1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, May 17, 2004 11 11:30 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge 23 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 24 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 25 ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 2 1 I N D E X May 17, 2004 2 PAGE 1.1 Consider and discuss approval of expenditure of 3 funds and/or other requirements to finish the Hermann Sons Bridge Right-of-way Acquisitions 4 Project 3 5 1.2 Consider and discuss approval of Resolution for condemnation of Right-of-way for Hermann Sons 6 Bridge Project 15 7 --- Adjourned 24 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Monday, May 17, 2004, at 11:30 a.m., a special meeting 2 of 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 the 7 special Commissioners Court meeting posted for this date, 8 Monday, May 17th, 2004, at 11:30 a.m. It's 11:31 or -2 now. 9 First item on the agenda is consider and discuss approval of 10 expenditure of funds and/or other requirements to finish the 11 Hermann Sons Bridge right-of-way acquisition project. 12 Commissioner Letz? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. There was a -- 14 previously, we approved a certain amount of funds for the 15 acquisition of right-of-way, and there were two tracts that 16 we did not have the exact amounts. We have those amounts 17 now, and we're ready to close on those two. And, Tommy, you 18 got the amounts that we need? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- I have one for -- 20 to Fidelity Abstract for $2,925. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: $2,925. I need to do a 23 budget amendment to increase the expenditure line item in 24 Flood Control budget by that amount, so I can do that at the 25 same time. And then I need you to authorize a hand check to 5-17-00 4 1 Fidelity Abstract and Title. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move all three of 3 those items. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 6 the amendment to the Flood Control budget as requested, and 7 hand check to Fidelity Abstract and Title Company in the 8 amount of $2,925, and authorize the disbursement of those 9 funds to Fidelity Abstract and Title Company for the purpose 10 of -- of finalizing the remaining tract acquisitions -- or 11 one of the remaining tract acquisitions -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is for two. This is 13 for two of the -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: For two of the tract 15 acquisitions for the Hermann Sons project. Is that correct? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion 18 concerning the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify 19 by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before we move to 25 the next item, another area -- or item that kind of falls 5-17-00 5 1 under this, after, I guess, three months of not being able 2 to get hold of one of the individuals, Mr. Tijerina, I 3 talked to him yesterday evening, and Mr. Motley has talked 4 to him today, and we have a meeting set up tentatively for 5 tomorrow afternoon. Based on his conversation with 6 Mr. Motley this morning, he wants more money, which probably 7 will be no surprise. The amount we offered is the amount 8 under the appraisal that we have furnished. But I'd like a 9 little guidance as to -- from the Court as to whether the 10 feeling is we should offer a little bit of additional funds 11 or -- or not. We are -- and the next agenda item will 12 further this along. We are pretty much, and have been from 13 the beginning, prepared to condemn that piece of property. 14 The next motion will be the final piece of paper that we 15 need, the resolution to do that. 16 As -- as I understand the condemnation 17 process, Mr. Motley's prepared all the paperwork, petitions, 18 such that three commissioners -- three commissioners are 19 appointed -- David? Three commissioners are appointed, and 20 they're not us-type commissioners; they're more -- they're 21 appointed by the Judge to hear the case. And they will 22 determine -- those three commissioners will determine the 23 value, and that is the value. That value may be higher or 24 lower than our appraised value. That is the amount that he 25 would receive. That being said, I just -- I don't know if 5-17-00 6 1 we should try to avoid that through a little bit of -- 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How long does a 3 condemnation procedure take? 4 MR. MOTLEY: Well, when you go -- there's an 5 appeal provided for after the special commissioners. But 6 you file your petition, and right away file a request for 7 commissioners to be appointed -- special commissioners, and 8 the Judge, as soon as they see the stuff, will name three 9 people. They have to get these three people in; they have 10 to sign an oath, and they have to sign notice forms of when 11 and where the hearing will be. Those have to be sent out, 12 served, and an 11-day waiting period between then and the 13 date of the hearing, and then you have your hearing. And as 14 soon as they make their -- render their award, we post that 15 amount of money in the registry of the court. You can take 16 that amount of money down. 17 If he takes that amount of money and accepts 18 it, at that point he no longer has a right to contest or 19 appeal the amount of the appraisal. Excuse me, have I got 20 that right? Not the amount of the appraisal; I think he can 21 only contest the right to take. I may have that backwards; 22 it's been a while. But, in any event, he -- once we put the 23 money up -- most importantly is that we -- once we put the 24 money up, we have the access to the property to do what we 25 want to. We could go to court later on an appealed case and 5-17-00 7 1 have to pay more for the property. I mean, that's a 2 possibility, but the property is ours at that point. We 3 have the right to take. The right to take that has been 4 established. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If what he's asking 6 is not a whole lot more than the appraised value, it's not 7 likely to be worth it to go on through the process. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley, we've got a -- 9 we've got an appraisal -- I guess my question goes as much 10 to the timing as to the legalities. Are we prohibited from 11 offering -- offering the landowner more than what our 12 appraisal shows? 13 MR. MOTLEY: Not that I'm aware of. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 15 MR. MOTLEY: Okay? And that appraisal, by 16 the way, is as of a date back when. And, technically, we 17 would make the appraisal value as of the date of the 18 condemnation hearing, so there would be an updating process, 19 and whatever the general value of the land in the area has 20 appreciated, the appraisal -- the updated appraisal may 21 reflect a certain percentage. This man is contending 22 there's -- there are other sales in the area showing a much 23 higher value per-acre, and I don't know if that's accurate 24 or not. I mean, I don't know if that's accurate. I can 25 talk to our appraiser about it and see. 5-17-00 8 1 JUDGE TINLEY: But, to your knowledge, we're 2 not prohibited -- 3 MR. MOTLEY: No. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We're not bound by our 5 existing appraisal? 6 MR. MOTLEY: No. No, we can go -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the total size of the 8 tract that we're talking about? 9 MR. MOTLEY: .41 is what we're taking. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: .41, four-tenths of an acre? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the floodway. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: In the floodway? 13 MR. MOTLEY: All of it is? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's proud of that 15 land, isn't he? 16 MR. MOTLEY: It's all in the floodway; is 17 that right? Or just -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the floodway. It 19 -- I'd say it's got to be in the floodway, 'cause every time 20 it floods, it gets destroyed. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What kind of numbers 22 are we talking about? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $12,000, we're offering. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twelve offered? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A little over. 5-17-00 9 1 MR. MOTLEY: Twelve and something. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're offering him over 3 $25,000? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: For property in the floodway? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And that includes 7 some damages. There's a -- 8 MR. MOTLEY: Barbecue pit. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- fence and a barbecue 10 pit and some other stuff. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 12 MR. MOTLEY: $700 for the barbecue pit, and I 13 don't remember how much for the fence. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's 16 -- valued at 15 16,000 per acre. The land value of $6,720, $700 value of 16 the barbecue pit, because we're reducing the size he has 17 left. There's a .2 acre remainder. There's another -- 18 MR. MOTLEY: Economic -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- $3,200 damages to the 20 remainder interest. It's a total -- then the cost for the 21 fence is $1,400. So, it's a total amount of $12,020. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: For Commissioner 23 Nicholson's -- in response to his question, we've -- we got 24 some other factors we need to consider. We got to pick up 25 the cost of the special commissioners, and a Judge makes 5-17-00 10 1 them an award for -- for their work, and traditionally 2 that's run about $500 per? 3 MR. MOTLEY: It can get up -- it's whatever 4 that Judge says it is. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. 6 MR. MOTLEY: It's whatever that Judge says it 7 is. And then there'll be other costs, the costs of the 8 lawsuit itself. There's going to be a cost of updated 9 appraisal, you know, from now to the time of the 10 commissioners hearing. I can't think of any other costs. 11 I'm thinking costs, and I told Jonathan I thought costs 12 might be in the neighborhood of $3,000, something like that, 13 but I asked him not to hold me to that. But I thought -- 14 you know, I think costs would be about in that neighborhood 15 for the condemnation. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, we may be 17 getting into developing negotiating strategy in open court. 18 Are we okay -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was thinking the same 20 thing. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we're talking about 22 property acquisition. We may want to -- 23 MR. MOTLEY: Well, in any event, the agenda 24 item is to give -- reaffirm or provide -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're on the expenditure 5-17-00 11 1 item. We're under the first item, which is just dollars. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Oh. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- I thought we could 4 get the Court's feeling on spending additional dollars on -- 5 MR. MOTLEY: That was on this parcel and 6 another? Or -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's two agenda items. 8 The first one, which we're on right now, is consider and 9 discuss approval of expenditure of funds and/or other 10 requirements to finish the Hermann Sons Bridge right-of-way 11 acquisition. 12 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The second one is just as 14 to the resolution. 15 MR. MOTLEY: But then -- I mean, the 16 additional funds was for one parcel or -- or two? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two. That was the two 18 parcels, the Roerig and the Rancho Avacienda tract. 19 MR. MOTLEY: The other ones, I think money 20 had been put up and everything. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Now, I don't 22 know -- Judge, do you think we ought to go in executive 23 session under -- for real estate acquisition? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll, if we're going to talk 25 about negotiating a matter involving acquisition of real 5-17-00 12 1 property, that's certainly a permissible item. We can do 2 that. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, what do you think? 4 Do you think we ought to? Or -- 5 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think, you know, we're 6 going to probably just go listen to what he has to say when 7 we talk to him. Mr. Letz and I are supposed to go talk to 8 him. And, I don't know; we might have to come back at that 9 point and, you know, see what the Court says about it. I'm 10 a little concerned about executive session, 'cause I don't 11 think our -- our agenda posting has any executive session on 12 it. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, clarify a 15 point for me. If -- if we approve this resolution, we have, 16 in fact, tendered an offer; is that correct? By reason of 17 -- by reason of this? And at that point, by law, we can -- 18 we can take the property and proceed? 19 MR. MOTLEY: No. The only time we can 20 actually take possession of the property and make use of it 21 in our project is after he accepts the -- if he accepts our 22 offer, whatever that is, and signs a deed, we're okay. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 24 MR. MOTLEY: If not, we go to condemnation. 25 It would be after the special commissioners hearing and 5-17-00 13 1 after they render an award, after we put that amount of 2 money in the registry of the district -- of the court, the 3 registry of the court. Once that money is put up there, we 4 give them notice it's there, then we can get what's called a 5 writ of possession and start working on the project. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the time frame to 7 do all of that would be? 8 MR. MOTLEY: Two months? It depends on how 9 fast our Judge acts to appoint the commissioners. How -- 10 you know, the -- the absolute length of time and how fast or 11 how long it takes those commissioners to all come in, to 12 sign an oath. They have to agree on a hearing date, place, 13 time, and send out notice of that. Then we have to get 14 those served on him. He's -- he and his wife live in San 15 Antonio. We're -- we're going to be serving -- cost of 16 service is an item. We're going to be serving our -- our 17 taxing entities, because they may potentially -- they don't 18 owe; everything's paid through 2003 on that land, but 19 there's taxes accumulating now for this -- for this fiscal 20 year, and so we're going to have to serve, you know, the 21 school district and -- and, I guess, Comfort school 22 district, and Kerr County and any cities -- or there's no 23 cities involved, but any -- I don't know; maybe U.G.R.A. I 24 don't know. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: U.G.R.A., Headwaters. 5-17-00 14 1 MR. MOTLEY: Headwaters, probably. Serve 2 those entities, and they'll probably say, "We're not going 3 to worry about that little bit of whatever. We'll get our 4 taxes from the guy based on what he's got remaining." 5 But -- they probably won't put their hands out and say, 6 "Give us this little bit of this share," as much, but we 7 still have -- I think have to serve them, out of caution, 8 because I think they have an interest. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: So, basically, we're left with 10 two options here, as I see it. One is to go into executive 11 session, give some preauthorization on a negotiation, but 12 you have a concern about the executive session aspect. The 13 other one would be for you and Commissioner Letz to have the 14 meeting, see what you can come up with, and then come back 15 to the Court on whatever that proposal is. Is that what I'm 16 hearing? 17 MR. MOTLEY: I think we can do that. I would 18 tell you what; I would defer to Jonathan's judgment on this, 19 because he's been working on this for a long time. And I'm 20 -- I told him I'm available. I went over Friday -- my car's 21 clutch is giving me fits, and I went over Friday and I ran 22 around town trying to find Mr. Tijerina Friday. I chased 23 him; I couldn't find him, but I thought, well, I'm here 24 waiting for my clutch to be fixed. I'm going to just see if 25 I can find the guy, and I couldn't get ahold of him. 5-17-00 15 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I think 2 probably the best course of action is for David and I to 3 meet with him. I will say that, because of the way the 4 transaction was agreed to the with the Hermann Sons -- Grand 5 Lodge of the Hermann Sons, we have some excess funds that 6 were budgeted. We have about $3,600, so there's a little 7 bit of, you know, money there that can go, you know, 8 essentially towards Mr. Tijerina or towards the cost of the 9 condemnation. So, I think we probably should just leave it 10 as it is right now with this agenda item, and move on to the 11 resolution, which is the next agenda item. 12 MR. MOTLEY: I know time is of the essence. 13 I mean, I realize that it's very important to proceed. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it as to the first 15 item? 16 MR. MOTLEY: As far as I'm concerned. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Second item is consider and 18 discuss approval of resolution for condemnation of 19 right-of-way for Hermann Sons Bridge project. The 20 resolution is -- is attached to the notice of your meeting. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David gave me some 22 guidance on what we needed to have, such as the magic word, 23 "public necessity," things of that nature. 24 MR. MOTLEY: I think we've done a lot of 25 this, but a lot of it is going to just be reaffirming these 5-17-00 16 1 things. I think it's all been done. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I went through -- I 3 don't think I need to read the whole -- all the Whereas's. 4 I went through the history. I cited all of the certified 5 letters with the offers. You know, I cited all the court 6 orders that approved the various things, such as surveying, 7 appraising and all that. But the -- the guts of it are the 8 first four of the Revolved's, and I added a kind of broad 9 resolve at the end, in case it was needed. I will read 10 those. First resolved: 11 RESOLVED, the Kerr County Commissioners Court 12 declares and reaffirms that the construction of the 13 replacement Hermann Sons Road Guadalupe River Bridge and the 14 acquisition of right-of-way pursuant to same is a public 15 necessity; and may it further be 16 RESOLVED that the Kerr County Commissioners 17 Court declares and reaffirms that it has authorized Kerr 18 County Commissioner Precinct 3, Jonathan Letz, to make 19 offers to purchase the necessary right-of-way for the 20 construction of the replacement Hermann Sons Road Guadalupe 21 River Bridge, and Kerr County Commissioner Precinct 3, 22 Jonathan Letz, made offers to purchase the right-of-way at 23 the appraised value to Raul P. Tijerina and wife, Lorene R. 24 Tijerina, by letter dated August 20, 2003; by certified 25 letter dated September 16, 2003, and by certified -- cited 5-17-00 17 1 the number -- and by certified letter dated November 13th, 2 2003, cited that certified letter number. And may it 3 further be -- and may it be further 4 RESOLVED, the Kerr County Commissioners Court 5 declares and affirms that it authorized Kerr County Judge 6 Pat Tinley to execute all deeds and other necessary 7 documents to finalize the acquisition and closing of the 8 right-of-way tracts; and may it be further 9 RESOLVED, Kerr County Commissioners Court 10 declares and reaffirms that it has given the Kerr County 11 Attorney the right to file a condemnation action, if 12 necessary, to acquire any or all of the right-of-way tracts 13 designated for the Hermann Sons Road Guadalupe River Bridge 14 construction project; and may it be further 15 RESOLVED, the Kerr County Commissioners Court 16 declares and reaffirms that Kerr County Commissioner 17 Precinct 3, Jonathan Letz, is authorized to make any 18 decision and take any actions to facilitate the acquisition 19 of right-of-way for the Hermann Sons Road Guadalupe River 20 Bridge construction project within the confines of the 21 aforementioned court orders. And adopted by Kerr County 22 Commissioners Court this 17th day of May, 2004. 23 I added the last one as just a little bit of 24 a general, because we have -- a lot of the court orders kind 25 of address the construction and things of that nature, 5-17-00 18 1 and -- and thought I'd limit it to the confines of the 2 aforementioned orders. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That number four is 4 broad enough -- number four is the last Resolved -- that you 5 would have the authority to -- to negotiate the price. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of what I 7 was thinking, Dave. That gives you what we probably would 8 have given you had we gone into executive session. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- I don't 10 think that gives me the authority to -- for -- to approve a 11 price. I mean, I have the authority to go in and negotiate. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really what 13 you want, and bring a number back. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think that's the 16 only -- that would be -- the only thing possibly lacking 17 would -- 'cause you've got it tied to the existing order. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you know what the 20 alternative costs are, so you know what your field of 21 negotiating is all about. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 23 MR. MOTLEY: That's probably broad enough -- 24 "make any decisions and take any" -- you know, "take any 25 actions." I think that may be broad enough to authorize him 5-17-00 19 1 to make an offer, if -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make an offer, I think, 3 but not -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Certainly broad 5 enough that you can say, well, we got a deal subject to 6 approval -- final approval. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The other thing that it might 9 be good to keep in mind is that, if Mr. Tijerina wants to 10 carry this thing to the ultimate, he's going to have to be 11 represented, and traditionally, lawyers that handle 12 condemnation proceedings for landowners work off of the 13 difference between the award of the commissioners and what 14 they're able to get upon trial of the case. And, generally, 15 it's a -- it's a contingent fee of the difference between 16 those two. And I don't see much difference here, and so 17 he's probably going to have -- 18 MR. MOTLEY: I've seen it before there's -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the contingent 20 representation. Otherwise, he's going to have to be paying 21 out of his pocket. And hopefully he's figured this out. 22 MR. MOTLEY: I've seen the difference between 23 the offer and a commissioners' award before trial, too. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 25 MR. MOTLEY: I don't -- when we update, I 5-17-00 20 1 don't see it going up a whole lot. I mean, I think it could 2 go up a little bit. Jonathan is -- I've told him about this 3 -- this other comparable, and he mentioned some factors 4 about it that made it not that comparable, really. I 5 thought I would talk to our appraiser and just make him 6 aware of it so he can be running it down and looking -- 7 looking at this sale, and seeing what he thinks about it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Tijerina has told 9 David that there -- he has a comparable near Center Point of 10 49,000. But -- 11 MR. MOTLEY: Smaller acreage. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Smaller acreage. But he 13 had -- his worries, I think, were over access. One is he 14 had to go over a bluff. That probably means it's out of the 15 floodway, if it's over a bluff, which would increase the 16 value substantially for any tract. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He is -- the first time I 19 talked to Mr. Tijerina was probably four or five years ago, 20 and he wanted me to try to intercede with Bandera Electric 21 Co-op and Hill Country Telephone to try to get power and 22 phone service to his tract, and they refused because it's in 23 the floodway. They said absolutely not. 24 MR. MOTLEY: He used to have -- I believe 25 when he purchased it, it was 1.8 acres. Now that is about 5-17-00 21 1 .75. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 3 MR. MOTLEY: So, he lost over an acre to 4 whatever -- corrasion, whatever. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The river. 6 MR. MOTLEY: The river done swallowed it up. 7 So -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's got a lot of 9 false pride about this piece of land. 10 (Discussion off the record.) 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval of the 12 resolution. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 15 approval of the resolution as -- as tendered. Any further 16 question or discussion? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One comment. It's 18 part -- and it's cited in the -- in the resolution; the 19 legal description of Mr. Tijerina's tract is attached to the 20 resolution. 21 MR. MOTLEY: I saw a typo in there in the 22 first part of it; put a 6 instead of a G somewhere up there, 23 but I don't think that's -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- sorry, go ahead. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that was it. 5-17-00 22 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 2 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 3 signify by raising your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- like I said, David 9 and I will hopefully meet with Mr. Tijerina tomorrow, and if 10 he does not agree on the spot and sign it on the spot, I'll 11 instruct David to proceed with condemnation. The timing of 12 this, we have been dealing with him for, obviously, months 13 and months and months. This bridge has been -- or project 14 has been released for letting by TexDOT, and that was 15 done -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Good. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's good that it's 18 released, but if we don't have the right-of-way, it gets 19 shelved pretty quick. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How long will it 21 take? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Six to nine months. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the estimated 24 cost? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1.3 million. 5-17-00 23 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're going to 2 elevate that bridge this time a little bit? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it will be similar 4 to the Lane Valley bridge. 5 MR. MOTLEY: I think we can get this thing 6 done pretty quick. I'm not too worried about it. I -- he 7 wants to go -- he was asking if there was a board of some 8 sort that he could go to, like a -- you know, a tax 9 appraisal deal, and -- and I said the board is the special 10 commissioners that are part of the condemnation process as 11 I've talked to him this morning. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, he's a little bit 13 familiar with the process? 14 MR. MOTLEY: I guess he is. But I've 15 explained it to him and told him how it worked, and tried to 16 be very up-front with the guy, and just told him we really 17 need to move on this. And -- but Jonathan and I can talk to 18 him. It sounds to me like we may not make a lot of headway. 19 I don't know. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: His concerns -- I mean, 21 I've explained condemnation to him. His other issue was 22 with access. I told him we will provide access; it's in the 23 deed that he will get access to the road. He wants to know 24 exactly where it is, and we're not at liberty to do that 25 until the road is rebuilt. We're not sure exactly where it 5-17-00 24 1 will be, but he will have access; that's guaranteed to him 2 in the deed. You know, I've gone over with him -- I 3 actually had a deal worked out with the neighbor where he 4 could -- we would have used the money and he would acquire 5 the same amount of acreage that we were taking, so he would 6 have been left with better property with access and 7 everything, same location. He turned it down. So, he's 8 been unwilling to deal on this project, so -- 9 MR. MOTLEY: I think that it would be good 10 evidence to offer to the commissioners in the trial -- in 11 the event of an actual trial. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? We'll stand 13 adjourned. 14 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:56 a.m.) 15 - - - - - - - - - - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5-17-00 25 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 19th day of May, 2004. 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 5-17-00