0510041.12
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS
REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: Dave Nicholson OFFICE: Commissioner, Pct. 4
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2004 TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC Consider and discuss a report from the Manager of
Environmental Health containing responses to concerns expressed by those engaged in the
business of septic system construction and repair and outlining responses to those concerns as
well as proposed changes in policies and practices.
EXECUTNE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Commissioner Pct. #4/ Miguel Arreola
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION:
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in
accordance with Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows:
Meeting scheduled for Mondays:
5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday.
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:

All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate
information has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court
Meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards you request being
addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners'
Court.
Countv Jude and Commissioners
This report is a recap of the concerns and recommendations expressed by a group of
septic tank contractors in a meeting attended by me, Mr Arreola and his staff. I expect
that the product of this discussion will be to provide Mr. Arreola some guidance on his
proposed response.
Dave Nicholson
Kerr County Environmental Health Department
OSSF Meeting
April 20, 2004 -10:00 a.m.
Attendance: Marty Brewer, Mark Graham, Mel Graham, Bennie Harvill, Ken Holloman, Bennett
Jordan, Eddie Miears, Dan Patton, Eddie Taylor, Sr., Gene Thacker, Bill Vlasek and
Lane Wolters
Miguel Arreola, Judy Carr, Tish Hulett and Commissioner Dave Nicholson
(Interpretation of notes: Bold type =comments by OSSF Professionals; CAPS ° comments by staff)
Comments by OSSF Professionals:
Transition is going well (started slow)
Glad we can be heard
Competent staff
Move OSSF from UGRA
Concerns of OSSF Professionals:
1. Realtors wait to last minute; puts pressure on installers who put pressure on OSSF staff.
Realtors need to solve this.
WILL NOTIFY REAL ESTATE COMMUNITY OF THE INSTALLERS CONCERNS ALONG
WITH OUR CONCERN ON THE TIMING INVOLVED FOR NEW OSSF INSTALLATIONS
AND THE PROCESS FOR PERMITTING A SYSTEM.
2. Why have a notary on the application; would cut down paperwork; would expedite process.
See County Attorney. This is a stumbling block. Other counties don't do this.
WILL NOTIFY COUNTY ATTORNEY OF THE CONCERN AND WILL ASK COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE IF THE APPLICATION REQUIRES NOTARIZATION. WILL
ASK FOR REVISION TO APPLICATION.
3. Other counties issue permits on the spot; they meet us at the site...site evaluation.
THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS IS MANDATORY BY THE TCEQ. Chapter 285.62(7) WE
PERFORM THIS ASPECT AFTER WE HAVE COMPLETED THE PRELIMINARY
INSPECTION CALLED "PROFILE HOLE INSPECTION' OR "SITE CONFIRMATION". ONCE
THE PRELIMINARY INSPECTION IS COMPLETED, AND THE SITE EVALUATION
CONFIRMED, WE PROCEED TO REVIEW THE PLANNING MATERIALS AND THEN THE
AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT IS ISSUED IF PLANS MEET TCEQ REQUIREMENTS
AND THE SOIL AND SITE CONDITIONS.
THE REQUEST WAS TO ISSUE THE AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT AT THE TIME OF
THE SITE CONFIRMATION. THIS MAY BE POSSIBLE, BUT IT WILL REQUIRE US TO
REVIEW THE PLANNING MATERIALS BEFORE WE BOOK THE SITE CONFIRMATION
INSPECTION. THIS MEANS WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SCHEDULE THE SITE
CONFIRMATION AS PROMPT AS WE ARE NOW DOING. IN ADDITION, IF WE REVIEW
THE PLANS, AND AT THE TIME OF THE SITE CONFIRMATION, SOMETHING IS NOT AS
DESCRIBED IN THE SITE EVALUATION FORM, THEN THE PLANS MUST BE REVISED,
AND WE MUST REVIEW THEM AGAIN. THIS WILL CAUSE EXTRA WORK AND EXTRA
EXPENSES FOR THE INSTALLER AND EXTRA WORK AND EXTRA EXPENSES FOR US,
AND EXTRA TIME AND DELAYS FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED INCLUDING BUILDERS
AND HOME OWNERS.
I RECOMMEND THAT IF WE ARE TO OFFER THIS OPTION, WE SHOULD INCLUDE IN
OUR FEE SCHEDULE AN ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW FEE OF $50. BEFORE WE OFFER
THIS OPTION, THE OSSF PROFESSIONALS MUST BE ADVISED OF THE NEW PROCESS
MAKING SURE THEY UNDERSTAND ALL THE POSSIBLE DELAYS.
I DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT THIS BE MANDATORY SINCE SOME OF THE
INSTALLERS ARE OPPOSED, BUT MAKE IT AVAILABLE IF SOME DESIRE TO USE IT.
WE ARE WILING TO IMPLEMENT THIS ON A TRIAL BASIS. IF IT PROVES TO BE
PRODUCTIVE, WE MAY MAKE IT PERMANENT, BUT IF IT SHOWS TO CREATE
EXTENSIVE DELAYS OR OTHER PROBLEMS, WE WILL DISCONTINUE THE PROCESS.
4. Need to be able to cover up to the inlet and outlet before inspection...tank excavation.
Avoids risk of hazards. (Responsibility of the installer.)
THE TCEQ MANDATES TANKS BE LEFT OPEN UNTIL INSPECTED. Chapter 285.32(b)(F)
WE HAD AN EXPERIENCE WHILE AT THE UGRA; THE PRACTICE OF BACKFILLING
TANK EXCAVATIONS BEFORE INSPECTION WAS ALLOWED. I WITNESSED THE ABUSE
OF THE RULING BY SOME INSTALLERS. THEY BASICALLY WERE TAKING
ADVANTAGE AND BACKFILLING EVERY SINGLE INSTALLATION AND MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT JOB. THIS CREATED A PROBLEM WITH THE REST OF THE INSTALLERS
THAT WERE USING THIS TOOL ONLY WHEN STRICTLY NECESSARY. I DO NOT
RECOMMEND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH A RULE. I RECOMMEND TO KEEP IT
THE WAY THE TCEQ RULES ARE ADDRESSED, AND IF A REAL CAUSE ARISES FOR
EARLY BACKFILLING, WE WILL DEAL WITH IT. (I DO HAVE PICTURES OF WHAT WAS
HAPPENING IN THE PAST IF YOU DESIRE TO REVIEW THEM.)
5. Depends on type of tank. One-piece tank.
OUR EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT EVEN ONE-PIECE TANKS CAN LEAK.
6. None of what we have is contrary to Chapter 285. The county can control these
administrative matters.
LARGER THAN '/2 INCH BACKFILL MATERIAL IS AGAINST THE RULES AND EARLY
BACKFILLING MAY BE CONSIDERED AGAINST THE RULES IF MISUSED.
7. '/z" rock rule costs landowner $'s...it's not needed.
IT'S MANDATED BY TCEQ. Chapter 285.32(b) (F)
8. Can we make exceptions...probably not.
NO, WE CANNOT, BUT WE CAN, AS A GROUP, PURPOSE CHANGES TO THE TCEQ.
9. Inspection form (separate) for each type of system is needed.
THIS WAS ADDRESSED DURING THE MEETING, AND EVERY INSTALLER IN
ATTENDANCE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE INSPECTION CHECKLISTS FOR THE MOST
USED SYSTEMS. THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL INSTALLERS UPON REQUEST.
10. Need to trust installers; they have the know-how and the responsibility.
WE DO TRUST INSTALLERS. THE SITUATION IS THAT DOCUMENTATION IS NEEDED
FOR THE FILE; WORD OF MOUTH IS JUST NOT ENOUGH WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER
REQUESTS THE STATUS OF THE FILE OR AS TIME PASSES, NO ONE CAN REMEMBER
WHAT HAS HAPPENED OR WHERE THINGS ARE IN THE PROCESS. WE ARE NOW
SUFFERING WITH OLD FILES THAT DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION, THE
INSTALLER IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND AND THE INSPECTOR HAS MOVED OUT OF
TOWN. TO PREVENT ALL OF THIS, WE REQUEST INSTALLERS AND DESIGNERS TO
DOCUMENT ANY ACTIVITY OR CHANGE MADE TO AN OSSF.
11. Do not put gravel or sand in the bottom of the hole; even in a "rock hole".
WE AGREE THAT IF SUITABLE MATERIAL IS FOUND AT THE SITE, THERE IS NO NEED
TO IMPORT ANY OTHER MATERIAL. THE MATERIAL MUST HAVE WHAT IS REQUIRED
WHETHER IT IS IMPORTED OR NATIVE.
12. Don't need to measure excavation size; the bucket confirms this.
D.R.'S ARE REQUIRED TO MEASURE SIZE OF TRENCHES AND ALL OTHER
COMPONENTS OF THE OSSF. Chapter 285.62. (10) (11)
13. Don't add to complexity of forms; maybe reduce.
FORMS ARE ALREADY AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE. IF SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS ARE
RECEIVED, WE WILL CONSIDER THEM AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE RULES.
14. Don't need a written affidavit when a change has been made to the system. Inspectors
know enough about the installers that it should not be rigid.
WE SOMETIMES REQUIRE STATEMENTS IN ORDER TO SAVE TIME AND MONEY. IF
THERE IS NO DESIRE TO WRITE STATEMENTS, THEN AN EXTRA INSPECTION MUST BE
DONE FOR A REINSPECTION FEE. NORMALLY WE DO NOT REQUIRE AFFIDAVITS, BUT
JUST A WRITTEN STATEMENT, WHICH ANY INSTALLER CAN DO. STATEMENTS WILL
STILL BE REQUIRED IF THE INSTALLER OR DESIGNER WISHES TO AVOID AN EXTRA
INSPECTION AND IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOW IT.
No consensus on these issues.
ANY WRITTEN STATEMENT IS OK.
15. Why is vegetation on drainfield required before system can be used.
VEGETATION IS REQUIRED ON MODIFIED LPDs AND MOUNDS BECAUSE THESE TYPES
OF SYSTEMS INVOLVE IMPORTED SOIL. THIS SOIL IS NORMALLY A SANDY
MATERIAL THAT WILL BE WASHED AWAY WITH THE INFLUENCE OF SURFACE
WATER OR HEAVY RAIN IF IT IS NOT PROTECTED. ONCE VEGETATION IS
ESTABLISHED, THE MOUND IS PROTECTED. THIS IS ALSO RECOMMENDED FOR ALL
SYSTEMS. Chapter 285.33(b)(2)(D) and Chapter 285.33(d)(2)(A)
16. Rule says "seeded or sodded".
THIS WILL MEET THE INSTALLER REQUIREMENT, BUT THE MOUND MUST BE
MONITORED UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. Chapter 285.33(d)(1)(C)
17. Why required "well established"?
TO PREVENT EROSION AND PROMOTE EVAPORTRANSPIRATION OF THE DRAINFIELD.
18. Obligation to homeowner?
NO, THE OBLIGATION IS TO THE INSTALLER SINCE THIS IS A TCEQ REQUIREMENT.
THE HOMEOWNER MAY TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY IF THEY WISH AT THE START UP
OF THE SYSTEM. IT WILL BECOME HOMEOWNER'S RESPOSIBILITY AFTER THE
SYSTEM IS BEING USED.
19. Going around the installers causes the installers problems. (Re: letter to homeowner.)
WE INFORM THE INSTALLER OF THE REQUIREMENTS REMAINING IN ORDER TO
PERMIT THE SYSTEM BEFORE ANYBODY ELSE IS INFORMED. WHEN NO RESPONSE IS
RECEIVED FROM THE INSTALLER OR DESIGNER, WE ENCOUNTER THE NEED TO
INFORM THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) SINCE THEY ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR
WHAT OCCURS ON THEIR PROPERTY. WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THE PROPERTY
OWNER TO INFORM THEM OF THE SITUATION.
20. Gutters on the house.
FOR CERATIN TYPES OF SYSTEMS, IT IS MANDATORY TO INTERCEPT AND DIVERT
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATERS. GUTTERS ARE JUST ONE MEANS OF
DIVERTING THE STORM WATERS, BUT IT COULD BE ANYTHING THE PROPERTY
OWNER AND DESIGNER/INSTALLER WISHES TO USE AS LONG AS THE PURPOSE IS
ACCOMPLISHED. NORMALLY GUTTERS ARE THE MORE POPULAR SOLUTION.
21. How long does it take to issue a permit to construct? When you have all of the paperwork,
why not issue it right then? This is costing us $'s and costing people wages.
IT IS MANDATORY TO REVIEW PLANNING MATERIALS BEFORE AN AUTHORIZATION
TO CONSTRUCT IS ISSUED. WE ARE WORKING ON A NEW COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM
THAT WILL ALLOW US TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE ISSUING
PERMITS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE BEST SOLUTION IS FOR THE INSTALLERS TO
PLAN AHEAD AND SUBMIT THEIR PLANS IN A TIMELY MANNER TO ALLOW FOR THE
REVIEW PROCESS.
22. Why do you have to review all the calculations?
WE DON'T REVIEW ALL THE CALCULATIONS. WE JUST VERIFY THAT THE PLANS
MEET THE MINUMUM STATE REQUIREMENTS.
23. When we submit the paperwork, can you tell us when we'll get approval?
WE CAN GIVE YOU AN IDEA, BUT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC DATE.
THE ONLY THING WE CAN ASSURE IS TO HAVE IT DONE BEFORE THE TCEQ
DEADLINE. WE ALWAYS STRIVE TO MEET THE INSTALLERS/HOMEOWNERS
DEADLINES.
24. Too many trips to the site, courthouse, etc. How can we cut out some of these unproductive
steps?
SUGGESTIONS:
I -HAVE ALL PAPER WORK COMPLETE AND CORRECT AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL
2 - PLAN YOUR ACTIVITIES AND USE THE MAIL.
3 -DON'T WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE. WE WILL NOT MAKE YOU DO MORE
TRIPS THAN NECESSARY.
THE REST OF THE TRIPS TO THE SITE ARE OUT OF OUR HANDS. HOW YOU DEAL
WITH YOUR CUSTOMER AND HOW MANY TRIPS YOU MAKE TO THE SITE IS YOUR
DECISION.
25. Site confirmation before design is good.
WE AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT. WE BELIEVE THIS SAVES EVERYBODY TIME,
MONEY AND HEADACHES.
26. Write changes on the spot.
WE HAVE BEEN USING A TOOL CALLED "AS-BUILT" WHERE THE DESIGNER LETS US
KNOW OF ANY CHANGES TO THE DESIGN. WE BELIEVE THIS PRACTICE IS MORE
PROFESSIONAL AND KEEPS THE INFORMATION WHERE IT SHOULD BE. THIS
PRACTICE HAS BEEN USED FOR AT LEAST THREE + YEARS. MOST EVERYONE IS FINE
WITH IT; WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH IT.
27. Don't let solid waste get in the way of OSSF administration.
WE AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT. I RECOMMEND THAT WE SHOULD HAVE AFULL-
TIME CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AN EXTRA SEPTIC INSPECTOR THAT WILL
ENABLE ME TO DEVOTE THE NECESSARY TIME FOR OSSF AND SOLID WASTE.
28. Takes too long to do inspections.
INSPECTIONS NORMALLY TAKE ABOUT THIRTY MINUTES EACH. SOME TIMES, THEY
MAY TAKE LONGER DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF SYSTEM. WE KEEP AN INSPECTION
SCHEDULE IF ANY ONE WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW IT. YOU ALSO HAVE A CHECK LIST
THAT WILL GIVE AN IDEA OF HOW LONG IT TAKES TO INSEPCT EACH ITEM.
29. 30 days vs. 7 days (5 working days) to issue an authorization to construct.
CHAPTER 285.3(C) CLEARLY STATES 30 DAYS.
BUILDERS CAN HELP OSSF/EH BY GIVING ADVANCE NOTICE. AGAIN, PLANNING IS
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT STEPS OF THIS PROCESS. IF BUILDERS PLAN AND
GIVE US SUFFICIENT NOTICE, WE WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM IN MEETING THEIR
NEEDS REGARDING INSPECTION DATES AND TIMES.
IF THE INSTALLER DOES NOT PLAN AHEAD, THE TASK OF BOOKING INSPECTIONS,
ISSUING AUTHORIZATIONS TO CONSTRUCT AND PERMITS TO OPERATE WILL BE
VERY DIFFICULT AND MAY NOT MEET THE INSTALLER'S DESIRED DATES AND
TIMES.
30. 1sT Come, 1sT Served
WE BOOK INSPECTIONS, REVIEW PLANS AND ISSUE AUTHORIZTIONS TO CONTRUCT
IN THE ORDER THEY ARE RECEIVED. THE EXCEPTION IS THE EXPEDITE REVIEW FEE.
THIS WILL TRIGGER SOMEONE TO SPECIFICALLY DEDICATE OVERTIME TO THAT
SPECIFIC ACTIVITY.
31. Will there always be some one in the office to schedule appointments.
SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO BOOK AN INSPECTION. IT IS RECOMMENDED
TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH THE INSPECTOR (TISH) SINCE SHE WILL KNOW
THE BEST TIME TO SCHEDULE IT. SHE IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE THROUGH VOICE
MAIL. SHE OR THE MANAGER WILL RETURN THE PHONE CALL THE SAME DAY.
HOWEVER, IF YOU MUST HAVE A TIME OF INSPECTION ON THE SPOT, SOME ONE
WILL BE ABLE TO DO IT FOR YOU. THIS RUNS THE RISK OF BEING CHANGED TO A
DIFFERENT TIME, OF COURSE, WITH YOUR CONSENT, AND THE CHANCES OF
CHANGE ARE VERY SMALL.
° ,, Kerr County Environmental Health Department
- MEMORANDUM
TO: David Motley, County Attorney
FROM: Miguel Arreola, Manager M•R.
~~
DATE: May ~, 2004
RE: Application for OSSF Development Permit
On Apri120, 2004, Commissioner Nicholson and the some of the Environmental Health
Department staff met with several of the OSSF Professionals (Designers, Site Evaluators
and Installers) who work in Kerr County. The purpose of the meeting was to listen to
their concerns about the County's OSSF Program.
One of the concerns was regarding the Application for OSSF Development Permit. We
were informed that Kerr County, out of all the surrounding counties, is the only one that
requires the application to be notarized. It was also stated that if the application did not
have to be notarized, this would speed up the OSSF process, thus saving time for the
professionals. They consider this to be a "stumbling block" and asked if this could be
changed.
Please review the request of the professionals, and let me know if it is possible to change
the requirement of having the signature notarized in the application. (An application
is attached for your review; refer to Page 3.)
Please respond as soon as possible for Commissioner Nicholson stated we would respond
to the professionals in the very near future.
Thank you for your time and considerations.
~ ~-~ 6S~~~IO'~
May 7, 2004
Kerrville Board of Realtors
Mr. John Mosty, President
328 Jefferson
Kerrville, TX 78028
Dear Mr. Mosty:
On April 20, 2004, Commissioner Dave Nicholson, Tish Hulett, Judy Carr and I
met with several of the OSSF Professionals (Designers, Site Evaluators and
Installers) who work in Kerr County. The purpose of the meeting was to listen to
their comments about the County's OSSF Program.
One of the concerns involved the real estate community. It was stated by some of
the members present that some realtors do not give them sufficient time for the
septic process. By doing this, it puts pressure on the installers, who in turn, put
pressure on the Environmental Health Department staff. The professionals of the
industry felt that the real estate community could help remedy this situation.
The Environmental Health Department has concerns over the timing involved for
new OSSF installations as well. The process for permitting a septic system is
detailed and takes time. Planning is one of the most important steps of the
process.
Builders can also help by giving advance notice. If builders plan ahead and give
us sufficient notice, we will not have a problem in meeting their needs regarding
inspection dates and times.
We are, also, reviewing other aspects of our process in order to better serve the
community. Any changes will be communicated to you in the near future. We
feel that if we work together and communicate with all parties involved, that all of
us will be able to contribute toward the environmental health of Kerr County.
We would like to assist you in any way we possibly can. Please do not hesitate to
call us if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
~LC1.1~-
Migue eo a
Manager
Kerr County OSSF Program