1
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
Tuesday, October 10, 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
_9
a
O
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
~~
I N D E X
October 10, 2006
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on request
for resolution in support of Texas Brush Control
Program in the Guadalupe River Basin
1.1 Consider/discuss advertising of proposals on
electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest control
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
allocating storage space to County Treasurer
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on any
matters that may arise from progress report on
Kerrville South Wastewater Project; approve
filing new Colonias application for $500,000 to
fund Phase IV, Kerrville South Wastewater Project
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
software problems causing delays in payroll tax
submissions
1.7 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for
Lots 13A & 13B of Riverside Park, Precinct 4
Public Hearing concerning vacating, abandoning,
and discontinuing Live Springs Ranch, Precinct 4
1.6 Consider/discuss, approve new cellular phone
service contract for Environmental Health Dept
1.12 Public Hearing for revision of Lot 5 of
Creekwood IV, Precinct 2
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve revision of plat for Lots 13A & 13B of
Riverside Park, Precinct 4
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
abandon, vacate, and discontinue old plat of Live
Springs Ranch, Precinct 4
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
approval of new final plat of Live Springs Ranch
13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
revision of Lot 5 of Creekwood IV, Pct. 2
PAGE
5
13
20
21
22
43
55
56
56
61
62
63
65
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

I N D E X
October 10, 2006
PAGE
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
road name changes and regulatory signs in various
locations, set public hearing for same 69
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept of an alternate revision of plat for
Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I; set public
hearing for same, Precinct 4 73
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept of alternate revision of plat for Wood
Trails Ranch, set public hearing for same, Pct. 4 73
1.16 Presentation by representative of Texas Association
of Counties of liability insurance; renewal credit
from TAC Risk Management Pool 7y
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
revision of Lots 16, 17 & 18 of Riverside Park,
Precinct 4 79
1.19 Consider/discuss take appropriate action to name
a private road in Precinct 4 g2
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve
resolution to participate in Indigent Defense
Formula Grant Program g3
1.20 Interview four finalists for position of Facilities
Maintenance Director, take appropriate action to
extend an offer of employment (Executive Session) 83
1.22 Reports from the following Departments:
Animal Control
Extension Office
Environmental Health
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
1.23 Workshop-Review on minor modifications to Kerr
County Subdivision Rules & Regulations
--- Adjourned
84
91
91
95
97
99
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
On Tuesday, October 10, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let me call to order this
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court regularly
scheduled for this date and time, Tuesday, October the 10th,
2006, at 9 a.m. It's a bit past that now. Our normal meeting
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please stand and join me in a
moment of prayer, please.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the audience or the public that wishes to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel
free to come forward at this time. If you wish to be heard on
absolutely essential that you do that, but it helps me to know
that we have a public member wishing to participate in an
agenda item. But at this time, if there's any member of the
audience or the public that wishes to be heard on any matter
that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at
10-10-U6
5
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
this time. I thought our Collections manager was coming
forward.
MR. ALFORD: No, computer issues. Thank you,
gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay. Seeing no one coming
forward, we will move on. Commissioner Letz, do you have
anything for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have made some
interesting observations for the past few weeks. Water is
always an interesting topic, and it's really interesting to
watch what other counties do around us, most notably recently
Kendall County. They've had a lot of discussion over there
about what to do on -- on density. And the Commissioners
Court came out, and a split decision 3/2 vote came down that
there will be no exceptions anywhere in the county; there will
be a 5 -- or 6-acre average for lot size whether you're in
downtown Comfort or Tapatillo Springs, which is another
high-density area. And they've really taken action to -- and
not only have they done that, and I find that some of their
actions are pretty interesting, but also the Cow Creek over
there has assumed, based on what Headwaters thinks, a huge
amount of authority on lot sizes, regulation of underground
water that I think, from Rex's and my discussions, and
discussions that the Headwaters Board has had with their
attorney, they don't have that authority.
io-io of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
But, anyway, it's just real interesting what other
counties are doing. And there's a lot -- and I'm bringing it
up, really, as a -- I think it's really important that we
follow the law. I know it's not -- doesn't sound like a real
novel idea, but I think we, as the Court, have looked to our
legal counsel on these issues and have pulled in the reins a
lot on things that people in the public want us to do, whether
it be regulating signs and billboards, regulating lot sizes
and wells and all this stuff. I mean, I think it's really
important that we do what's right and do what the law says,
and not try to grab all kinds of authority that I don't think
counties have. Okay. It's an interesting observation from
other counties.
JODGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I want to
piggy-back just a little bit on county authorities. This
L.C.R.A. issue is ruffling some feathers. And the travesty of
the whole thing, I believe, is that there is a small group of
citizens that are misleading other citizens. And, you know,
it's to -- we all saw our names in the newspaper. I saw a big
ad there, and I understand there was two of them, actually; I
only saw one. People are actually believing now that we are
in charge of L.C.R.A. We probably -- I mean, I've got -- I
10-10-06

1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
got an e-mail this last week from a lady in Llano, Texas -- I
Kerrville, and she just kind of stuck it to me as if I were in
charge, like many, many others are. I think -- I think that
this Court needs to make a response to that. It's gone long
enough and hard enough to where our citizens are believing
something that is not true, and I think that Commissioners
Court needs to come out with a strong statement, and we can
always	ask the	County	Attorney to do it for us.	(Laughter.)
I said	"ask."			
I really believe that. I mean, it's gotten -- I
think we're all big boys and we're strong and tough, and we're
elected to handle the -- you know, the -- stand in the face of
the storm for the people, and don't mind that at all. But
when there's -- but when there is untruths told, I think that
we need to stand up and -- and take a stand against that, too.
And, personally, I believe that it's a small group driving
this thing that got mad at this Court because we didn't take a
stand in the beginning. Remember, we -- we had an issue on
the table and we did not vote on it, and I think that that
angered some folks, and now they're taking it out on us. And
that's -- that makes me want to throw up, actually. I'm just
-- we need to take a stand on this thing, and it will -- I
will probably bring it to the Court at some point in the very
near future to do something. I don't know exactly what to do
io-in-o6
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yet, but something needs to be done.
The second issue is, I've gotten a call over the
weekend from the hospice -- local hospice group that they're
caring for a former TexDOT local engineer, and the family's
wishes is that a road would be named after him before he
Loop 534, which I'm assuming that's all in the city, or at
least city ETD. And he is the guy that designed it and
oversaw the construction of it and the whole thing, so I just
think that's a likely road to name after him. I will -- I'm
going to call the City today and just see where all that is.
And, again, if this Court needs to take a stand and -- and do
a resolution or something, authorize the Judge to write a
letter or something like that for that cause, I think it would
be very wise and the right thing to do. That's all.
DODGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I find Commissioner
out there is being engineered by a group of folks who have --
have a solution in mind. What I find interesting is that the
protests come in batches. You get a batch of e-mails, 10 or
12 at a time, and they all say the same thing. You get a
batch of phone messages, if you're not in the office, at the
iu-in-nh
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
9
same time, and they all say the same thing. And the last
batch had to do with "underground is the answer." And one
fellow was so enlightened about the whole thing that he said
in his message to me, "Underground is the answer. Bury the
towers." (Laughter.) I find that interesting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then one was, "Stop
U.G.R.A."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. So, yeah, I don't
know the answer. The answer's certainly not here. The
answer's in the Public Utilities Commission when L.C.R.A.
makes their recommendation or series of recommendations or
whatever they're going to do. But I think the -- what I find
troubling about this -- and I agree with Commissioner Baldwin
and his assessment of it -- is that so much enlighten --
disenlightenment or unenlightenment just spreads like
wildfire, and now it is the popular theory that underground is
cheaper than -- than surface and on top. I don't know if it
is or not, but if you're going to put that theory out, at
least put some supporting evidence out that backs up your
contention, and that hasn't happened. Other than that, this
was a pretty good weekend -- holiday weekend. Remember, this
is the weekend that Columbus sailed up the Guadalupe to
discover Kerrville. You do remember that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do remember; I was here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why we had that
io-io-o6
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
holiday this past Monday. And the University of Texas won.
The Bears won. Poor old Cowboys just couldn't quite get it.
MR. ODOM: A & M won.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, that's right. A & M
won. Oh, my goodness. How could I have forgotten that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I may go back, there's
one other comment, before I forget, on the same basic issue of
county authority. The City sent over a -- a draft of the new
ETJ rules that they're proposing, and I would just
encourage -- I don't know if everyone got it; I know I got a
copy of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll give to it Kathy to get
copies out to everybody. We're heading for a head-on
collision with the City over this, I think. Their rules for
their roads for ETJ are not acceptable, and I think we need to
look at -- I bring it up -- may have to ask Rex to do a little
research. My -- I recall -- my recollection is that if we
can't come to an agreement with the City over these rules --
you know, hopefully we can. They're hopefully logical people
over there on this. There's an option, I think. It's not
mediation, but it's something like that almost, and it goes to
a third entity to come up with these rules. And I think that
the -- we need to be prepared for that, be able to discuss
that, because the rules -- the draft that I got out of P & Z
io-io-oo
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
11
is pretty onerous in my opinion. The good news is there are
one -- I think two members of the City Council that are
through City Council, much less over to us. But they're -- it
is -- the rules they're proposing is nothing like Commissioner
Baldwin and I met with them and talked about. Nothing. So, I
think that's real important.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you mentioned that,
because I had a forewarning from a member of the P & Z that
they were going to -- going over a whole bunch of issues that
were counter to our long-established subdivision rules and
regulations, so I'm glad you're on top of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- on the issue of L.C.R.A.,
referring to, while they do not say that your elected members
of Commissioners Court and your elected members of the City
Council have any authority, it clearly implies that by
directing the reader of the -- of the advertisement to contact
these elected officials, with the apparent thought in mind
that if you bring enough pressure to bear there, things can
change. Well, obviously, things can't change. With regard to
your suggestion that maybe we need to adopt some sort of
official statement of position, if the -- if the County
io-io oh
12
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Attorney doesn't honor the request, now that we've already
passed by him, maybe we can get our resident wordsmith to work
on that, just as another option. But what I've been doing
when I get specific written communications from citizens, I
respond to them and tell them, you know, I appreciate their
interest; however, this Court has no authority or jurisdiction
over that issue, and the P.U.C. does, and they should direct
their -- their thoughts towards that agency in that regard.
So, I've been trying to respond to any written communications
I get. Obviously, if I get voicemail messages, there's --
there's not an address to which I can respond, but I'm -- I'm
trying to keep the fire put out. But I think they're --
they're pouring more fuel on it on the outside than I'm
putting out on the inside. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm doing the same thing.
the ads in the paper, and on several occasions, and it's like
that I've never met with them. So, that's why I say the
JUDGE TINLEY: A lot of these people are not going
to be heard because they're given to understand that we're the
ones that need to hear them, as opposed to the P.U.C., who
really are the folks that need to hear what they have to say.
io-io-na
13
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
So, from that standpoint, it is a travesty. Let's move on
with the agenda that we've got before us. We have a timed.
County Commissioners Court in support of the Texas Brush
Control Program in the Guadalupe River Basin in Kendall, Kerr,
and Comal Counties. Mr. Bartel's here with us. Mr. Bartel,
if you'd be kind enough to give your name and address for the
reporter for the record, and then tell us --
MR. BARTEL: I'm Fred Bartel, 101 Waring-Welfare
Road, Boerne, 78006. I have to admit, I'm from Kendall
County. Thanks for the flowers. Kendall County's done an
awful lot on trying to control density, and this drought has
helped a lot. People begin to realize that if we don't
provide some open-space land to recharge this aquifer, we're
not going to have enough water. And that 4-acre, 6-acre
density is becoming very popular. We've -- a lot of folks in
the past have said, "Well, we can't do anything about it
anyhow." Well, they can. So, we've had standing-room-only
crowds coming in there to Commissioners Court to discuss
people's feelings on -- and it's a battle between property
rights, for the developer and the people that are trying to
protect the aquifer, and that battle will go on. And I'll get
off my soapbox, but thanks again.
It's been a little over two years since I briefed
io io-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
you last on the Texas Brush Control project. You helped me
originate correspondence not only from Kerr, but from Comal
and Kendall, to the various boards -- soil conservation boards
and so forth to try to get financing for this program. In the
2005 Legislature, we were not successful, but Mr. Bill West,
looks very good this time. He said it's one of the
high-priority items, and so we're going to try to help put the
pressure on to focus attention on this thing. All three
County Commissioners are working on resolutions. Some of them
have already forwarded -- one's already forward; the other
one's in the mail, I think, to help us on this thing. It's a
matter of review.
As I told you several years ago, I learned that
A & M was doing research on rainfall interception, and I went
to one of their labs. They have ten labs in seven counties
that are studying interception of rainfall, and the one that I
visited was in Waring on the Seidensticker Ranch. And out
here in these big cedar trees are sensors up in the top, in
the middle, down at the bottom, even some under the litter
under the trees. That's transmitting data to Uvalde to a
central computer that measures rainfall interception. And,
for example, at Waring, since the year 2000, 151 inches of
rain had fallen on that particular area. 61 percent of the
io-io-o6
15
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
rain that fell on those cedar trees did not reach the ground.
This test has been repeated over and over, and, of course, the
more half-inch or less incidents of rain you have, the better
it is. So, here I am talking to you about conserving water; I
come up here in the middle of a cloudburst, but that's all
right. (Laughter.)
But the other side of this thing is, how do you
clear cedar? How do you do anything about this when -- when
it costs $200 an acre to clear heavy cedar? Then I learned
through Farm Bureau newspapers that there was a thing called
the Texas Brush Control Program, where the State has been
paying for 70 percent of the cost of clearing cedar. I found
that this has been going on in seven river basins. I found
that up through last year, for example, they had paid to clear
56,000 acres of cedar just in Gillespie and Blanco County on
the Pedernales River. And the sad part of this is, not one
so I started this effort on those three counties because of
the Trinity Aquifer, the fact that it's a priority groundwater
'i management area, and a lot of development going on out there,
plus the Canyon Lake. And so I think that this time, we stand
a much better chance.
io-io-oE
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This program helps everybody. A lot of people
think, well, this is to help the ranchers. Well, just look at
what it's doing, how many thousands of acre-feet of water that
course, there's got to be some follow-up -- and, Commissioner
Letz, you know this too. Cutting the cedar tree down is the
beginning of your problem. First off, you're a landowner and
you're going to have to put $50, $60 an acre into that program
to pay your share. And if you're going to get any
amortization on this, you're going to have to defer that
ground. You're going to have to control second-growth cedar,
forever. And we have a federal program; people do
participate. We had 26 people sign up for the federal program
last year, and only enough money for six. So, people want to
participate. And I really appreciate your help in this thing
and allowing me to come to speak with you today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Bartel? I got a question
for you. I don't understand why there's a fight between
private property rights and developers and aquifer people. I
don't understand that. Everybody should be in the same boat
on this thing. But if -- are you saying that if this program
goes through and we get what we ask for, that a property owner
is required to participate?
MR. BARTEL: Are you talking about the Brush Control
Program?
io io o~
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
MR. BARTEL: No, it's strictly voluntary. And if
out -- it's just like EQIP. A technician comes out, walks
through the property with you and looks for areas that might
be critical. If you've got a golden-cheeked warbler or
black-capped vireo habitat in there, they might recommend that
you try to keep some motts in there for that. They're going
to recommend that you do this on your best land, because
you're trying to get some return on your investment, and you
don't want to be clearing cedar on a 30-degree slope. So,
it's voluntary. But what surprises me is the participation.
I was on a bus tour last year in Gillespie and Blanco County.
There are places along farm-to-market roads where we drove
seven miles, and it was a continuous sign up; one rancher
after another participated in this program. They're very
excited about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- it's purely
voluntarily, like Mr. Bartel says, and it is -- the landowners
are standing in line to do it. It's basically the same as the
EQIP program under the Soil Conservation Service. And there
is a -- I know in this county, those that deal with Soil
Conservation folks quite a bit, there is far more demand than
dollars. So, I think it's -- I make a motion that we approve
the resolution. I think it's a real good program, and I think
io io oh
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
18
that the Guadalupe Basin has been left out, which is shameful
in my mind, that our legislators haven't funded us like the
other river basins.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it, but I'd like
to amend just one part in the "Whereas." It talks about,
"Therefore, be it resolved that the Commissioners Court of
Kerr County, Texas, recommends..." I think we need to state,
"recommends to the Texas Legislature that sufficient funds be
provided."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I'll accept that
amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any
question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a -- not on the
motion. But, Mr. Bartel, are you related to the former
Commissioner Bartel?
MR. BARTEL: Cousin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're cousin to him? What a
great man. Good man. And I believe that cedars -- God made
cedars to cut down. That's what they're for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fenceposts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's why he created them,
to cut them rascals down, so I'm certainly in favor of this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other question. I don't
know if you've talked to someone -- I really don't like to
io-io-oe
19
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bring up a whole lot the Edwards Aquifer authorities. You
might get them on board as well, 'cause they are providing
funds into Kerr County and Bandera County for their own
program. They're doing it through Soil Conservation Service.
MR. BARTEL: I talked with them, and especially down
in Comal County, where the watershed recharge area is. Now,
they have their own program. They pay, like, 20 percent or
something like that, I think. But Danny Scheel and I have
talked about that thing, and, in fact, discussed about whether
we should include them in this thing. There's been some
preliminary studies right now that shows that this area we're
talking about -- Kendall, Comal, and Kerr -- is the best
payoff for the dollar that we could come across because of the
high density of -- of development in this critical aquifer.
We're in a heap of trouble with this Trinity Aquifer, and
everything we can do to put some more water in there, I think,
is going to be helpful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other side of that is,
it's not just the Trinity which benefits. Clearing the cedar
has a direct relationship to the increase in spring flow,
which increases river flow, and the more water we can take out
of the river, the less is coming out of the aquifer, any
aquifer.
MR. BARTEL: Thank you.
io-io-on
zo
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question 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: The motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 1. Consider/discuss authorization for advertising of
proposals on electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest control. I
think this is basically an annual --
MS. DAVIDSON: Annual thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that we've put out for bids for
these outsource functions.
MS. DAVIDSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. 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.
MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's move to Item 3
io-io-oh
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
21
quickly. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
allocating storage space to County Treasurer. This relates to
one of those two closets that are in that little hallway there
by the Parole and the Historical Commission --
MS. NEMEC: Actually, both of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: I went from 1,178 square feet to 221 in
the office that I'm in now, and I have a lot of files that
didn't fit in there. And I've put them in there; I had no
choice. And, so, I'm here to get permission to use both of
those closets. One of them locks. The other one, there's
files in there that are unsecure, because it doesn't lock.
And if I get permission today to use both of those closets,
I'll have Maintenance put a lock on the other one, because
there's files in there that are -- files that really should be
under lock and key, and I'll have to tell Maintenance to get a
lock for that closet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's in the closets now?
JUDGE TINLEY: Nothing.
MS. NEMEC: Well, there wasn't anything in there,
but now I have my files in there, 'cause I had no choice, and
I just put them in there 'cause I didn't have anywhere to put
them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Prior -- prior to her
utilizing them, they weren't being utilized for anything.
io-io-ob
zz
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
So...
MS. NEMEC: And it was either that or leave them out
in that little hallway out there where -- you know, nothing's
I~, in there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no problem with it.
You need a court order?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. I had -- I was down there the
other day when I noticed this was on the agenda, and I
mentioned, I think, to Debbie -- I think you were off running
an errand or something -- that, you know, if you need that
space, for goodness sake, use it. That's why it's there.
Nobody else is using it, and, you know, use what you need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do it. Do you want a
court order?
MS. NEMEC: I just want to make sure it's okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely.
MS. NEMEC: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to a 9:30 timed item.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on any matters
that may arise from progress report on Kerrville South
Wastewater Project; also approve filing a new Colonias
application for $500,000 to fund remaining Phase IV of
Kerrville South Wastewater Project. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This is
the agenda item that I had put on two weeks ago. And the
io io-a~
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
23
Grantworks folks, our friends Eric Hartzell and Reagan
Lenehan -- Regan's new to the scene, incidentally, Judge and
Court. Regan took Dave Tucker's place. And I got to tell
you, Regan, you make a better appearance standing before us
than Dave Tucker did.
MS. LENEHAN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, I would have made
a better appearance than Mr. Tucker.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But Eric is an old friend;
he's been here many times before. What we want to do today is
give the Court an update on Phases II and III of the Kerrville
South Wastewater Project, tell you exactly where we stand. We
are nearing -- rounding the corner, would you say?
MS. LENEHAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rounding the corner. And I
want these folks to give us that report. It is not, however,
an issue that we need to talk about, and hopefully find a
basis for a resolve. And then we need to talk about moving
forward and secure funding for the remainder of the project,
which is Phase IV, which will come down the Bandera -- I mean
the Ranchero Road. So, whoever wants to lead the discussion.
Regan, is that going to be you or Eric? Whoever.
MR. HARTZELL: Probably Regan will start off. She's
the person who's in charge of managing the current Phase II
and III grant, and so I'll let her start.
io-io-oti
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could we start by going over
Phase I, so I can remember?
MR. HARTZELL: Okay, I'll do that. Eric Hartzell
with Grantworks. Phase I was the Wood Mobile Home Park, which
connected about 57 households to the City's municipal sewer
system. And that was completed -- oh my goodness, probably
about two years ago now. And this -- this new Phase III and
IV are the Loyal Valley Subdivision, which are around 100
homes that are mostly mobile homes in this area, and that's --
that's Phases II and III, sorry. And Phase IV, then, would be
taking Ranchero Road from the Bandera Highway down to Loyal
Valley and hook up the duplexes and homes that are along tnat
street.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One important element of
Phase I that you didn't mention, Eric, and that was the part
that took us across the Riverhill Country Club, bypassed the
Rolling Green Lift Station, which was a major piece of Phase
I, and which took a lot of work to get done, and was delayed
immeasurably by the flooding in the year 2002.
MR. HARTZELL: That's true. That was something the
City had required that we do for the project, was to reroute
that flow around their lift station.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was a condition the
City set in return for giving us the authority to hook these
io-io-vs
25
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
up to the city system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the -- is the City happy
with all we've done for them? I mean -- I mean, we're kind of
handing them 150 customers so far; we're going to hand them
more, which is a revenue source for them. They're getting it
at no cost. So, I mean --
MR. HARTZELL: I think there -- I think there have
been different administrations in place throughout the last
few years, and both U.G.R.A. and the City -- actually,
U.G.R.A. is sort of who initially spearheaded --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HARTZELL: -- this, and they were kind of going
to own the system and then work with the City as a kind of a
wholesaler. And -- and so there have been some sort of
different arrangements discussed throughout the years as it's
moved along. I think the City appears to recognize this is a
valuable asset to them, and we haven't had any real issues
with -- dealing with the City. They've been cooperative with
these projects.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think part of the answer
to your question, Commissioner, is it goes to the interlocal
agreement that was negotiated between U.G.R.A. and the City of
Kerrville to take on the administrative role with the
maintenance role of the system. And in that interlocal
agreement, the previous U.G.R.A. manager, not the current
io io-on
26
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
one -- or not Mr. Brown, but the one in the middle, negotiated
a clause in there that gave the City an option -- or U.G.R.A.
an option, I forgot who -- to purchase it for peanuts. And
that's kind of a bone of contention out there. I'm not sure
the City wants to acquire it. And in our minds, since we gave
it to U.G.R.A., and there will be close to $2 million
invested, they probably ought to hold onto it, and take the
rest of it as well, which is this two phases. And, so, that's
kind of up in the air, and it's up to them to negotiate their
way through that and either renew their administrative
contract or something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there just -- you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't mean to complicate
it, but it's -- that's in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why wouldn't the City want it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would they want it?
They probably wouldn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, they're getting
users who are going to pay a monthly service charge, and
they're going to pay for that sewage then to be treated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're getting money to
maintain it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're getting money to
maintain it. Why wouldn't they want that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would they want to take
io io on
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
over the responsibilities of ownership?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. HARTZELL: Why wouldn't they.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why wouldn't they?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because it -- because it is
then an official extension of their services beyond their --
their corporate limits.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have, by policy, said
they won't go beyond their corporate limits, except in
situations like this with interlocal agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Changes the dynamics of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got a nod of consent back
there from Stuart.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Just trying to get the
whole big picture before we get on to where we go next.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that's not our issue.
MS. LENEHAN: Well, then, good morning,
Commissioners. Nice to meet all of you. The updates on the
Phase II and the Phase III portion of the project, which, as
Eric mentioned, is the Loyal Valley area, is that we are --
io-io-o~
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
28
we've been under construction for months, and the work in the
public right-of-way is complete. And we have hooked up about
80 houses to the system, and all of those homes have set up
accounts with the city to receive service. And at this point,
we feel like we have -- we have enough funding, through three
grant projects, to -- to pay for all of the costs associated
with hooking up those homes. And the next step in the process
is the septic mitigation, and we are -- our budget is very
tight at this point, and so we are discussing different
options for the septic mitigation portion of the project. And
Commissioner Williams and I have been discussing the Loyal
Valley -- the areas that are in closest proximity to the
creek, and basically prioritizing those -- the septic
mitigation for all homes on Loyal Valley, and then basically
keeping -- running through all the homes in the project area
until we run out of funds in the grant. So, our -- our goal
would be to do -- of the 80 homes that we have in the area,
we're hoping to do, you know, at least 60 of those, and then
just kind of moving along and along and along until our grant
funds run down -- run out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then?
MS. LENEHAN: Then?
area.
iu-io oc
29
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: And that's consistent with
And I think it's a
the last two years, where our budgets that we applied for
these grants were created back in, I think, 2002 and '3. And
since then, we've had a 40 percent increase in PVC, and so the
engineers are just trying to squeeze what they can out of what
we have available. But there have almost always been some
overruns in terms of our -- what we've been able to secure in
our bidding, and so we've had to defer some of the project
costs to a future -- to future grants.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it's your assessment
remain in the grant pool; is that right? Grant and match
pool?
MS. LENEHAN: That's exactly what it's looking like
right now. The -- the one caveat is just that we -- I just
received an invoice from the construction contractor. Hasn't
even been approved or signed off on by the engineer at this
point, so this is my most recent estimate, and -- and based on
the costs that -- you know, the invoice that he's showing and
the amount remaining, it's looking like we'll definitely be
10 10 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
able to do 60, and then we'll hope to just kind of maybe
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our environmental officer is
Camp Meeting Creek and so forth and so on, which essentially
would be all of Loyal Valley as it loops around, and to the
extent that we have funds remaining, then we would take
whatever you identify as the most needy of those and mitigate
until we run out of funds. Do you see anything inherently
wrong with that plan?
MR. ARREOLA: No, sir, looks good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many additional homes will
Phase IV, we'll have to actually
resurvey. This area was surveyed about four years ago. It
needs to be resurveyed. At the time, there were about 20, 25
additional homes. This grant's actually a little larger than
the amount we had applied for previously for Ranchero; it's a
half a million dollar grant, so maybe it will squeeze a few
more into it by going further down Ranchero. But the engineer
will have to do a budget for us. And today, what we're --
we're asking the Court to consider is allowing us to -- we'll
have to actually come back for a formal resolution, but we'd
like to go ahead and initiate conversations with U.G.R.A., the
l~~ 10 0 6
31
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
City, and the engineering firm to get the ball rolling, and
then come back to you with a resolution to apply formally in
the next couple court meetings.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you mentioned that
part of it, Eric, 'cause I think we definitely want to try to
hook up some other things on Ranchero, not least -- not the
least of which are the mobile home park, where they had agreed
with us that when the line got there, they would hook it up.
And also, in my mind, if it's possible, even though many of
the homeowners might not qualify on the threshold of -- income
threshold, Quail Valley also is an area that could be
legitimately hooked up as well, or a line extended there, and
that goes directly down to the lift station.
MR. HARTZELL: Okay, yes. The -- the key there, as
you mentioned, would be the incomes, because these programs
are designated for low to moderate income homeowners -- or,
I'm sorry, residents. And so we would have to make sure we
have that mix of lower-income folks in the equation, so we --
that would be done by a door-to-door survey. And we will need
to conduct another door-to-door survey for this Ranchero
phase, and if we can squeeze those Quail Valley folks into the
budget and into the beneficiary count to keep -- to maintain
our low-income focus, then we certainly will do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: What percentage of low income is
required in order to -- to remain within the parameters of the
io io oc
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
cG
23
29
25
grant?
MR. HARTZELL: Okay. This is a state and federal
program, so it's not as simple as a number, but to qualify the
projects, we need to have 51 percent of the beneficiaries.
However, to score high enough to actually get it funded, we
need to have 80 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HARTZELL: 80 percent is what we're looking for,
which is easy in Loyal Valley and less easy along Ranchero.
But the mobile home park that you mentioned, which is north --
I believe north of Ranchero --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: West.
MR. HARTZELL: It's sort of northwest, on the
northwest side, that area. If we can incorporate that, it
probably will bring the numbers up, 'cause I believe it's a
lower income community for the most part.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so.
MR. HARTZELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's always been my
understanding that that used to be called Blue Ridge Mobile
Home Park. I've always understood that that would be a part
of Phase IV. So --
MR. HARTZELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- keep knocking on that
door, my good friends.
1~-10-06
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HARTZELL: I know that the Court had -- I
remember -- I think I was here when you guys had the agreement
with the folks who were buying that property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. HARTZELL: About the septic tanks. I remember
that. So, it's in our minds and in our plans.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Regan, help me understand
this. Your e-mail to Commissioner Williams says that the --
that you have sufficient funds to hook up the homes and
mitigate all septic tanks on Loyal Valley. And then on
another one, on a memorandum to Bill, it says the same thing;
you do have enough budget -- budget funds will cover septic
mitigation. And then at the bottom, it says you don't. And
then you stand before us today and say you don't. So --
MS. LENEHAN: Well, part of -- part of that probably
has a lot to do with the fact that I'm new working on the
project, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ah, I see.
MS. LENEHAN: Getting through the -- sorting through
the notes on the projects and kind of getting myself caught
up, there was probably a little bit of a learning curve in
there. But it also has to do with the fact that the project
has been stopped and started a number of times, or at least
once or twice, it's my understanding. And part of that is
'cause, as Eric mentioned, the initial surveys on this project
~o-io-ue
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were done, I think, back in 2002.
MR. HARTZELL: 2000.
MS. LENEHAN: Or 2000. And so there were -- you
know, since that time, a number of people have moved into or
moved out of the area. And it became apparent, once the
contractor started hooking up -- or started construction on
the project, that we really needed to stop and resurvey the
area and make sure that we were including all of the eligible
homeowners that we could, and also make sure we weren't
hooking up a vacant house, or if a mobile home had -- you
know, trailer had moved off-site, that we weren't, you know,
putting a tap in where there was nothing. And so the numbers
have fluctuated a little bit, and -- and that's -- because of
that, and because of the fact that we are now getting our
first invoice from the contractor since the end of July, you
know, we've -- there have been some changes with the budget.
And I think there also have been some -- the impact fees or
the city fees were originally not part of the grant.
MR. HARTZELL: Right. Originally, the impact fees
hadn't been budgeted, so we had to make room for those as well
in the grant.
MS. LENEHAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a $300 tab, right?
MR. HARTZELL: It's a big hit.
MS. LENEHAN: $500 a home, when you're looking at 80
1o-io-nh
35
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
So that had to be accommodated, yeah.
We're supposed to try to hook up as many or all of the low
incomes, though, that we can identify, but it is a moving
target. The -- the people -- a house that had somebody in it
two months ago will be vacant now. And technically, then,
we're not supposed to hook it up, but when you have a
contractor out there, it's very -- it's very hard to pin down
exactly which houses we're supposed to hook up and which ones
we're not, and so that was kind of the issue with some of the
fluctuating. What we ended up doing is setting a deadline. I
think the Court had actually approved a deadline for getting
folks to set up their accounts. That way, we could have a
fixed number that we said, okay, no more after this point.
We've had calls since then from folks who have moved in, or --
you know, they're saying, "Oh, well, can I hook up now?" And
we had to draw a line, because the contractor was trying to
get finished and out of there -- or with his work, and we
could trickle in connections over the next, you know --
MS. LENEHAN: Ad infinitum.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're still getting calls.
MR. HARTZELL: We're still getting calls.
io-io 06
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
MS. LENEHAN: Another thing is that the grant
deadlines are now coming up -- two of the grants -- soon.
Because of that, you know, it just doesn't make sense for us
to leave a contractor out there and keep extending and
extending these projects. So -- so that has -- that's why the
numbers have fluctuated a little bit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. You did well. I just.
want to say one more thing. Everything that we've done so far
is in Commissioner Williams' precinct. Across the road is my
precinct.
MS. LENEHAN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we probably need to get
kind of serious about that pretty soon. 'Cause I'm just one
vote here, but I can twist arms.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have room in your
office for all those sewer files I'm going to bring over to
you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, I don't. But Rusty
does.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mean to pick on the
City, but they're charginq $500 per -- thing? Has anyone
thought of asking the City to waive that fee so we can do more
septic mitigation? Which helps the City, 'cause it cleans up
the creek that goes through the city.
io-in-oh
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good.
MR. HARTZELL: We've been told that that is not
possible to waive that impact fee. Impact fees -- I think
it's something to do with the legality of how they're
structured in the first place, that it makes it difficult for
cities to waive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've explored that,
Commissioner Letz, and they can't waive an impact fee. They
waive it through the county, I believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if we bought them a new
~ ambulance?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we did that
~ already.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, half of an ambulance.
What if we buy the other half?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it should be
explored again.
MR. HARTZELL: Doesn't hurt to ask.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I think it's a --
that's -- you know, you're talking about 80 homes at $500 a
pop; that's 4,000 -- $40,000.
MS. LENEHAN: Forty.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can mitigate the rest of the
septics and clean up Camp Meeting Creek, which is a city
io-io-oF
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
problem. It just doesn't make sense to me that the City
doesn't cooperate with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I look at things very
simplistically.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, Commissioner Letz.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me inquire, if I might. We're
looking and making an application for a new grant for Phase
IV, which is going to get you into Precinct 1. In order to do
that, is it not true that we've got to proceed to close out
these phase -- the Phases II and III that are still open?
MS. LENEHAN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm given to understand
there's a deadline on making application for Phase IV.
MS. LENEHAN: Yes.
MR. HARTZELL: December 1st.
JUDGE TINLEY: December 1, okay. Are we going to be
in a position where we can close out II and III so that
appropriate application can be made for Phase IV and keep this
ball rolling?
MR. HARTZELL: Yeah.
MS. LENEHAN: Yes.
MR. HARTZELL: That's our goal.
MS. LENEHAN: That's our goal.
MR. HARTZELL: It's going to happen.
io-io-o~
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
JUDGE TINLEY: I like the "yes" better than, "That's
our goal." Didn't you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to take the "yes."
MR. HARTZELL: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And one other question about
the match, that you talk about a match in funds can be in cash
or in-kind. Road rehabilitation on the part of the County
could qualify for in-kind, could it not?
MR. HARTZELL: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HARTZELL: Certainly. I don't think the
County's ever put any match into these yet. But the match on
this new grant will be $25,000 for the $500,000 grant, and we
will ask, I guess, U.G.R.A. -- and, actually, the City, if
they were to waive their tap fees or their -- I'm sorry,
impact fee, that actually can count toward the match. That
can be the match. We do that in other communities and
counties all the time with Colonia grants. The City of
Aransas Pass, for example, waived its tap fee and its impact
fee for San Patricio County, and that was the match, so we
don't have to worry about cash coming in from a third source
or another source. So, we definitely will approach the City
about this again. I think --
io-io-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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So will Commissioner Letz
and I.
JUDGE TINLEY: Eric, let me ask you. You say the
City of Aransas Pass found it to be lawful to waive those
impact fees?
MR. HARTZELL: Well, Aransas Pass' fees were
actually called tap fees. There was a tap fee and a -- they
have a different term for it.
MS. LENEHAN: Capital recovery?
MR. HARTZELL: They don't call it capital recovery,
either. It's not technically an impact fee. It's a capacity
buy-in fee or something like that. So, I don't want to -- I
don't want to step on any lawyers' toes. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: We might be talking about an issue of
semantics here.
MR. HARTZELL: May be.
MS. LENEHAN: It may be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, there -- if I understand
this, summarizing it, there's not any issue that we need to
deal with with respect to the current one; we just need to
have an action authorizing you to proceed with an application
for a $500,000 grant, Colonias grant. CDB block grant, right?
MR. HARTZELL: That's right.
MS. LENEHAN: That's right.
10-10-06
41
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would probably include
part of Precinct 1?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is a motion, and thank
you for the second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second on the
agenda item to proceed with authorizing the Grantworks people,
on behalf of Kerr County, to make application for the Phase IV
$500,000 grant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on the
I motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have a question. Is
someone going to go back and revisit this $500 impact fee
issue?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. I'll take my airport
buddy down there, and he and I can talk with a couple
Councilmen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to take a
constable with you? Is that what you said?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I said my airport buddy.
iu-io-oa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
We'll talk to a couple Councilmen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, council.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we need a constable,
we'll take them too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just my recommendation.
That's -- hinting at it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would have one comment,
Judge, before we call a vote, though. Mr. Arreola, if you
would, in addition to the 43 some-odd that we've identified on
Loyal Valley, if you could take a cursory inspection and give
us any sense of what others to get us to 60 might be in
priority list number one? Okay, appreciate that.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or 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 carries. Thank you for
being here with us.
MS. LENEHAN: Thank you.
MR. HARTZELL: Good to see y'all again.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm remembering the "yes" answer.
MR. HARTZELL: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
10-10-06
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HARTZELL: We'll get it done.
MS. LENEHAN: We'll get it done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 5; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to software problems
causing delays in payroll tax submissions. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda. This
is based on a memo, if I -- the memo is not in my packet. I
don't know if y'all got it in your packet or not, but a memo
we all received from the Treasurer related to a -- a problem
with the payroll being submitted timely -- payroll tax being
submitted timely. And I put it on the agenda 'cause if we
have a computer problem, it needs to be worked on. So, Mr.
Trolinger or Ms. Nemec, whoever wants to answer -- you know,
address it. Because, I mean, this is one of those things that
I think is pretty critical.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, and I guess --
MS. NEMEC: Can I see the memo? I don't --
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's got it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First sentence, second
paragraph.
MS. NEMEC: This was with the -- the bank. This was
through the banking part; this was not with Incode. This was
with the submission through the Internet banking, cash
lu io oG
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just a bank problem?
MS. NEMEC: Well, with the banking part of it. It
wasn't through the software program. It was through --
through Security State Bank and the banking part of it.
but also, because we found that there is no checks and balance
system by us doing it through the Internet, and so we went
back to the old way of doing it through faxing it, because
this way it requires two signatures, if we do it by fax, and
this way there's a checks and balances system between the
Auditor and the Treasurer, because it requires two signatures.
And this way, when we submit it, the Auditor's office is -- it
requires their signature, and they check right at that time if
that is the correct amount, so there's a checks and balance
system put back into place by doing it that way. And we just
feel more comfortable that they're checking the amounts. And
so it was something that happened one time, and then since we
went back to doing it the old way and found that, well, that's
probably better anyway, because now there's that checks and
balance system put back into place, and right there and then
they can check and make sure that that is the correct amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's -- that's good. I
have the signatures, 'cause it resolves all that and the
io-io-o6
45
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
thing's done timely and all that. But going back to the
backup, so Security State couldn't do it right? I guess I
have a real problem with a depository bank not being able to
work with deposit -- or transferring and depositing funds
electronically. And --
MS. NEMEC: I can't remember the details of that,
and when I saw this on the agenda, I went -- tried to go back
to my files, but we have so much stuff in boxes still, and I
couldn't find where all that was. And I called my former
part-timer who transmitted all that, and she couldn't remember
the details of it either, so I don't really know the details.
Tommy, do you remember what happened back then? On that one
incident where it was the 22nd --
MR. TOMLINSON: Something about their approval of it
from -- from the bank. The bank was sending back to us a
communication to approve the transfer. I think that's what it
was. I'm not sure, either. I just -- I just knew that --
that through the bank reconciliation, how we knew, because the
debit never hit our account, so that's when that alerted us to
know that -- that the transfer had not happened.
MS. NEMEC: And that was, like, on the 22nd that
they sent that approval back, and that's how we knew, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: When did we put in the new electronic
system? When was that established? Do you remember?
Approximately. Ballpark.
io-io-o6
46
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
MS. NEMEC: I don't remember.
JUDGE TINLEY: First of the year? Middle of the
year?
MS. NEMEC: No, it must have been in May, I think.
MR. TOMLINSON: March?
MS. NEMEC: Well --
MR. TROLINGER: March 15th was the first payroll.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, but I don't think we went on the
941 in March.
MR. TROLINGER: Are you talking about Security State
Bank's 941 filing?
MS. NEMEC: Yeah. I don't think we did that right
away. And what happened was, when we found this out, that
this happened, I called I.R.S. right away and said, "This is
what happened," and so, you know, "Is there going to be a
penalty?" And they said, "Well, we won't know that till -- we
can't tell you that until you submit your 941, and at that
time, ask for it then." And then they sent me a letter, when
I asked for that, and they said, "Until we figure out your
taxes and stuff, then we won't know at that time." So, they
said there might not even be one, so I just tried to get a
step ahead when I sent that letter to them. So, at this
point, we don't even know if there is going to be one or not.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the electronic -- the electronic
methodology, walk me through step-by-step how that occurred or
in-io-a~
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
how that was intended to work.
MS. NEMEC: When we submit electronically?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah. That came in, I guess,
in March, is what I've heard. How -- how were the steps to
occur on that to make that happen?
MS. NEMEC: Well, what happened in March, we went
electronically as far as direct deposit for the employees.
So, we submit that direct deposit through Security State Bank,
okay? I want to say that the 941 -- and maybe it did happen
in March. I want to say we started that a month later. I
I really can't remember. I do the direct deposits and submit
~ them through Security State Bank Internet cash management
system. The 941's were also being transmitted through the
cash management system, Internet banking. So, there's one
process; one is direct deposit and the other one is the 941
submissions. I want to say this one was -- what, June or
July? This particular one that -- that didn't go through?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: May?
MS. NEMEC: And it had something to do with, like
Tommy said, the approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your letter says that on
June 22nd, --
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, it was June 22nd.
', COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- three weeks afterwards,
you found out that the May 30 taxes had not been successfully
io-io-oti
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
LL
23
24
25
transmitted.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a three-week lapse.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. So, it was the May taxes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- the Internet banking
management or whatever you just said, is that something that
Security State Bank has? Or --
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's their -- they have set
the contract up or set up that system?
MS. NEMEC: Right. Right. It has nothing to do
with Incode.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I -- to me, we
need to get into an electronic as much as possible, because I
think it's more efficient time-wise. So, I mean, I like the
fact -- and I think I totally agree, you need to have a checks
and balance. I think it takes two signatures, but that can be
done internally. I really would like to find out why that
system isn't working at Security State Bank, because I think
that's their problem. I mean, if they can't -- and, you know,
I cannot imagine they don't have the system that they can
transfer and do this electronically, because I would almost --
whoever some of the other larger employers in the county are,
whether -- you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're the depository for
io-io-o6
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
others besides us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, whoever handles
them, those payrolls are much larger than ours, and probably
are certainly done with a frequency -- if not a greater
frequency than ours, I can't imagine those are being done
manually. Just because -- anyway, so I think we need to
figure out how to make it work electronically. But I do like
the two signatures, you know, out of your office and Auditor's
office. That way, I think it avoids future confusion.
MR. TROLINGER: And, Commissioner Letz, the only
thing I was able to find on Incode was -- and this -- it's
exactly as described on the bank web site, by the way. But on
the Incode payroll side, we've reviewed with the Incode
trainer, and there is some setup that still needs to be done
to make that work correctly, and I'm hoping that while the
trainer's here on site, you can work with them to make sure
that initial setup that should have been done gets completed,
so H.R. doesn't have to do quite so much work on startup.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But, you know, whoever --
Tommy, you tend to work probably with our depositor more than
the Treasurer does. I mean --
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. We just -- we reconcile the
bank statements, and we -- we're -- we have online capability
io io-ac
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
50
with the bank and are able to look at all the transactions.
I And that's basically why we -- I mean, I have -- my signature
is required, but as far as making deposits and those kinds of
things, we're really not involved in it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question was as to if the
problem's at Security State Bank and their software, that
needs to be fixed at Security State Bank, and not at our cost.
'Cause, I mean, if a problem was truly at Security State Bank,
I think they should pay any penalty we get, not us. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That raises a question.
note.
MS. NEMEC: I want to say that that's when you
reconciled the bank statement and found it.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we found it.
MS. NEMEC: That it hadn't been -- it hadn't been
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
MS. NEMEC: And I want to say that -- you know, I
don't have it in front of me and I couldn't -- I couldn't find
it. And I want to say that there was a problem with the
approval, and I think what happened is that my former
part-timer, when it was submitted, the approval -- the
io-io-oa
51
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
approval button didn't get hit? Didn't get --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I would -- I'd have
to get the bank to explain that issue, but I don't know enough
about of that process to --
MS. NEMEC: There's a -- there's submit, submit
without list, submit -- and, you know, and you can hit
"Submit," "Submit Pending Approval," and it could have been
that -- that "Submit Pending Approval" was hit. There's just
all these different options. I don't know. And, like I said,
I called her last week, and she couldn't remember.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to figure out
how to do it electronically. I think it's more efficient
long-term, but I do like the fact that you've implemented both
the -- both --
JUDGE TINLEY: Checks and balances.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Checks and balance system. I
think that needs to be in place as well. But faxing, I think,
is -- is not efficient and, you know, is going to be become
less and less used. So, I'm just -- with the way I see
everything going.
JUDGE TINLEY: Could you provide us with a
step-by-step, and in sequential order, how the electronic
submission works for the deposit of 941 payroll taxes?
MS. NEMEC: What I can do this next payroll, while
I'm -- if you want me to submit it electronically this next
io-io-oe
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
payroll, I can provide -- I can write down those steps for
you. And what I'll do is I'll have the Assistant Auditor come
and kind of do a checks and balance system. She'll see the
amount that I'm transmitting. Is that okay, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we have -- we now have three
departments involved in the process. And once our thought
process -- we haven't decided, but the thought process is
to allow the H.R. people to generate the numbers, and upon --
upon that, they will notify us and the -- and the Treasurer
that -- that amounts are sitting out there. And then we --
then we will do -- my office will actually post the -- the
amounts to the general ledger. Then we -- then we know by --
by posting those numbers what the numbers are supposed to be.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And so then we can communicate to
the Treasurer that these -- these are, in fact, the amounts
that need to be transmitted. And so --
MS. NEMEC: So there's your checks and balance.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, there -- by three departments
being involved in the process, then we have -- we have checks
in three different -- from three different people. So, I
think that's the way -- that's our plan. I do not know how
the bank system works, but I -- I think it's -- I don't think
it's -- that we should judge whether or not it's -- it's the
bank's issue until we hear from the bank.
1 0- 1 0- 0 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: Well, I submit the direct deposits for
the employees, and it's basically the same thing, so I feel
real comfortable submitting the 941's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: So that's not a problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I just think
electronically is the way to go for the future, once we get
the bugs worked out.
MS. NEMEC: I wouldn't have a problem doing that at
all, so I'll just start doing it this next payroll.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else --
MR. TOMLINSON: I just want to reemphasize that --
that I don't -- I don't think anyone should get the idea, in
the press or anyone, that -- that the bank could be -- the
bank could be the issue without the bank having an opportunity
to say whether or not they are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I agree. And I think
the --
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, we don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, from what I heard Barbara
saying, I mean, it's an issue between the way that it possibly
could have been sent from her office to how it's received at
the bank. And it was the first time using the system, so, I
l0 10 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
mean, I think it was -- there was a mistake somewhere.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one other quick
question for you before you leave this topic. Mr. Trolinger?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Currently, the system that
you're responsible for is working correctly?
MR. TROLINGER: The payroll system portion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. TROLINGER: No. It was not initially set up
after the March go-live, and the work to do that is underway
right now. It is not a hundred percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Work to do that is underway
now in what department?
MR. TROLINGER: H.R.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there anything remaining
to be done in the Treasurer's department?
MR. TROLINGER: It would be nice if, while the
trainers were here, that the new employee came and learned the
system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think it would be
nice; I think it's absolutely mandatory.
MS. NEMEC: She's going down there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: Then I think they're going to be here
next Monday too, so she'll be down there.
io io-oE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is it next Monday that they're going
to be here, Mr. Trolinger?
MR. TROLINGER: It was Monday, all day yesterday,
all day today, and Monday of next week.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we had -- nevermind.
Different topic.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else from anybody else on
the Court with regard to that particular agenda item? Okay,
let's move to our 10 o'clock item. I will recess the
Commissioners Court hearing, and at this time I will open a
public hearing concerning the revision of plat for Lots 13A
and 13B of Riverside Park, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 251,
Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:11 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 with regard to the revision of plat
for Lots 13A and 13B of Riverside Park, as set forth in Volume
7, Page 251, Plat Records? Any member of the public wishing
to be heard on that? Seeing no one coming forward, I will
close that particular public hearing, and I will open a public
hearing concerning the vacating, abandoning, and discontinuing
io io-oh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
of Live Springs Ranch, as set forth in Volume 7, Pages 190 and
191 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4.
(The first public hearing was closed at 10:12 a.m.,
and a second 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 vacating, abandoning,
and discontinuing of Live Springs Ranch, as set forth in
Volume 7, Pages 190 and 191 of the Plat Records? Any member
of the public wishing to be heard on that item? That was a
timed item for 10:05; it's past that now. Seeing no one
coming forward, I will close that particular public hearing,
and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:13 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will take up Item 6; consider,
Health Department -- the existing rate being 99.85 per month,
and the new contract proposal is for 79.89 per month for the
same 800 minutes with same provider, that being Five Star
Wireless.
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. Good morning. I brought
this to your attention, seeking approval. Basically, we're
10-10-06
57
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
looking at a cheaper rate for the same service. It does
require a two-year contract, according to the -- the company.
I did forward the contract to the County Attorney's office for
them to look at it, and I think they're still working in
there.
MR. EMERSON: There's an issue on the contract as to
indemnification. They have a standard indemnification clause
in the contract. I informed Miguel that we could only agree
to the extent allowed by law. My understanding is he
contacted Five Star and talked to Mr. Reno. Mr. Reno said we
can't change the contracts. Well, I can't approve the
contract with a clause in there that`s unenforceable. So...
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't we have multiple contracts
with Five Star? Didn't the Sheriff just redo one?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Ours -- and that clause may
very well be in there. Our original contract was done back
under the former County Attorney, and then it's just been
renewed each time, so that it's very likely that it is in that
-- in that contract as their standard. But I know there's
been numerous discussions over the years, whether it's with
those or whether it's with our radio towers, you know, or
everything else, about the indemnification can only be to the
extent allowed by law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's your new cell phone rate?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe -- I'd have to look
1U-1G-06
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
at it. It might be that 79. But we also have about 30 add-on
phones, and I've got over 4,000 minutes on mine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I guess, going back to
the -- I think the same thing that Rusty had to endure for
several weeks, that we need to be under one contract
county-wide. And I think we ought to get a better rate. We
need to have -- it needs to be a form that the County Attorney
approves. And until Five Star -- if they're not willing to do
it, I'm sure some other provider will.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing I would put into
that, under county-wide, I agree. I think you still need to
separate out our department, just because of the number of
minutes we have to use and that we go through. The rest of
the county could probably do it. Otherwise, I would use up
everybody's minutes and have everybody hollering at me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I think -- but I think
they're --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They've got to have some
mechanism to do one county-wide plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one master contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One contract. You could have
each sub -- Miguel have his own minutes and all that. And
when's your contract up?
MR. ARREOLA: Well, we don't got a contract right
10-10-On
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L 2
23
24
25
We're going on a month-by-month basically, and we're
We thought it
that we -- we really need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think I definitely want
to go cheaper, but didn't Mr. Trolinger -- wasn't he the
person in charge of this?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. He was -- we've got two
different telephone issues. One is we're trying to put
together a new master contract for equipment and expanded line
availability and -- and telephone stations, because we're
actually exceeding our capacity, and that's one contract. And
then, in addition, we've got the cell -- cellular contract
that I think -- with the possible exception of the Sheriff's
Department, we need to get everybody else under one agreement
so that we can consolidate things. And I think we're going to
get the best deal going that route, once we look at all these
various contracts that these various people have. I -- the
other difficulty I see that we're going to have is, I think
we've got some users that -- that are working with different
carriers. We may have some using Sprint, we have some using
Five Star, we may have some using Verizon, and that's going to
be a little chore trying to put those together. I suggest
that -- that if we give all of the current users an
opportunity to -- to submit a proposal -- submit proposals
io io-oo
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with the understanding that whoever is successful, the other
providers will have to waive their -- their early termination,
that may be a way to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or even if they don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: They don't have to agree to it, but I
think that may be some incentive for them trying to get a
master contract for a larger deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if they don't -- even if
they don't waive it, we can roll them as the contracts roll
out. They could roll out every --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got all sorts of
outstanding contracts. J.P.'s have them, constables.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they're all over the place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, l appreciate you
trying to save the money. Put it on your file to come back in I
a month if we haven't moved forward on a county-wide contract.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to try to establish,
Commissioner, where we are in that effort.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And that's why
Mr. Trolinger -- Mr. Trolinger needs to do that and assess, I
think with the help of the Auditor's office. I think they can
probably fairly easily come up with what contracts and
providers we have based on our billings.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the leverage the
io-io-a6
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
76
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sheriff has, my goodness.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: He packs a pistol, too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm still waiting for the phone
company to give me the newest addition on the hard line
situation I have after the lightning strike.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's another story.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Arreola.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So my leverage isn't too good,
Commissioner.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me recess the Commissioners Court
meeting at this time and call a public hearing for the
revision of Lot 5 of Creekwood, Section IV, as set forth in
Volume 6, Page 290 of the Plat Records, and located in
Precinct 2.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:18 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 Lot 5 of
Creekwood, Section IV, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 290 of
the Plat Records? Anybody wish to be heard on that? Seeing
no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing.
10-1G-06
62
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
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:19 a.m., and
the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting, and we will go to Item 8, which
is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve
revision of plat for Lots 13A and 13B of Riverside Park, as
set Forth in Volume 7, Page 251 of the Plat Records, and
located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes. Thank you, Judge. Thursday we had
a call from Miguel, and talking to Lee Voelkel, they would
like to pass on 1.8 because there's a question on the O.S.S.F.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that question?
MR. ODOM: Miguel? Is he still here?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Go ahead.
MR. ARREOLA: There's a little conflict there on
Lots 13B -- I don't have the plat in front of me -- 13B and C.
There's a septic line crossing from one lot to the other, so
we need to get that cleared before we can move on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you -- what do you do
to clear it?
MR. ARREOLA: They're going to have to have separate
septics on each lot, and that's what we need to get it to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
10 10-06
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you saying cap one line and
move it and abandon the other one?
MR. ARREOLA: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The line or the drainfield?
MR. ARREOLA: The drainfield in this case, 'cause
the tanks are closer to the -- where the home is, and have to
look at a new drainfield.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The location of the
drainfield?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that
particular agenda item? Let's move to Item 10; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to abandon, vacate, and
discontinue the old plat of Live Springs Ranch, as set forth
in Volume 7, Pages 190 and 191 of the Plat Records, and in
preparation to accept a new plat with the same name, and being
located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Attached, you will find a
letter from the owner of Live Springs Ranch and his surveyor
requesting Live Springs Ranch, volume ~, Pages 190 througr.
191, be vacated in preparation for the approval of the new
plat by the same name. At this time, we'd request the Court
abandon, vacate, and discontinue Live Springs Ranch, Volume ~,
Page 190 through 151.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How does the old one vary
io io-oe
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
]4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
compared to the new one?
MR. ODOM: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Geographically, what's the
difference between the old plat and the new p]at? Where is
the old plat versus where the new one is? The same exact
area?
MR. ODOM: Same area. Am I right, Don?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Live Springs Ranch, the original
plat was just about 300 acres. The new Live Springs that
we're using the same name is 2,300 acres. And this -- the
part that we're vacating is the southerly 300 acres. There's
an existing road that we're not vacating. In the new plat,
it's just widening the old road. Stays totally within the
right-of-way of the new road for this new plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why you have a state
right-of-way on the new plat.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. And the old -- I think
there was nine lots before. Now there are going to be seven
lots, so fewer lots.
MR. ODOM: Fewer lots.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Larger lots in this development
than there was originally in Live Springs Ranch.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was just easier to go this
way rather than try to revise the plat?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right.
io-io-on
65
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 LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. 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.)
I JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Item 11;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for approval of
final plat of Live Springs Ranch being located in Precinct 4.
Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Mr. Wells' letter and bill is
enclosed in your packet. He reviewed the drainage study and
plat and found everything to be acceptable. The new rules
require the letter of credit to be for two years. The letter
of credit covers the roads and any further expenses for
engineering, as we've done previously. I recommend that you
accept the plat as presented.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I agree with you.
Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
io-io-oh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick comment. Leonard, do we
normally require this -- the first page that shows the -- kind
of the whole subdivision on one page, then the little --
MR. ODOM: Let me see what you're talking about.
MR. DON VOELKEL: The index page?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Do we always require
that? If not, we should. It's -- I like it.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I think it's required in the
rules, Jonathan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it?
MR. DON VOELKEL: If it's more than one page with
the plat, have an index page showing what pages are on --
which lots are on which pages.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I never had noticed it before,
and it was helpful once I figured out what I had.
MR. ODOM: Well, there is a master plan, too,
instead of just having something. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just write on it.
MR. ODOM: -- you've got another county involved in
this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
io io-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move,
if we could, to Item Number 13.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, could I -- before we do
that, I want to go back to that a second, because there is
something -- just so we can make the record clear, is that
there was a couple of items that -- this subdivision came to
the Court initially when we were in flux in our rules. They
were kind of after our first public hearing, but before final
adoption, and there's a little bit of latitude that was given
that Len looked at and Mr. Wells looked at. So, they're not
in compliance. Like, I think the base is only 6 foot --
6 inches deep as opposed to -- or thickness, as opposed to 8.
There's a few things like that, and this is not a variance
situation. It is that this was done during that period, and
that was the agreed upon requirements for that subdivision,
which is kind of in between our old rules and our new rules.
MR. ODOM: And part of those rules changed at the
very last meeting there, which it was already done by
engineering and everything else had already been put together,
so we didn't know those changes until that last --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's why I wanted to make
that part of the record, in case there's a question as to
that. These are not variances; this was the agreed upon...
io-io-o6
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
MR. ODOM: This was agreed on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was the right thing to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I wanted to bring up a
budget issue. I think that we need to triple the salary for
the County Surveyor.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- okay, we got a second
out in the audience. Hey, I'm trying to take care of you,
buddy.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: I appreciate it.
MR. ODOM: Let's see, three times zero is?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Good at math?
MR. ODOM: Make sure it doesn't come out of Road and
', Bridge funds. I'm just terrified of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we ready to move on to
Item 13?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. Item 13, consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action for revision of Lot 5 of Creekwood
IV, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 290 of the Plat Records and
located in Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The owners on either side of
io-io-o6
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
69
this lot have purchased it and divided it under the alternate
plat process. Division meets all the requirements of Kerr
County Subdivision Rules; therefore, we ask that you approve
revision of plat for Lot 5, Creekwood IV, as presented.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This amounts to two owners
acquiring this one particular tract and splitting it; is that
correct?
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. 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. Let's move
to Item 19; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
road name changes and regulatory signs in various locations,
and set a public hearing for the same. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. It is the intention of the
Commissioners Court to consider road changes in various
locations throughout the county. A public hearing will be
held November the 13th, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. in Commissioners
io-io of
~o
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
Courtroom of the Kerr County Courthouse concerning the
following proposed road name changes and speed limits. And
I'm open for any questions or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. This Bear Creek Road
issue, Leonard, thank you for putting this back on here. I
I know that recently -- it's fairly recently, and I'm sorry, I
can't remember what we had set.
MR. ODOM: 45.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 95 -- 40.
MR. ODOM: No, I'm sorry, 35.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 35 on there. And I've had
some calls from citizens out there that basically told me I
was crazy, trying to drive 35 miles an hour on a long stretch.
And, actually, I tend to agree with them. And --
JUDGE TINLEY: That you were crazy?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Oh, yeah, I'm
certified, man. The -- you obviously agree?
MR. ODOM: I agree. I went back out and took a
look. We did a study on that with -- with our tubes and all,
and we had 44 running in that area. But remember that Bear
Creek starts from Gabe -- from Sheppard Rees right there at
that intersection and goes all the way to Arcadia Loop, sc
when you look at it, predominance -- probably at least half of
that is in the 35 mile-an-hour range; 30, 35. And so when it
was done before, when it was asked, when we looked at it and
io-in-o6
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
71
did the -- the count, it was basically 35. The average was
running around 35 when you put it all together. If you break
it out like we have, from essentially Freedom Trail back to
Arcadia Loop, then you start to get in this straightaway. Of
course, you have this here. But we drove it; we took a look
at it, and I would agree. At this point, we do not have that
much development, but some of that is starting, so it may end
up Bear Creek, if we ever get it across, maybe -- you know,
we'll need to look at that road itself and right-of-way. But
at this point, we felt like 95 was probably right. I drove
the 35 and I looked at the other one, and running at 44, at
85 percentile, the 45 is justifiable from Freedom Trail,
essentially, on. And we'll have to adjust that as you get to
Arcadia Loop, coming down in there, so we'll put some signage
there to advise them they're going to a 30 mile-an-hour.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the way you broke it
down into three different segments.
MR. ODOM: We think that will facilitate. But, you
know, will 45 -- will they complain about 45? But we believe
that 45 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They will.
MR. ODOM: -- is 85 percentile, and that's low
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They will. Okay. Thank you
io-io-o6
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the speed
limits and road name changes as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're here to set a public hearing?
Is that the primary purpose, is to get this --
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, set a public hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: November 13 at 10:30.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. That was my second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's -- we didn't give Jon an
opportunity to finish his motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, you cut me off.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is at 10 a.m?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10:30.
MR. ODOM: 10:30.
JUDGE TINLEY: 10:30? Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the date?
JUDGE TINLEY: November 13, '06. We have a motion
and second to set a public hearing on road name changes,
regulatory signs in various locations for November 13, '06, at
10:30 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.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Ali opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
io-io-oo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
concept of an alternate revision of plat for Cypress Springs
Estates, Phase I, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 12 of the
Plat Records, and set a public hearing for same, that property
being located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. What you have is -- is
essentially what I've given. Before you is a concept plan for
this revision. It's taking two lots into one by property
owner, and also to set a public hearing for this revision of
plat for November the 13th, 2006, at 10:15 a.m.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to set a
public hearing for the concept of an alternate revision of
plat for Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, as set forth in
Volume 7, Page 12 of the Plat Records, for November 13, '06,
at 10:15 a.m. Is there 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. Let's move
to Item 17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
io-io oh
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
74
concept of alternate revision of plat for Wood Trails Ranch,
as set forth in Volume 4, Page 98, Plat Records, and Volume 5,
Page 140, Plat Records, and set a public hearing for the same,
the property being located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is -- what I have before
you is also a concept plan to let you see it, and also to set
a public hearing. This alternate plat will take 2 acres and
.45 acres of -- of land from 25.596 acres outside the
subdivision there at Wood Trails, to enlarge Lot 46 and 93 of
Wood Trails Ranch, making 43R 1.46 acres and Lot 96R 10.35
acres. This meets all the requirements of Kerr County
Subdivision Rules. At this time, we ask that you set a public
hearing for the revision of plat for November 13th, 2006, at
10:20 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to
approve the concept of -- set a public hearing on the concept
of alternate revision of plat for Wood Trails Ranch, as set
forth in Volume 4, Page 98, Plat Records, and Volume 5, Page
190 of Plat Records, such public hearing to be set for
11/13/06 at 10:20 a.m. Any question or discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick question. The -- the
large tract, I guess Mr. Calvin's tract, that's out of the
io-ia-oH
~s
1
L
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
subdivision?
MR. ODOM: That 25 acres is out of the Wood Trails.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's just providing an acreage
on the north and south?
MR. ODOM: That's right, north and south side.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the property owner?
MR. ODOM: That's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or 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: That motion does carry. Why don't we
go ahead and take us about a 15-minute break here, and we'll
come back and get the rest of these items finished.
(Recess taken from 10:34 a.m. to 10:53 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. We were in recess. We had a timed item for 10:45 that
we've gone by that I'd like to get to now.
MR. ODOM: Oh, a timed item?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. You've been bumped, Leonard.
We'll get back to you. Once you see what happens here, you'll
understand. We've got Mr. Victor Uvalle with the Texas
io-io-oo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
76
Association of Counties who's here with us today for a
presentation on behalf of the Texas Association of Counties
Risk Management program dealing with our liability insurance,
and I'm going to turn it over to you, Victor, at this point.
Good to have you with us here. Did I understand you're taking
MR. UVALLE: No. No, I can't do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: You can't?
renewal program on the risk management pool. The County was
able to save 52,000, approximately -- $52,726 -- because under
the board -- in April, the Risk Management Board approved some
credits to counties that had been a member of the risk
management pool for several years, and also had been able to
keep their claims down -- their liability claims down, and
they added those two factors into the rating program in order
to save counties money. But, like I say, this was earned
because the claims are down, and you have been a long-term
member of the pool. And let me see if I missed anything here.
And I do want to tell you the risk management pool -- this
comes through your liability coverage. This is the auto
liability, general liability, public officials' liability, and
law enforcement liability. The pool is doing good, and we
were able to keep claims down for the last few years, so
10-10-Oo
~~
1
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 why TAC was able to introduce this renewal program.
It's not every year that this happens. This has to be
approved every year. This year they approved it, and the pool
actually is -- 'cause this is me saying this; it was looking
good again. We're hoping to continue, though. But as you --
as you know, we do have to work on our loss control side --
area, and we're here to help in that area also. And I just
wanted to congratulate y'all for saving them money and the
taxpayers money on your insurance through your insurance
program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic.
JUDGE TINLEY: We thank you. It's my understanding
that these credits were issued to, one, longtime members of --
of the pool coverage, and secondly, only those counties who,
in addition to being longtime members, kept their loss ratios
below a certain level and, in essence, earned that -- that
credit.
MR. UVALLE: That is correct, and it was.
JUDGE TINLEY: So this goes to all of the employees
of this county for handling our liability issues and reducing
liability to the County by virtue of their driving the
automobiles, the premises conditions, law enforcement
liability, our handling of those matters. So, this -- this is
due to every employee of this county doing their part.
MR. UVALLE: It is, Judge. It sure is, and we can't
10-10-Oe'~
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do it alone. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that comes back to us in
the form of a credit against our next year's premium?
MR. UVALLE: This year's premium. This year's
premium. And when you get your billing -- and I think you
might have already received it -- it will show a credit for
each line of coverage. It will show a credit; how much credit
for auto, how much credit for the general liability, how much
credit for the public officials. It's broken down. The
formula I used on the certain premiums, you know, goes a
little further for these credits, but like I said, it's for
long-term members and keeping your loss ratios down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Great.
MR. UVALLE: So -- and congratulations again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Victor.
MR. UVALLE: I'll put this up here. Do you want me
to put it out here?
JUDGE TINLEY: I want to put it where lots of folks
can see it, wherever they can see it.
MR. UVALLE: That's what we were hoping.
JUDGE TINLEY: Get Buster to hold it for the rest of
the meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. UVALLE: And, Judge, if you like, I do have a
io-io-oF
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
sample media release, if you wanted to --
JUDGE TINLEY: I would love to have that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is wonderful.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's 52,000-plus of real money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. UVALLE: And thank you for having me.
Appreciate it. See y'all next time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for braving the
rain.
MR. UVALLE: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 18, if we
might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
revision of Lots 16, 17, and 18 of Riverside Park, as set
forth in Volume 1, Page 70, Plat Records, and located in
Precinct 4. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You understand why you got bumped
~ now?
MR. ODOM: I understand. I -- that's well worth it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: That's a lot of money. That's good.
What I have is Mr. Manning has his house and barn on Lots 17
and 18. They're very close to the property line, so he
adjusted the lot line to sell Lot 16. What he's done is add
acreage to 17 and 18, and reduced 16 down to 2.9. The public
io-io-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
hearing was for September the 25th, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. At
this time, we ask you to approve the revision of plat as
presented today. Prior to that, the surveyor had not got this
ready, so I'd ask the Court to approve this revision of plat
of these three lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, please 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 19; consider, discuss, and take --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick question for Rex. It
won't take long.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex, on these issues -- there is
another one that it's a revision that doesn't meet our rules
i from the standpoint of they're over the average and all that
i stuff, but we generally do these because it's not changing the
number of homes on the old subdivisions. Do we need to put
anything in the court order to that effect, or are we safe
to io 06
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
81
just going ahead and approving them as they we do them? What
circumstances -- I mean, it's -- we're just changing lot
lines. It's three lots before and three lots afterwards, but
they don't meet our current rules. And our rules say that if
you revise a plat, you have to go under our new rules. It's
kind of -- it's consistent with what we've done in the past,
but it's not by the letter of our current rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I ask a question before
you do that -- before you answer it, please? What will it
look like 20 years down the road when you have a Commissioners
Court sitting here trying to figure this thing out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm asking. I mean,
and maybe it's something we need to look at, really, this
afternoon, that we can put a blanket sentence in our
Subdivision Rules to cover these situations. I just don't
want to get in a situation where people 20 years from now are
saying, "Well, they were breaking the rules, breaking their
own rules every time they did one of these."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Technically.
MR. EMERSON: I think that would clean it up. But
we've had several discussions about the fact that minor lot
line moves technically don't violate the Subdivision Rules,
except for the fact of the mandate to have current plats.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay.
io-io-o6
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
82
MR. EMERSON: And that's why we're doing it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right, that's good.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably in 20 years, I'll be
the only one still here. I'll try to remember all these.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sure you will.
JUDGE TINLEY: You'll be the chronicler and
I historian?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Historian.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 19; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to name a private road in
Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is Mr. Haynie, and I
believe that this is the old -- if you're familiar with
Mountain Home right there, and where Haynie Road comes down
off 27 down past our yard, just the other side of that is a
private road, and apparently it -- my understanding is the old
Haynie place right there. And they just want to name that
road -- rename that road to Contrary Creek Road West.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 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.
10-10-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~,
GG
23
29
25
83
(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 21. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve resolution to participate in the Indigent Defense
Formula Grant Program. I put this on the agenda. This is the
first step in us getting our share, as it were, of state
funding under the Indigent Defense Program. The allocations
have already been made; it's some 26,873 as currently
estimated. I don't see the Auditor here. He's the one that
rides herd on it, but this is something that we do every year
in order to obtain those funds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Motion to approve.
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: That motion does carry. We have a
timed item for 11 o'clock dealing with some personnel matters,
so at this time, we will -- we will go out of open or public
session, and it is now 11:03.
io-in o6
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
(The open session was closed at 11:03 a.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, it is now 12:52, and we're back
in open or public session, and we'll stand in recess for lunch
until 1:30 or shortly thereafter.
(Recess taken from 12:52 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. Let's move to Item 22. We've got some reports. How
about Environmental Health?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess he's here, ready to
I go.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we're going to do that one
first.
MR. ARREOLA: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So he can go out to Loyal
Valley and check out the --
MR. ARREOLA: So I can check out some more
violations. Okay, I got my report here. And one for
Commissioner Baldwin also, then one for the clerk.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We get one, and him. All right.
This is year-end, right?
MR. ARREOLA: Year-end. Yes, sir, this is it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
io-io-oE
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
MR. ARREOLA: We did -- revenue-wise, we did better
than last year. We did more applications also. If you go to
the first chart -- I don't know if you have any questions on
the first page, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, activity was slightly up,
but not --
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir, slightly up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, total activity, though, looks
like --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Down.
DODGE TINLEY: Well, no -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, total new systems is
slightly -- is up four.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. ARREOLA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From 236 to 240.
MR. ARREOLA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. Way up there,
yeah, I see it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Income's up slightly. Total
fees --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's your total budget?
MR. ARREOLA: This year was 198.
io-io-oF
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
MR. ARREOLA: 198, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Boy, you got one way to go
to break even, don't you?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir, we sure do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know --
MR. ARREOLA: If we can get the exception rule out,
it'll help us. 1975 going into this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's about a 60 percent
subsidy, probably. Okay.
MR. ARREOLA: All right. The first graphic in there
is pretty clear. It tells us where we are in regards to last
year and what the objective was for the year. We're higher
than last year on applications for permits. We didn't get to
what we thought we were going to get, but we got pretty close
to it. In revenue, we exceeded last year and we end about the
projected. And complaints investigated, which is a positive,
we didn't do as many as last year, that it's failing septics
that we have to investigate and -- and bring that into
compliance. That means less failing septics in the county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're showing an increase
projected for this year. Is that because you think last year
was just an anomaly? Or is there --
MR. ARREOLA: It was right at normal. The year
before, '04 was about normal. We did a lot more activity last
10-10 06
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
year, and this year we're pretty close.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You probably -- and I'm just
guessing on this, but I would suspect that you get fewer
complaints in dry years because it's harder to find a problem.
MR. ARREOLA: That is correct. And it's less
hydraulic load to the system, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, in a wet year it's much more
obvious if you have a problem. Okay, that makes sense. Okay.
MR. ARREOLA: The next chart is how we're doing in
response time. State law requires us to come up with a
permit, review all the planning materials and everything
within 30 days, 30 days or less. And the numbers you have
there is since January of '04. We went up the last three
years and checked them all, and we got 95 percent of them went
in from 1 to 15 days, 4.4 percent from 16 to 30, and only .6 a
percent over 30 days. That's a good response time. The next
one there is the aerobic program. That's very important to
us. That is septic systems that dispose on top of the ground.
If they're not properly maintained, they might discharge raw
sewage, and that's very, very important to us. The total
number we have in the county is 1,397. That's to the end of
September of this year. The maintenance contract, the ones
without it are only 68, but they're all in process, either in
enforcement or with the process of notification for them to
get a new contract. Of the total of 1,397, only four are
io-io-on
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pending to do some type of action.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's "no action" mean? No
action required?
MR. ARREOLA: No, no action done. Basically, that
they're -- we have either mailed them the notice; they haven't
bring us the maintenance contract that is pending. There's no
action done to them. Just a pretty good number around the
state; it's one of the most difficult programs in the O.S.S.F.
division to do, and we're doing pretty good on that one. The
next chart is Solid Waste. Those are just the numbers from
last year, and then for this year. We did better last year.
There's plenty of cases. These are just the cases we were
able to do. There's more that we can open. We got to look at
them all. They all got investigated, but we wish we could do
more than that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ARREOLA: And the last one is just information
of the cleanup campaign that we did for -- on Solid Waste,
Kerrville South and Center Point. Those are the numbers. 314
properties in Kerrville South, and four citations. 54
properties in Center Point, and four citations also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What did Center Point include?
MR. ARREOLA: That was three streets. It's actually
south of Highway 27.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Harless, Bowlin, all in
10-10 06
89
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
there behind Butch's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Behind Lackey's?
MR. ARREOLA: In between the river and Highway 27.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four streets that run
vertical, north-south. 54 properties notified and inspected.
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And 12 found in violation.
MR. ARREOLA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That tells me that 42
properties were in good shape?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. But six properties of
the 12 have been cleaned up, right?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two are granted extensions.
MR. ARREOLA: They were partially cleaned up and
they were working on it, we so we decided to give them another
two weeks to finish it instead of giving the citation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And four citations have been
issued?
MR. ARREOLA: Have been issued.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they will have to appear
in Justice of the Peace court?
MR. ARREOLA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like this program -- that
10-10-06
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
program of doing that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty successful. I know
there's another one in Commissioner 2's precinct at the end
of --
MR. ARREOLA: Skyview.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, Hill River Estates?
MR. ARREOLA: That's a major one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He knows about that.
MR. ARREOLA: That's a major one. We need to get to
I it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't understand how it's even
there, really. But --
MR. ARREOLA: That's what I have. You have any
~ questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it.
MR. ARREOLA: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me see. Animal Control
and Extension appear to be to be noticeably absent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kathy said Animal Control
called and they're having plumbing problems out there. She
will not be able to attend the meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
10-10-06
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if my memory serves me,
this is third in a row for that department not to show.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson had been
giving us written reports, is what's been happening.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Extension?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see them.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't answer that one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think they're having a meeting
today. I called out there and Roy was in a meeting.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, why don't we get to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bills.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the bills?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got a motion and second to pay the
bills. Any questions, comments, et cetera? 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: Motion does carry. I assume at this
juncture, we don't have any budget amendments?
10-10-06
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
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I have one.
JUDGE TINLEY: You do have one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh-uh.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is interesting.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think you have a copy of this, a
letter from --
JUDGE TINLEY: This is from Linda Uecker.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Yeah, I've got a copy of that,
as do the Commissioners.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Well, that -- I told her that
I would bring it to the Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And the total amount is $1,055 with
salaries, plus the FICA and her time. Apparently, she had
asked for a merit increase for two people, and was under the
impression that it was approved, and did not come to the last
meeting. And she got her budget, and it was not included,
so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't recall that ever
being discussed in Commissioners Court. But, I mean, I could
have slept through that portion very easily.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know, Commissioner. I just.
-- I vaguely remember it, but not in detail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember it being discussed.
10-10-06
93
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
I don't remember the resolution of the discussion, if it was
in there or not in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't remember.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, Judge, cough it up.
What's the truth?
JUDGE TINLEY: My memory's not just real crystal
clear on it. I remember the increase. I don't recall that
there was -- one way or the other, whether there was a, "Yeah,
okay," or, "No, not okay." The statement that she makes about
whether or not she needs to appear, based upon what had
already been done, we don't have anything else involving your
budget, and we didn't, because at that point in time,
apparently it was not included. Now, if she's going to use
that as an approval, I'll take the heat for it, because I'm
the one that said no, we don't have anything additional with
your budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, how can you go -- after
the budget year started, how can you go back?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we would just have to do a
budget amendment from some line -- some other line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In her department?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, not necessarily in her
department, but wherever we agreed to take it from.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These are for people other
than the ones that we addressed when she wanted to raise the
10-10-06
94
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
13 to 14?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm like you; I don't
remember it, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I remember she -- she made some
requests, but I don't recall that there was any general
consensus that I perceived one way or the other. I know that
there was a request, but beyond that, I don't know that there
was any -- you know, my -- in fact, I called and left a
message on her voicemail earlier today, and said, "I don't
have a real good recollection on this, and I'd like to sit
down and talk to you about it." And that's what I think I'd
still like to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, why don't we pass it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Unless you prompt my recollection.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pass on it till next period.
And the only reason is, Commissioner Nicholson kept some good
notes of a lot of those budget-type discussions on this, and
he may have something in his notes. I mean, I clearly
remember talking about it, but I just don't remember what was
said, and a lot of times we don't give a definitive answer at
those workshops. I mean, it's kind of -- it's almost
everything's under consideration, and we take it in, and we
rarely say, "Yes, we're approving that," or, "NO, we're not."
So...
io-io-oF
95
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else? Any late
bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have two. One is to the Texas
Association of Counties for $5,127.05 for unemployment
premium. They wanted their payment before the 22nd, I believe
it says.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second. Any
question or discussion on that particular item, $5,127.05 to
Texas Association of Counties, unemployment insurance premium?
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. Second one?
MR. TOMLINSON: The second one is to Cypress Creek
Construction for $7,068. It's for the sidewalk at the animal
shelter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
MR. TOMLINSON: $7,068.
10-10-06
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 7,068 --
approval of a $7,068 late bill to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cypress.
MR. TOMLINSON: Cypress Creek Construction.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Cypress Creek Construction for
sidewalk at the Animal Control facility. 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: Motion does carry.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a request, that you consider
having a special meeting on, like, the 29th or the 30th, just
to pay bills. The -- the second court date is the 23rd, which
is really pretty early -- fairly early, and we would like to
get as many bills in this -- in this payment for the sake of
the Court as we could, if there's any way we can -- the Court
would do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, the 29th is a Sunday.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'm just guessing here, I
mean, at dates. Whatever --
iu io-oti
97
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
JUDGE TINLEY: 27th? Friday?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Friday is the 27th.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Or Monday would be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 30th.
MR. TOMLINSON: The 30th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I prefer Monday.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, if those mighty Tivy
Antlers are on a trip, I've got to be gone.
JUDGE TINLEY: Duty calls.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Duty calls.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 30th is good. Let's do it the
130th.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: You jogged my memory about that. Is
morning or afternoon better? Probably morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get it over with. Let's meet in
the morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, thanks.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's it for you?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What time?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have presented to me monthly
10-10-06
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 9; County Clerk,
General Fund for August '06; County Clerk, Trust Fund, August
'06; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; and Road and Bridge.
Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as
presented?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the reports as presented. 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. Do we have
any reports, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nothing? Nothing? Okay. I guess at
this time, we will go out of executive or closed session --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not in that. We're not in
closed session.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. Go out of public or open
session, so that we might go into executive or closed session.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we going to do the workshop?
1o-io-nF
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what these two
high-priced guys are here for.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Three.
JUDGE TINLEY: Scratch that last comment about
executive session. We are in open or public session. We got
a 2 o'clock timed item here, and it's 5 minutes afterwards,
and, goodness -- mercy me, you got a workshop to review minor
modifications to the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. I put this on the
agenda, after we've had our new rules in place for several
months, to go through. I knew there would be some
corrections. Some of them have been brought to us already,
and just to make some minor changes. We'll do a new public
hearing and then do another adoption. The reason for the new
public hearing is that we've made quite a few changes since
the original public hearing, and I think Rex would feel a
little more comfortable if someone challenges something, that
we have the actual rules that we're going to go under for
hopefully quite a while. Rather than have a public hearing on
a non -- a version that's been revised quite a bit. Let me go
through the first of the areas that I've noted on my copy of
where I've change -- I have changes, and then open it up and
10-10-06
100
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
let -- if I've missed any, and get comment from those in
attendance. The first area is on Page 14 of our Subdivision I
Rules. Do y'all want to get your copy of your rules?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might be better. You'll
understand what we're talking about. There are not very many;
should be able to do it real quick.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. ODOM: Page 14. What section?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll wait for the rest of them
to get in here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sunshine.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're speaking of Commissioner
Baldwin? "Sunshine"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sunshine. All right, Page 14.
Under Section 5, number of lots permitted in subdivision.
Paragraph B and C refers to subdivisions that allow or that
use community, public, or shared water systems as a source of
potable water. This has become a loophole for people using
a -- kind of a forced shared-well situation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take me to it again, now that
I think I've got the right document. Five what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5.B, the second line, and S.C,
the second line, where it says, "Community, public, or shared
10 10-06
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
water system."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: S.B, as in boy, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'm looking at the
puzzled look on Commissioner Baldwin's face. Are you on Page
19?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm on Page 14, and I'm at
S.B. The total number of lots --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Permitted in any subdivision
that uses a community, public, or shared water system.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That language is being construed
by people that want to do it that they can say they have a
community water system, or basically saying they have a shared
well, and by using that to allow them to get a higher density
to a 3-acre average, as opposed to a 5-acre average. It's
being used as a loophole right now. We've had two come before
us, and actually two I know that have come to me. One, I
think we approved after the third time it came to the court.
The other one was -- I think some of the pitfalls of what they
were trying to do was brought out to them, and they finally
withdrew it. The intent here is to have a real community
water system, not a bunch of shared wells that people are
trying to get smaller lot sizes. And I don't -- my
recommendation would be to go to the point and say you have to
have a TCEQ-approved community water system. That's a more
10-10-06
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
definable term, gets rid of these -- any kind of gentlemen's
agreement handshakes where I go up to Buster and say, "Here we
have a shared well; now we want to have a different smaller
lot size than we would have normally."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you distinguish
between community and what you just said, a T.C.E.Q. --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: T.C.E.Q. is, by law, over 15
connections.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the community system,
under 15?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. There are some systems
that exist, and the intent was if it's a real water system,
but it's not over 15. But what's happening is, people are
using that to be a handshake agreement with your neighbor.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you'd want to change it
to uses a community or T.C.E.Q. --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, just say a community water
system as defined by T.C.E.Q.
MR. ODOM: Or licensed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or licensed, we can add.
MR. ODOM: Licensed by T.C.E.Q.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: T.C.E.Q. allows for less than 15
connections?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, they only license them if
io-io-o6
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they're over 15 connections.
MR. ODOM: So --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: So if you want to have a community
water system with five connections, that's not going to be
acceptable?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could have it. You're just
not going to get the exemption on your -- you're not going to
be able to go to a 3-acre average; it's going to be a 5-acre.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Going to be at 5. You can do
~ that, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's a public safety
reason. The bigger systems that T.C.E.Q. licenses, there's a
lot of water quality issues that go into it, and monitoring,
and that's what -- not monitoring the well, but checking the
system to make sure it's adequate and protecting the aquifers,
that are not going into these private systems. I think we --
you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: So you want that to read, "that uses
a community water system licensed by T.C.E.Q. as the source of
potable water"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it would be that same
language under C, would be inserted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
10 10-06
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then I want the same thing
under Paragraph 6.B and C, the same language again. And then
the last spot, the same inserted in 5.O1.E. Page 15, the next
page, it's the same language, "use community, public, or
shared well." All five of those would be changed.
MR. DIGGES: So, Jonathan, you're still allowing for
shared wells; it's just that it has to be the larger lot size?
MR. ODOM: h acres or more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: So, if it calls for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can do shared wells, but
they're -- but they're using it right now as a way to get
smaller lots. Its amazing how people come up with these.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They figure it out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is that 5-acre rule
written in here, then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the -- S.a, "The total
number of lots permitted in any subdivision that uses
individual water wells as the source of potable water shall
not exceed total acreage... 5 acres."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably need to actually modify
that, especially relative -- to add community, public, or
shared wells that are not licensed.
MR. DIGGES: Yeah.
io-io on
105
1
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: The flip side of it.
JODGE TINLEY: Where it says uses individual water
wells or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- community or shared wells, not
licensed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, correct. I think that
cleans up that unintended consequence.
MR. EMERSON: What page is that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 14, S.a. So, that first
sentence will read, Total number of lots permitted in any
subdivision that uses individual wells or community, public,
or shared wells -- shared water systems not licensed by
T.C.E.Q. as a source of potable water. And that gets -- I
think that gets it. The next change is on Page 19. And this
is a very minor one; these are really just for Truby. 5.05,
we need to put a space so that Drainage -- there's a break at
Drainage, where it says -- very bottom of the page, 5.06,
Drainage. Need to have a space right above that so it will
kick it onto the next page. Just a formatting issue. The
next one is on Page 25. And, actually, we probably -- it's
really a question; it goes hand-in-hand with Page 28. The new
imaging system that we're getting for the Clerk for all these
plats, I need to make sure that what we're requiring in
here -- preliminary plat, I don't -- probably isn't a change,
1G-10-06
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Z4
25
but on Page 28, we're very specific on the size that plat has
to be, and there's been some -- you know, and that was all
driven by the cabinets that she uses. Well, we're no longer
using those cabinets, so, therefore, we shouldn't have this
requirement. To me, that -- you know, that's very -- you
know, it's unnecessary. If we're going to put all these on --
digitally in the computer, and we're no longer going to have
file cabinets of plats, we need to -- I don't know whether we
need to have a size stipulation here. It just needs to be on
the DW -- I guess -- and I need to make sure that DWG format
is what we need so they can do that electronically.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
6.02.C.1?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. DON VOELKEL: What's going to happen to the
mylars that we're submitting now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's another question. I -- I
mean, this is really something that the Clerk has done. We've
approved a new system that she wants that we'll no longer have
plat cabinets, period.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: How do you get somebody to sign a
~ plat?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: How about --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got to have a mylar, right?
10 10 06
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 L
23
24
25
MR. DON VOELKEL: Well, the reason we had the mylar
before is because the old blueprint machines had to have a
mylar. Now, with the Xerox type of machines she has, you
don't really need the mylar. I think it's a little more
permanent than the paper copies, but if we're going digitally,
I don't know why we need to put mylars in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- that was my -- one
of my issues.
MR. EMERSON: Do you want me to go get her?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, if you would.
MR. DON VOELKEL: And there's a lot of difference
for plats. There's a TIF image, a JPG image. There's DWG
files. A DWG file specifically has to have, like, an AutoCAD.
A TIF and a JPG can be opened with other --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I wanted you here,
Don, 'cause I have no idea. We just need to make sure the
rules say what --
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. Say "DWG" or --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: A DWG can be altered, whereas a
TIF or another type file is basically permanent; you can't
make changes on it. Which would be something that you'd
probably want to use, as it's something that can't be changed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other issue here is that
we -- I tried to bring it up when we did this in the budget
issue, is that what's Road and Bridge going to do? I mean,
10-10-06
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
how are they going to access these plats without having to
print it?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Maybe you could turn them all in
to the County Surveyor and he keep them.
MR. ODOM: He does it for a bargain, doesn't he?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That salary just came down
again, troublemaker.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's going to earn his
salary now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My point on this one is, we need
to make sure that our rules reflect exactly what we're going
to require.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. DON VOELKEL: You got to turn in something,
media that y'all can review.
MR. ODOM: How do you do this if you don't have --
MS. HARDIN: What they're doing is scanning them
after the fact. After y'all have completed the mylar and they
come in, then she scans it.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Okay. So she just needs a mylar,
then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The issue is, our rules are
predicated on the final plat, on the size being to fit the
plat cabinets. We're not going to have plat cabinets any
io-io-o6
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more, so -- and we also referred to a DWG format. I need to
make sure that what our rules say we need, we actually need.
And I think it was one of the other meetings that someone in
here said, Why do we -- if we're going to -- why scan it? Why
do a mylar and scan it if you're going to -- why not just get
it digital to start with? From the surveyors, as opposed --
MS. PIEPER: The reason we're not getting digital to
start with, they have to take it to all the different entities
for signatures, so by the time it gets to us, it's a finished
product, other than y'all's approval and the stuff we have to
put on it at that point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, you still want the
mylars to come in as they do?
MR. DON VOELKEL: But you're not restricted to 21 by
26 any more.			
MS. PIEPER:	I think it will be,	like,	36 by
~ whatever.
MR. DON VOELKEL: 24 to 36 is what a normal plat's
I at.
MS. PIEPER: Right. I think the -- as far as the
length, I don't think it matters. But as far as the -- I
think standard is 36.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Sheet sizes are 24 by 36 that we
could probably utilize.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Jannett, prior to -- if
10-10 06
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
you can look up and see whatever size you need to fit, if
there is a limitation on the length or anything like that, so
we can put it in the rules when we're putting these out for --
they'll be back on our agenda next meeting to set a public
hearing date. Just so we can get it by then, so we can make
sure that we're not -- we're requiring what we need to
facilitate the change you're making.
MS. PIEPER: Well, even if the different surveying
companies have a different -- have different sizes --
MR. DON VOELKEL: Long as it's no more than
36 inches.
MS. PIEPER: Right, as long as it's no wider than
36, then that'll be fine. That way they don't have to change
their system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Well, right now we're
restrictive on some, and some have complained about the fact
that we don't allow larger --
MS. PIEPER: And the only reason is because they
won't fit in the plat cabinet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But there won't be an
issue any more.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- is DWG the electronic
version that we need to get? Do we care if we get an
electronic version? Do we want an electronic version? We
10-10-06
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't want it? We don't need it?
MS. PIEPER: We don't need it.
MR. DON VOELKEL: No, if she's scanning them -- and
she's got a point. That way, when all the signatures get on
there, your-all's signatures and ours, and she gets the final
copy, instead of just sticking it in the drawer, you're just
going to scan it. And do we get that back? What happens to
it?
MS. PIEPER: You get yours bark.
MR. DON VOELKEL: So we -- so then we'll have the
copy for our files and she'll have the --
MR. ODOM: Copy for the County. We're going to
continue doing the same thing as we are, the same amount of
copies for y'all's review.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right, it will be the same.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question?
MR. DIGGES: What if we were to just use prints, if
we're going to scan it anyway? 'Cause I don't know about
y'all, but I have trouble with the mylar just accepting my
seal, and the ink takes so long to dry.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Our seals are no problem. Just
kidding.
MR. DIGGES: But, anyway, when you view a mylar,
it's a more expensive medium and it takes longer for the ink
io-io-o6
112
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
to dry where you sign your name or you affix a seal.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Or a notary seal. Notary seals
are even worse.
MS. PIEPER: That would be a call for Commissioners,
because with me scanning it in, it wouldn't matter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What would be the -- the
opposite of that? I mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paper?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Yeah. The reason we had mylar to
begin with is everybody had blueprint machines, and it had to
be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
MR. DON VOELKEL: -- transparent, and it was more
permanent. But if she's not even going to put anything in her
file that y'all just -- Charlie's right; we can just submit
paper copies that are signed, and once she scans them, her
image doesn't care what the material is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And not even to mention the
cost of a mylar to you.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Or to our clients.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, your client, of course.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, we'll make that
change.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what did we do?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paper copies.
io-io-oE
113
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
MS. HARDIN: Are we still going to continue to get a
finished copy after it's filed?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does -- what does this
paper look like?
MR. DON VOELKEL: It's dust bond paper, like
20-pound bond paper.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Like the plats you had this
morning in Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And is that what Road and
Bridge is going to get?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Yes.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that'll work.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Now, did you say we can go with 24
by 36, then, automatically, so that it fits with Jannett's
thing and we get more on a page?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 24 by 36 is fine with me. I
just need to make sure if it's -- may even be larger than
that.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I think there's pros for that,
because the more you put on it, the less pages she has to
submit through there. And, you know, if we'll -- as long as
we work with Len and the scale is all right, if we get more on
one page, that's less pages she has to file in her --
io-io-o6
114
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can your scanner handle a
24/36?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- and, Charlie, are you
cool with that particular size?
MR. DIGGES: That's a standard size that all
surveyors and engineers are going to work with. It's called a
Size D drawing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 24/36.
MR. DIGGES: Most people order that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Or smaller. I guess it
could be smaller.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Yeah, if someone wants to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Up to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. The next thing I
have is on Paqe 30, 6.03.C.17.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 30?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks, Jannett. 30, C.17. Do
we want the -- on the final plat, do we want the floodplain
outlined? There's been --
MR. DON VOELKEL: I took the liberty of making some
copies. We came across an old subdivision that was over on
Lemos Street; it's called the Seeker Addition. It's right
next to where Hill Country Federal Credit Union building --
their building. And back in the '70's, we platted that, and
10-10 06
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they at that time, just like y'all now, required the base
And if you look on
ation. Well, now
'80's. Now, in
macs chanced. In
the most current map that came out in 2000 -- the elevation is
1,625. So, if someone built on that property and came out
there and looked at this subdivision plat that's in the
records, and they said, "It's 1,620; let's build it at 1,621,"
they go in there and build it, then they find out, wait a
minute, we're 4 feet in the floodplain. Well, what we
suggested -- and we talked with Charlie Hastings and Paul
Menzies before Paul left.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You should have stopped before
Charlie Hastings, who is the City
Engineer and the City Public Works guy there, we showed him
this same situation, and he said, Well, let's leave -- what we
came up with was leaving the shaded area on there, and put a
note, "Not a base flood elevation." Because that's the
problem that arises when the floodplain changes. Just put a
note	on	the	plat saying --	and	you can even	specifically say
Lots	13	and	15 have areas	as of	this date,	and referencing
this map, show areas in the 100-year floodplain. Before any
io-io-o6
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
construction is done on those lots, you should get with the
Floodplain Administrator, either the City or County, if it's
in the ET J, and determine the elevation to build so that, you
know, you're not -- which they have to do anyway. If they're
building in the floodplain, they have to do it. The problem
about putting an elevation is, if the floodplain changes, like
it has twice in the last six years, then that is -- it's
misleading the public. Because that right there, the only way
to get that off is to file a replat.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you going to put in
we can work with -- with y'all and Len, something to the
effect that these lots that show the shaded area -- not turn a
deaf ear.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just give me the words.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Put a shaded area and say, These
lots that show the shaded area have areas within the 100-year
floodplain, and before any construction is built on any of
these lots that show the shaded area, you must get with the
Floodplain Administrator to come up with an acceptable
elevation for your --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To -- to establish the
current B.F.E.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right, at the time that the
10-10 06
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
building is done. Even though the floodplain may have
changed. That way you're tied to wherever the floodplain is.
There's some areas out in Alpine Drive that dropped 4 feet
because the flows were different, lower. But that way, you
show them that there's floodplain, but you don't nail them
down to something that might change.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes sense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. DON VOELKEL: In other words, still protect the
public by showing them without hindering them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just add the current B.F.E.
MR. DON VOELKEL: In the meantime, between now --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Between now and
construction.
MR. DON VOELKEL: We could come up with a statement
that Len and Truby are happy with and y'all are happy with,
and all the engineers and surveyors can live with so that they
don't handcuff themselves.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you have that by tomorrow?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, is everybody that's
writing this statement -- is everybody Aggies? Or can we get
a Baylor Bear in this thing?
MR. DON VOELKEL: No problem. We'll write it real
io-io-oo
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
slow. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Write it so I can understand
it, will you?
MR. ODOM: Well, I don't know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Crayolas.
MR. ODOM: I would have to go back. I want to
review 44 C.F.R. 34. I don't think there's any federal
statute that says you have to have -- you have to delineate
the flood hazard area. I don't know if it says finished floor
or not; I can't recall, so I got to go back and read that
thing again. But if there's a federal mandate, we need to do
it. If there's not a federal mandate, that's all right. I
think the wording should be -- and certainly in the -- into
the general notes, that we would specify these shaded areas,
but I would like to think that we would identify Lot 3, Lot 5
or 6 --
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right.
MR. ODOM: -- has to go to the Floodplain
Administrator for the county for development permit, something
in that neighborhood.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Prior to any construction.
MR. ODOM: That could go along with that, and it
will change. Yes, it does change, but these people also are
not exempt from that. But the problem is, I may not know
until they get finished slab and then they go for O.S.S.F.
io-io-o6
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So --
MR. DON VOELKEL: That's why we need to say prior to
any construction.
MR. ODOM: Prior to any construction.
MR. DON VOELKEL: That lets them know they don't do
anything until they get to you.
MR. ODOM: I don't really have a problem with that,
other than if 44 C.F.R. says it has to be done, then that's
federal mandate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we can check on that.
Even if it did -- if it does mandate it, you can do it with
the plat note and designate -- say, put a note that, hey,
these -- the B.F.E. may change.
MR. ODOM: Yeah, but we need to designate the flood
hazard areas, and some kind of note to alert them to get a
development permit so we can talk to them and explain the
hazards and the problems when they get into the "X" area.
MR. DIGGES: Can we also say the B.F.E. could
possibly change, but also the shaded area? Because sometimes
the shaded area changes with the B.F.E., and sometimes they're
looking at that drawing and they're seeing where that shaded
area is relative to the lot, and it's shifting, sometimes 50,
100 feet.
MR. DON VOELKEL: But that's why we're going to put
on the note saying that the shaded area shown as of this date
io-io-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
by this map, that's the location of the floodplain.
MR. ODOM: Off the 19 July 2000, is what you're
basing it on.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Reference that map, and say prior
to any construction, you should get with the Floodplain
Administrator and verify that, you know, the actual
elevations. So that if it's changed, great. If it hasn't,
then we're all right.
MR. DIGGES: I'd like -- I put a footnote on there
that the shaded area changes, because it does. And you -- as
long as that's okay.
MR. ODOM: That's okay. You can delineate even more
on there. The more you put, the more --
MR. DON VOELKEL: As long as you put the minimum.
MR. ODOM: The minimum that's required. We have a
minimum that we have to do. We have to show that area.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. We'll get something,
and then we can get it on the -- out to the public to look at.
Page 40, Paragraph (b) at the top. That first sentence reads
right now, "Base on all streets and roads shall have a
compacted base depth of not less than 6 inches and shall be
constructed..." It needs to say "6 or 8, as applicable."
'Cause some roads require 8 inches now, so we need to have --
it needs to be 6 or 8, as applicable. And then the last one
that I had is under -- on Page 44. In the chart, we need to
10-10-06
121
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
put a -- a footnote below the chart for both the minimum
compacted depth of base and the minimum base material. Need
to add a footnote that says "or equivalent, as approved by the
County Flood" -- County -- what are you called? Whatever his
title --
MR. ODOM: Floodplain Administrator is what y'all
have been calling me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, Subdivision Administrator.
By the County Subdivision --
MR. DON VOELKEL: Development?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, say County Subdivision
Administrator. And the reason is, on both the minimum
compacted depth and the material, lots of times we have
existing roads that are taken into subdivisions, and it's not
reasonable to go back and tear up a road because you don't
have 8 inches of depth. But the material there is thick
enough and good enough that Len's comfortable. And we just
did one recently the other day, and this just gives him the
flexibility to say -- it may not be -- this way he's not
accused of being -- showing favoritism, giving him a little
bit of flexibility. "Okay, there may not be 8 inches of
compacted base here of Grade 2 -- Type C, Grade 2, but it's
equivalent, and therefore I'm going to approve it." This just
gives him the authority to expand that a little bit. That was
all that I had that I've noted we need to make corrections to.
io io-oh
1G2
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
MS. HARDIN: One on Page 33.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 33?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page?
MS. HARDIN: 6.O5.A, the very last sentence doesn't
have -- it's not complete.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Notice shall be paid for by..."
By somebody, evidently.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By who? Developer?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unfortunately, by law, it's by
Kerr County. We need to add, "cost of such notice shall be
paid for by Kerr County."
MR. DON VOELKEL: Yours doesn't have that last
sentence where it says "developer"?
MR. ODOM: Can we not have a higher standard that
would be the -- not the taxpayers, but the person that's
developing it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the -- but the statute's
real clear on that, as I recall, and it says the county shall
do it. Yours says "developer"?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Ours says --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me see your book.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: I thought a cancellation was by
the developer.
MR. DON VOELKEL: See there? "Developer."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's different in my book.
io io 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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is talking about
cancellation.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Right, which is paid for by the
developer, I thought.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I would too.
MS. HARDIN: Cancellation of a subdivision? All
those have always been paid for by the Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we prohibited from requiring
them -- if we're required to pay it, from requiring them to
reimburse us for it, for the cost?
MR. DON VOELKEL: We just paid that for --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Yeah, Jannett had us pay it.
MR. DON VOELKEL: We've been paying it. Like the
one we just did today, we paid the notice in the paper.
That's what this says.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On a revision, we have to pay
for it.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Correct, on notice for revision.
MR. ODOM: This is cancellation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So cancellation --
MR. DON VOELKEL: This came off y'all's web site, I
think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sometimes we get our copies --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mine is zero.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The version here says, "shall be
io-io-o6
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
paid for by developer and shall be included in subdivision
permitting fee; see Appendix F."
MR. DON VOELKEL: Do you want to make a copy of
I that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make a copy of that before you
leave.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're going from Kerr
County to the developer, huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's the developer.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Wait a minute. You may have
e-mailed us this, Jonathan.
MS. HARDIN: It's not on the web site.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got a copy somewhere.
MR. DIGGES: Gillespie County makes you pay for the
disk. I don't know if it's legal or not, but if you want to
get your plat approved --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can -- I think you can
increase your fees to cover it through a back-door way, but
it's pretty explicit. It says "County shall pay it."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember about a hundred
years ago, when we were building these things, our legal
advice was to put the words in, "the County shall cause" the
developer to pay for it. That would mean they could pay for
it up front -- County pay for it and be reimbursed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can look at it, but it was --
io-io-o6
125
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
one of our legal rulings was -- it says the County was paying
for it. Now, it didn't say that -- it didn't say that we
couldn't -- our fees should be -- can't be set in a manner
that it covers that, but -- well, this one in this case, the
developer can pay for it. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Cancellation, developer pays.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Any other? Mr. Wells,
I welcome.
MR. WELLS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Councilman Meek, welcome.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I had a situation in a neighboring
county to the east in a big -- large 12,000-acre development
we had done, and a neighbor -- there was a cul-de-sac and a
line went off at an angle when they platted it, and then the
neighbors got together and said, "That's not right; let's
straighten it out." So, the -- the development officer of
that county said, "Well, this is not a replat; this is an
amending plat," and they let me do an amending plat process
the way we -- Rex and we talked about. Remember, we talked
about all that? Verbatim, the way we had tried to get it
done. They said we do not have to have notice. When you come
in with an amending plat, you don't have to do all that other
io io-o6
126
1
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 law one way, and our -- I don't know. I mean, that's my
question to y'all, is, is that a dead horse; we shouldn't be
kicking on it? Or is it something we can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All we can do in Kerr County is,
as they choose.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was it again? Tell me
MR. DON VOELKEL: It was in Champee Springs, and two
neighbors -- these weren't half-acre tracts where we were
moving a line. It was several hundred-acre tracts, and they
were just amending the location of their boundary line. And
they weren't creating any new lots; they weren't creating any
new building lots or any more septic tanks or wells, so the
development officer said, "This is not a replat," and no --
all the notice and all the -- you had to get all the adjoining
landowners notified by certified mail and all. He said, "This
is just amending that plat; we're not building..." -- he said,
"Let's do it that way," and that's the way we did that process
that we had talked about several months ago. About -- and
we're not saying everybody in the county should get an
amending plat. On specific situations like relocation of a
io-io 06
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
boundary line between two lots or combining -- my big thing is
combining lots. I was trying to make it easy for somebody to
come in with two 5-acre tracts to combine them into one, and
an amending plat allows for that. But that's what the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But amending the plat isn't in
Section 232.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean, Don, doing those
things without coming through the Commissioners Court?
MR. DON VOELKEL: No. No, it went through
Commissioners Court as an amending plat. Not a replat. And
the difference is, a replat requires notice of -- like, if
you're taking a 10-acre tract, cutting it into two, you're
resubdividing that land, and that's a replat. There has to be
notification to everybody. But if you read the articles in
the -- the amending plat is where you're tweaking a line, like
moving it over 10 feet because of a house problem or
something. Or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And your only issue is the
notification part of it?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. You don't have to do the
notification, and you just come in with an amending plat and
you don't have to notify -- we didn't have to notify everybody
in that 12,000-acre development. We just came in -- now,
io-io-o~
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other developments we have where we've done two or three lots
and made five out of them, we did that replat procedure. But
the amending plat, if you look at that language -- and it --
the one word in there that kicked it is the word that said
"and." And it was -- it was this situation of over 5 million
people or something, and if you read it saying you got to have
both, then it -- it doesn't do it. I think that's the way we
were reading it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the same thing -- let's
say you had a 100-acre lot with a line down the middle; you
had two 50's, and you want to move that line to where you're
creating a 20-acre lot. I mean, that's a pretty substantial
move over there. Even then?
MR. DON VOELKEL: I don't think it differentiates,
as long as you're not creating a new building -- a new lot or
a new, you know, reason for a septic and a well, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what Don's talking about is
a special provision allotted to counties that neighbor Bexar
County. We don't qualify. We can't, by law. I mean, just --
it doesn't exist. It does exist for Kendall County, Bandera,
Comal, Hays.
MR. EMERSON: Kendall -- counties that adjoin a
county with a net population of -- I forget what the base is.
MR. ODOM: 100,000.
MR. EMERSON: Have special powers that we don't
10-10-06
129
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
have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hey, Don? Don? Shut up.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I'm not talking any more. I just
need that check.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It ain't going to work.
MR. ODOM: But -- yeah. But we did, in court -- I
don't think you were here, but if you have metes and bounds,
then you could still do that without --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're not in a subdivision,
you can do it.
MR. DON VOELKEL: That's right.
MR. ODOM: But if it's a platted subdivision, you're
going to go through revision of plat.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Revision of plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lee?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: On Page 30, Jonathan, we talked
about revising that from a 100-year floodplain. That's the
B.F.E. issue again. I was just going to make a note, if that
does change, in the final plat, if you'll flip back over to
Page 26 and make the same change on the preliminary plat,
'cause it's always been a requirement on the preliminary plat
also. 6.02.C.13.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 6.02?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: C.13. If it's going to be removed
on the final, it needs to be removed there in the preliminary
io-ro-oF
130
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
also. And then, along those same lines -- this is food for
thought. If you'll go back to Page 19, at the bottom of the
page in Section 5.05, it talks about concrete monuments. I
don't know that there would be a need for a certified -- a
certified benchmark elevation on a concrete monument if we're
not showing the B.F.E.'s. And -- and believe it or not, the
-- the certified benchmark elevations are difficult for
surveyors, because we're basically -- in the county or in
rural areas, the nearest benchmark may be 5, 6 miles away, and
if you have to carry an elevation from that point to your
subdivision, it gets quite difficult.
MR. ODOM: Using a FEMA benchmark is what you're
supposed to do, so maybe we could reference the reference
mark.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: The nearest FEMA benchmark?
MR. ODOM: Nearest mark. And then you'd have to
pick it up from there. But, technically, you're supposed to
be off of FEMA. The nearest FEMA benchmark, and that may be
miles.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Most of the FEMA benchmarks are on
the river. And a few studied creeks, but mainly along the
river.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: In other words, Len, you're
thinking if we have a benchmark at a sub, we really shouldn't
be using that one anyway, because --
10-10-06
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Well, we've come off a reference mark
from a highway department or something else, off the top of a
structure, you know. Don't make a liar out of me right now.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: I like the way you're thinking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So where's the concrete
monument? What --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Page 19 at the bottom, 5.05.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Y'all may have gotten that
deleted.
MR. ODOM: We probably should reference the nearest
I FEMA --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: I think that would be appropriate.
Put the benchmark RM number on there.
MR. ODOM: RM number on there.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Reference where it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you're saying that
concrete monuments are going the way of trains and libraries?
MR. DON VOELKEL: And mylars.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And mylars.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: That's right. That's right, if
that's okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wish Number 4 was here to
I hear that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about nails in the --
through bottlecaps, like you got a notation on one of the
io-io-oh
132
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
plats this morning?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: That was a new one to me. Did you
do that?
MR. DON VOELKEL: No, wasn't me.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: That's a new one to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was on one of the plats;
showed a particular marker, a nail through a bottlecap.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Okay. Not a benchmark, maybe just
a regular --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do that all the time.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: They're a lot easier to get in the
ground.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we'll look at that one.
Anything else?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Only other thing I had, Jon, I
think it's kind of picky, but let's look at it on Page 31. It
talks about the process of submitting the final plat and
filing the final plat. And, to me, when you -- when it talks
about, in 6.03.E, submitting a final plat, that's when you
hand it out for review, take your routing slip and get
everything, and at that time we're paying fees for final plat.
So, my thought would be that we jump down to 6.03.F.2, and
instead of paying that when you file the plat, you pay that
when you submit the plat. Which is what we're doing right
now. Does that make sense? When you take a copy to the
io-io-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
County Clerk, she signs a routing slip, we normally take her a
check for the fee for recording the plat, and that's done when
the plat is submitted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we move F.2 up to D?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Up to E. Does that make sense?
MR. ODOM: Yeah, that makes sense.
MR. DON VOELKEL: That's the way we're doing it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And tax certificates say --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: And the tax certificates we're
really not doing when it's submitted; we're doing as they file
-- or before they file the plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: There might be something you want
to change, but right now, that's kind of the process on the
certificates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do what's working, okay.
MR. ODOM: May I? We had a reference here -- Wayne
is here. May I ask him what they do in Gillespie County for
benchmark for monument and all?
MR. WELLS: Oh, gosh. I just know they require a
', concrete monument, 'cause I don't get into that. Dwayn takes
care of all floodplain stuff.
MR. ODOM: The Commissioner does. That sounds like
a good idea.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Dwayn Boos.
10 10 Ob
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
MR. ODOM: Dwayn Boos or the County Judge, either
one. Sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anything else?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: That's it for me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Pretty minor stuff for
the most part, so we'll try to get -- Carl, we mentioned
previously, there -- or I mentioned to the Court, while you're
here, that we need to take -- the County take a long, hard
look at the City's new rules.
MR. MEEK: Good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll be doing that.
JUDGE TINLEY: ETJ.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: ETJ rules.
MR. MEEK: So, they have furnished you with a copy?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got a copy. The rest of the
Court did not, but I'll give them the copy that I had.
MR. MEEK: Are there any comments you'd like me to
carry to our meeting tonight?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The comment that I have is that
the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I don't think you were
present. The meeting Commissioner Baldwin and I had with Paul
Hofmann was --
MR. MEEK: Today? Or when was that?
io io 06
135
1
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: No, that was a year ago, almost.
MR. MEEK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last December. And that the --
this whole process was supposed to have very minor changes,
and we expect the City to be living up to that; very minor
changes in the ET J, and that they should be basically in
conformity with the county rules with some minor changes to
that.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Have they not done that, in your
~ opinion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not the draft that I've
seen. The City has not acted on anything at this time.
They've just -- the draft they furnished us came out of P & Z,
and the rules are substantially different and much more
onerous than ETJ -- than the County's current rules are, and
that was not the intent of the meeting we had with
Mr. Hofmann.
MR. MEEK: You might be curious to know, in P & Z
last week, P & Z was not ready to recommend them to City
Council either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. MEEK: Is it -- am I correct, for this to go
forward, the County needs to agree to these amended changes?
Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to agree to the rules in
io-io-oE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
the ET J, yes.
MR. MEEK: Because it's the City Manager's opinion
that you do not, so I would like -- I'd like to carry
something back to that meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a time frame that the
City and the County needed to get together to agree one way or
the other, and if that couldn't happen, then the State was
going to -- there was -- the State was going to make the
decision for us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which we went over there in
good faith and sat down and agreed. I mean, it was great. I
liked what they were saying. But now it's a totally --
completely, totally different. I'd really like to tell you
what I really feel, but there's ladies in the room.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: I can leave.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Carl, I think -- as I understand
it, the process is, yes, there is -- we don't have any
authority to approve the City's rules for the ET J; the City
can do what they want. City Council can do what they want
there. However, the law says we have to have one set of rules
there. If the County doesn't agree with those rules, we'll
just opt out of the agreement, and then we're back to where we
were a year ago, having two separate rules, and we're out of
compliance with state law. And if we -- my understanding is
io-io-o~
137
1
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 at some point, it goes to a third party to come up with a
new set of rules.
MR. MOTHERAL: May I make a suggestion? If you
and/or whomever else on the Court would like, please come and
attend the next P & Z meeting, because that's supposed to come
up again, and there are a number of things that will affect
you that are not in your current rules the way it is currently
written. I have not seen the revision that we told them to
make -- or revisions, and it's important that we have your
input.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. When's the next P & Z --
MR. MOTHERAL: A week from next Thursday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Send me an e-mail, Bruce.
MR. MOTHERAL: Okay.
MR. MEEK: And should anyone wish to attend -- any
of you gentlemen wish to attend this evening's Council
meeting, it would be appreciated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a headache.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a headache, too.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We may not get out of here
in time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. MEEK: It's asked to be adopted on first reading
tonight. It's posted for that.
io-io-o5
138
1
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. LEE VOELKEL: And yet the P & Z didn't push it
on the --
MR. MEEK: P and Z did not recommend it.
MR. MOTHERAL: We recommended that it not be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're getting astray, I think, a
little bit from our workshop, but it's good information.
Mr. Wells?
MR. WELLS: I've got one problem, and I don't know
how to address it, really. But it's required that you give a
detailed drainage plan with your preliminary plats, and
normally engineers don't go into a detailed drainage study on
a preliminary plat. They're back into the final plat. It's
subject to being changed by not only the developer or the
engineer and Commissioners Court, but everybody else. So --
and their input. But then, if you say, well, we'll go with
the final plat, I don't know whether Kerr County has
experienced it or not, but Gillespie County has, where the
developer didn't file the final plat until he was finished
with construction. So --
MR. MOTHERAL: In Gillespie County, do you require
construction drawings before they can begin construction?
MR. WELLS: Yes. See, and that's the plan profile
~ drawings.
MR. MOTHERAL: That drainage should be -- the
drainage plan should be filed with the construction plans.
io-io-o6
139
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. WELLS: Plan profiles.
MR. ODOM: With the plan profiles, is the way it
should come under.
MR. WELLS: I think we've got language in there that
they can't start substantial construction until they have plan
and profile and drainage studies approved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So what you're saying, I
think -- I need to go back and find it. We need to look at
when the requirement is for the drainage.
MR. WELLS: And what we've done, though, with Falls
Ranch is they gave a -- an overall drainage study with Falls
Ranch on preliminary, where it says, okay, here we don't have
the required -- you know, we're not going to be required to
have detention on a project. And it was just -- that's great,
but you didn't provide all the detailed information that's
required by the regs. And so, you know, I told them, you
know, since this is a preliminary plat, you know, y'all can go
ahead, but when you provide the plan profiles, I want to see a
detailed drainage plan. And have we gotten one, Len? Did
they bring one over?
MR. ODOM: I don't think so.
MR. WELLS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we'll look at that. We'll
probably try to to give as much flexibility to you and to Len
as to -- I mean, the idea is that we need to have the
10-10-06
140
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
subdivision engineer working with you and Len during that
whole process. And we'll figure out how we can maybe make it
a little bit clearer. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Okay. Let's fold up
that portion of it, then, and I think we've -- now we need to
go into executive. Is that correct, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have fun tonight, Carl.
JUDGE TINLEY: It is 2:53, and we will go out of
public or open session.
(The open session was closed at 2:53 p.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: It's 3:08, and we're back in open or
public session, and we will be in recess, subject to the call
of the Chair, but not later than -- than 3 p.m. tomorrow.
But, obviously, that could be much, much sooner, depending
upon developments.
(Recess taken from 3:08 p.m. to 3:31 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll come back to order in
Kerr County Commissioners Court. We were in recess. It
', appears that developments are not going to permit us to make
any final decisions on matters this afternoon, so we will be
in recess until --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2:00. About 2:00.
io-io-oh
141
1
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: Do you want afternoon? Is that what
you prefer? Till 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon, and we will
reconvene at that time. The notice that we have posted now is
sufficient for us to carry forward, inasmuch as that's within
24 hours, so we'll stand in recess till 2 p.m. tomorrow
afternoon, the 11th of October.
(Commissioners Court was recessed at 3:22 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 16th day of
October, 2006.
JANNETT PIE PER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ~c(~,~
Kathy Ba k, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
io-io-o6
ORDER NO. 29969
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE TEXAS BRUSH CONTROL
PROGRAM
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 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 Resolution in support of The Texas Brush Control Program in
the Guadalupe River Basin in Kendall, Kerr and Comal Counties, with the
change recommended to add in the paragraph beginning "Now, Therefore"
in the second line, recommends "to the Texas Legislature" that sufficient
funds....
ORDER NO.29970
PROPOSALS ON ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HVAC AND PEST
CONTROL
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve authorizing advertising of proposals on Electrical, Plumbing,
HVAC and Pest Control.
ORDER NO. 29971
KERRVILLE SOUTH WASTEWATER PROJECT
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Proceed with authorizing the GrantWorks staff, on behalf of Kerr County, to
make application for the Phase IV $500,000 Gran.
ORDER NO. 29972
ABANDON, VACATE, AND DISCONTINUE LIVE SPRINGS RANCH,
VOL 7, PAGE 190 & 191
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Abandon, vacate and discontinue the old plat of Live Springs Ranch, Vol 7,
Page 190 & 191, in preparation to accept new plat with same name, Pct. 4.
ORDER NO. 29973
APROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF LIVE SPRINGS RANCH
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 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 Plat of Live Springs Ranch, Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 29974
REVISION OF LOT 5 OF CREEKWOOD IV
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 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 revision of Lot 5 of Creekwood IV, Vol 6, Page 290, Precinct
2.
ORDER NO. 29975
ROAD NAME CHANGES AND REGULATORY SIGNS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Set a Public Hearing for November 13, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. on road name
changes and regulatory signs in various locations as submitted:
Speed Limit
Bear Creek Road 35 from Sheppard Reese to Primrose
Bear Creek Road 45 from Primrose to curves near Guadalupe
Bear Creek Road Curves near Guadalupe to Kerrville City Limits 30
Name Chance
Arlitt Ranch Road SW to Burr Oak Rd SW
King Elk Road SW to End of the Trail Ranch Rd SW
Starlite Village E to Mesa Verde Dr. E
ORDER NO.29976
CONCEPT OF PLAT FOR CYPRESS SPRINGS ESTATES, PHASE I
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Set a Public Hearing for November 13, 2006 at 10:15 a.m. for the concept of
an alternate revision of plat for Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, Vol 7, Page
12, Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 29977
CONCEPT OF PLAT FOR WOOD TRAILS RANCH
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Set a Public Hearing for November 13, 2006 at 10:20 a.m. for the concept of
alternate revision of plat for Wood Trails Ranch, Vol 4, Page 98, and Vol 5,
Page 140.
ORDER NO. 29978
REVISION OF LOTS 16, 17 & 18 OF RIVERSIDE PARK
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 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 Lots 16, 17 & 18 of Riverside Park, Vol. 1, Page 70,
Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 29979
NAME A PRIVATE ROAD
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve naming of new private road "Contrary Creek Rd W" in Precinct 4,
(where Haynie Road comes down off 27, just the other side of the Road &
Bridge Maintenance yard).
ORDER NO. 29980
RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN INDIGENT DEFENSE FORMULA
GRANT PROGRAM
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the Resolution to participate in the Indigent Defense Formula Grant
Program.
ORDER NO. 29981
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, came to be considered
by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and
Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	228,881 94
14-Fire Protection	$	36,777.86
15-Road & Bridge	$	44,492.51
18-County Law Library	$	2,407.69
19-Public Library	$	36,972.25
26-JP Technology	$	2,825.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	32,313.39
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	6,615.72
TOTAL
$ 391,286.36
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. 29982
LATE BILL
AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0 to issue a hand check in the
amount of $5,127.05 to Texas Association of Counties for TAC
Unemployment Ins.:
Expense Code Description
10-409-207 TAC Unemployment Ins.
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $5,127.05
ORDER NO. 29983
LATE BILL
AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount
of $7,068.00 to Cypress Creek Construction for Concrete Sidewalk:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease
10-642-570 Capital Outlay + $7,068.00
ORDER NO. 29984
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of October, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 the following monthly reports:
JP #4
County Clerk -General Fund, August, 2006
County Clerk -Trust Fund, August, 2006
JP #3
Road and Bridge