p.yl3 a 9 ~. ~ ~/
J ~ COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS
REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: Commissioner Williams OFFICE: Precinct Two
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2009 TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT: Consider, discuss and take appropriate action on Kerrville South Wastewater
Project, Phase V, and unresolved easement andlor related issues.
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
NAME OF PERSON(S) ADDRESSING COURT: Commissioner Williams
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION:
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance
with Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, Governmern Code, is as follows:
Meeting scheduled for Mondays:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:
5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday.

All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate
information has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court
Meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards you request being
addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners'
Court.
	/Q,T E ~\	
	i~ , ~
end.
/	
	I ~
~~ ~/
iF-' ~ ~,/
~
C	
	/
pU~PY o~	
	THE COUNTY COURT	
	OF	
	KERB COUNTY, TEXAS	
COUNTY JUDGE	700 Main, Kerrville, Texas 78028	CLERK
PAT TINLEY	Tel: (830) 792-2211	JANNETT PIEPER
	Fax: (830) 792-221 S	
COMMISSIONERS COURT	E-mail: commissioners@w.kerr.tx.us	COURT COORDINATOR
H.A. uBUSTER~ BALDWIN, PCT. Z		JODY GRINSTEAD
WILLIAM H. WILLIAM, PCT. 2		
JONATHAN LETZ, PCT. 3		
BRUCE OEHLER, PCT. 4		
	January 27, 2009	
Mr. Maxwell Higgins
P.O. Box 74112
San Clemente, CA 92673
Re: Kerrville South Wastewater Project
Oak Grove MI-iI' Easements
Dear Mr. I-Tiggins:
This acknowledges receipt of your letter dated December I5, 2008, in which you
denied Kerr County's request for a blanket easement for lateral connections to the sewer
main on Wood Drive for serving residences on Ranchero Road.
Subsequent to your letter, I met with our engineer to determine other options for
accessing the sewer main line that may be more acceptable to you. Enclosed are three
alternatives prepared by our engineer. They are:
Alternative 1. Utilize the existing utilities easement that lies between Oak Grove
MI3P and the back of the Ranchero Road properties. Comment: This easement is
available to the County to use for this purpose. However, there are several impediments
throughout the easement that make it impractical and too costly to use.
Alternative 2. Acquire separate easements from Oak Grove MHP as defined on
the drawing instead of a blanket easement as first discussed. Comment: This is a
workable alternative with the only difference being individual easements narrowly drawn
and defined as opposed to a blanket easement as first discussed.
Alternative 3. Reduce the number of lateral lines/easements required to three.
Comment: This will require additional laterals connecting multiple Ranchero Road
dwellings from their respective properties before joining laterals to the sewer main.
We believe alternative 3 will greatly reduce any potential disruption to your
property, and as stated before your grounds and roads will be restored to the condition we
found them at the beginning of construction.
Please advise me how you suggest proceeding so we can resolve this matter to
everyone's satisfaction.
Sincerely,
_' -,._
d3 ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ g ~ ~~ j
~-'
»~ ~~ ~, j ~~ s--~
~ ~, i ~ i~
7
o ~ ~ ~~ ~~~
_~~ m ~ ~ i ~\~ ~ - --
~~y m g j A '~ ~ ~ ~ i
i, ~ _ ~_, L__- (7
S ~ _
~~ ~ ;~ ~
n ` ~ ~'•
~> ~ a
;, ~, ~ ~ ID
~ ~,
m ` ~ \
---_--
~~.
r ~ ~
n m ~ I \
z ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ;~ -----
s
~~ O ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~
~~m ~~ ~~~ ~J ~
~ ~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~_
~ '~~ ~~ ~ 8 -- ~-- ~
I ~ ~~~ ~~
~ ~ 1 _~~ `i
~ o z c ,,
D g ~ ~ ~~~
~ + ~ y~9 f
~ o ~ s
m ~
~ a m "f
~ D
"' ~vq,
~~
o~ ~
,w ~~~
~ b

j V V
0 0
~` - - ; ~ ~ sn~-an
\l ~ + u
r ~ ~"aT
~- . ~ n am roc
~ `~ -:. ~~
--
+--r--__
~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~
~ 1 ~ p~ ( ~ ~~~ll
i ~,
I~ ,~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~'
~-_ ~ _rt_ ~ ~-' ~~t~l~
i i ~.
8 ~ ` ~c '~
-- , , - i~` _--am
r
1
I
-+
I
I
_~
I
_J
I
I
-f
1
I
T
I I
-®00,;. 0
I I ~l I ~ ~
m
~~~~ ~
~~~
d~
r.,,\
,,
~ ~ ~ ~ 1
~~ r ; _
>~_
~~ j ~ ~ ~~ ~~~,
~,~' ~ L~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~J I
~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ I
o ~ ~ ~ ~r ~~ i z
~ ~-~.. ~ z c ~-.~ ~ O
O ~ ~
v~^§ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
~~_
vs" ~ / ~ ~'~ ~v~
~~ ~ ~~ ~,
m~ -~~ ~ ------
~ `~~ - I
i
z ~ ~ I ~ ''
~~ ~ ~ ~ ° __
~, ,
~~o ~~ L_J
n ~ ~ ~ ' !~"" ~~
~ ~ ~'~~~
O ~ ~ ~ ~~
~y~ ~; ~~ ~~~III
A ~ ~ <,, I ~ ------
\ \ ~-- f
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~~ ' ~
,i ~ ~ ~__----~ ~
v f< ` ~~
~ I ~ ~_~
s ` ~ ~~~ r
r ~ ~^
Z ~ `._ i~ ~
m I
z
~ \
rn ~
^' ~ _ ° I I ~I l ~ ~ : m
~ ~~~ ~~ g ~~~~~~~ z
6~
~ Z
I~ ~~~ s s
I
~'~~ii
\ '~,
N
									
							~~, ~~~~ i1 ;1	~'1 ~h	
								`~	
							L~ ~-
=-r	~__
1	
							-
~	_
_S /	
T
~{								~~	~:		_~`~~~	
							J1
\
J
~	

I	
~	
1		
								~
~	
~:
~		
I	
~							~	~'~	~~		L. ~ I	
g
#		
~ ~				
C1 ~~ _ ^~~~ ~		
~ 1 o-~J~		
~~__I ~	
						,					
	~	~
~	~
~			,=	I,	.,		r j	
				~l		~			
						~			
			Oo	i
i				
A
- -~~._~ i	
									
			Z
~					
®			'~f
*t	~ I	~		~	
			
/	
~	

~A~		
~ _ A
~ t
~ __--	
~$			
`,					
m~
i			~ ~		~~ .
~~
~ ~~			

_
Z			
~i ~~~
I	
~
~/	
~
A
~ ~ ,~'		-----
n	

(~			
~	
_~	

~ ~~		v~	
			~, ~
'/
~		
i	

m
~			~~
~ n \
~, ~,		i

~~ I	
			i			
^~ (~
y			i
~ ~ ~•	
'	
L ~
~	
•~I S
n = O			~ I ~
'		___
_____	
						
						
						
~ m			~ `~		
--	
~ ~			J ~ ~ i		~--	
						
			~ ~ ~~ .~
~		1
~	
~			'
~		`	


m
Z			
,
~


~.	


I	- -
---


(( l II(~Ij I
1
V l1	
			ti (
~-

,~'	ti,

I
;	
			~~ ~	_
~ ~	
				~	
m ~				(	
d ~ ~				j
~	
z				,	
m ~					
				I i !	

W	9 ~~
r~
'"	
~		~ v; ,o
I I `I I	
	.
~~	
~		r
~
~~	
	~	~		~~~~
~ o	
					
										
~	3	pl					-i			
	m									
								
~a
w
VV
Page 1 of 2
Bill Williams
From: Drozdick, Keller [Keller.Drozdick~tetratech.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:33 AM
To: Bill Williams
Cc: eric@grantworks.net; Regan Lenehan
Subject: Kerrville Soutn Wastewater Phase IV, Oak Grove Easement Review
Based on the previously available data and the site inspection on February 24th, the following is a summary of the
expected issues related to the three proposed construction Options
Option 1 Construct main in existing easement
This would intall a single 6" main along the length of the existing easement, with lateral connections into the
backside of the properties on Ranchero Road. Construction in this would require acquisition of an additional
temporary construction easement adjacent to the existing easement. Primary construction problems along this
route are the trees and structures in the easement and the existing utilities. Boring does nto appear practical due
to the buildings near the easement, so the trees and encroaching structures would need to be removed, either by
the owner or by the county. There are currently gas, electric (ovefiead and underground), and water lines in the
easement. All these would have to be built around, requiring a significant amount of hand excavation, which
would increase the expense of construction and require construction to take much longer than if not present. In
addition, the gas and electric service would probably be disrupted for periods to ensure safety, and water service
may be subject to intermittent outages as well. it should be relatively easy to service, and would not be expected
to need to be replaced or modified at any point.
Option 2 Construct three mains in new easements
This would install three mains on diagonals from Wood Drive through the MHP in new easements. These mains
would extend to the existing easement, where they would then extend down the existing easement and connect to
laterals in the back of the lots on Ranchero road, approxmatety 2 or 3 laterals per main. This option would have
less construction in the existing easement, but would still have the same issues where the main extended down
the existing easement, would be more difficuR to construct and maintain due to bends present, and may require
modification or replacement if the development or service layout is changed in the future. There would have to be
construction on Wood drive, but it would be limited to partial excavations to tie new mains into the existing main.
Option 3. Construct eight laterals in new easements
This would install eight laterals on diagonals from Wood Drive through the MHP in new easements. These
laterals would extend across the existing easement directly to the back side of the properties along Ranchero
Road. The construction advantages here are that they would only have to deal with the existing utilities while
crossing the 10' easement, which is much easier to address. Construction along the new easements would
generalty be relatively simple, though there are some existing fences that would need to be replaced. There
would be construction on Wood Drive as in option 2.
The overall advantage to Option 3 is that there is the least overlap with the existing utilities, which will simplify
construction and reduce disruption to the residents by reducing the duration of construction, impact to existing
trees and structures in the easement, and minimize the potential for water/gas/electricity disruptions. Option 2 is
probably the lease beneficial, as it still includes significant construction in the rear easement, though it does avoid
some trees and structures in the easement.
The primary disadvantage of Option 3 is the new easements required. As discussed on-site, it is possible to
construct the easement agreement to allow for later modification of the sewer lines, including abandoning these
easements, if future development of the site conflicted with one or more of these easements.
03/03/2009