1 2 3 4 5 6 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 7 Workshop 8 Monday, June 16, 2003 9 10:00 a.m. 10 Commissioners' Courtroom 11 Kerr County Courthouse 12 Kerrville, Texas 13 14 15 16 O.S.S.F. Committee Status Report 17 Subdivision Rules Update 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., a workshop of 2 the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me call to order 7 the workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court posted 8 for this date at 10 a.m. It's a couple minutes after 10:00, 9 so we'll go ahead and commence. If there is no objection, 10 I'm going to take these out of order and do the O.S.S.F. 11 portion first, since it appears that the vast majority of 12 those that have elected to join us today are interested in 13 that issue, as opposed to the other one. Is there any 14 objection from anybody on the Court? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not here, sir. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we will take up the 17 workshop portion to review and discuss status report of the 18 Court-appointed O.S.S.F. Committee. That committee was 19 comprised of Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, and I'll now 20 surrender to them. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'll go ahead and 22 lead off. And the Judge had mentioned half of the 23 committee. U.G.R.A. Board appointed two of their board 24 members onto the committee also; they are Ronnie Pace and 25 Jerry Ahrens. And then Stuart Barron and John Washburn from 6-16-03 wk 3 1 U.G.R.A. kind of advised when we asked for specific 2 information. The -- kind of the charge of the committee 3 from this Court was -- and I think from U.G.R.A. Board was 4 to try to come up with a set of rules that hopefully both 5 entities can agree to, and -- and at least a framework to 6 work within, and then also figure out how to administer 7 those rules, whether they were done by the County or by a 8 contracted agency with the County. And the whole time 9 remembering that in Kerr County right now, two entities are 10 the authorized agent. U.G.R.A. has or is the authorized 11 agent for an area 1,500 feet on either side of the Guadalupe 12 River and its tributaries. There is some debate as to how 13 far that goes. There's several different maps, and we 14 really chose not to go into that on the committee. I mean, 15 it's -- you know, it's -- you get into a debate that I don't 16 think would ever, hardly -- if we try to define where these 17 tributaries start and stop and things of that nature. 18 But, you know, clearly both entities have 19 responsibilities in Kerr County, and I don't think we really 20 -- Commissioner Nicholson and I can ask the Court, but our 21 feeling was that this Court is not going to give up our 22 authority. And I don't -- not sure if the two board members 23 from U.G.R.A. gave -- or asked their board, but their 24 feeling was that U.G.R.A. didn't want to give up their 25 authority. So -- and I think the reason is both agencies 6-16-03 wk 4 1 want input into O.S.S.F., and which leads into water quality 2 in the county. So, that's kind of, you know, the parameters 3 we worked in. And we've, I guess, met three or four times; 4 long, usually an hour to two-hour meetings, and very 5 productive. And we got to a point where the committee felt 6 that, before we went any further, we need to get back to 7 both of our bodies, 'cause we didn't have any authority to 8 really do anything, and kind of set up some status report as 9 to where we were to make sure we weren't way off base, and 10 that there was going to be support from the full Court, or 11 at least a majority of the Court and majority of the 12 U.G.R.A. Board. That's kind of where we got the -- where we 13 are. 14 And I think the easiest way -- I prepared 15 a -- and I apologize for not getting some of this 16 information out on this one and on subdivisions, but with 17 our administrative assistant's computer being on the blink 18 part of last week, and me being out of town the latter part 19 of the week and the weekend, we weren't able to communicate 20 by e-mail, so I was lost. But, anyway, we do have -- I do 21 have a handout for the Court, and we'd be glad to hand these 22 out. I don't know if I have enough for everyone in the 23 room, but just kind of a status report as to where we are. 24 Stuart, you haven't seen it? 25 MR. BARRON: No, sir. 6-16-03 wk 5 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thea, you might hand 2 these out and kind of spread them around. I'll go through 3 that and kind of discuss each one as we go. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are these 5 recommendations? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a -- it's more an 7 update of where we are. I would say it is a recommendation, 8 real close to a recommendation. I mean, the -- we were not 9 in full agreement on mainly just one point. And there's 10 several items that we're real close to full agreement, but 11 there's this -- you know, a little bit of difference, and 12 there's also some things that are very new for Kerr County 13 and that have -- will definitely have budgetary impact, and 14 for that reason, you know, we just wanted to get it to the 15 table while the budget process was working for both 16 agencies. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, you 18 mentioned the budget. Whenever you're ready, I have 19 prepared a spreadsheet on three categories of cost analysis 20 that you had asked for. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we went into the 22 cost -- good point; I'm glad you brought that up, 23 Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Williams is going to 24 look at the dollar side of it, what it would cost or what it 25 should cost to kind of run an O.S.S.F. program, looking into 6-16-03 wk 6 1 both U.G.R.A. and others around the state. We looked at 2 that very briefly just to get an idea as to where we were, 3 and it's in this handout. But let me -- you know, before -- 4 I'm going to go jump through here, but let me start at the 5 top, go through it, and kind of get an idea as to what we 6 came up with, basic points that we agreed on. And I will 7 say where there is full agreement or non-full agreement as 8 we go through this. 9 Real estate transfers. Some members of 10 U.G.R.A. weren't real happy, but I think everyone has agreed 11 to eliminate Section 10. The new rules will not have any 12 required inspections at real estate transfers. We would 13 create or recommend creation of a volunteer program where we 14 would recommend, basically through title companies, public 15 awareness, and realtors, to encourage people to get their 16 systems, at a real estate transfer, inspected. It's a good 17 time to do it; you can catch systems. But the -- it wasn't 18 -- the current system we have clearly, in my mind, isn't 19 working, and there's just not a good way to do it. In fact, 20 there's no way to do it without doing a totally invasive and 21 very costly method, and it was just -- it was felt that it's 22 better to try to do it on a voluntary basis, encourage 23 people to do it, but not require it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a side question 25 here. When you delete Section 10 -- if we delete Section 6-16-03 wk 7 1 10, does that require a public hearing? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, yes. My answer 3 would be yes, it would. And another thing, I see several 4 installers in the audience as well. We had one meeting when 5 we invited every installer that I think we were aware of to 6 come and participate and give us some feedback, and there 7 was no -- I would say that out of that group, there was no 8 clear direction as to where they felt we should go with 9 these rules, or any direction, for that matter. 10 Number two, public -- program administration. 11 I think we're -- the committee is leaning on leaving the 12 system -- or for the County to contract the system kind of 13 through U.G.R.A. But it's been a misnomer throughout that 14 our relationship is really with a U.G.R.A. employee. At the 15 current time, it's Stuart Barron, who's the Designated -- or 16 Designated Representative. So, we really focused a lot on 17 trying to clear up who reports to who a little bit, and I'll 18 just go through these. Closer communication between the 19 D.R. and Commissioners Court, probably more monthly or 20 quarterly updates as to kind of what's going on. All 21 communication from the D.R. would go on County letterhead, 22 not U.G.R.A. letterhead. All handouts and things of that 23 nature would be primarily County. I mean, some of these may 24 mention U.G.R.A., but it's going to be the County. We're 25 flipping -- it's currently U.G.R.A.'s letterhead; they're 6-16-03 wk 8 1 the main contact or agency, as noted, and we're going to 2 switch that to the County being the main agency. 3 Appeal process. We go -- and this is not -- 4 we were not unanimous on this point. I wrote on here, 5 "Appeal process direct from Designated Representative to the 6 Commissioners Court, with copy to U.G.R.A. Manager of the 7 appeal." There is some discussion to having that -- the 8 General Manager at U.G.R.A. first and then the Commissioners 9 Court, so that's something that we really need to think 10 about it a little bit, whether we want those to come 11 straight to us or, you know, have one appeal process 12 internally at U.G.R.A. My preference is to have it come 13 straight to us. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. A public awareness 16 campaign which stresses change in the process. And a lot of 17 this is -- you know, it's kind of a hard way to -- to put it 18 on paper, but a lot of the complaints I think I've heard and 19 Commissioner Nicholson's heard, and probably others, go a 20 lot into the way things were done at U.G.R.A. We really 21 don't want to waste a whole lot of time during the workshop 22 process and public hearing process going over things that 23 happened in the past. We need to move forward. We're 24 trying to create a -- a system that works better for the 25 public, that is fair to the public, and that the public has 6-16-03 wk 9 1 more confidence in. So, that's just in here, that we're 2 going to -- we really don't want to go back to what the D.R. 3 prior to Stuart did, what Stuart's done in the past. Let's 4 concentrate on how to set it up so we can improve it for the 5 future. 6 More emphasis on enforcement. That's a 7 double-edged sword; we have some budget consequences in 8 there. Try to figure out a way to coordinate with the Kerr 9 Appraisal District, and this ties in with the enforcement. 10 One of the problems in the past has been trying to figure 11 out what people are doing to their systems, and by -- under 12 current rules or current law, and I just may give an example 13 there. If someone goes in and adds two bedrooms to their 14 home, that system has to be brought up to current standards. 15 Whether it's a 100-year-old system or not, whether it's 16 working or not, that system has got to be brought up -- 17 Stuart, if I misstate some of these, please correct me. You 18 certainly know the rules better than I do. So, it's 19 something that -- the problem is that we don't know when 20 people are doing things, whether they're -- you know, any 21 size of acreage. And there's -- it seems to me that if we 22 can figure out a way to work with the Appraisal District, 23 they're going to pick up these larger homes from the taxable 24 value standpoint. If we can figure how to tie that in, 25 figure out how to do that, there's a way for us to -- you 6-16-03 wk 10 1 know, to basically insure compliance with the current rules. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when -- when 3 there's an addition on a home, and the Appraisal District 4 picks it up one time a year, once a year when they go out 5 and valuate their property, that is the only time that we're 6 going to be notified of it? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, and that's -- we're 8 not even sure -- I mean, it's not a great system, because 9 they're not always -- they don't always pick them up. But 10 it's better than nothing, I think. I mean, it's a way -- 11 it's a start. We need to start figuring out how to enforce 12 the rules we have. There are -- there's a lot of teeth in 13 our current -- just the current rules we have, but we just 14 don't have a way to enforce them, really, because we don't 15 know what people are doing. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems to me that 17 that -- that is a way to replace Section 10, possibly, or a 18 large part of it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is. That is -- it was 20 clearly thought that that is a -- I mean, and a lot of it is 21 public education. People -- we need to, as a Court or an 22 entity, explain to the public what the rule -- what the law 23 is, is that if they add on to their house, they have to 24 update their septic. You can't just go out and add on two 25 bedrooms and not do anything. That's just -- that's just 6-16-03 wk 11 1 current rules. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do y'all see that -- 3 that this one time a year that the Appraisal District goes 4 out -- is that enough? I mean, I -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just the only way 6 that we can figure out where there's some mechanism in place 7 that we could piggyback as to when things are being done for 8 real estate. That was kind of why we used the Appraisal 9 District. If there's -- we certainly would be, I think, 10 welcome to -- between that and the public awareness, to 11 figure out other ways. But, I mean, we have to have -- I 12 mean, we can't afford to have people just driving around the 13 county looking for people doing construction. I mean, that 14 doesn't work. I don't think we can afford that. Certainly, 15 if you see it, you may be able to, you know, find out whose 16 property it is and send them a letter and just notify them. 17 And also, on the whole enforcement side is to not be, you 18 know, heavy-handed. That is the idea, to be proactive. My 19 idea would be to send a letter out saying, you know, we 20 picked it up through the Appraisal District; we saw it on 21 the side of the road, you were doing something, you know. 22 Have you -- are you aware of the septic rules? We'd kind of 23 inform the public on it. 24 (H) under Program Administration is track all 25 permits between Kerr County and U.G.R.A. areas. Currently, 6-16-03 wk 12 1 U.G.R.A. and the Appraisal District, working together, have 2 the ability to determine by R numbers, at least on a tract 3 basis, whose area is it is, if it's the U.G.R.A.'s area of 4 authority or the County's area of authority. We want to 5 start tracking that, and the reason is for budget reasons 6 down the road. Do we start dividing things up actually, and 7 not just throwing out $30,000, saying, here, you know, this 8 is for the program administration. And then that goes -- 9 ties in with the next item, (I), program costs are shared 10 proportionately between Kerr County and U.G.R.A., and that's 11 based on where the -- the permits and the construction and 12 the work is being done. If 90 percent of the work is being 13 done in the County's area, then the County should be the one 14 responsible for 90 percent of the cost. If it's 90 percent 15 done in U.G.R.A.'s area, U.G.R.A. should be responsible for 16 90 percent of the cost. And that's why (I) would tie back 17 with (H) above, is to try to start keeping track as to where 18 the new permits are being done, inspections and things of 19 that nature. 20 Let's go on through, and then we can see if 21 -- what questions people may have. Number 3 is Financial 22 Assistance Fund. This is a -- it's create financial 23 assistance fund to assist hardship cases in repairing 24 nuisance O.S.S.F. systems and consider county grants, 25 low-interest loans, or other means. The problem -- the 6-16-03 wk 13 1 reason this came up is that we all know, and there are 2 well-documented situations in Kerr County of nuisance 3 systems, systems that are -- they're -- by any definition, 4 they're failing. They're open cesspools. There's raw 5 sewage on the surface. The -- and those are currently 6 pending down right now, I think, in the County Attorney's 7 system somewhere. The problem is, on most -- the reason 8 most of these systems aren't fixed is the people can't 9 afford to fix them. Putting the person in jail doesn't fix 10 the problem; it makes it worse, 'cause then they lose 11 revenue. So, the idea was that if we can come up with some 12 way to either give a partial grant to get it done, some sort 13 of low-interest, guaranteed loan, something of that nature, 14 that is -- the goal is to clean up the systems. 15 Now, I'm not a big proponent of free handouts 16 from government, but this is clearly a government good or 17 county good to clean up these systems that are clearly 18 failing. These aren't systems that aren't up to 19 standards -- I mean, the, quote, state standards. These are 20 truly failing systems. There are just, probably, based on 21 the -- I guess maybe 10 to 15 in the county, somewhere in 22 that area. It's not a huge number. But, you know, I think 23 the estimated cost is from $3,000 to $5,000 for a system to 24 be totally repaired. I mean, these systems really don't 25 exist, so you have to build a new system, so you're talking, 6-16-03 wk 14 1 you know, $5,000 or so, and that means a budget consequence. 2 And we don't -- we don't really have a way to pay for it. 3 We just think it's something that needs to be done, because 4 these people can't afford to do it. And that's -- and a lot 5 of this came from Stuart's communication with them, is that 6 it's not that they don't want to do it; they just don't have 7 the money. They don't have $5,000 to lay out for a new 8 system, and they can't -- can't borrow the money because of 9 their credit situation. So, it's a problem that we 10 identified, and I think U.G.R.A. and Dave and I agree that 11 we need to figure out how to address it, but we don't have a 12 good answer. 13 Number 5. This is one that was not 14 unanimous. There's -- you know, I'd say U.G.R.A. would -- 15 their two representatives probably thought -- ranking it, 16 thought it was the -- they liked this a lot, getting rid of 17 the 10-acre exemption. I'm somewhat on the fence. You 18 know, I see a lot of benefits to getting rid of it, and 19 Commissioner Nicholson stands a little bit further; he 20 doesn't probably think it's a good idea, but he thinks it 21 has merits. I've had many discussions with him on it, but 22 let me go over it a little bit, eliminating the 10-acre 23 exemption. And part of the reason that I am not opposed to 24 it, and I'm not necessarily in favor of it, is that I'm not 25 sure people understand it. And I think this clearly came 6-16-03 wk 15 1 from the -- when we had some of the installers there, their 2 opinion that it's not clearly understood all the time. And 3 I'm not sure -- Stuart, I might ask you to help a little bit 4 on this one. Do you have the handout? Do you have one? 5 MR. BARRON: The one that you gave out? Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will you make sure that I 7 cover the points on that? One of them, the requirements to 8 meet the 10-acre exemption, you can only have one O.S.S.F. 9 on the entire property, and it has to be a residence. Is 10 that correct? 11 MR. BARRON: You want me to just go through 12 all four? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't you just go 14 through all four? 15 MR. BARRON: Shall I address the Court? I'm 16 Stuart -- for the record, Stuart Barron with U.G.R.A. 17 The -- to meet the 10-acre exemption, you must meet four 18 criteria. You must have one habitable structure on the 19 property, and only one. It's got to be 10 acres or larger. 20 The septic system has to be more than 100 feet from any 21 property line. It cannot cause a nuisance condition, and it 22 must be built to minimum state standards. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I had a 100-acre 24 ranch and I have a residence and a -- a hunter's 25 cabin/guesthouse out there, I cannot have a separate system 6-16-03 wk 16 1 for my guesthouse? 2 MR. BARRON: No, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could have it, but 4 you're not exempt. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I 6 understand. Talking strictly exemption. 7 MR. BARRON: The only time this applies is -- 8 would be building on lots -- or tracts greater than 10 9 acres. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can my main house be 11 exempt, but my guesthouse has to be registered? 12 MR. BARRON: Yes. If -- if the guesthouse 13 isn't built -- if the main house is in place and then you 14 come back and build a house -- guest house, then the 15 guesthouse does not meet the exemption. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stuart, the items that I 17 had, I said in the comments, since everyone in the public 18 has this under Item 4, any and all repairs to current system 19 requires system to be brought up to state standards. It's 20 only major repairs, that should read; is that correct? If 21 you -- if you go in and repair your system, then you've got 22 to bring it up to the current rules, whether you're -- I 23 mean, whether it's 10 acres or not. 24 MR. BARRON: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then, on 5, any 6-16-03 wk 17 1 additions or remodeling of residence requires system to be 2 brought up to state standards. 3 MR. BARRON: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Stuart, when we had 5 the T.C.E.Q. septic expert up here from Austin, we 6 specifically asked him that question. Do -- if a system is 7 inspected, must it be brought up to current state standards? 8 And his answer was no. 9 MR. BARRON: If it is inspected, must it be 10 brought up to current state standards? I guess it depends 11 on why it's being inspected. What would the purpose in that 12 scenario be for inspecting it? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, currently, real 14 estate transfer would be one reason. 15 MR. BARRON: Yeah. If -- if it has not been 16 altered due to the -- increasing the size of the system or 17 the house, then no, it wouldn't have to be brought up to 18 state standards. Just 'cause it's inspected through the 19 real estate transfer, the way the real estate transfer is 20 written, no, it does not have to be. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For example, when 22 they're inspected now, if the -- if the septic tanks do not 23 have risers on them to extend up to within one foot of the 24 surface, the way we are administering it, you and I, is that 25 we're required to put these risers on there. And the state 6-16-03 wk 18 1 standards, at the time those systems were built, did not 2 require those risers, so we're misapplying that rule. And 3 I'm -- I might add, the riser doesn't have any impact on the 4 effectiveness of the system. 5 MR. BARRON: No, it does not have any impact 6 on the effectiveness of the system. However, when somebody 7 buys the house, we feel that they're not going to know 8 historically where the septic system was, and that's more of 9 our reason for putting a riser on there now. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But under this, though, 11 if have you a repair -- say you're -- I don't know what -- 12 you know, say a backhoe goes through and trencher cuts right 13 through your drain field. When that repair is -- when you 14 have that repaired, it has to be done to state standards at 15 that time? 16 MR. BARRON: Yes, sir. Any time it's 17 altered, amended, repaired, it has to be brought up to 18 today's standards. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's the thing that 20 I think that a lot of people and myself didn't understand, 21 is that -- I mean, the 10-acre exemption, all that does is 22 mean you do not go through the permitting process. I mean, 23 if you're -- either way, whether we have it or don't have 24 it, you're grandfathered, whatever you have out there. It 25 never has to be inspected. It's there forever, as long as 6-16-03 wk 19 1 it works. But if you add on to your house or have -- make a 2 repair to it, at that point it's got to be brought up to 3 state standards, and that's the case whether or not we have 4 this clause. I mean, if you build a new system, it has to 5 be within state standards, being our adopted standards. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I have an older 7 system -- grandfathered older system, and I sell my place, 8 and through the transfer policy here, we find out that I 9 don't have those risers on there that are new, and so you 10 require me then to go and put risers on it. So, I've 11 upgraded my system; therefore, the whole thing has to come 12 under compliance? 13 MR. BARRON: No, sir. Under these rules -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no transfer. 15 MR. BARRON: There's no transfer rule. It's 16 optional. You can do it if you want to. In your -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As of today, we're 18 still under the transfer. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 MR. BARRON: Yes. So, is this today's 21 scenario or in the future? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, under today's 23 transfer. If -- if I sell my place and it's -- and it's an 24 older system, but in my mind working well, and I don't have 25 those risers on there, and you -- and you go out and inspect 6-16-03 wk 20 1 them to see if there's risers and you say I've got to put 2 these risers on there, then the whole system automatically 3 has to be upgraded to today's standards? 4 MR. BARRON: No, it hasn't been altered. 5 What Commissioner Nicholson said, it's not a substantial 6 change in the system, and it doesn't affect the way the 7 system works. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that's not a major 9 repair? 10 MR. BARRON: Yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Might be a good time 12 for me to say why I don't support the elimination of the 13 10-acre exemption. It's basically two things. One, I don't 14 think there's any credible evidence that systems, even older 15 systems, that are on 10 acres or more out there are -- 16 there's any substantial risk that they're contaminating our 17 environment or harming their neighbors. And the second one 18 is simply an issue of cost to people in Kerr County; 19 unnecessary cost, in my belief, and more government. If -- 20 unless there's a convincing case that the environment's 21 being harmed, then I'm not -- I'm not supportive of 22 additional costs to the people that live on 10 acres or 23 more. And I'm not supportive of the -- of additional 24 government bureaucracy involved in it. So, that's my case. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's -- and the 6-16-03 wk 21 1 difference is, it's the government -- the County or the D.R. 2 or whoever's administering the program gets involved if you 3 eliminate it. What's done doesn't change. It's -- one's 4 kind of a -- the government is inspecting to make sure it's 5 done; the other one is people are at their word that it 6 should be done. If someone goes out on a -- you know, on a 7 tract and buys a virgin 100-acre tract, builds a house, they 8 don't have to get it inspected by the County, but they still 9 have to build it to the same exact standards that the County 10 would require. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's true. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, it's a 13 permitting issue, not a -- what should be on the ground. 14 You know, and I believe most people are honest; that's why I 15 don't have a real strong feeling one way or the other. I 16 think people are good and do what's, you know, right, unless 17 they're -- as long as they're told, you know. Those that 18 are out there that work with it -- I see two people shaking 19 their heads no, that people aren't honest. Anyway, I tend 20 to think people are better until they prove otherwise. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if we could 23 go through this first, and then we can open it up for 24 comments. Otherwise, we're going to get sidetracked, I'm 25 afraid. Is that all right? 6-16-03 wk 22 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I'd prefer to go ahead 2 and go all the way through what you've got, and then we'll 3 go to -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the other 5 thing -- I didn't put this in. It really should be a point, 6 though, and it is a consideration; it goes right into the 7 budget. When we eliminate the real estate transfer, we 8 eliminate about 30 percent of the revenue from fees. By 9 eliminating -- if we were to get rid of the 10-acre 10 exemption, there would be additional fees in there that 11 would help balance out those two. And that is a budget 12 consideration that we're -- both agencies are going to have 13 to deal with, because where we're going to -- anyway, we can 14 get that on the next one. Item 6 is Program Budget. 15 Current-year O.S.S.F./Floodplain budget is about $207,000. 16 $15,000 of that is attributed to floodplain, and the balance 17 to O.S.S.F. Current estimate, $117,000 in revenue from 18 fees. And, Stuart, is that right, about 30 percent comes 19 from real estate transfers? My notes were unclear. Or do 20 you -- it's a substantial -- 21 MR. BARRON: I think it's just slightly less 22 than 30. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Slightly less than 30? 24 MR. BARRON: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you assume either 6-16-03 wk 23 1 way, the current deficit is about $75,000 that we're faced 2 with this year to be borne, and that does not include the 3 $30,000 that the County is getting -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does not include 5 $30,000? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. So, I mean, if you 7 split it fifty-fifty, it would be 37,5 to each, and the 8 County's giving 30, so it would be $7,500 additional. But 9 it depends on how we split the fees. And this is just a 10 real rough summary, and on our current administration. On 11 personnel, 25 percent of one administrator is billed to or 12 is -- is attributed. That's basically -- this part is what 13 goes into the $207,000 from the U.G.R.A. standpoint, is 14 25 percent of an administrator, and that person is Scott 15 Loveland; he's kind of a manager. 25 percent of his salary 16 is attributed to this. We have a Designated Representative, 17 Stuart, his salary entirely, one field person, and two 18 clerical. And one position in the clerical side is 19 primarily monitoring the aerobic systems in the county. 20 There are about 1,000 systems; they need to be inspected 21 three times a year, so that's a lot of what the second 22 person is doing. Things that are not included, there is no 23 provision -- or no account on U.G.R.A.'s side for 24 accounting, part-time help, and reception. Those items are 25 just borne 100 percent by U.G.R.A. And, on the service 6-16-03 wk 24 1 side, phones, copiers, rents, utilities, insurance, and any 2 time from the General Manager are not in there as well. So, 3 there are -- and those are just listed because those are -- 4 if the County -- those are items that are costs that are 5 just being borne by U.G.R.A. because it's probably easier to 6 do it that way than try to break it all out. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, let me ask a 8 question. In the personnel end of it, the administrator, 9 you say 25 percent of that person is -- is committed to this 10 program? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about those other 13 folks, like Stuart? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hundred percent. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's 100 percent. And 16 the field person is 100 percent? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And two clericals. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the two clerical 19 people are 100 percent O.S.S.F.? 20 (Commissioner Letz nodded.) 21 MR. BARRON: And floodplain. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And floodplain. So 23 that's kind of, you know, where we are. And I think what we 24 really need is, by the time we leave today, at least some 25 direction to Dave and I as to when we next meet with the 6-16-03 wk 25 1 U.G.R.A. portion of the committee, as to what the feeling of 2 the Court is. U.G.R.A.'s two members are going to present 3 the same basic information to their board this Wednesday, so 4 we'll -- both agencies are -- managing agencies receive this 5 information about at the same time. Bill, why don't you -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In addition to the 7 work that Commissioner Letz and Commissioner Nicholson have 8 done on this project to-date, the Court asked me to put 9 together some analysis of costs, so what I did on this 10 spreadsheet is to take a look at what the total cost was for 11 the last time the County budgeted entirely for 12 Environmental Health Department, which was in the 1995-96 13 approved budget. I obtained the figures, which total the 14 same as Commissioner Letz has been talking about, from 15 U.G.R.A. regarding its direct expenses for U.G.R.A.'s 16 Environmental Health and Safety, and in its 2002-'03 budget, 17 I took a look at what a projected cost might be if Kerr 18 County were to return this program to its own direct 19 administration and fund it in a projected '03-'04 budget. 20 Without going into a lot of major details, the column on the 21 left shows that the last time we did it entirely ourselves, 22 our costs were $109,902, or $110,000. 23 U.G.R.A. currently, with all the various 24 personnel that are attributed to this program and so forth, 25 has -- it has expended or has budgeted this year $207,300, 6-16-03 wk 26 1 for the program, of which $30,000 comes from Kerr County. 2 So, I took a look at the '03-'04 should we return the 3 program directly to Kerr County for its administration, and 4 I did not charge an oversight for -- for administration, 5 which is Scott Loveland out there. Only -- only to include 6 in our personnel count a department manager, which would be 7 Stuart Barron, somebody who would head the O.S.S.F., one 8 field personnel, and I had one clerical and one part-time 9 clerical, and the rest of all of the items in there are 10 pretty standard and straightforward. Tracking what was in 11 our case before and what U.G.R.A. currently has, I took a 12 look at the fringes, and took our current estimate of what 13 would be about 25 percent of direct labor costs to come up 14 with the fringe benefits, added all the other things in 15 which are typical for the administration of a program, and 16 then added on to that what our capital expenditures would be 17 if we had to return the program to our direct 18 administration, and ramp up for -- for that, and that brings 19 the total to $199,752. If we were to lease the vehicles, we 20 would be eliminating our capital outlay by $30,000 to 21 $40,000, depending on what kind of vehicles we were to 22 acquire. 23 So, that's kind of it, Commissioner. Tracks 24 what you said. In terms of O.S.S.F. costs, we would be 25 jumping from $110,000 to almost $200,000 if we were to 6-16-03 wk 27 1 return it from what it was before. Now, the $199,752 can 2 nip down to $169,752 new funding costs, because we currently 3 have $30,000 in our budget for O.S.S.F., so the new funding 4 required of the County, if we were to return it, could be as 5 much as $170,000. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you take any stab at 7 fees generated? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I did not, 9 because I thought you guys were doing that. I did not. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the fee side -- and we 11 do know that this year's going to be about $117,000, pretty 12 close to that. One of the problems is that we've changed 13 the rules quite a few times in the last 10 years, so it's 14 real hard to see exactly -- you know, trying to compare or 15 get a -- a historical data that's real accurate for fees. 16 Because if we -- we change -- the real estate transfer was 17 done two years -- I think two or three years before that, 18 you know, so things have changed as to fee structure. It's 19 pretty much of a moving target, and we're not sure exactly, 20 you know, when we get rid of the fees -- or assuming we get 21 rid of the real estate transfer provision, what we'll do. 22 We know about a little under 30 percent that's currently 23 from that, so presume that you lose that, but you make it up 24 somewhere. We really don't have a good idea what the 25 enforcement -- if we would do additional enforcement, what 6-16-03 wk 28 1 that's going to cost. Any kind of a grant to kind of help 2 these people that have failing systems, we really don't have 3 an idea of probably what it would cost, a one-time -- we 4 might have $50,000 to get the systems brought up, but 5 there's going to be ongoing there. How do you fund that? 6 So, there's lots of issues on the budget that we're not real 7 clear on. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you talking 9 about -- this grant program, you're talking about taking 10 $50,000, put it in a line item in the County budget, County 11 taxpayers' money. I mean, is that kind of what we're 12 saying? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would probably -- yeah. 14 I mean, yes, the answer in a nutshell. You know, it's 15 either -- that would be a grant. The other way would be -- 16 and I don't -- we clearly have to go through the County 17 Attorney on legally what we can do in this area. I mean, I 18 don't know if we can do a grant. This other thing is -- you 19 know, my preference would be to probably do some sort of a 20 low-interest loan where we can put a lien on the property 21 and require them to pay it back. I'd like that a lot more 22 than giving money away. But I think something -- somewhere 23 as we're going through this, we need to address that issue. 24 One other thing; we did some other work -- or 25 Stuart actually did some work with other counties. I think 6-16-03 wk 29 1 there's a sheet handed out as to what their -- you know, and 2 this is kind of interesting. There's a spreadsheet that 3 shows just the surrounding counties, what their budgets are, 4 and also a question on the 10-acre rule. None of the 5 surrounding counties, being Kendall, Kimble, Gillespie, and 6 Bandera -- we didn't talk to Real, but -- but of those 7 counties, none of them have a 10-acre exemption. But it's 8 interesting; some of them, I probably should say, don't 9 enforce the 10-acre exemption because their rules are so 10 out-of-date that they're kind of -- it was unclear, I guess, 11 to Stuart and probably to their people in those counties as 12 to what rules they're actually using. Didn't seem to match 13 what they had on file, didn't seem to match what T.C.E.Q. 14 had, didn't seem to match what they were doing in the field, 15 and we didn't really want to go into that and try to point 16 fingers at those counties. But, in practice, none of the 17 counties surrounding us are enforcing a 10-acre exemption. 18 And everyone can look at what the budgets for those counties 19 are. I mean, it's everywhere from -- I mean, Kendall County 20 is the highest, and I guess Kimball's the lowest. But you 21 have to look at population and ratios and things. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me talk about 23 the survey for a minute, 'cause I think it -- it helps point 24 us in the right direction. A close analysis of it says to 25 me that the only real apples-to-apples comparison with Kerr 6-16-03 wk 30 1 is Gillespie County. Kendall is not a good comparison 2 because there's a whole lot of things other than floodplain 3 and O.S.S.F. in that. So -- subdivision development well 4 permits, for example. Kimball's not a good comparison, just 5 because it's too small. Bandera, the same thing; it's 6 apples and oranges. County river authority groundwater 7 district being described there, instead of just O.S.S.F. and 8 floodplain. So, Kerr and Gillespie are a good comparison, 9 and you can see a lot of similarities there. Kerr is twice 10 as big as Gillespie County, and administering these two 11 programs, we have twice as many employees, which is close to 12 appropriate, if you would issue approximately twice as many 13 permits. Twice the population, twice as many permits. And 14 the ratio of permits per-employee is about the same as it 15 necessarily would be. The only difference is that Kerr's 16 program costs about twice as much as Gillespie's. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I read four. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Four times as much, 19 yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's CSD? I can't 21 remember. Under Gillespie, 154,000 plus CSD. 22 MR. BARRON: It's -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or CSD wages? 24 MR. BARRON: He goes out and he does -- I 25 can't remember what the initials stand for, but he goes out 6-16-03 wk 31 1 and helps all the -- let me address all of those. You can 2 see there's one full-time person in Gillespie County, Dwayne 3 Boos, and he wears a number of other hats. He does 4 O.S.S.F., he does floodplain, and does a couple other 5 things. The two part-time people are not in his budget. 6 The CSD men -- community service person is who that is -- is 7 not in his budget, but he is cross-trained to be a 8 designated representative, and Dwayne does utilize him for 9 inspections. The other person -- the other part-time 10 individual is a clerical person that does Gillespie County 11 911, and she enters data for Dwayne on computer. Neither 12 one of those two individuals have any impact on his budget, 13 but he does utilize them all. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So, my 15 conclusion from these two comparisons is that Kerr County 16 should be able to administer the -- the O.S.S.F. and 17 floodplain for a cost significantly less than $207,000. A 18 possible way to get there will be to take O.S.S.F. and 19 floodplain and combine it with the Environmental Health 20 Department -- into the Environmental Health Department, if 21 we include our current Solid Waste program, and staff the 22 department with three employees; a manager, inspector, and a 23 clerk. And, by my calculations, and they're close to what 24 the more detailed calculations that -- that Commissioner 25 Williams has given us, which we could probably save 6-16-03 wk 32 1 somewhere between $30,000 and $60,000 a year from what the 2 current costs are. That would not include the -- there 3 might not be any savings the first year, because it doesn't 4 include the -- envision the capital expenditures, if there 5 would be capital expenditures, probably in the order of what 6 Commissioner Williams has indicated. So, the option we have 7 is to -- is to make the administration of O.S.S.F. and 8 floodplain more efficient; I think, at the same time, more 9 effective, at least in terms of -- of being more 10 user-friendly. We could do that by combining with Solid 11 Waste, bring it back into the county, and probably reduce 12 the costs on the order of $30,000 to $60,000 a year. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our Solid Waste 14 program now employs only one person, and he's part-time. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. And costs 16 about $25,000 a year. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At max. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that -- you would 19 pick it up in the clerical, but not attributed to that is 20 the secretary's time who goes and sends the bill to 21 Maintenance, 100 percent, I believe. So, I mean, there's a 22 -- there's another amount out there. That's like -- kind of 23 like we do like Gillespie County. It's not in the budget. 24 The County's paying it for, but putting it in a different 25 budget, so it's kind of -- but if you're going to look at 6-16-03 wk 33 1 true costs, you have to figure out exactly what all the 2 components are. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And in those 4 estimates, I -- I figured about a 20 percent reduction in 5 user fees, attributed to the abolishment of Section 10. So, 6 I've only got 115,000 -- I've only got $95,000 in calculated 7 as revenue for fees, compared to the current $115,000. 8 That's an option. Putting options on the table. We're not 9 here today to vote and make decisions, but I think it's 10 particularly useful, considering we're in our budget 11 process, that we look at everywhere we can to find ways to 12 reduce our costs. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- you know, 14 our charge, in our minds, is to come back with a lot of 15 answers, and not necessarily -- I didn't see it as a clear 16 direction as to what to do. And the other thing that -- you 17 know, on the budget side, my view is -- is and always has 18 been, you know, I have no problem with the County taking a 19 line; we just need to have a system that works. That's my 20 priority. Whether it's done through the County or U.G.R.A. 21 doesn't make that much difference, or U.G.R.A. employees. 22 My -- and I've told Commissioner Nicholson this. And this 23 is -- you know, I wish there -- maybe there is another 24 option to contract out to another entity, a private entity. 25 Have the County do it, and then contract it out. Because my 6-16-03 wk 34 1 experience as a Commissioner has been the makeup of a court 2 makes us a very bad boss. We -- you know, as an example, 3 anyone that reports to the Commissioners Court has five 4 bosses, and none of us have any authority unless we're in 5 this room. 6 So, they call the Judge and ask the Judge a 7 question; he says one thing. He calls Commissioner Williams 8 and asks the same question, gets a different answer. All of 9 a sudden, that person has two -- told two different things. 10 And if I was that person, I'd say time out and call an 11 emergency Commissioners Court meeting, you know. Because -- 12 because none of us have authority, Judge included, to give 13 direction to an employee by ourselves. We can, you know, 14 give input, but when it comes down to a definite thing, I 15 think it makes it very, very cumbersome for this Court to 16 have employees. That's why I kind of, throughout the budget 17 or through the budget process -- and I think the Judge I and 18 I have talked about this several times in court. If we can 19 contract it out, that's probably a good option, because then 20 we can have -- whether it's U.G.R.A. or another entity 21 doesn't make any difference from that standpoint, but if you 22 contract it out, then we have a contract. We're telling 23 them, "This is what you do," and it's a clear direction to 24 that person. And they either do it or they don't do it. 25 MS. COWDEN: May I ask a question? 6-16-03 wk 35 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm concerned about 2 the stability of the program. That's the biggest hurdle I 3 think we would have to overcome. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we open for 5 comments, Judge? I'm sorry. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm finished. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to thank both 8 of you to start with for your efforts that you put into 9 this, research on a very sticky topic that's been plaguing 10 us for some time. I do, in fact, appreciate it. It's been 11 an emotional issue for a lot of folks for a long time. 12 Probably always will be. And I thank you for your efforts. 13 I think you've done a great job in getting us this far down 14 the road. If I had to characterize my thoughts about where 15 we are today from where we were six weeks or so ago, or 16 eight weeks ago, I would say that we have made great 17 progress, but I am concerned about one element. And I'm not 18 so certain if I'm disappointed or intrigued by what I'm 19 hearing, and that has to do with the elimination of Section 20 10. I know Commissioner Letz and Commissioner Nicholson 21 both have strong feelings about that, and I respect their 22 feelings for that, but I'm curious about one thing that 23 Commissioner Letz said in terms of enforcement and -- and 24 tying into Section 10. And you stated a while ago you don't 25 know what people are doing, and I'm curious as to how we 6-16-03 wk 36 1 will ever find out what people are doing or have done with 2 this -- in this regard if we don't have the ability to -- to 3 ask questions or look into the situation if a piece of 4 property changes ownership. 5 I'm not so certain -- in fact, I'm very 6 certain that the current Section 10 leaves much room for 7 improvement. I -- I acknowledge that, hands down. I'm not 8 the guy who should write that, because when I flush my 9 commode, I've finished thinking about what happens. Because 10 I know what happens. But I know it's important, and I know 11 that if we have to try to find failing septic systems in 12 this county, with a view toward clearing up the problems 13 failing septic systems create in terms of our environment, I 14 personally don't know a better way to do it than to try to 15 identify those and correct them at the time of real estate 16 transfer. I commend you for what you have done. I 17 seriously do. I'm hopeful that the final analysis will -- 18 will result in some sort of accommodation that may be a 19 little bit better than voluntary, but not as strict as where 20 we were before. And I recognize the problems that the rules 21 being in place now have. I've talked to Stuart. He has a 22 whole memo, two pages long, I think, of the problems he has 23 encountered over the last three or four years, trying to 24 administer Section 10 the way it is currently written. So, 25 it has to be rewritten, has to be defined so that it's 6-16-03 wk 37 1 clearly understandable, and if it comes back to the Court 2 that we are going to eliminate it or make it voluntary, I'll 3 reserve until that time when I hear your final report what 4 my position on that may be. 5 Only other comment I'd like to make at this 6 point is, I agree with Commissioner Letz, and I hope that 7 Commissioner Nicholson ultimately does too, that the county, 8 as we are currently constructed, we are not a good boss. 9 Commissioners Court is not -- is not the place for strong, 10 firm directions to the enforcement people to come from. It 11 just won't happen. Too many times in the past -- 12 Commissioner Baldwin knows this from his personal 13 experience; he's probably the only one on the Court that 14 does, is that when we were the direct enforcement agency 15 running the program directly, the poor guy out there doing 16 the work didn't know who his boss was half the time. And 17 what he was told by one was countermanded by another, to the 18 point that he finally resigned and the program was in 19 disarray, and that's why we ended up contracting with 20 another agency to do it. So, my personal hope is that, to 21 avoid revisiting those problems, that we continue to 22 contract the program out to an agency who has the 23 responsibility to do the Court's bidding and make it happen, 24 and then, if there are disputes, they come back here 25 ultimately. 6-16-03 wk 38 1 In the past five years, I think we've had two 2 disputes that have come back to Commissioners Court for 3 resolution, and I don't think got resolved. I think one of 4 them -- same guy twice -- ended up in District Court. So, I 5 think it's appropriate for it to come back here for 6 resolution, and I firmly agree with that. So, again, I want 7 to thank you for the work you've done. I hope we can find a 8 resolve. I hope you keep up the work good work at your next 9 meeting. I'm glad to see that the emotions of the issue 10 have subsided somewhat to where we can be objective about 11 it. That's all I have to say today, Judge. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have anything? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, I do not at this 14 time. I may later on. I have some thoughts and made some 15 notes, but I kind of want to hear what's going to ultimately 16 hit the table here before I make any comments. Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think only -- I'll make 18 one, I guess, comment to Commissioner Williams' comments 19 regarding Section 10. The problem that I have with Section 20 10 is that there's no way to enforce it. The only way you 21 have a real estate transfer rule is if you're required at 22 that point to bring the system to state standards, period. 23 And I'm not willing to do that, because that means, to me, 24 that you go out and find systems that are working perfectly 25 fine and make them to be brought up to state standards for 6-16-03 wk 39 1 no reason. There's -- you know, from talking with Stuart 2 and from what we've heard from T.N.R. -- T.C.E.Q., there's 3 no way to do a -- a noninvasive inspection of a system. You 4 either -- basically, you either -- by the time you go in 5 there, dig up enough of it, you might as well go ahead and 6 bring it up to standards at that point. 7 So, to me, you either -- you know, and I 8 guess I was naive last time around when I reluctantly voted 9 for Section 10. I thought that we could do a passive 10 inspection and see if things were working, but you can't do 11 it. I mean, I've -- now I'm convinced that you either bring 12 them to state standards or you don't inspect them. Now, I 13 think you can encourage the public to do it, but to bring it 14 up to standards -- and, you know, and I think that's the -- 15 the only one who does have a -- I think Kimble County has 16 a -- a real estate transfer, and theirs is they bring it up 17 to state standards. I mean, there's no ifs, ands, or buts. 18 It's inspected and it's brought up, period, you know. So 19 that's kind of -- that's why -- I guess the main reason that 20 I can't go with the Section 10, because I'm not willing to 21 require everyone to do it, 'cause I think it's a waste of 22 money and invasion, and I don't see any other way but that 23 way to do it. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a system 25 that I commissioned in -- in December of '97, I think it 6-16-03 wk 40 1 was. If I sold my house today, the buyer would ask for an 2 inspection, and we'd go out there, walk around, inspect and 3 see that there's no water coming to the surface, and pay 4 $250, $300, whatever, and you're okay. That doesn't tell 5 that buyer whether or not my system's working. To find out 6 whether it's working, you have to come in there with a 7 backhoe and destroy about half my landscaping, tear up my 8 yard, and maybe damage the system while you're inspecting 9 it. So, it's not doing the job for us. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I want to thank you two 11 gentlemen for your willingness to take on this task. It's 12 certainly been a hot-button issue, and I appreciate your 13 work on it. And you've -- you've ferreted out all of the 14 various considerations that I think are important to the 15 public and the Court, both for regulatory issues and for 16 budgetary issues. The -- the problem that I've had with -- 17 with Section 10 is that I can't find any correlation between 18 the real estate transfer inspections and the resolution of 19 failing systems. Now, there's obviously a correlation 20 between real estate transfers and the identification of 21 systems which, otherwise appearing to be working properly, 22 may not, from a construction standpoint, be up to then 23 current state standards. But when it comes to the issue 24 of -- of polluting the environment or the river, the streams 25 and neighbors, I can't find any correlation between those 6-16-03 wk 41 1 two. And that concerns me. 2 With regard to the issue of enforcement that 3 Commissioner Williams mentioned, I have every confidence in 4 the citizens of this county, that in the event there is a 5 neighbor of a citizen who has a system that is bubbling up 6 or not functioning properly, that's a potential health or 7 pollution hazard, I think olfactory senses, and maybe just 8 looking out there on the ground and seeing that pretty green 9 moss-looking substance growing, will -- will tell that 10 individual that my neighbor's got a problem and I don't want 11 it to become my problem. And I think that's our first line 12 of defense to failing systems, is the citizens of this 13 county who, I am convinced, are all concerned about our 14 environment and our water quality, because that is our way 15 of life here, and they want to protect it. And I believe 16 their motives are pure and correct, and I think that's where 17 our enforcement will legitimately come from, is from the 18 citizens themselves, policing themselves and their 19 neighbors. And that's what we're trying for them, and I 20 think that's how we need to approach the enforcement aspect. 21 But, again, I want to congratulate you guys for your -- your 22 hard work on this issue. And it appears that you've 23 maintained your sanity through it, and I commend you for 24 that. I'm not sure I could have done likewise. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a brief comment on 6-16-03 wk 42 1 the enforcement issue. I mean, I think that -- and I can 2 point to Camp Meeting Creek as an example. There were not 3 that many systems in Camp Meeting up above Ranchero -- off 4 Ranchero Road where the pollution was bubbling to the 5 surface. There probably were some, but Camp Meeting Creek 6 clearly was a polluted stream, more so than I think we want 7 in this county. So, I don't think you can always rely that 8 it's on the surface. I mean, I think we have areas in the 9 county, throughout the county, where, under the old 10 Subdivision Rules, dense development was, you know, 11 possible, and there's problems in those areas because the 12 soils cannot just -- you know, have not been able to -- 13 based on what I've seen, Camp Meeting Creek and also some 14 other areas, you know, cannot clean up the waste quick 15 enough. 16 And the other concern I have is wells. We 17 rely and are going to continue to rely on groundwater, and 18 when we get into a system or a situation like we had off 19 Ranchero Road, where we have a -- there was clearly 20 pollution going around underground, and if we did have wells 21 in there or, you know, new -- or I mean current wells or old 22 wells, there is a real chance of contamination to the 23 aquifer, and all of a sudden that becomes a much bigger 24 problem. So, I think that the -- you know, I think we need 25 to figure out a way to have better enforcement, and I think 6-16-03 wk 43 1 that the enforcement can be anything from water sampling, 2 water quality samples on tributaries -- on the river itself 3 and tributaries. I think we also need to -- you know, when 4 we -- clearly, this isn't -- when people are doing -- adding 5 on to their house, regardless of the size of acreage, 6 whether they're exempt or not exempt or what we do with 7 that, to advise them that they need to have their septic 8 system cleaned up. I mean, I think that it's our obligation 9 to the county, to the citizens, to get the systems working, 10 you know, to the best that we know they can or should. And, 11 you know, we're going to have to rely on the state rules 12 right now. 13 I mean, that's kind of -- you know, we are 14 told that if a system is built to state standards under 15 these -- you know -- you know, this size house, if you build 16 this system, it's not going to pollute. And I think we have 17 to trust that that is true, 'cause we don't have anything 18 else that we can rely on legitimately. So I think that, you 19 know, the -- the key in my mind on the enforcement side is 20 to figure out how to educate the public and encourage them 21 to make -- to follow the rule. And I think by -- through 22 real estate transfer is a good time for people to do 23 updates. I think it is a -- I think it's logical; there's 24 money changing hands. It's a good time to do it. I think 25 it's a valid point, but that doesn't mean we go up and tear 6-16-03 wk 44 1 up a good system just to make them update it. I think it's 2 a good time. So, I think public awareness. And I think, 3 you know, there's a trade-off from our budget standpoint. 4 We're going to have to spend more money out of our budget on 5 the enforcement side if we're not going to have a Section 10 6 or we leave the 10-acre exemption in there. I mean, the 7 fact that -- you know, we look at these numbers. We -- 8 neither Commissioner Nicholson's or Commissioner Williams' 9 budget analysis did anything with enforcement that I could 10 see, and I think that's something that we have to look at. 11 Because, you know, if we're going to have state laws, to me, 12 we should -- we should follow them. And that means that if 13 you build a new house on 100 acres, that system should be 14 built to state standards. We need to educate that that's 15 the law. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good point. 17 You know, you never -- history shows here that you never 18 really get -- you can't get specific on everything about the 19 program. Number one, I don't think it's "failed" or "failed 20 system" or -- the word "failure" has never been identified. 21 You know, what does that word mean? We talk about the grass 22 is always greener over the septic tank. That could be gray 23 water. And, see, you don't know. There could be a hole in 24 the bottom of the septic tank and running directly into the 25 aquifer, you know, through the caves in this area. You 6-16-03 wk 45 1 know, you just never -- you don't know. You never can get 2 totally specific. But whatever we do, it has to be 3 enforced. I think enforcement is the major part of it. And 4 I'm like most people at this table and in this room, I'm 5 sure, is that we have to trust people to do the right thing 6 on their own property for their own health, their own 7 family. So, you know, I still think I want to hear from the 8 public what they -- what they think. I think there's a 9 couple of them have some thoughts out there. But the only 10 thing -- the only bad thing about bringing the program back 11 to the County is -- is the politics of it, and then -- and 12 it gets ugly. Does it not, Dr. Morgan? 13 MR. MORGAN: Yes, it does. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It can get ugly. But 15 if that's what the majority of people want to do or try, I'm 16 certainly here to do it. But we have to build in -- build 17 in some kind of safeguard that -- you know, a document that 18 says, "Here's the procedures; live by these." Don't come to 19 this Commissioner and ask me to go around one of them. And 20 that -- that is going to happen. And that's where the thing 21 falls apart and things get ugly, because if I say, "No, you 22 live by the rules like everybody else," then -- then there's 23 -- there's this little war begins. Or if I say, "No, here's 24 a way to get around the rules," then Commissioner Williams 25 doesn't like that, because his precinct has to live by it. 6-16-03 wk 46 1 So, if -- if this Court is in charge of it, there has to 2 be -- and I'm not -- I'm not trying to do away with my 3 duties. It's just -- it's a crazy thing to do. It 4 politicizes the system, and that should not be. And we just 5 have to build something there, a set of rules. You have to 6 either privatize it or put it somewhere that there is, for 7 lack of a better word, a buffer between the system and this 8 Court. And that's -- that's the negative part of it. I 9 don't mind -- you know, if you want to bring it over here, 10 if we can build a buffer there, I don't mind it being here 11 at all. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioner, I think if 13 this Court is in charge of the administration of that, and 14 if this Court sets policies that these are the steps you 15 take, and you don't go around, then it is incumbent upon the 16 members of this Court to abide by that policy. And -- and 17 then it's squarely on our shoulders in that case, as it 18 should be. But if -- if that's the decision that's made, 19 certainly, it then becomes incumbent upon us to play by the 20 same rules we're mandating to the public. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have one 22 question. I have one more question before I ask to be 23 excused for another engagement at noon. If the Court were 24 to consider bringing the administration of the program back 25 directly, does that mean that Kerr County will be facing -- 6-16-03 wk 47 1 the residents of Kerr County will be facing one set of rules 2 or two sets of rules? Because, as you noted early in your 3 comments, U.G.R.A. has authority given to it by the State 4 for regulation of septic within 1,500 feet, I think, of 5 tributaries and the river. So, does that mean one set of 6 rules or two sets of rules? If it means two sets of rules, 7 I -- I don't believe I can bring myself to support two sets 8 of rules. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your point's 10 good. I was going to bring up that point, that the County 11 go full-circle. I think we're probably about ready to let 12 the audience, you know, comment. But your point is 13 well-taken, that I think it is a disservice to the county 14 and residents if we end up with two sets of rules out of 15 this. And that's why I have been willing to spend as much 16 time on this committee as I have, and to spend -- you know, 17 and countless hours with members of U.G.R.A. Board and 18 Commissioner Nicholson to try to come up with something that 19 both sides can live with. And that's kind of what, I guess, 20 the purpose of this is. This is kind of where we are. Now, 21 I don't know if the 10-acre exemption's a -- a deal breaker 22 from their standpoint or not, you know. I just don't know 23 that. You end up -- but you get into a -- we're currently 24 in a -- I think we need to continue to try to negotiate with 25 U.G.R.A. on this, because I think it would be the wrong 6-16-03 wk 48 1 thing for the County to have two sets of rules and two 2 agencies enforcing different rules. I think it would be 3 nothing but confusion. I think that's -- so I think we need 4 to try to avoid that. And that's why I think also the Court 5 needs to, you know, give a little bit of direction back to 6 Commissioner Nicholson and I, and then let us go back to the 7 committee and try to come up with a definite proposal to 8 take back then to both entities. Because I really think it 9 is a disservice if we -- if we can't do that. And I think 10 it's a -- we're not doing our jobs as elected officials, 11 from our standpoint, or appointed board members, from their 12 standpoint, if we cannot come to one set of rules that is 13 best for Kerr County. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll let the 15 U.G.R.A. Board speak for itself, but on this issue of 16 whether or not we should have two programs, it's been 17 reported to me by one of the board members that she would 18 not support having two programs in Kerr County. She said, 19 "If you take it back, then we're not going to administer one 20 within 1,500 feet." Now, the two board members that we're 21 dealing with now indicate that maybe they will have their 22 own program, that they will administer it. I don't really 23 -- I don't know the answer to that. I think the current 24 situation with U.G.R.A. is that they don't have a set of 25 rules. They have the County rules. They held a hearing 6-16-03 wk 49 1 some year ago or so in order to try to establish the rules 2 as required by the T.C.E.Q., but they have not yet followed 3 up on that process. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They had authority to 5 establish it. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They did. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they have. They 8 have deferred to the County in the past because our set of 9 rules, by their definition, were sufficient to get the job 10 done. On that happy note, Judge, if you'll -- Court will 11 indulge me, I have an engagement -- I have a speaking 12 engagement at noon. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Got a tee time? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Course is closed on 15 Monday. Thank you for your efforts, both of you. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: At this point, I would -- did 17 you have something further to offer? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to say, 19 I would say to the committee that I would like to see you 20 lean toward more enforcement. That's the key to the thing. 21 I mean, why do it if you don't enforce your rule? And this 22 thing with coordinating with Kerr County Appraisal District 23 has been my belief for years and years, that we'd -- all 24 agencies should be connected in with the Appraisal District 25 for a number of reasons. And maybe you all can use that -- 6-16-03 wk 50 1 use your committee to kind of get that -- move that process 2 along, 'cause there's so many things that we can do if we're 3 connected a little bit, computerized, computer-wise. That's 4 all. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Stacy? You've been very 6 patient in waiting upon us to say what we've had to say. 7 Let's hear from you. 8 MR. STACY: Well, thank you. Pardon me. But 9 when I speak -- I raised my hand when I saw the waiving of 10 the 10 acres. And I want to remind you gentlemen, what 11 about the camps? And they -- Buster brought it up obliquely 12 about a 100-acre ranch, but these camps have many septic 13 tanks, and you got to have them exempt. Point two -- 14 period. You know, anything -- when you start messing with 15 the camps, you're talking about something -- the economic 16 lifeblood. I can tell you this from the rules that 17 Commissioner Morgan and I worked on that were thrown out the 18 window by the previous Court. Until the so-called aerobic 19 systems came in, we didn't have many problems. When they 20 started putting in these aerobic systems over the 21 conventional systems, then the problems came. 22 Thirdly -- and I argued with Stuart on 23 this -- the leach lines that they ask you to put in are 24 there for the sewerage to evaporate. And when they start 25 telling you what kind of soil your leach lines should be in, 6-16-03 wk 51 1 then you're getting it back to they'll throw out the whole 2 system because it's not the right soil, when actually that 3 leach line should be there for evaporation. That water goes 4 up and not down with evaporation. Now, obviously, if it's 5 in the floodplain, it's underwater, and that's wrong. But 6 gentlemen, basically, when you tell them -- U.G.R.A., on the 7 enforcement, they're going to tell you, huh-uh, you got to 8 have the risers and you got to have a different -- different 9 soil for your leach line, so then it goes downhill from 10 there, from cost and to get your -- your certification. 11 Now, I still say that I would rather have this bunch of 12 elected officials be the judge of whether it's right or 13 wrong, and not a bureaucrat at U.G.R.A. Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any 15 other -- Mr. Richter? As each of you speak, if you would, 16 if you'd identify yourself for the court reporter. 17 MR. RICHTER: My name's Larry Richter. I 18 reside at 152 Oak Wood Road in Kerr County, also own Richter 19 Realty, Inc., have been involved in the real estate business 20 here 18 years, and have been through many transfers. Also, 21 presently I serve on a committee through the local Kerrville 22 Board of Realtors that has worked very closely with the 23 Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District in formulating 24 a voluntary method that the realtors would use to advise 25 their buyers, if they're representing the buyers, or advise 6-16-03 wk 52 1 their sellers, if they are listing their property to sell, 2 as to a voluntary system of registration of their water 3 well. 4 Now, I think that we could take this a little 5 bit further as to discussion as to how that could be 6 incorporated with unlicensed septic systems. So, I want to 7 make the -- the Commissioners Court aware of what work the 8 local Board of Realtors has contributed as to an ad hoc 9 committee. That committee is still working with Headwaters 10 Underground Water System to formulate out a good voluntary 11 system. It's a voluntary system. I heard Mr. Letz mention 12 that, as well as Commissioner Baldwin. I think that that 13 could be incorporated. I encourage the Court to do so, to 14 formulate something there that goes back to what Judge 15 Tinley did say, that he trusts the citizens of this county. 16 And I think that's where we need to go back to, to see if we 17 could not use realtors, use the pumpers of Kerr County, 18 anyone that's connected with real property involving septic 19 system and/or water well, to use those to advise -- or not 20 to be the one to turn in that person; that's not their job, 21 but it's just to advise them of the rules and regs that -- 22 that everyone in this county has to -- should follow. 23 I want to go one step further. As to the 24 overall issue of coming up with a workable system, that you 25 may consider the private sector as a method of discussions 6-16-03 wk 53 1 to see if it could be a doable situation, where the private 2 sector -- if you look back at the private sector, 3 Commissioner Baldwin is concerned over enforcement. When 4 you, as a property owner, have a septic system, whether it's 5 through failure or whether it's through -- all of a sudden, 6 it's backing up, who do you call? You call a pumper. The 7 pumpers are under state guidelines that, once they pump a 8 system, they register that. And when they dump it, 9 obviously, it's registered at the dump site too, so you have 10 a private sector of control there of following up, of 11 records to see which systems are being pumped quite often. 12 So, there is other methods through the private sector. If 13 you have a plumbing problem, you call a plumber. They're 14 licensed through the state of Texas. So I'm just saying, as 15 another alternative, that we have discussions as to can this 16 work through the private sector? If I am a private property 17 owner and I have a problem, I'm going to call a pumper. If 18 he comes out, those pumpers -- if you talk with those 19 pumpers, they can tell you very quickly if that system is 20 performing its intended function or not as to what they see. 21 So, they're your first clue that your inspector from 22 whomever -- U.G.R.A. or whomever we use, where their first 23 lines of identification of what that system is doing or not 24 is -- what their discussions are with that pumper. So, I 25 think there are many different avenues that we need to 6-16-03 wk 54 1 discuss to come up with the possibility through the private 2 sector that this method of keeping up with septic systems 3 possibly could work. If we were to investigate that as to 4 the feasibility, you're talking -- you're always talking 5 about your budget crunch. I mean, we're trying to save tax 6 dollars, so I think the private sector, through a voluntary 7 system, through all that are involved with a sale, could be 8 something that we would discuss further. Thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Mr. Bernard 10 Syfan? 11 MR. SYFAN: Thank you, gentlemen. I know 12 where I live today. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What road you live on? 14 MR. SYFAN: Yeah, thank you. I'm a proponent 15 of water is water, and I think it ought to eventually all be 16 administered at one point. I think that the wells and the 17 river and the sewage all ought to end in one point. 18 Unfortunately, in the past, we had an administration by an 19 appointed board, and I heard it said that some of them, 20 maybe a majority of them, misunderstood the governor when we 21 said "appointed" and they thought he said "anointed," and 22 that -- that caused a lot of problems that we had. You 23 recall about a year ago, there was quite an upheaval, and I 24 don't want to see that again. It can be worked out if we 25 will lead instead of trying to beat our way through this 6-16-03 wk 55 1 thing. God did a good job when he designed this earth. 2 When people, animals live on this earth, he provided a 3 method to take care of waste, animal waste, and it works 4 very, very well. 5 Man has been able to harness God's biological 6 system and has brought things together, organized them, and 7 if you've got a -- a brought-together system, you can put 8 together a -- an aerobic system, as we have out here 9 south -- or east of town, and if it's properly administered 10 and watched every day, it works very well. There is 11 technology coming on board where we can shortcut that, but 12 that's a way off, and that's not what we're talking about 13 today. This natural, biological balance, I think, was 14 recognized by the State of Texas when it said, hey, we 15 really shouldn't be spending our time on areas that are 16 greater than 10 acres. That's not where the problem is. If 17 you took and you put one house in the middle of every 18 10-acre parcel in this county, and they all had slit 19 trenches, you would not have a problem. It wouldn't occur. 20 The country would take care of itself. It takes care of the 21 cows I've got out there and the goats and the deer. It 22 takes care of them, because it's disbursed. And when we get 23 any problems, it's where we get too tight, too close 24 together. 25 This county has made some very, very bad 6-16-03 wk 56 1 decisions about treatment. These aerobic systems take a lot 2 of watching, and they were pretty well indiscriminately put 3 out that people were not properly informed as to what was 4 going to happen to their system and what it was going to 5 cost them over a long period of time. And if we had put 6 that same money into putting in some sewer lines and 7 gathering it and putting in treatment plants that could 8 afford -- big enough to afford somebody to watch them, hey, 9 we'd have no problems today. But the problems are occurring 10 a lot because of what happened at this desk right here. 11 You're solving for the future, I think, pretty well, but you 12 do need to take care of places where people are tight. 13 Spend your time and your money where the problems exist. I 14 think that we ought to be spending more -- more money on 15 going out and checking the water quality than we are on 16 attorneys. A lot of attorney's fees going on in this 17 business, and it's not necessary. 18 We ought to be checking the water and going 19 where the problems are and solving the problems, and not 20 going out and digging up good systems. It just causes a 21 riot. And you -- you've seen that riot. It was an attitude 22 thing. It was heavy-handedness rather than even-handedness. 23 There was no even-handedness to what was going on with the 24 last administration. It was not even-handed, and it was 25 heavy-handed, and it caused a backlash and a backfire. I 6-16-03 wk 57 1 think that the real estate transfer thing, as it was set up, 2 ended up being blackmail. You get somebody in a corner and 3 then you whip them, and that's not the way to do it. You 4 ought to be leaders. You shouldn't be beaters. Enforcement 5 is an attitude. It's an attitude. If you inform the 6 people, I think Mr. Letz is 100 percent right, most of them 7 are going to -- going to adhere and protect themselves. But 8 if you take over like they've been doing in the past year -- 9 or year past, I'll put it, you're going to have another 10 blowout. I would I agree with all of you that this would be 11 better administered by a private group, but I'd like to see 12 it controlled by an elected group, not an appointed group. 13 And we're working on that. Maybe that will come to pass. 14 I'd like to see water as water, and we live in harmony. 15 Thank you. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else 17 wish to be heard on this issue? 18 MS. COWDEN: I have one little -- I'm sorry, 19 I didn't -- I should have read my Roberts Rules of Order. I 20 just wanted -- I'm Kitty Cowden, one of the owner-partners 21 at Remax. I want to thank you guys for the progress things 22 you have made. You've made our lives a lot easier so far. 23 But on a real practical note -- and I want to agree with 24 Larry on the private sector. If I'm representing a buyer, I 25 do want them to be informed. I mean, I hire -- we hire -- 6-16-03 wk 58 1 they hire property inspectors, appraisers, home inspectors, 2 and if there's a septic system on the property, to protect 3 myself and my business and my -- my client, I recommend that 4 something be done about the septic. We look at it, we find 5 out as much as we can find out about it. Now, the only 6 avenue we had in the past, and have had, is, okay, you've 7 got one guy. He -- or two guys who -- who are God. They 8 tell you exactly what has to be done to that system. 9 Now, when I am -- when I'm dealing with a 10 home inspection or an appraisal, any other facet of the real 11 estate transfer, I have a choice. They're licensed 12 inspectors, home inspectors; they're licensed appraisers. 13 These are all people who have their credentials to approve 14 any portion of that real estate transfer. Now, why can't we 15 have a choice in who inspects that septic system? I want 16 them to be a licensed sanitarian. I want them to know what 17 they're doing. But I don't want it to be only Mario or Joe 18 or whoever is the final say on that, or my only other option 19 is to go to court. Why can't we have a choice of a licensed 20 sanitarian out of Bandera, out of Gillespie County, whoever 21 -- whoever my client wants to hire? And I would think that 22 that would take a lot of burden off of you guys. I mean, 23 this is the choice of the buyer. He has to be licensed. He 24 has to -- he has to have met some kind of state credentials 25 to make this inspection, but it doesn't just leave it up to 6-16-03 wk 59 1 this one almighty entity. Anyway, just a little, simple 2 thought. Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Cowden. 4 Mr. Syfan? 5 MR. TOM SYFAN: With your permission, I'm 6 going to remain seated. My name is -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Please speak loud enough for 8 the reporter to hear. 9 MR. TOM SYFAN: My name is Tom Syfan. I live 10 in west Kerr County, and I've been pretty interested in this 11 sort of thing for 40, 50 years. I only want to state to the 12 Court that you please remember that all the rules, 13 regulations, and laws and stipulations that you place will 14 relate to your children and grandchildren. Be careful. The 15 rules could be so overbearing to your public and to your 16 children that you need to give that ample consideration. I 17 know you're trying. Try harder. Thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir? 19 MR. DIGGES: Charlie Digges, Guadalupe 20 Wastewater Company, 217 West Water Street. I just have a 21 suggestion. When it comes to Section 10 and the real estate 22 transfer, one area you could -- you could do to take a step 23 back and not have it be so obtrusive to -- to all the 24 systems is simply inspect those that are unlicensed. And, 25 basically, an unlicensed system means that we don't have any 6-16-03 wk 60 1 data on that system at all. There's no records at U.G.R.A. 2 or at the Environmental Health Department that was ever 3 produced, so you don't know what size tank is there. You 4 don't know what size drain field is there, what type of 5 system it even is, or that it may be a -- a cesspool. And 6 so, you know, the -- the idea of the real estate transfer 7 was to slowly upgrade systems over the course of the years 8 to help the -- the creeks that were already being impacted. 9 And one way to -- to be as kind to the public as you can, 10 but still get to probably the systems that are problematic, 11 is those unlicensed systems. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 13 MS. SOVIL: I just have a question regarding 14 the aerobic systems. It says here that they have to be 15 inspected three times a year. Who does that inspection? Is 16 that the County? Or is that who you pay your fee to -- your 17 annuity, when you have -- when you pay an annuity for the 18 installer for the rest of his life, 'cause you have to have 19 a -- a system in place, inspection. So why are we doing 20 this? Why aren't the installers or the person that holds 21 that inspection deal notifying us that this isn't renewed or 22 this isn't being done? Why are we doing it? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll answer the first 24 part of it, and probably let Stuart follow up. I mean, the 25 private sector is doing this, the inspections, as I 6-16-03 wk 61 1 understand it. But -- Stuart? You know, and we're just 2 monitoring the -- I guess keeping track of the paperwork, as 3 I understand it. 4 MR. BARRON: We just keep track of the 5 paperwork. They -- the homeowner will hire an individual to 6 do the inspections; it's a maintenance agreement. He goes 7 out there three times a year, once every four months, does 8 the inspection, and reports back to the homeowner and 9 U.G.R.A. of his findings. We monitor that he's actually 10 gone out there and done the work, and we monitor that they 11 do have a maintenance agreement in place at all times. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the part of that 13 -- I guess the reason for it is that -- it's the enforcement 14 side of it. People won't get the agreements to keep their 15 systems, or a lot of them -- or some people. Now, Charlie 16 can probably answer how many or percentage, but some people 17 that aren't getting their systems inspected like they're 18 supposed to, then their system, you know, starts failing, 19 and they don't have any enforcement authority. They -- I 20 mean, they can -- Charlie can call them up and say -- oh, 21 the person may say, well, I have -- so-and-so did it, not -- 22 you know, not Guadalupe Wastewater. I mean, so it's a way 23 to -- an enforcement issue, as I understand it. Is that 24 correct? 25 MR. DIGGES: Yes. 6-16-03 wk 62 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess a related question 2 would be, would it be more appropriate for -- for those with 3 aerobic systems, if one of these clerical personnel that is 4 currently in place -- primarily, all of the duties of that 5 clerical person are consumed in keeping these maintenance 6 records. Would it be more appropriate that those persons 7 requiring maintenance be required to offset that cost? 8 MR. BARRON: During the last rule change that 9 we had, there was some cost implications that we associated 10 with aerobic systems, and we charged an additional $50 to 11 every aerobic system that went in at the time of 12 installation to help offset some of those costs. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm thinking more about 14 on an ongoing basis because of the three times a year 15 inspection and the clerical costs associated with that. 16 Just a thought. 17 MR. BARRON: That would be an additional 18 cost, like Thea was saying. Usually costs them around $150 19 to $250 to have the maintenance contract, and then the 20 County may associate -- may want any fee that they're going 21 to get, too, and it gets more and more costly for the 22 aerobic owner. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Just a thought. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I think you're 25 saying, and what I think Thea was saying as well, is that 6-16-03 wk 63 1 it's an area that we maybe have to look at doing it more 2 efficiently for less dollars. I mean, there may be a way 3 to -- to -- 4 MR. BARRON: We're looking at buying some new 5 software next year that could possibly help us with all the 6 letter writing that we do for that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see what the 9 problem is, what y'all -- what y'all are talking about. The 10 way I understand it or the way it's worked for me is 11 Charlie -- I have a contract with Charlie for my 12 maintenance, an annual maintenance, and if I fail to renew 13 that, which I have, he simply contacts U.G.R.A. and U.G.R.A. 14 writes me a letter and says, hey, it's time to get it done. 15 I mean, what -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just the cost for a 17 person to do that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that has to be 19 done, though. I mean, if I fail to renew my contract, 20 somebody needs to let me know that I need to -- you know, 21 somebody needs to force me into doing that. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has to be done. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: What I was referring to, 25 Commissioner Baldwin, has to do with the -- we've got one 6-16-03 wk 64 1 clerical individual at U.G.R.A. currently that spends 2 virtually all of that person's time monitoring these -- 3 these inspections and posting them, making sure that they 4 occur. I think my question went more to, should the costs 5 of that employee be allocated to those persons having 6 systems which require that sort of activity? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You want an additional 9 fee charged through the -- I guess through the maintenance 10 contracts to those that have the maintenance. That's where 11 the revenue would come in. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't charge me any 13 more. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: No, you'll be charged some 15 more. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe the root issue 17 is, did Commissioner Baldwin need an aerobic system? Or 18 would one of the traditional systems that have worked for 19 centuries have done the same thing without a maintenance 20 contract and the parts going out? Here we've created -- we 21 have created a whole industry around aerobic systems. We 22 got 1,000 or so people out there paying $200, $300 a year 23 plus their -- the breakdowns they have, and we got a -- a 24 clerk working full-time with somewhere between the County 25 and U.G.R.A. paying for that. I think there's a real 6-16-03 wk 65 1 legitimate question about whether or not these aerobic 2 systems may be -- whether or not we always need to install 3 aerobic system where the advisers tell us we do. I think 4 not. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with you on that, 6 but I think part of the problem is on the installer side. 7 The installers are the ones selling the systems. And I 8 think, you know, that gets into -- that's a -- goes back to 9 the public awareness, that we need to let the public be 10 aware as to -- you know, I mean, just on things they should 11 do, that they should probably go out for two or three 12 proposals on what should be done, rather than listen to the 13 first person, and they don't need to be sold a Cadillac many 14 times, you know. I mean, I've never been on a sales call 15 with an installer, but I can imagine they're promoting their 16 most expensive system, I mean, you know, that's going to 17 work. Charlie's saying no, but -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a system that 19 keeps on giving. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, we don't 21 need to get into a big debate on that, but I think it's an 22 issue -- that's not, you know -- 23 MR. BARRON: We can't address that. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- our authority 25 directly. It's under -- it's an installer issue, and public 6-16-03 wk 66 1 awareness. Inform the public as to what their options are. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You could take that 3 question even a step further back. Does -- will caliche 4 treat effluent? You know, what kind of soils really do? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Where is Dr. Carlisle when you 6 need him? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is Dr. Carlisle 8 when you need him? Bless his heart. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anyone else here that 10 has any more comments on -- on the matters that we're 11 discussing? Yes, you may come forward. 12 MR. LANDRY: My name is John Landry, and I 13 live in west Kerr County. On this aerobic system, somebody 14 didn't do their homework on these things. They're costly. 15 They're useless. And that's it. You talk about the 16 inspection. And he can tell you, he's familiar with me. 17 Your inspectors -- takes you 250 bucks for three or four 18 inspections a year. He comes maybe one time. Way after, I 19 haven't renewed it. I get a message that I have to. That's 20 fine and good, but I've paid for three or four inspections. 21 The only time they notify me -- and the inspector -- I'm 22 quite sure we need inspections -- has to send them papers 23 telling that he's inspected it. Somewhere in the system, 24 the guy that's inspecting -- and I've talked to several 25 people with aerobic, and they have -- some of them don't 6-16-03 wk 67 1 have any problem. And these are all licensed inspectors. 2 Who licensed them, I don't know, but it comes that-a-way. 3 But as a public figure in this county, it's not working. 4 It's a costly -- it runs utility 24 hours a day. It's 5 useless, as far as that is. Your animals won't go where -- 6 if you're maintaining it properly and putting the chlorine 7 in it, your animals are not going to go over there. Mine 8 don't. You got pretty green grass or you got dead grass, 9 but it's not a system that's working. And if you got a 10 thousand of them in Kerr County, you got a thousand 11 failures. That's even worse than what you got now. It 12 ought to be outlawed. It ought to be against the law to put 13 them in. And it's -- they're not working, and the 14 inspection people are not working it right. The system I 15 have now is dead. We've moved a house from there and we've 16 got permission to just leave it like it is. When we get 17 ready to sell, I will pump it out, do whatever I have to do 18 to sell that place. We had a different system, and it 19 wasn't okay for another building. But the thing is, 20 aerobics are not the way to go. I don't care who -- whoever 21 done this has just put a burden on the public. And I can 22 tell you, mine is a burden, and -- and I feel for anybody 23 that's got one. And I understand that we're not putting as 24 many today as we used to in Kerr County. And that's all I 25 have to say. Thank you. 6-16-03 wk 68 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We're trying 2 to get this wound up here; got another item to hit here. Is 3 there anyone else who has comments to offer that have not 4 been previously offered, some fresh thoughts, or who feels 5 compelled to be heard at this point? Thank you for your 6 participation, and we appreciate it. We'll move on to the 7 other item that was on the agenda for today. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before we move on 9 from that, I guess -- he left. Dave? Where do Dave and I 10 go from here? That's my question. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got your comments. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Williams 15 has -- has given you his statement. I gather that can only 16 mean that you're looking to me. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm looking at 18 Commissioner Nicholson. Dave, do we have clear direction, 19 in your opinion? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we can 21 report back to our two partners on the committee what we 22 heard here on this. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's enough. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As far as 25 speculating about where we're going, I, frankly, on two or 6-16-03 wk 69 1 three issues, don't know where we're going. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think one of the big 3 concerns is the two sets of rules. I'm -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Big concern. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is a huge 6 concern. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: If you're looking for 9 particular guidance from me, I don't think there's any great 10 secret where I stand on -- on Chapter 10. With respect 11 to -- I don't want to see two sets of rules. I think we're 12 defeating our purpose. With respect to who's going to be in 13 charge, my heels are not dug in one way or the other. And, 14 very frankly, private outsourcing kind of intrigues me. If 15 you can maintain the appellate authority before this Court 16 under just a very simple but firm set of policy rules, that 17 Commissioners stay completely out of it until it is on a 18 perfected appeal directly before us, that outsourcing kind 19 of intrigues me. But my heels are not dug in, whether it be 20 a U.G.R.A. individual who is our Designated Representative 21 or whether it be in-house with us, or outsourcing. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it's a good 23 point on the outsourcing. I don't know if, legally, we can 24 do that. I don't know if we can contract to a D.R. I 25 thought there were some rules about -- Stuart's saying 6-16-03 wk 70 1 there's no rules. I thought there was something along that 2 line, that it had to be either the County or someone who had 3 authority throughout the county administering the program. 4 MS. SOVIL: You have the authority to 5 administer the program, and you are the administrator of the 6 program. You're hiring somebody that is a licensed 7 sanitarian to administer your program. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our Designated 9 Representative. 10 MS. SOVIL: Designated Representative. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't know -- we 12 need to find out. That's a question that we need to get the 13 legal side answered, if we can contract to a private company 14 to be -- if a private entity can work under contract as a 15 D.R. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we privatize other 17 things. I can't imagine not being able to do that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you'd hate to start 19 marching down the path and -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got a major question 21 on something really important. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we going to try to 24 rush through this other item and get out of here, or are we 25 going to call out for pizza? Or am I going to get out and 6-16-03 wk 71 1 walk out on my own, or what's the goal here? How long is 2 this next one? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should we take a lunch 5 break? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd assume that you had 7 already made that decision, judging from where you are. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kind of have. I'd 9 kind of like to know what y'all are going to do, though. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, let me, I mean, 11 kind of, I guess, say where we are. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Not without a quorum, you 13 can't. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's only two of us 15 here right now. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Technically, there's a third 17 one here. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do not have a handout 19 prepared like I did on O.S.S.F. I have met with Franklin, 20 and we've gone through page-by-page of the current rules. I 21 have, in my illegible handwriting, three pages of -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- changes. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't do that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean -- you know, 6-16-03 wk 72 1 and I wish I was -- you know, I know Leonard and Franklin 2 have been here all morning. I'm sure they're here for this, 3 rather than listen about O.S.S.F., and Jannett's here on 4 some issues too. We can clearly go through them, make sure 5 that, certainly, on some things like commercial development, 6 condominiums, things of that nature, that we address that. 7 We can kind of -- I can walk through the changes fairly 8 easily, as long as somebody has their book with them. And I 9 think maybe that would be worthwhile, but it would take, 10 certainly, more than 10 minutes to do. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would hope so. I 12 hope we take our time. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And deal with all the 15 issues, 'cause I had an issue. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other option 17 would be -- yeah, I think I'd recommend we do that. Let's 18 break for lunch and then come back and do this. I would 19 think would it take about an hour. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll stand in recess, 21 then, until about 1:30. 22 (Recess taken from 11:49 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 23 - - - - - - - - - - 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I will call back to 25 order the Commissioners Court workshop scheduled for this 6-16-03 wk 73 1 date that was recessed at approximately 10 minutes until 2 noon. It is now a minute or two after 1:30 in the 3 afternoon. Next item up is the workshop to review and 4 discuss the status of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 5 Regulations update. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Jonathan's the 7 expert on too many things. He has to carry a big load 8 around here. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that I'm an 10 expert on anything, but -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put a different hat 12 on. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Subdivision Rules. I 14 went through with Franklin page-by-page and we kind of went 15 through -- there's not a lot -- there's a lot or changes, 16 but they're not substantive changes for the most part. What 17 I thought we'd do is just go through -- I, unfortunately, 18 did not have a handout prepared which will make it easier. 19 We'll just have to go through it page-by-page, and there 20 is -- we're really -- if we do need a little bit of 21 discussion, I can bring it up. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse my temporary absence; 23 I'm just going to go run get my set of rules. Why I didn't 24 bring them is -- I don't understand, but -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jon, are we working 6-16-03 wk 74 1 from the revision of June 10? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2002. That's this -- 3 should be the current. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got so many sets 5 of these, I don't know. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Throw all the old ones 7 away. If they don't say 2002 -- whatever that was -- June 8 10, throw them away. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gosh, mine doesn't. I 10 do have the wrong one. 11 MS. PIEPER: This one's December 2000. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aren't you glad I 13 asked? 14 MS. PIEPER: Which one is it? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's June 10th, 2002. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it is. 17 MS. PIEPER: Excuse me -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should be -- it's on the 19 bottom of every page. That's an old one. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an old one? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uh-huh. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's this date? 23 Oh, "Revised June" -- okay, thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's wait for Buster to 25 get back. 6-16-03 wk 75 1 MS. SOVIL: He's trying to find his rules. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Y'all didn't wait on me, just 3 went right ahead. 4 (Commissioner Baldwin returned to courtroom.) 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you find your new 6 ones? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hell, no -- I mean 8 heck, no. 9 MS. SOVIL: Write that down. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If y'all would clean out 11 your office a little bit more often -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think I've got rules 13 running out my ears. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Me too. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As a matter of fact, I 16 have too many. Does anybody need a set? 17 MS. ALFORD: Jannett might when she comes 18 back in. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't believe it. 20 Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And anyone that wants to 22 look at it, I also have a -- a hot-off-the-press, about a 23 week ago, Section 232 in its entirety, which is what we base 24 all of our -- based all of our law on this on, all of our 25 rules on. Okay. On Page 4 -- everybody on the same page? 6-16-03 wk 76 1 Under 1.02.C, we were going to add to the -- and this is 2 basically -- 1.02 is the definition of a subdivision, what 3 requires platting in a subdivision. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is straight out 5 of law? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Straight out of law. 7 And, for clarification purposes -- and this is, I think, you 8 know, Franklin's request -- we're going to add the following 9 language: "Dedication of a right-of-way or easement is 10 included under this heading." 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That goes on C? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it goes on C. 13 Which -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dedication of a 16 right-of-way or easement is included under this heading. 17 What that means is that, the way I have interpreted this -- 18 and I think when Travis and I went through this last time, 19 -- Travis Lucas -- the road doesn't have to be built. It's 20 the access, is the key. And we base that on -- on where it 21 says under the words "dedicated to the public," as I think a 22 transaction. So, what triggers it in many situations, the 23 subdivision or the platting requirement, is when they -- 24 it's not that the road exists; it's that they provide access 25 on that road. For example, if you take a private ranch, 6-16-03 wk 77 1 it's owned by, you know, Mr. Snyder, that road up to his 2 house, and he's going to, you know, subdivide it. Road is 3 already there, but he owns -- once he gives someone else 4 access to that road legally, that is what triggers the 5 platting, 'cause that gives access to the other people on 6 the property. And I don't see how you can interpret it, and 7 Travis agreed, any other way. When it says "streets, 8 alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of a tract intended 9 to be dedicated for public use," wouldn't make sense 10 otherwise. You would never have -- you would just follow an 11 old trail or a cow trail through a ranch instead of -- "Oh, 12 we're using an existing road," so no platting would ever be 13 required. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: So, all the exemptions on 1.03 15 that refer back to that as part of the exemption would not 16 apply to, like, private roads? Has to be dedicated to the 17 public? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be dedicated for 19 use by an individual. Doesn't have to be -- it's not a -- 20 not talking about county roads. We're talking about, like, 21 Falling Water Subdivision. Those are public roads that are 22 private public roads. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there is a deed 25 somewhere in there, or through the platting process, that 6-16-03 wk 78 1 gives people access though that road. Once we give access 2 on a road that there wasn't access previously, that's what 3 triggers the platting under that provision. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. But that's in a 5 subdivision. The exemptions are to keep from subdividing. 6 That would -- that would limit it to public county or state 7 highway? Not a private road? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, private road. 9 Doesn't make any difference; I mean, county -- you know, 10 what kind of road it is. It can be a -- once you -- once 11 you make it -- once it comes under the platting requirement, 12 there's minimum standards of that road. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: It could be dedicated to the 14 owner or future owners. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be dedicated to 16 one other person. You can dedicate -- I can dedicate a road 17 to Buster, sell him a plat. That's going to trigger 18 platting on that tract, but it's a conveyance of the -- it's 19 the interest in the road, not the road itself. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Interest in the road is 22 probably not the right terminology. I see the Judge sitting 23 back here as I'm butchering the -- the legal -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Interpretation of the 25 law. 6-16-03 wk 79 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Butchering the legalese. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got -- I know the fact 3 that you're making it available. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, legally available. 5 Legally -- yeah. Anyway, so that was where it was just -- 6 MR. JOHNSTON: The type of road specified. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, type of road 8 doesn't matter. It's just the dedication of a right-of-way 9 or easement, you know. That's what really triggers it. 10 Or -- or deed. Maybe we should -- dedication of a deed, 11 right-of-way, or easement. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: No, easement or right-of-way. 13 Because it may be, if it's in a deed, it's still a 14 dedication of a -- of a passageway or some such -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, I mean, that 16 was just -- that's just a clarification I was going to put 17 in parentheses after this heading, just to make it real 18 clear to the public and to the developers that that's what 19 we're talking about. We're not talking about the road 20 itself; doesn't make any difference. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Jonathan, before you 22 go on, I need a Government 101 question. You start off by 23 saying that this language in 1.02 is -- the language is 24 required, so that means that the Local Government Code says 25 to counties, you must have Subdivision Rules and Regulations 6-16-03 wk 80 1 and plat and regulate subdivisions. Is that what you're 2 saying? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, Section 6 232.0001 of the Local Government Code says when a plat is 7 required. Now, there is some flexibility to counties -- 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- under the provisions, 10 but that -- what we tried to do, when we -- you know, the 11 December rewrite, which is what this is all based on, is to 12 capture the exact language of state law as much as possible. 13 You know, we have to modify it for county use. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The other side of 15 that is, then we don't have the flexibility to say we're not 16 going to have Subdivision Rules. State law requires it. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is a -- a broad 18 provision -- 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Academic question, I 20 guess. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and I'll read it to 22 you, 'cause we've never really used it, but it does give us 23 flexibility. But whenever we get to this flexibility, 24 Section 232.0015, Exceptions to Plat Requirements, there 25 are, I think, 10 or 12 that are listed in our rules that are 6-16-03 wk 81 1 state exceptions. You know, you cannot require platting for 2 those situations, but (a) under that heading is, "To 3 determine whether specific divisions of land are required to 4 be platted, a county may define and classify the divisions. 5 A county need not require platting for every division of 6 land otherwise within the scope of the subchapter." So, it 7 gives us, you know, flexibility if we wanted to, you know, 8 decide that if -- you know, you're born on the -- on the 9 10th of July, you know, we're not going to require you to 10 plat. I mean, you know, or something. You can come up with 11 other things other than the ones that were listed 12 specifically in our rules and state law. We have never 13 chosen to do anything on that provision, just because it 14 seemed easier to follow state rules than try to invent some, 15 but that's something to remember on some of these 16 situations, that, you know, we can -- we can modify them -- 17 some of these exceptions, or expand them. 18 The next -- going through it, on Page 5 under 19 Section 1.05, we're going to update the language to make 20 sure that -- you know, here we just reference what we're 21 basing our rules on. We're going to update these to make 22 sure that our citations are correct. That's really -- you 23 know, we have not done it yet, but we will do that. Under 24 the definitions, which they begin on Page 7, we don't have 25 any changes. Definitions are -- seem to be working fine. 6-16-03 wk 82 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 12 -- 3 MR. JOHNSTON: I think there's one definition 4 that -- T.N.R.C.C. was -- initials were changed. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Well, we're going 6 through -- both Headwaters and T.N.R.C.C. have new acronyms, 7 so there will be -- those will be throughout changes. On 8 Page 12, under 3.07 on the bottom of that page, we say, "The 9 penalties and enforcement for noncompliance are set forth in 10 Section 232 of the Local Government Code." Frank and I 11 thought it would be better for to us take that out of the 12 Local Government Code and put that enforcement -- what's -- 13 it's a Class B misdemeanor here and Class C, just so it's 14 clear in our rules. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What the actual 16 verbiage is? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we'll take it right 18 out of the law, rather than just referring to it, because we 19 frequently have the question as to, well, what can we do? 20 And we have more power than we think we do, if you actually 21 refer back to it. So, just to make it easier for us -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we'll recite that. 24 Under -- on Page 14, under 5.01.E, lot size, under Item 3, 25 we currently have no acreage limitation. We're going to 6-16-03 wk 83 1 change that to a 1-acre limitation for lots to be served by 2 a community or public water system and a community sewage 3 collection system, or as approved on a case-by-case basis, 4 based on development plan. It's just -- strengthen that a 5 little bit, 'cause there have been some situations where it 6 was uncomfortable having no minimum acreage for lot size. 7 Put 1 acre as the minimum, but we could -- you know, based 8 on a case-by-case and development plan, we could have a 9 lower. We will be -- once Thea gets her new computer, we 10 can communicate. We will go through, put this in revision 11 mode, and all of these changes will be typed into the -- in 12 red and then handed out for us to look at. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you saying that she's got 14 you held hostage on this, leverage for a new computer? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe it's the 17 second time it's been brought up this morning. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I seem to recall it at least 19 on one prior occasion. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Hostage is a good 21 word. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, relax. She told 23 me she'd already ordered it. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be here soon. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Should have been here last 6-16-03 wk 84 1 week. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm glad I -- 3 question? 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What does this 5 say -- what does 5.01.E.3 say? It says that -- oh, for lots 6 of at least 1 acre served by a community or public water 7 system -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's it say now, or 9 what do I propose it says? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What does it mean? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It means that if you have 12 a public water system and public sewage system, there is 13 no -- currently there is no minimum lot size. Now, there 14 is, under the provision right above it, a maximum number of 15 lots you can have based on the total acreage available. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it says that you -- 18 there's no minimum lot size. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How did you arrive 20 with 1 acre, though? Why not a half acre? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out of thin air. It just 22 seemed like a -- you know. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice number? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nice number. There's no 25 basis for it, technically. And that's also -- I thought we 6-16-03 wk 85 1 should put in there, you know, or as approved on a 2 case-by-case basis, based on development plan. If someone's 3 going to put in a -- a cluster-type development -- or, you 4 know, not necessarily cluster, 'cause that's other 5 development, but a situation where they're half-acre lot 6 sizes and everything else is open space, I don't -- I think 7 we have the flexibility to put it in there, but just kind of 8 as a rule of thumb, 1-acre minimum lot size. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is kind of a sad 10 question, but when you talk about case-by-case basis, who -- 11 are you talking about the Commissioners Court granting -- 12 not a variance, but a -- granting some kind of variance? Or 13 does the County Engineer have that authority? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference would 15 probably be to give it to the County Engineer, but the 16 County Engineer probably prefers it to be the Court, and I 17 have no problem with that. And I think there's a big 18 advantage to making it be the Court, in that it requires a 19 developer to go -- to really go through some hoops to ask 20 it. If they wanted to vary the rules a little bit, they 21 have to come to us and ask for it. I do not think it's a 22 variance; I think we approve it -- we approve it subject to 23 provision 5.01.E.3. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, and I agree with 25 that. 6-16-03 wk 86 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know. But that's why 2 it is -- whenever it's a case-by-case, it's the 3 Commissioners Court. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should we make a 5 reference to that, saying lesser lot sizes will be 6 considered upon presentation -- or may be considered upon 7 presentation? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can say that, 9 you know, or as approved by the Commissioners Court on a 10 case-by-case. That way it's clear that -- who has to do 11 that approval. And I think Franklin's correct, he would 12 rather have us than you on some of these areas. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: I think so. I think that 14 would be a better forum. That way that they have -- other 15 people can have input if there's problems with it and such. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, I think Frank 17 says -- good point -- he's told me before that if we do it, 18 he can't be accused -- or we can't be accused of showing 19 favoritism as to, "Well, you let so-and-so do it this way." 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that same page, 22 5.01.G, Other Developments. That, I propose that we would 23 change to read as follows: "Other Developments. 24 Developments such as planned unit developments, cluster 25 developments, or condominiums are not covered under these 6-16-03 wk 87 1 regulations and will be reviewed on an individual basis by 2 the County Engineer and the Commissioners Court. It is 3 noted the that condominiums shall be subject to Subdivision 4 Rules and Regulations and to provisions set forth in the 5 Uniform Condominium Act." And that is specifically back to 6 the Fatjo property issue, where it was -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't specifically 9 say that we were covering condominiums. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the Condominium Act 11 going to be outlined somewhere else in this document? 12 (Commissioner Letz shook his head.) 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the only -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is it. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do it right there. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason is -- I 17 mean, one, I don't want to have to track what's going on in 18 the Condominium Act, 'cause we've dealt with it once in six 19 years. And this way, it just gives us the authority to get 20 into there if we need to. If someone else -- you know, and 21 I think if we start getting a lot of condominium 22 developments, I think we may want to look at it again. At 23 this point, I think we just want to make sure we say that 24 we -- we control that. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, when 6-16-03 wk 88 1 you read that and addressed the condominiums, you left out 2 commercial subdivisions. Was that on purpose? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's on purpose. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I know, but 7 tell me what we're doing there. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then 5.01.H is a new 9 provision. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it will say 12 Commercial Developments. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5.1? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5.01.H. It will be a new 15 provision, new paragraph. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another -- now, this -- 18 I'm only taking one stab at both of the language here. We 19 may have to adjust it slightly, but "Commercial developments 20 shall be required to follow the Subdivision Rules and 21 Regulations set forth herein, except as modified under this 22 section. Section 5.01.D shall not be applicable." That's 23 the minimum -- that's the provision about the number of lots 24 based on the amount of acreage. And then Section 5.01.E, 25 there shall be no minimum lot size for commercial 6-16-03 wk 89 1 development; however, water, utility plan, and wastewater 2 disposal plan must be submitted and approved by licensed 3 engineer and approved by the Commissioners Court. Driveways 4 and roads will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and will 5 likely -- well, I'll quit. I think the plane's getting 6 ready to land. We review it on a case-by-case basis. I 7 think we do need do have a tougher road standard. We may 8 want to actually put a standard in for commercial, because 9 most of those will require trucks; would have trucks or 10 heavy vehicles, so I think we need to -- 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Might want larger cul-de-sacs, 12 if that applies, to turn trucks around. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think it depends a 14 little bit on what the type of commercial development is. 15 But I think that we -- you need to spell that out a little 16 bit more clearly. I think it doesn't make sense, to me, to 17 have a minimum lot size for commercial development, really. 18 I mean, I think I we just have to look at them case-by-case. 19 And it puts us in a little bit of a gray area, but I think 20 if you try to write a provision to cover all areas, you just 21 get yourself in more trouble. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think both of those 23 are good additions, because we recall David Jackson trying 24 to tell us we had no authority over condos, so I think 25 that's a good issue. 6-16-03 wk 90 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I -- as you know, 2 Commissioner, I agree with dropping the 5-acre rule on 3 commercial; it wasn't designed for that. It doesn't make 4 sense. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. On Page 17, 5.06, 6 this is drainage. Let me look at my notes. Under 5.06.D, 7 this relates to a storm drainage plan, and this is where the 8 minimum lot size is less than 15 acres. I was going to add 9 a provision here, "This paragraph may be waived by the 10 County Engineer for subdivisions less than five lots." If 11 it's smaller -- you know, regardless of the lot size, if 12 it's a small subdivision, the County Engineer can waive that 13 requirement to have a storm drainage plan. I think that -- 14 and, in practice, we've been doing this, I think, already, 15 but this just gives the County Engineer a little bit firmer 16 ground. If you're going into real small developments, I 17 don't think someone who's going to divide one lot or a 18 piece of land into three tracts, that it makes sense to 19 require them to go hire an engineer to do all kind of storm 20 drainage -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Less than five lots? Or five 23 lots or less? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than five lots. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask you, this 6-16-03 wk 91 1 -- this was the root of the problem out there at Stablewood, 2 was the stormwater runoff damage to the neighbors. They got 3 12 or 15, something like that, lots there, so this change 4 wouldn't apply there. But are we saying that that same kind 5 of situation won't apply -- shouldn't apply if there are 6 five or fewer lots? That you don't have the opportunity to 7 do that kind of damage? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think that you're 9 saying that -- I mean, the way I look at it, that's why I 10 said the County Engineer may watch it. If it's on the high 11 side of it, I think he'd require it. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: It could be four. In some 13 situations, it could. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Potential impact. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but I don't think 16 to say -- I think what has happened is that I think Mary 17 Frost brought up that it's -- you know, I don't know if it 18 was her; someone brought up one of the times that we didn't 19 do something. And she was right; we didn't do it. But it 20 didn't make sense to do it. So, we're just saying here 21 we're giving the County Engineer authority to waive it in 22 small subdivisions. Also in this paragraph, I had a 5.06.F, 23 which I guess is a new provision, and it says, "The 24 developer shall be required to comply with all provisions of 25 the Federal Clean Water Act during construction phase of 6-16-03 wk 92 1 subdivision." They're required to do that whether it's in 2 here or not, and I'm not sure if we want to say -- I tend to 3 be a little bit leery of putting, you know -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd recommend that you leave 5 it out, because if you include it, but you don't include 6 something else of a similar nature in there which might be 7 waiverable, for example, by the Commissioners Court, it 8 might be construed as an implied waiver if you don't go back 9 and pick up that other one. So, if this is a mandatory 10 requirement under the law anyhow, I'd just recommend you 11 leave it out. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That way you don't get into 14 that problem -- problem of a potential implied waiver. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem 16 with that. I mean, that's what -- I think that's a good 17 point. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a good observation that 19 you made, though. It is required, so -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And we have 21 another -- well, actually, we'll hit it right away. Under 22 the next section, Section 6, Platting Procedure. I can't 23 read my notes. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I knew you were having a 25 problem with it. 6-16-03 wk 93 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good god, I got things 2 written everywhere. Okay. Six point -- under Concept Plan, 3 6.01, this -- we'll add a sentence there, "This provision is 4 only applicable for proposed subdivisions with more than 10 5 lots." We're going to eliminate concept plans for small 6 subdivisions. We weren't doing it; it didn't make sense. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: More than 10. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- more than 10. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know, Mary Hart 12 Frost and some of the others that were -- had been involved 13 in the Stablewood thing pointed out to me that they think 14 that -- that the concept plan requirement is not being 15 complied with. What they say to me is that maybe we could 16 avoid a lot of these disputes if there'd' been a concept 17 plan filed and we would have had access to it. Is that a 18 legitimate concern? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Stablewood is 20 a -- is a bad example, in my mind. The reason is, I think 21 we did a concept plan, but we did so it long ago and it 22 changed so many times, went through so many reiterations 23 that, you know, we never required a -- a new one be done 24 every time they came back and changed the concept. We 25 didn't make them go back, so we were kind of -- that's one 6-16-03 wk 94 1 where we were working with them for a long, long time. Now, 2 there were some other reasons -- I think we are going to 3 correct some of the other issues that are, to me, the real 4 problems out there. But concept plan, you know, I think 5 it -- a concept plan is real good on larger developments, I 6 think, and we should have had one. I think we did at some 7 point. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: I think we did. We had three 9 preliminaries on that one, so this was well-studied before 10 we got to -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Again, this is 101. 12 So, the requirement is that a copy of that concept plan go 13 to the Commissioner of the precinct, so next week I get one 14 of these concept plans on another Stablewood. What do I do 15 with that? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do -- it's set up 17 to work one of two ways. If you're comfortable with it, 18 that they can -- you think it's a pretty vanilla-type 19 development, you can just let them sail through it. If you 20 want the Court to look at it, get input, put it on the 21 agenda. Generally, larger ones, I'd recommend putting them 22 on the agenda so we're aware of them, 'cause we'll all have 23 different ideas, and the -- the idea is to -- to prevent the 24 developer from starting doing too much before he has 25 feedback from the Court. 6-16-03 wk 95 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So this is 2 protection for the developer as well as the -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mostly for the developer. 4 So -- and also because, I mean, in reality, it's hard for us 5 to make them undo things, if we do undo things. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I usually start by 7 letting Franklin take a look at it with me. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, it would come 9 -- come from Frank, so he would -- 10 MR. JOHNSTON: We usually meet at the office 11 and sit around, talk to them about it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, in this also, I was 13 going to recommend that we delete the end of the second 14 line. It says, "One concept plan in sketch form to the 15 Designated Representative of Kerr County O.S.S.F., and an 16 additional concept plan in sketch form to appropriate 17 utility company." I don't think we need to do that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to delete 20 those. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Talking about a 22 concept? Are you talking about an authority of some sort? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think we need to -- 24 it's purely a Commissioners Court issue on that. And that 25 last sentence, I think, doesn't say anything; it should be 6-16-03 wk 96 1 deleted too. It says, "The developer will be responsible 2 for fulfilling all the requirements set forth herein," blah, 3 blah, blah. That's just a garbage sentence; doesn't say 4 anything. I can call it garbage, 'cause I wrote it. Under 5 6.02, Preliminary Plat and Data, Jannett had just informed 6 me that we can delete 6.02.A and delete the fee that goes 7 with it. There's no reason for her office to get a copy of 8 the preliminary plat, and no reason for us to collect a fee 9 for that. All she does is throw it away when the, you know, 10 final plat in her office is in here and she is aware of it, 11 'cause we deal with it as a preliminary plat. So, it's a 12 way to make it a little bit simpler and save a little bit of 13 money for the developers. Under -- let's see. Really no 14 other changes until we get to 6 -- Page 21, 6.02.D.4. It's 15 a new provision. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What is that? 17 6.02 -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: D.4. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: D.4. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Drainage Plans. And this 21 is a pretty significant change. "Drainage plans shall be 22 submitted if required by Section 5.06 of these regulations. 23 The drainage plans where required will be submitted prior to 24 preliminary plat approval," as opposed to now, it's prior to 25 final plat approval. 6-16-03 wk 97 1 JUDGE TINLEY: If required by what section? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5.06. Which goes -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the difference 4 if you do it preliminary plat as opposed to final plat? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're -- the practical 6 difference is they're out there doing construction 7 throughout the preliminary plat phase, and this means they 8 have to have their drainage plan done before they start 9 doing the work. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it's a -- may 12 slow them up a little bit, but I think it's something that, 13 you know, it's kind of -- 14 (Commissioner Nicholson's pager beeped.) 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 30 days? That might 16 be a welcome relief. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: No phones. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Without a cell phone? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I should do like one sitting 21 judge we have here. He -- he'll confiscate the phone and 22 give them a little time to think about it. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sorry about that. 24 This is another change that might have had an impact on 25 Stablewood. 6-16-03 wk 98 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This would have had a big 2 impact on Stablewood. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, very much so. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this is probably 5 the most -- really, the most beneficial change we're doing, 6 and it's very simple, just moving when it has to be 7 submitted. You know, I think there's going to be a little 8 bit of leeway; you know. You can't -- may not be able to 9 get the final -- kind of a chicken and egg situation. 10 You're not going to know exactly where the roads are going 11 to be until you get the preliminary plat approved, so you -- 12 you know, you do have the drainage plan before you know 13 where the roads are going to be. So I'm not -- I think we 14 have to have part of the plan presented, but we may have to 15 -- may not be the full plan. But it does mean that, you 16 know, I'm not -- and Franklin is going to have to think 17 through that; the rest of us, too. We need to add some 18 language as to exactly what needs to be submitted with the 19 drainage plan as preliminary plat, but I think we clearly 20 need to move some of it up at this point. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: As a practical matter, what 22 you may be talking about is a preliminary-preliminary plat, 23 informal. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think 25 the -- I mean, the sooner we can get the drainage plan to us 6-16-03 wk 99 1 and make the developer follow it, the better our chances and 2 the community's chances of having -- or not having the 3 problems we had at Stablewood. That's something we need to 4 look at a little bit. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Another question. 6 If a developer starts moving dirt before he has the 7 preliminary plot plan approved, he's taking a risk that that 8 could -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But there's 11 nothing -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. He can go all the 13 way through and build the roads ahead of time and do 14 everything; he just can't -- only thing we can keep him from 15 doing is selling the lot. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- and that's what's 18 hard for a lot of the public to understand, is that people 19 can do what they want on their private property. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. That's not 21 necessarily wrong. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. But it's -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, do you see 24 any problem with the laying out of the roads -- let's say a 25 guy came along and laid out his roads where he wants them; 6-16-03 wk 100 1 going to miss some oak trees, et cetera. And then we say, 2 okay, we want a drainage study now, and that would affect 3 his -- the layout of his roads, possibly. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you see any problem 6 with that, and then going in, as opposed to doing it with 7 the -- doing it with a final plat? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: I think he needs it with a 9 preliminary plat. Otherwise, he's going to be redoing 10 things. I think that would help him lay out the roads. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: If he knows how to, you know, 13 build the drainage and where the structures go and -- he can 14 figure out if he wants, you know, different size of 15 culverts, different crossings and that type of thing. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Things would be more 17 clear earlier. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: I think so. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Cool. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Drainage may have a whole lot 21 to do with how and where he does his roads. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, absolutely. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what my point 6-16-03 wk 101 1 was, is opposite of that. You know, I could see a problem 2 with that. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think that would be 5 hard for developers to buy into. I think it will help them. 6 They have to do it anyway. I think it will help them to 7 have just something they have to turn in. It will actually 8 be a part of their design. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Cool. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. On Page 22, 11 6.02.E.5, we're going to move that paragraph. It will be 12 renumbered, move it to the very beginning of the section. 13 It just says that no sale of lots in any subdivision shall 14 begin until Court has approved final plat. It's just going 15 to go to the very beginning, probably just under a little 16 heading. I don't know really why we stuck it here. It 17 needs to be more clearly set out up front, but same 18 language. 19 MS. PIEPER: Commissioner Letz, on Page 21, 20 do you want to take off the County Clerk's for that one, and 21 just have, "The approved preliminary plat shall be filed 22 with the office of the County Engineer"? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, we'll let 24 the -- and the County Clerk's office -- 25 MS. PIEPER: We will keep a copy of the 6-16-03 wk 102 1 backup for our Commissioners Court records. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. On Page 26, 3 revision of plat of existing recorded subdivision. 6.04.B 4 will be deleted. There's really no reason for us to get 5 copies of the restrictions and covenants. We don't do 6 anything with them. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amen. Bill, do you 8 agree with that? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I agree with the standpoint 10 that we get -- get the calls asking the County to enforce 11 the covenants and restrictions, and you tell them that you 12 don't have the authority to do that, and they point to that 13 section and say, "Well, what did you want them for, then?" 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got a question. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The County Clerk 18 does keep copies of the restrictions -- the CCR's on all 19 subdivisions, right? 20 MS. PIEPER: Only if they're filed with us. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. So this is 22 just dealing with a copy. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, under this -- I'm 6-16-03 wk 103 1 going to probably refer to the County Attorney again, maybe 2 the County Judge, anyone else that wants to weigh in on this 3 Section 6.04. You'll note that we're going to have a public 4 hearing required on a revision. Overall, the concept of 5 this provision is that we have a public hearing required, 6 notification and all that, and that's based on Section 7 232.009. It's a very ambiguously worded sentence, and every 8 time I read it I interpret it a different way, even though 9 it's a pretty short sentence, as to whether this is intended 10 to apply to all counties except big counties, or only to big 11 counties, being like a Harris County. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's an important 13 difference. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is, yeah. But it's -- 15 to me, it's not real clearly worded, and it wasn't to Travis 16 Lucas. So, we felt that it does apply to us. If it doesn't 17 apply to us, it makes it easier. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't? He's reading 20 it real quick. Read it a few more times. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: This section applies only to 22 real property located outside municipalities or -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Of municipalities with a 25 population one and a half million or more. 6-16-03 wk 104 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's us. We're outside 2 of -- we live outside one and a half million. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Applies to Harris County. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think that, too. 7 The County Attorney and I came up with it applies to 8 everyone except Harris County last time, basically. So, 9 anyway, if we can get in agreement that it doesn't apply to 10 us, we can get rid of the public hearing requirement for 11 revision of plat, which should be fine. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does not apply to 13 us on this end of the table. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And all that -- but I 15 think, you know, all it does is -- I think we would still 16 handle the original plat the same way. It's just like a 17 revision of plat, just the same as first time you plat, so 18 if you go through it, we can modify that down a little bit 19 in procedures. But, anyway -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: You can get the legislative 21 history on that. That should give you some -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good guidance. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The statute should be clear on 24 its face. Obviously, it wouldn't be the first time the 25 Legislature failed to make something crystal clear. 6-16-03 wk 105 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. Anyway, 2 that's just a point. I think it would be -- it will be of 3 benefit if we can make it not -- or have it not apply to us, 4 'cause it is -- it's onerous to the County and to the 5 developers -- or, really, it's not to the developers; it's 6 to the individuals, 'cause usually individuals are the ones 7 that do these divisions, not developers. And it's -- 8 there's no provision for us to recoup that money, so it's 9 costing the County money as well. Under Section 7 -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 30. He greatly, I 12 think, enjoys when I have my notes scattered; I can't find 13 things. I wrote -- I clearly recall rewriting this 14 provision, somewhere. But, anyway, the bottom sentence, 15 minimum lot is related to access, and minimum lot 16 frontage -- the last sentence of the page says, "Minimum lot 17 frontage distances in subdivisions with high-density 18 development where the above minimum lot distances are not 19 practical will be considered on a case-by-case basis." 20 Somewhere in my notes I have rewritten that to be a little 21 bit clearer. And I had read something -- where did I read 22 -- it's being revised to make it a little bit more clear 23 that that's going to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis 24 based on topography and lot density. But to give us -- with 25 the variances that we have recently granted, to make it real 6-16-03 wk 106 1 clear that we -- under this provision, we can grant less 2 than 200-foot minimum lot frontages. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Without calling it a variance? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Without calling it a 5 variance. And it will be done by the Court on a 6 case-by-case basis based on topography and -- what do you 7 call it? Lot density. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: A variance is what chapter? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Variances are way back at 10 the beginning. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: 1 or 2? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah -- 3, I think. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: 4. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 4? Yeah. I think the 15 main reason is that -- well, we've discussed that in court 16 numerous times. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question 18 before you leave that Section 7. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 7.01, Permitted Roads, 21 you have a publicly dedicated road that's built and the 22 County maintains, and then we have a public road the County 23 does not maintain. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that listed there? 6-16-03 wk 107 1 No, is the answer. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yes, public -- what 3 was your question? Public, not maintained? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, second one. 6 Private, paved, and to be maintained by homeowners' 7 association or property owners in perpetuity. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, there's such 9 a thing as a public road that is not County-maintained. You 10 have public roads that are County-maintained, you have 11 public roads that are not maintained. Am I right or wrong? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: That is true. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I think what's -- we're saying 15 here that all public roads here have to meet this standard, 16 and a subdivision has to meet (a) -- the standard of (a). 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, what 18 you're saying exists, but we're not going to allow anyone to 19 do that now. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm thrilled to get 21 with that. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the key. No 23 more. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No more public roads, 25 non-County-maintained. That's been deleted. 6-16-03 wk 108 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hallelujah. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In subdivisions, we're 4 either going to have public, County-maintained roads, or 5 we're going to have private roads. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Private, okay. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: There's sill some old ones 8 like that. We're trying to resolve those. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember now raising 10 hell, and y'all agreed with it. That's good. I remember it 11 now. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Aren't there a whole 13 lot of current public roads not County-maintained? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Old ones, yeah. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But nothing new from 17 now on. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You probably have more 19 than anybody else. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if somebody's 21 going to have a new road, it's going to be County-maintained 22 or it's not going to be public? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, public is kind 25 of -- I mean, you get into a variance, like you go into many 6-16-03 wk 109 1 of these -- of our private road subdivisions; if they don't 2 even close the gate, ever, is it public or is it private? 3 What's your point? 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know. This 5 is educational. Franklin, that -- that road we've been 6 looking at way out there on Goat Creek that's got about 8 or 7 10 houses on it, you and I -- 8 MR. JOHNSTON: That's probably one of those. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's one of them. 10 So, we wouldn't -- we would disallow that in the future? 11 (Mr. Johnston nodded.) 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's one of those -- 13 what? Non-maintained, but public? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Non-maintained, probably 15 public road. I don't know whether it's dedicated or not, 16 but -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I could have told you. 18 (Discussion off the record.) 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got a whole lot 20 of them in my precinct. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If every one of 22 those came in and asked us to take over these roads, we'd be 23 in a heap of trouble. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Many of them have 6-16-03 wk 110 1 been here already. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Okay, thank 3 you. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the road section, 5 there are no recommended changes other than, you know, that 6 one on lot frontage. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: 7.05.031, are you going to 8 take that and put that in the commercial section? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commercial driveways? 10 We'll probably leave a reference here, but have the language 11 in the -- up in the front by commercial, or vice versa. You 12 know, we'll reference it in both spots. And it may be 13 better to put the actual -- it depends what Road and Bridge 14 really -- if they want to set a specification, or just -- if 15 we're -- if it's going to be reviewed case-by-case, I think 16 we leave it up in the front. If we're going to set specific 17 standards at this point, I think we should leave it back 18 here and then refer back to it, 'cause it kind of depends. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: If you drive trucks on it, it 20 probably does need to have a better standard. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and y'all -- Road 22 and Bridge needs to come up with the standards to meet that. 23 If we have to do something different on cul-de-sacs, we need 24 to mention that, too. Back on Page 43, this is a guarantee 25 of performance. We're going to rewrite this to include 6-16-03 wk 111 1 Letter of Credit. We -- I guess business has changed over 2 time. This is more geared towards bonds, which I don't 3 think Frank's ever seen a bond; all we get is Letter of 4 Credit, so we're going to gear that language to include both 5 bonds or Letter of Credit. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Letter of Credit's not 7 mentioned here anywhere? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so, but it 9 is allowed for in the Section 232. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Section 10, Miscellaneous 12 Provisions. Actually, Buster grabbed me right before the 13 meeting. I had a note, add new state statute. City/County 14 working together. Read out provision citing or referencing 15 the state statute that we're required to work under to have 16 one set of rules in the ETJ for the City and the County. I 17 think this will be the spot where we would reference it. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And while we're there, 19 where is that? Does anyone know where that -- exactly where 20 that is? Is it being written by anyone? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- the answer is no. 22 And it's -- where it is, we're probably waiting on me to get 23 with Ilse to get it off high center. I think I was directed 24 by the Court to do that. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To get with Ilse or 6-16-03 wk 112 1 our own attorney? Why couldn't we just drive it from here 2 so we can get it done? Get it done. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that we -- you 4 know, we can certainly do it that way, but I think -- or do 5 it both ways, you know, drive it from here, but we also -- 6 they have to agree in the City as well. And the holdup has 7 been in their master plan rewrite there, they were changing 8 all of their city regs, and they wanted to wait until that 9 was done. Well, that may take years, so I think the -- we 10 need to move forward and, you know, get something in place 11 to be in compliance with state law. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It seems to me maybe 13 we could get it started from here, get some kind of document 14 on the table. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then let the two 17 lawyers negotiate it through. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My mind is -- I mean, I 19 think we need to use our rules, and that's the end of the 20 discussion. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason is not 23 that I want to be hard-nosed or I think our rules are that 24 much better, but I think that if you don't use our rules and 25 you start using curbs, streets, and some of the other 6-16-03 wk 113 1 requirements in the city, you're asking residents of the 2 county that will never in my lifetime, or probably in 3 anyone's lifetime, ever get annexed, to build -- do things 4 even way beyond putting sidewalks in across from the 5 airport. I mean, there are things -- and the ETJ goes out 6 so far now because of the airport and because of some other 7 finger developments like Comanche Trace, Whiskey Canyon, and 8 the airport. You know, Center Point's basically in the ETJ, 9 and there's lots of ranches and lots of property in those 10 surrounding areas. And it's a big mistake, and I would -- 11 you know, to make those people follow city rules, or, to my 12 mind, deal with the City. I think they should deal with the 13 County, because they're county roads; going to remain county 14 roads. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In other words, we're 16 not big fans of the ETJ program at all. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's one way to say it. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. But also, we've 19 seen -- we've seen problems -- Franklin and I have seen 20 problems in my precinct where the -- you may have a 21 different width of a city road going in, and when it hits 22 the outside, the ETJ hits the county line, then it changes. 23 You go down a goat trail and turn into a highway, or vice 24 versa. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you have that 6-16-03 wk 114 1 problem in Horizon out there? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, exactly that 3 one. And -- 4 MR. JOHNSTON: City population, I think, is 5 getting very close to 25,000. I think the last census was 6 just close below that. I think once it goes over, the ETJ 7 goes to 2 miles instead of one. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have mercy on us, 9 Lord. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's coming. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It definitely -- 12 in the next 10 years, it will definitely happen. So, I 13 think the -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I think it's an open 15 question whether or not you're going to have to wait till 16 the next -- 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Census. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: -- decade census. I think 19 there may be some authority out there to indicate that when 20 -- when it's estimated that it's hit that, they can start 21 asserting it. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right. 23 And we're also a year past-due what the law said we were 24 supposed to have done. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6-16-03 wk 115 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't worry about 2 that stuff. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: They can wait on us, right? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: See? I told you. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, Buster, what's 7 good is for us to say we feel our rules are -- here's our 8 current set. Here they are. Hope you adopt them -- or not 9 even say "hope." Adopt them. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the other thing that 11 that accomplishes is that, whereas you would otherwise maybe 12 have different sets of Subdivision Rules from different 13 cities out in the ETJ, this way you've just got one set to 14 worry about. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And you could have four or 17 five different cities within the same county, all of which 18 would have different ones, and may be pulling their hair 19 out. But if these county rules prevail, we've just got one 20 set to worry about. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's lots of reasons 22 to use the county rules, but to me, the first one is that 23 there's just no reason to require some of the burdens, so 24 many things that cities require, way out in the county. 25 They're never going to be annexed. If they're going to 6-16-03 wk 116 1 annex it, that's one thing. But, you know, they're not 2 going to. There's as much property -- it's all over the 3 county. There's property there together; they're not going 4 to annex. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they're going to 6 annex it, they're going to require it at that time. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Ingram's written a document 8 where they incorporate the ETJ rules in their city 9 Subdivision Rules, and they essentially tried to summarize 10 all the county rules in about one page, and it's just 11 totally confusing. I don't know why they just don't refer 12 to it and say, "Use that." 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to do the 14 same with thing City of Ingram; just say, "Why don't you 15 just use our rules?" 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause our -- and they 18 provide, I mean, the minimum standards. You know, I don't 19 know what the City's current rules are, but ours may be 20 stricter in areas of road construction and things of that 21 nature. I think they probably are. We don't require curb, 22 but we -- the actual road construction, ours are pretty 23 strict. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Sidewalks. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't require 6-16-03 wk 117 1 sidewalks. You know, I mean, seems real hard for me to have 2 sidewalks put in who knows where off Lower Turtle Creek. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: City used to have a separate 4 standard for ETJ suburban subdivision or something, and they 5 didn't require curb and gutter on those, but they required, 6 like, lampposts and that type of stuff, which we don't. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's see. Under the -- 8 looking through the appendices, we have to do some updates 9 there, just on -- from Letter of Credit forms, so there will 10 be some changes to the routing slips. The County Clerk will 11 not be on the preliminary plat any longer. Turn to Page 12 12 of the appendices, Appendix F. The -- one of the problems 13 we have had, or I guess criticisms, is the cost on a 14 revision -- on a minor revision, the cost. And, as I read 15 it, we have a $50 fee, which I don't think is too onerous. 16 I think you can't hardly do much less than that. I mean, 17 what the other entities charge, O.S.S.F. -- not O.S.S.F., 18 but wells and utilities and those, they're beyond our 19 control. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: It's real easy just to -- if 21 you have a single transaction, residential deed of trust, it 22 costs you $25 for filing that. It's not unusual at all. 23 MS. PIEPER: $50 is extremely cheap. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 25 MS. PIEPER: Most counties, it's way above 6-16-03 wk 118 1 that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, for the final plat 3 it's $50, but $10 per lot, so if you have, you know, 50 4 lots, then you're at $550. This was worded this way 5 originally so that, you know, the bigger developers pay a 6 bigger fee, versus the, you know, mom-and-pop shop type 7 developments. 8 MS. PIEPER: They also used to pay for the 9 notices in the paper in addition. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We received a -- on the 11 revision of plats? Yeah. We received an opinion from the 12 County Attorney that we couldn't do that. That's why, if we 13 can get rid of that whole provision, we can solve that 14 problem too. I believe that's -- that's it. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, that's 16 one -- that's really absolutely ridiculous that the county 17 taxpayers are having -- are being caused to spend their 18 money advertising on a plat revision, when it really affects 19 the subdivider and one other person, usually. You know, I 20 mean, we shouldn't be having to pay for that. This 21 developer needs to be paying for that. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: What was the basis of the A.G. 23 opinion? I'm not familiar with it. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The A.G. opinion that said 6-16-03 wk 119 1 that the County had to pay for plat revision. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wasn't A.G., it was a 3 County Attorney opinion, and his basis was that there was 4 nothing in Section 232 that provided for us to recoup that. 5 It says that we shall -- under the provision, the question 6 here, it says the County shall do it. It doesn't say that 7 we can recoup that. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: What about under the fees 9 section? You might be able to add that in here if you're 10 not prohibited. If you're not limited as to fees, you can 11 charge fees or expenses. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are -- let me see. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the law used 14 to read the County shall cause -- the word "cause" was in 15 there, and we stumbled over whether we were responsible for 16 paying the fee or we'd make the developer. That "cause" 17 word was there. Never did get that straightened out, I 18 don't think. Do you remember that, Thea? Was that before 19 you were born? 20 MS. SOVIL: That's before I was born. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. There were no 22 subdivisions. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't have a 24 specific fee section. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we make another 6-16-03 wk 120 1 run at that? I just, in my mind -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm thinking we ought to -- we 3 ought to specifically provide that developer shall be 4 responsible for -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- all notices, 7 publications -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not something 9 that we're causing. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- and other fees as may be 11 incurred. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but if we aren't 13 subject to it because of the -- the Houston -- that 14 provision, if we're not subject to it, that's the only 15 section that requires us to do a notice of a public hearing. 16 So, if that isn't applicable to us -- 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Isn't there something in the 18 Property Code, though, that says in a subdivision, when you 19 change the layout, people all have -- 20 MS. PIEPER: Have to send certified notices 21 to all landowners. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: People all have rights in 23 common; they have to be notified or something if you change 24 roads. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Property Code, 6-16-03 wk 121 1 not -- I knew we found -- the County Attorney's office told 2 us we had to do it this way, but that doesn't mean we 3 can't -- we can't make another run at them. Well, it's 4 something we need to look at. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it was something 7 that the government was doing, I could see that we would be 8 responsible, but if a developer's coming along and changing 9 a lot line and changing the makeup of the subdivision, he 10 should be responsible for notifying everybody. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I see 14 it. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He or she, whichever 16 the case might be. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, it says here after 18 application's filed with the Commissioners Court, the Court 19 shall publish. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Court shall what? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shall publish notice. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't that be 23 interpreted to mean the Court shall cause it to be 24 published? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says we shall publish 6-16-03 wk 122 1 it. I think that's -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think that prohibits 3 you from getting reimbursed for it. If you put it back here 4 in the permitting and regulatory fees. In addition to the 5 foregoing, the applicants or the party desiring to file the 6 plat shall reimburse the county for all public -- all 7 publication fees, notices, and other -- actually, expenses 8 incurred or something of that nature. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We'll still be 10 publishing. We'll be sending it to the newspaper. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds reasonable. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: And I'll quit doing it, if we 14 do that, if the Fourth Court says we shouldn't and Supreme 15 Court denies the writ of error. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: That work for you, Buster? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a 20 suggestion that's probably more form than substance. I'm 21 looking at the Kerr County application for preliminary plat. 22 I'd suggest that everywhere we have -- we refer to -- when 23 we're talking about O.S.S.F. and floodplain, we refer to the 24 Upper Guadalupe River Authority, that we change that to Kerr 25 County's Designated Representative. And Jonathan and I 6-16-03 wk 123 1 looked at this, included it on the plot plan where the 2 signature is. He's signing for us, not U.G.R.A., so we take 3 U.G.R.A. off of there and put Kerr County on it. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Whether or not we 7 continue to contract with them. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think that 9 goes to one of the problems, is that -- and U.G.R.A. reacted 10 this way, that they were handling the program. In reality, 11 at least in my mind, they were contracting to do our 12 program. But I think -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Always been a public 14 problem understanding it. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think any way we can 16 help clear that up, the better. But, you know, I would say 17 computer purchase pending, we will have this, probably by 18 our first meeting in July. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Computer purchase 20 pending, installed and working. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Operational. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I had a note back on Page 15 23 that we skipped over. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 15 of the appendix, 25 or 15 of the rules? 6-16-03 wk 124 1 MR. JOHNSTON: The rules. 5.02.F, where it 2 talks about lot and block numbers. I think we're going to 3 add something in there, according to 911 guidelines or -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Page 15, 5.02.F. 5 I -- I had that note, and I deleted that note, Franklin, 6 because -- 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I started reading 9 about this. Lots and block numbers have nothing to -- on a 10 plat have nothing to do with 911. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Not addresses. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, these aren't 13 addresses. When you and I were going through it, I think in 14 our minds, we changed -- these were addresses, and 15 addresses -- that's not what we're talking about. We're 16 talking about lot and block numbers on the plat, and 911 has 17 nothing to do with that. And they are mentioned about the 18 road guidelines, addressing guidelines -- 19 MR. JOHNSTON: One time they actually put the 20 addresses on the lots, and then they stopped doing it after 21 awhile. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know if we want to get 24 into that or not. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a lot of 6-16-03 wk 125 1 extra work on a plat to put an address on a plat, 'cause 2 then if something gets changed, it -- I don't see a reason 3 for it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think -- I don't think 5 we need to refer to 911 on lot and block; there's no 6 correlation between the two -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- under their guidelines, so 9 it doesn't make any difference. Mr. Digges had something he 10 wanted to say, I believe. 11 MR. DIGGES: Yeah. I just want to get 12 clarification, because sometimes we get confused when we're 13 talking about the public. They'll call in -- they'll be in, 14 like, Spicer Ranch Subdivision, where maybe, say, they have 15 100 existing tracts there, and maybe the whole subdivision 16 totals 600 acres. And, you know, we're going to take two 17 lots and we're going to divide them into four lots. Well, 18 individually, those lots may only be 2 or 3 acres by the 19 time that we're done, and so that is in violation of the 20 5-acre minimum if we're going to use water off of the 21 aquifer. And so -- but I don't know if we can use that. In 22 the -- in the big picture of the whole subdivision, is a 23 replat still part of that subdivision? How do you all 24 interpret that? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The way I believe that 6-16-03 wk 126 1 our rules specify, and the way I think it's interpreted, or 2 we have been interpreting it, is that a replat comes under 3 the current rules, not the rules of the original 4 subdivision. So, they have to meet the minimum lot. I 5 mean, if it's -- you know, obviously, if it's a 3-acre lot 6 and they want to, you know, change a lot line, they can't 7 make two 3-acre lots into two 5-acre lots. That doesn't 8 work. So, some reasonableness there. But you can't divide 9 a -- like, an -- you can't take a 5-acre lot in an old 10 subdivision and divide it into two 2½-acre lots. 11 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unless there's a -- you 13 know, that's kind of the way we've been looking at it. Now, 14 I know it's been done in some situations, because a lot of 15 times, especially some of these older, bigger subdivisions, 16 people buy and sell lots and trade them, and we just don't 17 know a lot about it. I know there was one down in my 18 precinct not too long ago, one person tried to do it right 19 and can't do anything, and the other two of her neighbors 20 have done it illegally. I mean, you start buying and 21 selling. But I think the rules should be that you're -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me give you another 23 scenario. You have a 5-acre lot and you want to cut it in 24 two, make two 2½-acre lots. There's a well already on the 25 property under the 5-acre rule. In doing so, the 6-16-03 wk 127 1 prospective new owner of the other 2½ acres has said, well 2 -- has told you, well, that's too bad. No, you can't. I 3 don't know where you're going to get your water; there's no 4 water system. He says, not to worry; I've made a deal with 5 the owner of the other 2½ acres. I'm going to tie onto his 6 water. Or, worse yet, take a 10-acre piece, and it's going 7 to be divided into two 5-acre pieces, and the owner of the 8 new 5-acre tract says, I'm going to make a deal to tie onto 9 his well. He can drill his own well, but he's not going to 10 do it. Do you see any problem with either one of those? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see. I mean, on the 12 second one I wouldn't, because you can have a private -- 13 that would qualify, in my mind, as a private water system, 14 which is not subject to T.C.E.Q. rules 'cause of the number 15 of connections. And you can pretty much do what you want 16 under that scenario. We allow for private water systems. I 17 think that -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Under 10 connections. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under 10 or 15? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under 15 connections. 22 So, I mean, the acreage limit is -- would be the control 23 there. On the other one, on your first example, if you have 24 the current 5-acre, I don't think you can divide it into two 25 at this point. Under our current rules, you cannot divide 6-16-03 wk 128 1 that, you know, into -- period. You can't divide it, 2 period. You're stuck with a 5-acre tract. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, what we have done 5 numerous times is, you go into some of these older 6 subdivisions that have 2-acre lots, and if they decide that 7 they want to take three lots, which total 6 acres, and make 8 two 3-acre lots, the view of the Court has been -- or 9 precedent is, well, that's better than we were with three 10 2-acre lots. So, even though 3 acres certainly doesn't meet 11 the minimum standards, it's better than what they currently 12 are under, and it's moving in the right direction. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: You're going the right 14 direction. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the 5-acre subdivided 17 2½ is probably not a good example. The problem that you 18 have there is, if you take water from that one well, if I 19 understand the current Headwaters rules, you can't ship it 20 next door. You know, they'll let the guy next door drill 21 his own well, and so that you got two wells sucking out of 22 there for two 5 -- for two 5-acre tracts, but you can't have 23 one well. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think Headwaters 25 has that authority. They can't prevent you from having a 6-16-03 wk 129 1 water system. I wouldn't know what their authority would be 2 based on. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: You mean they don't have 4 the -- well -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I would think 6 that -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I think they've done it in the 8 past, is the reason I mention it. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't deny that. But I 10 think that -- you know, I'm not certainly up to the Water 11 Code and a lot of their rules under the Water Code that they 12 fall under, but I don't see why -- how they can prevent you 13 from having a water system if you want to have a -- a water 14 system of -- whether it be two connections, so be it. I 15 mean, I think that that would be beneficial. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Surely you're not 17 suggesting some water authority enforce an authority they 18 don't have. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: You know, I hadn't thought of 20 that, Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only on Sunday. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're headed downhill 23 here. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: I have one more question; 25 Charlie reminded me of it. Back on 5.01.D. 6-16-03 wk 130 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: 14. Where it says the minimum 3 lot size, 5-acre average, unless surface water is a primary 4 source of water for the public water system. Then we go 5 down to 5.01.E.2, where it says 1 acre served by community 6 or public water system. That means that water system has to 7 have surface water, right? As their primary source of 8 water? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, that's what it 10 means, but that's -- it's -- it doesn't make sense, you're 11 correct. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Should we clarify that? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We should. Do we want 14 to? 15 (Laughter.) 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The problem with that is 17 that there's no source for surface water in the county, 18 other than the city of Kerrville. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Other than the city. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That's not totally true. I 21 know of some folks out on Upper Turtle Creek that have 22 spring boxes and -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I have a 24 spring box and a nonchlorinated system, but -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That's probably better. 6-16-03 wk 131 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stick a pipe in the 2 ground and the artesian well comes out; you just pipe it 3 down to your house. I know people that pull water out of a 4 stock tank still and don't chlorinate it. That's true. 5 But -- so there are some, but they're very limited in their 6 application, put it that way. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Responding to Dave's 8 suggestion -- 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Bill's got another 10 tee time here real quick. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: From a practical 12 standpoint, on the third line, where it starts with, "Unless 13 surface water is a primary source of water for the public or 14 community water system," that "unless" to the end of that 15 sentence should be deleted, because it's just not practical. 16 I mean, I think the intent was to encourage people to get on 17 surface water, but that was when we thought that we were 18 going to have a source for surface water, and it never has 19 happened. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hasn't happened 21 to-date. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To-date. And I think 23 that, to me, the -- the key on it is the -- the 5-acre 24 average. That's over -- and we're using ground water; we're 25 trying to go to 5-acre average. The lot size is really not 6-16-03 wk 132 1 that important. It's more the average, in my mind. That's 2 what -- and by doing that, we hopefully encourage public 3 water systems, as we have in Cypress Springs, Falling Water, 4 some of these other subdivisions, by having huge areas that 5 are basically greenbelt-type areas, thus giving the 6 developer a little bit more -- same as Stablewood. So, I 7 think we just have to -- I mean, it doesn't make sense to 8 require surface water when we clearly don't have a source 9 for surface water. 10 (Discussion off the record.) 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Franklin. I 12 see the attention span quickly waning of the members of the 13 Court. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm walking out. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll follow him. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thanks, Jonathan. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you again for your 18 efforts, Commissioner Letz. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Engineer. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I was not being -- I was not 21 being critical of your inability to find your notes. I 22 thought it amusing, however, that someone had the same 23 problem that I commonly have. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I wouldn't be one to 25 comment. I would never, never bring that up, I'm sure, that 6-16-03 wk 133 1 you had a problem finding your notes. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You'd only do that under two 3 circumstances; if we're alone or with somebody, I'm sure. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Well, we'll 5 have this back on the agenda with a draft probably the first 6 meeting of July. If everything looks okay, we'll set a 7 public hearing for early August. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, what are you 9 going to do about the ETJ issue? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm going to go -- I'm 11 going to probably advise Ilse, as the person writing it, 12 that we think our rules need to be the rules adopted, and we 13 will be glad to have any input from them during our public 14 hearing process. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So long as they agree 16 with our rules. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I got a deal for you. 18 Anything further? If not, we'll stand adjourned. 19 (Commissioners Court workshop adjourned at 2:47 p.m.) 20 - - - - - - - - - - 21 22 23 24 25 6-16-03 wk 134 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 7th day of July, 2003. 8 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 11 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6-16-03 wk