1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, April 9, 2001 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X April 9, 2001 PAGE 2 --- Commissioners' Comments 3 3 1.1 Pay Bills 6 1.2 Budget Amendments 6 4 1.3 Late Bills 8 1.4 Read and Approve Minutes 8 5 1.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 9 6 2.1 Approval/execution of Amended Child Care Local Initiatives Agreement 9 7 2.2 Participation in W.E.T. Education Taskforce 14 2.19 Initiate discussions with UGRA Board of Directors 8 for interlocal agreement to construct wastewater collection system in Kerrville South 19 9 2.3 Review status of current budget (County Auditor) 25 2.4 Approval of FY 2001 budget schedule 29 10 2.5 Approve preliminary revision of plat, Tract 53A, Kerrville Country Estates, Section II 30 11 2.6 Approve preliminary revision of plat, Lot 1-A, Creekwood I-B 32,50 12 2.7 Approve final revision of plat, Lots 6 & 7, Estates of Turtle Creek, Section One 36 13 2.8 Project Agreement with NRCS for Hermann Sons Bridge, authorize County Judge to sign same 37 14 2.9 Status of temporary bridge and permanent bridge at Hermann Sons Crossing 40 15 2.10 Approve Final plat of Mountain Home Oaks, Section II 46 16 2.11 Variance to Section 5.01 of Subdivision Rules, discuss concept plan for Cutoff Business Park 47,54 17 2.12 Abandonment of Treiber Trail in Japonica Hills Subdivision, set public hearing for same 48 18 2.13 Open bids for video cameras for patrol cars 51 2.17 Clarification of Section 5.01.E of Kerr County 19 Subdivision Rules & Regulations 78 2.15 Authorization to purchase two printers from 20 unexpended Ballot expense line item 90 2.16 Discuss County Government Week, April 23-27 92 21 2.18 Budget amendment request to purchase computer for Commissioner Precinct 1 99 22 2.14 Discuss accepting bids for video cameras, and award or reject same 102 23 2.20 Approval of response to T.N.R.C.C. regarding Mooney Aircraft wastewater permit renewal 107 24 --- Court adjourned 110 25 --- Reporter's Certificate 111 3 1 On Monday, April 9, 2001, a regular meeting of the Kerr 2 County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' 3 Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the 4 following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning. It's 9 o'clock 7 on Monday, April 9th, Year 2001, and we'll call to order 8 this regular session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. 9 Commissioner Baldwin, I believe you're leading us this 10 morning? I mean Commissioner Williams, pardon me. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll defer. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, I -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you please rise 14 and join me in a moment of prayer, please. 15 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, any 17 citizen wishing to address the Court on an item not listed 18 on the agenda may come forward and do so. Is there any 19 citizen who wishes to address the Court on an item not 20 listed on the agenda? Once again, is there any citizen who 21 wishes to address the Court on an item not listed on the 22 agenda? Seeing none, we'll go to the Commissioners' 23 comments. Let's start with Commissioner Williams. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only one quickie. As 25 the Headwaters race heats up, there are going to be some 4 1 forums conducted, I believe, regarding the candidates in 2 that race, and one of those is being sponsored by the Center 3 Point Alliance for Progress, and it will be April 19th. I 4 think that's the day after early voting begins. It will be 5 April 19th at the Center Point High School. They're going 6 to kind of double up; they're going to do their school board 7 candidates at 6:30 p.m. and Headwaters candidates at 8 7:30 p.m. So, I invite any and all to attend that forum and 9 enlighten yourself. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, Judge. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think I have any 14 this morning. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin? 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd just like to pass 17 along congratulations to Mr. Peter Thomas, the math teacher 18 at Ingram Tom Moore High School, who is the March recipient 19 of Kerrville Daily Times' Golden Apple award. He's a great 20 teacher; the kids love him, and -- and good on you, Peter. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'd like to 23 offer my condolences to Commissioner Letz and his family on 24 the loss of a member. And we'd say, Jon, if there's 25 anything we can do, or I can do personally, don't hesitate 5 1 to call. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Appreciate it. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that is all. 4 You're welcome. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I also would offer our 6 condolences to our Commissioner in the loss of his family, 7 and hope everyone's doing as well as can be expected. Quick 8 reminder, our next meeting is April the 23rd. It will be a 9 rather extensive meeting, in that we have scheduled at 10 4 o'clock the first briefing by our consultants on 11 redistricting. So, bring your lunch, plan to stay for a -- 12 an interesting discussion on the topic of redistricting. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, we have our 14 regular Commissioners Court in the morning also, though? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Just -- we're just going to 18 schedule the meeting as part of the regular court. It will 19 simply be at 4 o'clock, and plan to spend about two hours 20 with the consultants and the Redistricting Committee. And 21 the letter has gone out to the Redistricting Committee 22 advising them of the time and the place. 23 MS. SOVIL: Public hearing at 2:00. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: We also have a public hearing 25 at 2:00, I believe, on O.S.S.F. Is that correct -- 6 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- Commissioner Griffin? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: On the 23rd. That will be a 5 full day, lots of fun. Okay. Without any further ado, 6 let's pay some bills. Mr. Tomlinson, do we have any bills 7 to pay? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Always. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have any questions or 10 comments about the bills as presented? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the 12 bills. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 15 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 16 authorize payment of the bills as presented and recommended 17 by the Auditor. Any further questions or comments? If not, 18 all in favor, raise your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 23 amendments. Budget Amendment Number 1 is for the Jury Fund, 24 County Court at Law. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. We have a need to 7 1 transfer $1,202 from the Jurors line item to Court 2 Interpreters in the 216th -- I mean the 198th Jury Fund. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 6 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve 7 Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any further comments or 8 questions? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 13 Amendment Number 2, County Treasurer's office. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from 15 Barbara Nemec, the Treasurer, to transfer $421.12 from 16 Telephone line item to Computer Supplies. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 20 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve 21 Budget Amendment Request Number 2 for the County Treasurer's 22 office. Any further questions? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. 24 Tommy, it seems that we're -- a lot of the computer-related 25 items are short this year. Is it my imagination, or is it 8 1 -- I mean, supplies? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I know that hers -- that the 3 Treasurer's has something to do with the purchase of some 4 check stock that we anticipate, and I know that that's part 5 of this problem. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seems -- I was 7 wondering if there was something that's happened in the -- 8 it seemed -- 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know of anything 10 specifically, no. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 12 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have 17 any late bills? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. At this time, I would 20 entertain a motion to waive reading and approve the minutes 21 of the March 12th and March 26th meetings of the Kerr County 22 Commissioners Court. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 9 1 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court waive 2 reading and approve the minutes of the Monday, March 12th 3 and the Monday, March 26th meetings of the Kerr County 4 Commissioners Court. Any further questions or comments? If 5 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this 10 time, I would entertain a motion to approve and accept the 11 monthly reports as presented. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 15 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 16 approve the monthly reports as presented -- accept and 17 approve. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in 18 favor, raise your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. 23 Moving right into the consideration agenda, we'll take up 24 Item Number 1, consider and discuss approval of discussion 25 of the Amended Child Care Local Initiatives Agreement. 10 1 Brenda? Good morning. 2 MS. CHAPMAN: Good morning. How are you? 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Fine. 4 MS. CHAPMAN: I believe everyone got a copy 5 of the -- the agreement that was originally signed, and then 6 the amended agreement. Just real quick, the reason for the 7 board contact changes that I highlighted for you, originally 8 we were working with the Alamo Workforce Development Board, 9 but they have now turned this over to AACOG, which -- Alamo 10 Area Council of Governments, which is now A.A.D.C., Alamo 11 Area Development Corporation. So, we're just changing our 12 contract. Our contract, we're going to actually be filing 13 with A.A.D.C. rather than A.W.D. The pledged amount on the 14 original contract, they had $90,000 on this for the match 15 contribution, which was incorrect. The original -- that is 16 our total. Our pledge match amount is the correct one, 17 $58,588, and the $90,000 is the total that we'll have 18 dollars available for child care -- subsidized child care in 19 Kerr County. So, that was just a correction -- complete 20 correction where they had done the contract incorrectly. 21 The dates that were changed down at the 22 bottom, the original dates were October 2000 to 23 September 2000, which obviously was a problem within itself; 24 it should have been September 2001. With the new contract, 25 it's now dated March 2001 through August 2001. The 11 1 difference between the August and September dates is 2 A.A.D.C.'s fiscal year end is August 31st, where Texas 3 Workforce Commission's was September 31st. This allows 4 A.A.D.C. time to close out their year end and report to 5 T.W.C. by September 31st -- September 30th, I'm sorry. This 6 delay was caused by agreement between Alamo Workforce 7 Development Board and AACOG or A.A.D.C.; just a matter of 8 getting all the logistics and the paperwork done before they 9 could filter down to redo our contract. No children lost 10 their care during this time. They've worked very well with 11 us to make sure that that happened, that no children lost 12 their care. So, we're kind of starting a little bit late on 13 our contract, but they say that it should not affect us at 14 all when it comes time for contract renewal in August. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good. Judge, I 16 would move execution of the Amended Child Care Local 17 Initiatives Agreement and authorize the County Judge to sign 18 same. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 21 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 22 approve the Amended Child Care Local Initiatives Agreement 23 and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any further 24 questions or comments? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Brenda, how long have 12 1 you all been with the Workforce folks? 2 MS. CHAPMAN: This is probably our -- let's 3 see, probably fourth year -- fourth or fifth year that we've 4 been doing this. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And prior to Workforce 6 Development, you were with AACOG? 7 MS. CHAPMAN: Right. Well, actually, it 8 started out with Texas Workforce Commission, and then it 9 became Alamo Workforce Development Board that we dealt with, 10 and now they have contracted out with AACOG to actually run 11 the rural counties. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 13 MS. CHAPMAN: So, it's evolving into where 14 we're in -- ending up still being able to have a good 15 working relationship with AACOG, so I think it's -- the 16 whole situation is getting a little bit smoother. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you satisfied 18 with the level of commitment that AACOG has to this -- to 19 the rural counties? 20 MS. CHAPMAN: Yes, sir, very much so. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you had any 22 trouble raising your matching funds? 23 MS. CHAPMAN: No. We already have $40,000 of 24 that raised right now. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. 13 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: This change actually is the 2 result of the rural judges raising cain about the fact that 3 all of the child care funds were lumped into one pot, and 4 even though the rural counties were supposed to get 5 20 percent of the money for child care, we were, in essence, 6 getting somewhere between 9 and 11 percent. So, the rural 7 judges on the AACOG Board raised thunder, and what you see 8 now, you have you two separate organizations; you have 9 A.A.D.C., which does the rural counties, and then you have 10 the A.W.D., I believe, which does Bexar County. So, we now 11 actually get 20 percent of the funds for child care. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: City of San Antonio 13 gets 80? 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right, but at least we're 15 getting 20 now. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, I understand. 17 I would hope y'all would hang in there and -- and keep -- 18 'cause you outnumber them. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, in one respect we do, 20 but in another respect we don't. There's this little thing 21 called weighted voting which they pull out whenever we win. 22 (Laughter.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: But it's a good step forward. 24 MS. CHAPMAN: Right. It's going the right 25 direction. We still continue to struggle every once in a 14 1 while, but it's going the right direction. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 3 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you, 8 Brenda. 9 MS. CHAPMAN: Thank you very much. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: You're welcome. Next item is 11 Item Number 2, consider and discuss participation in the 12 W.E.T. Education Taskforce with a goal towards future water 13 needs through conservation. Commissioner Letz. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is something we 15 discussed briefly. I think Sherry Cunningham brought it up 16 during her update and mentioned that it would be on the 17 agenda. The backup that I received from Janet Robinson was 18 originally a request for both Region J to participate, and 19 the note on the bottom there saying get it on the 20 Commissioners Court agenda for the County to participate as 21 well, if we choose. Region J, I'm sure, is going to, and 22 we'll discuss it at our meeting this week in Del Rio. But, 23 for an update on it, I'll turn it over to Janet Robinson; 24 she's here this morning, and kind of explain a little bit 25 about what the Water Education Taskforce is and what she 15 1 would like the County -- or how she'd like the County to 2 participate. 3 MS. ROBINSON: Thank you, Commissioner Letz. 4 Thank you for allowing me to be here. This is an effort to 5 move forward on the Region J's, I think, quite generous 6 hopes that we'll achieve a lot of water conservation to come 7 up with our water for the next 50 years, in that, although 8 there's a number of entities working in the area of water, 9 nobody was actually focused on conservation education. We'd 10 love to have your participation; that would allow us to 11 distribute our literature through your office in east Kerr 12 County, Commissioner Williams, and through Bill Ragsdale's 13 office and the tax office in west Kerr. We have our first 14 piece of literature ready to distribute. It was developed 15 by John Coleman, the Environmental Education Committee of 16 the City. It's recommended plantings for the area. Very 17 well-done, from grasses through natives, and that is the 18 kind of thing that we hope to distribute. Trying to change 19 social policy through education is our goal. 20 And, at this time, we're not going to develop 21 any legal structure; it will be an alliance. At some point, 22 we might need to do that in order to receive any grant 23 monies that might become available, but we're in the 24 developmental stage, and we're looking for founding members, 25 and it -- I think it would be wonderful if the Court would 16 1 participate in this effort. Do you have any questions? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions of 3 Ms. Robinson? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- what would 5 participation for the Court mean? 6 MS. ROBINSON: Well, to perhaps -- we'd love 7 for you to send someone to the meetings, and to agree to 8 distribute, through the courthouse and through these other 9 outlets that you have in the county, water conservation 10 materials. And, mostly -- since you are the highest office 11 in the county, mostly we're looking for your -- your support 12 to say that this is an important goal, that we should be 13 working together on it, and to lend your -- your support for 14 that effort. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's very 16 important, I mean, for the County to do this. And Janet 17 referred to Region J's plan. About a -- 20 percent of the 18 total savings in the future comes from conservation. It 19 didn't really outline exactly where it's coming from, but 20 this is the type of thing we were hoping would develop; 21 everything from landscape changes, to my mind, more than 22 anything else, to new technologies that we anticipate coming 23 on line, and, you know, household appliances, things of that 24 nature. So -- 25 MS. ROBINSON: And through the Convention and 17 1 Visitors Bureau, we hope to invite our visitors to Kerr 2 County to participate in this effort, too. We plan to keep 3 everything very positive, not using words like "scarcity" or 4 things that would perhaps alarm visitors, but to -- there 5 are a number of efforts -- many of you have probably stayed 6 in those kinds of hotels where they ask you if you don't 7 want your towels washed tonight, would you please hang them 8 up and we won't -- we'll save water. And I've stayed at 9 those kinds of facilities in Colorado and Arizona, and we 10 want to launch that effort here as well, to invite our 11 visitors to participate with us -- 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 13 MS. ROBINSON: -- in these efforts. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we need a motion? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have -- would you like 16 us to designate someone to represent the County on the 17 committee, or -- 18 MS. ROBINSON: Well, I think that would be 19 helpful, if we had a point of contact. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a volunteer to be 21 the County's -- 22 MS. ROBINSON: Another meeting to go to. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will probably be 24 attending from a Region J standpoint, so I don't have a 25 problem attending from both standpoints. Both -- 18 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Very good. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I think we need 3 a motion to authorize participation and delegate the 4 participation to Commissioner Letz. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 8 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 9 participate in the W.E.T. Education Taskforce with a goal 10 towards future water needs through conservation, and 11 designate Commissioner Letz as the Court's representative on 12 that taskforce. Any further questions or comments? If not, 13 all in favor, raise your right hands. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Jannett. 18 MS. ROBINSON: You're welcome. I also laid 19 at your places this morning the April 21st -- is that 20 right? -- Earth Day celebration. And a number of groups 21 will be coming there, and the focus is on water and native 22 plants for that, so we hope you'll spread the word and 23 participate. Thank you. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, while Janet is 19 1 still here, since she is a member of the U.G.R.A. Board, we 2 have another issue. Would the Court object to taking up 3 2.19 right now, get that out of the way? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any objection? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would not. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. The Court, then, will 7 take up next Item 2.19, which is consider and discuss 8 authorizing initiating contract discussions with U.G.R.A. 9 Board of Directors for interlocal agreement to construct and 10 operate a wastewater collection system in a section of 11 Kerrville South as a result of grant approval from Texas 12 Department of Housing and Community Affairs. Commissioner 13 Williams. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When last we spoke 15 about this issue, Judge, we had received notification from 16 T.D.H.C. of preliminary approval of a $250,000 grant. Today 17 I'm pleased to tell the Court that as of March 28th, we have 18 been recommended for funding -- officially recommended for 19 funding by T.C.D.P. program, and the T.C.D.P. program for 20 the half a million-dollar grant, as well, which means that 21 we will have fulfilled our objective of obtaining both of 22 those grants for the purpose of initiating wastewater 23 collection services in a small portion of Kerrville South. 24 In that connection, I spoke with the 25 president of the Board of U.G.R.A. with regard to 20 1 initiating -- at the proper time, initiating discussions 2 with U.G.R.A. for an interlocal service agreement to get 3 that project moving when all of the paperwork filters down 4 on the two grants, which we anticipate will be very soon. I 5 have a fax here this morning from Mr. Brown, who tells me 6 that President Jerry Ahrens will assign what he notes as his 7 "Project Committee" to work with the County in the 8 development of the interlocal agreement. The committee is 9 composed of Calvin Weinheimer, Granger McDonald, Tom Myers, 10 and Jerry Ahrens, and so the purpose of the agenda item 11 today is to authorize -- have the Court authorize our 12 participation in these discussions for the interlocal 13 agreement. It would be my suggestion and hope that the 14 Court would approve my participation and the County Judge's, 15 with the assistance of the County Attorney, and that's the 16 reason we have it on the agenda. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 20 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize 21 contract discussions with U.G.R.A. for interlocal agreement 22 to construct wastewater collection system, and designate 23 Commissioner Williams and the County Judge to represent the 24 County in those discussions with U.G.R.A. Any further 25 questions? 21 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm sorry. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you run over the 4 members from U.G.R.A. Board that are on that -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. According to 6 this memo this morning from Jim, he -- Jerry Ahrens will 7 assign Granger McDonald, Calvin Weinheimer, and Tom Myers as 8 the three participants, with Jerry also participating as 9 ex-officio. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. This 12 collection system, would it be an adjunct to Kerrville's 13 system? Or is it totally separate? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What it's intended to 15 do, Commissioner, is to take -- if at all possible, utilize 16 the transmission line that the County participated with the 17 City in putting in -- or the County participated with 18 K.I.S.D. and the City in putting in years ago to service the 19 Nimitz School. There is a transmission line there. First 20 thing we need to do is determine that that's sized 21 appropriately to be able to handle the new -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- percentage of 24 effluent coming in. Then I believe we would work up -- the 25 grants would allow hookups for folks living within the south 22 1 side of Ranchero all the way down around towards Nimitz 2 school and in that area, which is -- is the very worst in 3 that area in terms of pollution and failing septic systems. 4 One of the grants provides funds for hookups, itself, so 5 that that takes away from folks who might wish not to 6 participate, for any reason not to, 'cause they don't have 7 the money to hook up and all that stuff. It's been solved; 8 the money is available for that. So, this will be the first 9 phase, and then that effluent then goes over to the trunk 10 line, which I think is at about Camp Meeting Creek and 16. 11 Probably there's a lift station there, and the lift station 12 will probably have to be upgraded to take it to the City of 13 Kerrville's wastewater treatment facility. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. But -- and my 15 second question is, 'cause I know we went through this about 16 a year ago, about the Attorney General's opinion on whether 17 you can make folks sign up, and you can't. So, even under 18 this condition, if somebody says, I don't care if it's free; 19 I still don't want to sign -- I still don't want to hook up, 20 that they can still do that, correct? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think, technically, 22 they could do that. I think it's U.G.R.A.'s plan -- and 23 we'll define these things a little bit more when we get into 24 discussion, but I think it's their plan to work with the 25 water providers to couple sewage charges with water service, 23 1 so as to mitigate against arbitrary refusal to participate. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think, again, that's 3 a real educational thing. We just need to make sure we get 4 the word out that that -- that the hookup is at no cost 5 because of this grant, and -- and see if we can't really get 6 a lot of -- 100 percent. Hopefully will. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the goal. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So people that can 9 hook into the system get hooked up to it. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only comment is 12 actually a request, and that is that -- that in our 13 interlocal agreement, that we outline in detail what 14 U.G.R.A.'s function is. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We will. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're going to go 17 down, I mean, every letter, every step of the way so we can 18 all see, everybody -- everybody in town can see exactly 19 what's going on, and five years down the road, whoever sits 20 at this table will understand exactly what is -- what's 21 going on. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. That 23 will be our commitment to do that, outline everybody's 24 responsibility and commitment. I think, interestingly 25 enough, the River Authority advises that they are receiving, 24 1 as a result of what's happened thus far and information put 2 into the public before the first grant, and now the second 3 grant and so forth, that according to the memo, we are 4 receiving calls from owners -- property owners outside of 5 the project area regarding the possibility of participating 6 in wastewater services. It would appear, according to the 7 memo, that U.G.R.A. may have to, at some date in the future, 8 issue some debt to extend the project beyond the grant area. 9 And, in that connection, they, the U.G.R.A., are asking 10 their bond consult to advise them accordingly as to how that 11 might happen if and when we get to that point. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, did you get a 13 list of those names that requested -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have -- I'm sure I 15 can. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to see where 17 those people are, how far out they are. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll request it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only other comment is 20 a general comment. This is really the first step. This 21 effort's been going on, I guess, longer than I've been on 22 the Court, trying to get that system -- or the situation 23 fixed in Kerrville South from a septic and sewer standpoint. 24 And, it's also -- this is a -- certainly a new ground 25 starting with the County. The County's never been involved 25 1 in sewage collection anywhere that I'm aware of in the 2 county, and it's also a new ground for U.G.R.A., so it's 3 kind of going into an area that neither agency has spent 4 much time. And we're doing it, one, to fix a problem, and 5 because of the economics, the City has not chosen to go out 6 into this area, but it's a way for to us do grants that 7 we're able to get the County to work in this direction, 8 getting into a new area for a lot of -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what makes it 10 exciting, Commissioner. It's the first opportunity. I 11 think that it also should be noted that the City has, on 12 many occasions, expressed its willingness to be a regional 13 wastewater treatment provider. That's the first step in 14 this direction. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's all three entities 16 working together to fix a need in the county. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 19 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 24 Item Number 3, consider and discuss review by the County 25 Auditor of the status of the budget. I believe each of you 26 1 have a spreadsheet from Tommy regarding where we are at this 2 time. Tommy, how we doing? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I think the numbers pretty 4 much speak for themselves. I don't really see any 5 surprises. I think, if we go over the numbers briefly, that 6 on the first page, the first three columns concerns the tax 7 revenue collections. Through -- through March 31st, we have 8 total collections percentage, 88 percent. Historically, we 9 collect 9 1/2 to 10 percent from April through September, so 10 if -- if that holds -- if that holds true, then it -- it 11 looks like that we are going to collect at least 98 percent. 12 Now, I think that's conservative, too, because when you add 13 in the delinquencies that we've collected in the past, over 14 the past five years, I think the lowest collection rate 15 we've had was slightly over 98 percent. Some years it's 16 been over 100 percent. So, we've collected -- the 17 collections of delinquencies have -- have been more than -- 18 than what we've levied, plus -- plus those delinquencies. 19 Any questions about that? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question 21 about the expenditure side, though, when you -- just what 22 is -- what is the percentage number that we should be today? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there -- on the tax 24 collections, there's no -- no benchmark, really, as far as 25 where we should be. 27 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Expenditures. I just 2 want to know -- 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I'll get to that when I -- 4 when I get through here. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, on the big book that 7 came around last week, it showed that other taxes, which I 8 presume to be sales taxes for the most part, are down, it 9 looks like, about thirty -- $35,000 over the last year. Are 10 we seeing a slowdown in sales tax collection? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: No. We have -- if you 12 consider the -- the accrual basis -- 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: -- that that report you get 15 is on the cash basis, so we don't -- the collections that we 16 receive in October -- 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: -- are booked the prior year. 19 So, we're -- we're actually on an accrual basis; we're a 20 month behind. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. So, this is a 5-month, 22 as far as those averages are -- 23 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on a 5-month 25 average, what are you seeing? Anything in this regard? 28 1 Sales tax? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I think we'd probably be 3 ahead -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: -- in sales tax by the end of 6 -- by the end of the fiscal year. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The City's showed a 8 pretty steep decline. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. The City told 10 you and me -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: First quarter of the 12 year, they were off more than they thought they were going 13 to be. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: They're -- the first quarter, 15 from a cash basis standpoint, we don't -- we don't get our 16 -- in fact, I don't think we get our Christmas sales tax 17 until January/February. They're far behind on -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: -- on admitting from the 20 state. So, I think -- I think we'll see an improvement. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions on the 23 revenue side? Okay. Commissioner Baldwin, let's go to the 24 expenditure side. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, if I turn 29 1 the page, I can read it. It's right there in front of me. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Again, this is -- this 3 is on a cash basis, the expenditures are. As you'll see, 4 the total expenditures through March are at 47 percent. I 5 don't -- I don't see any -- anything out of the ordinary, 6 any surprises in expenditures to come. I think if you -- if 7 you add the accrual to this, then you add another -- another 8 3 percent, so we're actually -- if you add the 3 percent, 9 then we're very close to -- to being -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And if we were 11 straightlined, it would be 50 percent. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the answer to 14 Buster's question. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 16 comments? Okay. Thank you, Tommy. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Sure. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Appreciate it. Next item is 19 Item Number 4, consider and discuss approval of the FY 2002 20 budget schedule. And, the proposed schedule is outlined in 21 your packet. It's essentially the same schedule we've used 22 historically, updated for the changes in calendar. Does 23 anyone have any questions or comments? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we approve the 25 schedule. 30 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 3 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the 4 2001/2002 budget schedule. Any questions or comments? If 5 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Item 10 Number 5, consider and discuss final revision of plat for 11 Tract 53A of Kerrville Country Estates, Section II, Precinct 12 1, which is in Precinct 1. I would also -- I will note that 13 this was originally posted as a preliminary revision; 14 however, that was corrected and posted as a final revision, 15 so we are taking this matter up as a final revision this 16 morning. Commissioner Baldwin? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. I had a couple 18 of questions. Seemed like to me in our -- in our previous 19 meeting for approval of this tract, there were some 20 questions about ETJ and Planning and Zoning in the City of 21 Kerrville. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: It's been through the Planning 23 and Zoning. They had their public hearing last week. It's 24 all been approved. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 31 1 MR. JOHNSTON: I believe Lee Voelkel was 2 supposed to bring the signed-off mylar. I don't see him. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's hard to get good 4 help anymore. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Isn't that it right 6 there? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Those are two I brought in. I 8 recommend approval, pending receipt of the final mylar with 9 all the signatures on it. It meets all of our size 10 requirements. There's no new roads or anything to be built. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: When are they supposed to 12 have the final mylar to you? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: He was supposed to bring it to 14 the meeting this morning. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we 17 approve -- let's see -- the final revision of plat for Tract 18 53A of Kerrville Country Estates, Section II. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 21 Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 22 approve the final revision of plat for Tract 53A, Kerrville 23 Country Estates, Section II, and authorize County Judge to 24 sign same upon receipt of the mylar signed off by everyone 25 else. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in 32 1 favor, raise your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 6 6, consider and discuss approval of preliminary revision of 7 plat for Lot 1-A, Creekwood I-B, Precinct 2. Commissioner 8 Williams. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Franklin, what do we 10 know about this? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: This is dividing a fairly 12 large tract into two lots, 31.32 acres and 25 acres. This, 13 again, is in the ETJ. I think it was acted upon also last 14 week. Had a note here, the public hearing was 4/5/05, last 15 Thursday -- '01, sorry, last Thursday. It was approved. 16 So, it's a simple division of a lot facing a county road and 17 a private road. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. 19 To the extent that you know or -- or the applicant knows, 20 are there any deed restrictions that prohibit this type of 21 subdividing this lot without the prior approval of the 22 homeowners' association? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: I can't answer that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there anybody here 25 who can -- 33 1 MR. JOHNSTON: The surveyor's not here yet, 2 so I do not know that. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We could ask that 4 before the final comes in. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. This has to 6 come back for one more crack? No, this is a replat. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Revision. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: It's a revision. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Says "preliminary 10 revision." 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, it's preliminary. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: It does have to come back. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has to come back. 14 Would you make a note of that question, Franklin? See if we 15 can determine the answer, please. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- my mind is just 17 slow this morning. Does this require a public hearing? 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe so. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe it does. When 20 you combine you don't have to, but when you divide, I 21 believe -- we haven't figured out -- 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the City had a public 23 hearing, 'cause part of it's in the ETJ. Do we have to also 24 have a public hearing? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have to notify 34 1 all the property owners. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think so. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go through the hoop. 4 Let's go through the hoop to be safe. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Set a public hearing? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To revise a plat. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then we can determine 8 the answer to that question at that time. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Part of the Creekwood lots -- 10 I think that they were Phase II, III, IV, and V -- did have 11 deed restrictions on 50-acre lots due to the roads were not 12 paved. I think this section of the road is paved up to the 13 end of that lot. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it is. Well, 15 everything out there, as far as I know, is paved now. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: But at the time it was 17 platted, it was not paved, and I think they had deed 18 restrictions on 50-acre lots. But, I don't think Phase I is 19 covered, but I'll double-check on that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, let's 21 double-check so we know for sure. Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a comment on 23 format. If it's preliminary, it should say "preliminary" on 24 it, and it uses the word "replat" instead of "revision of 25 plat." 35 1 MR. JOHNSTON: I have that noted here. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, you've already 3 got it. We need to set a date for the public hearing. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Approve the preliminary 5 revision and set -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the approval 7 of the preliminary revision of plat for Lot 1-A, Creekwood 8 I-B, Precinct 2, and we'll set a date for public hearing 9 of -- 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: May 29? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May 19th? 12 MS. ALFORD: No, 29th. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May 29th. 14 MS. ALFORD: The 14th is the first meeting. 15 The 29th is the second meeting. The 28th is a holiday, so 16 it will be the 29th. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May 29th. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Period. 20 MS. SOVIL: What time? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Semicolon. 10 a.m. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second? 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 25 Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 36 1 approve a preliminary revision of plat for Lot 1-A, 2 Creekwood I-B, Precinct 1, and set public hearing for same 3 for 10 o'clock a.m. on Tuesday, May 29th, here in the Kerr 4 County Courthouse, Commissioners' Courtroom. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the only comment I 6 have -- and, I mean, I'm comfortable with voting on -- or 7 setting the public hearing based on the posting. It doesn't 8 specifically say it, but since it's part of our Subdivision 9 Rules on the preliminary revision to set a public hearing, I 10 would think that it would be covered under that. I mean, 11 I'm just making it for the record, that since our rules 12 specifically say that under preliminary process, that should 13 cover that. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 15 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 20 7, consider and discuss approval of the final revision of 21 plat for Lots 6 and 7, Estates of Turtle Creek, Section One, 22 Precinct 2. Commissioner Williams. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is an easy one. 24 Franklin can explain, this is combining two smaller ones 25 into one 10-acre; is that correct? 37 1 MR. JOHNSTON: This is the one that, you 2 know, could have come, I guess, under that new Section F, or 3 combining two lots into one, with a resulting 10-acre lot. 4 But, it has come twice. This is a final -- final plat. I 5 recommend approval. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move approval of 7 the final revision of plat for Lots 6 and 7, Estates of 8 Turtle Creek, Section One, Precinct 2. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 11 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 12 approve the final revision of plat for Lots 6 and 7, Estates 13 of Turtle Creek, Section One. Any further questions or 14 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 19 8, consider the Project Agreement with N.R.C.S. for Hermann 20 Sons Bridge and authorize County Judge to sign same. 21 Commissioner Letz. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple things we're going 23 to discuss here. First -- well, actually, only one thing on 24 this item. It's the next agenda item we'll discuss a little 25 bit more at length. The project has changed a little bit. 38 1 When we get into that one, I'll explain it. You know, 2 originally it was going to be, I guess, a rebuild of the 3 temporary structure, with gabions and all kinds of different 4 stuff. Turned out to be pushing the price to about $250,000 5 for that temporary structure. The County, TexDOT, and 6 N.R.C.S., we looked at this situation, didn't like that 7 expenditure amount, and also the engineering report on the 8 old structure was such that we didn't think we could do what 9 originally was planned, so the new plan is to put railroad 10 cars across the river, side-by-side. They're 89 feet long, 11 and they pretty much will make the entire span; I think 12 4 feet short. We can put a concrete abutment up there. 13 But, the bottom line is that the -- the 14 agreement changed, so the N.R.C.S. has requested that we get 15 two new Project Agreements signed by the County Judge. And, 16 I just received these late last week. We may run them 17 through the County Attorney's office, but because of the 18 time sensitivity of it, I would request that we approve the 19 new Project Agreement. The total cost -- stated cost of the 20 project is $65,000. The County's responsible for 25 percent 21 of that. Almost the entire amount, if not the entire 22 amount, will be in-kind services. The County Road and 23 Bridge Department will install -- or through subcontractors, 24 they'll do a lot of the work. Basically, we're not going to 25 go out to hire outside contractors to do it for us, except 39 1 some crane operators. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know, is that 3 $16,000 that -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $65,000. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think our share was 6 16. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Is that the 9 same number that we were always -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. We were up to 11 $50,000. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When the project was up 14 to $250,000, our part was 25 percent, or $67,000, actually, 15 so it's cut back quite a bit. The -- anyway, that's it. 16 I'll make a motion that we approve the new Project Agreement 17 with Natural Resource Conservation Service and authorize the 18 County Judge to sign same, subject to the County Attorney's 19 office reviewing the contract. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 22 seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the 23 new Project Agreement with N.R.C.S. for the Hermann Sons 24 Bridge and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any 25 questions or comments? Jonathan, a question I would have 40 1 is, does this complicate in any way the permanent 2 reconstruction of the bridge? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. That will be, I 4 think, addressed under 2.9, and we have the TexDOT 5 representative here; he's going to kind of go over where 6 we're going -- 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- with the permanent 9 structure. But, no, the answer to the question is no, it 10 will not, and it's actually -- the N.R.C.S. and TexDOT and 11 the County are all working together. We had a joint meeting 12 last week where we -- everyone is aware what everyone else 13 to doing, looking at timetables. Everyone is supportive of 14 the other agency's work. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any further questions 16 or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 21 9, consider and discuss status of the temporary bridge and 22 the status of the permanent bridge for Hermann Sons 23 Crossing. Jonathan? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda 25 because, one, we kind of discussed what I discussed on the 41 1 temporary structure, but also, based on the meeting I had 2 along with Road and Bridge Department, N.R.C.S., and TexDOT 3 last week, I wanted to have TexDOT primarily come in and 4 update the current thinking, what they would like to do, and 5 I think what I would recommend that the County do as well, 6 with the permanent structure out there, which is a little 7 bit different than we have talked about before. So, I'll 8 turn it over to Bill Tucker or Mike Howard, whoever is going 9 to make the presentation, to kind of explain what their 10 thoughts are on timetable, cost, and County's participation 11 in the permanent replacement. 12 MR. HOWARD: Good morning. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Morning, Mike. 14 MR. HOWARD: Just a relatively quick update 15 on where we are on the Hermann Sons Bridge project. Back in 16 October, when we had the flood, this bridge was on our list 17 of off-system bridges, but it was neither classified as a 18 Priority 1 or Priority 2, meaning that it was not in our 19 current picture of funding. When the flood happened and the 20 bridge was washed out, we were able to move that up in the 21 list of priorities, actually bypassing Priority 2 and going 22 straight to Priority 1, and now we do have funding 23 identified for this bridge. We've been given approval to 24 begin the survey for this bridge. I've had the preliminary 25 meeting with the surveyors, and we'll begin surveying here 42 1 in the next couple weeks. We'll begin design shortly, of 2 looking at the bridge and trying to -- to make sure the 3 County got their money's worth out of the temporary bridge. 4 We're now looking at several different 5 options for a permanent structure. Not sure which -- we're 6 going to do some quick preliminary studies before we start 7 the survey, but we believe we should probably build the new 8 bridge on a realignment so that we can allow the 9 permanent -- or temporary bridge to remain in place during 10 the whole time while we're building the permanent bridge, 11 and then there'll just simply be a time when we'll switch 12 traffic to the new bridge and then remove the temporary 13 bridge. I think we have worked up some preliminary cost 14 estimates. I kind of hesitate to put those out in public. 15 We're not sure exactly where we want to put the bridge, but 16 we're looking in the neighborhood -- we have set up 17 originally about a half a million dollars, and the County's 18 share would be in the neighborhood of $75,000 of that, plus 19 or minus. 20 If we're -- we believe that once the 21 temporary bridge is put in, the emergency status of this 22 project kind of drops down, which gives us a chance to take 23 a deep breath and to actually pick the best route for the 24 structure, a structure that we hope will be in place for, 25 you know, the next 80 or 100 years. That's the current 43 1 status. We're -- you know, we -- as we pick a route, we 2 find out what challenges we'll have on any route that we 3 pick. We'll be able to come back and give y'all a better 4 schedule update and to give you some firm numbers on cost 5 and what a schedule may look like. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mike, on the timetable, 7 we're looking at a possible start of the permanent structure 8 sometime 2002/2003 time period? 9 MR. HOWARD: Yeah. I feel like -- I mean, 10 you know, depending on whether we -- you know, we make an 11 alignment, that may require the acquisition of 12 right-of-ways; those could add some time delays to the 13 project. And, you know, depending on, you know, some of the 14 issues we've got with FEMA on the bridge, some of those 15 items like that take a little bit of coordination time. But 16 I feel certain, you know, we're going to aggressively move 17 forward with the plan here, and we feel certain we can have 18 a bridge ready for you by then. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My other comment is that 20 N.R.C.S. is doing everything they can to support TexDot's 21 permanent bridge, and including, if possible, helping do a 22 little bit of the funding; it wouldn't be a lot, but on an 23 emergency standpoint, they might be able to do some of the 24 abutments and a few things like that, or -- you know, which 25 would -- and it may help the County trying to figure out 44 1 exactly the -- you can't leverage federal dollars with 2 federal dollars, but if we can get some federal funding in 3 through N.R.C.S. and then use that same funding, it may work 4 out or may work to the County's benefit. But, everyone at 5 N.R.C.S. is really very supportive of both the temporary 6 structure and the permanent structure and helping in any way 7 they can. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one quick 9 question. About how long will it take to get the boxcar 10 temporary facility up and -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The plan is to have it 12 functional before the camps open, which is the first of 13 June, so it's looking like having them in place sometime in 14 May. Hopefully sooner than that, but the cars -- the two 15 cars have to be transported from Arkansas, and it takes 16 quite a while to move an 89-foot railroad car, you know, 17 that far, interstate. The actual installation will go 18 relatively quickly. The Road and Bridge Department's come 19 up with a plan to do it which will not harm cypress trees. 20 We can do it with the current right-of-way that we have. 21 And, I'll just leave it at that. It's -- it will be 22 interesting to watch, if anyone has the time available that 23 day. I think it's a 300-ton crane they're going to bring 24 in. They'll build a temporary pad, slide them in down the 25 road, and put them across and pour concrete on both sides. 45 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: A classic example of Aggie 2 engineering? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- they say it 4 will work. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's interesting that 6 somebody asked me last week, "Why don't they put a couple 7 boxcars there for a temporary bridge?" Don't ask me, I 8 don't know anything about it. Here we are with boxcars. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another good thing about 10 this is these cars will be -- the County will own them, and 11 the planning is that once the permanent bridge is built and 12 these are taken out, they will be put in Road and Bridge's 13 yard or somewhere in the county, wherever we can store two 14 90-foot railroad cars, to be used in this type of event in 15 the future. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Great. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wherever they use them. 18 MR. HOWARD: If I may, Commissioner Letz, I 19 think I promised you a drawing here. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a 22 comment. This is another example of two government entities 23 working together. I appreciate you, TexDOT, jumping on this 24 thing and moving up parts of this, 'cause I know that 25 Commissioner Letz is sometimes unpleasant to work with when 46 1 it comes -- on behalf of his constituents, and I believe 2 that. I mean, he gets a little grumpy, doesn't he? 3 MR. HOWARD: We've never experienced that. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, right. But I 5 appreciate you guys doing that. 6 MR. HOWARD: We're glad we're able to help in 7 this instance. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, I appreciate it. 10 Anything else on that item? If not -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Aggie engineering? 12 Now, that's -- if it was worth doing, it's worth overdoing. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, there's a good 14 one. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 10, consider the 16 final plat approval of Mountain Home Oaks, Section II, in 17 Precinct 4. Commissioner Griffin. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Franklin, I think this 19 one is straightforward, and you've got it. I think -- is 20 this the mylar right here? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: That's the mylar. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: This was Phase II of that 24 subdivision. It's an unpaved country lane, large lots. 25 They've been inspected, the roads put in to standards. All 47 1 the signs are up, ready to go. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All the signs are up. 3 And, I saw -- I saw a note come through -- across my desk 4 sometime a couple weeks ago to someone about signs or lack 5 of signs or -- 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was to get it 7 right. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And those things have 9 been corrected? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: They've been put up. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Everything's put up 12 that was on the list. And, I'll make a motion that we 13 approve the final plat for Mountain Home Oaks, Section II, 14 Precinct 4. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 17 Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 18 approve the final plat of Mountain Home Oaks, Section II, in 19 Precinct 4. Any further questions or comments? If not, all 20 in favor, raise your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 25 Item Number 11, consider the concept plan of Cutoff Business 48 1 Park and request a variance to Section 5.01 of the Kerr 2 County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Precinct 4, 3 Commissioner Griffin. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a second, Judge. 5 Could we do Item 17 -- 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- as a clarification 8 of the rules, and then go back to that, please? 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was going to say the 10 same thing. Either that, or we can address it later. I 11 think, for now, we have to do this one as a variance, but we 12 do need to get the essence of Item 17 for a more permanent 13 solution. So, we can do it, I thought, saying the same 14 thing; we can go ahead and go for the variance on this one. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let me make a suggestion 16 here. We have a bid opening in 5 minutes. Why don't we 17 take up Item 12, which is abandonment of Treiber Trail, and 18 then do our bid opening, and then we'll have a little more 19 time; we can take up the other two more or less in 20 conjunction. Is that acceptable? 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's fine. And that 22 will get Mr. Townsend out of here a little quicker. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's take up Item Number 12, 24 which is consider and discuss abandonment of Treiber Trail, 25 an undeveloped platted road easement in Japonica Hills 49 1 Subdivision, and set public hearing for same on May 14, Year 2 2001. Commissioner Griffin? 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. The Court will 4 recall that last year, the Japonica Hills Subdivision, 5 represented by Don Townsend, who is here today, came in and 6 we did approve several abandonments of roads that were never 7 developed in the subdivision. This is sort of a cleanup of 8 that. This -- this probably is the last one. Right, Don? 9 MR. TOWNSEND: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think one sort of 11 fell through the cracks first time around. These roads have 12 never been developed. I've got petitions -- notarized 13 petitions from, by far, the majority -- all but one, in 14 fact, in the subdivision that -- that they just can't locate 15 the owner on. But, these are notarized petitions, ready to 16 go. We just need to set a public hearing and try to get 17 this last one of these roads abandoned that were never 18 developed. So, I'll make that motion that we do that; that 19 we -- that we set that public hearing for May 14th. Do we 20 have anything scheduled yet? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a 2 o'clock 22 sunset workshop. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Why don't we -- 24 can we do 10 o'clock in the morning on that one, then? 25 We'll do this one at 10 o'clock in the morning on the 14th. 50 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 4 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 5 set a public hearing on the abandonment of Treiber Trail, an 6 undeveloped -- undeveloped platted road easement in Japonica 7 Hills Subdivision, for 10 o'clock a.m. on Monday, May 14th, 8 Year 2001, in Kerr County Courthouse in the Commissioners' 9 Courtroom. 10 MS. SOVIL: See if that's a night meeting. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's not. The second one in 12 May is night. 13 MS. SOVIL: Okay. We've already set a 14 10 o'clock for the second -- 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll go back to that in just 16 a minute. Does everyone understand 10 o'clock a.m. on 17 May 14th? Any further questions or comments? If not, all 18 in favor, raise your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Now, we need 23 to go back to 2.6. We had set a public hearing for May the 24 29th at 10 o'clock a.m. That is our regular scheduled 25 evening meeting. Do I have a motion to amend the previous 51 1 order to set the public hearing for Lot 1-A, Creekwood I-B 2 in Precinct 2 for 7 o'clock p.m.? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 6 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 7 amend its previous order to set the public hearing on the 8 preliminary revision of plat of Lot 1-A, Creekwood I-B in 9 Precinct 2 for 7 o'clock p.m. on May the 29th, Year 2001, in 10 Kerr County Courthouse in the Commissioners' Courtroom. Any 11 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 12 right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. At 17 this time, seeing as how it's 10 o'clock, we will take Item 18 13, which is open the bids for video cameras for patrol 19 cars. 20 (Unopened bids handed to Judge Henneke.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: First bid is from O S.S.I., 22 and the total bid is $92,925. Next bid is from Custom 23 Signals, Inc., and the bid is for $90,390. Next bid is from 24 Mobile Vision Systems. It does not appear to give a total. 25 There's several different varieties of systems. One is 52 1 $3,995 per unit, with some add-ons. Next bid is from Law 2 Enforcement Specialty Products, Inc. The bid is for 3 $98,000. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's three from the 5 same people, it appears. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Another bid from Law 7 Enforcement Specialty Products for $78,000. We have a third 8 bid from Law Enforcement Specialty Products for $126,000. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept all bids 10 and refer them to the Sheriff for recommendation. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 13 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we accept all bids 14 and refer them to the Sheriff's Department for evaluation 15 and recommendation. Any further questions or comments? If 16 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Sheriff, 21 what do you think your timetable is for having a 22 recommendation? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We can look at them this 24 afternoon, but in the case -- I notice there was one -- that 25 one company that bid three different times, those are three 53 1 different systems. If we do not accept the lowest bid, what 2 else do we have to do? 3 MR. LUCAS: If you don't accept the lowest 4 bid, the Court has to provide an opportunity for that lowest 5 bidder to come in and present evidence of why he thinks that 6 he should be declared or not declared. Y'all just listen to 7 that and vote up or down. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you think you'll have your 9 recommendations today? Or tomorrow? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can have the 11 recommendations -- doesn't take that long to go through the 12 specs and get what each one of them's providing, provided 13 they give us enough material to actually see that. But, 14 when do you want us to do it? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, at the rate we're 16 rolling, I think we'll be done here by about 11:30 this 17 morning, I would say. If -- if necessary, we can recess and 18 reconvene tomorrow. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll try and get them 20 back here by 11:30. If not, I'll let you know before then. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Now, let's go back 22 to -- do we want to do 11 first or 17 first, gentlemen? 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe we can consider 24 them at the same time. What do you think of that? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give it a try. 54 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: I really don't think we can 2 consider them at the same time, technically. But -- 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, when I say 4 consider them at the same time, obviously, we know what's in 5 17, but we can go ahead and address the variance, 'cause 6 that's what we decided to do, if you recall, at the last 7 meeting, was to approach it as a variance. We can go ahead 8 and dispense with that and then talk about a more permanent 9 solution by considering and discussing the clarification 10 rule. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's go back, then, 12 to Item Number 11, which is consider and discuss concept 13 plan of Cutoff Business Park and a variance to Section 5.01 14 of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, 15 Precinct 4. I will say, historically, we've had no 16 considered variances on concept plans. We've given a sense 17 of the Court based on discussions, but we've never actually 18 taken action on a variance to a concept plan, so you may 19 want to keep that in mind. Commissioner Griffin? 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Franklin, why 21 don't you sort of do this one from the top down? Because 22 there are some other issues here I think that we discussed 23 earlier, other than the variance that we're talking about -- 24 potential variance. So, go ahead and sort of -- 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. I think the reason they 55 1 wanted you to consider the variance at this point, if the 2 lot size didn't work out, I guess they didn't want to invest 3 a lot of money in developing a plat that would just be 4 thrown out. So, I think that's the key to doing this 5 project, is to have the variance to the small lot sizes. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also on that point, I 7 mean, I visited with Larry Richter on this, and it's my 8 recommendation -- I said, "Get it before the Court." 9 Whether we actually do the variance or not, I think we need 10 to give a sense to the developer as to what the Court's 11 going to do on this, because this is a different type of 12 development than we've looked at before. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this commercial? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is commercial 16 property, and it seemed like to me that we had agreed 17 that -- that commercial property is -- comes under the same 18 regulations as any other, except for the mobile home 19 program. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, you know, I 22 just -- you stop and think about a commercial piece of -- 23 piece of commercial property, and let's say that there's a 24 little strip mall. I mean, how would you put each business 25 on 5 acres? 56 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's got to be some 3 kind of -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a way -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I guess a variance 6 is the tool. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: In strip malls, you don't 9 have -- each business is not individually owned. The whole 10 thing is owned, and each business is leased out. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. 12 Strip mall just popped in my mind; I really didn't mean a 13 strip mall. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the thing to 15 remember on this is that our Subdivision Rule lot sizes 16 are -- we came to them based on water availability. Water 17 availability came about based on residences. So, I mean, 18 the mind-set that got us to the lot size that we use right 19 now is -- doesn't fit, I mean, if you follow the whole logic 20 back. These are not residences. They use a different 21 amount of water, and they probably should be looked at on a 22 case-by-case situation. I mean, there's -- an industrial 23 park, as I understand this is, is not going to -- most of 24 it -- probably most of the occupants are not going to use 25 very much water. Now, if someone was to put in a -- you 57 1 know, a high-use water facility, well, then they would use a 2 lot of water. So, I think we kind of need to look at the 3 basic intent of what the developer is doing, to look at it 4 from a case-by-case situation. But, from an economic 5 standpoint, you know, you couldn't -- it would never work. 6 I don't think you could put them on 5-acre spacing unless 7 it's a large manufacturing of some sort. Just doesn't work 8 economically. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Also, there is a thing 10 here that -- and this goes more to the other item, the 11 general discussion of it, and that is, I think we need to 12 take a look at the way we are interpreting the rule -- the 13 new subdivision rule. I mentioned this very quickly to 14 Jonathan the other day, but one of the problems we have here 15 is that this will be supplied with water by a commercial 16 water company, and when that's -- you know, that commercial 17 water company has to meet T.N.R.C.C. requirements for the 18 number of hookups that it can have on a particular system. 19 So, why is it necessary -- rhetorical question -- why is it 20 necessary that we further restrict the water availability 21 issue by some arbitrary -- and this is what would I call in 22 this case arbitrary -- lot size? Because the T.N.R.C.C. is 23 already regulating that commercial water provider for a 24 certain number of hookups, no matter how many acres there 25 are. So, there's a -- there's a regulatory issue here that 58 1 sort of underlies this a little bit that I think we need to 2 clarify in our rules, because if we say that anytime 3 somebody goes out and does anything with a piece of land, 4 that it's got to be 5 acres because of water availability, I 5 don't think that's right. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's not what we say. We 8 say that if it's surface water, they can do anything they 9 want to. The water availability rules only apply to 10 groundwater. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, in the case of a 12 commercial company, we don't know, and nor should it be any 13 of our business, where that water is coming from. That 14 commercial company deals with the T.N.R.C.C. They either 15 poke a hole in the ground or take surface water. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: But our Subdivision Rules 17 specifically say surface water if it's smaller than 5, 18 though, right? 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: There's a discrepancy there. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But let's just take 22 Aqua Source, for example. Aqua Source can pipe the water 23 from Alaska. It may not even be water that runs through or 24 under Texas. So, what I'm saying is -- is that if -- as 25 long as the T.N.R.C.C. has a handle on commercial water 59 1 providers, I don't think we need to look at necessarily a -- 2 a draconian acreage. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: The T.N.R.C.C. is not looking 4 at the water that's available to that commercial water 5 provider. They don't go out and evaluate the supply from 6 that commercial water supply. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. They -- 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, if -- if Aqua 9 Source is piping in water from Alaska, they don't fall under 10 these rules, 'cause that's not groundwater -- that's not 11 groundwater in Kerr County. Our Water Availability Rules 12 apply to groundwater, not the surface water. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Groundwater from Kerr 14 County. What if it came from Gillespie County? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think, under our rules, we 16 wouldn't have an issue. But, you know, T.N.R.C.C. does not 17 come out and -- and evaluate the sources of water for 18 commercial, as far as our needs are concerned. As far as 19 T.N.R.C.C.'s concerned, they could have a great, huge well 20 in the middle of the aquifer and be pumping it dry. As far 21 as T.N.R.C.C.'s concerned, that's fine, but what does that 22 do to our local situation? T.N.R.C.C. does not take into 23 consideration the supply equation of the local condition in 24 approving specifically the necessity -- convenience and 25 necessity, or their ability to service other customers. So, 60 1 you really can't say that since it's regulated by 2 T.N.R.C.C., we shouldn't be concerned about where they get 3 their water, because that's not addressed by T.N.R.C.C. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is addressed by 5 T.N.R.C.C.? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whether that well will 7 produce enough -- 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- by itself. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In that connection, I 11 would ask -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like the same 13 thing to me. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- what would your 15 rationale on this be if there wasn't an independently-owned 16 water company out there and the developer was going to drill 17 a well to service this development? 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There again, if -- in 19 this case, it would have to be done commercially if you're 20 going to drill one well to service all of them, which would 21 come under, you know, whatever rule that comes under. But 22 -- and there I see a -- a lot size restriction being -- you 23 know, lots being larger is -- makes sense, philosophically, 24 or intellectually. The idea that -- that -- that we 25 don't -- that we're doing water availability because we -- 61 1 we're sort of doing it on the fly. We say, "Well, hey, 2 5 acres is a good number." You know, I -- I know that 3 there's some data out there that says 5 acres is what it 4 takes to recharge for one family and -- and so on, but this 5 is a totally different deal, and water is not being supplied 6 by a well for that particular plot of land. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: But it's being supplied by 8 groundwater from somewhere in Kerr County, 'cause Aqua 9 Source is totally a groundwater supply company. I don't 10 think they have any connections outside of Kerr County. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or surface water 12 rights in Kerr County, either. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, in that sense, it does 14 fall within our area of concern, in that they're using 15 groundwater. Now, I'm not -- I'm not -- I don't have a 16 strong formed opinion about this particular project yet. I 17 think I'd like to hear whether -- other issues, like is it 18 in the ETJ? Is it -- is the roads and things like that -- 19 and I think that we need to add a commercial variance basis, 20 because it is a different breed. And one thing I think that 21 Jonathan brought up, very appropriately is, we don't know 22 what the commercial application is going to be in here. If 23 you're going to have a very high-intensive water use company 24 coming in here, then perhaps we have another issue, as 25 opposed to, you know, a flower shop -- well, that would be 62 1 water-intensive. Not a good example. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I tell you what -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A construction office. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: A construction office, that's 5 right. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm going to be in 7 favor of a variance on this, but let me say what bothers me 8 about it is -- is that, let's say we do this and it goes all 9 through -- we get all the other -- everything met according 10 to our rules and we've granted the variance, and the owners 11 get halfway through the project and say, "Hmm, this is not 12 going to work. Let's change horses in the middle of the 13 stream, and we'll just sell these lots off and people can 14 put houses on them." What's to keep it from being done? 15 You know, not that it would happen. I'm just saying, 20 16 years from now, that could happen. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we have the ability 18 to condition our approval upon a deed restriction preventing 19 residential use of a property. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, which we might 21 want to consider, too. But, in the concept, I think -- I 22 think I would -- and I don't know how we do this with a 23 concept plan, but I would like to give the owner/developer a 24 sense of the Court that we would grant a variance. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's ask -- before we 63 1 get to that, I'd like to ask Franklin if there are other 2 issues? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, there are a few. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's get the whole thing on 5 the table before we start talking about specifics. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Just looking over the drawing 8 they submitted, there are some other issues that have to do 9 with that. The -- they show a road with a cul-de-sac. They 10 show a 50-foot-wide easement, which, according to our rules, 11 needs to be a 60-foot right-of-way -- deeded right-of-way, 12 not an easement. Lot lines don't go to the center of 13 that -- that property. There's a lot that shows in the 14 bottom righthand -- about in the middle -- bottom middle of 15 the -- it says, "Transferred to A.A. Tire Company, 16 Volume ___, Page ___", blank. They're left blank. But, in 17 the location map, that shows that's part of the subdivision, 18 that lot, and down here it's got a dotted line. If it is 19 part of the subdivision, they have to have access. Not -- 20 you know, even if they sell it off, it's still part of the 21 subdivision. It could be resold. And that doesn't show any 22 access to Goat Creek Cutoff by any means. If it's not part 23 of the subdivision, it wouldn't matter, I guess. 24 Another issue is, they dedicate the roads -- 25 under the note up there, dedicate the roads to the public. 64 1 I wasn't sure if these were public or private roads, that 2 little cul-de-sac road. I wasn't clear on that. 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 MR. JOHNSTON: They say it's not in the ETJ. 5 They -- in fact, it is in Ingram ETJ, so Ingram would have 6 to act on it also. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there any problem 8 -- have you discussed the 60-foot versus the 50-foot 9 right-of-way, and is it a private road? Is it a public 10 road? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: I talked with Larry about it 12 on the phone, but didn't have -- really have a chance to 13 have a meeting with him. We're going to get together, but 14 didn't have a chance to do that yet. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, let me just ask 16 a question. Is there any problem with a 60-foot 17 right-of-way versus a 50-foot? 18 MR. JENSCHKE: I don't think so. I think 19 this was -- the engineer that drew this up, we were -- when 20 I went out and talked to Mr. Johnston, we were probably 21 given the old rules, and he -- he went off of the -- the 22 book that he -- that I bought, you know, were probably the 23 old set of Subdivision Rules, and that's probably -- that's 24 what he went by, I'm sure. Because I know that he went by 25 all the rules that were -- were in the book. And, of course 65 1 since then, they were changed, so I'm sure that's why you 2 don't like it. The lots are to the center, you know, to the 3 center of the roads. And that was a private -- it was a 4 private drive. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, this will be 6 private -- a private road, but the public will have access 7 to it? Is that -- 8 MR. JENSCHKE: Well, yes, the public would 9 have access to it. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Obviously, if it's 11 commercial property. 12 MR. JENSCHKE: But, you know, since we were 13 going to -- we were going to maintain it, but, you know, 14 since this is all changed and everything, I might as well -- 15 you know, I was going to build it to County standards 16 anyway, but -- and we were going to maintain it, but I might 17 as well deed it over to the County, you know, if we do get 18 this variance. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, as part of the 20 variance -- I mean, since we generally don't look at 21 commercial, our road standards are based on residential. 22 This would probably have -- I think I'd defer to Road and 23 Bridge to figure out what type of road -- I mean, not the -- 24 the construction of it, that will handle commercial traffic. 25 That would be a different level than we would generally have 66 1 for six lots -- five lots, six lots in a residential 2 subdivision. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Truck traffic and all that. 4 Have to be a wider road and heavier-based road. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, that's just part 6 of the mix, I think, is the different type of community 7 commercial development. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we get the 9 right-of-way right and if we get the -- the lot lines back, 10 you know, where they ought to be, what -- I guess that 11 leaves the other question that I have. Is this -- that 12 piece of Lot 8, or what looks like it was a piece of Lot 8, 13 is that -- is that actually part of the subdivision, or is 14 it not? 15 MR. JENSCHKE: It was part of that property, 16 yes. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's part of the 18 property. Would it be part of the subdivision? 19 MR. JENSCHKE: No. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. So, you have -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So the location map is 23 a little bit -- that shouldn't be in here. 24 (Discussion off the record.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Will these lots be serviced 67 1 by individual septic systems? 2 MR. RICHTER: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, you've got to meet 4 that. That's another hoop you've got to go through with our 5 Designated Representative. But -- 6 MR. JENSCHKE: Also, to answer your questions 7 on, you know -- you know, what if we were to build 8 residential in there, you know, after that was approved and 9 everything, we've even -- in our restrictions, we've even 10 got, you know, down to -- we've minimized the number of 11 lots, not maximized. And, even the amount of -- of area 12 that can be covered in each lot is 50 percent. No more than 13 50 percent of any lot can be covered by a building, and -- 14 and, therefore, any runoff that you get off of a -- you 15 know, that you get off of a building, you know, can be 16 absorbed, you know, within that property. And, of course, 17 we have -- we'll have the proper drainage and everything. 18 And right now, one of the lots is going to be my own 19 construction office, and then there's -- another one of the 20 lots is probably going to be, like, mini storages, and we've 21 got another person looking at three of the lots -- Larry 22 does -- for, like, construction warehouse-type stuff. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Where is that? I can't really 24 locate it on here. Is that along the back side? 25 MR. JENSCHKE: Yeah. It's right along -- 68 1 MR. JOHNSTON: There is a floodplain 2 associated with that. It says here there's no floodplain. 3 These lots probably need to show that on here. 4 MR. JENSCHKE: Yes. Our next plat will show 5 the -- will show where the floodplain is. 6 MR. JOHNSTON: On the preliminary plan? 7 MR. JENSCHKE: Yes, uh-huh. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Additionally, we have 9 deferred to the City on things on the ETJ. Since this is in 10 the City of Ingram's ETJ, Mr. Jenschke will have to also 11 first actually comply with any requirements they may have. 12 Is that correct, Jonathan? Historically, we've always 13 deferred to the City. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have, but -- 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Have to meet our 16 requirements, too. 17 MR. JENSCHKE: Right. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: We've always said we must 19 meet the City's -- the City has to sign off before we do. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't the City of 21 Ingram use the County's rules? They don't have their own. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: They have their own septic. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they don't have their 24 own subdivision. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know if they do or 69 1 not. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, but that's -- it 3 can be done concurrently. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It can be done 6 concurrently. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Our approval is not -- if 8 they have standards, and I know they have their own O.S.S.F. 9 rule, then they have to satisfy those -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- as well. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 13 MR. RICHTER: I'm Larry Richter of Richter 14 Realty, and to that comment, I checked with Danny Edwards 15 and brought Danny up to speed with what we're attempting to 16 do. And, basically, he said, "Well, Larry, our rules follow 17 along with the County's," and so I think that -- that 18 stands. We still have to go through them, but I think it's 19 almost pro forma. I mean, you just got to do it, but I 20 think they will accept our standards, and I think that's 21 exactly what they -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, since you're 23 requesting a variance from the County, I would get that 24 before them and get that variance at least, you know, where 25 there's a formal vote or whatever as early as possible so 70 1 you don't get held up by them by saying, "Well, we'll be 2 able to use the County rules, but we're not going to give 3 the variance; the County gives -- the County gives the 4 variance. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How do we proceed 6 here, Judge, as you see it? Do we -- we can, quote, 7 "accept," I think is what we've used in the past. We accept 8 a concept plan? We don't really do anything -- 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We accept it. And 11 what do we -- 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I think what they're looking 13 for is whether or not those small acreage will work. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, that's -- and 15 that's an O.S.S.F. issue. That's -- that's got to be 16 evaluated by our Designated Representative, Charlie 17 Wiedenfeld, at U.G.R.A. They will evaluate whether or not 18 you can put and what kind of systems you have to put, and 19 that's right out of the book. I mean, that's -- either it 20 works or it doesn't. So, that -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think this thing is 22 -- you know, we have kind of given them some thoughts of 23 things that need to be changed, and they simply go change 24 those things and come back in here with another plat. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or a preliminary. 71 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's right. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: The feedback I had from 3 Headwaters was that Cameron says -- this is -- I hadn't 4 talked to him, just had a note that said he wants them to 5 have an engineer's estimate on water consumption. We were 6 talking about water consumption earlier. He wants that to 7 be part of the preliminary. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who wants that? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: Cameron, Headwaters. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How are they going to 11 do that without being able to define who the occupants are 12 going to be? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, you can make 15 some reasonable -- 16 MR. JOHNSTON: A mini storage wouldn't take 17 any water, where a car wash would take a lot of water. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Make a reasonable 20 estimate. That's all you can do. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Car washes, also, they 22 can recycle their water. Most of them do. I mean, I don't 23 know how -- I don't know that they'd use that much if you 24 had a car wash. But -- Larry? 25 MR. RICHTER: I think once you were to do 72 1 your profile and get U.G.R.A., your on-site septic facility, 2 to rate it -- and I'll give you an example. Village West 3 Industrial Park, located right off of Highway 27 West. 4 Two-thirds of that platted subdivision is inside the City 5 limits of Kerrville, but it never has been served with sewer 6 or city water. But, when that was platted, the government 7 entity that really covered some of the things you're talking 8 about here, you're -- you were rated by U.G.R.A. as no 9 greater than 500 gallons consumption per day. And, if you 10 look at the size of those lots and those commercial users, 11 you're probably looking at 250 gallons maximum consumption 12 per day. So, you have another entity there to regulate, 13 obviously, consumption of water and water that's going back 14 into the ground, and I don't think we'd be any different 15 going through what we're attempting here with the 16 restrictions and covenants and identifying the type of 17 commercial user. We're looking for that person that, 18 obviously, is not going to be consuming greater than 19 500 gallons a day. It just won't work on that size lot, per 20 their regs. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I mean, actually, 22 as to whether we can give a variance or not, I reread the 23 language about concept plans, and it doesn't say you can't 24 give a variance to a concept plan. It just doesn't say -- I 25 mean, the way I read it, our Subdivision Rules are -- it's 73 1 open on that point. I mean, I think we certainly have the 2 authority to give a variance if -- if we choose, or we can 3 just give a direction to the developer. I mean, I think, as 4 I understand it, that the development -- without the 5 variance, this development will not work from a commercial 6 standpoint. Therefore, I think it's appropriate for us to 7 give a variance on the concept plan for that one point only, 8 and then have them come back with a preliminary plat and 9 work on -- you know, work the rest of the details during the 10 preliminary platting process, like we would any other 11 subdivision. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I disagree with 13 you, Jon. I think the thing is designed to -- this -- this 14 part of the whole is to give them some ideas and for them to 15 go back, you know, and build a preliminary plat, and then we 16 make the decision whether there's a -- and it's just the way 17 I -- I view it. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That should work, too, 19 because you've got to go through the preliminary platting 20 process anyway. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anyway. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I think that I -- 23 not speaking for everybody on the Court, but I think you can 24 see the sense of the Court is that we will grant a variance 25 at the time of the -- of the presentation of the preliminary 74 1 plat if everything else is -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- is ready to go. 4 So, I don't see any reason that we wouldn't, is what I'm 5 saying at this point. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Will this require a drainage 8 study? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's up to Franklin. I 10 mean, every subdivision requires drainage studies. Details 11 of it is deferred to -- 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I just gave them -- marked up 13 a set of the plat and pointed out all those items in the 14 rules that we need to look at. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Drainage, runoff. 17 MR. RICHTER: Once again, I think our 18 concerns -- the developer's -- is exactly what you're about, 19 I believe, to talk about, is the interpretation of the 20 rules. Basically, 5.01.D identifies surface water as your 21 primary source of water to be allowed to plat a subdivision, 22 whether it be residential or commercial, on less than 23 5 acres. Groundwater being a source that we were looking at 24 through Aqua Source to supply this commercial subdivision 25 under that rule, the interpretation is somewhat confusing to 75 1 me. It just seemed like if -- the way it was worded, if we 2 acquired our water through a source that was approved by 3 T.N.R.C.C., and additionally, that our septic systems 4 complied with present rules and regs of Kerr County, then 5 we'd be allowed to subdivide our property in less than 6 5 acres. So, you know, it goes back to trying to keep the 7 horse before the cart. For our time and efforts and expense 8 to go through this, I think the developer's trying -- we're 9 trying to get a clear interpretation of what it means and 10 how it will apply to us so we know exactly which direction 11 to go in. So, it appears, from what I'm hearing, that there 12 is somewhat of a consensus that the way the rules are 13 written, that commercially, we -- it affects commercial 14 greatly. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what you would -- 16 what you're hearing, Larry, is that the sense of the Court 17 is that the Court isn't disposed towards a variance for this 18 particular project with regard to the 5-acre rule. Doesn't 19 extend any further than that. 20 MR. RICHTER: Right. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not a variance generically 22 for commercial, not a variance generically for anything. If 23 you brought a specific project to us, and it's a project, I 24 think, that looks attractive, we are disposed, I believe, as 25 a consensus, towards a variance from the 5-acre rule. 76 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- and just a 2 little bit of follow-up on that. And I've talked with some 3 other counties on commercial/residential, and other counties 4 do have different rules for commercial versus residential, 5 and I think it's something that we need to look at. And, 6 you know, hopefully in the next month or so, we will have a 7 revision to clean up a few errors and possibly clean up the 8 language in 5.01.D and E. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, D and E. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There seems to be some 11 confusion the way it's worded right now, but I think that 12 the -- you know, we need to specifically have an area for 13 commercial development in our Subdivision Rules, and that 14 may be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but I think that 15 there should be, you know, at least a specific paragraph for 16 that. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One thing that would 18 help, too, is I would like to see when you get your deed 19 restrictions written up. 20 MR. RICHTER: Copy? 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd like to have a 22 copy of that. In fact, if we could have it at the time of 23 the preliminary plat approval, that would be very helpful. 24 And we might -- 25 MR. JENSCHKE: I've already got a rough 77 1 draft. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 3 MR. JENSCHKE: And I can fax them over to you 4 or, you know, whatever. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I think -- 6 well, at the time of the preliminary plat would be early 7 enough, because -- 'cause then we can see how that plays 8 with the concept, the way you've got it and all that. And 9 that might help us in generating -- in developing rules that 10 would cover commercial properties. 11 MR. JENSCHKE: Sure. Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Be very helpful. Is 13 there anything we need to do at this point, then? 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think so. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't think so, but 16 I think you can see when you come back with a preliminary 17 plat, we'll consider the variance at that time on the lot 18 size. 19 (Discussion off the record.) 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- you know, 21 whether we go under 5.01.G, which is other developments, or 22 just -- it would probably be cleaner to request a variance 23 to 5.01.D and E. 24 MR. RICHTER: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because that's where the 78 1 acreage limitation exactly is. But I would -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Until we add a 3 commercial paragraph. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Until we write a 5 commercial paragraph. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? If not, let's 9 take ten and we'll be back at quarter till 11:00 and we'll 10 take up Item 17 right off the bat. 11 (Recess taken from 10:35 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. It is 10:45 on Monday, 14 April 9th, and we will reconvene this regular session of the 15 Kerr County Commissioners Court. Next item we are going to 16 take up, per our announcement before the break, is Item 17 Number 17, consider and discuss clarification of Section 18 5.01.E of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 19 Commissioner Baldwin. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. I want to 21 go back to 5.01.D first, and we all understand that that is 22 our 5-acre rule, unless surface water is a primary source of 23 water for the subdivision. And then we go down to 5.01.E; 24 particularly, in my opinion, Number 2. It -- first of all, 25 I've -- last week I got a couple of calls from two 79 1 developers and one lawyer, so -- and it really started 2 triggering my thinking. And, if I was a -- if I was a 3 developer and I was looking through these rules, I would go 4 to 5.01.E and I'd see right there, it says "lot size." 5 That's where I would go automatically. I wouldn't -- I 6 wouldn't at that moment be concerned about water 7 availability -- availability requirements, et cetera. I'm 8 concerned about the lot sizes. So, I start reading 5.01.E, 9 and Number 2 says there is no acreage limitations for lots 10 served by community or public water. And 3 says no acreage 11 limitation for lots served by community or public water. 12 I -- I guess it's -- you know, to me, if -- 13 if there is going to be -- I mean, it's -- I understand 14 how -- what it's about and how it works with the surface 15 water, et cetera, but I don't think that a developer just 16 moving into town or any -- really, anybody could be -- we 17 could expect them to cipher through it all and figure it all 18 out. And I'm sure that there's a reasonable solution to it. 19 You may want to -- Jon, did we talk about adding the 20 verbiage down through there, like in 1, 2 and 3, adding the 21 words, "unless surface water"? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did. And, I mean, we 23 tried to make it, you know, less verbiage and simpler by 24 saying the first sentence of lot size -- the minimum lot 25 size is as follows, subject to Section 5.01.D above. I 80 1 mean, you can't get much clearer, but -- in my mind. But, 2 the -- the way to get around it -- 'cause I can see your 3 point, that, you know, people don't like to read, I guess, 4 that go -- if I'm looking at lot size, I don't want to read 5 the paragraph and go to the numbers and read that, and it's 6 confusing. But, I mean, it's -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What if we had -- 8 Jonathan, I'm sorry to interrupt, but what if we just 9 combined, in essence, what's in D and E into one paragraph? 10 Because I think that's part of the problem, is just the 11 format for it. If we had one paragraph that says lot sizes, 12 and then what's -- then 5.01.D sort of becomes, maybe -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paragraph A? 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- Paragraph A or 15 something. I think if we format it -- because I think I -- 16 I'm very much like Commissioner Baldwin. I look at that and 17 I say, "Gee, lot size says I don't have any acreage 18 limitation if I got community water." 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I think 20 we -- I -- we certainly can do that, but I don't think 21 that's going to solve the problem just by formatting. I 22 think we have to change the verbiage somewhere, because if 23 you -- if you reformat, you're going to end up with the same 24 thing; going to look at the Number 2 and say -- 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. We're talking 81 1 about some changes with some caveats about surface water and 2 that sort of stuff. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought I recalled, 4 in our earlier discussions on this, that when we set the 5 5-acre lot limitation for individual water well and septics, 6 obviously, although it doesn't say that, we also talked 7 about reduced acreage for situations where you had public 8 water, but O.S.S.F., and then even further reduced size 9 where you had both public water and public wastewater 10 collection. Seems to me I recall that we talked about 11 5 acres, 2 and a half acres, and no limitation on the latter 12 when you had both public water supply and public wastewater 13 collection. This doesn't reflect that. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We changed that. The 16 reason we changed it was we tried to give flexibility, that 17 if they were going -- if the new -- if the septic rules 18 allowed them to go on any spacing they wanted, it would give 19 developers a lot more flexibility to not put that 2 and a 20 half acre limit on there from an infrastructure standpoint. 21 They could put their houses in a -- you know, on one street, 22 on half-acre lots if they wanted. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We talked about 24 clustering lots. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, clustering, and 82 1 then leave everything else as a greenbelt. The reason the 2 change was made was to try to give developers more 3 flexibility. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But clustering does 5 take into consideration the total of sum of the parts. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twenty-five acres 8 divided by 10 gives you 10 lots on 2 and a half acres. You 9 have them on smaller lots, but you've left the rest of it 10 green or park land or whatever. So, clustering takes into 11 consideration -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- these things. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but it -- but if 15 you go with 2 and a half acres, you're -- you need to change 16 the whole water availability requirements, if you're using 17 groundwater. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, we started from the 19 point of view that you need 5 acres to recharge the average 20 household use, so we said, Okay, we can it do one of two 21 ways. We can stamp out 5-acre lots throughout the county, 22 or if you're going to have a community water system, where 23 you're not poking a straw in the ground every 5 acres, we'd 24 allow to you cluster them, to do something creative, so long 25 as you have enough acres in your subdivision to recharge the 83 1 whole subdivision on the typical residential use. We 2 offered the flexibility to the developers -- 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Average. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- in that way. Exactly. It 5 could be a -- just so long as the total divided by five is 6 the number of lots. You can have a half acre, you can have 7 quarter-acre lots. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: So long as they meet all the 10 other rules. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's good -- 12 from the O.S.S.F. point of view, that is good, because the 13 O.S.S.F. rule, the way it's written, it's objective -- I 14 mean, it's an objective rule. It's not subjective. If you 15 can't -- you can go to the book, and you characterize the 16 soil and you find out what it can be loaded to per day, and 17 that tells you whether or not you -- number one, whether you 18 can put any kind of system, but it also says whether you got 19 to have an alternate kind of system, aerobic or low-pressure 20 dosing or whatever it may be. You really don't need a -- 21 any further restriction on lot sizes because of O.S.S.F. 22 You need it because of water. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. That's why we 25 couched them the way we did. 84 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the reason this 2 is the way it is. I think, though, with a little bit of 3 reformatting and some rewording, we can make that much 4 clearer than it is, and the way it's done now. And, this 5 is -- and, we can do that. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would probably 7 recommend, also, to make it clearer to the public, to put an 8 acreage limit back under both 2 and 3, rather than -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so too. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even if it's 1 acre or a 11 half acre, just because I think when you say no acreage 12 limitation, I think it's confusing to people. And if you 13 put a limit in there, even if it's, like I say, half an acre 14 or 1 acre, it would help on that point. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That might be the 16 answer. That might be the answer; put a number there. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other part of it 18 is -- and this is the other area of -- I'm just bringing 19 this up from a -- I get probably as many developers -- 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Just -- but let's be clear 21 that the 2 and a half or the 1, if we put that back in, 22 still comes within the umbrella of the 5. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, on the average. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: So it doesn't eliminate the 85 1 5; it just allows some more guidance. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Clustering. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Now, on the -- on 4 the issue of the 5 acres -- or the surface water issue 5 really is the issue. I get beat up pretty regularly by 6 developers on that point, is that they look at that and go, 7 Well, that's not -- you can't do that in this -- in the 8 county right now. And they're right. There's not any water 9 system -- the only person who has a water system using 10 surface water is the City of Kerrville, so that is a useless 11 provision to the developers right now, and I don't know if 12 we want to -- you know, I guess one thing that could be done 13 if we wanted to -- this is going back to the other direction 14 a little bit -- is to have a -- to have a lower limit in 15 your underwater system. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it looked 17 forward -- it was a forward-looking situation -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- situation, in that 20 there has long been talk that U.G.R.A. would use some of its 21 water rights and operate a water system for surface -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In other words, 24 looking at this potential out there. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: U.G.R.A. has to, because the 86 1 water rights they hold -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I know. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- are -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For outside the city. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- only for sale outside the 6 city of Kerrville, and they lose those in 2010, I think it 7 is, if they don't have these contracts in place. So -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's 9 forward-looking, but it's so forward-looking that it's not 10 usable, you know, from a current standpoint. I'm just 11 wondering if it's -- you know, it's adding verbiage that 12 can't be met. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it may be better, 15 almost, to -- just to leave it under the water availability, 16 if we want to leave that 5 acres for everybody, 5-acre 17 average, to delete the surface water language and just say 18 this is the way it is, 5 acres, and then put it under the 19 water availability requirement, the intent behind it, just 20 so that it's clear. Because right now, it's -- all I do is 21 get yelled at: "That's a stupid rule; you can't do it. It 22 can't be met." 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: It can't be met in the sense 24 that you can't go out and tie onto someone, but 25 theoretically, a developer with a large enough development 87 1 could go and acquire surface water rights -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- and do their own treatment 4 plant. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's at least theoretically 7 possible. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or another way we could 9 handle it is put it under a separate heading here. If a 10 developer has surface water -- if the developer figures out 11 a way to use surface water, those cases will be handled on a 12 case-by-case situation. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Make that the key 14 thing. Put it in a positive way and just say, if surface 15 water is used for development, that there are no 16 restrictions. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it is positive 18 now. It says that these are the rules for 5 acres and water 19 availability, unless surface water is available. If it's 20 not available, it's not available. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be 22 clearer to put it in a separate paragraph so it's not 23 confusing lot sizes right now, because it's really -- I 24 think lots of developers have looked at it and -- and they 25 don't know. Also, I mean, the reality is -- or the -- the 88 1 developers probably know, but the public doesn't know where 2 their water comes from, a lot of it. It would be nice if 3 they did. Who does it come from? Aqua Source. They don't 4 know where Aqua Source gets their water. So, I think it 5 would be -- maybe leave it in there as a subparagraph, but 6 not have it in with the lot size. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't have any problem with 8 that. I think it's good qualification. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and, you know, 10 it -- regardless of where we put all those things -- and I 11 agree with what you're saying, doing all those things. 12 These words right here, "no acreage limitation for lots 13 served by public water," I mean, that -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all you see. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that's not -- just 16 not true. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it is true if you 18 read the whole paragraph. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's -- and that's 20 what we need fixed. We can make that clearer so that 21 it's -- we don't jump at that. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll just get it -- it 23 will be very redundant. Well, but we'll make it redundant 24 so that it's -- you can't pick out a section of a paragraph 25 and say, "Oh, I can do this." One of the things you can't 89 1 do. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could write it to 3 where even a lawyer would understand it, you mean? 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We made it too simple. 6 Made it too simple for them, see. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else on that 9 one? 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we've got a 11 comment from the -- 12 MR. RICHTER: Does the Court have a 13 definition of what is surface water? 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: T.N.R.C.C. defines -- Water 15 Code defines what surface water is. It's water from a flow 16 or stream. 17 MR. RICHTER: That would be our definition? 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 19 MR. RICHTER: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You can't pump it out 21 of the ground into a stock tank and say it's surface water. 22 That wouldn't work. 23 (Laughter.) 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try, though. 25 MR. RICHTER: Darn. 90 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll try to get this 2 either by our next meeting or the meeting after that, some 3 new language, and I'll present it to the Court, and if the 4 Court likes it, we'll set a public hearing to revise this. 5 And there's a couple further changes under Section 5. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Since there's an 7 O.S.S.F. piece in there, I'll be glad to help you on that, 8 just to make sure we don't cross -- get crossways with 9 O.S.S.F. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, 12 Commissioner. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Item Number 15, 14 consider and discuss authorization to purchase two printers 15 from unexpended Ballot Expense line item, transferring 16 $3,200 from 10-402-210 to Capital Outlay, line item 17 10-403-570. Ms. Pieper? 18 MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, I have two printers 19 that have gone down. One of them is -- we've already had it 20 sent in for repairs a couple of times, but I -- it's just 21 getting too much use, so we have to use the -- two of the 22 printers from our election machines. But I've got three 23 elections coming up, and I've got to start preparing for 24 that and I need to replace the printers that we're using and 25 put our other printers back on my election machines. And 91 1 these printers that we're using from the election machines 2 are the Okidata 320. I'm kind of worried if we don't hurry 3 and replace them, with the large volume that's going 4 through, it's not going to be able to handle it much longer. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Dot matrix printers, 6 aren't they? 7 MS. PIEPER: Yes, they are. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They're dot matrix 9 printers, and that's quite true. You know, they are very 10 load-dependent on wear and tear. What kind are the two that 11 we would get for $3,200? 12 MS. PIEPER: Heavy duty laser printers. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Those are heavy duty 14 laser printers? 15 MS. PIEPER: Yes. They -- one printer would 16 be -- would go into the County Court at Law. Of course, 17 that printer goes eight hours a day in there. The other 18 printer would serve the front section of the office, which 19 is my bookkeeper, my Commissioners Court, my Vital 20 Statistics. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion 23 that we approve the request as submitted. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 92 1 Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 2 amend the Capital Outlay list for County Clerk to include 3 two printers, and that the Court transfer $3,200 from Ballot 4 Expense line item to the Capital Outlay line item for the 5 purpose of purchase of such printers. Any questions or 6 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 11 MS. PIEPER: Thank you. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Jannett. Item 13 Number 16, consider and discuss County Government Week, 14 April 23rd through April 27th. Ms. Sovil. 15 MS. SOVIL: Thank you. I'm sorry we've lost 16 our crowd. I was hoping we'd have a whole bunch of people 17 at least interested. You have in front of you an agenda, 18 kind of a temporary schedule. I think it's pretty well 19 self-explanatory. I need to add a couple of things. The 20 shadow officials, at 9 o'clock the Judge will do a 21 welcoming. We will have a presentation of colors. We will 22 have a -- I think it's a ride-by first, and then a 23 presentation of colors by the Hill Country Mounted Posse, 24 and they have agreed to it. They'll be here at 9:00 to do 25 that. The Holt Machinery people are bringing some 93 1 horse-drawn equipment -- road equipment to have on display 2 for us. I need to ask everyone to remind their employees to 3 please park behind Grimes Funeral Home that day. We've made 4 those arrangements, and he's graciously told us we could use 5 that parking lot that day. And, the demonstrations, each 6 one of these will have demonstrations going on at 10:00 and 7 1:00. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only question I have is, 9 the last sentence, They will miss their lunch; we ask that 10 each of you provide them with lunch. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Did we get a -- 12 did we get a volunteer to do some cooking? 13 MS. SOVIL: Yes, I did. The ladies that are 14 doing -- 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What we're being asked 16 for is a little financial contribution for the hot dogs and 17 stuff for the kids. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's good. That 20 was my question. I was hoping it would be something like 21 that. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Along with the public. 23 MS. SOVIL: Right. The ladies that do the 24 Dutch Oven cooking have offered to do the cooking, and then 25 they'll -- the kids can just go out there, and part of the 94 1 demonstration will be their lunch. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's going to be a 4 fascinating day on the 27th. 5 MS. PIEPER: Can we involve the County 6 employees in this? Is this -- would that be a good idea? 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure. 8 MS. PIEPER: The county -- you know. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure, I would hope so. 10 MS. SOVIL: Money will get us involvement 11 into anything. 12 (Laughter.) 13 MS. PIEPER: We can -- I mean, for hot dogs 14 and chips or something. It wouldn't take that much to do 15 hot dogs to feed a couple people. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've only got 16 kids 18 to feed. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would encourage all 20 elected officials and department heads to have their 21 employees go out, and so -- I mean, we want people out 22 there. The more people you get, the more -- it kind of -- 23 it builds on itself. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Are you saying kind of 25 chum the audience? Of course -- 95 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Each department has been 2 asked to do a display which explains what they've done and 3 some historical stuff, and that will be throughout the week, 4 as well as on Heritage Day. 5 MS. SOVIL: The Historical Commission is 6 going to have a display here also to bring, you know, 7 Kerr -- what Kerr County is, how it was started, the 8 different things, you know. We're not the first. We have 9 to honor our predecessors and remember they have done a lot 10 for us also. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that the 12 County Progress Magazine, which is the statewide county 13 government magazine, is interested in running photos and an 14 article. 15 MS. SOVIL: Exactly. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which, by the way, 17 next month we'll have two articles in there about Kerr 18 County. 19 MS. SOVIL: I'm looking forward to it. I 20 think it's going to be an exciting day and week. You know, 21 we want you all to participate during the full week. You 22 know that people will be in and out all week long to check 23 our displays. We'll put out a display. Commissioners Court 24 does a -- oh, the budget book and different items that we 25 are involved in. We'll put out a little display, and I have 96 1 that book, you know, that says county government -- some of 2 you used it when you were running for office. It tells you 3 what you can do and what you can't do. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mostly what we can't 5 do. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: We may need to look at that 7 again one of these days. We may -- do you think we ought to 8 have a Commissioners Court meeting that morning? 9 MS. SOVIL: I think it would be really 10 clever -- 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Heritage Day, and let the 12 kids participate. 13 MS. SOVIL: I think it would be really clever 14 if -- you know, it will be a way to interest your kids, 15 unless y'all are planning on driving them around your part 16 of the precincts. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a good idea. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll sponsor a 19 resolution that, you know, it's -- all kids under a certain 20 age in Kerr County get a free Snickers or something. Then 21 you'll be -- you'll have constituents for life. You know, 22 start them in the 4th grade. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably, if we did have 24 a Commissioners Court that morning, real brief, you know, do 25 a resolution welcoming them here. Then, you know, have that 97 1 be it. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want my little 3 student up here with me. 4 MS. SOVIL: Yeah, exactly. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Absolutely. 6 MS. PIEPER: We could probably put little 7 chairs -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Little chairs. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Big chairs so they can 10 see. 11 MS. SOVIL: Now, I need a commitment of funds 12 for the lunch. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I was 14 going to ask about. Now, each one of us are going to kick 15 in some money to buy lunch for the whole thing for the -- 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for young people's 18 lunch? 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sixteen people. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sixteen people. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two packs of hot dogs. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Package of hot dogs 23 and some -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got my $2. Do I 25 have any change? 98 1 MS. SOVIL: I was thinking $5 apiece, and 2 that would kind of buy your -- 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Those kids are hungry. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's to help feed 5 my kid. Since I won't be here, he's going to have another 6 hot dog. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: These kids are from 8 Hunt. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell them to eat 10 before they come. 11 MS. SOVIL: But I think $5 a person. If the 12 employees want to go for it, then we can maybe drop it down 13 to about $3, but I think -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We'll need to buy some 15 drinks and things, too. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe make some brownies 17 or cookies. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The employees could 19 maybe make some -- 20 MS. PIEPER: Desserts. Cookies, brownies. 21 MS. SOVIL: I'm really looking forward to it. 22 I think it'll be a fun week. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can eat what's 24 left. 25 MS. SOVIL: Oh, and everyone will be 99 1 dressed -- the ladies are all going to wear long skirts here 2 in the courthouse. If you gentlemen would wear jeans and a 3 string tie and boots and that kind of thing. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about coveralls? 5 MS. SOVIL: If that's what you want to 6 represent your portion of the county with is overalls, go 7 for it. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thea, don't get cute. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? It's going to 11 be a good day. Thanks, Thea. Item Number 18, consider and 12 discuss budget amendment request to increase Capital Outlay 13 expenditures to purchase a computer for Commissioner, 14 Precinct 1. Commissioner, Precinct 1. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. As you 16 know, the computer and printer in my office is owned by the 17 South Texas Judges and Commissioners Association, and I am 18 in the process of closing down my presidency. In the next 19 couple weeks -- about two weeks from now, I'm going to 20 Corpus to turn over all -- all finances, all computers, all 21 bookshelves and all those things that I have to the next 22 president. And, believe it or not, I did not plan for this 23 and didn't see it coming when we were doing the budget last 24 year, so I would like to purchase a computer and printer for 25 Commissioner Precinct 1's office. And, as you see in the 100 1 request form here, there -- I'd assume that a computer and 2 printer is around $1,500. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think mine was a 4 little less than that, but close. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That will buy lunch 6 for those kids, then, if we go over a little bit here. And 7 my conferences, I think I've spent $70 out of it and will 8 not spend any more, because the Association picks up all my 9 travel and hotels and meals and all those things. So, I'm 10 going to have that 600-some-odd dollars -- $664 left over 11 from our conferences. And then, as you know, the First 12 Responder program, we've been holding out those payments. 13 There will be a total of three. There is two payments right 14 here, I think, of $836. I wanted to transfer those two into 15 the Capital Outlay line item for the purchase of a computer 16 and printer, which is not a -- it's a one-time pop. It's 17 not included -- not increasing the budget next year in any 18 way, and it's a fixed asset for the Commissioners Court. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions or comments? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 23 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 24 approve amending the Capital Outlay for Commissioners Court 25 to include a computer and a printer for Commissioner, 101 1 Precinct 1, and transfer $664 from Commissioners Court 2 conferences and $836 from First Responders to Capital Outlay 3 line item for purchase of said items. Any questions or 4 comments? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is that 6 it should be a budgeted item, and as I have voted against 7 Commissioner Williams' purchase of his computer this year, 8 I'll also vote against the purchase of the computer for 9 Commissioner Baldwin. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one other 11 comment. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you hear all those 13 nice things I was saying about him this morning? I take 14 them all back. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you're planning to 16 get a set of speakers with yours, I didn't have speakers 17 with mine. You better find room to get another set of 18 speakers. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further pertinent 20 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 21 right hand. 22 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Griffin indicated by raised hand that they were in 23 favor of the motion.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 102 1 (Commissioner Letz indicated verbaly and by raised hand that he was opposed to the 2 motion.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries 3 to 1. 4 Sheriff? We don't typically allow nattering during our 5 meetings. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had to because of the 7 bids, Your Honor. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you -- do you have a 9 recommendation to us at this time? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I do. The -- when 11 you break down the bids to actual unit cost, Custom Signal 12 is the one that came in with the lowest bid at $3,635 per 13 unit, but they do have one of their others that they put in 14 here on an alternative bid, and it's Alternative Bid Number 15 3, which is $3,930 per unit. And, the biggest difference in 16 that is the security case that the main equipment -- the 17 recording equipment comes in in their bid, Alternative Bid 18 Number 3, is a stainless steel vault, environmentally 19 controlled, tamper-proof, fireproof, half-inch layer 20 durablanket, and bullet-resistant. It has a double layer of 21 Teflon, and so that is just about -- no matter what happens, 22 at least the tape recording would be protected, which the 23 other bids do not offer in what they specified. But, doing 24 the $3,930 per unit, the O S.S.I. actually has a lower bid 25 of the $3,717, but it does not give that -- that vault 103 1 security on it. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Was the vault a part of the 3 bid specifications? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, it was not in the 5 specifications. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So we have to give the 7 other person an opportunity to match it? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and then there's 9 also the other bid from Law Enforcement Specialty came in at 10 $3,900, which would be $30 lower. I have just talked to 11 both of these companies, the presidents of the companies, 12 the ones we've been dealing with, and told them that I would 13 rather award the bid to Custom for the security vault that 14 they're proposing, and advised them, per the County 15 Attorney, Local Government Code, that they had an 16 opportunity if they wished to come in and protest that, and 17 both of them informed me that there would be no protest on 18 it. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: We still have to go through 20 the -- do we still have to go through the hoops, or are we 21 covered, Travis? 22 MR. LUCAS: Well, I think we're covered. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 24 MR. LUCAS: I really do. Just because he's, 25 you know, contacted them, they know that they have the right 104 1 to come in here, and they choose not to do that. So, I 2 think we're okay. Any discussion? Do y'all have any 3 questions? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question, I guess, is 5 that, I mean, it's -- there's no documentation; that if they 6 were to come back later and challenge us, basically, he 7 said -- you know. 8 MR. LUCAS: Well -- 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, the only other 10 thing -- and I'll do this, 'cause it may be something the 11 Court -- if you went to the same thing, okay, that all the 12 other ones did, it -- the lowest bid would -- the actual 13 lowest bid would still be Custom. Okay? Same company. 14 This is just Alternative Number 3. But the actual lowest 15 bid, per those specs that we sent out, would still be 16 Custom's at $3,635 per unit, compared to the $3,717, I 17 think, of -- of -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, technically, they 19 are the low bidder? 20 MR. LUCAS: Yes, that's right. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Can we accept the low bid and 22 then authorize -- 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Authorize the Sheriff 24 to -- 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the Sheriff to purchase 105 1 the additional equipment? 2 MR. LUCAS: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To negotiate a buy 4 from the low bidder. That's all you have to do, and the 5 State regs allow that. 6 MR. LUCAS: Let me answer your question. 7 There's nothing that says it has to be written or oral. 8 It's smart to do written. Remember, last time we had 9 Commissioners Court, we had, I believe, the engineer come in 10 here when we had those massive amount of bids for road 11 materials, and he did not -- or you guys did not accept 12 the -- the lowest. He never sent out a written memo. And, 13 so, I did a lot of research looking at A.G. opinions, case 14 law, and even conferences with TAC, legal counsel, and, 15 Bexar County purchasing agents, and we were all in agreement 16 that there's nothing that says, technically, you should have 17 something in writing. Smart to -- it's a good thing to do. 18 What I've counseled Rusty is to write a memorial -- or 19 memorialize the discussion he had with all of these entities 20 within the last half hour, send that to them, you know, get 21 it checked off and everything like that. And -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's a good 23 idea. I'm not -- but we can couch our acceptance to say 24 that we will accept and approve purchase from the low 25 bidder. 106 1 MR. LUCAS: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And authorize the 3 Sheriff to negotiate a final -- the final terms of the buy. 4 If that means upgrading, downgrading, whatever, we're 5 awarding to the low bidder. 6 MR. LUCAS: That's fine. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's how I move. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 11 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 12 authorize the Sheriff to -- or the Court to accept the low 13 bid from Control -- 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Custom Signals, 15 Incorporated. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Custom Signals, Incorporated, 17 and authorize the Sheriff to negotiate the purchase of the 18 equipment from such low bidder. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. And that's at 20 the -- $3,635 is the low bid price per unit. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: And you can negotiate the 22 upgrade. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in 23 favor, raise your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 107 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. For the 3 record, that was Item Number 14, which is consider and 4 discuss accepting and awarding bids for video cameras for 5 patrol cars. The remaining item is Item -- 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your Honor, just to 7 clear up something, since there were -- was such a variety 8 of prices that went from $78,000 to 120-something thousand, 9 one of the big differences in why, when I looked at the 10 bids, I went back down to the unit price, because some were 11 bidding for 20 units, some 25, some 23. So, I broke them 12 down and just looked at the unit price and covered the big 13 differences. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Remaining item is Item Number 17 20, which is consider and discuss approval of response to 18 T.N.R.C.C. regarding Mooney Aircraft wastewater permit 19 renewal. You have in your packet a letter and corresponding 20 materials that the City is proposing to send to T.N.R.C.C. 21 in response to a permit renewal request for Mooney Aircraft. 22 I met with the City in their capacity as the -- well, I met 23 with Mr. Motley and Mr. Lucas and the City people in their 24 capacity as manager of the airport to discuss our common 25 response to Mooney Aircraft's request to renew their 108 1 industrial wastewater permit. This is the result of that 2 conference. This situation is difficult, in that Mooney 3 Aircraft is a respected member of our community and has been 4 for many years, and in many ways Kerrville is associated 5 with Mooney Aircraft. At the same time, we cannot be -- 6 cannot close our eyes to any environmental problems and the 7 need to upgrade Mooney's facilities. Back in 1998, Mooney 8 did commit to hook up to the city if they ran a sewer line 9 out there. Sewer line's been there since spring of 1999, 10 and Mooney has not yet taken the steps necessary to hook up 11 to the city. The permit that Mooney has requested would be 12 renewed until the year 2005, and would not call for testing 13 of their retention pond and line or system until after the 14 permit was renewed, which is getting hard before us, I 15 believe. So, we have taken the step of drafting this 16 letter, which raises concerns and questions to T.N.R.C.C. in 17 response to their notice of the Mooney renewal request. 18 This item is also going to be on the City Council agenda 19 tomorrow evening. Any questions? 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, in fact, I have, 21 through the -- inferred through the Airport Board that -- 22 that Chris Dopp, the new president of the company, is 23 working hard to try to get this done. I mean, and they've 24 got -- internally, they've got some issues that they've got 25 to get resolved. I know that they -- they want to get 109 1 hooked up. The question is -- is going back, you know, 2 since this was supposed to have been done in '98, whatever, 3 we're sort of cleaning up the mess, literally, and the 4 paperwork. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why -- if Mooney is 6 trying to get hooked up, why are they going for a 5-year 7 permit? 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Money. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, they -- our impression 10 is they really were trying to get hooked up until this whole 11 issue came up, because of the funding issue. And, the City 12 -- the City has the ordinance in place which requires them 13 to hook up within a year, and they have put Mooney on notice 14 of the fact that they intend to enforce that ordinance. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think we need 16 to do what we need to do, within reason, to get them to hook 17 up. If they need a little bit of time, I don't have a 18 problem with granting them a year or something like that. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'd certainly work with 20 them. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I make a motion we 22 approve the response as submitted. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 25 Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 110 1 approve the response to T.N.R.C.C. regarding Mooney Aircraft 2 wastewater permit renewal. Any further questions or 3 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have 8 anything else? If not, we stand adjourned. Good meeting. 9 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:23 a.m.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 16th day of April, 8 2001. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25