1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 8 Workshop 9 Monday, December 12, 2005 10 2:00 p.m. 11 Commissioners' Courtroom 12 Kerr County Courthouse 13 Kerrville, Texas 14 15 16 17 18 Subdivision Rules/Water Availability Requirements 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, December 12, 2005, at approximately 2:00 2 p.m., a workshop meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners 3 Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County 4 Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings 5 were had in open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on to our 2 o'clock 8 timed item now, a workshop on Subdivision Rules and 9 Regulations and Water Availability Requirements. I think this 10 is your bailiwick, is it not, Commissioner Letz? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It appears that way. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex? I'll swap you. Here's one 14 that's got -- the lines came through better. 15 MR. EMERSON: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then, for anyone in the 17 audience that wants them, here's some copies of the draft of 18 the Subdivision Rules and the Water Availability Rules we'll 19 be talking off of today. I don't know if we have enough 20 copies for everybody, but there are some there. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10 dollars a piece. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: First, the workshop was put on 23 the agenda to discuss at our last meeting, and for the 24 Commissioners to kind of go through and write the outline 25 where the changes were made. There was a request that I 12-12-05 wk 3 1 provide a red-line version of the changes, and I said that is 2 just not possible. There's too many changes and they've been 3 done at too many different times. But I did try to highlight 4 it on the left margin of some of the copies that were handed 5 out and some of the ones I know that the Court has. There's 6 gray lines, and those gray lines indicate where changes were 7 made in that area. I don't really know the best way to go 8 through it. From the Court's standpoint, I think we can 9 probably go through page by page and kind of let me discuss 10 the changes a little bit. I really think, though, the best 11 thing would be for everyone to show where the changes are, and 12 then if -- maybe read them. It's very hard. I mean, you 13 really need to be able to focus and concentrate on these and 14 kind of read them in context to be able to really understand 15 what's being said. 16 Probably, in my mind, more important than going 17 through them and identifying the changes is for us to decide a 18 process from here on out as to how we're going to proceed. 19 The -- both the Water Availability and the Subdivision Rules 20 are at a point they're probably 95 percent ready for, I guess, 21 public input. I don't know -- I talked with Bruce Motheral; 22 he's the one that happened to call, but I think his feelings 23 are probably shared by others, and it's as to when we want to 24 get the -- for the Court to turn a document out to the public. 25 Obviously, there's -- every draft's a public document and can 12-12-05 wk 4 1 be viewed, and some of them have been looked at by various 2 individuals. I told -- I think the concern is that we're 3 going to come out with a draft that, by the time it finally 4 gets presented to the public, it's a draft that is sort of 5 etched in stone, that it's hard to change. And I think the -- 6 the reference was we don't want to get in the same situation 7 that the City did with the U.D.C. A document was drafted, and 8 then it was very hard to make changes to it. I totally agree; 9 we don't want to get in that situation. So I don't know, 10 really, you know, when the time is right to turn this loose 11 and really say, "Okay, here's the version that we're fairly 12 comfortable with; now we'd like to get public comment on it," 13 if the time is now or a week from now, or how we do that. I 14 mean, every time I go through this, I'm going to make changes 15 again; I find little things that I -- you know. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's take it away from you, 17 then. (Laughter.) 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Take it. And there are -- but I 19 would think that most of the main things -- I think that, you 20 know, I'm happy with it. I'd be willing to recommend these 21 out to the public. So, anyway, just a matter of how we 22 proceed with that. Probably, unless there's any other 23 questions from the Court -- Commissioner Williams? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it our intent to take 25 public comment today? 12-12-05 wk 5 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, I mean, I certainly have 2 no problem receiving public comment, but for me to really 3 absorb it, I need to get it in writing. I mean, it's very, 4 very difficult to have someone talking and saying, "Look at 5 this page." And, for example, I know both Commissioner 6 Nicholson and Len Odom went through it and handed me a draft 7 version back with comments in it, and there really weren't -- 8 you know, some of them were typo-type errors, but a lot of it 9 were questions more as, you know, "Is this what you want to 10 say?" Or, "Is this how I'm interpreting...," things of that 11 nature. And I really think that trying to receive that and 12 for me to really understand the comments, it's much easier for 13 me to receive them in writing. So, any comments, I really 14 would prefer to get them in writing from whoever they come 15 from. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask, how many -- how many of 17 those here today have had an opportunity to actually review 18 the document that we've got before us now? 19 MR. MOTHERAL: Well, the one he just handed us is a 20 later date, but I had one that was -- over the weekend. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. So, there's two, maybe 22 three of you that have had an opportunity to review something 23 at least similar to this. 24 MR. MOTHERAL: Right. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: It appears to me that we -- we're 12-12-05 wk 6 1 probably not ready for public comment yet. Most folks are 2 probably going to want a little bit more opportunity to -- to 3 review it and study on it and maybe ask some questions, and 4 maybe talk amongst yourselves about what it contains and what 5 you think the intent is. You may have some more of these "Is 6 this what this means?" questions that's on your mind. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my view or thought would be 8 that, even though I know there's some new changes that I'd 9 like to make to this document, they're not real substantive. 10 They're kind of more moving paragraphs around, is where I am 11 at this point. I'd really like to open it up. We have -- I 12 handed out copies to most people that are here today. We can 13 certainly get more copies available, and then, either at our 14 next meeting or sometime -- set a date. You know, with the 15 holidays coming up, maybe you ought to go to the first of 16 January, something like that, to try to get comments back. 17 And then we can maybe look -- I can go back through and come 18 up with a final draft by our first meeting in January, and 19 then put it out for a second public comment period or an 20 actual -- you know, for public hearings. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm very interested in 22 getting public comment on this, particularly from those -- a 23 lot of those are here, you know, who have a vested interest in 24 it; developers, people in water, engineering. Not often, but 25 occasionally we have a -- have citizens who oppose certain 12-12-05 wk 7 1 provisions or don't understand them or want to change them, 2 and this -- this is a good opportunity to hear all that. I 3 mean, we may not necessarily take action that would satisfy 4 their grievance, but I think it's really important that 5 everybody that's got an interest in this has an opportunity to 6 study it and give us their input. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. The other comment, Rex 8 has not looked at this at any great length. I think he's 9 looked at it. He and I have certainly not sat down on a lot 10 of these issues, and that's been somewhat intentional. I 11 don't want to waste a whole lot of his time by tossing out 12 some provisions and then us have to take it back out if it's 13 not something that we're really somewhat serious about going 14 through with. So, I think we definitely need his comment as 15 well. Mr. Harvey? 16 MR. HARVEY: I was going to ask, before I forgot to 17 later as the meeting went on, does the Court have a preferred 18 way of receiving written comments after people review it? 19 Like, through an e-mail address, or do y'all have a 20 preference? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I suspect 22 that the Court will probably forward those to me. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: You suspect correctly. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, that being the case, it -- 12-12-05 wk 8 1 the two, I guess, formats that I prefer, you know, are either 2 a letter or e-mail, or marking up the copy that we handed out 3 today with notes written on it in the margin, as long as I can 4 read the writing. 5 MR. HARVEY: The only reason I suggested e-mail is 6 that there may be some items in here that, to really give true 7 comment, is going to require a little bit more room than 8 what's available to mark up on these pages. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anticipating lots of mark-ups, 10 huh? (Laughter.) 11 MR. HARVEY: I just -- I want to make sure that -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My e-mail is -- I don't know the 13 county -- both of them go to the same location, but I never 14 can remember my county e-mail. But the other one is 15 ccr@hctc.net. Or you can call Kathy for whatever my one here 16 is; they both end up at the same location. 17 MR. HARVEY: ccr at? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: hctc.net. Any other -- 19 MS. HARDIN: Where would copies be available for the 20 public to pick them up? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where? 22 MS. HARDIN: For review. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can probably have some here 24 or some at your office, are probably the two logical 25 locations, in my mind. I mean, I don't know how many -- are 12-12-05 wk 9 1 all the ones that we had here gone? 2 MR. HARVEY: They're gone. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're gone. If we can get one 4 of them back, we can give it to Ms. Mitchell. 5 MR. MOTHERAL: A suggestion on that. If somebody 6 has an e-mail system, let them ask or request through your 7 e-mail a copy, and you can -- can you do that? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, the problem I have with 9 that is, it's real hard to track changes when they come back 10 on a full e-mailed document. I mean, if someone has a -- and 11 so I'm reluctant to start e-mailing documents. As Truby 12 knows, the first time we did that, we got in a real problem. 13 The document comes back, and either I don't see it or I don't 14 realize another change that was made, and all of a sudden, it 15 gets -- so, it's easier to -- 16 MR. MOTHERAL: Maybe through a cover letter, as 17 opposed to changes within the document. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I wouldn't mind -- you 19 can send out the e-mail if you show me how to make it so it 20 can't be changed, but I don't want to receive comments back 21 with a full document coming back with an edited version. That 22 doesn't work, because I can't find them. It's got to either 23 be a hard copy with comments, or -- but we can give -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we have copies 25 available with Ms. Mitchell and with Ms. Hardin out at Road 12-12-05 wk 10 1 and Bridge, and any comments that come back come back to those 2 two sources, and then we coordinate them from that point. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that will work. We'll get 4 some copies out to Road and Bridge and out here by the end of 5 the day. 6 MS. HARDIN: I can make copies from what I have. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. All right. Well, 8 let's go through -- let's do water availability first, 'cause 9 it's short. Shorter, anyway. The draft -- the current 10 draft -- let me make sure everyone's looking at the right one. 11 Both of them should be drafts, 12-12-05. The last version of 12 this document had, under 1.02.B, a section on the developers 13 could choose to operate under Chapter 230 to prove water 14 availability. Since that draft, I met with, at a workshop 15 setting, the Headwaters board, or most of their board was 16 there, I believe, and kind of by consensus, it was decided to 17 take that provision out and replace it with a new provision, 18 and it probably is going to have to be expanded on if we keep 19 this in. Basically -- let me back up a minute -- what we've 20 done, we've created a county-wide standard that if you follow 21 a county-wide standard, you're deemed to have met water 22 availability requirements and you don't have to do anything 23 outside that on the science side. Then I added this provision 24 on monitor and test well requirements. 25 Headwaters, one of their concerns -- one of their 12-12-05 wk 11 1 needs is to receive more data from test wells, and what I 2 think is a reasonable idea is to have, in subdivisions, not an 3 arbitrary size; anything greater than 20 -- maybe it needs to 4 be 50 acres, but any subdivision over 20 acres, the developer 5 will be required to provide a test well or monitor well 6 location. I didn't specify whether it would be a deeded 7 location or by easement. By easement would be more -- easier. 8 And then, under Item 2, developments where the total acreage 9 is more than 20 acres could do one of two things. They could 10 drill a monitor well, and specifications that, again, have to 11 be worked out by Headwaters, or they can pay a $30-per-lot fee 12 in lieu of drilling a monitor well, and then Headwaters can 13 drill monitor wells wherever they choose. And that may be in 14 the subdivision; it may not be in that subdivision. It was 15 worded this way because I'm pretty sure we have authority to 16 require a monitor well. I'm not sure we have the authority to 17 charge a -- the fee. But I think if we give them a choice, it 18 probably gives us the ability to do it. The intent is really 19 for them to pay a fee. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon? In the -- and then, in 21 the subdivision regs somewhere, would it be required, as part 22 of the platting procedure, to -- for the development to 23 provide an easement for that well? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would that be in the -- 12-12-05 wk 12 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think it probably needs 2 to. And there's actually -- there's that, and also some 3 certifications under the water availability. Even though they 4 refer to it back and forth, I think it's cleaner if both of 5 those are in both documents. So, I think it is -- it would 6 need to be added into the Subdivision Rules just to make it 7 clear. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want me to say that to 9 you in writing? Would you take it in e-mail form? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: E-mail form is all right. After 11 thinking about it -- I put 20 acres in there last night; it 12 was getting late and I was tired. After rethinking this 13 morning, I probably think 20 acres is too small. I think it 14 probably ought to be 50 acres. I think that's more of a 15 reasonable size, 'cause 50 acres would be a subdivision with 16 10 individual test wells -- 10 individual wells, and I think 17 that is a reasonable size where you start really getting 18 concerned about localized possible problems with groundwater. 19 So -- you know, but that amount, whether it's 20 or 50, is 20 more the concept at this point. And then the fee, whether 21 it's $30 or $10 or $100, I think it's -- again, it's a -- it 22 needs to be reasonable. My idea is that, after talking with 23 Headwaters and their board, that they don't need a monitor 24 well everywhere; they don't want a monitor well everywhere, 25 but if there's a certain area that -- that they think they 12-12-05 wk 13 1 need one, this does help provide funding for a monitor well, 2 and there's clearly a need for more monitor wells in the 3 county to help. And that will hopefully, long-term, ease up 4 on the water availability requirements, especially in the 5 western part of the county. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, what's the -- 7 probably everybody here but me knows the answer to this. What 8 is the rationale for requiring a test well? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Test wells are the only way to 10 -- or, certainly, these aren't test -- well, test wells, 11 monitor wells are really the only way to monitor -- you can't 12 use a well that's pumping up and down to record or monitor the 13 level of the aquifer. If you have a monitor well in a 14 subdivision -- for example, say, you know, you have a 20-lot 15 subdivision; you put a monitor well in the middle of it. You 16 can kind of monitor what the pumping is or what the effect is 17 on that aquifer by the pumping, and it'll -- it will assist, I 18 think, Headwaters in determining their pumping limits, as to 19 what those pumping limits should be. And also, you get more 20 data on the aquifers. One of the problems I believe that 21 Headwaters has -- and I don't mean to speak for them. There's 22 several -- one board member -- two board members present and 23 the General Manager. Is that right now, the County and 24 Headwaters are forced to use kind of county-wide rules, 25 because we don't have enough specific well information to be 12-12-05 wk 14 1 able to say this part of the county should have this -- you 2 know, have this amount of water available, and this part of 3 the county, another. So, we're kind of using county-wide 4 rules. 5 And I think the intent is, down the road, if we get 6 enough information and Headwaters completes their project of 7 groundwater availability modeling, that then you can start 8 splitting out and saying, okay, this area, we know we have a 9 problem, I mean, relatively good certainty, and we may want 10 to -- they may want to either change pumping limits; maybe we 11 need to change lot size, maybe do both. But in this area, 12 there's plenty of water, a lot more than we even thought there 13 was, so we can go with a higher density development in those 14 areas. And the general thinking at the moment is that if you 15 get kind of east of Kerrville, there are areas where it looks 16 like you're going to have some problems, and if you go west of 17 Kerrville, you probably are in pretty good shape. And when I 18 say that, I think -- I was talking to Lee Voelkel before the 19 meeting started a little bit. I feel, personally, that 20 there's -- you know, for domestic or for household use, you 21 can drill a well anywhere in the county and get water, enough 22 for that. The problem comes in when you get some of these 23 homes that do -- start filling up lakes, which is a -- you get 24 into other issues related to proper use of water, but it is 25 done. Or if you get into landscaping or, you know, lots of 12-12-05 wk 15 1 different things, that's where you start running into 2 potential problems. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sort of playing the devil's 4 advocate a little bit, would it be correct that the 5 requirement for a monitor well is essentially of no value to 6 the developer or the people who are going to purchase lots and 7 build there? It's a way of funding data-gathering for -- for 8 local governments and water agencies. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you look at it two ways. 10 I tend to probably agree with you, the latter part of your 11 statement, more. But I think there are others that say that 12 there is a value to the developers or to the -- to the lot 13 purchasers to know how much water is there. If they go into a 14 subdivision and they want to, you know, put in a catfish farm, 15 it's going to be pretty helpful to them to know if there's a 16 monitor well in an area that says, "Hey, this is a good spot; 17 we have a whole lot of water over here," or, "No, it's not a 18 good idea." So, it does provide information to the public 19 that is beneficial to them. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's go another direction 21 with that, Commissioner, if you will. Let's just take a 22 hypothetical, but we'll base it on a subdivision that's 23 platted, that we approved platting for, and the breakdown is 24 5 acres, and there was something just under 20 lots, so we'll 25 say 100 lots (sic) for the sake of discussion. If there were 12-12-05 wk 16 1 in place that 100 lots -- I mean that 20 lots on 100 acres, 2 that would yield about $1,000 to Headwaters for a future well, 3 not a -- not an immediate well. And, so, they'd have to amass 4 a pot to be able to drill a well at some point in time in a 5 location of their choice. So, my question really is, for a 6 particular developer, thinking about the one we completed, for 7 example, will he -- would it be understood that water 8 availability, as far as he's concerned, is based on whatever 9 data is in the possession of either Kerr County or -- or the 10 Headwaters people based on information they got from some 11 monitoring well somewhere in eastern Kerr County? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I understand your question, I 13 think the county-wide rules are set up -- and they kind of 14 mesh with the pumping limits of Headwaters from an acreage 15 standpoint -- set up that we think, based on the knowledge 16 that we have right now of the aquifers, that you have water 17 under your property, and it should be able to sustain itself. 18 If you have a monitor well, you're going to get a greater 19 feeling of comfort and a greater ability -- level of 20 knowledge. Headwaters -- you know, I think it is 21 unreasonable, personally, to require every development to 22 drill a monitor well. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A test and a monitor. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either one. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either/or. 12-12-05 wk 17 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either/or. But I do think that 2 there are areas, as this Headwaters groundwater modeling comes 3 along, where it will be really helpful to know. Hey, they are 4 there, because there have been some problems in some areas 5 around Center Point. It's no secret there's been some 6 problems with water levels in Trinity wells in that area. A 7 monitor well there would be very helpful to every -- to that 8 whole area, including the developers -- that specific 9 developer or developments around, but also beyond that. And 10 this is a fee where Headwaters can then accumulate the money 11 and say, "This is where we have a concern. We need to drill a 12 monitor well here, and this subdivision will provide us that 13 location." Whereas they're collecting the fee on some of 14 their -- you know, maybe over outside of the city, west of 15 Ingram, where recent wells have shown there's quite a bit of 16 water right there. Well, they may collect the fee out there. 17 Then they can use that fee, in addition to the other fees, to 18 drill the well where they actually need it. I see it as a way 19 to -- it's probably -- to me, it does -- it gets monitor wells 20 and information wherever they need to be drilled, and it isn't 21 overly burdening the developers, which gets passed on to the 22 purchasers, the ultimate property purchasers. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gordon? 24 MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't there -- won't there 12-12-05 wk 18 1 come a time when there are enough test wells through the 2 county that -- I mean, enough is enough? 3 MR. MORGAN: I would hope so. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And do we have any idea what 5 that number would be? Or, I mean, are you -- how do y'all 6 look at that? Is the county broken up into quadrants, or how 7 do you do that? My point is, it seems like to me that, at 8 some point, there will be enough test wells to where you will 9 know that there -- how much water's under there, and then 10 after we reach that point that there's "X" amount of wells -- 11 test wells out there, then do we stop requiring people to put 12 test wells in? Or is that so far down the road that I'm just 13 spitting in the wind here? 14 MR. MORGAN: Well, I think what I said, "I would 15 hope so," would be the answer to all that you said, which was 16 when they had enough data, I would think that it would be only 17 logical that then they wouldn't make those charges any more. 18 But, on the other hand, that's very seldom the case. Usually 19 a charge that's put in place continues to exist for some 20 period of time, unless it's specified in some manner that it 21 will be terminated in some special way. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a pretty good 23 point, and I would -- I would think -- well, let me make two 24 comments here. The whole Paragraph B with monitor and test 25 wells was not voted on by Headwaters that they want it, and 12-12-05 wk 19 1 there are some members, including Mr. -- Dr. Morgan, that 2 probably don't want it. I'm not going to speak for him; he 3 can speak for himself, but it was kind of an idea during the 4 discussion that came up, and I said I'll be glad to put it in 5 the rules. I'm not -- as most people find with most of these 6 things, I'm not strongly married to most of it. A lot of 7 these concepts, I listen to a lot of people and I write down 8 what I hear and try to get down what people -- what the 9 overall direction where we want to go is. I do think that -- 10 that Commissioner Baldwin's comments are very valid. I think 11 it's very easy to put a sentence in there and put a limit 12 on -- 13 MR. MOTHERAL: Five-year limit. Then, if you want 14 to review it -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, put a five-year limit on 16 it that it stops in five years, or stops in three years. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much would it -- would 18 you guess it costs to do a monitor well? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gene, what's a monitor well cost 20 in the -- for the Middle or -- yeah, the Lower Trinity in east 21 Kerr County? 22 MR. WILLIAMS: It will run $10,000 to $14,000. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm trying to put this in a 24 practical application. We just approved a, I think, 8- or 25 10-lot subdivision on F.M. 1340, and if they'd have been 12-12-05 wk 20 1 required -- I know the location; there is water -- plenty of 2 water available there. If they'd have been required to do a 3 monitor well, then that would increase their costs, and they 4 may or may not pass that on to the consumers. But what if 5 there were somebody that comes along and wants to develop the 6 same thing right next door to it? Is there going to be any 7 value to doing another monitor well 1,000 yards away from this 8 one? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, under the rules, they 10 wouldn't drill a monitor well. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's really my question, 12 kind of. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, see, that's the rules. If 14 they have -- I cannot imagine that any developer's going to 15 drill a monitor well. They're going to pay the $30-per-lot 16 fee, so that developer's going to pay $240 and walk away from 17 it. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's right. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Headwaters will then decide how 20 often they need monitor wells, 'cause they're going to get the 21 money. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I cannot imagine the developer's 24 going to want to drop down $14,000 when they can pay $240. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of your paragraphs says 12-12-05 wk 21 1 they have to provide a location. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have to provide a location, 3 which is a -- and that's -- you know, and that -- a location 4 could be the -- I look at it as probably an easement, would 5 make the most sense, so that Headwaters could drill a monitor 6 well at that location if they choose. It could also be that 7 they have to make a decision at the time of platting if they 8 want that location or not. And if they don't want it, it's 9 not on the plat, then they don't get it. 10 MR. MOTHERAL: Jon? I'm sorry, go ahead. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back to his question, though. 12 You have the subdivision here, and 1,000 feet away you have 13 another subdivision. Are we going to -- are we going to drill 14 two wells into the same aquifer? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think that Headwaters 16 would drill any wells in an area where they have some recent 17 good wells. They're going to accumulate that money and drill 18 the well in eastern Kerr County, where they need one. See, 19 the way it works, they -- the fee's paid per lot, but the 20 well's drilled by Headwaters wherever they want. And it 21 probably -- or very well may not be in that subdivision or any 22 subdivision. It's drilled in a location that Headwaters 23 wants. We are providing locations in subdivisions, but it 24 doesn't have to be in that subdivision. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 12-12-05 wk 22 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That takes me back to my 2 question. Assuming that is not going to be drilled on that 3 developer's property, or the adjacent property, what is -- 4 what are we relying on for -- to prove out the water 5 availability for a particular subdivision under these 6 circumstances? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're relying on county-wide 8 rules until Headwaters has more data to come back to the 9 County that they're going to get -- change pumping limits or 10 recommend to us we change lot sizes. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 MR. MOTHERAL: Jonathan, I just asked the gentleman 13 about the 1 acre, and they don't need 1 acre, according to 14 them. If I am not misstating what they just told me, a 15 quarter of an acre would be fine, if that -- I mean, it just 16 saves them some land that they can use for development. If we 17 don't need it, why charge it? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. If a quarter acre is 19 what's needed and it's just -- it's -- I said 1 acre. It's an 20 arbitrary number, like 20 acres. I think it's a size -- you 21 need a certain amount of acreage. If it's a quarter acre, 22 that's what you need. That's all. 23 MR. MORGAN: Gene, you -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you talking about the 25 well site? 12-12-05 wk 23 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 2 MR. WILLIAMS: Actually, we need about 20-by-20 3 square feet. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rather than a quarter? But 5 the -- I guess the -- and this is something that -- the intent 6 is to get a well location. I'll rely on Rex to figure out how 7 to legally -- or Mr. Mosty, how to get -- how you make -- put 8 that on a plat. I think it needs to be -- you've got -- that 9 spot has to be identified on the plat, and how it -- you know, 10 how that's done, I'll leave that to the legal gurus of 11 Headwaters and the County. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And ingress/egress. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And ingress/egress. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To that spot. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ideally, the other way may be 16 just to put it in the -- put the location, make the 17 right-of-way a little bit wider in the location, and have it 18 in the right-of-way for the road, you know. I mean, that's 19 a -- that's probably easier, as long as it's a big enough 20 little -- carved out right there. I mean, that's -- that way 21 you're not infringing on property rights. It's going to be 22 owned by some public entity, whether it's the County or the 23 homeowners' association or an individual that has public -- 24 you know. But, really, I mean, it was more conceptual. If 25 everyone -- I won't say everyone; if the majority like it, 12-12-05 wk 24 1 then we can proceed as if -- we can keep something along this 2 line in there. If the majority think it's another bad idea, 3 we can get rid of it. 4 MR. MORGAN: Jonathan, just kind of an aside -- 5 excuse me, but looking at -- at what revenue that we're 6 talking about right now, how significant is that revenue 7 relative to a $10,000 well? Relative to the efforts involved 8 in and for -- and it's not much money, your statement of $240. 9 I would just ask the Court to look at the amount per lot, the 10 numbers of subdivisions a year or in five years that will be 11 done, and what the total revenue would be that it would bring 12 in. How many monitor wells would it drill? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're probably looking at -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You may get one. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, you might get one every 16 two years. 17 MR. MOTHERAL: So, you're getting about 250 lots a 18 year? Is that what -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say that's on the high side. 20 MR. ODOM: So it takes 500 to -- to do a $15,000 21 well, so it's -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The way I look at it -- and if 23 Headwaters -- and if that dollar amount -- you know, the other 24 options are, if it's not significant enough to help 25 Headwaters, then you take that provision out or you increase 12-12-05 wk 25 1 the fee. Those are the two options. I mean, you know, if 2 it's -- I mean, I know trying to get these wells drilled has 3 been an issue for Headwaters, and, you know, maybe $3,000 a 4 year is not a whole lot of money, but that will be put away 5 for the monitoring equipment in a well. So, I mean, it does 6 -- it helps. It depends if it's enough help to worry about to 7 put it in the rules. That's more a Headwaters call, totally. 8 I toss it back to you, Gordon. (Laughter.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Happened to you the same way last 10 time, didn't it? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe they'll learn not to come. 12 Yes, sir? 13 AUDIENCE: Just a fleeting thought, but could a 14 hydrologist specify what, basically, the density would be in a 15 distribution that's required to know? And then -- and you 16 could just state that up front and say, you know, here's our 17 ultimate goal, and when the goal is met, the fees go away? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You mean -- yeah, we can do it. 19 I mean, so you're saying once we raise $20,000 off this fee, 20 then the fee disappears? 21 AUDIENCE: You wouldn't even be stating in terms of 22 dollars; it would be stated in terms of infrastructure. 23 Here's what we -- an expert can specify, "Here's what we want 24 to really monitor." When that -- 25 MR. MOTHERAL: You don't know till you start 12-12-05 wk 26 1 drilling. 2 AUDIENCE: Okay. So maybe specify it in that way; 3 say it's unknown. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like -- I like the idea of 5 putting a time certain; it just stops at a certain period, if 6 we have it in here at all. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The provision sunsets after 8 a certain date? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, you had a 11 question in the back of the room. Back there, I think, on the 12 far left. 13 MR. SIEMERS: I'll make one comment. Good to be 14 back, but I wish I weren't here. The monitor wells aren't 15 worth the value -- the value of a monitor well is not worth 16 the trouble you're going through. I could give you a long 17 dissertation on monitor wells and data, but you don't want me 18 to take the time. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 20 MR. SIEMERS: I will make a statement that a monitor 21 well's not worth the trouble you're going through. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm probably somewhere in 24 there, too. Right around there. 25 MR. SIEMERS: I got the background and technical 12-12-05 wk 27 1 expertise to say that. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So do I. 3 MR. SIEMERS: Thank you, Buster. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other -- 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The rest of the water 7 availability we'll discuss with the subdivision, except for -- 8 go over 1.05, Plat Certifications. These are new, and they 9 need to be included in the Subdivision Rules, and they're not 10 right now. I'm proposing that three certifications get added 11 to the plat. First one is that "Kerr County Commissioners 12 Court does not certify that complying with Kerr County Water 13 Availability Requirements insures the developer or prospective 14 lot owner that adequate groundwater is available under any 15 subdivision or lot." This is just basically a disclaimer 16 saying until you drill a well, you're not going to know what 17 you have, and the fact that we have set a lot size based on 18 water availability, that does not insure you're going to have 19 water. Second one states, "Individual water wells shall not 20 be permitted on any lot in this subdivision." And that 21 pertains to lots that have community water systems. It 22 prohibits having a community water system and individual 23 wells. 24 And then the last one, there's a blank, "(Blank) 25 Subdivision shall be limited to a maximum number of (blank) 12-12-05 wk 28 1 lots pursuant to Kerr County Water Availability Requirements." 2 This is so it's clearly on the plat. We do so many replats 3 here that it will be right in front of us every time, "Okay, 4 this subdivision can only have 14 lots," and -- rather than 5 wondering, did we go in here and divide these lots and combine 6 these and change this? So we -- it's very clear, this is the 7 maximum number under our current rules that will be allowed. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably the smartest 9 thing in the whole document. 10 MR. ODOM: Who makes that determination? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You do. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just take -- it's just a 13 mathematical equation. If it's 20 lots -- 14 MR. ODOM: By 5 or 3 or 2? Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, 20 acres, you get four 16 wells. And it's just -- you know. 17 MR. MOTHERAL: That will be affected by whether or 18 not it's in the ETJ or whether it's -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it will be based on the 20 other language in here. I mean, but if you're on individual 21 water well, it's -- it's going to be divided by five. So, 22 like I say, the only -- I mean, I won't say the only thing, 23 but the real difference here, again, is the monitor and test 24 well. It's -- as a result of my last meeting with Headwaters, 25 I see value to it. But it's -- it doesn't raise a whole lot 12-12-05 wk 29 1 of money, and it is a fair amount more work. It's more 2 documents you have to keep track of, so if it's not worth the 3 effort, there's no reason to do it. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, does 5 Chapter 230 go in the trash? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it doesn't go in the 9 trash; it's still Chapter 230. It's just not in my rules. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mine can go in the trash. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just doesn't go in the 12 rules. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just not in our rules. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Subdivision Rules. Yes, I will 18 make a couple of comments. There's still some formatting 19 issues. Whoever created Word just did it intentionally to 20 make my life miserable, I've decided. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill Gates. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I can't figure out -- 23 I'll be typing away, and all of a sudden it will reformat 24 paragraphs, and all of a sudden you have a number over here 25 and something changes over here. Then I can never get it 12-12-05 wk 30 1 undone. That's why we have indents all across the page. I 2 have to rely on Kathy to get that all straightened out. I 3 have gone through the table of contents; I think I've got it 4 to match all up a little bit, but there are probably still 5 some discrepancies there. On Page 4, Section I, this is -- 6 again, there's really no changes here. On the next two pages, 7 on Page 4 or 5, this is a -- reciting state law as to what a 8 subdivision is, what the exemptions are. We'll go back 9 through -- Rex and I hopefully will go through it and look 10 real carefully back at Chapter 232. They have made a few 11 changes. Hopefully, I've picked them up, but there's no 12 changes on Pages 2 or 3. 13 Under Section II, Definitions, the only changes here 14 were a few name changes of entities, like Headwaters, 15 T.C.E.Q., things of that nature. Didn't really add anything. 16 There was a comment from, I believe, Commissioner Nicholson as 17 to whether we should define "high-density development" in 18 here. I think it's just as easy to -- it's not a normal term. 19 I think we just define it in the text of the document where 20 it's been defined under that section that it applies. 21 MR. MOTHERAL: Jon, in the definitions there, 22 Community Sewage Collection System, you have, "An on-site..." 23 That's really not a community collection system, is it? If 24 you take -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on? 12-12-05 wk 31 1 MR. MOTHERAL: I'm sorry, Page 6. The definition of 2 community system. If you take the word "on-site" out of 3 there, doesn't it make more sense? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it does. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On-site is more of an 7 individual lot issue. 8 MR. MOTHERAL: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Making it read "a sewage 11 collection" system. 12 MR. MOTHERAL: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 11, Section III, 16 Applicability and Enforcement. We had a section in the very 17 end of the previous rules for enforcement, and a lot of that 18 verbiage was duplicated. I moved it all into one section, 19 trying to make it a little bit simpler, put it all together. 20 The area -- the section for Paragraph 3.03, quite a few 21 changes in that paragraph as to -- it's tracking a little bit 22 with state law changes. And then on Page 12, 3.07, the new 23 provision related to sub -- illegal subdivisions, bringing 24 them into compliance. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- does that carry 12-12-05 wk 32 1 with it a penalty as in 3.03? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. It's just -- it's not -- 3 it's a -- the enforcement -- the general -- the penalty 4 portion is in 3.03; then the other ones are some other related 5 paragraphs, but the actual enforcement and penalty is in 3.03. 6 MR. VOELKEL: 3.07 is dealing with older lots? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, and illegal subdivisions. 8 MR. VOELKEL: Something that was done 20 years ago? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 10 MR. ODOM: What about that timeline that we had, 11 those grandfather clauses? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just saying that any -- 13 that if you're an illegal subdivision and you do something, 14 you're subject to our rules. It's not saying you have to 15 bring it up into compliance. It's saying that if, in fact, 16 you're an old subdivision, you're -- and you do something new, 17 it needs to -- you're under these current rules. You're not 18 under the rules when your subdivision was -- 19 MR. VOELKEL: But the rules say you have to file a 20 plat, so you have to file a plat? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you do something, yes. If 22 you want to sell a piece of land or you want to convey 23 something, yes. 24 MR. VOELKEL: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex -- I'll get with Rex. He is 12-12-05 wk 33 1 hopefully making notes on some of these, and maybe the way I 2 worded it -- he's nodding his head. 3 MR. MOTHERAL: The section before that, just a 4 question for my edification. 3.06, "including costs related 5 to engineering and inspection..." Are you talking about the 6 County's inspection, or are you talking about an independent 7 inspection of construction? What are you -- what are you 8 talking about there? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the County's rules. It's 10 pretty -- if the County -- the state law has been changed that 11 we can recoup all of our costs of monitoring subdivisions. 12 MR. MOTHERAL: Is that a part of the fee that's paid 13 for in the initial stages? Or is that in addition to? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be. The fee structure 15 has not been worked out. It will be in the original fee 16 structure, and there's some provisions in there that if we 17 have to go into -- under, like, a road, if we disagree, 18 basically -- you know, I don't want to get way ahead of 19 ourselves, but say a road's been built. Leonard, who everyone 20 knows is not an engineer, thinks that it's not being built to 21 specifications. We'll then go hire -- the County will hire an 22 engineer. If the County's correct and the road was not built 23 to specifications, the developer pays for the engineering 24 cost -- the new engineering cost. If the developer was 25 correct and it was, the County has to eat that cost. 12-12-05 wk 34 1 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. In other words, to me, it 2 wasn't clear what portion of the inspection we were talking 3 about, and I -- that was the reason I raised the question. I 4 hear what you're saying. Yes, I agree that if the developer 5 doesn't do it correctly, he should pay for it. But, on the 6 other hand, if he has, then he shouldn't. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll just write "clarify" 8 on mine. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should that clarification 10 not say also, "including costs related to engineering and 11 inspection of infrastructure construction?" Isn't that what 12 we're talking about? Stormwater and roads, essentially. 13 MR. ODOM: Stormwater was the engineer. The 14 developer has to pay for that. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I'm talking 16 about. We're not talking about -- it says costs related to 17 engineering, inspection of construction. We're not talking 18 about house construction. We're talking about stormwater, 19 perhaps, construction, road construction, things of that 20 nature. Infrastructure-type items. Isn't that what we're 21 trying to say? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think what -- yes to 23 that. But, I mean, you have to read the whole sentence, 24 "construction within the subdivision as set forth herein." 25 Just saying you have to look to the rest of the document. 12-12-05 wk 35 1 There's a lot of costs that the developer's going to have to, 2 you know, spend on engineering, whether it be road 3 engineering -- drainage and engineering are the two big ones. 4 And there's also -- I think it also covers on this that it's a 5 -- the County can recoup its inspection costs. And -- 6 MR. MOTHERAL: Somewhere later on you break it out, 7 and I don't remember where it is. I read the thing so 8 quickly, I don't remember where it is, but wording similar to 9 that in this place would be helpful. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 MR. HARVEY: Maybe that 3.06 could end along the 12 lines, "including costs incurred by the County," relating to 13 engineering and inspection of construction within the 14 subdivision. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 MR. HARVEY: The developer needs to -- I would think 17 the developer needs to know, and it would be clear that those 18 are costs incurred by the County because the County questions 19 something. And if nothing's wrong, then the County pays for 20 it. If something is wrong, the developer pays for it. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go back to 3.07. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm reading that to say 24 that -- that any of these old subdivisions that aren't 25 recorded would be required to come in and -- and bring each 12-12-05 wk 36 1 subdivision or lot into compliance under the current 2 standards. Does this mean that? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that's not the intent. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's simply if you want to 5 change something in the old subdivision, then you'd have to -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- bring it in? Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, if it's an illegal 9 subdivision within the last year, then they do have to come 10 into compliance. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if it was subdivided 12 by metes and bounds before the regulations came into effect, 13 you don't call that an illegal subdivision, do you? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably, Rex will need -- Rex 15 and I need to work on this language, exactly how we're going 16 to handle illegal subdivisions. 17 MR. ODOM: Anything prior to December 11, 2000, is 18 not going to be grandfather clause any more? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are new rules, so we don't 20 know. That's the date we have right now. 21 MR. ODOM: Yeah, by court order, that's what we're 22 going by now. It's grandfathered if it's prior to that. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And -- well, probably, I 24 think we need to -- if we're going -- I think it makes sense 25 to pick a date that anything older than that, we're just not 12-12-05 wk 37 1 going to -- I mean, whether it's illegal or not, we can't do 2 anything about it. But anything since a certain date, if we 3 catch it, we're going to make it be brought up into 4 compliance. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Leonard just hit on 6 what my concern is. I'm saying that if you were once 7 grandfathered, you're still grandfathered, unless you make 8 changes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Unless you do something new. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I don't think we've 11 ever grandfathered illegal subdivisions. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, how do you define 13 "illegal"? Prior to 1988? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: One that should have been platted 15 under existing rules, and was not. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Prior to 1988? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Prior to '88? No. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't that when the 19 Subdivision Rules came into effect, 1988? 20 MS. HARDIN: 1984. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '84, I'm sorry. Prior to 22 that. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anything before '84 is 24 grandfathered. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That's my point. 12-12-05 wk 38 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then if you're -- you know, 2 but we -- because of just logistics and manpower, the Court, 3 by court order, said we're not going to pursue anything before 4 2000. 5 MR. ODOM: 2000. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is the date of the current 7 rules. Just because -- I mean, yes, they're out there. Yes, 8 they got away with it. But, I mean, you -- you can only go 9 back so far. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, what about the comment 11 you made about if the subdivision's only one year old, then -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we need to clarify that 14 and have that in writing? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying. I think 16 we'll have to go back to that date and say anything -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- prior to that date will be 19 grandfathered unless it's changed, and anything after that 20 date, you know, will be subject to these rules. I don't see 21 Rex writing any notes down. He must have a good memory. 22 MR. EMERSON: I wrote it down. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Next page is 13, 24 Section IV, Variances. No changes, I don't believe, were made 25 to that section. Page 14, Subdivision Standards. 12-12-05 wk 39 1 Essentially, Pages 14, 15, and 16 were rewritten completely, 2 and this is where we have totally changed -- not totally 3 changed; we've changed the -- it's still 5-acre lot size for 4 individual wells, 1 acre if it's served by community water 5 system and O.S.S.F., 1 acre if served by a community water 6 system and a sewage collection system, and then a little bit 7 smaller in high-density areas. And the high-density areas are 8 the areas within the ETJ. We're going to have to modify this 9 language about the City of Kerrville ETJ, but it's basically 10 going to be around the city of Center Point and Comfort, will 11 be the high-density areas. 12 MR. MOTHERAL: So, does the high-density area 13 designation, then, just the cover the ETJ's within the various 14 cities? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it covers the areas 16 around, basically, Comfort and Center Point that aren't 17 cities. They're not in municipalities, so they don't have an 18 ETJ. 19 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. The reason I bring the 20 question up, as I understand it, the County does not have 21 zoning powers, and could this be considered that? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. I mean, we 23 have authority to -- around Center Point right now to set lot 24 sizes just in the county. 25 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. I was talking about the 12-12-05 wk 40 1 designation of "high-density area." 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. But all that does is 3 provide for a greater density around there, and the 4 justification for it is the likelihood of surface water, and 5 also some other economies that come. And it -- basically, 6 without doing something like that, it really makes it 7 difficult for those communities to develop. 8 MR. MOTHERAL: I understand. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The qualifications of public 10 water and public sewer. 11 MR. MOTHERAL: I understand what the need is. What 12 I'm saying is, is it -- and Rex will have to answer this. I 13 don't -- didn't want to step into an area where the County was 14 not -- didn't have the ability to make that kind of a ruling. 15 It's a zoning issue, really. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think if we went 17 beyond lot size, I think we'd have some issues, but I think 18 lot size based on water availability, we're on pretty good 19 ground. 20 MR. HARVEY: On, you know, this 5.01.E, High-Density 21 Development Areas -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes? 23 MR. HARVEY: -- was there some guide where 1 mile is 24 reached? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The guide was used because for 12-12-05 wk 41 1 up to 25,000, that's the standard ETJ by state law, so 1 mile 2 was just used. If the communities were incorporated, this 3 would have a 1-mile ETJ. 4 MR. HARVEY: Well, yes, but there's also another 5 classification for less than 5,000, which is a half a mile. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you speaking to the 7 subject in general, or to Number 3 under that paragraph? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Subject in general, I think. 9 Well, the 1 mile that was in here. 10 MR. HARVEY: Well, Item 3 and 4 that applies to 11 Center Point and Comfort. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The area -- 13 MR. HARVEY: Basically three classifications; a half 14 a mile for 5,000 or less, 1 mile for up to 25,000, and 5 miles 15 for, like, up to a million or a half a million, something like 16 that. I was just wondering if maybe 1 mile was -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Too much? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We talked about that 19 specifically with reference to Center Point, and I think, in a 20 practical sense, what we're trying to say, and we can be more 21 definitive about it, in relation to Center Point, is that -- 22 is that area which has been identified in mapping which is now 23 in front of the T.W.D.B. as a proposed service area for a 24 centralized sewer system, that can be identified. But if you 25 really get into a broad, generic definition, it's probably 1 12-12-05 wk 42 1 mile from 480/27, which takes you almost to Verde Creek. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was -- it was kind of done 3 based on the ETJ, the -- for Kerrville and Ingram, but it 4 could be -- actually, east of Kerrville. Not Ingram, just 5 Kerrville. Ingram is smaller. So, it's somewhat arbitrary, 6 but that's where it came from. 7 MR. HARVEY: Well, you know, I suppose Center 8 Point's a little different situation than Comfort, because if 9 you go 1 mile from Center Point back towards Kerrville and 10 look at the ETJ of the City of Kerrville, everything's taken 11 up. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything's what? 13 MR. HARVEY: Everything's taken up. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if you go -- if you take 15 the ETJ of the City of Kerrville around the airport and then 16 go half a mile, it would take up the entire area. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or very close to it. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's a -- I have no 21 strong feeling. I think that it's a -- I think we need to 22 enable higher density around those communities. Whether it's 23 a half mile or a mile doesn't -- you know, I'm open for 24 discussion on it. I just think we need to provide something 25 to enable higher density and to also encourage the extension 12-12-05 wk 43 1 into the Comfort area, Kendall County Water District Number 1 2 by sewer and water. 3 MR. HARVEY: So, 5.01.E is something that is 4 allowed -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 6 MR. HARVEY: -- within these areas? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 MR. HARVEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, -- 10 MR. MOTHERAL: In -- I'm sorry. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the sentence structure 12 on 3 and 4 needs to be changed. On 3, it should be defined as 13 "an area in Kerr County within a 1-mile radius." 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the same change on 4. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. 17 MR. MOTHERAL: In the definition of -- for -- in the 18 last paragraph in that section, E -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 20 MR. MOTHERAL: -- it says, "A water utility and a 21 wastewater disposal plan must be submitted and approved by a 22 licensed engineer." Well, if it were an engineer that 23 designed it, he's going to approve it. What engineer are we 24 talking about? Or should we simply say, "submitted by a 25 licensed engineer"? And then, if -- if there's some concern 12-12-05 wk 44 1 or differential there, then we -- then we go down the road 2 with it. But it's -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably should say -- and we 4 made a change earlier; I didn't catch this one. In another 5 spot, we made a change, "submitted and sealed." 6 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. Okay, that's fine. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Sealed" as opposed to 8 "approved"? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 10 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Talk about 5.01.G. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both G and H are also -- we'll 13 just change them. You have G? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How -- I'm thinking about 15 condominiums. Say do you a vertical condominium project. How 16 can they make the acreage -- minimum acreage and minimum lot 17 size requirements? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good question. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In fact, we got a developer 20 looking to do -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doing one in the county? I was 22 hoping they were all going to be in the city. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's why he was going to 24 the county; he can't afford to build them in the city. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably right. 12-12-05 wk 45 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We get into a situation 2 throughout the rules when it comes to -- that's why both other 3 developments and commercial developments are kind of reviewed 4 on a case-by-case basis. And I think it's going to have -- 5 something like a condominium, high-density type condominium, I 6 think, is going to have to be something worked out from a 7 water standpoint, really, more with Headwaters on pumping 8 limits as to how much water is going to be available for that 9 project and how they're going to get those pumping limits. 10 Trying to go in and -- and really try to anticipate what may 11 be on the horizon in both commercial and condominiums or other 12 types of development, I think we just end up with a document 13 that would be so large, we just couldn't do it. So, we just 14 kind of say we're going to try to go with the spirit of what 15 we have, but look at it on a case-by-case basis. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you want a condominium, 17 you need to get your concept plan and get in here and find 18 out -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Start talking to us and the 20 other entities, such as what Miguel's going to require, what 21 he's going to have from a septic standpoint, what Headwaters 22 is going to require. It's going to have to be a collaborative 23 effort. 24 MR. MOTHERAL: Shouldn't that last sentence address 25 that, in that direction? Instead of "analysis of groundwater 12-12-05 wk 46 1 availability," really, it should say -- or address the issue 2 of coordinating with Miguel and with Headwaters. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think I kind of -- I 4 said water availability, public welfare, public safety, and 5 all other authority to regulate subdivisions. I just kind of 6 put it all in there. We could add Environmental Health in 7 there as a specific -- in addition, before we get to "all 8 other." Okay. On Page 17, Roads -- 9 MR. MOTHERAL: There's another one down there, 10 "approved by the engineer," in 5.01.H. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same change, "sealed" as 13 opposed to "approve." 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Page 17, under the Roads, 15 no changes. On Page 18, under Roads, the changes are changing 16 the lettering on the signs from 4 inches to 6 inches, which is 17 going to be a new state law requirement. There's a minor 18 change on the verbiage on the size of the sign, 24 inches wide 19 as a minimum, just adding addition of the word "wide." Waste 20 Disposal Systems. This is a different paragraph than we had 21 in the last version. I ran this by Miguel. He's added or 22 suggested some additional language in there to make it a 23 little bit more clear as to what the state law requirements 24 are. 25 MR. MOTHERAL: There's a spelling typo in the middle 12-12-05 wk 47 1 of the -- 5.03.A, the second paragraph, about two-thirds of 2 the way down. "Easement as," there's no space between it. 3 It's -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Easements identified. Okay. 5 Page 19, there's another -- at the very top of the page, 6 there's a change from 45 days for the Health Department -- or 7 for Environmental Health to get back to a 30-day requirement, 8 shortening that period a little bit. The bottom of the page 9 under Drainage, the drainage section has been changed. 10 MR. MOTHERAL: Pardon me. 5.04.C is talking about 11 30 inches, and then the word "feet" -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, 30 feet. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which do we want? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Inches. 15 MR. MOTHERAL: It's inches. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 MR. MOTHERAL: Thirty feet's pretty deep for a 18 utility line. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The drainage section has been 20 changed substantially from our -- what we currently have. And 21 we've gone to a -- rather than have a mandatory detention 22 system for all lots, it allows a certain amount of flow -- 23 increased flow out of subdivisions. A lot of this was -- kind 24 of came about after my discussions with Les Harvey of some 25 things that work, and he's helped a lot. Appreciate his help 12-12-05 wk 48 1 on that. I think I've captured most of what he and I agreed 2 to, though I know we made -- we had a later meeting, and I 3 forgot to change some changes that he wanted, so hopefully 4 he'll give me those again. 5 MR. MOTHERAL: I mentioned to you earlier, Jonathan, 6 in that Section C, you talk about lot sizes greater than 5 7 acres, and then right down in the second paragraph, you talk 8 about smaller lots, and then you go down to Number (2) down 9 there and you repeat the thing. It probably would make more 10 sense to scratch out one section -- Section (1) and use 11 Section (2), take the definition out of there, move it up, and 12 make it the single portion of 5.06.C. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I haven't read through it, 14 but you're saying that (1) and (2) are -- 15 MR. MOTHERAL: They are very similar. There are 16 some slight differences. The percentages of the runoff rate 17 change are different, but as far as the paragraphs themselves, 18 they are -- they talk about less than 5 acres, they talk about 19 5 to 25, and then over 25, both paragraphs do. And so it's -- 20 it's -- they really overlap. 21 MR. ODOM: Yeah, 5.06.C, (a) and (b) -- I mean 22 (2)(a). 23 MR. MOTHERAL: (1) and (2). Sections (1) and (2) 24 under 5.06.C are very -- I mean, they're darned near the same 25 thing, with the exception of percentage allowed. 12-12-05 wk 49 1 MR. ODOM: Percentage allowed from 20 to 10. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Percentage allowed is pretty 3 important. 4 MR. MOTHERAL: Well, but one of them, if you read 5 it, the point is that you're -- 6 MR. ODOM: 5 acres. 7 MR. MOTHERAL: In (a) in both cases, you're talking 8 about less than 5 acres. In (b) in both cases, you're talking 9 about 5 to 25 acres. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 MR. MOTHERAL: In (c), you're talking about over 25 12 acres in both cases. 13 MR. HARVEY: No. No, it's not saying that at all. 14 No, (1) is talking about the lot size. 15 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. 16 MR. HARVEY: (a) is talking about the area of the 17 drainage basin. 18 MR. ODOM: Of the basin. 19 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. 20 MR. HARVEY: Now, one thing I would suggest that you 21 all consider on (a), (b), and (c) of both, 5.01 -- of 5.06.C 22 (1) and (2), where it says, "If the pre-development drainage 23 basin area..." and continues, you might consider changing that 24 to, "If the post-development drainage area..." 25 MR. MOTHERAL: Well, no, that's different, 12-12-05 wk 50 1 because -- 2 MR. HARVEY: Because subdivision -- I mean, the 3 installation of subdivision improvements increase or decrease 4 the boundary of an existing drainage basin. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good point. 7 MR. HARVEY: Because the balance of all your wording 8 of those three items is related to post-development 9 conditions. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 11 MR. HARVEY: You ought to start out with 12 post-development conditions. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, would you suggest 14 changing "pre" to "post"? 15 MR. HARVEY: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Throughout. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: (a), (b), (c)? 18 MR. HARVEY: (a), (b), (c) on that page, and (a), 19 (b), (c) on the next page. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Okay, I agree. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about Bruce's concern? 22 Did you ever get your question answered? 23 MR. MOTHERAL: No. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't think so. 25 MR. MOTHERAL: You still got the same problem. In 12-12-05 wk 51 1 the title, the heading on (1) is for tracts that are 5 acres 2 or greater. On (2), it's for less than 5 acres. That should 3 be the title -- the heading, but the individual items, (a), 4 (b), (c) and so on, are the same areas, 5 acres or zero to 5 5 or whatever you want to call it, and 5 to 25. But you got a 6 different percentage allowed. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And that was intentional 8 because of the -- 9 MR. HARVEY: Lot size. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- lot sizes. I mean, I think 11 the -- it's done this way basically to give more latitude on 12 bigger lots. The smaller the lots, the less you can start 13 doing the changes. It is redundant, but I worded it this way 14 just because people -- my experience has been when they read 15 these rules, they don't read the whole rules; they go to a 16 paragraph -- a heading that they see and they read that part, 17 and that's all they're going to read. So, then it will be -- 18 okay, there's no drainage after they read 5.06.C(1). Then 19 they go on to another section on roads. So, I just made it 20 redundant intentionally. 21 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. Then you can take out (a) in 22 (1) and take out the (b) and (c) in (2). 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll have to look at it again 24 and get with you, Bruce. 25 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. 12-12-05 wk 52 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 2 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 22, I think there were 4 some minor changes in that verbiage, but it goes on with 5 the -- changes throughout on the drainage. I think the main 6 one -- 7 MR. HARVEY: Commissioner, I had one quick comment. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 MR. HARVEY: Back on Page 20. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 MR. HARVEY: 5.06.C, next to last line in the 12 introductory paragraph, it says calculations shall be done in 13 feet per second. 14 MR. MOTHERAL: Cubic feet per second. 15 MR. HARVEY: That should be cubic feet per second. 16 Next to last line in the introductory paragraph to that, it 17 should be cubic feet per second. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I see. I changed the -- in 19 the parentheses. 20 MR. HARVEY: Then in the parentheses, it should be 21 CFS. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take out the P? 23 MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. 12-12-05 wk 53 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. And same in the 2 other one. 3 MR. HARVEY: The same thing is true in the top 4 paragraph on Page 21. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Maybe on the third time, 6 I'll make that change; I'll get it right. I tried last time. 7 All right. Anything else under Drainage? Any comments? 8 MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir, but it's more appropriate in 9 an e-mail. (Laughter.) 10 MR. MOTHERAL: You got plenty of ink and paper, 11 Jonathan? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Section VI, Platting 14 Procedure, the first item, Sale of Lots, that was listed later 15 buried in the text of the document, the previous version. I 16 just moved it up to the beginning. Concept Plan -- 17 MR. MOTHERAL: Whoa. I'm sorry, go back to 5.06.J. 18 When you're talking about -- in the prior ones, in C we were 19 talking about 25 acres, and then in J we've got -- suddenly 20 got 20 acres. They need to correspond, whatever we're going 21 to use. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is it? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have to look back and read it. 25 Some of these things I've got to really sit down and -- 12-12-05 wk 54 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put a question mark by it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Page 23, under Concept 3 Plan. 4 MR. MOTHERAL: Just prior to that -- well, let's 5 see. Did you catch that page change? Sorry. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page change? 7 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. In the first paragraph, you 8 refer to "Sale" on Page 10. It's actually Page 9. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you. I don't -- I 10 can't remember the exact change; might just be some wording 11 change here. Not much of a change in the concept plan. 12 Leonard, do you remember what the -- oh, it's basically the 13 same as it was before. I think we might have changed the 14 number of lots, possibly. I can't recall -- 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably the title, 16 Subdivision Administrator. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the change that -- 18 MR. ODOM: That's what that 5.06.J was about, right? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5.06.J? 20 MR. ODOM: What was it? It had -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we're on concept. 22 MR. ODOM: Okay. Up under notes, it -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm on 6.01. But, anyway, 24 concept plan is basically the same as we've had previously, 25 you know. 12-12-05 wk 55 1 MR. ODOM: But if you have 10 lots or more than -- 2 okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's more than 10 lots, 4 there's no such -- I mean -- 5 MR. ODOM: Have to be to go to the concept plan. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have to come to court. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it needs to say that, 8 right? For concept plans of fewer than 10 lots? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it says this section is 10 only applicable for proposed subdivisions of more than 10 11 lots, or -- or at the request of the developer. In other 12 words, if we're just doing a minor replat of two or three 13 lots, they don't need to prepare a concept plan and bring that 14 forward; they can just start with a preliminary plat. But on 15 any kind of a larger subdivision, they have to have a concept 16 plan so we get on the same page early on. 6.02.A, just a 17 change a little bit with, I think, the fees. There's some 18 changes there as to the way the County Clerk, as I recall -- 19 but nothing significant there. I would ask that on 6.02.C, 20 that for the Clerk's office to make sure that those are the 21 size mylars that we want. 22 MR. EMERSON: She checked that just a minute ago. 23 It's correct. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're correct. 25 MR. MOTHERAL: That's what they have, but in the 12-12-05 wk 56 1 past, I have talked -- way back when even Pat Dye was here, 2 they're available in the 24-by-36 size, which is a standard 3 sheet for us. When we go to the 21-by-26, we have to cut 4 them, trim them, and lose a lot of paper and time, which is 5 not efficient. And a 24-by-36 would be -- would fit the 6 standard that we purchase. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll defer totally to the County 8 Clerk. Whatever the Clerk wants to fit the racks that we own 9 is what we need to do. You know, I'm more concerned about 10 fitting that than accommodating surveyors. Sorry. I didn't 11 say that. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, you did, and I'm behind 13 you 100 percent. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in the record. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6.02.C.3 on the next page, on 16 Page 24, it's a slight change because it refers to the 17 interlocal agreement we have -- Kerr County has with 9-1-1. 18 But 9-1-1's still going to be in the process of road-naming, 19 which we have discussed that with them. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think, Commissioner, 21 previously -- or currently, we don't require addresses, do we? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we don't. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And this would require 24 addresses? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't -- 12-12-05 wk 57 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We want to scratch that. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want addresses on 4 plats, I don't think. That should be -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Street names and road names. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- street names and road names. 7 The addresses change too much when you start -- depends where 8 you put it. On a big lot, it depends on where you put the 9 house. On 6 -- on Page 25, first one is just a change in the 10 wording slightly. It used to say "accompanied data." I 11 changed that to "accompanying data" to be submitted with 12 preliminary plat. The next one, there is a change here saying 13 that drainage plans are submitted with preliminary plat, not 14 final plat. That's a big change from a developer's standpoint 15 as to when they get submitted, but it was -- it was felt that 16 -- I mean, it doesn't really do much good to the County to get 17 that at the end of the process. We need to have that -- it 18 needs to be something that we're involved with early on. Page 19 26 -- 20 MR. HARVEY: Commissioner, back on 6.02.D.4, the 21 drainage plan with the preliminary plat, -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 MR. HARVEY: -- you might consider a preliminary 24 drainage plan, because you can't -- you can't issue a final 25 drainage plan with the preliminary plat. There's too many 12-12-05 wk 58 1 things that can change. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 MR. HARVEY: As a result of developer desires 4 between preliminary and final, between road and drainage 5 design, and even during construction. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good point. If you 7 would -- disregard that. 8 MR. ODOM: You need the plan. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As to what the -- what would be 10 required -- what's reasonable to require in a preliminary plan 11 versus the final plan. I mean, we say preliminary plan. What 12 does that mean? 13 MR. MOTHERAL: Well, you can conceptually do it, but 14 to have it finalized -- 15 MR. HARVEY: You can't call it a final drainage 16 plan, though; that wording is not used here. It can be read 17 into it that -- 18 MR. ODOM: It's a working -- it's a working document 19 that the contractor can go out there and that you've got it. 20 And, like Les says, there will be some changes, but the 21 final's going to come in, and that's what he's going to take 22 that data off of to -- to make sure those calculations and all 23 are right. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Les, wouldn't you -- wouldn't 25 you apply all those things that you just said to the -- up 12-12-05 wk 59 1 front of the subdivision as well? I mean, in other words, you 2 can't develop a subdivision without knowing where the drainage 3 is going to be. 4 MR. HARVEY: But, by the same token -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just asking a question. 6 MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. But from the other side of 7 the table, a developer is not going to want to pay to have the 8 entire subdivision drainage design done without even having a 9 preliminary plat. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, I understand. I can't 11 ever tell if this guy is angry or not. 12 MR. VOELKEL: He's not. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, he's not at this point? 14 MR. MOTHERAL: Buster, really, -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can fix that. 16 MR. MOTHERAL: -- what the concern -- or what it 17 develops into, the final plat is really an as-built of what is 18 done. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 20 MR. MOTHERAL: Because the construction is done 21 between the preliminary plat approval and the final plat. 22 These things can change and do change on a regular basis, and 23 so, yeah, you can have a conceptual plan or an idea or a 24 direction that you would like to go, but to have a final 25 drainage design at that point is not practical. 12-12-05 wk 60 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we say "shall be 4 submitted prior to submission for final plat approval"? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we need to have it in 6 early. I like -- 7 MR. HARVEY: Yes, there should be something in 8 there. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Call it a conceptual plan. 10 MR. HARVEY: For submission of a preliminary 11 drainage plan to accompany the preliminary plat. 12 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. 13 MR. HARVEY: And later on in some of this verbiage, 14 there -- in some of this regulation, the engineer has to 15 certify to the County that all of the drainage improvements 16 have been built to what was designed. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All we need to do is just 18 change the start of the sentence saying "a preliminary 19 drainage plan, if required." 20 MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Change that, and we can -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. From my perspective, I 23 would -- you know far as the preliminary is concerned, I would 24 just simply want y'all to be thinking that there's -- you 25 know, what the drainage is going to be. 12-12-05 wk 61 1 MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nothing more. 3 MR. HARVEY: Well, in the natural course of events 4 in a project like that, a preliminary drainage plan is 5 probably a little conservative, because the developer wants 6 the engineer to price out all of the improvements. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 8 MR. HARVEY: So he has a pretty good idea of what 9 his construction costs will be before he proceeds too far into 10 the project and gets past a financial point of no return. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. I would, too. 12 MR. HARVEY: So, just the natural development 13 process, even in the background that the -- the Court never 14 sees, that -- I guarantee you, any preliminary drainage plan 15 that I do, I know it's going to work. And, if anything, I'll 16 shrink some of the improvements down in size so that they 17 still work, but save the developer a little money. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we just have to add -- 20 "preliminary" will work, and we can maybe identify what 21 preliminary is in that drainage section, or maybe just leave 22 it open as it is. We just want to see that something's 23 happening on the drainage. Page 26, I'm not really sure what 24 the change was here. It's not significant, just a slight 25 wording change. 12-12-05 wk 62 1 MR. ODOM: Had to do with the definition. Oh, for 2 sales of property is what you were referring to? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever it is, I like this 4 one. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It's not -- I believe 6 it's saying that construction can't start till we have 7 preliminary plat approval or a conditional approval. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge? Bring those juveniles 9 in here and let Mr. Harvey handle them for a couple hours. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: He's not angry enough. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we can fix that. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 MR. VOELKEL: You can get there. 14 (Judge Tinley left the courtroom.) 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 27, what I marked is a 16 certification that we've taken out, and that's the utility 17 companies. I'm not sure if they're going to want -- they may 18 get real upset, but I still don't understand why they need to 19 sign off on the plat. They need to be in on the distribution 20 of the plats, but I don't -- long as I've been involved, I've 21 never known of a sub -- of a utility company making -- or 22 requiring us to make a change. And it's because -- drawing 23 out the process and sending people -- developers all over the 24 place trying to get signatures. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which section are you 12-12-05 wk 63 1 talking about, Jon? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- it's not here. Page 27. 3 I deleted the certification from the utility companies. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you. 5 MR. ODOM: Would it not be appropriate to -- not 6 necessarily for them to sign off, but something that they 7 received a set of plans somehow, that they get something for 8 their engineering department? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's distributed on final. When 10 we do final distribution on a final plat, that's the only 11 thing they -- that I can tell from -- all they need is to know 12 what they're planning. Once the final plat has been approved 13 by us, they get a copy of it. Unless there's something I 14 don't understand about the utility system. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you've got it 16 right. 17 MR. MOTHERAL: You get into easement concerns and 18 that kind of thing, and they need to be early on. But usually 19 we, as -- as the designers, engineers and things in that 20 respect, I go and talk to each of the respective utilities and 21 get their input before I ever go forward with it, because they 22 can change a whole layout if they require an easement in a 23 location that won't work the way we were thinking about. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we should change it to 25 they get distribution of the preliminary plat. 12-12-05 wk 64 1 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah, that would be better. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And final plat; distribute both 3 of them. I just don't -- I think they need to be proactive. 4 Let them come to the developer if they want something done, 5 rather than us having to run and -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Chase them. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- chase them all over three 8 counties around here. 9 MR. MOTHERAL: You got another typo in 6.03.C.3.a, 10 the next to last line. You got "set forth" in there twice. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, so what? 12 MR. VOELKEL: Jon, talking about utility companies, 13 if you'll skip forward to 6.03.F.2, would that eliminate that 14 one also? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? 16 MR. VOELKEL: 6.03.F.2, Page 29. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, 29. Not there yet. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6.03 -- yes. 19 MR. VOELKEL: Okay. I was just curious. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you eliminate that whole 21 line? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 23 MR. ODOM: Say again? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6.03.F.2. 25 MR. VOELKEL: Talking about certifications. 12-12-05 wk 65 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Delete that whole thing? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also above that, 6.03.E.1.c 5 is also deleted. Drainage plans are -- well, actually, we 6 need to add that back in. The final drainage plan needs to be 7 here and the preliminary, then. 8 MR. HARVEY: Can we go back to Page 27 quickly? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. Okay. 10 MR. HARVEY: Upper third of the page, 6.03.C.3.c. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 12 MR. HARVEY: What's the purpose of certifying 13 topography that can so easily be changed? Which topography? 14 Before? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was in the old rules. 16 MR. VOELKEL: There is no topography on the final 17 plat. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true, too. 19 MR. VOELKEL: Just -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take it out? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, surveyors are 22 certifying the topography. 23 MR. ODOM: That's in the preliminary. 24 MR. MOTHERAL: It's in the preliminary, but that's 25 not certified. 12-12-05 wk 66 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, did we -- 3 MR. HARVEY: And the certifications should be for 4 existing conditions that are going to be certified -- I mean, 5 that are going to be subdivided. But in a final setting, 6 there's no topography shown on the plat. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 MR. HARVEY: And who can certify to past topography? 9 'Cause it's been changed by development, and you certainly 10 can't certify to what topography would be in the future. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the suggestion is to 12 remove it? 13 MR. HARVEY: Remove it entirely. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Remove that one, yeah. Anyway, 15 I can't imagine, in the preliminary phase, for an engineer to 16 go to the trouble of drawing topography that's not accurate. 17 MR. HARVEY: Well, more accurate than that. It's 18 the surveyor that draws the topography. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They might do it. (Laughter.) 20 Okay. On Page 30 -- 21 MR. MOTHERAL: Whoa. 28 up at the top of the page, 22 6.03.D.2. I understood it after I read it the third time, but 23 the -- down towards the bottom, "...otherwise, the approval of 24 the Court shall become null and void, unless an extension of 25 time is granted by the Court." It's approval of what at that 12-12-05 wk 67 1 point? Approval of the preliminary plat? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Right. Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you just looking for a 4 little language change there? A little structure change? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Change the word "Court" to 6 "preliminary plat"? 7 MR. MOTHERAL: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Page 30. 9 MR. MOTHERAL: 6.04.C. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 11 MR. MOTHERAL: I like your wording later on where 12 you used "in the English language." And that could -- if 13 you're going to use it once, let's use it all the way through. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say that -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not following you. 16 MR. MOTHERAL: After that, "The Court shall publish 17 a notice of the application in the English language in a 18 newspaper of general circulation." 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is that? I'm sorry, 20 I'm not there. 21 MR. MOTHERAL: 6.04.C. Insert, if you will, "in the 22 English language." 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I see what you're saying. 24 MR. MOTHERAL: Because later on, he uses that in 25 another paragraph, and what I'm saying is be consistent. 12-12-05 wk 68 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. After "Court 2 shall..."? 3 MR. MOTHERAL: After "application." 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still -- I don't even see 5 the word. 6.04 -- 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's saying C; it's in B. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. 8 MR. MOTHERAL: In the second line after the word 9 "application," between the "application" and "in a newspaper." 10 AUDIENCE: It's B. 11 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay, I'm sorry. I was using the 12 last night's version. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, public notice in the 14 English -- 15 MR. VOELKEL: He was referring to this. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what you're saying? 17 Shall publish a notice in English? 18 MR. MOTHERAL: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why do we want to do that? 21 I'm sorry, I'm just kidding. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, there's a couple of times 23 we had required, here and in another area, to receive 24 subdivision covenants, and I've deleted all -- every time that 25 I could find that we were requesting subdivision -- or 12-12-05 wk 69 1 homeowners' association, not subdivision. Homeowners' 2 association covenants. I've deleted those, 'cause I don't see 3 that they have anything to do with us. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree 100 percent. 5 MR. HARVEY: You can't -- the County can't enforce 6 them. Actually, it can just bring you into an argument where 7 you should have never been in the first place. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does all the time. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the time. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like I said, we don't want those 12 any more. That's why the numbering change, Bruce. Page 31 13 and 32, basically just -- 14 MR. MOTHERAL: Go back. On last night's copy -- I 15 don't know where it is in today's copy, but the 6.04.D, 16 talking about during a regular term, Commissioners Court shall 17 adopt an order permitting the revision of the subdivision. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 MR. MOTHERAL: Under (2) there, it says, "Each owner 20 whose rights may be interfered with has to agree to the 21 revision." Let's make an assumption that you have -- you, as 22 a developer, have sold six lots, ten lots, whatever, and you 23 have one individual who, for whatever reason, is mad at the 24 developer. He can create a real problem for the developer. I 25 can see a majority or two-thirds majority or whatever, but 12-12-05 wk 70 1 each individual could be a major problem for the developer. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We used to have something 3 like 90 percent or something like that; I can't remember what 4 it was. 5 MR. ODOM: 75. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't that language 7 basically contained in the deed? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe this is state law. 9 MR. ODOM: I think statute. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It requires a majority of 11 the -- 12 MR. MOTHERAL: Majority, I agree with. But each? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe that's what it says in 14 state law. Both the revision of plat and the cancellation of 15 plat are pretty much -- I just took out of Chapter 232. 16 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll verify that, but I think it 18 comes into the -- the one on there does not -- well, the one 19 the Court has used a lot is, does it interfere with their 20 established rights? 21 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if they were in the back of 23 a subdivision, they really don't have a say. 24 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's right nearby, you know, 12-12-05 wk 71 1 it's something we have to take into consideration. The next 2 two pages, 31 and 32, there's no change; just state law. Page 3 33, we used to call them permitted roads, which I never really 4 could -- I couldn't figure out why we had this term, 5 "permitted roads," cause "permit" to me means something you 6 get a permit for, so I just changed to it "roads." That's 7 what the first note is. Dedication to the public; I can't 8 remember exactly what that -- I think I changed the wording a 9 little bit on some of the right-of-way and the easements on 10 that one. On 7.04, our current rules have minimum lot 11 frontage of 200 foot. The last draft had 120. Len thought 12 120 was a little bit too short, so we went up to 150. 13 MR. ODOM: May I say something? For water and all, 14 isn't there a 75-foot radius off of property line? 15 MR. MOTHERAL: Center line of the road. 16 MR. ODOM: No -- well, I'm just talking about on the 17 plat itself, I think water availability. Gordon was telling 18 me -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 MR. ODOM: -- that it's 75 foot, so that's your -- 21 there's no space in between. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I haven't seen -- I've seen very 23 few subdivisions, if any, that had rectangular lots in this 24 county. That's the reason. I mean, you know, if you go -- if 25 you -- with 5 acres, I can't -- 12-12-05 wk 72 1 MR. ODOM: Five acres, probably not. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But if you have 3 individual water wells, it'd be 5 acres. 4 MR. VOELKEL: Right. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I can't imagine someone's 6 going to ever come up with a lot 150 feet wide and 2,000 feet 7 long -- or whatever, 3,000 feet long, which it would have to 8 be to get a 5-acre lot. 9 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, how it comes in to us 11 most of the time is due to topography. Roads have curves and 12 wind, and we get on the inside of a road is where we usually 13 get hit with this frontage issue more. And there is a -- as 14 you know, a -- let me put my glasses on so I can read. 15 Minimum lot frontages can be reviewed by Commissioners Court 16 and lesser amounts can be granted based on lot density and 17 things, so we can go smaller without doing a variance, is what 18 this is saying. 150 is kind of -- more of a planning rule 19 than anything else. Next page, on 34, Road Construction 20 Design, Construction Specifications and Testing. I didn't 21 change much that was here, but I did move it around. We used 22 to have -- it seemed to me that the testing requirements and 23 some of that we had in kind of different areas, some of it 24 some subgrade preparations, some of it doing the grading. I 25 tried to put it all up front and then list the subgrade 12-12-05 wk 73 1 preparations in a subparagraph and grading in a subparagraph. 2 There is the provision here that additional -- it's the last 3 paragraph under 7.06. It says, "Additional testing may be 4 required at the discretion of the County Subdivision 5 Administrator with concurrence of a licensed engineer hired by 6 Kerr County." If additional -- "If necessary, additional 7 testing will be made at the request of the County Subdivision 8 Administrator and cost thereof paid by the County if the test 9 passes, and paid for by the developer if the test fails," 10 which we talked about earlier. Seems like a fair way to go. 11 I don't know if it's worded very well. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you doing okay, Kathy? 13 Want to stop? Okay to go on? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The next page, on 35, it's, I 15 believe, just the heading change. I think it was called 16 something else; wasn't called a cross drainage culvert in the 17 last rule. Next page, on 36 -- 18 MR. MOTHERAL: On that one right at the top of the 19 page, Jonathan? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm? 21 MR. MOTHERAL: You can get a -- a deformed pipe with 22 the same cross-sectional area you're talking about that has a 23 lower height so that you can get in some of these driveways 24 and things. 25 MR. ODOM: Arch. 12-12-05 wk 74 1 MR. MOTHERAL: An arch pipe, and that's not 2 addressed here. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where do we need to put that? 4 MR. MOTHERAL: The very top line there. "No pipe 5 structure shall have waterway area of less than 1.76 square 6 feet." That's fine, but then in parentheses you have "18-inch 7 diameter." 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get rid of the "18-inch 9 diameter"? 10 MR. HARVEY: No -- or just say "18-inch diameter or 11 equivalent." 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or equivalent? 13 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 15 MR. ODOM: We agree. An arch is better, anyway. 16 MR. HARVEY: Well, there's arch, there's elliptical. 17 There's multiple shapes, so if you say "or equivalent" -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which page is that? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 36. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I got it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe most of these changes 23 are changes in the heading title, on 7.06.5, .6 and .7 there. 24 None of those changes are real significant. On Page thirty -- 25 MR. HARVEY: Under bridges -- 12-12-05 wk 75 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bridges? 2 MR. HARVEY: -- I guess that they still fall within 3 the five-year hydraulic design? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll have to defer to Leonard on 5 what we need to say here. I mean, it's -- this is pretty much 6 the same as it was in our last rules. 7 MR. HARVEY: Well, that -- I've never done a bridge 8 in Kerr County, but if I would have -- if one of them would 9 have come up, I would have asked the question, is -- a bridge 10 over a county road is going to be considered cross-drainage. 11 Cross-drainage is set up to be designed for a five-year storm. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we need to say "designed for 13 a five-year storm frequency"? 14 MR. HARVEY: Well, there -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Versus a 100-year frequency? 16 MR. HARVEY: Well, there -- I would suggest that 17 there be a hydraulic design criteria for bridges, and a 18 structural design frequency. 19 MR. ODOM: Bridge span. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Send me an e-mail on this one, 21 Les. 22 MR. HARVEY: I can. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I understand what you're 24 saying, but -- 'cause I think it does need to be -- 25 MR. HARVEY: I don't -- 12-12-05 wk 76 1 AUDIENCE: The difference between surface loading 2 and hydraulic loading is what you're saying. 3 MR. HARVEY: Well, structural loading and hydraulic 4 loading are two completely different things. 5 AUDIENCE: Yeah. 6 MR. HARVEY: But you can't -- well, it's just not 7 practical to design every bridge for the 100-year storm. 8 MR. ODOM: Oh, no. 9 MR. MOTHERAL: No. 10 MR. HARVEY: I mean, the Highway Department doesn't 11 even do that. 12 MR. ODOM: No. And I can't think of the wording we 13 need right now, but there is -- part of that, I think, was 14 that the hydrologist would take a look at that. And in some 15 cases, we may not even have pipe; a swell may be sufficient, 16 but I don't -- he'd have to show that. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, I'll look -- I have 18 copies of Bandera, Kendall, and Kerr County rules, and I'll 19 look at what they have for bridges, see if they have some. 20 MR. HARVEY: Well, I can suggest to you right here 21 what the language should be, in that it should -- it should be 22 able to hydraulically pass -- 23 MR. ODOM: Pass a five -- 24 MR. HARVEY: -- a five-year event, but water over 25 the roadway, water over the driving -- you should still be 12-12-05 wk 77 1 able to drive over the bridge in a 15-year event. It still 2 needs to be vehicular passable in a 15-year event. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 MR. MOTHERAL: It also needs to be structurally 5 sound so it doesn't get washed away. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's why we have 9 engineers here, to help us with this. 10 MR. VOELKEL: Jon, before you turn the page, excuse 11 me. Under the 7.06.8(b), Construction Methods, just to be 12 consistent, you've got no base of less than 6 inches. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 14 MR. VOELKEL: You go to your country lane on Page 15 40, and it's got 4 on both of those, so one of those needs to 16 change. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 MR. VOELKEL: Need to be consistent. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Six. 20 MR. ODOM: Where was that? Where was that that you 21 caught the 4 inches? 22 MR. VOELKEL: On Page 40 and 41, under Paved Country 23 Lane. 24 MR. ODOM: The description of the country lane, but 25 not the unpaved. 12-12-05 wk 78 1 MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir, both of those have 4-inch 2 base. I guess they should be 6? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, correct. Okay. On Page 4 37, most of the changes here are written out by Leonard, and 5 they're very slight, referring to the terminology of -- there 6 was some wording here that was not commonly used, or I guess 7 materials not commonly used any more, or not in this area; I 8 can't recall what they were, but the changes here are -- are 9 related to the way the County builds roads, and to make them 10 consistent. Page 38, again, it's a terminology change under 11 (b) and under (c). 12 MR. MOTHERAL: Under (b) on Page 38 there -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes? 14 MR. MOTHERAL: -- third line, "described provided." 15 Shouldn't it say "described above"? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take out "described"? 18 MR. MOTHERAL: No. No, add -- add "above" after it. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 MR. HARVEY: And then just "provide" a sealcoat, not 22 "provided." 23 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think, under (c), as I 12-12-05 wk 79 1 recall, there's a slight change in the number of -- used to 2 be -- it went from 2 inches to inch and a half, and then it 3 was lowered -- or inch and a half to 2 inches, the latter 4 part. Can't remember which way, but something like that. 5 That was a recommendation that Leonard made on slopes. 6 Related to paving thickness, Page 38 -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the one we're on. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 38, but on the last one on 9 the page, it's just a minor word change. The previous one 10 said the Commissioners Court "shall" authorize. I said "may" 11 authorize. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Change "may" to "shall"? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Change "shall" to "may." 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mine says "may" already. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know; I already changed it. 16 Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to point out that we 18 -- at one time we had a -- a Yankee commissioner here that 19 wanted to know -- in the budget process, he wanted to know why 20 we hired so many people to guard other people's cattle. I 21 swear to it. Couldn't believe it. (Laughter.) 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Must have been in Precinct 23 2. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't in Precinct 2. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Precinct 1. 12-12-05 wk 80 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 39, the change here is 3 under collector road; it goes to an 80-foot right-of-way. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From what? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it was 60. 6 MR. ODOM: I don't think it was specified. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, it wasn't specified; it was 8 blank. It was to be determined. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now it goes to 80? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It goes to 80. 11 (Discussion off the record.) 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You like that, Leonard? 13 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The State would like 120. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the next page, the base 16 material, we modified that. I think it used to say caliche. 17 Doesn't say caliche any more; it says Type A, Grade 2. 18 MR. ODOM: Crushed limestone. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then on the -- that's under 20 Local Road. 21 MR. VOELKEL: Yeah, that didn't change. Local road 22 never was caliche. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there actually was a 24 caliche road. Anyhow, there isn't any longer. 25 MR. ODOM: I think Type C. 12-12-05 wk 81 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or Type C. 2 MR. ODOM: Type C, and eliminated that. 3 MR. VOELKEL: Type C, Grade 2. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, it eliminated -- 5 raised that standard a little bit. 6 MR. ODOM: Raised the standard. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the -- under Local 8 Road, I think I raised the pavement width from 18 to 20 feet. 9 Isn't that right, Leonard? 10 MR. ODOM: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then, under Country Lane 12 pavement, we went from 16 to 18. And I'm not sure if that's 13 the right amount. I think our roads were too narrow. I don't 14 know if we need to go, you know, a little bit wider or not. 15 But there was -- both of those were increased. And on country 16 lane, I think we've reduced -- I can't remember what it was. 17 I don't have the old rules in front of me, but now it says 8 18 lots with a minimum of 10 acres. I think it was 15 lots 19 previously. 20 MR. VOELKEL: It was. 21 MR. ODOM: It was. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we've tightened that up quite 23 a bit as to what a country lane -- or the number of lots a 24 country lane can serve. 25 MR. HARVEY: On these tables for right-of-way and 12-12-05 wk 82 1 the different dimensions and stuff, -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 MR. HARVEY: -- I'll try to explain it the best that 4 I can in an e-mail, but it's really impractical to allow a 5 maximum grade of 12 percent on a collector road. Every -- and 6 I'll try to do this in the e-mail, that each different road 7 classification is based on average daily traffic, and that 8 average daily traffic is based on acceptable safe driving 9 speed limits. And the plan and profile of roads, the 10 horizontal alignment of roads are all based on speed limits, 11 and speed limits differ by road classification. And it's 12 probably been three years ago, but I provided Franklin 13 Johnston a table that addresses all of this stuff based on 14 road classification, and it -- in here, how does somebody 15 determine what's an arterial, a collector, or a local road? 16 There's no criteria. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think "collector" is defined 18 as lots or a traffic count. 19 MR. HARVEY: Well, what traffic count? It's all -- 20 it's all -- it should all be based on average daily traffic 21 count, and that comes from a traffic study that's done for a 22 development. That traffic study will dictate the roads that 23 you need. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How can you do a traffic study 25 before you have a development built? 12-12-05 wk 83 1 MR. MOTHERAL: You know how many lots. 2 MR. HARVEY: If you know how many lots that are 3 going to be in there, whether it's a residential development 4 or commercial development, depending upon the end use, you can 5 do a traffic study to come up with the average daily traffic. 6 That average daily traffic is going to dictate the road 7 classification, the speed limit, horizontal curves, vertical 8 curves, speed limit, everything. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I guess I don't -- I don't 10 -- I think we're doing that. I mean, our collector road has a 11 minimum of 60 lots, and then a country lane is 8 lots, so if 12 you're between 8 and 60, you're a local road. I mean, I think 13 we're doing it based -- 14 MR. HARVEY: Well, and I don't want to use the word 15 arbitrary, but it could be. Those could be arbitrary numbers 16 that really don't apply to this collector cross-section. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if -- what you -- what 18 you referred to that you sent to Franklin, we need to look at 19 that. We can -- is it a state or some engineering document? 20 MR. HARVEY: It's based on a national design 21 criteria for rural roads -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- 23 MR. HARVEY: -- used all over the country. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be good to look 25 at that, and get Leonard to look at that, if you'll give him a 12-12-05 wk 84 1 copy if he doesn't have one, and align these and our road 2 names with that standard, if we're not right now. I think -- 3 and I think you have to do it on number of lots; that's the 4 only way you can do it at this point. 5 MR. HARVEY: I think you should allow that it also 6 be done on an average daily traffic count, because not every 7 development has -- as time goes along, especially in the ETJ 8 of the city, or just outside the ETJ, you're going to have 9 more developments that are mixed use. They're not strictly 10 just residential; they can be residential combined with 11 commercial. Sure, we haven't seen that many out in the 12 county, but you need to allow that option to base all of this 13 stuff on an average traffic count. And traffic count is a 14 function of not only the number of lots; it is also a function 15 of the size of the lot. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I look at it as a -- I'm 17 not disagreeing with anything you're saying, but I think it's 18 hard for us to -- we need to make something clear and concise, 19 and I don't know how a developer is going to always know 20 what's going to happen with his property. I think you have to 21 have basic criteria, and we tend to use lots -- number of lots 22 as our criteria. And if they're -- at some point, the roads 23 may have to be upgraded. It tends to be -- if the roads are 24 for -- most of the purely residential roads, a lot of those 25 are private roads, and not that much of an issue. If they're 12-12-05 wk 85 1 going to be used for a lot of other purposes, I would think 2 they're probably going to be county-maintained. The County's 3 going to have to be the one responsible for doing the upgrade 4 at some point. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Letz, help me understand what 6 you're saying. I understand that I can look at a plat and 7 tell that there are 40 lots there and there's going to be 40 8 homes there, and we can probably figure two cars per home, 9 maybe. That's before anything is built. So, how do you get a 10 full traffic count at that point? 11 MR. MOTHERAL: You don't. It's calculated. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Off the number of lots? 13 MR. HARVEY: Off the number -- you do it by -- you 14 do it by -- there are various formulas that you use. For 15 example, if you have a residential subdivision 15 miles from 16 downtown, and you assume -- I know it sounds weird, but you 17 assume throughout this entire development you have two and a 18 half vehicles per lot. Living that far from certain everyday 19 human services, they're going to make one trip into town and 20 then one trip back home. Now, if that subdivision -- the same 21 subdivision, same number of lots -- is 2 miles from town, 22 they're liable to be making three and four trips a day. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With both -- same number of 24 lots, two and a half cars? 25 MR. HARVEY: Sure, same number of lots, same number 12-12-05 wk 86 1 of cars. That's why you can't base it -- well, you can. But, 2 therefore, there's too much play in taking the total number of 3 lots and applying it county-wide. The average daily traffic 4 count in a subdivision 15 miles from town is going to be 5 completely different from somebody 2 miles from town. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but I don't know how 7 you write that down here. How do you -- 8 AUDIENCE: Just cite the engineering standards 9 from -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we just refer to the 11 standards or the formula you're talking about that you 12 provided? Can we just make a reference to that? 13 MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir, we can make reference to 14 that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to have -- I 16 mean -- 17 MR. HARVEY: But that's just the tip of the iceberg. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 MR. HARVEY: That's why I was -- 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the problem we're 21 trying to -- 22 MR. HARVEY: -- going to send a long-winded e-mail. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the problem we're 24 looking to solve? Sounds like a solution looking for a 25 problem. 12-12-05 wk 87 1 MR. HARVEY: I'm not sure I understand that. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What problem are we trying 3 to solve if we go -- 4 MR. HARVEY: To be clear about road classification. 5 Once you have a road classification, that establishes the 6 design speed limit. Once you have a design speed limit -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 8 MR. HARVEY: -- for the safety of the driving 9 public, that should dictate horizontal and vertical alignment. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I'm getting at, 11 we've -- if we include a complex formula for deciding what the 12 traffic count is and what size road you need, is it -- are 13 things going to be better and different? 14 MR. HARVEY: Well, the County would not dictate the 15 formulas. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know that. But what I'm 17 saying is, we're doing okay the way we've got it now. Why -- 18 what is the need to change? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Les says we may not be doing 20 okay, or thinks we may not. As we get more and more growth, I 21 tend to -- I mean, I agree conceptually with what Les is 22 saying. The problem I have is coming in with a -- trying to 23 keep a -- a set of Subdivision Rules that are simple -- 24 relatively simple and easy to understand. And our rules -- I 25 mean, if we get a complaint now, it's that our rules are too 12-12-05 wk 88 1 confusing, and if we make them more confusing, it's kind of -- 2 it's balancing between public good and public safety, and 3 simplicity. 4 MR. HARVEY: Well, those should be one and the same, 5 public good and public safety. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, public good and safety on 7 one side, then simplicity on the other. Because, I mean, we 8 need to protect the public safety, but we don't want to get 9 something that's so complicated that -- I mean, that we're -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can see us getting into, 11 within 2 miles of the ETJ, you got to have black rocks, and 12 then from 2 miles to 3.5 miles, your rocks are going to be 13 red. And, you know, I mean, that's what I'm seeing here. It 14 would really get complex. You're probably on to something, 15 but not with this commissioner. 16 MR. HARVEY: I'm not trying to make it complicated; 17 I'm trying to explain the background behind why average daily 18 traffic count should dictate what road classification you 19 have. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 21 MR. HARVEY: And that's all based on a traffic study 22 that the developer has to prepare. TexDOT requires developers 23 to do it that front on their highways. Other counties around 24 here require large developments, depending upon their ingress 25 and egress, for a traffic study. The County would want to 12-12-05 wk 89 1 know that just -- and even good developers would want to know 2 that so they design the proper road classifications within 3 their own development. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's take a peek and see how 5 other counties do it. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll look at the counties around 7 here. 8 MR. HARVEY: They ask -- counties around us leave 9 the option open to the county administration to require a 10 traffic impact analysis based on the type of development that 11 comes in on a preliminary concept plan. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that you -- I mean, one 13 of the things that I -- we strive to do is to -- is to get 14 the -- the subjectivity out of our rules. 'Cause I hear, 15 primarily with Kendall County, that they have a lot more 16 subjectivity in their -- not trying to pick on Kendall County, 17 but I hear a lot of complaints about the way Kendall County 18 does a lot of their subdivision rules. Some of it's 19 personnel, probably, so I think we need to keep the 20 subjectivity out. I don't have a problem with putting some 21 sort of traffic study in here, you know, if it's something we 22 can do pretty simply, you know, without having something so 23 complicated. And if -- if average traffic -- if a normal 24 engineer -- or I shouldn't say "normal" engineer; I don't know 25 if there is such a thing. (Laughter.) An engineer. If an 12-12-05 wk 90 1 engineer that's going to be hired by the developer can, at a 2 relatively reasonable cost, develop a traffic study, I don't 3 have a problem with doing that and using that, but I don't 4 want to overly burden the process, and I think we probably 5 need to put a set number of lots in the development. I mean, 6 I don't want to require someone putting in five lots to have 7 to do a traffic study. I mean, I just -- 8 MR. HARVEY: No, I'm not suggesting that at all. 9 Like I say, what other counties around us do, they leave it to 10 the option of the Court, depending upon the nature of the 11 development. They can or cannot request a traffic impact 12 analysis. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My sentiments are just like 15 yours. If it's something new that's a good tool for us and it 16 can be applied simply, without a lot bureaucracy, then let's 17 do it. 18 MR. HARVEY: And it can easily be applied 19 county-wide. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you that the -- 22 the type of roads you build -- the base, you know, all the 23 materials that you use and the type of road you build should 24 be based on traffic count. What else could you base it on? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's related to 12-12-05 wk 91 1 proximity to services, right? That's in the frequency. 2 MR. HARVEY: And the -- and what's being developed, 3 you know, 5-acre subdivision or a 500-acre. You know, there's 4 a lot of different -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Traffic count's different on 6 5-acre lots than it is on 1-acre lots. 7 MR. HARVEY: Absolutely. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me go back. I wrote "begin 9 traffic study" on this to move on, so we can get out of here. 10 Under Country Lane, we still permit Type C, Grade 2 base or 11 caliche Grade 3. Leonard would like me -- or like us to 12 eliminate caliche Grade 3. 13 (Judge Tinley returned to the courtroom.) 14 MR. ODOM: There's enough pits -- or limestone pits 15 that are crushing now all over the county. You know, they can 16 -- can take that. That Grade 3 is real hard to meet anyway, 17 and it's tough. You know, it doesn't end up with a good one. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the way that I look at 19 this -- I don't want Leonard to get mad at me when I say this. 20 The County, I know, does not -- they make their own base 21 on-site using river gravel, creek gravel. They have done 22 that, and it makes a great road. But if we put a requirement 23 on here that we have to use base, that means the County also 24 is going to have to haul base to every road. 25 MR. ODOM: Well, we just about do. But let's get 12-12-05 wk 92 1 something straight now. What we're talking about is new 2 construction, not -- (cell phone rang.) I'm sorry. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to get in -- 4 MR. ODOM: You know, but we're talking about road 5 betterment. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 MR. ODOM: Road betterment is totally a different 8 thing than new construction, and I'm taking something that's 9 out there to make it work. And in most cases, we haul base. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. 11 MR. ODOM: We bring it in. But -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know we do. 13 MR. ODOM: -- road construction, not road 14 betterment, rehabilitation on something. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, you base your theory 16 here on availability of material, as opposed to -- see, I 17 would -- I look at this country lane being built out of 18 caliche as a convenience. I mean, there's nothing wrong -- 19 there's nothing wrong with a caliche road, in my mind. And 20 you're thinking of it in terms of availability of material. 21 Did I not hear you say that? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 23 MR. ODOM: Talking about my road betterment, you 24 mean? If I have a road that I need -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're saying that they're 12-12-05 wk 93 1 crushing rocks everywhere now. 2 MR. ODOM: Right, crushing base. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- so the reason that you 4 would want to take out caliche is because now there's a lot of 5 crushed rock out there that is available? There's more 6 available now? 7 MR. ODOM: It's more available than it was when I 8 first came here 15 years ago. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 10 MR. ODOM: And so most of it is pit rock, and that's 11 the reason we had the Type C in there, was to give people that 12 availability, was Type C. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I think there 14 is more availability, but I think the -- you know, if a 15 caliche Grade 3 road is as good as a road with hauled base, we 16 should still allow it, because there are areas that are -- I 17 mean, the freight is very, very high on hauling truckloads of 18 base. If you're building a road and you can use on-site 19 material that meets the criteria, I don't know why we 20 shouldn't allow that, because otherwise you're not -- plus you 21 have another problem when you're building a road in some of 22 these areas in far west Kerr County, and actually throughout 23 the county in the more remote areas; you've got a lot of 24 material you got to do something with anyway. I mean, you got 25 -- you know, so I just -- you know -- 12-12-05 wk 94 1 MR. ODOM: If your gradation -- remember, we're not 2 talking about caliche; we're talking about TexDOT standard for 3 the Grade 3. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, which is a lot of -- 5 MR. ODOM: Which has a lot of aggregate or rock in 6 it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 MR. ODOM: And some places do have that. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 MR. ODOM: But, again, if you have to maintain that 11 country lane, the same garbage trucks are going to be running 12 up and down it, which may be five different trucks, 'cause 13 somebody's saving a dollar from not hiring so-and-so. It's 14 going -- and that's worth 3,000 cars. One garbage truck is 15 worth 3,000 A.D.T. So, you take that and we have to -- we're 16 going to have to maintain that. We're going to have to build 17 that. We're going to have to scorify that up, 'cause it's 18 going to rut or it's going to move. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess if you're -- like 20 I said, if you're saying that a Grade 3 caliche road is a 21 substantially lower quality than a base road -- 22 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, than a type -- Type A, Grade 2, 23 is lesser material than that Type A, so why not go first 24 class? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cost. I mean, road construction 12-12-05 wk 95 1 is -- 2 MR. ODOM: What is the cost to the taxpayers if I 3 have to maintain that road? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just look at -- most of 5 the roads that you do maintain are on base -- are on caliche. 6 MR. ODOM: Sure they are. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're not breaking the 8 county right now. And I don't know -- I mean, I don't know 9 that requiring a much higher standard than the county 10 currently has -- I guess I don't see us having huge road 11 failures, at least in my precinct. After we get a huge amount 12 of rain, we could get some, but I suspect those are things 13 that are going to happen whether you have base under there or 14 caliche. Roads are going to fail due to springs developing in 15 the middle of the road. 16 MR. ODOM: That, or no drainage. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or heavy traffic. 18 MR. ODOM: Or heavy traffic, that's right. It's 19 going to grow. The county's growing. 20 MR. HARVEY: To me, the big difference between -- on 21 Page 40, the big difference between (aa) and (bb), both of 22 them allowing caliche Grade 3, is one of them is paved and one 23 of them is not. One of them is sealed. The other one is 24 available to breathe with Mother Nature. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you think, under Paved, we 12-12-05 wk 96 1 should eliminate the caliche? 2 MR. HARVEY: Yes. 3 MR. ODOM: Yes. 4 MR. HARVEY: On unpaved -- on the unpaved, use 5 caliche to your heart's content. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you. 7 MR. HARVEY: But when you seal something off, -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 9 MR. HARVEY: -- no caliche. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 MR. HARVEY: And it's got more clay in it, and if it 12 doesn't have the chance to breathe like an unpaved country 13 lane, you're going to have maintenance problems. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't looking at the paved 15 and unpaved. 16 MR. ODOM: Yeah. And I think what I submitted to 17 you was that right there. I left the unpaved -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 19 MR. ODOM: -- as Type C. I could go along with 20 that. But the paved part, we're going to have to deal with 21 that. And there's nothing worse than the west end of the 22 county that freezes out there, and anything that's on top of 23 it pops off. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That tune on your 25 telephone, was that "That Good Old Baylor Line"? 12-12-05 wk 97 1 MR. ODOM: Sir? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That tune on your 3 telephone, was that "That Good Old Baylor Line"? 4 MR. ODOM: No, it wasn't. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so. 6 (Laughter.) 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a few more pages to get 8 through. 9 MR. ODOM: So, are we saying that we're going to go 10 with that -- unpaved is all right to go with that caliche, 11 then? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like a solution to 14 me. 15 MR. VOELKEL: And that's not a road he'll maintain, 16 only a private road. 17 MR. ODOM: That's right. 18 MR. VOELKEL: You don't have to worry about it. 19 MR. ODOM: That's right. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Under Page 41, 7.07, 21 there was a requirement, I think, that you receive the 22 homeowners' association covenants. That's been deleted. I 23 think it's the same on the next page, on Page 42. That's why 24 those marks are there. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 12-12-05 wk 98 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 7.11, that's a provision -- I 2 changed the wording slightly on it. I really don't know -- 3 it's probably good to have in here, but it's really nothing to 4 do with our Subdivision Rules. It's more saying that if we're 5 going to accept a road for county maintenance, it sets the 6 criteria, and we probably need to pass a separate court order 7 setting the criteria for accepting a road for county 8 maintenance so we get that clear. We may have done one a long 9 time ago, but just to make it clear that right now we say it's 10 in our Subdivision Rules, but it probably really needs to be a 11 separate court order. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a good idea. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll add that. Page 43, there 14 is a change, financial guarantee. Used to say bond. New 15 state law calls it a financial guarantee; gives a little more 16 flexibility. On Page 44, again, that's a financial -- it's 17 changing the word from bond -- or letter of credit to 18 financial guarantee. Section VIII on Page 45, I did not 19 change anything here, but I think those two provisions need to 20 be moved into the Inspection section up in the -- they need to 21 be moved to other parts. I don't think we need a whole 22 separate section for these two items; they can be put into 23 other areas where needed. Section IX, Guarantee of 24 Performance, the change here throughout is changing the 25 terminology to financial guarantee to go along with state law. 12-12-05 wk 99 1 And then Page 47, it's just adding a provision related to the 2 ETJ. And a question I have is city of Ingram. What are we 3 doing with the city of Ingram? Is it ETJ? We're just 4 ignoring the whole problem; they don't exist. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what we've done so 6 far. I guess we need to deal with that. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Same law applies, 8 right? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But in the ETJ of Ingram, don't 10 we -- haven't -- hasn't the City of Ingram adopted the county 11 rules? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're using us. They 14 don't have their own department. Is that correct, Leonard? 15 MR. ODOM: They have a Public Works Director, but 16 I -- but I think he's a combination of several things. I'm 17 sorry, I don't -- 18 MR. VOELKEL: I thought they were letting the County 19 take care of it. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We see the plats in Ingram's 21 ETJ. 22 MR. ODOM: In the ETJ, we have been. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We probably need to get an 24 interlocal agreement with the City of Ingram telling them that 25 we're doing the platting. Or he has it in his hand? 12-12-05 wk 100 1 MR. EMERSON: April 7, 2003, Memorandum to Franklin 2 Johnston from Don Bonner, re: interlocal agreement with the 3 City of Ingram. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 MR. EMERSON: Now, I don't know if it ever went 6 through Commissioners Court, but I have the original draft. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it has. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we need to probably get that 9 on our -- 10 MR. VOELKEL: Does that give it to the County for 11 review, that document there, saying to the County, "Take care 12 of it in the ETJ"? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's something like, "Please 15 take care of it." 16 MR. EMERSON: They may have, but by the same token, 17 we got a phone call probably six months ago, you know, from 18 their City Attorney basically chewing our tails because we 19 were doing something in their ETJ. 20 MR. VOELKEL: Oh. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember they came to us on 22 bended knees wanting us to take care of all that. 23 MR. ODOM: I'd love for them to take care of it. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If they want it. 12-12-05 wk 101 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we need to get -- I think, 2 probably, state law -- we need to maybe formalize that. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As to the one with 4 Kerrville, right? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As with the City of Kerrville. 6 All right. I look forward to comments from everybody. 7 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for your review. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, gentlemen. 10 MR. VOELKEL: Buster? When Les left, he was mad. 11 Did you see him? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Finally. 13 MR. VOELKEL: He couldn't handle it any more; "I'm 14 out of here." 15 MR. ODOM: That was a good job. 16 (Commissioners Court workshop concluded at 4:26 p.m.) 17 - - - - - - - - - - 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12-12-05 wk 102 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 5 capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court 6 of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place 7 heretofore set forth. 8 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 21st day of 9 December, 2005. 10 11 12 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 13 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 14 Certified Shorthand Reporter 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12-12-05 wk