MR. MARTINEZ: Do you have -- I'm not sure what you have. i-13-~i5 54 1 2 3 4 5 F 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Section 9 of the new proposed? I don't have that. I JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, it's the agreement with the -- MR. MARTINEZ: To the agreement. JUDGE TINLEY: It' s on Yage 2 of the City/County contract. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I guess the thing I'm having trouble with on this is that I understand why the Board needs bylaws, but I think it's going to get things really confused if you start talking about dollars and budget issues under the bylaws, when those are really governed by the agreement between the City and the County. MR. MARTINEZ: The bylaws are part of the agreement. That's the way it was drafted. MR. LIPSCOMS: There was an attempt to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. LIPSCOMS: -- define some terms. MR. MARTINEZ: The bylaws are an intrinsic part of the agreement. They don't stand separately. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it hasn't cleared the situation -- cleared it up for me, where we are right now. So, I can't vote for it right now, 'cause I just don't -- I'm ~~onfused on it still. Maybe Commissioner Nicholson will -- could enlighten me. What's -- 3 13-Oh 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to ask a question about this document you just handed us. This is a proposed amendment to the existing agreement? MR. MARTINEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it would -- based on my initial reading of it, it would clear up the question that's in front of us about how we categorise the purchase of library-type materials. I see that happening in here. Which then prompts me to ask another question. Why do we need it in the bylaws if it's strictly a contractual issue? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what my view is. MR. MARTINEZ: It was the Board's desire to really express their charge clearly, to be very clear as to what they're responsible for doing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 guess, to me, the way I see it is that the Board is responsible for coming up with the budget for the library. And I think you have to look to the agreement between the City and the County as to the guidelines there. I mean, I think it's a -- if there's clarification -- if you're saying that we need clarification on that, I think the amendment is the way to clarify it, but I still don't think it needs to be in the bylaws. COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: Well, I think it's in there, and I think what you're saying in Section 2 is sufficient. Section says, in the new language, on or before June 30 of 3 13-Or 56 1 7 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 ]0 11 12 13 14 l5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 <3 29 25 each year, the Board shall present -- that's your board -- the Board shall present a proposed operational expense budget for the next fiscal year to Commissioners Court and City Council, including a forecast of fines and fees to be collected by the library. That's fine and dandy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, period. I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That covers it. Because what you're saying to us is that the issue of the purchase of -- of books, manuscripts, and other medias that are normally used in the conduct of library business is going to be included in that budget, correct? MR. MARTINEZ: Well, now, again, all I can say is, you know, the Board and Commissioner Nicholson did want very clear language stating that there are no capital expenses included in any of this; that there are no expenses for the history center or any other facility, so all those things are -- are reflected in the language of -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, I don't disagree there. I just think that it's even cleaner to have it in one document. I think it should be in the document between the City and the County, not in the bylaws. I think the bylaws, you know, properly say that y'all -- the Board's going to prepare the operational budget, and you're going to look to the guidance of the agreement between the City and the County as to what is included or not included in that operational -i~ oe 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 budget. MR. MARTINEZ: Well, and, again, I don't disagree with that. But the way the City and County Attorney prepared this originally, bylaws and agreement are one document, and were approved as one document. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I guess what I'm saying, Antonio, is that we're talking about $5,000 here -- we're talking about here. If we have -- it's just confusing to have it in more than one spot. I think it should be listed once. MR. MARTINEZ: I don't disagree. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I see what you're doing. MAYOR SMITH: Pardon me, gentlemen. I'm Gene Smith. I'm a Councilperson and Mayor for the City of Kerrville. I agree wholeheartedly with the Judge that this should be a matter taken care of in the joint agreement between the City and the County. It looks like being in the bylaws, we're going at it backwards, and I think we'll be able to -- it's on our agenda, too. I think that we'll be able to clarify it with the other Councilpeople. I'm just one vote on our Council, but I think I can relay the discussions that we've had here and clarify it by an amendment to our joint agreement. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3-13-OH 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly, Mayor, it is in this first -- proposed first amendment. That's exactly the way it is in here. MAYOR SMITH: Thank you. MR. LIPSCOMB: For completeness, should -- do you think the bylaws should reflect a ref -- make a reference to the contractual portion of the -- of this agreement? No? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think that's necessary. I think you've done fine with it in Section 2. MR. LIPSCOMB: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just delete the period -- put a period after the -- just delete the last part of it, to me. Then I think it's clear under the amendment. I think do a clarification. Everything else is really good in the bylaw revisions. MR. MARTINEZ: At what point did you want the statement to stop? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's two different points at which it could stop. MR. MARTINEZ: In the bylaws. JUDGE TINLEX: About, oh, a little more than halfway down where it says "Library," period, out on the left margin. MR. MARTINEZ: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: You r_ould have that read, "Proposed operational expense budget as provided in the agreement 3-13-Oh 59 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 between City and County," and ends with "Library." Or you could include that nest sentence and say, "except as may be expressly provided in the agreement between City and County. Neither capital improvement expenses for the library...," and finish that sentence out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I personally like Option 1, personally. MR. MARTINEZ: Well, perhaps we could get your language relayed to us, and we'll carry that forward. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I like the first one, I think, really, the less said about the details, the better. That way, if something gets changed in the future, we can change one document. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. If you incorporate -- if you refer to the agreement between the City and County, I think if your budget is in accordance with the agreement between City and County, and that'll certainly do it. You could -- whatever that agreement floats back and forth as being, why, that's the charge of the Board, then. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I notice in the styling of the agenda item by Commissioner Nicholson, he -- he does -- he is asking the Court also to take a look at this first amendment to the library agreement, talking about the 'OS-'06 -1~-or 60 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 agreement between Kerr County be amended. Is that -- I'll put it in the form of a question. Is that this document that was just handed to us by Mr. Martinez? DODGE TINLEY: It would appear that the styling of the agenda item would permit that agreement to be amended. Would you agree with that, Mr. Emerson? MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other than the fact that y'all want to probably get on working with the budget, can this wait till the next meeting for us to look at it? I mean, is there -- I'd rather have Commissioner Nicholson present as our liaison, and he couldn't be here due to a death in his family. JUDGE TINLEY: As would I. I think that would be very helpful. MR. MARTINEZ: As the mayor stated, it is on their agenda for tomorrow evening, so they will be also considering it, and he's going to take forward what he heard here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. We can just do it on our next agenda. I don't see any problem. MR. MARTINEZ: But, yes, they are moving forward on budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate the work the Board is doing. i~-~~r 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 25 MR. LIPSCOMB: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else by any member of the ~ Court? Mr. Benham, you had -- I don't know whether you want to come in here late, but you had signed a participation form. MR. BENHAM: Thank you. MR. LIPSCOMB: Thank you for working with us. ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. MR. BENHAM: For the record, I'm Joe Benham, 522 Rolling Green, county taxpayer, proud to be a county resident. I'm the representative to government entities, among others, of the Friends of the Butt-Holdsworth Library. I am neither an attorney nor an accountant, and I have no -- make no pretense of being able to come up with the precise wording that you gentlemen need to have in order to act on what's been brought before you. I would, however, urge you to, now that the election is over -- I stayed out of your hair, 'cause T knew you -- two of you were rather busy getting reelected, but now that the election is behind us, I would urge you to proceed with work on -- or investigation of long-range solutions to library funding. I'm sure nobody, including the four of you and the person who will be in the new -- the new person in the seat over there on the end, wants to go through the kind of difficulty we had during the past year over 3-~~-06 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 defining who owed what to whom and how much. So, I -- I think we're off to a very good start. I commend the Court and the City for the efforts to mend the breach that had opened up, but I don't think we're completely there yet, We still need a long-range solution to the problems of funding the library on both sides, and I would simply urge you to revisit that as -- as promptly and as thoroughly as you can. And, as I've said in the past, the Friends as a group, and I as an individual, are certainly at your disposition for any help that we can provide. And I'm grateful for your time. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr, Benham. We appreciate you being here with us today. Is there any other member of the audience that wishes to be heard on this particular issue? We appreciate it. Anything further from any member of the Court? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment I'll make to Dave. When I read the first amendment -- it's really more of a question. Do we need to add language that if there is a capital expenditure that we want to jointly fund, we shouldn't be precluded from doing it? And I don't think that we are. It talks about an exclusion. MR. MARTINEZ: I believe that language is there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it in the agreement? MR. MARTINEZ: Next-to-the-last sentence. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other projects City and County -is-~~h 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 may individually negotiate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: That -- impliedly, you've got that any time you want to amend an agreement between two parties. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. i JUDGE TINLEY: -- that certainly would be an option with regard to any particular agreement, even if it contained no similar language. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I believe that takes care of our agenda. We can now go to -- we've got to go back and pick up a couple items here. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Going to return to Item 1.13. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that correct, Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Mr. Digges and Mr. Mayo, I believe -- Mr. Mayo, I haven`t got your -- how are you, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and recall the item. That's consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the exemption from the platting under 1.03.C, Kerr County Subdivision Rules, for approximately 249 acres off Upper Turtle Creek between Downing and Colinas Roads. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayo and Mr. Digges, we 3 13-ri a~ 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 25 had discussed it before and y'all weren't here, and just passed on it, but let me tell you basically what -- what that Kerr County's road. You know, we -- when we say "road," we say a County-built road up to the standards with the number of lots. You and I have discussed that, and I haven't had that. So, basically, that's where it's at. We're looking for an opinion of the County Attorney as far as the definition of a road. We can construe it to be a county -- it would be brought up to county standards, whatever that number of lots are based upon the use of new subdivision rules and all. So, I'll basically turn it over -- Commissioner Baldwin is in your precinct, so if you have any questions, maybe, to Buster or -- or Mr. Letz as far as that's concerned, I would ask you at this time, probably, unless you wish to pursue it, till we get an opinion. You may be correct, but we think that our definition of a road is built up to a certain standard. MR. DIGGES: I've got some evidence to provide, if -- I guess, if I can have a chance to do that. I want to provide y'all with some pictures. This is the road itself. It is a paved highway. And here is what's considered a road just -- just adjacent to this property. It's basically the S- 1 4 ~ E 65 1 Z 3 4 5 ti 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 same, same width roadway. The pavement does not -- is not quite as good condition. I'm Charlie Digges, I reside at 105 Larry Lee. And there is currently already a -- a defined 60 foot wide right-of-way that this tract is -- this roadway is used for. There's a 110-acre tract to the -- to the south here at the bottom of the page, and this -- this road is contained within that defined right-of-way. It's a private right-of-way at this time, and it would be for these other members that would use the lots within this subdivision. So, it would be a gated community in a -- in a roadway that's already defined. There is a legal description of that roadway. It wasn't that he just created this -- this driveway, you know, three months ago. This -- this road's been there a while. I COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no -- the issue is the standards of that road. And this has ramifications to many subdivisions throughout the county, two in my precinct right now, as to the -- whether any road, whether it's a good road like this one, maybe, or a goat trail, is -- is -- does that exempt you from having to put a road to county standards under our current rules. MR. DIGGES: Well, you said you're going to go, I guess, to Mr. Wentworth. That's -- that was the senator? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Senator Wentworth wrote a letter to a constituent of mine -- which is irrelevant, not related 3 - 1 3 - :7 F 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ^2 23 24 25 to this at all -- about his interpretation of that, and we're trying to clarify, really -- MR. DIGGES: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- what the intent of the state law is. That's why Senator Wentworth's name was brought up. He's not going to look at this one, I don't think. It's more of a County Attorney issue to look at state law, and does it i mean any road or does it mean a road that's contemplated by county subdivision standards? MR. DIGGES: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Also, this week, the County Attorney and the County Engineer and myself will drive out there and take a look at that road. I want to get out on the ground and take a look at it and see what it looks like, and measure this and measure that and have a visit. And, Charlie, can have I this? MR. DIGGES: Sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And use that type of material to just kind of assist the -- evaluate what it is and what you have out there on the ground, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- then we'll come back and talk. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other point on this is, depends on who has access to that road right now. If you' re 3-13-06 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 granting new people access, that's a change; that's not exempt under how I read state law. I mean, if it's -- if that's a road and its built to I-10 standards, and it's going to someone's house, and all of a sudden you're about to sell lots off of that road, you're changing the character of that road. You're changing who can use it, and that's the way we've ]ooked at it for our subdivision rules, Once you change, you know, who has a right to use it, that's like saying the road goes to my house; well, because there's a road there that's deeded to my house, even though I own all the property right around it, that I can go ahead and start letting lots off of that, even though it's just a dirt caliche road. That's not the intent of our subdivision rules, MR. MAYO: Let me clarify something that might help, 'cause what my intent -- JUDGE TINLEY: Give your name and address, please, sir. MR. MAYO: Okay. I'm Robert Mayo, and what my intent is, is to put very few tracts in there; that there'd only be, I think, seven that would front on -- you know, on that road. There's a whole lot of county road frontage existing already, and it would be a gated community. Most counties that I -- I'm a developer. Most counties allow an exemption for -- for a few lots on a -- on a road; even a few, like, on caliche-type deals. I don't really have a problem ~-1; of*. 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 platting it or -- you know, I just -- and trying -- and get an exemption for that. I have no problem with that. You know, I he just thought that we might be able to just do it this way. And -- and I still have no problem platting it, even doing it I this way. So, I just want to get y'all's opinion. Can I go forward with something like that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our -- our policy has been that we don't give an exemption to a road. The road has -- if you're going to -- it's basically -- under our subdivision rules, it's five lots. If it serves less than that -- well, it still has to be built to standards. It still has to be built to our minimum standards. MR. ODOM: Minimum standards. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And your road, it may be there already. If it's to that minimum standard already, we just need an engineering report that it's currently at that minimum standard, and then it would just be accepted. But if it's not i to minimum standards, it has to be brought to minimum ~ standards. MR. MAYO: Okay. I guess I don't know what your minimum standard is. COMMISSIONER LETZ; In our subdivision rules -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're fixing to find out. Senator Wentworth's been a good friend of mine for a long time, and he's a wise guy and a lot smarter than me. And, of ~ ~~ or 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 course, he's a lawyer and he's a lot smarter than everybody, but I disagree with him on his -- his assessment of this bill that he had written. So, that's what we want to do, is we want to go out there and look at it. And my whole thing is -- as a Commissioner and elected by the people, is that whoever buys your lots has ingress/egress. I want them to be able to get in and out of there, and I don't want them to have to go down a goat trail, as the Commissioner said, to get in and out of their property. So, that's where I'm at today. Until we take a look at it and -- you know, we'll assess it, and -- MR. MAYO: It's a real good road. It was put in, crushed base and everything and two course top; doesn't even have holes in it. It's been there ten years, so it's a real good road. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll -- MR. MAYO: It's just not as wide as a typical county road. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll let you know about it, 1 can tell you that. MR. MAYO: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that particular ~ item? Item 13? MR. ODOM: May I sort of reiterate what Commissioner Letz said? Basically, that 1.02 says that, "shall be required to be prepared by the owner if the tract of land is subject to 3-Li-Ov ~o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 Zl 22 23 24 25 the jurisdiction of Commissioners Court, divided into two or more parts to lay out streets, alleys, parks," and so on and so -- et cetera, et cetera. A division of a tract includes a division, regardless of whether it was made by metes and bounds in a deed of conveyance or in a contract for deed, by using a contract of sale or other executory contract to convey, by using any other method, which is C. All the lots of the subdivision are more than 10 acres, and the owner does not lay out a part of the tract as described in 1.02.C. So, therefore, what Commissioner Letz is saying, even though that would be one piece of land, you're still dividing into two or more parts. MR. DIGGES: Yes. MR. ODOM; And you're using that street. You're conveying that to the owners of that, even though it may be 10 acres. So, the problem we had before when we discussed it was upgrading the road to that standard, whatever that may be, whatever it comes to. MR. DIGGES: I guess we interpreted it as being laid out as it's already laid out. They act like it's going to be something that you're going to do in the process of this, and our opinion is, it's already there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our -- we have operated under our former County Attorney; I don't think this County Attorney has ever given us an opinion on it. "Lay out" also means 3 1 3 i i 6 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ?p 21 22 23 24 25 giving you access to use the land. MR. ODOM: Giving someone else access to use that. You're dividing that into two or more parts. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not the physical -- the physical construction of the road has nothing to do with laying out. It's -- giving the right to use the road is an equal part of laying out. And we have other roads where there's an easement and no road. MR. DIGGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a lot of those. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- MR. DIGGES: Take a look, Buster. See what you think. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to do that. We'll do everything we can to meet your needs. MR. DIGGES: Pretty rural setting, too. MR. MAYO: I just want to say one other thing. If I do have to build a r_ounty spec road, the lots will have to go to 5 acres. I mean, I'll have a lot more tracts in there, so -- just from an economic standpoint, that's the only way it works. And I wanted to keep it large, you know, 20 acres and one 70-acre tract, one 30-acre tract. I wanted to keep it large. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other developers have found it economical to build a road to county standards for large 4 13-116 7z 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tracts. MR. MAYO: They didn't pay the current prices. Today's a lot different. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll get back to you. JUDGE TINLEY: -- on this particular item? Okay. Any -- any other items you wanted to revisit, Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Mr. Carswell's here on Item 1.17. This had to do with Shalako and High Point up there, that road next to it. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. ODOM: I believe -- Mr. Carswell? Do you have -- how about the others? Do you have -- let me hand those out to the court. MR. CARSWELL: Yeah, mm-hmm. MR. ODOM: There's only a few of them. He didn't bring -- I think there's two more. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One will work, probably, for the I Court. MR. CARSWELL: One? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. MR. CARSWELL: Mm-hmm. MR. ODOM: What Mr. Carswell envisioned before was 1.03.C, 10 acres. And I explained to him that it doesn't fit that type of criteria; that the lot is only 16 acres. What he 3-13-06 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L 1 ~2 23 24 25 showed me here while y'all were in executive session is a new layout, and I was telling him that I don't see a problem, other than maybe some type of cul-de-sac on the end. This road is paved. This is up there at High Point, and the road keeps going straight. That has been paved up there. It goes down and takes a 90. This Enchanted Valley Drive goes all the way through; it goes down into the bottom. My thought was on this to present it to the Court as a concept plan; that that is a -- already a named -- an existing road, and that if he could put a cul-de-sac, if the Court would go with that, then this could be divided up, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused. If the road goes on past, why would you need a cul-de-sac? MR. ODOM: Right. Right. Well, it goes down to the end and it ends down here. And I was thinking up on top, since there's only -- how many people living there? MR. CARSWELL: There's the -- Kay Jones and then the Jenschkes are the only people that live past me. When you -- when you -- by the way, my name is Gary Carswell. I live at 129 Enchanted Valley in Kerrville. At the entrance to High Point, where you -- you go straight there, that is a private drive, and it's -- it's been named under the 9-1-1 Commission. It's -- it is Enchanted Valley. MR. ODOM: If you went up -- JUDGE TINLEY: Is the entrance to High Point coming -i~ of 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2z 23 24 25 in off Lot 2 right here? I thought it was further back here. MR. ODOM: It's further back. MR. CARSWELL: The entrance -- no, the sub -- the entrance to High Point subdivision is -- JUDGE TINLEY: Down here, isn't it? MR. CARSWELL: Right there where you're putting your pen is where the entrance is. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm familiar with the property. MR. CARSWELL: This man that owns Number 4 lot, if you look at the line that separates the two tracts, that line is basically the bottom of the canyon, okay? There's a high side below him on 9, and there's a high side on my side. And the view down through the canyon to the Guadalupe River basin is right down that line. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are you, Mr. Carswell? Which one is you? MR. ODOM: Lot 3. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lot 3? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2. JUDGE TINLEY: He's on 2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're on 2. Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you -- JUDGE TINLEY: This road is not a public road, is it? 9-13-0 Ef 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 MR. CARSWELL: No. MR. ODOM: It's a private road. MR. CARSWELL: Private. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What you own -- I'm trying to figure out what you're even trying to do. This is one lot right now, correct? MR. CARSWELL: That's 16.07 acres, one lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You want to divide it into two? MR. CARSWELL: My neighbor that owns Number 4 in High Point Subdivision, his house is right on my fence line. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. CARSWELL: And he wants to buy that piece of property just to protect the view down the canyon. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He wants to buy Lot 1? MR. ODOM: Lot 1. MR. CARSWELL: Lot 1. MR. ODOM: See, what he wanted to do was not to plat it. MR. CARSWELL: I was trying -- MR. ODOM: Trying to go under that exemption at 1.03.C, 10 acres or more on a private road. But it won't -- doesn't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: If he owns this and he's not trying to -- he doesn't access it down this road. Or does he? MR. CARSWELL: Well, that is -- ~ z3-uo 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 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you get to Lot 4? MR. CARSWELL: Through the entrance to High Point. JUDGE TINLEY: You go here and go back down this way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you just sell him right there? Divide the lot right there and let him -- MR. CARSWELL: And not have the easement? Well, he -- he had expressed interest in having that. You know, that -- and that's the main reason that I came to the Court, is to discuss what the options might be. I -- Edmund Jenschke owns the property across Enchanted Valley Drive, okay, and he's got, I think, 33 acres. JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds right. MR. CARSWELL: And his three granddaughters -- I think he divided it between the three of them, and two of them live there. And the one that lives at the bottom of the hill, Kristen and her husband, and then the Joneses are the only people that live past me. That's the very, very end of the road, right past my house. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where does -- now, this road exists? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. CARSWELL: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stops here or keeps on going? JUDGE TINLEY: Keeps on going. i-i~-nF ~~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L2 23 24 25 i MR. ODOM: Keeps on going. ~ MR. CARSWELL: It goes all the way, about another 500 yards, maybe 400 yards, then it dead-ends at the very bottom, And he has no interest in selling this. He's buying that piece of property just to protect his view down the canyon, COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is all in High Point Subdivision. To me, it's got to be platted any way you do it. It's less than 10 acres, which requires, under state law, a platting. There's two ways it can be done; kind of what you're doing here, or you can just do a revision of plat and kind of change the lot lines between Lot 4 and Lot 1. I mean, you can kind of -- MR, ODOM: He's not going to have 200 feet. He's going to have -- oh, you might even say 199.98, but he's in that road easement, So, that's the reason I was thinking of a cul-de-sac, some type of -- pull a radius off that road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why does he need a -- if Enchanted Valley is already a road, just a road that goes there, then there's access right there. MR. ODOM; I'm thinking that a trucker gets down there and he gets to the end, and you can't back out of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not the entrance, though. MR. ODOM: No, the entrance is on back up here, 3 1~ On 78 1 3 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably 500, 700 feet. MR. CARSWELL: The drive entrance is right at the entrance to High Point Subdivision, right there. MR. ODOM: Right there. MR. CARSWELL: Now, would a privacy gate -- being that the Jenschkes are -- are thinking about putting up a privacy gate, a keypad gate, would that have any bearing on what I'm trying to do? MR. ODOM: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not really, no, MR. ODOM: Go ahead, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm still not convinced -- I don't -- so this road goes on down here, but Mrs. Jones owns all this? MR, CARSWELL: Ms. Jones. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Jones owns all this, but the road continues through here. Is it -- MR, CARSWELL: It dead-ends right there. JUDGE TINLEY: Comes down here and loops around like that. MR, CARSWELL: That's what it does. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But is it -- I mean, is she the only one that has access to the road on her property? MR, ODOM: No, there's -- MR. CARSWELL: The Jenschkes have to -- 3-13-Oh 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 JUDGE TINLEY: The Jenschkes can utilize the road to get to this property down here. MR. CARSWELL: Right. Those are the only other two besides myself. JUDGE TINLEY: What about the hookup with Ingram Hills? Isn't there a roadway that -- albeit private, isn't there a way out through Ingram Hills off the Jones property? MR. CARSWELL: No. MR. ODOM: I don't think so. MR. CARSWELL: No, there's no road there. All the roads that come off of that loop off of it, off the Ingram Hills Drive, they just go down there and dead-end into portions of Ingram Hills that are larger tracts, 10-, 12-, 15-acre tracts. JUDGE TINLEY: I think the -- the Kuene tract comes and dead-ends at the fence, up against the Jones property. MR. CARSWELL: The Kuntz? JUDGE TINLEY: Kuene. Lance Kuene. MR. CARSWELL: Yeah. MR. ODOM: Kuene over in Ingram Hills. (Several people speaking at once. Court reporter asked everyone to please speak one at a time.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, your -- where's your idea for that cul-de-sac, Leonard? MR. ODOM: Right there. -13- ih 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 LETZ: Triangle thing? MR. ODOM: In this triangle thing. And -- and not that he necessarily needs to build it as it is laid out, that no one could fence anything off. And it doesn't have to be a full cul-de-sac. My point is, here's two -- less than 200 feet against this property line right there. If you pull this back, he's not going to have the 200-foot frontage. So, I'm thinking if I had a cul-de-sac, that this right-of-way is 60 foot. Am I correct? MR. CARSWELL: Mm-hmm. MR. ODOM: That that -- if we had a cul -- a half cul-de-sac down there, that it would meet subdivision rules as far as this right-of-way still at h0 foot. JUDGE TINLEY: Your -- your potential buyer out of High Point up here, he's -- he's pretty solid on wanting this additional access way, other than coming through his place? MR. CARSWELL: I think his real estate broker advised him to -- to do that so that it wouldn't be landlocked. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So he could sell it if he needed to. MR. CARSWELL: Do you have the file of the -- what I gave Truby to send up here? MR. ODOM: Whatever I sent in the packet here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you need? 3-13-Oo 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CARSWELL: I was going to show you -- there's a map in there that kind of gives -- MR. ODOM: That's where this is coming from, is to have that option. MR. CARSWELL: Yeah, this is it right here. This may, you know, show you a little bit more about the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't. I guess -- I mean, I'm trying to figure out why we need the cul-de-sac. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So am I. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I understand what you're saying from an access standpoint a little bit, but the cul-de-sac needs to be down at the end of the road, it seems to me, not up there. Because -- I mean, I'm looking at it -- I look at from it a future development. Yes, there is a 95 -- 92-acre tract Ms. Jones owns, and Jenschkes own 33 acres. What if they subdivide? You know, that's kind of, I guess, in my -- what if they start selling and we start getting more lots? I mean, other than the -- I agree with Leonard, the 200-foot issue that it's -- MR. ODOM: You got to give a variance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to give a variance on that, which we're not very inclined to do. So, it's kind of a way to put a cul-de-sac in there, which would help, I guess. It gives a spot to turn around on that road somewhere. Little bit of an odd spot for it, in my mind, but it does give a -- <-13-0c 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 25 you know, a place to make the turnaround. But a better spot for the cul-de-sac would be down here, but that doesn't help this issue. MR. ODOM: That's a real steep hill right there. JUDGE TINLEY: Are you still up on top right here at this point, or is that where it drops off? MR. CARSWELL: You're -- exactly on that corner right there where -- where your pen is, is where the hill goes straight down. ~ JUDGE TINLEY: There's a -- MR. CARSWELL: Big hill. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. MR. CARSWELL: Yeah. That's why -- I was telling Odom, that's why the -- Joe Ed Jenschke name's there. Jenschke's daughter moved down at the bottom of the hill, Kristen. She -- she does a lot of horse work, and she couldn't get up that hill. JUDGE TINLEY: With a trailer? MR. CARSWELL: With a trailer, 'cause no traction. So they came in and -- and we -- I pitched in seven or eight grand, and we just -- we came from the entrance to High Point, which it used to be just caliche, and we paved it to the bottom of the hill. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's good to have a contractor 9 13-i~6 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 for a neighbor. MR. CARSWELL: Ain't a bad deal. MR. ODOM: The hill's right there. This was -- if someone came in -- this just made it work, and it made -- the cul-de-sac made the 60-foot right-of-way work without a variance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I -- I wouldn't -- to me, the options are to go with what Leonard's recommending, putting a cul-de-sac in this odd spot, or cut it off there and combine the two lots, and revise -- MR. ODOM: Two lots. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, that's -- either one works. MR. CARSWELL: If we cut it off right here -- JUDGE TINLEY: But you'd eliminate this. MR. CARSWELL: If you eliminate that right-of-way, and you tie in from Tract 4 onto Tract 1, would it have to be still -- would it still fall under the subdivision rules? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it would be a revision of the existing subdivision plat. You'd change the lot lines. MR. CARSWELL: Now, what if the gentleman that's going to purchase this property still wants that right-of-way? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. You can do the cul-de-sac; I think that meets our rules, too. That works. Commissioner Baldwin looks perplexed down there. 3 i3-n~ 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 MR. CARSWELL: He's ready to go to lunch. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doing good. JUDGE TINLEY: Very perceptive. MR. ODOM: Any questions? I mean, thank you. i COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes this a lot clearer than it was earlier this morning. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. MR. CARSWELL: Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't realize they paved that road. Last time I was down there, it wasn't paved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not bad having Joe Ed as a neighbor, or Edmund. JUDGE TINLEY: Joe Ed's daughter's at the bottom; that's why he got stuck with it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that who that is? JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Okay. Looks like, gentlemen, we are down to the approval agenda. I've asked our coordinator to call Mindy down, and -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Want these to go out and look so you can find your road? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, isn't that cute? JUDGE TINLEY: That'll help you find where you need to go. (Discussion off the record.) S- 1 J- ~ F 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Williams. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're to Section 9, payment of the bills. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He does have -- he has bills. JUDGE TINLEY: The bills did not come in. They got them compiled late Frid ay, and I've got them in two different formats . Maybe that wa s the reason for the delay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is this? MS. WILLIAMS: The one that is bound is the new system that we're on. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. MS. WILLIAMS: So we decided we'd go ahead and give both of them to the Cou rt so you can kind of compare old system, new system. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mindy? MS. WILLIAMS: Little bit different. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May I ask you a question? Why is it I don't get e ither one? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your box. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in your box. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's in my box? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Would you like me to get it for you? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I can handle it. I can ~-i~~ at; 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do my own job. They pay me well for this. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we going to get the bound volume from now on? MS. WILLIAMS: We are still working on what we're goinq to wind up bringing to court. Since we were training last week, this is kind of a rushed, thrown-together type situation. Hopefully our next court date won't be quite so haphazard. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I need to look in my box every five minutes. MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir. Hopefully, we'll have them before Monday morning. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. What is this propaganda here? Bound -- it's a new system? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to explain it, or are we just going to accept your word and go on? MS. WILLIAMS: I can try to explain it. Basically, it's the same information as what was on the old TSG fund requirements report. It is a little bit different, as this report today actually has the check numbers on it. We had to run the A.P. checks in order to test that portion of the program, so when we ran this department payment register, it picked up check numbers. Now, hopefully, the next one will not have check numbers on it until after the bills are 3 1 3- ~ 6 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 approved by the Court. JUDGE TINLEY: But the information is the same? MS. WILLIAMS: Basically, it is the same. We check the totals. The copy that the Court has is within the same guidelines as what we used before. Before, on the old TSG system, we were able to pick and choose the funds that the Court has authority over approving bills. We didn't include, like, the Adult Probation Department; those are state funds. Some of the Juvenile Probation, because those are state funds. On the new system, we're not able to exclude those funds at the present time. We're still working on trying to figure that one out. So, what we sent today is basically what the old report had on it, as opposed to giving everything. Now, if the Court would prefer, when we run our reports, we can run everything, which would include the excluded funds that y'all really don't say yea or nay on paying the bills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about -- I'm not interested in that, I can tell you for sure, and I'm not interested in check numbers. What about -- where's the Commissioners Court? MS. WILLIAMS: It would be probably -- if you look at the top of the report, the left top corner, -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh. MS. WILLIAMS: -- it will have the fund number and the department number. 3-13-0~ 88 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh. MS. WILLIAMS: Commissioners Court is Department 400 -- let's see, 401. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. MS. WILLIAMS: County Judge is 400. It just so happened we didn't have any bills for you guys this time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. And that's my question. Is that something that you would add into this report, even though it shows zero? MS. WILLIAMS: No, only -- what's on this report is only the bills that we are processing for payment for those departments. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That was just a question. MS. WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So let's hear that again. Commissioners Court did not generate any bills this month, right? MS. WILLIAMS: Correct, because we had an early cutoff period. JUDGE TINLEY: Nor did the County Judge. MS. WILLIAMS: Nor did the County Judge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This will work fine from my standpoint. Same information, little bit different format. I move approval of the bills. -13-06 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 ~5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve the bills. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mindy, do you like this? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not yet? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm reserving my comments. I think it's going to be a lot nicer. It gives us a lot more flexibility, I believe this program does, so it's going to take a while to get used to it. We're so used to doing it the old way. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah -- but, yeah, I think I am going to like it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good. That's what matters to me, is that you're happy. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 1. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This budget amendment, it's similar to the one we had last court date. We have a bill 3-13-Or 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for -- I believe it is -- let me look at it. I.t was some interpreting, or -- well, they've got -- I can tell you right now, the description on the budget amendment line item is wrong. JUDGE TINLEY: Should be Court-Appointed Services, shouldn't it? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, it is. And what it was, they had to bring in an interpreter, I believe, on a case where they had an individual who was deaf -- hearing-impaired, so we have this bill out of the 198th District Court. And, unfortunately, that line item for Special Court Services is zeroed out, so we're moving $325 out of the 216th District Court line item up to 198th so that we can get this bill paid. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 2. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This budget amendment, we have i -~ n 5 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 received a bill from -- I'm trying to remember the -- JUDGE TINLEY: H.E.B. MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir, it's not H.E.B. Gold Star Food Service. I believe it's a commodity service that the detention facility uses to get some of their foods from. We received the bill, and basically, I think it's, like, a commodity charge, for $41.30. And the line item in the Juvenile Detention budget for food is zeroed out at this point. We need to move the $41.30. I'd like to move from it Marketing up to Food to be able to take care of this bill. We will have the same situation next court date. As soon as the bills come in, we'll have a better idea of how much money we're going to have to do a budget amendment for. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Far as I'm concerned, you can move the whole Marketing money over there to the food, 'cause that's what it's going to take. It's going to take that and more, looks like. MS. WILLIAMS: From the looks of it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if I had to make a decision whether -- the difference between feeding those kids and us going out -- or our people going out and marketing the facility, I mean, that's a no-brainer to me. I'm serious. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you. What are you talking about, "a commodity," Mindy? What are you talking about? 3-~3-nr. 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 MS. WILLIAMS: I believe this facility -- it's kind of like a government commodity program, where they can get foodstuffs through them at a much cheaper rate than they would buy from someone else. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The old cheese program. DODGE TINLEY: Do you need a hand check on that also? MS. WILLIAMS: It would be nice, but not really necessary. I mean, we can, but we can just throw it in the -- in with next court date. DODGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, do you want to take action on this, Judge? 'Cause I do have a comment I want to make relative to what Commissioner Baldwin said. MS. WILLIAMS: If you'd like to change the amount that you want us to transfer, we're open to that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's not -- you don't have that budget amendment in, but I guess what I was going to say was, we're going to do a six months review coming up in two weeks. MS. WILLIAMS: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I think that would be an appropriate time to really seriously consider it. MS. WILLIAMS: Address it? Okay. 3-13-uc 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 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. DODGE TINLEY: I don't think I've got a motion on this one yet. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 3. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Another whopper. MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah. We have a bill that the District Clerk's Office had to put an ad in the paper for -- I'm not sure what reason. Anyway, we've come to this time in her budget where she just doesn't have enough money there to pay this bill, so we need to move $4.60. She suggested moving it out of her Part-Time Salary line item, which I have no problem with, and moving it up to her Books, Publications, and Dues line item so we can pay the bill to Kerrville Daily Times. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 3-1±-Ob 94 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 zs COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I want to point out a rule that we have in the county, and that is that if an elected official is going and -- knowingly going to spend more money than what's in the budget line, they need to come get permission from the Commissioners Court. No one has ever done that. Ever. But the rule is there to try to get -- try to get everybody to try to get a handle on their budget and hold onto it. But there is a perfect -- perfect place for that. If you run an ad in the paper, you know the ad's going to cost you $80 and you have $70 in there, you know -- MS. WILLIAMS: If I could make one statement? With this new system that we're going on, there is what they call a purchase order program. And what it will do is, for instance, just as you were saying, they get ready to put an ad in the paper, or they get ready to order supplies. They can go in and put in that GL code, and it will go out there and it will look at that line item, and what it does is basically take the amount of money that you're putting in there, and it sets it aside over here and takes it out of that budget to where you cannot, like, double-dip. If you don't have enough money in that line item, when you try to issue that P.O., it's going to ~~ i~-u E, 95 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tell you. It won't let you issue it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good. JUDGE TINLEY: Forced compliance with policy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I like the other one -- I like the new one. MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah. Like I said, it's going to give us a lot more flexibility, I think, once we get comfortable with it. It won't be overnight. ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 4. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This invoice was from Compton's, and it was for repairs done at the Juvenile Detention Facility. It looks like they had something repaired. My copy is so light, I really can't read it very well. Has to do with a freezer, I believe, that's located out there. The line item that we needed to take this out of, that 10-515-451, only had $76.53 left in it, so I spoke with Mr. Holekamp, and he agreed that we could move the money out ~-1~-ur 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 of his Maintenance and Custodial Supplies line item, which is 10-512-350. The amount we need is $933.52. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me see if I'm understanding this completely. It's a repair to a freezer, and the actual bill is over $1,000? MS. WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Food freezer? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. From what I -- from what I can gather off this invoice, "Checked walk-in freezer, found dual pressure, control shorted." And I think they had to replace -- the parts were $374.67. Labor was over $600. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good lord. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unfortunately, my experience with walk-in coolers, this is not a lot. MR. ODOM: They're expensive. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the alternative is bad food and a lot of hospital bills. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. s i~ uE, 97 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) DODGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We have another one? MS. WILLIAMS: I do have one more; it came in late. Oh, backwards. I gave it -- MR. ODOM: Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request Number 5. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. On this one, since we have two full-time district court reporters now, the $1,100 that we budgeted for their court reporter expenses, which encompasses their supplies, things like that, paper, cartridges for their printers, whatnot, is just not going to carry us through. What I'd like to do, with the Court's permission, is move $1,000 out of the Juror Fee line item up to Court Reporter Expenses. Just as an after note, we do bill the other participating counties in those two districts for their share. The problem is, with the 198th District, there's only one other county sharing our expenses, which is Kimble County, and their percentage is very low; it's less than 10 percent. So, we bear the brunt of this court reporters' expenses. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell us why -- why there's only one county. MS. WILLIAMS: The other -- 5-13-0 F, 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about Menard and Brady? MS. WILLIAMS: The other counties have their own court reporters. This happened some years back. Prior to that, we were billing -- let's see. I believe there's four -- there were four counties in the 198th, and there were five in the 216th. But some years back, for some reason, the other two counties pulled out, got their own court reporter. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good for them. The -- and we -- we pay for all the materials that Kathy needs -- our court reporter needs? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. If we haven't made a motion, by gosh, I'd like to make one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve Budget Amendment Request Number 5. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any question or dis~~ussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Any further 3-13-Oh ~ _. __ 99 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 L 9 25 budget amendments? MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir. No late bills. JUDGE TINLEY: Any late bills? MS. WILLIAMS: No late bills. JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with monthly reports from the Sheriff's Department; Constable, Precinct 3 for January and February of this year; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; Constable, Precinct 1; Juvenile Facility, Ilse Bailey, Special Prosecutor; and Kerr County Emergency Services District Number 1. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as submitted? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I second that motion, but I've got a question. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the reports as submitted. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, is that -- in that group of reports you have there, is that the regular monthly reports, or does that include these racial profiling stats? Or is this a separate -- we want to deal with this in a separate way? JUDGE TINLEY: This does not include the racial profiling stats. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 3-13-06 100 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: As best that I can tell. These are the regular reports that are furnished to us as a part of regular monthly business. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that could -- I mean, the racial profiling could be -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we want to include this in the -- somehow, somewhere, in the monthly -- in the reporting? JUDGE TINLEY: Would you prefer that that be done by a separate motion, or would you -- do you want them included there? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm asking you that. JUDGE TINLEY: I'll do it either way you want to. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's include it in. JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the one motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I've also been submitted Constable, Precinct 1 citations as required under the law for racial profiling reporting purposes, and -- and the racial profiling statistics from the Kerr County Sheriff's Office from March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2006. And for purposes of the report submitted to me -- did you make the motion? Who made the motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did. MS. THOMPSON: Commissioner Letz made the motion. -13-06 101 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Does your motion include the approval -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it does. JUDGE TINLEY: -- of those racial profiling items just enumerated? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it does. JUDGE TINLEY: And the second, I assume, was -- MS. THOMPSON: Commissioner Baldwin. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further question or discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question on the racial -- racial profiling portion of this. These are required by law, Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a timing -- is this for the -- these are for the last year summary, or is it -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, and they're -- I think it was March 1st, I think, was the due time. DODGE TINLEY: March 1, 'O5 through February 28, '06. Which, of course, -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. DODGE TINLEY: -- they could only be submitted 1st day of March at the very earliest. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does this -- I guess my question is, does this mean that Constable 3, 4 and 2 are late in 3 i - o 0 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2~ 23 24 25 getting them to us, or they just haven't got them to us yet? i COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know anything about it yet. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two's in. We didn't take court action. It's in; I saw it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're supposed to -- I think you're supposed to go to Commissioners Court. You're -- the law says that you present -- they are to be presented to the Commissioners Court. And I think that we just accept them; we don't do anything fancy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two's was presented, 'cause I saw a copy of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do them on the next one if we need to, the other ones. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any reports from any of the Commissioners in connection with their 3 1?-06 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 ~0 21 ?~ 23 24 25 liaison, committee, or other assignments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to remind you guys that the EMS -- EMS report you should have, and Dr. Morgan has kindly offered his services to sit down with you one-on-one to visit with you about it if you have any questions, and I highly recommend that you do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they going to be presenting their report at the next meeting? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At that time, when it -- there he is now. The next meeting is the 27th, and that afternoon we have the 1:30 off-season budget workshop, and I wanted to do the EMS that day as well, that afternoon. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we do that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, that's what we need to do. So, what I -- we say what we had always agreed to do is on this particular day, and I want to do it in a workshop setting so that we can have the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dialogue. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the dialogue back and forth, and -- and don't take up Commissioners Court agenda time. JUDGE TINLEY: In terms of time, what do you -- what do you anticipate? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thirty, 40 minutes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. ~ i~-o~, 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 L S COMMISSIONEP. BALDWIN: If we -- if we individually look at the report, and if we can get with Dr. Morgan, 'cause there are some questions in there, and get with Dr. Morgan and let him try to explain. JUDGE TINLEY: What about the off-season budget? What do you anticipate that's going to take, Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wouldn't think more than 30 minutes to an hour. Wouldn't take more than that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that county-wide? I guess it depends on the format of what we're given to work off of. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll get with Mindy on that. But I thought it was the Court's desire to look at everything. Some departments may trigger more comment than others. That's -- I suspect some will. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we schedule -- you'll have 3 o'clock juveniles, more than likely? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, probably. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we set the -- we have a 1:30. Do the other one at 2:30. That gives us an hour for the first and 30 minutes for the second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. JUDGE TINLEY: No problem. I think what I'll do is tell them to schedule my detention hearings starting at 3:30 or 4:00. ~ - Z i U F 105 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's wise. 2:30 for the EMS report? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool. That's cool. Just by way of reminder; I just want to remind you guys. JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate you doing that, Commissioner. Okay. Anybody else have anything they -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple quickies here, Judge. At the AACOG Board meeting this past week -- there's some information I think I'd like to share with the Court. This is -- what I handed out is the Kerr County workforce profile. I'll be happy for members of the press to get a copy if they like as well. It details all of the breakdown of the workforce in Kerr County. Last year was the first time they did one of these, and there's some breakdowns in terms of population, household income, educational attainment, population as it continues to grow, and how our workforce is broken down. I think it's a useful pie chart for your study. Mr. George Holekamp was nominated by the Soil and Water Conservation Districts within the AACOG region to serve on the Economic Development Environmental Review Committee, and he was approved to do that. We were told at the Rural Judges meeting and again at the board meeting that the level of funding for workforce for both adult and youth and dislocated workers and so forth 13-no 106 1 2 3 4 5 F. 7 8 9 10 11 1' -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "' 2 4 25 and so on in the rural counties surrounding Bexar County is going to be reduced this next fiscal year by about 2.2 to four -- $4 million, and that, of course, results in a discussion -- resulted in a discussion as to what's going to Executive Director of -- of Alamo WorkSource, reported that he and his board are going to be looking at various and sundry ways to accommodate the services based on this cut in funding. And both the AACOG board and the P.ural Judges committee, which I represent Kerr County on, let him know in no uncertain terms that we were not interested in seeing a -- a workforce canter eliminated, put an X, marked through, but there are several different options. Out of this workforce center are satellite operations in Bandera County, Kendall County, Gillespie County. However he deals with that, he'll have to figure that out and get back to the board -- to the rural judges at AACOG Board. But it's important, because almost two and a half centers is going to be reduced as well. But it seems to me there's more than one way to accommodate this -- this problem. In terms of workforce centers, we have four regional centers in 11 counties that surround Bexar County, and ours happens to be one of them. We have the satellites that operate out of 3-13-vb 107 1 2 3 9 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 1G 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 L l~ 21 22 23 24 25 it. Within Bexar County, there are maybe five of these things, so if he has to restructure services, it seems to me to be not inappropriate for him to look at how he restructures all of the services so that we can continue to have the type of services that are provided out of this center. That's not only a service to people who are looking for a job. It goes to workforce training, goes to employer services as well, looking for employees. So, it's really -- it's really very important. While we're losing some funding in that regard, we are gaining some more funding in the Homeland Security department by about an extra $3 million that's coming into AACOG region for Homeland Security initiative. We'll see how that gets alL nailed down. I couldn't tell a while ago about the grant, but we did get the grant for -- for the surveillance -- for surveillance equipment. It came through the Resource Recovery Committee and recommended down, and approved by the AACOG Board, which means that Mr. Arreola's application for equipment will be funded, and he can start finding out who's dumping this trash illegally on Klein Branch Road and other places like that. This is just kind of an F.Y.I. Ti~is came from the Economic Development Environmental Review Committee, which looks at all these proposals. I thought it was kind of interesting. The Kendal] County 4-H Horse Club proposed a 4-H ag outdoor learning center and arena -i;-n 108 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 to the tune of $400,000, and the funding agency would be O.S.D.A. Community Facilities Loan and Grants Program. And it received a favorable review and is moving forward. Does that ring any bells about things we might want to do? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: End of report. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, back on this report, the Workforce report, where did that come from? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The WorkSource people do this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: At AACOG? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, out of Alamo WorkSource. They did it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They did it last year for the first time and provided originally only Bexar County. We said, "Hey, what about the rest of us?" So they went back and did it. I shared this with you last year. This is the second time they've done it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my comment is, I -- and I guess you're the right person to get feedback the other direction. I see one category missing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Agriculture. If I was to read this, I would say we had no agriculture in this county. And I -1<-r,F 109 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't know if they're calling it Other Services or Leisure and Hospitality or what they're calling it, but somewhere -- I don't think it's unclassified, 'cause I think we have more than 20 people doing it. That's a category that they need to look at as to how -- where these people are that are working, because I suspect we have a -- this would be a pretty big piece of that pie. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, to me, ag -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have a feel for what this might be? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would call it anything from hunting operations -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I mean in terms of numbers or percentage of our population. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Large. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Large. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll bring it to their attention. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say -- I would think there would be, certainly, 300, 400, 500 people at a minimum. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And anywhere from ranch managers at a pretty high level to people, you know, that may be working on the ranch as laborers that are pretty low level, i,-ut, 110 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 salary-wise. But I just think it's a broad spectrum. And I think, you know, some -- like, fence builders, probably that would be construction. A few things like that would have a real problem with that, but I do have a problem with the ag being missing completely on this. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll call it to their attention. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. I wanted to ask you about -- are you saying that they're downsizing their workforce operation? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm saying they're having to take a look at what they do, because they're -- the amount of money coming in from the feds through the Texas Workforce Commission is going to be about almost two and a half million dollars less than we had last year. Now, the rural -- the rural workforce centers are under contract to an AACOG subsidiary to run them, which means that AACOG -- the A.A.D.C., that corporation was just about to put out a -- respond to the RFP's for services for the ensuing year. They've got to go back to the drawing board in terms of what services. But -- and Mr. Miller reports from WorkSource that this money is going to be missing in his next budget year. He's saying we don't know what the net impact is going to be. Our response is, "Well, you better take a look at it, but closing rural centers is not one of those options." >-i, o~ - ~. 111 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. You know, I.remember when the program came into play. They were put in place to eliminate welfare programs. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of it, yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it looks and sounds to me program and this cheese thing I heard about a while ago, and -- I'm serious. Is that what we're going to go back to COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What they gave us was Congress recently passed a federal appropriations bill for Fiscal Year '06. Although we're still analyzing the impact the appropriations bill will have on the local workforce system, the following is a preliminary estimate of likely funding cuts projected by the Texas Workforce Commission. Workforce Initiative Adult, 7.9; Workforce Initiative Youth, Workforce Initiative Dislocated Worker program, 1.7, for a total of 2.244. Cuts would impact operations beginning July '06. WIA programs pay for a significant percentage of our career center infrastructure costs. The estimated funding cuts shown above represent about 90 to 95 percent of the total cost of operating the career centers; rent, utilities, janitorial, communications. They also support the majority of our resident customer enrollments into occupational training, on and on and on and on. So, it's something we need to watch 3-13-u c, ~_, . ~ __. 112 1 2 3 9 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 very seriously -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and not be impacted. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a couple of brief comments. One is just an interesting general comment. Kendall County, on water issues, is -- Kendall County Water District Number 1, which is primarily the Comfort area, and the County Commissioners Court are at quite odds over who has control over lot sizes and water and water availability, which -- and I believe it's going through the Attorney General. It will be an interesting determination. And I think it's part of a statewide issue of the -- the emergence of underground water districts, and then having their rules in conflict with municipalities, MUDS and other districts, since it's the different -- who's really in charge of underground water? So it's some interesting things that may impact us at some point. The other thing is related to the airport. The Court probably is aware of the -- how the board's made up, but there's a -- Commissioners recommend an at-large member, and our at-large member, Granger MacDonald, has resigned. Commissioner Williams and I are looking at recommending a -- probably at our next meeting, recommending a new replacement to Mr. McDonald. He's served us well; sorry to see him leave. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll have a resolution thanking him for his support next time. 3-1,-n6 113 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? We will be in recess till 1:30. (Recess taken from 12:10 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come to order again. We were in recess for the lunch period. The 1:30 item is dealing with Subdivision Rules and Regulations and Water Availability Requirements. At this time, I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a public hearing on Subdivision Rules and Regulations and Water Availability Requirements. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 1:31 p.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: I have one participation form. I assume that's for the public hearing or the agenda item or both. That's Mr. Wiedenfeld. Mr. Wiedenfeld, please come forward and tell us what's on your mind. If you'll state your name and address for the benefit of the record? MR. WIEDENFELD: Charles Wiedenfeld, 133 Center Point River Road, representing Wiedenfeld Water Works, a public investor-owned utility -- water utility. I've got revisions that I'm proposing, and I'll just speak on some of these real quickly and briefly -- you know me, I'm never brief. And I also apologize that I didn't get involved, and -i~-n c; 114 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably should have made some comments probably a long time Is this the same deal, MR. WIEDENFELD: Well, there's one -- there's There's a -- there's addresses most all my concerns. The other -- the issues in the Kerr County Subdivision Regulations are very minimal. And what I would like to just recommend on the Subdivision Regulations, that I would like to see something be addressed on the reserve utility easements in platted subdivisions, in that I believe that the reserve utility easements ought to only be along the frontage of the road and down one lot line, and not encumber all lot lines. I believe that takes up a lot of the personal property there, and it's unnecessary. During the platting requirements and stages, preliminary plat, all utilities can pretty much know which utility where -- which road frontage and which lot line they're going to use when they put in their utilities, and so we don't really need to be encumbering the other two lot lines, and that's why I'm having -- and it comes into play when we're doing septic systems and trying to get them on these smaller lot sizes, and also being maybe the only site that has suitable soils or the best soils on a piece of property, and rather than having to put in -~3-oF 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 aerobic units somewhere else on the site rather than using a soil absorption system. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take you a deep breath and let me ask you a question here. Do you consider yourself a utility? MR. WIEDENFELD: No. I do consider myself a utility, but on-site sewage facilities are not considered a utility. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. WIEDENFELD: A public utility. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. And my other question is -- and you and I have had this discussion before, and it may be a legal question; I'm not sure. Who makes that -- does this Court make the decision of where the utility easement runs? You're talking about down one side and across the front, not all the way around or anything. Do we make that decision in where utilities -- MR. WIEDENFELD: It's my understanding that approval of the plat is y'all -- is done by y'all and becomes final at that time, and becomes a permanent, reserved utility easement along all property lines. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what would be wrong with you being considered a utility, to where you can go into that easement and do some of your work? MR. WIEDENFELD: Well, again, from the utility side, -13-Oh 116 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Jl 22 23 24 25 like I am, I will already know at the time, or during preliminary plat, which utility line I will have my services on, and I don't need and will never, ever need the other easements. I'll be using the front right-of-way, the road frontage, and I will be placing a meter on one common lot line to serve two lots, which is my understanding how the electric utility operates. And at this time, you have your phone services also attached to the electrical service. So, again, we have no -- I see no need to be encumbering other lot lines for reserve easements that never, ever will be used, only that they restrict the owner's use of that land. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have -- is it -- do you have specifically what he's -- where he's talking about, the page? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just trying to find out. MR. WIEDENFELD: Yeah, there's only one copy of that. I'll provide more. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You've given me a copy of something that has both subdivision and water in it, and I'm wondering if we're talking about in terms of utility reserve easements, are you talking about Page 17, where you penciled in something under 5.01.F, you penciled in, "Utility reserve easements, 10 feet along the front and side"; is that what you're talking about? -i ~~ oh 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, sir, that would cover it there. And I really don't know exactly where -- in what section this would fall under, but I just wanted the issue brought to -- brought out. This is where we talk about utilities. I think there's another area in there where -- I think you do have something on easements in another section, and I think I would have put it in both. And it's just a note for y'all's consideration at this time. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about 5.04.C? That's another place where I see you've marked it. MR. WIEDENFELD: Okay. I have -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks like Page 20 of the Subdivision Rules. MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct? MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. WIEDENFELD: Just providing some language that I feel would be acceptable. Now, I'll go to the Kerr County Water Availability Requirements, acronym which is Kerr County WAR. That's what y'all did well with that, and that's kind of how I proceed with this. And there's two copies up there, and I knew Jonathan was the -- Commissioner Letz was the writer, and I at least have one for there, and then one for the other side of the table. But I'll start off with getting them 1.02, 3-15 Oh 118 1 ~. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 °"' 2 4 25 Water Availability Requirements. I have a problem in that several places in here, y'all indicate compliance with water availability, and especially on -- okay, let's go to 1.02.A, Minimum ~'ni~ntvwit'la AC`.Y eaCl P. and LOt S1Ze "A SUbd1VlSlOn that Availability Requirements." And also -- and then up above, in 1.02, it says, "All subdivisions in Kerr County where preliminary plat approval is granted after the approval date of these Water Availability Requirements shall comply with the provisions as set forth herein." This indicates that compliance must be with 1.02.A and B. When you're in 1.02.A, the verbiage indicates as long as you just meet 1.03, you have met the requirements for water availability, as I read it. So, I'd like maybe some attention placed on that. You have my copies in front of you of where I've got some language in there. The other issue I would like to see some work on is that we specify the difference between where we have sole sourr_e as groundwater, versus having a combination use of surface water and groundwater for the development of a subdivision. I believe we need to have some language in that. And also then that would restrict any language when it came to strictly surface water, because I believe that being on strictly surface water is dangerous development of a 13-n6 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -p- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 """ 2 4 25 subdivision, in that we all know that the river's going to go dry and there is not going to be surface water available at all times. And, thus, it's -- if we're going to develop Kerr Plan to use groundwater. And I think if we can get that Kin of language into the county subdivision regulations, and/or Headwaters, we also will be better off. That is the idea on that. And, again, then on 1.02.B, monitor well requirements, I don't know if they're necessary or unnecessary, based upon what was the previous language, but I would personally say that the monitor well requirements, or -- they're nice to have. I believe that is a function of the groundwater district, and if anything, if you're going to have something in your subdivision regulations, you may have developers provide a -- an area in the easement, reserved; i.e., utility easement to the groundwater district, for the purpose of drillinq monitor wells if they ever decide to have one. As y'all have proposed, you need -- y'all desire to have a monitor well on every 20 acres. Well, in Kerr County, we'd have almost 500 monitor wells in -- or, essentially, it's every four lots will have a monitor well. Plus y'all want to put it right in the middle of the road. "Such a well location shall be a minimum 50 feet by 50 feet in size, and shall be -13-nb 120 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 located within a road right-of-way." Well, if your roads are 60 foot wide, that would put the monitor well somewhere out in the middle of the pavement. My next question is, who's going to own that well? Is that the County's property? Going to maintain a well? Roadways don't appear to be good areas for monitor wells, subject to the contamination that goes down the -- goes down a road. I must not be reading this correctly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think you're reading that very well. MR. WIEUENFELD: Well, if one person reads it that way, I guess maybe two can. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you talking about -- back to my question I have is that the -- what this says is that Headwaters -- we're providing a location -- a spot, requiring a developer go to Headwaters and say, "You want this location I here?" If they say yes, they're going to drill the well; they're going to own the well. We're just saying you have to get the land. If Headwaters doesn't want a monitor well, they're going to say no. They're not going to want one every LO acres, I'm quite confident, They can't afford to drill them. MR. WIEDENFELD: Well, then, in my assumption, then, you're going to do away with monitor well requirements. Other than -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to do what it says -13-ua 121 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here. We're going to let -- we're going to make the developer go to Headwaters, and if Headwaters thinks it's an area they need a monitor well, they get a location. MR. WIEDENFELD: And what is the 50 feet by 50 feet? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just the location outside the easement. It's part of the road easement; they have to extend the road -- roadway. You put up 50 foot by 50 foot off on the side. MR. WIEDENFELD: But that conf l.i ctG with tha r„laa on well spacing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's Headwaters probably, not the County. We're just having the developer -- MR. WIEDENFELD: Y'all would intentionally write rules that conflict with another rule? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, they don't. MR. WIEDENFELD: I don't see it that way. Okay. I feel like that just definitely needs a lot more -- a lot more consideration in that area, because I don't think that is anywhere close to what you intended it to be. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't want monitor wells, you're saying? MR. WIEDENFELD: I believe I'm a hundred percent that monitor wells are necessary, but I don't think every 20 acres. And I think that, again, yes, if the developer gets with Headwaters and they say, "Let's put a well; I'll allow 3-~~-nh 722 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you an area over here. You don't have to own it or anything, but I'll give you an easement, perpetual easement to reserve that you can drill a well if you ever so choose." I think a 20-year -- after 20 years, if that easement's not been used, then it reverts back to the owners -- the landowners around it. You know, something to that effect. I just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I don't -- and I'm not being argumentative; I'm trying to figure out what you want here. We're trying to make it simple. Trying to write out a perpetual easement, we don't want -- I don't want to go down that road. I mean, I want it to be as simple -- that's why we picked a county right-of-way, that there's a -- it's right there. It's off the side of the road. They have access to it. It's 50 foot by 50 foot, which they say is plenty of room to drill a well. MR. WIEDENFELD: And another thing is, you know, you'd have to have 150 foot around this well for any property owner to put a septic system in. So, again, if an easement would be a 100-foot easement radius, then he would not -- when a person owned that well or bought that -- bought this, he would already know that he had -- it's encumbered on. And otherwise, I don't know that it's -- you know, it needs to be -- 50 by S0, to me, whoever -- that may be the ownership of the property, but the easement needs to be described, like, 100 foot around a well for septic purposes and for a lot of 3-li 06 123 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 other purposes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think when they permit the well, if they decide to drill -- I don't want to encumber all the property with an easement if a well's never going to get drilled. MR. WIEDENFELD: But if they have the right to drill a well, I'm not -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: One-time shot. They either say yes or no, and that developer -- MR. WIEDENFELD: Okay. Well, then, there's nothing on it after that. Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. WIEDENFELD: Not goinq to provide it if they change their mind. Okay. Well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll probably be calling you on some of your others, just to make sure I understand what you're saying. And one point I see, I agree with it, a word you added that I think we need to add. MR. WIEDENFELD: Well, I just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. WIEDENFELD: Okay. Now we're back to 1.03 again, Acreage Requirements to Meet Water Availability. Again, it says 1.03.A and 1.03.B must be satisfied -- must be complied with to satisfy the requirements, Why not 1.03.C? COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is no 1.03.C. 3-1'-~-ns . ~ . _ 124 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 °- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ""~ 2 4 25 COMMISSIONEP. WILLIAMS: High density. MR. WIEDENEELD: Again, I know in your earlier draft, it is high density area -- development area. Was it -- it's designed, I guess, for just surface water. But, I mean -- and that's why 1 think if you look at all this, if you rethink it, let's look at surface water being also involved. We're not just writing water availability based on groundwater. Surface water -- and "surface water," I know, means aquifer storage; it can mean rainwater. It can mean a lot of things, so that's why I think "surface water" -- the word is in there. And y'all see a lot of my notes that -- on when it comes to lot size, if groundwater's going to be the sole source of the potable water in the total subdivision, then I think your lot sizes, you know, are appropriate. But I would like to propose that, you know, in -- we're going to go to Page 3 of the Water Availability, which is Section 1.03.A. The total number of lots permitted in any acreage in the subdivision divided by 2 acres, is what I would like to propose. The numbers work out from what I -- groundwater production limitations, public drinking water standards, We can make it with 2 acres. Or, I mean, this -- number of lots in a subdivision divisible by two meets all -- or I recommend that, because it does meet all the regulations -13-UG r r 125 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~o 24 25 that I could come up with. And then also, then on 1.02.A.3, total number of lots permitted in any subdivision in an area designated as a high density area, as defined herein, shall not exceed the total acreage of subdivision divided by one. I propose to have that in half, and one. Okay. Going down to B, then, the minimum lot size to meet water availability requirements, I -- I'd like to propose a 4 acre in 1 -- B.l, for lots where individual water well is planned. And I have earlier in my notes, if we indicate individual water well, does that also equate to the district's exempt well category, or what is in Texas Water Code, Chapter 36? Shall we not be putting, maybe, "exempt" behind the word "individual"? And when we're talking about public water system, we refer them -- in addition to being nonexempt wells, continuing with B.2, I propose that we have one-half acre lots when the public water system is a community and served by a septic system. And, again, I'm recommending a half acre because that's what is in our -- currently in our septic -- y'all's county septic regulations. It's a half acre. And I think without changing the septic regulations, this would -- would work here. And I'm not saying that all the lots in the subdivision are going to be a half acre, because it can't be. If have you a 100-acre tract of land, there's only so many of them can be half-acre tracts. So many can be 1-acre, 2-acre, and the rest -- the balance of the 3-t~ nh a ~~_ _. --~_.~____---- - 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 acreage -- and, again, it meets district -- groundwater district philosophy in that we have just so much density per an area. At least -- I'm not speaking on behalf of the district, but my understanding of their regulations. Okay. And then on B.3, I propose one-quarter acre for lots to be served by a community or public water system and a community sewage collection system. And a subdivision Located in the density high -- designated high density development area, I think if somebody's gone to the extreme of putting a community water system in, a community sewer system, one-quarter acre lots, which you have in parentheses "1/4," and you have elsewhere referenced one-quarter acre lots. But, as you see, you started the sentence off with one-half, but I belLeve one-quarter. And then also, leaving the wording on there that Commissioners Court may approve on a case-by-case basis other lesser acreages. That's all -- that's very well and good. Okay. Going down to C -- JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you, first -- come back to I A. MR. WIEDENFELD: A. JUDGE TINLEY: The number of lots permitted. What changes were you proposing there? I MR. WIEDENFELD: Two acres on A,2. The total number of lots permitted in any subdivision that uses a community water system and groundwater. And I'm inserting "and -13 U6 127 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 groundwater" as the sole source of potable water shall not emceed the total acreage in a subdivision divided by 2 acres. So, for a 100-acre subdivision, you have a possibility of 50 lots in that. DODGE TINLEY: But the other -- the other two, you're not recommending any changes? MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes, sir, I'm recommending, then, that we -- on A.3, we would -- high density development area is divisible by one, 1 acre. JUDGE TINLEY: And A.l remains the same? MR. WIEDENFELD: A.1, 1 recommend to be the same. DODGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. WIEDENFELD: But, again, when I come down to the minimum lot size, I'm recommending 4 acres, based on the minimum lot size in that -- you're going to lose a lot of acreage to roads and parks and other stuff, and so some acreages less than 5 acres, I think, fits the plans. Again, high density development area, I would like to see it reiterated in C that it is a -- public water and wastewater systems are required in those -- in those developments. And you don't have to -- it's not considered on-site central wastewater systems can be put in the county. Permitting is just done through a different section of T.C.E.Q. Okay. Then, when you're defining the high density development areas, C.3 in particular, I would like to recommend that we define -1 ~-U6 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L1 ?~ 23 24 25 the Center Point area as a 1-mile radius of the intersection of Farm-to-Market 1350, which is China Street, and F.M. 480. I feel like that is more central]y located in the city of Center Point. Y'all have been -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I already received that. 1 agree, that's a better location. MR, WIEDENFELD: And then, further on down on that sentence, in that section -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if you know -- excuse me. If you know, does -- does the -- establishing the point of 1350 and 480, does 1 mile take us out to Verde Creek? MR. WIEDENFELD: You're right at Verde Creek, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. WIEDENFELD: Again, in that last paragraph, I've -- see again where we've omitted the exclusiveness of just groundwater. That I think just take the word "ground" out and we just say water availability, which indicates all sources of water that somebody can find. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Charles, just for your information, not looking at the rules again, water availability requirements came about because of groundwater. MR, WIEDENFELD: They came about -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the statutes talk about groundwater. They don't talk much about surface water, so I 3 : 3 u 6 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~1 22 ~3 24 ~5 suspect that's the reason we used groundwater a lot more here. I don't disagree with you, but they -- that's the reasoning that it's -- you have to look at the -- what gives us the ability to do this, and it's groundwater. MR. WIEDENFELD: Well, I believe, you know, flexibility and diversity is stability, in my opinion. And I think y'ail would have more flexibility in the rules if you were to allow this to say water, and that could be anything. I mean, I know y`all have been hammered by rainwater collection. I -- you know, and you know that's coming in the future, and more surface water is coming. And -- and -- but surface water can be ASR water. So -- so, you know, without pipelines, we can have surface water, ASR. You know, there's a lot of different mechanisms. So, I'm thinking the rules i would have better flexibility if you would try to eliminate i the word exclusively groundwater. But when it -- when you're developing lot sizes, I think -- and if that's how you're basing all your stuff, is on groundwater, then that -- this would be fine. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. WIEDENFELD: Okay. And then, down in the plat certifications, you have me saying 1.O5.B, I'm questioning. II "Individual water wells shall not be permitted on any lot in this subdivision." Is that a statement that has any validity or legality to it? And I'm just going to leave it at that. I -1a-n r, 130 1 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --- 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think it needs to be researched a little further. Also, and surface water. Again, what if it's aquifer storage that's You know, and if you got a lot of 10-acre lots out it also meets the district's groundwater production requirements, even if they meet those production limitations with further platting of the subdivision, then I think that that is something that needs to be into -- again, we want to offer diversity, and that if you put this statement in, it's got -- kind of who's going to enforce it, is number one, or one of the big questions. But then the next one co mes in, you know, it's -- it just does not allow for people to subdivide their property, and we each -- we know everybody's going to try to subdivide. And just -- we have a rule in he re that would be hard to enforce, in my opinion, if we put that statement in. I thank you. You have my comments, and there's a 3 13-n6 131 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~l 22 23 24 25 lot more there than T know y'all want to hear. And -- but the draftee -- or drafter has time to look at it, and -- if he chooses. I hope he does. And I'm always available. And I know you know how to get hold of me. Thank y'all for your time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Charles. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Wiedenfeld. Is there anyone else that wants to be heard with regard to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and Water Availability Requirements? Does anyone -- yes, sir? Mr. Voelkel? Please i come forward give your name and address. i MR. VOELKEL: I'm Lee Voelkel, X12 Clay Street. I There were just two issues, gentlemen, that I'd like to have you look at. And I apologize if these have already been addressed and corrected. I'm not sure if I have the most updated version of the rules, okay? The first one is in 5.03.C.3. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page? MR. VOELKEL: I've been asked by -- Les Harvey could not be here today, to bring this one up if you still have in there Certification by Registered Engineer for Accuracy of Topography. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on, Lee? ]7? MR. VOELKEL: This is on page -- well, mine's on 27, 3-13-un 132 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Williams. I'm not sure, again, if I have the most updated -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe it's -- yes, it's still in here. It's on 6.03.C. It's on Page 28. MR. VOELKEL: There were two comments that he had on that, and I'll have to agree on one of them, but I'm not an engineer, so I can't agree with the other one. The first one, he says that engineers do not certify to topography. Most of the time, the topography that's used by the engineer is an aerial -- aerial photography which is done, and that those contours are adequate for their design. So, he really -- not really any -- any engineer really can't certify to the topography. But also to note that this is under final plat, this Section 6, and topography is not even required on final plat. So, those are two points there made on that one. The only other one I have does deal with me and some other surveyors that I have talked to, which is on the next page, 6.03.D.10, Certification by Registered Professional Land Surveyor registered in the state of Texas, to the effect that such plat represents a complete and accurate survey. We would like to see it stopped there. The other language that's in there says it meets all Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and we feel like surveyors are just not certified -- are not qualified to do that. I think presently, it's done by the county official or the -- it was the County 133 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 29 25 Engineer putting that certification on there, but the surveyors I have talked to, and including myself, would like to see that taken out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're the highest vote-getter in Kerr County. MR. VOELKEL: No, sir, I'm sorry. I was -- there were more. I didn't -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You didn't? MR. VOELKEL: I didn't go out door-to-door this year, which I normally do, so I'm not any more. But that's okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought maybe you'd want some of this authority. MR. VOELKEL: No, sir, I don't. I don't want that authority at all. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. MR. VOELKEL: Those are the only two comments I had. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else that wishes to be heard with regard to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations or the Water Availability Requirements? I keep trying to invite the Headwaters people in on this thing, but -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're going to stay away. 3-13-u F, 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- I'm not getting any action back there. Anyone else? Seeing no one else trying to get my attention to be heard, I will close the public hearing and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. (The public hearing was concluded at 2 p.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: And I will call Item 20; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Mr. Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put both this and the next item on there so we could act on them. Really, in my mind, more to go on to the next step. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you if it would be well if i were to call the other item so we could discuss them jointly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it would, sir. I DODGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me also call Item 21; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on Kerr County Water Availability Requirements. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In addition to the comments received today, I have received some prior to this, and also I've looked and continue to look at other counties. At our next meeting, I propose that I bring a final version back, and it will be with -- it will be ab]e to have a highlighted version also of any changes made from this draft that we've 3-13-Om 135 1 .~ G 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 `~` 2 4 25 worked off of. I'd like to look -- spend a little bit more And I think with, and I have some others. Pretty minor things so far. I mean, I don't -- no one has contacted me with any real big concerns, with the exception of Bruce Motheral has met with me related to drainage a little bit, and I really want to go over that with the County Attorney again on issues related to state I law. And I think we're on pretty good ground, but I think we may want to add a little bit of additional language in that area, too. But they're pretty minor changes, pretty easy to do. So, the plan will be to bring them both back at our next meeting, and hopefully finalize them at that time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, I've got a couple questions. Charlie brought up an excellent question, I think, under the monitor -- monitor well requirements. I just -- I can't see, in my mind, this easement over to the well site. Well, first, it says that all subdLvisions with a total acreage of the subdivision more than 20 acres shall be required. That language bothered me just a Little bit. I think that's where Charlie was coming from. It sounds like to me that it you have a subdivision with more than 20 acres, you're going to -- there's going to be a monitor well there. -i~-n6 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's what it sounds like. Shall be required to provide a monitor well location within the central portion of the subdivision. That bothered me a little bit. And then this -- I'm not -- I'm not real sure about this -- this easement, who owns the easement, who maintains it. You know, all those kinds of things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the first point, the -- about -- I think your reading is correct, but there's -- the last sentence of that second paragraph, Headwaters may waive the requirement by providing -- providing the developer with a letter. So, I mean -- so, yes, they shall do it, but it can be waived. And the -- I think some -- the ownership issue and the responsibility issue, I think that goes with Headwaters. If they get the -- if they decide that they want the monitor well, they're responsible for it, and I think I'll probably add some language to that effect. I agree that it needs to be clear that if they want the monitor well location, then it's their responsibility -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for maintenance and drilling the well. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I bet that makes you happy, Gordon. No? Okay. Page 3, just a real simple thing here. The high density development areas. City of Kerrville ETJ subject to interlocal agreement. City of Ingram subject to 3 - 1 9 0 ~~ 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 G 1 22 23 24 25 interlocal agreement. Tell me where we are in those inter -- having interlocal agreements with those two communities. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have one with the City of Kerrville. We do not have one for the City of Ingram, and I believe Commissioner 4 is working on that with Ingram. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We discussed that earlier today. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we think that that's going to happen with Ingram? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think state law says it will happen with Ingram. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, state law says a lot of things. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, state law also said it should have already happened. And -- but talking with Ingram City Attorney -- I believe that's Mr. Edwards' title -- I don't see a problem in getting this matter -- getting it formalized. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looking through some of my notes, Commissioner, I noticed somebody had sent me a map or two depicting the area regarding the Highway 27, 1350, and 480 and so forth with a radius drawing, and the 1-mile radius that we're talking about, while it does hit parts of Verde Creek, 9- 1 3- U 6 138 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 L 25 it doesn't hit all of it. And some of our contemplated plans -- you can see by this drawing, some of our contemplated plans, we talk about going all the way out to as far as Verde Creek where it crosses 980, to begin with. So, maybe we need I think -- I'd have to look at the language again exactly, but we may want to do something like if it's -- part of that area is within the 1 mile. Of course, it may exclude some people. Or maybe add some language that it can be, you know, adjusted. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, perhaps, but there are some -- there are some contemplated developments being discussed that go out Elm Pass Road in this general vicinity, and -- you know, and part of the developer's plan would be a future wastewater collection system. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We need to look at that bit -- somewhat of an arbitrary number; it can be a mile and a quarter, a mile and three-tenths. But, I mean, wherever you draw it, there's always going to be a line and there's going to be right next to the line on the outside of it. So, I mean, I have no problem with -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- trying to look at what we 3- i 3 ~ 6 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have right now, but I think it's -- probably a better way to approach it is give us the flexibility to modify that around the high density areas. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with that, and I'm not looking for precision in terms of measurement. I just want to be sure we get it out as far as Verde Creek, where it's important to do so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you're going to change one to a mile and a quarter, wouldn't you want to do both? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Or whatever, yeah. Make it consistent. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Make them consistent with each other. I've got another question on Page 1, the acreage and lot size requirements. I stay up with you here pretty good for a while. The second sentence, minimum county-wide acreage requirements are based on an average family. That's 2.8 people or something like that, if my memory serves me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Average family or household in rural areas based on census data. I understand what census data is. And average daily consumption is reasonable for this county based on accepted regional criteria. Well, now, what in the world is that? Is that your regional study? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- the average daily 13-G6 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [~L 23 29 25 consumption number varies a little bit, whether it's 150 or 100 -- about 150 gallons a day to 250 gallons a day. And there's a number -- I mean, there's no magic number there, so it's just staying -- basically, we're saying that there's a range in there, somewhere in that area. The current -- the new Region J plan, I believe, is -- I think it's 200. It was 250 under the current one, but I think it's come back a little bit on the newest plan that's up in Austin right now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is Region J regional criteria? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It -- it's part of regional criteria, but Headwaters may use a different -- I mean, it's -- basically, it's entities' criteria that are in the area. Trying to say we've looked at other -- at the data around of people that look at regional water use. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It comes under Water Development Board, a lot of it, Water Development Board and some Region J and some, obviously, Headwaters and -- if it -- the problem -- the reason I made it very vague is that there's -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He admits it; it's vague. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's intentional. Is that there's not an authority -- a stated authority that, okay, this entity decides what the average daily consumption is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't qet specific. ~-i>-oE .. 141 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There isn't -- there's a bunch of state and local agencies that throw out a number, but one of their numbers is -- I mean, one number's no better than the other number. They're all based on -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says -- yeah, but you say it's based on arr_epted regional criteria. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, accepted -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is Region J accepted? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Region J is accepted, but Headwaters' is accepted by Headwaters. City of Kerrville's may be accepted by City of Kerrville. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You are still within the minimum pumping allowance of Headwaters, right? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That 200 gallons per family, ~ per day? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Our numbers are -- I mean, mesh fairly closely. I mean, as closely as -- you know, with Headwaters' numbers on their pumping limits and our acreage limits; they all fit pretty close. And they -- which gives me a little -- I guess a reasonable level of comfort in that they came about their numbers independently of us, and basically -- which we -- 'cause most of mine came from Region J, and they come out with pretty close to the same number. ?-i~-oe 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~1 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On Page 3, at the top -- let's see, this would be 1.03.A. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Subdivision or water availability? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Water availability. The -- that first sentence, is that a real sentence? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably not. Total number of lots permitted in a subdivision to meet Water Availability Requirements where groundwater's the source of potable water -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that maybe referring back to something previous? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a poorly .written sentence. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon's getting honest this afternoon, isn't he? I JUDGE TINLEY: Not a full admission on that one, though. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Caught him with a full stomach. All right. That's all I have, Commissioner. Thank you so much. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, I'm glad to see that you read this closely. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I marked it all up. Didn't make any sense when I first got it. Still doesn't. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you found grammatical 3-13-ii5 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 L S errors. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any comments I haven't already talked about. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we're getting close. Next meeting, I think we'll be done. And if anyone else in the public has comments, feel free. Just because the public hearing, so to speak, was today, I'm also -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you one more question. You're going to wait two more weeks, and we're gone all next week. Are you going to write this thing while we're out in west Texas? Is that what the deal is? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the plan. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's the earliest we can get back in here. I just feel -- I feel an urgency about adopting this stuff and getting it going; I really and truly do. I think we've wagged it around long enough. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's starting -- I would agree with that, and it's just that there are some changes, and when I reread it, your comment about that sentence, I just -- I don't want to adopt something until it's the actual version that we're going to use. And have a leeway -- I think two weeks is sufficient. If we do it first, if it's on the agenda early, then everything we do at that meeting will be subject to the new rules anyway. We're not acting -- we're not going to meet after this for two weeks, so -- 7- 1 3 U h 144 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ODOM: Leonard Odom, Scenic Hills. My question -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're acting as a citizen here? MR. ODOM: As a citizen. Where is the point, Jonathan, that we would get down -- if we lowered our standards -- I don't mean standards, but is it 5 acres or 3 and a half? And at what point do we jeopardize, with the growth that we have probably in the future over the next 10 years, that we might end up with all people with wells would have a meter on it? Is that possible in this county if we get the acreage too small for water rights? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't answer that, but it's not our -- it's not the County's responsibility to put meters on wells, and it's not going to be. If another governmental entity chooses to put meters on wells, that's their -- I mean it's not the County's business. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're not talking about monitor wells, are you? You're talking about somebody -- somebody ordering a meter on a well? MR. ODOM: I'm talking about the possibility of having -- everyone who has a well having a meter, saying that we only have so much availability of water, if we lower it to a certain point. I'm not saying the Commissioners Court has that -- 3 is-ur ~ ~ ~-.. 195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L 2 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Won't come out of this Court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I mean, I think that if you look at other counties around us that have similar water situations, they take different approaches. Kendall County has annual fees that are pretty large for all water wells. 'Cause -- I think they're large. I think any fee is large for a water well. But, you know -- but that's a -- a water district issue more than a county. All our -- you know, we're looking more at infrastructure, and then we have the ability to base our lot sizes on water availability, which is what we've done, and that's granted to us by the Legislature. So, I think all we can do is look at what legal authority we have, make our rules the best we can, and hope we're doing the right thing. But if other governmental entities do things, that's their business, not ours. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, are you talking about you have a fear of taking, like, the pumping rights that the Watermaster requires you to have your -- what did you call it, a gauge or a -- MR. ODOM: A meter. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Meter. MR. ODOM: You have so many gallons that you're going to be allowed to have, and then after that, you'd be charged. i-i~-ue ~ - ~. ... ~ 196 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 zz 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Taking those and putting them on people's homes? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I -- that wouldn't surprise me. I doubt if it will happen anytime soon, but, you know, the great state's very, very wise. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- all I can say is that in any drafting of these -- this document, I think the county has enough water to sustain this kind of density. Groundwater. MR. ODOM: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it will be a relief from surface water down the road, whether it comes through ASR, whether it comes from other sources of -- possibly coming through a pipeline through Boerne. And those are really our two alternatives for surface water, because Charlie Wiedenfeld was very accurate in saying we can't count on the river, not locally within the county, for additional water, 'cause it isn't there in a drought. But ASR is surface water, and then there's -- Boerne area has more of a problem than we do with water, and they are looking to solve that with the pipeline ', issue out of Canyon Lake and some -- and -- not really unused, but unaccounted for water coming out of Canyon Lake, so those are the options, I think. But I think if we were to develop based on the acreage limits that we have here, based on the ?-i~-os 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 ~5 water we -- availability that we are aware of now, we have that much water in the county. MR. ODOM: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what -- future courts will have to look at the same thing and modify the rules accordingly in the future, as science gets better. JUDGE TINLEY: You smoked him out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's meters that did it. MR. MORGAN: Gordon Morgan, citizen. I live pretty I close to Len. Member of Headwaters Board, speaking only for myself. I think we -- at least my thoughts have been that this is a generalized type of concept of how to manage subdivisions and water availability. I don't know that we can ever get to the point to where we can do gallons or just a quarter of an acre or anything that specific. But I think, from a general concept, it has been for a number of years, and I think the board itself would feel positive towards the fact of the 5 acres. The 5 acres is generally accepted as the amount of acreage that will -- underneath that will have enough water to supply a family, and that's basically what we're talking about. There will be, as time goes on, individual situations, in either parts of the county or individual aquifers, where certain things will take place that will possibly change the amount of water that is safe to take from 3-13-~~e 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~l 2 2 ~3 24 25 that aquifer, or that is available from that aquifer for an individual family, but I don't think you can make an overall rule for the county that addresses all of those individual So, I think as long as the be handled on an individual basis when a subdivider comes to the Court, comes to Road and Bridge, and when -- at that point in time, there's enough research and enough science that one can feel confident in making a decision that will require a subdivider to either make bigger lots, or even in some cases, possibly larger lots that could even be broken up into smaller lots at a later time. All of those things are possibilities. But you all certainly have a challenge. If you can try to foresee that intricate specifying in the subdivision rules, that's a toughie. I think, from our standpoint, if -- as long as we can overall keep 5 acres, have certain entities where we use the river water, that is certainly part of the -- of water availability. Headwaters will be allotting water based on acreage, underground water. That will be set by a certain amount that they feel is adequate for that aquifer. Now, it's going to be the problem of the County to approve a plat. It will be the problem of the subdivider to see that whatever his family will need for water will be provided. That can be from surface water, it can be from underground j-~3-r~r 149 1 "° 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 m-- 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 °" 2 4 25 water, it can be from rainwater cachement and all the things that have been talked about today. So, I think -- and that's commend you far what you've done. I have empathy for you in trying to get everybody satisfied, because that's going to be a hard thing to do. But I think as long as everyone keeps the idea that it's an overall plan, that we'll try to take care of the needs of everyone, and it can be worked with and individualized for certain circumstances, that then I think that y'all have a program that you can have everybody approve of. If you have any questions you think I might answer, I'm -- I guess I'm up here; I'm ready. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you care to comment on monitoring wells, Dr. Morgan? MR. MORGAN: I think that we don't need 500. There's a question in my mind, whose responsibility is that going to be? If it is inserted into a subdivision as a requirement, I think it would be essential that the decision made would be at that very time, whether or not Headwaters is going to drill that well, accept the responsibility, maintain it, and gain the information from it. And if they're not willing to commit themselves to do that at that very time, within a set period of time, then that should not be continued on as a long-term easement or anything. That's sort of taking ~ is-ob 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 =- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "' 29 25 away land from that subdivider. So -- but if -- if there's real need, if Headwaters or any entity can justify the need for a 50-by-50 or 150 by the setbacks and that sort of thing, But I do think it's essential that it should be some -- have a time frame. They have one month or three months or whatever, some time to either drill their well or vacate their property. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. MR. MORGAN: Anythinq else? Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Dr. Morgan. Mr. Richter? MR. RICHTER: Larry Richter, 152 Oak Wood Road. Jonathan, in your draft, if you are so stating that this developer needs to provide a designated area for a monitoring -- monitoring well, if I'm a developer, I so choose to develop "X" amount of acreage, and that subdivision's going to be served by a central water system which I'm going to drill, or turn to Mr. Wiedenfeld, as a person in the water business, and say, "You drill and take over the system; you'll have 'X' amount of connections," what purpose would -- and that's going to be through groundwater district, a nonexempt well. It'll have a meter on it. So, what additional information would you need from a second well that would mean the developer has to provide area for another well? You've already got a -- a well -i~-nF 151 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 that is permitted through the district, groundwater district. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I'm not going to speak for Headwaters; we have two board members present on it. I think there's a great deal of difference between a monitor well and a well that you can qo test. A monitor well -- MR. RICHTER: Draw down. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Draw down. There's other scientific instruments in that well measuring things. That is basically receiving a picture of what the other wells that are producing are doing in that area, so it's a different purpose. MR. RICHTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's -- but I agree with what Dr. Morgan said. I think that -- you know, and we can tighten up the language a little more. There needs to be a time period. We need to maybe clear up exactly as to who's responsible for it. I think that who's responsible if there is a monitor well is Headwaters, 'cause they're the ones that would have it. But have it that it's a, you know -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. If Headwaters wants the well, they should drill it. I'd probably go up to 12 months to drill. I think wells are expensive; you can not -- it's unreasonable to think that y'a11 are going to have a -- you know, jump out and drill a well within a month. But I think, s-i~ nh 152 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you know, that a well needs to be drilled within 12 months or it goes back to the landowner or -- you know, or the property owner where the property is. I'll get with Rex a little bit, whether it's better to do it now, whether they do an easement, or -- I put it in the county right-of-way to get rid of this whole issue of whether it was an easement on this property and all that. But I'll get with Rex a little bit more about the best way to designate the area. I think we do need to set forth, as Mr. Wiedenfeld said, that there are additional setback requirements beyond -- you know, put people on notice that there are setbacks from the monitor well, if it's drilled, and that will have some impact on property and potentially where you locate a house, septic field, or an additional well. DODGE TINLEY: Anything further? Why don't we move, then, to our 2 o'clock scheduled item. We have some department reports for the Court to consider. I.T. We've got a written report that was submitted. I think everybody got the report, did they not? MR. ALFORD: Your Honor, he was called to go fly fire watch, and he appointed me to take your questions, to report back to him just as a liaison. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who's that? MR. ALFORD: Trolinger. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. ~ 13-nF 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: He submitted a written report. I think we all got a copy of -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who was that? JUDGE TINLEY: Information Technology. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I did. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He had to go do what? MR. ALFORD: Fire watch. He flies Civil Air Patrol, and they called him this morning begging him to go fly fire -- 'cause of red flag and stuff. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't know he did that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't either. MR. ALFORD: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We weren't aware that he was part of that program. MR. ALFORD: Yes, he is. He's one of the -- I guess, one -- he's called me a couple times in the last several months, so I don't know how active he is, but obviously -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fairly. MR. ALFORD: Yeah. 'Cause he even asked them, "Do I have to? I have a 2 o'clock meeting." They're, like, "You're the bottom of the totem pole," apparently, as far as the only one they ~~ould get ahold of. So, that's why he asked me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the comment I have, he's been communicating with us pretty regular with this whole i- 1 3 U 6 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ?5 conversion to the new computer system, so -- MR. ALFORD: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: He's always been responsive to any questions or concerns that I've had. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Me too. I have no problem. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ALFORD: I'm not going to tell him that. I'm going to tell him y'all tore him up, okay? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Road and Bridge. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. With the unusually warm weather, the crews have gotten a lot done towards this year's program, as well as we've been able to spend some time there -- we take about a week out of a month and work those down, so that's been very helpful for this fine weather. On the other hand, as I reported last time in January, that I have a lot of brush. Getting roads ready means cutting brush, and -- and it has not rained that we can burn. So, a lot of the things we would like to do, or that I would like to do, you know, we've had to spend a lot of time to haul or chip, which is a slow process, but most cases are stockpiled up waiting for some rain, and once we get the word on that, we can -- we can burn. Also on projects, preliminary plats, the Center Point School and Waugh Acres have expired to report to the Court in that. -i~-os 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The school had to do with their building the houses on Highway 27? MR. ODOM: That's correct. They have not even started on the road yet, so I don't know if they finished that first house or not. But -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Just about, yeah. MR. ODOM: -- I would assume that they would want to come back to the Court, and my suggestion is, is build the road before they go on with another house. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. ODOM: And Waugh Acres, that project was completed. It was a good project, but they didn't want to do the drainage study. So, that is sort of dead in the water. As a matter of fact, the year's expired, so we bring that to the Court's notice. You also have a list of the subdivision plats, the concept plans, meetings that we've had on floodplain. I can -- looking at all of them, maybe if there's a specific question about it, I'll try to answer. And all our employees are back to work and have no new injuries, so we're happy about that. No worker's comp. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, in your code, when you say "P" for preliminary, is that the preliminary has been approved or the preliminary is working? MR. ODOM: Should be preliminary -- that's a good question. 3-1.-OG 156 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 the only reason I'm bringing it up -- MR. ODOM: Privilege Creek is -- is working; it's preliminary. That's -- we're using the word preliminary as working, or it's in the preliminary process. COMMISSIONER LETZ: After it has been -- preliminary has been approved, then it gets an "NF" which is Needs Final? MR. ODOM: That's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my question -- I know it puts your office in a real difficult situation with our new subdivisions, how they're going to be -- it looks like it's pretty firm, two weeks from now. Rex, what's the best guidance as to what our -- what goes under which set of rules? I've always just kind of thought it was preliminary plat. Once we get preliminary plat, anything we have a preliminary on is under our old rules. But concept plans, it's -- MR. EMERSON: Concept plan doesn't mean anything until they submit the preliminary plat. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- okay. I just wanted -- mainly, I brought that up just for you to -- you just need to let people know that anything coming on the next agenda for preliminary approval is probably going to be under our new rules. MR. ODOM: Let me ask you, if we have an existing, as -- let's take Privilege Creek, and we want to revise Lot 7, i-ld-U6 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 L l~ 21 22 23 29 25 okay? Just take that, because I've sat down with the owner -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. ODOM: -- after you and I met, you know, and all. But that one there would still be an alternate plat process on a road. The question would be, where does that road fit? Because there's 11 lots, and that's outside the parameters of a -- of a country lane. So, are we going to, you know -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- it's going to be a difficult -- a little bit gray on some of these things a little bit on -- I mean, 'cause you can't just stop work and wait for us to talk. But it's hard for you to give -- tell people what to do on a what-if situation, 'cause until we approve our new rules, you can't. i MR. ODOM: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think any new -- any kind of a major new subdivision coming in at this point needs to be told we got to follow state law from a timing standpoint in our rules, but I don't think it's a good time to rush a new preliminary up to us until after our next meeting. Little alternate things, I think there's a certain amount of discretion that -- you know, that would be acceptable. I mean, if you're -- if you've been talking and they're carried on your list, like Privilege Creek -- I'm not even sure what the thing is there, but it's the -- if it's a minor -- some 3-i3-oh 158 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 ~l 22 23 ~4 25 sort of a minor revision, I don't have any problem with putting it under the old rules. But it's just a -- tread lightly for the next two weeks on new preliminaries. MR. ODOM: It's been -- the last month or two, it's been a -- you can see how many we had today. You can see what's out there, so -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. ODOM: And we're basically telling everybody we're going by the new rules. However, I'm not quite sure exactly -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What the new rules -- MR. ODOM: -- what the new rules are. I can assume that, and I bring out the new ones to the people. But I -- I have that problem, because some of these coming to us that might be an alternate plat won't fit the same -- I got a square trying to fit a round hole. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, on your list, on Page 2, meeting concerning concept plan, and that's really what this is, you list the Mosty home place as waiting for preliminary. We're going to do -- put a concept on for the Court to take a look at at the next meeting. MR. ODOM: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Prior to our getting to this preliminary stage, okay? -13-06 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 L MR. ODOM: I haven't seen anything, but I -- that's the reason we had it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I've seen it, 'cause I I had the -- MR. ODOM: We had the concept plan. I just don't know where it's at. Don't want to set anything. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Leonard. Maintenance. MR. HOLEKAMP: Good afternoon. JUDGE TINLEY: Good afternoon, sir. MR. HOLEKAMP: Did y'all get the copies of the monthly report, Exhibit Center, indoor arena, Union Church for the months of January and February? In addition -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a printed report, Glenn? Or -- MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm sorry, they were printed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're in our box. MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm sorry, they were put in the box. In addition to this here, months of January and February, we did a remodel job over at the Sheriff's Office on a -- the proposed task force offices -- office, I'm sorry. We redid the floors. If anybody's had the opportunity to go over to the Sheriff's office, we've got those floors done, and we are sealing them and waxing them starting tonight. And, of course, as y'all well understand, when remodeling is done and 3-13-n; 160 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the juices are flowing amongst the -- the office holders and employees, they -- they -- we need this and we need that. It would be nice if we could have this. And so, you know, the -- the mind-set is to make it a little nicer, and which there's nothing wrong with that. So, we've been preoccupied with buildings and tables and shelving and that sort of thing for the Sheriff's offices, and to kind of make them feel pretty in a lot of ways. And I don't blame them. I think it's healthy to -- to take an interest in your work space. So -- and then, of course, if you have an opportunity to look at those floors. We've had a rash of -- and it seems kind of strange, being February and March, but air conditioning issues. It shouldn't be, but it is. This year, for some reason, we've had more and more calls on air conditioning problems, and we're trying to chase them all down. Part of it is age on these units, especially over at the Sheriff's Office. Those are, what, 10, 11 years old now, and we've run into some compressor issues and that sort of thing. But it keeps us hopping, and we're pretty much getting back to full staff. As y'all knew that Shane was out for quite some time, and he's back. He's not throwing 100-pound boxes yet, but he can do his work, and that's been a real plus for us. Any questions of the court? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glenn, I was down there in your place this morning talking -- you and I were talking 3-13-U6 161 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 about Mrs. Stone's lamp and all that stuff. I don't want to go there; I just want to say that's the reason I was down there. But we had -- you brought up about the working on the front doors in the courthouse. Can you tell -- I know the Judge is well aware of it, 'cause -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. We -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- he probably -- MR. HOLEKAMP: We finally found a product that we could use on those -- it's a restorer. Not a stain, a restorer. Because stains, with the sun on them, they bleach. This is a restorer, and we're going to try to put about two or three quarts -- layers on it, and then hopefully we can put a sealer on it. But I'm hoping that's going to be all accomplished in the next two weeks or so, that we could get that done. And the other thing is, is -- and I know y'all have asked me about pressure washing this building. It is scheduled for March 25th. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got one more I want to throw in the application here. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know you probably didn't think about it when you did your budget, 'cause you might have added some extra money, but this is our sesquicentennial, and we're going to have some folks here all the way up through and including the governor, and I'm wondering if we can maybe get j 13-~5 162 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 windows washed in the courthouse. MR. HOLEKAMP: We are going to make an attempt at it, sir. We -- it's already been scheduled. I wanted to get the pressure washing done first, because there's going to be a lot of splattering that's going to get on the windows. It would be pointless to do it prior to that. That's the reason I've been pushing to get the pressure washing done, so that we can do the windows. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In addition to the pressure washing and the windows, are you doing any landscape improvements, like flowers, possibly, for the governor? MR. HOLEKAMP: I want to try to get some plants put I in. I had a lady that was supposed to do it. She probably still is, if I can rouse her again. It's a community service worker. JUDGE TINLEY: She's been working on Sundays. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. But I told her I didn't want anything planted until at least the 15th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. HOLEKAMP: Because of issues with the water, and we have to really put the water on it. But that is in the j plan to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. HOLEKAMP: -- do some -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: My final comment was -- 3-13-nF 163 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: -- flowers. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seeing former Commissioner and now future Commissioner Oehler in the audience, that eight years ago, when he was here, thereabouts, we were talking about problems at the jail and air-conditioners, and we're still doing it today. MR. HOLEKAMP: Just a different day. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only thing that changes is the date. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Still slow. MR. HOLEKAMP: The governor issue, I -- with him coming, I've talked to Mr. Herring on it, and I would really like some ideas as to how we're going to put 150, 200 chairs out here in this driveway. JUDGE TINLEY: I haven't figured that part out yet, either. I saw the number. MR. HOLEKAMP: I'd really like some help from the Court, because I'm not sure I can -- there's -- there's some elderly folks that are going to have trouble seeing if we wrap Lt all the way around the side of the building here. So -- i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless you have some sort of a platform out there. Elevate the governor a little bit. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, god, don't do that. MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, that takes up so much of the space, I'm afraid, if you use a stage-type issue. 3-14-06 164 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe you could open the windows upstairs and you could speak from the windows. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That balcony up there. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, balcony right up above the I doors. MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Step out of a window, but -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Y'all have any other ideas? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't put chairs out there on the grass? MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, they'll sink into the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't put some kind of flooring out there to put the chairs on? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a way to -- MR. HOLEKAMP: I guess I could. I mean -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about -- I mean, I know it's not the traditiona] way, but -- or the spot, but what about the employee parking lot, using that for a seating area, and shift it over to that side? That's -- I mean, it seems that that's a bigger hard area -- hard-surfaced area than the area right out here in the circle. And also, that area over there gives you a little more room to go to the parking lot over there and for overflow. It's a little bit more space. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, how long is this function? 3 1'3-~~6 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: Ten minutes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten minutes. MR. HOLEKAMP: The governor said he had 15 for us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, 10 minutes. MR. HOLEKAMP: Ten, 15 minutes, something like that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's going to take you longer than that to introduce Clarabelle and all of her friends. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's true. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the thought was that we would proceed on the -- on the assumption that the governor's going to be late. MR. HOLEKAMP: That is the assumption at this point. JUDGE TINLEY: It sure is. They could do all that, and when he gets here, why, go into the regular program, and then resume that other when he goes back. MR. HOLEKAMP: As soon as he leaves, I think they're I going to hand out the rest of the certificates, as I understood. DODGE TINLEY: You really think the chairs would sink into the ground? MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I've got a couple other ideas, but I need to really put a -- yes, they would. If you -- 90-plus age people are going to use every bit of that chair to ~ I get up and down. One thing we don't want is one going over 3-13-00" 166 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2q 25 backwards off the side. You need a pretty stable floor. I have that indoor/outdoor carpet out at the Ag Barn. I was thinking we could roll some of that out and set it on there, but it's going to be kind of uneven. I don't know if that'll be even worse. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Think about it. MR. HOLEKAMP: If y'all got any ideas, I'd welcome them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd measure that area out there, see if that's a good -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Now, sun's going to be an issue over there at that time of day. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What time? DODGE TINLEY: 1 o'clock. MR. HOLEKAMP: 1:30, 2:00, something like that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe it will be cloudy. MR. HOLEKAMP: Maybe it will rain. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The reason I was asking what time or how long -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Thirty minutes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the thing is going to go on -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Thirty minutes or so. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can seat a whole bunch of folks in chairs on the pavement area out there, and then 3 1 4- u 6 167 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 everybody else can stand up for a little while. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. I -- I kind of agree with you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want a chair. But, you know, old coots can stand up. MR. HOLEKAMP: I agree with your statement. I can get them in, but it will be kind of a wraparound effect. DODGE TINLEY: Sure. MR. HOLEKAMP: As long as everybody is patient. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're all very patient up here. MR. HOLEKAMP: I understand that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By the time the governor finally gets here, their patience may be expired. MR. HOLEKAMP: That is my thoughts at this moment. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While we're adding things to your list of things we need to spruce up -- MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- just add one more to it. MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The hand railing going in on the -- on the Earl Garrett side of the court, you got community service to scrape the old -- scrape the rust and the paint off two years ago, and it hasn't been painted yet, so just put it on your list. MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, this -- this brass rail? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever it is out there. 3-13-06 168 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. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, it's brass. Okay. Anything else? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get a haircut before you come back in here. (Laughter.) MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay, got 'ya. But if y'all have some other ideas -- what I was told by Mr. Herring is that Ms. Snodgrass had identified 150 minimum of 90-year-olds or above. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think she's going to get them all here. MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I don't think so either, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this thing's coming up in April; that list could change. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. We could have some more 90-year-olds. Is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. May be some additions to that list. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On both ends. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Holekamp. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you again. MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Collections. MR. ALFORD: Any questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Is collection -- I -i~~-uc 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 mean -- yeah, is "collections" and "paid" the same thing? MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. They -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be sure to confuse it as much as possible. MR. ALFORD: Well, I try to. I like to leave y'all in a daze when I leave so y'all don't know if I was coming or going. The Assessed is what the judge imposed as fines and court costs. The Paid is what the defendant has actually paid, the cash. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're 3 percent ahead this time last year? MR. ALFORD: Correct, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We want better. MR. ALFORD: I'm trying, sir. I mean, considering in 1998, you were only at 28 percent; you know, you're at 62 percent now. Come on, Jonathan, give me a break. I'm trying. That's a 40 percent increase. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Look how many years it took you to get there. MR. ALFORD: I know it. But, see, I just now got rid of Russ, so things are picking up the last couple of years. I didn't say that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can't win. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to be with Russ next week. 3-i3-n5 170 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ALFORD: Yes, I'm so glad y'all will be with Russ next week. JUDGE TINLEY: Anythinq -- any other questions for Mr. Alford? Thank you, sir. MR. ALFORD: Thank you, gentlemen. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it. Anything else, gentlemen? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not from me. JUDGE TINLEY: We stand adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:50 p.m.) 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 20th day of March, 2006. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 3-13-U6 ORDER NO. 29588 AUTHORIZE A SIX MONTH REVIEW OF 2005-06 KERB COUNTY BUDGET AT A WORKSHOP ON MARCH 27, 2006 AT I :30 P.M. Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Hold a Budget Workshop to do a six-month review of 2005-06 Kerr County Budget to be held on March 27, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. ORDER NO. 29589 CERTIFY TO SECRETARY OF STATE OWNERSHIP BY COUNTY OF TURTLE CREEK CEMETERY Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Certify to the Secretary of State ownership by Kerr County of the Turtle Creek Cemetery and that Kerr County took ownership on Apri125, 1977. ORDER NO. 29590 FINAL REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 5 THROUGH 9, BLOCK 8, GREENWOOD FOREST SUBDIVISION, INGRAM ETJ, PCT. 4 Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve the Final Revision of Plat for Lots 5 through 9, Block 8, Greenwood Forest Subdivision, Ingram ETJ, Pct. 4. ORDER NO. 29591 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOT 51, KERRVILLE SOUTH RANCHES TWO, PCT. 1 Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Set a public hearing for revision of plat for Lot 51, Kerrville South Ranches Two, Pct. 1, for April 24, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. ORDER NO.29592 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVISION OF LOTS 117 A & 116 D OF FALLING WATER, PCT. 3 Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams/Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Set a public hearing for the revision of Lots 117 A & 116 D of Falling Water, Pct, 3, for Apri124, 2006 at 10:10 a.m. ORDER NO. 29593 APPROVE COOPER COVE ADDITION, PCT. 2 Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve the Cooper Cove Addition, Pct. 2. ORDER NO.29594 INCREASE SPEED LIMIT ON KLEIN BRANCH ROAD Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Increase the speed limit in Kerr County on Klein Branch Road from 30 mph to 45 mph. ORDER NO. 29595 REVISION OF PLAT OF LOTS 3, 4 & 5 OF JAPONICA HILLS, VOL 5, PAGE 199, PCT. 4 Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve the revision of Plat of Lots 3, 4 & 5 of Japonica Hills, Vol 5, Page 199, Pct. 4. ORDER NO. 29596 REVISION OF PLAT OF LOTS 79 & 80 OF CYPRESS PARK, VOL 3, PAGE 45, PCT. 3 Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to: Approve the revision of Plat of Lots 79 & 80 of Cypress Park, Vol 3, Page 45, Pct. 3. ORDER NO. 29597 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: Accounts Expense 10-General $ 72,525.04 14-Fire Protection $ 10,416.67 15-Road & Bridge $ 11,335.34 18-County Law Library $ 8,820.58 19-Public Library $ 25,000.00 70-Permanent Improvement $ 2,675.00 76-Juvenile Detention Facility $ 3,712.91 81-District Administration $ 300.00 TOTAL $ 134,785.54 Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts. ORDER NO.29598 BUDGET AMENDMENT 198TH DISTRICT COURT 216TH DISTRICT COURT Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description 10-436-401 Court Appointed Attorney 10-435-401 Court Appointed Services Amendment I ncreaselQDecrease + $325.00 - ($325.00) ORDER NO. 29599 BUDGET AMENDMENT JUVENILE DETENTION Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description 76-572-332 Food 76-572-480 Marketing Amendment Increase/()Decrease + $41.30 - ($41.30) ORDER NO. 29600 BUDGET AMENDMENT DISTRICT CLERK Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description 10-450-315 Books-Publications-Dues 10-450-108 Part-time Salaries Amendment Increase/QDecrease + $4.60 - ($4.60) ORDER NO.29601 BUDGET AMENDMENT DETENTION MAINTENANCE Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description 10-515-451 Detention Repairs + 10-515-350 Maint. & Custodial Supplies - Amendment Increase/QDecrease $933.52 ($933.52) ORDER NO. 29602 BUDGET AMENDMENT JURY FUND Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description 10-434-495 Court Reporter Expenses 10-434-492 Juror Fees Amendment Increase/()Decrease + $1,000.00 - ($1,000.00) __ ORDER NO. 29603 MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 13th day of March, 2006, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 the following monthly reports: JP #3 JP #2 JP #4 Constable Pct. 1 Kerr County Juvenile Facility Ilse D. Bailey, Special Prosecutor Kerr County Emergency Services District No. 1 ..-. Constable Pct. 1 Citations as required under the law for Racial Profiling Report for 02/2005 to 12/2005 Kerr County Sheriffs Office Racial Profiling Statistics for 03/01/2005 to 02/28/2006