1 1 2 3 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT 4 Special Session 5 Monday, May 17, 2021 6 9:00 a.m. 7 Commissioners' Courtroom 8 Kerr County Courthouse 9 Kerrville, Texas 78028 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: ROB KELLY, Kerr County Judge HARLEY BELEW, Commissioner Precinct 1 24 TOM MOSER, Commissioner Precinct 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Precinct 3 25 DON HARRIS, Commissioner Precinct 4 2 1 I-N-D-E-X 2 NO. PAGE 3 1.1 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 3 action to enter into an agreement with 4 Jill Shackelford for consulting services for the aggregate production operations 5 in the community and Kerr County. 6 *** Adjournment. 24 7 *** Reporter's Certificate. 25 8 * * * * * * 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 JUDGE KELLY: Come to order. It is Monday, 2 May the 17th, 2021, 9 o'clock in the morning and the 3 Kerr County Commissioners' Court is now in session. We 4 have a brief meeting this morning on the Consideration 5 Agenda before we go into a workshop. And we'll do the 6 meeting first. 7 And that is -- I'm going to call the Agenda 8 Item of 1.1, which is to consider, discuss and take 9 appropriate action to enter into an agreement with Jill 10 Shackelford for consulting service for the aggregate 11 production operations in the community of Kerr -- in the 12 community and Kerr County. And I do have a speaker 13 request on that one. Do you want to start or do you 14 want the speaker to start? 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: No, let's let the 16 speaker go. 17 JUDGE KELLY: Miss Lovett, if you would? 18 MS. LOVETT: Do I go here or here? 19 JUDGE KELLY: At the podium. Yes, ma'am. 20 MS. LOVETT: Okay. Excuse me. 21 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. And just speak right 22 into that camera and microphone in front of you. 23 MS. LOVETT: Okay. Thank you. I'm Francis 24 Lovett, 6749 Highway 27. That's Precinct 3. And first, 25 I'd like to thank the Court for your many years of 4 1 attention to the surface mining issues we have 2 throughout the County. Your legislative support, 3 resolution, town hall, and especially your recent 4 workshop. 5 I would also like to encourage a vote to 6 enlist Ms. Shackelford. I ask for this vote after years 7 of Kerr residents wrangling with TCEQ, spending money on 8 legal actions over neighborhood quarries and their 9 permits. I do not know Ms. Shackelford, other than 10 through presentations she made to Texans For Responsible 11 Aggregate Mining or TRAM. I did have a phone 12 conversation with her prior to your workshop. 13 When TRAM first put her on the group agenda, 14 I thought what in the world can this booty -- Buda 15 quarry woman teach Kerr County about -- about 16 aggregates. But, you know, she had answers. She not 17 only knew what she was talking about, but she had 18 answers, including best management practices and 19 advisory committee. I -- I followed that Buda episode 20 very closely because we were having the same problems 21 over in Center Point at that same time. 22 Now as a long-term quarry server, I'd like 23 to try to answer a few questions that came up at last 24 week's meeting. First question, why can't we get 25 together, talk, communicate with each other, using the 5 1 animal shelter and fire fighters as a model and just 2 work it out? Answer. My answer is: We can't because 3 the affected parties are different. The mentioned 4 success stories involved local citizens with good 5 intentions. 6 Our APO's, that is the quarries and concrete 7 batch plant and hot mix asphalt plant, are statewide and 8 international corporations. They have no interest in 9 negotiating with our community. Also, we have tried. A 10 while back, Commissioner Moser asked Martin Marietta to 11 join in setting up an advisory committee. They refused. 12 Another question. Why not let the involved 13 parties pay the consultant's fee? It should not become 14 a County expense. Answer. I don't know of any quarry 15 neighbors who could come up with this funding. It isn't 16 realistic to think the APO's would pay to disrupt their 17 status quo. They are satisfied to continue operation 18 as-is because they have no laws and little 19 accountability. 20 But going a step further, consider the 21 County and affected are involved persons. That is lost 22 tax revenues related to decreased property values and 23 lost river tourism. All County taxpayers are paying for 24 increased road repairs needed because of the APO's heavy 25 traffic -- heavy truck traffic. 6 1 Another question. What if it doesn't work 2 after we spend $8,500? Answer. I'd like -- I'd ask you 3 to consider the odds. Her track records against the 4 high probability of everything getting worse if we 5 continue on our current path. Several years ago a 6 friend told me, We don't have to worry about mining 7 around town because the quarries can't afford our high 8 property values. I'm not sure that's still true. Now 9 we have an APO in every Precinct. Have we appropriately 10 considered the growing industry's affect on air quality, 11 water, road safety and maintenance? Our Hill Country 12 heritage and tourism? 13 I have learned from Ms. Shackelford, my work 14 with TRAM, and Representative Wilson's interim committee 15 that there are reasonable solutions which are AP owner 16 and neighborhood specific. 17 Today Kerr -- today's current situation is 18 evidence that we don't have the expertise to finance the 19 individual solutions. But maybe she can teach us. As 20 you consider the odds, I'm reminded that Ms. 21 Shackelford's old mine is still prospering alongside 22 their non-complaining Buda neighbors. 23 I'll spare you a rundown of today's pressing 24 APO conflict, but I'll try to answer questions. 25 JUDGE KELLY: Thank you. Any questions for 7 1 Ms. Lovett? 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: No. But thank you, 3 Francis, very much. 4 MS. LOVETT: Thank you. Thank you. 5 JUDGE KELLY: And you are certainly welcome 6 to stay and answer any questions if they come up. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. And Judge, when 8 we -- you're welcome to stay, Francis. Don't -- 9 don't -- 10 MS. LOVETT: Are y'all going to budget 11 quarries? 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Huh? 13 MS. LOVETT: Are you putting out a budget 14 for quarries? Oh, vote. Y'all have to vote? 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 16 MS. LOVETT: I'm sorry. 17 JUDGE KELLY: We're not done with our 18 discussion. 19 MS. LOVETT: Oh, okay. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: First of all, I would 21 like to recognize Francis. She is -- she's probably -- 22 she and Jana Colgate, two ladies in the eastern part of 23 the County, are probably -- know more about quarries and 24 operations and restrictions and guidelines and 25 regulations than anybody in the County. I think she is 8 1 mine and Commissioner Letz's go-to person when it comes 2 to what about this, what about this, what about this? 3 Francis really works that, and thank you again, Francis, 4 for doing that. 5 Jill Shackelford came in to a workshop a 6 couple weeks ago and presented what she would do and 7 presented her experience in -- as the background for 8 doing something for Kerr County. And it was recommended 9 that we delineate in more detail what her task would be, 10 and so in the proposed consulting agreement that you 11 have in front of you with Jill Shackelford, and with -- 12 Heather's reviewed these too, have delineated what she 13 would accomplish. 14 But it basically is that she would contact 15 each one of the quarry operators, APO's, Aggregate 16 Production Operators, and deal with -- discuss with them 17 what their processes are and what their procedures are 18 and what they might do to better improve their 19 operations in light of -- in the eyes of the neighbors. 20 This is -- this will be Step 1. 21 Step Two, she would have a meeting with some 22 of the individual neighbors. Then she would come back 23 to a workshop with the Commissioners' Court and present 24 her findings and recommendations. The next step would 25 be, once that is laid on the table, then to help the 9 1 County, if they so choose in a separate action, to form 2 a community alliance committee which would be made up of 3 approximately ten people. That's to be determined. But 4 made up of the aggregate production operators, a 5 representative from the Commissioners' Court and the 6 community. 7 And with that, then it would -- that would 8 be a forum by with which to communicate on a regular 9 basis, perhaps every quarter, or when issues occur 10 between the aggregate production operators and the 11 community. 12 So that's basically it. You have in front 13 of you the -- the proposed changes with delineation of 14 what her duties would be. She is ready to begin 15 operations, and I might add, the only change made to the 16 consulting agreement that you had a week or so ago was 17 the delineation and the scope of work. Everything else 18 is the same. And I think County Attorney has reviewed 19 this and is okay with the changes proposed. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, question. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Sure. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the 1.1 services, the 23 last paragraph? 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Uh-huh? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says, Consultant will 10 1 provide detailed plans to establish community advisory 2 council. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Uh-huh. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that include her 5 attending the first meeting if we choose to do it? 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yes. Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we say that? Can we 8 add that? Because I think that's a very important point 9 because I think she has -- could explain one time how 10 that would happen. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yes. Absolutely. Yes. 12 No, that she would be there for the first -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Meeting. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- first one, right. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then after that, 16 then it would be additional. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. Okay. Right. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other item under 19 reimbursement, could we put a cap on that? 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Sure. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Additional -- I mean -- 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I think it's in -- I 23 think it says that, but we can delineate that further. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't -- it just 25 says -- I don't see a dollar amount. It's travel, phone 11 1 calls -- but you know -- postal and all that. It 2 shouldn't be much, but she mentions hotel, temporary 3 housing, meals. Other items in there that could be 4 expensive. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Sure. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't know what a 7 reasonable cap would be. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. So not -- not to 9 exceed -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not to exceed. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- not to exceed 12 $8,500. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no, this is -- 14 this is in addition to the $8,500.00. 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Oh, okay. 16 JUDGE KELLY: And the usual wording would be 17 not to exceed a certain amount, subject to written 18 approval from the Court. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, I think -- I 20 think what this says, this is the contract or agreement 21 with $8,500.00. Anything we choose to do beyond that 22 would have to be court -- court action. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But on this -- 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So I don't know how to 25 cap -- I don't know how to cap it. It would be what we 12 1 chose -- would ask her to do. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we can come back 3 to it. But I mean the way I read it is $8,500 for all 4 of her -- basically her labor. But her out-of-pocket 5 expenses, phone calls, travel, mileage, is in addition 6 to that $8,500.00. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: No. No, that's not 8 correct. It's included in the $8,500.00. Two trips 9 here at least, okay, are included in that. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it needs to be 11 clear because I read it the other way. 12 MRS. STEBBINS: There's a paragraph -- 13 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Why would it be 14 stated -- and you're talking about 3.2. Why would it be 15 stated separately if -- 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: 3.1. 17 COMMISSIONER BELEW: 3.2 is reimbursement. 18 JUDGE KELLY: Yeah, but if you look down 19 there's a -- it's a third party vendor expenses that 20 we're talking about. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean it's 3.2 22 and -- I mean, if it's all included why do we need the 23 reimbursement? 24 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Exactly. So it cannot 25 be. 13 1 MRS. STEBBINS: I don't think that it's -- 2 I don't think that the -- that the reimbursements are 3 included in the $8,500.00. 4 COMMISSIONER BELEW: It's not. 5 MRS. STEBBINS: I think it's in addition to, 6 as are the third party expenses. And I don't know what 7 third party expenses would be. That was a question I 8 had for her. But I don't know what those would be. But 9 I also think it's in addition to. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Third party expenses, as 11 long as they're approved by -- they need to be approved 12 by the Court. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Third party and 14 agreement -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: By the Court. And I 16 understand the -- there ought to be a cap on it, like 17 $500.00. I mean, it's not that far from here to Austin. 18 And pay for copies and phone calls and -- 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, 8500 her travel-- 20 her travel is included in the 8500. If we choose to 21 have her go beyond that, then that's -- that's court 22 action to approve that for $250.00 an hour. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's great, though I 24 think it needs to be clearer. 25 COMMISSIONER BELEW: The 8500 includes two 14 1 trips to Kerr County the way I read it. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER BELEW: That's it. So any of 4 the rest of this is on top of it. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. Right. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is copies, phone 7 calls -- which shouldn't be much. But I mean -- 8 MRS. STEBBINS: So do you want to put a 9 number in there? And then beyond that needs to be 10 approved by the Commissioners' Court? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 12 MRS. STEBBINS: What number? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $250.00. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Fine. $250.00. Right. 15 MRS. STEBBINS: I'll put $250.00 in there, 16 unless otherwise approved by the Commissioners' Court. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Good changes. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was it. Other than 19 that I think it's good. I mean, it does exactly what I 20 was looking for as to the specifics. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Well, with that 22 then I'll make a motion that we approve the consulting 23 agreement with Jill Shackelford as provided and as 24 changes made and recommended by the Court, and have 25 County Attorney incorporate those changes. 15 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second. 2 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. There's been a motion 3 made by Commission Moser, seconded by Commissioner Letz 4 to approve the proposed contract with Jill Shackelford 5 as revised this morning, as presented. Is that correct? 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Correct. 7 JUDGE KELLY: Is there any discussion? 8 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Yes. I -- I don't see 9 any guarantee that the operators will come to the table. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, that's probably 11 not a guarantee. Okay. But there's not a guarantee 12 that they won't come. You know -- 13 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: I -- I understand. 14 Another thing is the precedent that it sets. You know, 15 we have landowners in conflict with everything from 16 river crossings to condominiums going in and everything 17 else. What's -- this could be the first domino on this. 18 If we do this, why don't you do this for us down -- down 19 the road. Issues with conflicts. And that -- that 20 bothers me. 21 I -- I grew up next to -- next to a quarry. 22 And I can remember the blasting. The whole house would 23 shake. Dust and everything else. So I'm sympathetic to 24 all the issues, but I don't see this as a -- we don't 25 have oversight on this. And so I don't see it needs to 16 1 be a County expense. 2 COMMISSIONER BELEW: I agree with that. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Let me comment. We do 4 have oversight. We have an agreement. Okay. The thing 5 is that we don't have are the following: We don't have 6 very many state laws that restrict quarry operators. 7 Number one. We've got a potential for more occurring in 8 the County. I know of probably one or two other sites 9 where there will be quarries. There's probably more 10 then that. 11 Case in point. Somebody mentioned -- 12 Francis mentioned the value of the land being too 13 expensive. An example, I won't say exactly which quarry 14 it was -- is -- was. Make it that way so it's not 15 obvious. Paid five million dollars for the property. 16 There's a potential of $200 million worth of aggregate. 17 So the price of the property is -- is nothing, okay. 18 Whether it's in -- 19 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Sure. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- West Kerr County or 21 East Kerr County. There will be additional things. I 22 believe that the primary operators that we have right 23 now are West Texas Aggregate, Martin Marietta, and 24 Wheatcraft, I've talked to each one of them, meet with 25 each one of the three of them. I think they would 17 1 participate in these things. Can't guarantee it, no. 2 Because they're going to do what they want to do because 3 they've got the authority to do on their property what 4 they want to. 5 So I don't see this as a slippery slope. I 6 do see it as a step forward in facilitating a working 7 agreement in working operations and maintain the quality 8 of life that we have, a step in that direction to help 9 ensure it. Okay. Will it do it? No. Will state laws 10 be changed to ensure it? Probably not. Okay. Probably 11 not. Because the lobbyist in the industry is very 12 strong on that. So it's a matter of these people 13 wanting to be good neighbors and this is just a 14 mechanism by with which to do that. 15 And -- and I think as Francis Lovett said, 16 Jill Shackelford has -- is not a proposal of concept or 17 anything, she's proven that she can do it. So I think 18 it would be a -- can guarantee it? No, you can't 19 guarantee it. But I think it would be a really high 20 probability that it will be very successful. So -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a comment. 22 That I -- that I agree that the precedent is a little 23 bit odd on that. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you know, a lot of 18 1 time and resources have been spent already on quarries 2 of County, you know, elected officials time. While we 3 didn't participate, I don't believe, with the fees, I 4 know that the City had quite a bit of legal fees when 5 they -- when Martin Marietta was coming in. So there 6 are -- if this is a mechanism that helps mitigate future 7 costs, it would be good. It's worthwhile. 8 It's not -- it's a -- it's a lot of money, 9 but it's not an unreasonable amount of money in my mind 10 to try to get this done. And I think that the -- I 11 think we are likely to get more and more quarries, and 12 having some sort of mechanism in place, I think that 13 would be a good idea. 14 I know -- I mean, the -- pretty much from 15 Kerrville to the east is the most likely area for 16 quarries. But in the western part of the County, I 17 would -- I would not been surprised if one comes up out 18 there as well because there are areas where the river -- 19 basically it appears to me, I'm not a geologist when it 20 comes to all of this, but that where the river gets wide 21 there's gravel and where it's narrow there's not. 22 So more in Hunt? No, I don't see a quarry. 23 But between -- around the Ingram area, I could see 24 something between Ingram and Hunt. There's some pretty 25 wide areas of that river that have the same look that we 19 1 have in the eastern part of the County. So I think it's 2 worth trying to do it and I think it's a benefit to -- 3 really to all the taxpayers and try to solve this 4 problem. 5 JUDGE KELLY: Ms. Lovett. 6 MS. LOVETT: Well, I would like -- I'd like 7 for you to consider also, that this approach is an 8 advantage to the quarry. I think they'll listen. We've 9 had an air quality permit for Martin Marietta tied up 10 for well over two years to increase their emission. We 11 have wrangled with Wheatcraft forever over their water 12 rights. And I can't believe that these slowdowns with 13 the quarry processes are financially good for the 14 quarries. 15 And the second thing -- one other thing I 16 would just like to say, is that we are fooling ourselves 17 if we think that all the expansion going on in Kerr 18 County, that is the -- the new commercial project, the 19 City's 20/50 plan and our new housing projects are going 20 to bring aggregates in from out of the County. They're 21 not. 22 They're going to expand their operations 23 here in the County close to the workplace. Because it's 24 very expensive for them to haul aggregates in from 25 San Antonio or distant places. So I think that is a 20 1 real risk for us. And I think that any progress we 2 could make with our current problems, that is Martin 3 Marietta, Wheatcraft and APO would set a precedent for 4 future expansions. 5 JUDGE KELLY: Thank you, Miss Lovett. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Thanks, Francis. 7 JUDGE KELLY: Commissioner Belew, did you 8 have something? 9 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Yes. Two things were 10 said that -- that I think are important for the County. 11 One is to manage property taxes because of devaluation 12 of the properties. And the other is the wear and tear 13 on our roads. That's the only return on investment we 14 could possibly get out of this, and I don't think that 15 it's a proper use of County funds to enter into a 16 quibble between private citizens and private 17 contractors. Just simple as that. 18 I do see that the County has -- there's an 19 upside for us that if we -- but it's not -- this won't 20 change that. It won't stop anything. 21 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER BELEW: That return on 23 investment will be money down the rat hole, because 24 unless the legislature does something different, we're 25 not going to change the wear and tear on the roads or 21 1 the devaluation of property in this County. Because -- 2 and I do sympathize, they're -- they're unresponsive in 3 the times I've dealt with them. So -- but this is not 4 the proper use of County funds. It's a private issue on 5 both sides. 6 JUDGE KELLY: The only comment I would make 7 is I just returned from a Texas Association of Counties 8 conference. I was there with over a hundred other 9 judges. I had the opportunity to visit with a lot of 10 judges that do have aggregate operations, both in 11 neighboring counties as well as on other river basins, 12 and the one thing that I learned that I didn't know 13 before I went to my conference which was on probate, not 14 on anything else, which was on probate, is Jill 15 Shackelford is very well known in the industry and 16 respected. And that goes a long way when you're trying 17 to have a meaningful conversation. 18 I've -- a number of the judges had worked 19 with Jill Shackelford before and had nothing but good 20 things to say about her. So I'm not telling you that 21 they said do it or don't do it, I'm just telling you 22 that I asked around and I got a good report card. 23 And as for my personal beliefs, I think 24 everybody knows that I'm a recovering lawyer. And I 25 spent over 30 years as a mediator for the American 22 1 Arbitration Association and others. And more times than 2 not, if you can get people together and give them a 3 chance to discuss their differences, reasonable minds 4 don't differ that often. They really don't. 5 I think we all understand the limitations 6 that -- that the County or the individual homeowners 7 have with regard to aggregate operations. And if we're 8 looking to the legislature to help us, we're looking in 9 the wrong direction. It will not happen. That lobby in 10 Austin is too rich. Austin is -- has been purchased by 11 the lobbyists and we are low on the totem pole, trust 12 me. 13 But in terms of an advisory council, whether 14 we use Jill Shackelford or not, I think going forward 15 and trying to put together some sort of citizen and 16 operator group to be able to sit down, break bread, 17 discuss their differences, and see if they can't come up 18 with some kind of way to accommodate one another 19 reasonably. 20 And so when we talk about -- and one of the 21 discussions I had with them, that all the people that I 22 talked to that had knowledge or experience with Jill 23 Shackelford said that the way she approaches the BMP, 24 the best management practices, and she -- she talks 25 about the BMP's. She is held in high regard statewide 23 1 in being able to advocate reasonable BMP's. 2 Now, I'm not -- I don't -- I don't know how 3 to address the precedent on this thing. I know that we 4 have a problem in East Kerr County. And the other thing 5 I know is that -- is that that is where most of our new 6 development is going. And if we don't get ahead and get 7 out in front of the development before it gets here, 8 then the development is going to be driving the bus. 9 And those -- the developers are the ones 10 that will be the purchasers of this product. And so 11 they will have a big say. And I think that whether we 12 go back to the Teddy Roosevelt bully pulpit or whatever, 13 the County has a role, specific table, and facilitate 14 these discussions. And that's what I want to promote. 15 And if Jill Shackelford is the best way to do that, I'm 16 in favor. That's all I've got. 17 Any other discussion? Okay. We have a 18 motion and a second. Those in favor of retaining Jill 19 Shackelford on the basis of the consulting agreement as 20 presented in this courtroom raise your hand. 21 (Judge Kelly and Commissioners Moser and 22 Letz raised hands.) 23 JUDGE KELLY: Those opposed? 24 (Commissioners Belew and Harris raised 25 hands.) 24 1 JUDGE KELLY: I respect your differences. 2 Motion passes, three two. Thank you, Miss Lovett. 3 MS. LOVETT: Thank you. 4 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. I don't believe we have 5 anything else for the Commissioners' Court meeting, so 6 we will adjourn Commissioners' Court meeting. 7 * * * * * * 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 1 STATE OF TEXAS * 2 COUNTY OF KERR * 3 I, DEBRA ELLEN GIFFORD, Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, and Official 5 Court Reporter in and for Kerr County, do hereby certify 6 that the above and foregoing pages contain and comprise 7 a true and correct transcription of the proceedings had 8 in the above-entitled Special Commissioners' Court. 9 Dated this the 24th day of May, A.D. 2021. 10 11 /s/DEBRA ELLEN GIFFORD Certified Shorthand Reporter 12 No. 953 Expiration Date 04/30/2023 13 * * * * * * 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25