,.-.
1
z
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
KERB COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Thursday, June 24, 1999
6:30 p.m.
Commissioners Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4
e
~.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I N D E X
June 24, 1999 PAGE
Visitors' Input
Mayor Shults, Center Point
Commissioners' Comments
Commissioner Baldwin
Commissioner Williams
Commissioner Letz
Commissioner Griffin
Judge Henneke
Approval Agenda
1.1 Pay Bills
1.2 Budget Amendments
1.3 Late Bills
1.9 Read and Approve Minutes
1.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
Consideration Agenda
2.1 Hill Country Community MHMR Center presentation
2.2 Donation of Post Office building to County
2.3 Preliminary plat - Mountain Home Estates
2.4 Interlocal Agreement with City of Center Point
for enforcement of Kerr County OSSF Rules
2.5 Veterans Land Board County Committee Roster
2.6 Contract with Families & Literacy, Inc. for
Fiscal Year 1998/99
2.7 Nomination for service - South Texas Water
Master Advisory Committee
2.8 Preliminary budget figures 6 schedule workshops
2.9 Set date for workshops: Travel & reimbursement,
Facility use, maintenance & administration of
Ag Barn booking, Budget workshops
Adjourned
3
4
4~
5
5
6
7
9
15
17
24
27
92
96
98
49
50
73
3
.-,.
~_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
On Thursday, June 24, 1999, at 6:30 p.m., a Special
Session of Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners
Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the
following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good evening, everyone. It's 6:30
on Thursday, June 29th, and this is our special Commissioners
Court evening meeting for this quarter. At this time, I'd
call on Commissioner Baldwin to do the invocation and the
pledge of allegiance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's stand and pray,
please.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, we'll
have the Visitors' Input. Citizens wishing to speak on items
not listed on the regular agenda who have completed a form
for consideration are invited to address us at this time. We
have a 3-minute time limitation in these presentations. We
have a request from Mary Shults, mayor of Center Point, to
address us. Madam Mayor, if you'd come forward at this time?
MS. SHULTS: Your Honor, Commissioners, I'm
speaking for Center Point. As mayor, I'm speaking for Center
Point. We are grateful for your support. We are grateful
for your input. And we are grateful for helping us hang in

4
r^
~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
there. We look forward to this union between the County and
the City in the business of our septic situation. And,
again, I want to thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, mayor.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there any other citizen who'd
like to address us at this time on matters not on the regular
agenda? If not, we'll go to Commissioners' Comments.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. The only comment
I have is I've been hanging around this courthouse many, many
years, and until this early spring and through today, I just
wanted to comment on how good the courthouse looks. It's --
the lawn and the flowers are the prettiest it has ever, ever
been. And I want to commend our staff. They're not here,
but I just wanted to stay thank you to them. And I hear this
from many former commissioners and district judges.
Everybody's commenting how pretty the courthouse looks.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a note, Judge, kind of
a piece of correspondence from the Elm Pass Volunteer Fire
Department in which they thank us, members of the Court and
County, for the assistance we gave them in helping them get
r
5
'-- -
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
their new fire tank full and ready to go to use their new
brush wagon to fight fires in the eastern part of the county.
And, I guess this is really what County government's all I
about, our ability to help those who are in turn helping
others out there, so it makes you feel good. And I want to
take this opportunity, then, to also express my thanks to the
Road and Bridge folks who responded to my request to load up
a water tanker so they could load up the water tanks out
there and do the job, and I thank them for their help and
their assistance.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd just like to thank Gene
Ritchie and the Hill Country Airborne. He had his annual
fundraiser out at his house, which I attended for the first
time and really enjoyed it, and thank you for that. But
also, I'd like to thank that organization for all they do for
the county. They do a lot, from everybody -- from flagpoles
to helping with activities around the courthouse square. And
I'd just like to thank you for all the work y'all do.
Appreciate it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would just like to express
thanks again to the Highway Department for the excellent job
they've done at the Hunt Crossing on putting up the barriers
that restrict cars from getting into the river. And that --
6
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
just to mention that that process has worked very, very well
and those people park their cars very neatly. There is a lot
less trash next to the river and no vehicles in the river,
and they've done an excellent job, both Bill Tucker and Wayne
Pehl.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Very good. Two comments I'd like
to make. The first is I think it's appropriate that we note
the passing of Bab Bullock, who died a week ago tomorrow.
Mr. Bullock was a line in Texas politics for longer than,
certainly, I'm aware of, and regardless of how you feel about
his politics, he made a major contribution to Texas and to
the lives of all of the citizens in the State of Texas, and
we mourn his passing and rejoice in his accomplishments.
Along the same lines, I'd like to note and congratulate our
Sheriff, Frances Kaiser, who is this evening attending a
"Women of the Millenium" dinner in Washington, D.C., with 20
other women, and the only two of whom I know are Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison and Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor. And I think it will be interesting to find out
when the Sheriff gets back who the other members of the
worldwide group were and what she learned from them. But I
think it's an accomplishment, certainly, to her and to the
citizens of Kerr County, that we're able to produce leaders
of this magnitude. So, we mourn the passing of Bob Bullock
and we congratulate and celebrate the accomplishments of our
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
own Sheriff, Frances Kaiser.
With that said, we'll move on to the approval agenda.
First item is to approve the bills. Does anyone have any
questions about any of the bills that have been presented?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I have one. Tommy, can you
tell us -- and if not right now, I'd just like to get the
number -- what are we paying The Software Group in
maintenance fees per quarter or per year, or about what's
that running? 'Cause I just noticed there's a lot of -- a
lot of numbers in there for The Software Group, and I'd just
like to have some idea of what the total maintenance cost is.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd be afraid to tell you what the
total is. I have -- I have a feel for what it is, but I
don't think it's close enough to --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Could you get that
for us?
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I should have asked you
before court. I just -- I think it's a pretty big number,
and -- and I'm just curious as to what it might be, the total
expenditure for maintenance. Now, understand, not including
the software, this recent upgrading and all that kind of
thing. That's --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- a one-time deal.
e
.-.
,~--
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: The annual maintenance.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The annual maintenance fees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Multiply that times the
years they've been here. Big news.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, yeah. They're big
throughout the state. They are -- you know, they're maybe --
maybe they've almost got a monopoly. In many ways, I think
they do. But I'd gust be curious about that number. That's
the only question I had.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, I'd entertain a motion to
approve the payment of the bills as recommended by the
Auditor.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve
payment of the bills as presented and recommended by the
Auditor. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget amendments.
9
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Budget Amendment 1 is from the
Sheriff's Department. We have a bill for some repairs on the
-- the Sheriff's Department antenna on the tower, the
U.G.R.A. Tower. And we didn't budget anything for any
expenditures on -- for that purpose. So, what I've done is
-- I'm asking the Court for a transfer of $280.75 from
Vehicle Insurance to Radio Repairs to pay that bill.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 1 to transfer $280.35 from Vehicle
Insurance to Radio Repairs in the Sheriff's Department. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. Motion
carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: No. 2 is a request from Kevin
Stanton, our Juvenile Probation Officer, to -- to move 59,000
from Diagnosis and Treatment to Electronic Monitoring.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, but I'll ask them
later. How did we end up with 9,000 extra dollars in a line
item?
10

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I can answer that, partially.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that -- that what I hear
from him, that he's beginning to use monitoring more than we
ever have before, and it's -- and it's something that's
helped the Probation Department in what they do. And I think
that he sees it can be more effective using monitoring than
-- than what we have budgeted in Diagnosis and Treatment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That really was going to be
-- you touched on what was going to be my question, Tommy.
Why we didn't have anything in electronic monitoring to begin
with?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we do -- we do have some
money in Electronic Monitoring in two other budgets. This
budget is the -- is the County portion of our total Juvenile
Probation budget. Prior to this, all the -- all the
electronic monitoring was paid for out of State money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: He's used that up, and wants to --
to continue for the zest of the year, so -- so he needs the
extra $9,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Plus we've had a change of
the guard over there, and it has a different attitude, maybe,
of how -- how to do that.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's right.
11
~-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: I will say, as Juvenile Judge, that
the electronic monitoring is very effective, and it's also an
alternative to placement at the Detention Center or another
facility. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- it's actually cheaper than --
than the alternative. Before, the alternative was regular
supervision or placement in a long-term facility. And this
is an interim step which is very effective, and also cost
effective.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the approval of the
budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 2 for the Juvenile Probation
Department. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. Motion
carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: No. 3 is for the County Jail. I
have a bill for $3,755. It's a maintenance contract on the
dictaphone system, which is the recording system out at the
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
jail. We need $668.50 additional amount in that line item to'
pay that bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this the final -- I mean, is
there going to be enough money in Maintenance Contracts?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it is, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 3 for the County Jail. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. No. 4?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. 9 is actually between the
County Court and Commissioners Court. This is a request from
Judge Henneke to transfer 312,000 out of the Contingency Fund
in Commissioners Court to the Court-appointed Attorneys line
item in the County Court budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're just out of money.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I can't stop appointing attorneys.
13

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the balance after
this in the Contingency? Oh, I see it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ten-five.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, is this enough to get
you through the rest of the year?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, we anticipate this will carry
most of the rest.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the Budget
Request No. 9 for the County Court. Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. No. 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: No. 5 is for the County Treasurer's
office. I think the Court previously approved the purchase
of some chairs in her office, and her request is for an
additional $21 to pay for -- for three chairs rather than
two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
14
i--
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 5 for the County Treasurer. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
hand.
	(The motion was carried	by unanimous vote.)
	JUDGE HENNEKE: All opp	osed, sa	me sign.
	(No response.)		
	JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion	carries.	No. 6.
	MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.	No. 6 is	for the County Law
Library.	This is a request from	the Law	Librarian, Linda
Uecker.	We have currently a bill	for --	for $1,535.30 in
books and	supplements to the Law	Library.	We have totally
expended	that budget. What I'm d	oing, I'	m recommending that
-- that w	e take that $1,535 from	Surplus	Funds in that fund
to pay fo	r this.		
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:	18 would	be the Library
Fund?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve Budget
15
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Amendment Request No. 6 regarding the County Law Library.
Any further discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have any
late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one. It's from Benno's
Electric. This is a bill that's related to the repair of
electrical system in the courthouse lawn. I don't know -- I
don't know if you remember, but I think it was back in
November or December, our architect recommended that the
County upgrade the wiring in the front for the Christmas
lights. Benno's Electric purchased the materials fox that,
at a total of $1,975.79. Mr. Holekamp gave me this bill
concerning it. He really didn't want to take that much money
out of his budget, because -- in his major repairs, because
it wasn't budgeted, and so I'm bringing it to the Court just
to make you aware that -- that it is -- that is it a late
bill, and what's it's for, and if you have any ideas of where
you might want to pay for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do have any suggestions?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I would suggest the
Contingency Fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think the Contingency
16

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Fund would be appropriate, because it was an unexpected item
that we had to pay during the Christmas season last year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's something that's
been done and work is continuing in getting ready for the
project again this year, so I think it's something we ought
to take care of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve payment of
the late bill to -- Benno Electric?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And the funds to come from the
Contingency Fund. Any further discussion? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(Na response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this time, I'd
entertain a motion to waive reading and approve the minutes
of the past meeting.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, there's no minutes or
monthly reports at this -- at this meeting.
THE CLERK: They'll be at the next --
17
~~-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: In that instance, we can't --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't waive what we don't
have, huh?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. Good. We'll move onl
to the consideration agenda, then. The first item on the
consideration agenda is a brief presentation by Hill Country
Community M.H.M.R. Center as to the service they provide to
the residents of Kerr County. Dr. Junkin, welcome, sir.
DR. JUNKIN: Judge and Commissioners, it's our
privilege to appear before you tonight. Actually, we are, in
effect, one of your children. The Hill Country Mental
Health/Mental Retardation Center is an independent board.
I'm not sure that Executive Director Beck, whom you will meet
in a few minutes, would approve my use of the word
"quasi-governmental," but it is -- of course, for me, this is
the way I understand quasi-governmental entity: Doing
business among the citizens of Texas in general, the citizens
of the 19-county area in particular, but in true particular,
citizens who are mental health/mental retardation challenges.
We are bound by the laws that govern public boards of
trustees, and you need to know that.
On September 1, 1997, we began business as the Hill
Country Mental Health/Mental Retardation Center. We serve
persons in 19 counties. And, just so that you understand
these, Bandera, Blanco, Comal, Edwards, Gillespie, Hays,
18
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Llano, Mason, Medina, Menard,
Real, Schleicher, Sutton, Uvalde, and Val Verde. Basically,
from Hays County, San Marcos, to -- to Del Rio. And, perhaps
from New Braunfels, Comal County, out to E1 Dorado or
someplace like that in Schleicher County. The population
combined in these counties is some 391,000-plus citizens.
Kerrville and San Marcos are sort of the two centers,
and we have a Director who works out of the office in Hays
County in San Marcos, and her Associate Director works out of
the Kerrville office here. But, it's all malleable and all
staff members wander about and do different things as
assigned by the Executive Director. There are currently 670
employees of the Hill Country Mental Health and Mental
Retardation Center; 110 of those do business in Kerr County.
There is a budget -- our budget for the current year is some
$24 1/2 million dollars. $3 million of that is -- is
destined for services in and around Kerr County. At the
conclusion of the presentation, Mrs. Beck will give you a
folder that gives -- shows you some maps and other things
that lust reinforce it for you, some of the stats that you
have just been given.
There is, perhaps, one question which might arise in
your minds, and that has to do with what is our relationship
with Kerrville State Hospital. I simply say to you that,
again, using my terminology, it's what I call a "symbiotic"
~-.
19
...
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
relationship. It's a very good relationship working between
our center and the hospital. We from time to time do things
for them; they from time to time do things for us. Although
we are working with citizens in mental health/mental
retardation challenges that have differing specific needs,
such as some need to be hospitalized; others are going to
flourish best if they can stay with their families and local
communities. And, so, we're working with two general sets of
that population, but we work very well and very closely
together.
It's my privilege now to introduce to you Mrs. Janis
Beck, who is our Executive Director. She will make a brief
presentation and also introduce to you the others who are
with us tonight. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MRS. BECK: Thank you, Dr. Dunkin. Judge,
Commissioners, the first thing I would like to do is to
introduce some staff that are very integral to the provision
of services here in Kerr County, starting with my Deputy,
Linda Parker. And Paula Paddock, who used to be Paula
Poorman -- you may know her better as Paula Poorman -- who is~
the Director of our Mental Retardation Center that's on Lemos
-- Francisco Lemos here in Kerrville. And Suzanne Lindell,
who is the Director of our Mental Health Clinic, which is on
McFarland street. We -- in addition to these locations, we

zo
~--
~-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
also have seven homes where persons with mental retardation
live, and those homes are generally staffed 29 hours a day,
seven days a week. We rent homes in the neighborhoods, and I
think we blend in very nicely.
We serve about 350 adults with mental illness every
month. We're really charged with serving persons who have
chronic and/or severe mental illness. We serve 55 children
that have mental health issues every month here in Kerr
County. We serve -- this is a very important service that we
provide. We serve 19 families in Kerr County through our
Homespun Program, which is an early childhood intervention
program. We take children that -- from birth to age 3 that
are disabled or at risk of being disabled, and work with the
families in their homes to help them bring these kids along
developmentally. And I just want you to know that that
service is available to all citizens with children in Kerr
County, and it could be an underweight child, a premature
birth. It does not have to be mental retardation. It can be
a physical disability or just some problems at birth that can
be overcome very quickly.
We serve approximately 85 persons with mental
retardation a month. So, we're very active in providing
services in Kerr County. One way that we do that, we do have
budgeted in Kerr County a little over $3 million in services.
We also get over $110,000 in local match from the local
.-.
21
•~-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
community. And, I want to especially mention, the Special
Opportunities Center on Francisco Lemos has an advisory
board, and they provide about $95,000 to us, which helps us
make our money go further, and there's always more need than
there is money.
And, probably, that's about as much information as -- I
know I'm just spilling information, but I do have packets
that have information about what is mental illness and what
is mental retardation. It has a lot to do with our -- has
information about our governing structure of the Board of
Trustees, which Dr. Junkie is an appointee of Judge Henneke,
and information about our organizational structure. And it
has my card in it if you have any problems. So, thank you,
and we'll be glad to answer any questions that you have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one.
JllDGE HENNEKE: Do you have any questions? Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Beck, what's the total
operating budget for the entire 19-county region?
MS. BECK: $24.5 million.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I'd like to make a
comment. Several years ago, when the community center
concept started -- started happening in this part of the
state, it's -- this is really an old program, or -- numerous
years old. But, when they first started talking about it in
zz

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
this area, I had the opportunity and privilege to work with
all these people when I was with the State Rep to bring the
program in here, and excellent, excellent, excellent. You
guys have gotten up and running, and very rapidly. And if
you remember, several years ago, M.H.M.R. got out of the
business of treating substance abuse people. And, in my mind
and many others, the single largest problem we have in
America today is substance abuse. And somehow the great
State M.H.M.R. decided they didn't want to be in that
business. Well, through the M.H.M.R. Center, the way I
understand it, we have an opportunity now to start treating
people with those particular problems. And, could you kind
of give us an update on where that might be?
MS. BECK: Yes, sir. When we were operated by the
State, Commissioner Baldwin is correct, we were actually
legally forbidden from providing services to persons that had
a single diagnosis of substance abuse. And since we're now
in a contractual arrangement with the State, we're able to
seek funds for persons who have substance abuse problems.
And Linda Parker, my Deputy, is in charge of that. And we
made a promise to the citizens in Kerr County and to
different groups that we would not take money away from the
people with mental retardation o:c with mental illness, but
that we would seek new funds. And Linda has been
aggressively seeking grants and other funds. We've been
23
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
trying to position ourselves where we can get grants.
Nothing has come to fruition of yet, but we -- Linda put
together a coalition of service providers in this area, and
we've been working cooperatively with those people to try to
bring funds into Hill Country M.H.M.R. It's really a big
need, and that was a really a large incentive for us becoming
an M.H.M.R. Center. And, Linda, do you have any additional
information?
MS. PARKER: Just that we're hoping to get the
detox center in July. After July, we should have more
definite information about a detox center that would be
located in Kerr County.
MRS. BECK: So keep your fingers crossed. We're
trying for a detox center. It's hard to get -- it's hard to
get those funds the first time. Once you get them, you
generally can get other grants, but it's very difficult if
you don't -- we provide those services to people that have
mental health and substance abuse problems or mental
retardation and substance abuse, but to get those first
single-diagnosis funds is very difficult. And we think once
we get our foot in the door, we can just ram on in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd like to say, first of all, a
small correction. Dr. Dunkin is not my appointee. He was
appointed by this Court, actually, before I took office. It
29
~--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's my appointee.
JUDGE HENNEKE: He's your appointee, that's right,
and Jonathan's. His appointment expires -- I believe it's in
September? We have asked him -- I have asked him to consider
being reappointed, and we certainly know that he'll give that
thoughtful consideration and let us know his decision at such
time as he's ready. Secondly, about the group homes, I lived
on Nancy Beth for a year and did know there was one across
the street from me, and never experienced any difficulties
whatsoever. I did not know, until I met with Dr. Dunkin and
Ms. Heck, that there are two on my street, on Mack Hollimon.
I had no idea they were there. So, they are very well run
and very -- the service is greatly appreciated and needed.
And to you all, Dr. Dunkin and Ms. Beck and your staff, we
say thank you for the service you provide.
MS. BECK: Thank you. And I just want to add that
Dr. Dunkin represents Kerr County in an exemplary manner, and
the staff much appreciate his services.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Again, thank you. The next item on
our agenda is 2.2, which is consider and discuss requesting
the donation of the Post Office building to Kerr County and
25
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Kerr County Historical Committee. Do we have anyone from the
Kerr County Historical Committee here today -- this evening?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, a brief explanation. The
Kerr County Historical Commission has come to us, asking us
to forward a letter to the U.S. Postal Service requesting the
donation of the Post Office to Kerr County for use as office
space, among other things. The old Post Office is being
offered for sale now commercially. We're not sure what
success we would meet with this request for a donation, but
it's the Historical Commission's strong belief that their
potential fundraising efforts to purchase the old Post Office
will be enhanced if we made a request to purchase the Post
Office and it was denied. I've put this on the agenda
because I want the Court to have a chance to discuss it. You
have to be careful what you wish far; you might get it. I
think if they gave us the Post Office, I'd be happy about it,
but then we'd have the obligation and opportunity to do
something with it. So, rather than merely for me to make
that decision, I want the Court to have a chance to discuss
and hopefully go along with the request from our Historical
Commission. Any comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea --
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN:	Yeah, I	do,	too.	
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: --	to ask	for	it. But	if they
26
.~-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
say yes, we may want to look at -- look at this real long and)
hard.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can't look a gift horse)
in the mouth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because there will be some
conditions, I'm sure, of use and things like that, and --
but, you now, it's certainly worth exploring up to a point.
And I -- if they give it to us free and clear to do whatever
we want, if we can sell it down the road, it's not a bad
deal. If they put a whole lot of strings to it, we're going
to have to look at those strings pretty carefully.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this point, I'm not aware of any
strings, but you're absolutely right, Jonathan. If there are
any strings, that certainly makes it a different discussion.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think this is something we
ought to do, because it doesn't cost us anything at this
point, and we would still have a bail-out option if -- if we
decided it's not something that we wanted to pursue further.
But, I think we ought to get their reaction. And it may be a
very good deal for the County and for -- for the County
government and for the Historical Commission. I think the
letter outlines that very well, what the benefits would
potentially be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. I think it's
something we've got to try for and, certainly, if we were
z7
.-.
~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
successful, one that would guarantee a couple things. First,
preservation of the building, and guarantee that it didn't
fall into some hands that might do with it things which would
be displeasing to the downtown community as a whole. And I
really think that there are opportunities for the Court in
the future -- not necessarily in terms of space today, but as
we move forward in the future, we might have some benefits.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a motion to approve the
request for donation of the old Post Office?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court move forward
with the request that the U.S. Postal Service donate the Post
Office building by sending the letter contained in our
packet. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
{The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item 2.3, consider
and discuss the preliminary plat of Mountain Home Estates.
Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Franklin's going to make the
28

.~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
presentation on this.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think you have a copy of the plat
in your packet. This is a subdivision which is in the
northwest part of the county where 27 and Interstate 10 come
together. It's a large acreage -- relatively large acreage,
8- to 16-acre lots. The road that's called Rough Creek will
be a County-maintained road. It will be a local road
specification, 20 foot wide. The road called Carpenter Road
is actually an easement to a ranch behind this property.
There's a road there now; it will just remain as-is. As a
result of our routing the plan around to the different
entities, TexDOT had called me -- and I haven't received a
letter yet, but they called and requested that all the lots
face the road -- not face Highway 27, face Rough Creek Road,
and that it be rearranged to connect all the lots interiorly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any comments or questions of either
Mr. Johnston or -- the developer, I believe?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the developer might have
some questions about the interior roads.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you say "suggested"
that all the those that front on the highway, they suggest
that they be fronted on an interior road? Or they told you
to do it?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, they told me. I haven't
received a letter; I don't know what they put in the letter.
29
1
2
3
9
5
6
7 to --
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
comment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here's the letter.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You have it?
COMMISSIONER LET2: Here's the copy.
MR. JOHNSTON: No, I received a copy.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the copy that came.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Have you or Mr. Perry had a chance
MR. JOHNSTON: I think he might want to make a
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- think about this interior road
question or any response? If you do, please come forward.
MR. PERRY: In regard to the concerns of the
Department of Transportation on the safety factor of coming
out onto Highway 27, which is a frontage road here along
I-10, and the drainage issue, I've got several points in
regard to these concerns, and I might -- if I might just pass
these out to you all so you can follow along with me.
Point II there is in regard to the traffic. This
subject property is located approximately 2.7 miles from
Mountain Home, from the Post Office, where 41 intersects
Highway 27. And, at this point, as you progress
northwesterly on this 27 frontage road, you will pass access
to I-10 via 91, and then you also have a direct access to 27
through another exit ramp off of I-10, and then there is an
additional exit ramp also from I-10, all before you get to
30
r-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this subject property. You can see that on this Exhibit A.
Here you go.
My point in mentioning this is that, again, all of these
ramps are -- are prior to coming up to this property, so any
traffic that is headed that way to exit on I-10 or come off
should have done it at this point. And you'll see by some
pictures that I have here in the file, also, that any traffic
that is headed this direction -- which there is a 70 mile-an-
hour speed limit sign posted right past Highway 91, the
intersection, but cars slow down coming up to these entrance
and exit ramps considerably, or anyone that's taking caution
would slow down in these areas. And, so, my point here is
that, by the time you get down to the subject property,
traffic will have already slowed considerably.
Also, the road narrows at this point. That's a picture
of the -- these two are the exit ramps. And you'll notice in
that second picture that the road -- there's a wide shoulder
here, but at this point past this last exit ramp, it narrows
without a shoulder at all. This just gives you a close-up.
This may be overkill on this, but I want to try to make a
point as we go along. That Exhibit B is just a close-up of
those ramps, so you can qet a little better idea of where
they lay in regard to the subdivision. So, the traffic is
slowed, the road narrows.
Another area that's of concern, I'm sure, with this is
31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the visibility of cars coming out of driveways that -- that
front on Highway 27. And I want to circulate some pictures
here that I've taken from the highway, both looking back in a'
northwesterly direction and back to the southeast, so that
you all can see what kind of visibility there is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a great shot.
MR. PERRY: As far as driveway access, Point V, is
concerned, if you notice on the plat, the lots that front on
Highway 27 frontage road, all but one of those are over 900
feet in length. So, we have a considerable amount of -- of
area there in which to place driveways -- in which to choose
where to place the driveways. And, I don't foresee any
problem in the drainage in these areas, as well. And I'll
circulate just a couple more pictures. And this just shows
the -- the shoulder area where the driveways would come
across. I will say that one -- one lot in particular is a
little more severe than that. That doesn't provide a picture
of every single lot, but it gives you an idea for the -- 90
percent of the driveway access will look like this going into
those properties.
A disadvantage of moving -- of putting another road in
here, which I think has been suggested, coming in between
Lots 7 and 8, there's a natural division there between those
lots right below 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1. One of the main ones is
cost. If we add -- if the owner adds another road in there,
~--
32
.~-•
L -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
it will be an additional 2,999 square feet -- I mean linear
feet, at approximately $15 a foot for paved road that will
come to County specifications, and that's an additional
$99,238.
Basically, what this comes up to is adding a cost per
acre of about $205. A basic lot of 9 acres, average lot,
that would raise the price $1,895 per lot, which our lots are
going to be priced at around 52,500. You can see we've
pretty well priced ourselves out of the market. And,
foreseeing what we have to pay for the land and other costs
involved, it would just be prohibitive to try to do it.
We would also -- if we tried to disregard our -- or take
out the road that comes below Lots 9, 10, I1, and 12, tried
to think through a way that we might be able to do this and
just retain the road between 5, 9, 3, 2, and 1, then we would
lose access to seven lots, 16 through 22, amounting to 84
acres, which is about 210 -- over $210,000 in revenue. And
the reason we would lose that is because we -- we wouldn't be
able to access those through paved road unless we kept both
roads in. So, at this paint, there's a loss of time and
money if we just disregard the whole thing.
I will add that we had, back in September, another owner
that was going to develop this property in larger tracts. We
had preliminary plat approval through the County on this
plat. And you'll notice that four lots on this plat fronted
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Highway 27. My suggestion in developing this property would
be that Lots 1 through 5 had access, which would mean five
lots to Highway 27. Lot 6 and Lot 19 would not have driveway
access to 27, but would access their property naturally
coming in through our common access into the property. So,
in conclusion, you know, we're trying to offer a -- a
reasonably priced product and a product that's not readily
available in the real estate market, as far as affordable
acreage for someone to place a home on of this size. There
-- there are other acreages in closer to town, but they're
prohibitive, most of them, in price for the everyday person.
So, that's -- I would just like to ask that the Court accept
the plat as it is presented on this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is part of the old
Marsh ranch?
MR. CROCKER: Part of the old Carpenter ranch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Prior to that, it was Marsh.
MR. CROCKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you visited with Mr.
Tucker from the Highway Department?
MR. PERRY: Yes. He -- I spoke with him a couple
of days ago, just in regard to his concerns.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on his letter, he's not
going to give you a permit to get on the Highway 27. I mean,
he said -- I mean, his last sentence is "Driveways from
i--
34
,~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
individual lots onto Highway 27 will not be permitted."
That's what he wants to put on the plat, which means that
he's not going to grant a permit. So, if he's not willing to
give you a permit, which he has the authority to do, how are
you going to access those lots?
MR. PERRY: Well, his comment to me in regard to
the -- when I spoke with him in person and -- or spoke with
him over the phone, he said, "Well, if the" -- you know, "if
the County approves this, there's not a lot I can do about
it." You know, "I'll have to go ahead and put the driveways
there." So, it was my understanding that -- that you all
would have jurisdiction over that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Franklin, do you have a comment on
the jurisdictional issue?
MR. JOHNSTON: Keep in mind that one of the
signatories on the plat will be Bill Tucker. So, if he
refused to sign the plat, it would never be recorded.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't imagine him not
signing off on that. The only thing I can think of that --
that comes into play when -- when he looks at these things is
site distance. That's the big deal with TexDOT is site
distance when you're talking about a driveway.
MR. JOHNSTON: When he talked to me, he was worried
about the full highway speed out there, many people pulling
out from a driveway with a 70 mile-an-hour speed.
35

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you ought to pull out
of my driveway. But -- well, I just disagree with Mr.
Tucker.
MR. JOHNSTON: Safety was the big issue that he
talked to me about.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The drainage issue, I think,
could be pretty well addressed by just saying that -- that
the drainage plan -- there will be a drainage plan, right?
MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, the drainage plan's
going to address that. It won't change -- it won't
significantly change. I mean, that's like any other
subdivision we have. We have to show that -- what the
drainage plan has to show is that there's not an adverse
impact to drainage, and that -- so I don't see that as an
issue, really.
MR. JOHNSTON: If there were culverts, that we'd
have to size them accordingly, and they can't bring the water
on the highway.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On the highway, and you size
it according to the flow and hea~9 pressure and all that. So,
that's not an issue. The only issue here probably is the
access of driveways onto 27. When I talked to Bill, or he
called me to tell me he was sending this letter, I was not
aware of this prior approved preliminary plat that had access
36
.'-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to four lots. Because that, to me, is --
MR. JOHNSTON: Two or four?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- significant. If it was
okay then, why wouldn't it be okay to have access to five
lots, as I count them? I may be wrong.
MR. PERRY: And, also, I appreciate the safety
concern, and I would not want anybody's safety to be in
jeopardy coming out of these. And I can understand if it was
closer in to town on a busier thoroughfare, but I've been out
there working on this property for nine months, ten months
now, and very seldom will a car even pass by there unless
they're going to a private residence further down the road.
As I said before, most of the traffic has already exited at
that point. And, by no means have I seen anybody traveling
70 miles an hour.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How far is that from Kimble
County line?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's quite a ways.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Five miles?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah -- about 12.
MR. PERRY: They're not going to Junction on that
road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. The only people that
use that road out in there are those ranchers that live
there.
37

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. PERRY:	Right.		
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	That's the only	people that
use them.
MR. PERRY: At that road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did Mr. Tucker have any
comment about the prior plat approval?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. And they may not -- I
don't know; that subject never came up. He just told me he
was going to send a letter and that --
MR. JOHNSTON: What was --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- he was concerned about
the drainage and the road access. But I think drainage is
sort of a non-issue, because that has to be addressed anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No matter what the
circumstances are. The only thing we're talking about here
is the -- really, I think, is the driveway access to the
feeder road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Causing the owner to build a
new road in there at $44,000, seems to me that we're blocking
a little development there if we'd cause something like that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only problem is they can --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I wish TexDot was
xepxesented here, because I would like to hear their
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,.-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
38
arguments. I have a --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the plat -- I'm sorry, I
didn't mean to interrupt you, but the plat as shown there is
additional acreage to the rear, correct. This is just kind
of a phase.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: Part 1. So, you know, that might
cut it down to five lots now; may add to them later. That
might be an option.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the first time that
this concern has come up in virtually all of our plats that
are fronting highways. I'm kind of surprised about the fact
-- I mean, they could easily -- I mean, I've never heard Bill
bring this up before. I'm kind of surprised.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the only other one was
Cypress Springs, where they wouldn't allow the four lots
facing the highway in addition to their interior road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was site distance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that was safety.
MR. PERRY: Considerably different.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just by looking at it -- I
mean, I don't feel -- we can approve this, but an option
would be you can carve out 1 through 5, and not throw them
out of the subdivision; you can ~9evelop them any way you want
39
...
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
to and come back. It's not going to affect this -- wouldn't
affect this tract here. I wouldn't -- anyway, I just think
-- to me, it doesn't make sense. I mean, Bill Tucker cannot
prevent you from developing along the highway, what he's
trying to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, our job is to --
to approve or disapprove the plan on what we know and what we
do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't have anything to do
with Bill Tucker.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's true. But my concern,
though, is that we do not indicate to Mr. Perry and his
client that, by our approval, in any way that it will
influence TexDOT.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because, as Franklin said and
Jonathan said, they have a signature on the final plat. And
if they refuse the final plat, we don't sign the final plat
till everybody else signs it. So, you know, you're going to
have to make peace with them one way or another regardless of
what we do here.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I -- where is Solomon when
we need him? I would entertain -- or I will suggest that I
think we ought to approve the preliminary plat, with the
90

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
proviso that we probably need -- you probably need to meet
with Bill Tucker again. Perhaps we can get others involved
in that to try to talk through this. Because we really need
not only to solve this issue, but this is sort of a policy
issue county-wide. I mean, it's something if, when we talk
access to -- to State highways, how do we do that? And maybe
this is a -- this is a good thing to foster some policy on
how we approach all of these, because I can see this
happening in other places.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Again, we don't have any influence
over TexDOT.
MR. PERRY: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can policy till the cows come
home, but if TexDOT doesn't go along with it, all we're doing
is posturing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Policy is probably the wrong
word to use. We need an understanding with TexDOT on what
the rules are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to know their
policy.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What is their policy,
because this has not occurred before, except in case of what
the State highway, where there was a site distance problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That we know of. And is
91

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
this a change in Highway Department policy or is this unique
to this case, or just what the deal is. So --
MR. PERRY: Seems to me that you would take each
case -- would have to, really --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. PERRY: -- individually in regard to their
access.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, I -- I don't think we
ought to slow the process as far as the preliminary plat is
concerned to do that, is my point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Griffin, I'd be
honored to second that motion, if that was a motion.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You can take it as a motion.
I would move that we approve the preliminary plat, with the
proviso that we need to get -- we all need to get with TexDOT
and see how this is going to work from this point forward.
And if they have -- if they -- this is a preliminary plat.
If they raise objections in the platting process, then we're
going to have to deal with that. And as you -- well, you and
the developer.
MR. PERRY: Your all's approval, is that in essence
a recommendation of the Court, then, to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not sure we're prepared to go
that far. We're approving the plat. We're approving your
concept. We're essentially finding that, for our purposes,
42
^-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you have met all the requirements. We don't have any say
over TexDOT. We're certainly not recommending to TexDOT that
they make any revisions, but we're saying, as far as we're
concerned, you've satisfied all the requirements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the permits will come from
TexDOT to get access to that road.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin that
we approve the preliminary plat, subject -- not subject to,
but with the understanding that TexDOT has some reservations.
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. PERRY: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, here's your pictures.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item No. 9, which is
consider and discuss Interlocal Agreement with City of Center
Point for enforcement of Kerr County O.S.S.F. rules. We have
before us an interlocal agreement which has been executed by
93

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the City and approved by the City. We also have a letter
from U.G.R.A. indicating that U.G.R.A. will pick up the
administration of the O.S.S.F. Program in the City of Center
Point at no additional cost to the County. However, this --
the U.G.R.A. will retain any fees that they collect based on
administration of that program. Is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's important that
we do this, Judge. Wherever there are failing septics and
need for inspection and supervision, as required, we should
be encouraging and uplifting in helping that happen. In this
particular case, I think the City of Center Point needs that
assistance. And U.G.R.A.'s hands are tied, essentially,
unless and until we do this. So, I would move the approval
of the interlocal Agreement with the City of Center Point fox
enforcement of the Kerr County O.S.S.F. rules and authorize
County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second it, but I have a
question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. It's been moved by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that
we approve the intergovernmental agreement for operation of
Kerr County O.S.S.F. program with the City of Center Point
and authorize County Judge to same. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. On Article II,
under Termination, are those dates correct?
94

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: We had -- this originally was to be
taken up on June 19th, and the City was not able to move that
quickly. We're going through September 30th because it's my
understanding from the judicial process that there should be
a judicial decision as to the status of the incorporation of
the City of Center Point by that date, and so by that date,
then, if the City still exists, we can extend -- continue
this arrangement. If the City doesn't exist, the agreement
will go away and -- and the County will be responsible as
part of the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if we approve the
document, it's already been in effect for 10 days?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, maybe we need to change that
date.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The 29th, that's today.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Effective date will be the 29th, as
it says on the signature page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There was one other area in
here, and I'm sorry, I can't find it right now, daggone it.
But it talked about that U.G.R.A. has sole authority over the
program down there, and no other individual can intervene --
or I can't remember what the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Article V, Section 5.1(a).
JUDGE HENNEKE: Or 1.1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, there's two different
45
~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
places.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They do have the sole
authority to administer the O.S.S.F. rules on our behalf.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This language is identical to the
existing contract between the County and U.G.R.A.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not questioning that. I
just want to make a point that -- no, that's great. Great
stuff, I like it. I just wanted to make a point that
"Individual members of the Commissioners of the City, their
agents and employees, shall refer all questions and matters"
to U.G.R.A. You know, that's -- I think that that needs to
be real clear to everyone, how -- how the system works, with
U.G.R.A. as the sole operator of this thing from today on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the City of Center
Point is aware of that. Any questions that would come up are
going to be referred over to U.G.R.A. Is that correct,
Mayor?
MS. SHULTS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. That's all I
had, Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment would be this
-- going back under the payment section on Page 9, that it's
a dollar fee, which I don't have any problem with,
considering the situation right now. But, if Center Point
96
~--
,^
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
remains a city, I think they need to be clear, the -- you
know, this will all be renegotiated and relooked -- or looked
at at that time. I mean, if Center Point does not, you know,
remain a city, that's one thing, but if it does, some of
these payment terms are just to get you through the next
couple of months until we know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We may have to double it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct. If you'd look at
the -- actually, Section 9.1(b).
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Same page, it says that if the
agreement extends beyond September 30th, then we'll have to
agree upon a fee for services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not, we
have a motion on the table. All in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The next item is
Item No. 5, which is consider and discuss Veterans Land Board
County Committee Roster. You've all been provided with a
recommendation from Gene Ritchie, who is the current Chair of
97
.-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Kerr County Veterans Land Committee, and who is willing
to continue in that capacity. Does anyone have any questions
regarding the nomination recommendations by Mr. Ritchie?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to know, the
other two on the -- that are presently on the board, Mr.
Price and Mr. Frederick, are they -- do they just wish to get
off or what?
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's my understanding from Mr.
Ritchie -- he needs to come forward and speak for himself.
MR. RITCHIE: Yes, due to health reasons. One
gentleman is 78. The other one is 80, spending two days a
week at the hospital, so he didn't desire to go on for
another four years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I certainly approve of it.
One of the new members here, Mr. Strange, is one of my
constituents, so I definitely approve of him.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I hear a motion to renominate
Mr. Ritchie, as well as Mr. Strange and Mr. Rutherford, to
Kerr County Veterans Land Committee?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we nominate Mr.
Ritchie, as well as Joe Strange and Lonnie Rutherford, to
serve on the Kerr County Veterans Land Committee. Any
48
.-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. No. 6 is consider
and discuss approving a contract with Families & Literacy,
Inc., for Fiscal Year 1998/99. This is actually a
housekeeping matter, in that we discovered in working on the
budget for the coming year that Families 6 Literacy, Inc.,
never signed and had approved the budget for this current
year. And we just bring this to the Court so we can clean up
this oversight and put us in the proper position before --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So they can get their money.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That has something to do with it,
yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. So moved, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve the
contract with Families ~ Literacy, Inc. for Fiscal Year
1998/99. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a a question. Are you
using this -- their services in your capacity as Judge?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, I am.
99
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. That's my only question.
Just curious.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Our next item is
No. 7, which is consider and discuss nomination for service
on the South Texas Water Master Advisory Committee. Our
I
current representative on that committee is Ken Whitewood.
Mr. Whitewood has indicated to me that he is not willing to
serve any more. His business interests prevent him from
devoting the time necessary. He has recommended to me either
Mr. John Rhodes or Mr. Scotty Mosty to act as the -- to be
our nominee for service on this committee. I've spoken to
Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Rhodes indicates that he would prefer to
have Mr. Mosty do it, but if he can't convince Mr. Mosty,
then he would do it. So, what would I like for the Court to
do at this time is to accept the nom -- accept either Mr.
Rhodes or Mr. Mosty as our representative on the South Texas
Water Master Advisory Committee and permit the County Judge
to forward as our nominee whichever of those gentlemen steps
up to the plate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
50
.~-~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Third.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the County nominate
either Mr. John Mosty -- Mr. John Rhodes or Mr. Scotty Mosty
as oux representative on the South Texas Water Master
Advisory Committee and authorize County Judge to forward to
the T.N.R.C.C. that nomination. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hoth good men. Both good
men.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Excellent. If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The next item is
the Item No. 8, which is consider and discuss preliminary
budget figures and schedule. Without going into a great deal
of detail, I think there is available to each of you the
budget requests, and most of you -- I think all of you have
them from the departments for this year. It's my proposal,
in accordance with the general budget scheme and guidelines
that the Court approved back in April, to allocate back to
the various departments the aggregate sum of $100,000 for
them to use in formulating final budget request numbers, for
51
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
them to use as they see fit, and then to ask them to have the
revised budgets back to us by January the 8th --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: July.
JUDGE HENNEKE: July, thank you. July 8th, and to
schedule budget workshops with the various departments
starting the week of July 12th. I think, at this time, what
I'd like for the Court to consider is just scheduling some --
blocking out time for workshops on the afternoon of the 13th,
the afternoon of the 19th, and ask the Court's advice as to
whether we're going to schedule anything for Friday, the
16th, or not. And then the following week, the afternoon of
the 19th, the afternoon of the 20th, and I think the morning
of the 21st. Any discussion? Any suggestions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you tell me those
dates again? 13, 19 --
JUDGE HENNEKE: The afternoon of the 13th, 19th.
16th, if the Court wants to schedule a workshop on the 16th.
Then the 20th, -- or the 19th, the 20th, and the 21st. The
20th would have to be an afternoon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any chance of moving the
14th to the morning and back it up against the 13th?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm unavailable the morning of the
19th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There are some -- I can't say
I'll be there at all of them, but I can be at the majority.
52

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I'll try and arrange my schedule around them. I mean, I
think if any of us can't make it, all of us --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think -- I know I've got a
conflict on one, but I think everything else is all right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It looks pretty clean for me on
those days.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. And we'll just probably
schedule 3-hour workshops, 1:30 to 9:30 fox the afternoon,
and 9:00 to 12:00 fox the morning, and schedule the
departments, 'cause we will have to post those. They'll have
to be posted meetings.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1:30 to 9:30, and what?
JUDGE HENNEKE: 9:00 to 12:00.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9:00 to 12:00.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, Monday the 21st; is that
right? I don't know why I keep shutting this thing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 19th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Monday the 19th, morning.
It'll be a morning?
JUDGE HENNEKE: It could be a morning or an
afternoon. Or we could do two. Wednesday, the 21st, could
be morning or afternoon or both. And the question is, do we
want to schedule one on Friday, the 16th?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's really up to Court as to
53
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
whether we want to come in on that day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't mind, on some of
those days, doing a full day.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We could do a full day on the 19th.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How about the 13th and 14th,
a full day on either of those?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's gone.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm gone in the morning both days.
Since I'm under the Constitutional hammer to prepare the
budget, I think I need to be there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So my -- the question here really
is the 16th. We can do the afternoon of the 13th, the
afternoon of the 14th, all day the 20th, the afternoon -- all
the day the 19th and the 20th, and all day on the 21st.
Probably won't need that much time, the way the process is
going this year, but we can certainly lay out those times.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The 16th is a Friday?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather not.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not sure we need it. It's
there if we need to. As far as my schedule is concerned,
it's really what is the desire of the Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm fine with all of it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we'll -- even though
59
,r.

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Bill couldn't make that one, maybe with the morning of the
16th, while we're filling up time, for posting purposes, we
might want to hold that one as a possibility in our
scheduling so that if it looks like we're going to run out of
time before schedules allow to get it all in, maybe we want
to back one into the 16th.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We could do that, anyway.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're talking about --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We probably shouldn't close
out that option because, depending on what happened, you
know, we don't know what's going to happen to your scheduling
later on, either. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We just shouldn't say we
won't do it, because three days prior we may change our minds
and set a workshop for the morning or afternoon or something.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thea, you had a comment?
MS. SOVIL: Yes, sir. A lot is going to depend on
haw much time you allot each department. You have to
remember, you have 25 departments that you have to hear from.
And if you allot, you know, like, 15 minutes for certain
ones, that's more than enough. An hour for others is not
enough, for others. So, you just need to allot a certain
amount of time for each department. And you can -- you
55
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
should be able to get it done within 9 days if we -- we hit
it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: To me, an hour is a long time to
work on one budget. But, Buster, you're grinning. And you
and Jonathan have more experience than I have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two of them will take more than
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, two of them will take
more than an hour, but not much more than an hour. We could
have -- if we roll up our sleeves, we can do it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good. If we can just agree on
those dates, we can block those out, and then I can work with
you all as to the specific departments and get the benefit of
your guidance to -- I think I know which two are going to
take_ more than an hour, but --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Another thing, too, is that
if we can get departments to be ready so that we -- as long
as we -- as long as they're three days out, so we can get it
posted so that we can -- in other words, we don't want to
tell somebody it's going to be next week, so don't do
anything until next week, 'cause they may be called on this
week at the end of the week.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we might give them a chance
to kind of sign up, with the understanding that the earlier
they get in, the more -- the less cross and cranky we're
56
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
going to be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, a couple of questions I
had. In your memo, you referred to across-the-board salary
increases. Do you have an idea of how much that 5200,000 may
go towards that?
JUDGE NENNEKE: If we give a 2 1/2 percent salary
increase, including all the add-ons, FICA, retirement, it's
just over -- it's $113,700 and change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. And the other, I
guess, comment, I guess, when I went through -- I only
glanced through the worksheets that were prepared. I know
one department did change their personnel around a little
bit, and I think that we need to probably send some of these
-- I'm against making any wholesale changes in all the
personnel and pay schedules and all that, and steps and
grades this year. I really think we're -- Larry is really
spearheading the effort to look at that. And I really think
we should probably -- you know, if you need to band-aid a few
areas, that's fine, but I don't want to do any wholesale
changes at the last minute during these workshops.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I -- we're not heading
in that direction. I'm doing that right now. What we're
looking at is the possibility -- and I've been working this
with Barbara -- possibility of at least doing some
57
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
adjustments to our pay scales, which would have a minor
effect on -- nobody would take a pay cut, but -- so there may
be some slight adjustment upward, but I would hope that none
of that would exceed what we would already be able to do,
anyway, from a normal, perhaps, cost-of-living or something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but Road and Bridge --
this is -- I only glanced at some of these. They have
realigned several of theirs to meet -- to match TexDOT.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. Let me just quickly
-- because I think we can -- we don't have to discuss this
very much. The Roads and Bridges response combined several
different initiatives that we've been working on. It -- and,
as a result, confused a little bit what we were trying to do.
We did not want to get the reclassification mixed up with the
change in the pay system in a budget input that should have
just been a budget input. They were trying to -- they were
trying to make it an integrated package. I'm not criticizing
them for doing that, but that's really not what we needed.
So, we'll have to go back and rework their input back to what
it should be, which was simply a budget input.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And I will be happy to direct a
letter to them expressing what Commissioner Griffin said and
give them the chance to -- to adjust their budget
accordingly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my comment.
58
,~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Guidance was -- was that we
don't -- this first cycle of this budget should not have
addressed any pay raises or anything of that sort. That's
going to come in the second --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second round.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Guidance that Judge Henneke
was talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only reason is lust to make
sure that that goes out to that department, and maybe other
departments, so that we don't have to go through that when
they come in here for their workshops, so it's done ahead of
time. That's my memo from the Judge. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara, do you or Jannett or Glenn
have any comments?
MS. NEMEC: What did you say earlier about the
$100,000? I didn't hear that real clearly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're going to distribute
proportionately -- there's a memo that will come out tomorrow
-- back to the departments an aggregate amount of $100,000
for you all to reapply to your -- to your budgets.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In other words, the first
cycle took you through essentially at this year's level.
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
59
.-..
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. The second cycle is
going to have that number plus about $100,000 -- plus
$100,000, so that now you're going to have a little more
to play with. You may want to go back and do some
repriaritizing before you come to the workshop with your
next budget cycle.
MR. TOMLINSON: Is that outside -- that's outside
the -- the salaries, right?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's merit? Or --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it -- the way it's set forth
is that this is your money, and if you want to give someone a
specific salary increase, you may do so, as long as you do it
in accordance with the current existing step and grade, and
that you also fund all the add-ons, the FICA and retirement.
But that's your decision, along with the guidelines we
adopted. That's your main priority. You can do that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: With that money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With your proportionate
share of that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: With your -- you're going to get a
specific dollar amount to play with. And it's yours to play
with, so long as you play by the rules.
.-,
60
,~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The rules are in there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And what we're also asking is after
you make your reallocation, if there's something else you
really, really, really need, then give us a list in priority
order and we'll consider that along with all the other County
critical needs, like salary increases, like the Annex
renovation, like, you know, things of that nature. It will
be considered. But the money you're going to have is your
money for to you do with as you feel your department needs.
Now, if you tell us you really, really, really need a
computer, but you use your money to give someone a raise,
then how much do you really, really, really need a computer?
So it's kind of a two-edged sword. You know, if your -- if
your highest priority that you really, really, really need is
something you could have funded with the additional money,
then we're going to ask you, "Well, you if you really,
really, really need it, why didn't you fund it with the
additional money?" And you'll probably tell us, "Because I
really, really, really, really needed something else."
MS. NEMEC: Have you been here before? Sounds like
you know just how this works.
MS. PIEPER: Question: I have three budgets in my
office, so I would take that money and apply it to all three
budgets, if needed?
JUDGE HENNEKE: What we have -- what I decided to
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do -- I say "we." What I decided in your situation is I'm
giving you a lump -- the lump sum, and you may just put in
any of your three budgets as you need.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Rather than give you an amount in
each of your budgets, I've simply given you an amount, and
you'll be authorized to use that in each of your three
budgets. That gives you the flexibility to apply it all on
one, or to apply it proportionately as you see fit within
your individual needs.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question.
MS. PIEPER: I can work with it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you through?
MS. PIEPER: No. You're going to -- you're wanting
this revised July the 8th?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Happy 4th of July.
MS. PIEPER: Right, because I will be out of town
until such time. I'm leaving Sunday, so --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well --
MS. PIEPER: You will have it July 8th.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Take your little packets with you.
MS. PIEPER: You will have it July 8th.
62
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Actually, this should be a
relatively easy turnaround.
MS. PIEPER: Right, I think so.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because of the work you've
already done on your budget. Now that you've got a little
bit more, you may want to do some reallocating, because now
there's something you can afford. By moving a little other
money around, you might be able to do something else that you
really needed. So, it's a chance for you to reprioritize,
which I think is excellent. I mean, that gives -- it's
giving you more flexibility, and that's what the Court's
trying to do.
MS. NEMEC: What if, on the first budget, we didn't
use all of last year's money? Are we still going to get last
year's plus --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's stretching it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The memo says that budget -- when
you submit your budget on July 8th, it cannot exceed last
year's numbers plus the additional. So, you haven't lost any
of last year's money by your situation, what you're doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what Barbara's saying,
though -- I mean, we would encourage them to come down lower.
They don't need to spend this whole --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure. I mean, this is -- we all
expect them to use fiscal restraint.
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. NEMEC: Mine was lower than last year's, only
because I didn't include any Capital Outlay in there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
MS. NEMEC: But now I'71 be able to use the
difference, with what you're allocating and what was left, to
try to get my Capital Outlay within that amount. If I'm able
to do that, that will be great.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's reasonable.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Buster, you had a question?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. In your letter,
you say that the Appraisal District says that we will have
about $500,000 above last year's figures.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The County Auditor says that
about $100,000 less in fees, or not in tax revenues.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Longnecker predicts
$100,000 cost overrun in the Annex. I was just wondering,
how accurate are those figures? I mean, if we're ready to --
to allocate $100,000 back to the departments, which would
come from all of that figuring right there, how accurate is
all that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a great deal of confidence
in what the Auditor's told me, and also, I've had some pretty
64
r
L-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
serious talks with Mr. Longnecker, and he's heavily involved,
and I think, you know, we -- within a certain tolerance,
we're right on the money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would never question Mr.
Longnecker. I'm sure a $100,000 overrun is going to be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm curious, however,
Judge, as to Tommy's assessment that nontax revenues could be
shortfalled by $100,000. What's the basis of that
projection, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it -- it's totally related to
the tobacco money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: The settlement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
anticipate to receive in the nex
have already received?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
include tobacco money and fees -
Totally related to what we
t budget year? Not what we
Okay.
Nontax revenues would
- I mean, tobacco money. I
see. I just never put that in there.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I will say that -- that I plan to
-- I'm going to look at this again at the end of June, you
65
..-,
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
know, to give me another month to make -- to make another --
to make another assessment of what I think, you know, we're
going to do this year, as far as nontax revenues. Sometimes
you're surprised. A lot of times -- most of the times you're
not. But -- but sometimes, you know, things happen that --
that, you know, revenues that you don't expect. But I will
look at it again and I -- I'll give you another estimate
after this month's up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, I have a question. The
tobacco settlement money received this year was kind of set
aside. I mean, it's in the budget; obviously, it has to be
accounted for, but set aside, as I understood it. And, so,
it was really not a shortfall. I mean, we're really not --
we don't need to set aside $100,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: Part of it went into Indigent
Health Care.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of last year's or this year?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, last -- part of last year's
was used to offset some of the Indigent Health Care.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the current budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, in the current budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But $900,000 was set
aside, as I understand.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. But -- but it was
66
;-•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
set aside for -- to my mind, to -- to establish a surplus in
the General Fund. And, so, this year we're going to have to
make up monies in Indigent Health Care through tax dollars.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was set aside to go into a
specific -- you know, the General Fund, but under a specific
line item for long-term type improvements, which, you know, I
don't know if you can call that a surplus. I mean, that was
what the -- I mean, the Court decided, you know, last --
whatever we did last budget. Isn't that what we decided,
Buster? You were the only one here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It was, I remember,
specifically a project -- something to do with the water
lines off the Loop ox something. We talked about three or
four different projects.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it went into the General
Fund, but it went, you know, into a -- we didn't want it to
go into -- because if we counted that in our General
Revenues, we would start deficit spending real big, sort of
counting on that money in the future. So, we wanted to get
-- get it off in a separate line item, in my mind.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you know, another thing, we
budgeted, like, $70,000, $75,000 in interest on -- on the
proceeds of the tax note.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: Like, $2 million 6. So, we won't
67
...
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
have --	we won't have $75,000 in interest in	'99. I	mean,
that's	-- you know, that's another example.	That's	one thing
right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: I -- you know, I would have to get
all my numbers in front of me to go with -- with expenditures
to really analyze for you what --
JUDGE HENNEKE: The numbers in this -- the numbers
in this memo are not designed to lay anything in stone, but
simply to show you how I was thinking when I came up with the
figures to return to the departments. For instance, we could
decide to take cost overrun on the Annex out of the tobacco
money that was set aside for long-term capital improvements.
That is not to say that we're going to take this money out of
this; it's simply to show what my thinking was when I came up
with the sum of money to return to the departments.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It makes sense. These are
budget numbers, and they are subject to revision as the
process moves forward. So, if -- if we find a surprise that
-- that we hope is a good one, if we do, but if we find a
surprise, we may have a little more slack, and if we get
surprised in the bad direction, we may have to do some
downward projecting on some of these numbers. They're just
budget numbers at this point, but that gives the department
heads and elected officials something to plan on for a budget
68
1 ~ number.
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. That's
all fine and good; I think we should do it that way. That,
to me, is a very systematic and orderly way to do it. What
would be helpful, though, Tommy, to me would be to know how
we funded Indigent Health Care in the budget year prior to
the cigarette settlement, how we funded Indigent Health Care
the year that we received the cigarette settlement, and to
what extent that gives us a revenue shortfall when moving
forward. I'm just not clear on that. I think those two past
years might certainly be helpful to me. May not help anybody
else.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we allow Tommy to look
into that and --
MR. TOMLINSON: Why don't you just come to my
office and we'll go through it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then could you come tell me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That topic -- I mean, I think
it's -- I still don't really understand how we come up with
our -- what Tommy does. I mean, and kind of -- I think it
would be real helpful, especially with the new Court, if
maybe at one of our first workshops, if Tommy would go
through the whole tax rate thing, just for the -- you know,
of all the different tax rates, and kind of give everyone an
69
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
overview as to where the money -- how you account for it all
in your big budget, because it's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That would be helpful.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can certainly do that.
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The first workshop, 'cause it's
something that I'm beginning to understand a little bit, but
it's still -- I get real lost, and it makes it easier when
you're going through all this if you kind of, in the back of
your mind --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's you and I talk, and we'll set
aside a time period in that first budget workshop, which will
be the afternoon of the 13th, to have a little -- we'll need
30 minutes, an hour. We'll spend some time on this and then
we'll schedule the department after that, and anyone who has
specific questions, like on the tobacco money, can come down
and talk to you.
MR. TOMLINSON: I can yive you -- I can give you
something, you know, in writing earlier for --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that would be good. Then
everyone will have a chance to look at it ahead of time.
MR. TOMLINSON: But I'd like to do it after --
after June. When I --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: When I get to look at another --
70
.-.
~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
you know, another month of some revenue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- it makes it real clear
after you go over it one time, and then I forget.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think what's confusing, without
seeing the whole picture, is that -- is that we have -- we
have a lot of interfund transfers, from one fund to the
other. So, if you don't look at the -- at both sides of the
equation, I mean, your revenues and expenditures, then you
lose sight of why some things happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, my objective, as the Judge
said, was -- was the big picture, to let -- to give the Court
some idea of -- of what -- what I think you have in reserve
to start with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MR. TOMLINSON: In my mind, I think -- you know, I
think our reserve is as important as how much revenue we're
going to have or what expenditures are. I mean, that's the
integral part of -- of how we should operate. And I think we
ought to have a good balance sheet and I think we ought to
keep in mind the amount of revenue -- I mean the amount of
surplus that we need to maintain. And that's my focus in
giving you the numbers I give.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you could, at the first
workshop, that sheet that you have that has the balances of
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-.	13
	
	14
	15
	16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
-- the reserve balances in all the different funds, and the
tax rate to generate that, like last year, didn't we take
away from something? We moved the tax rate around based on
where we needed to get the surplus built up.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, we did.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I believe, in order
to bring this to a head, we need a motion to adopt the
workshop dates that we discussed earlier.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we schedule workshops
for the afternoon of July 13th and 14th, the morning of July
16th, all day on July 19th --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not going to remember
that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the afternoon of July 20th, and
all day on July 21st.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
out a memo to say the same?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
The County Judge will put
Please.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, please.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Without objection. Any further
discussion? In not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
7z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is Item
No. 9, which is Commissioner Haldwin's, which is to consider
and discuss setting days for workshops regarding travel and
reimbursement policy, facility use, maintenance, and
administration for the Ag Barn booking, and budget workshops.
I believe we've already taken care of the last one.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, you've taken care
of all of them. I'm not about to go through what we just
went through. I think Barbara and I can put our heads
together and rework our thoughts. She had some -- she has
some policy issues to deal with, and we'll just put our heads
together and do it at a later time. We'll pass on this item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on the Ag Barn, Bill and I
talked before this meeting, and :['ve been talking with Ernie
Kaiser about some of the issues and some of the -- and Bill
and I have a plan as to working -- you know, on coming up
with a facility use plan based on the the opinion we got from
David Motley.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good. The only
reason I threw that on the agenda is 'cause I just couldn't
-- I got a little nervous about it the other day, and I
couldn't -- there wasn't anybody in the courthouse. None of
73
.-.	
1
	2
	3
	9
	5
	6
	7
	8
	9
	10
	11
	12
.~	13
..	
	19
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	24
	25
you guys were in the courthouse, so I just put on it on there
just in case. So, that's fine. Thank you. Commissioner
Letz, you're a good man.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If there's nothing further to come
before this honorable Court, we stand adjourned. Thank you
all for your attendance this evening.
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.)
79
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.-- 13
i
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERB ~
The above and foregoing is a true and correct
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 29th day of June, 1999.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : ~CV/cc~~
Kathy 8 ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER N0. 25892
CLAIMS RND ACCOUNTS
On this the 24th day of June 1999, came to be considered by
the Co~_irt the various claims and accounts against N.err County
and the various Commissioners' precincts, which said Claims
and Accounts arse 10-General F~_ind for' $66,608.30; 11-Jury Fund
for $350.00; 15-Road R Bridge Fund for• $1.:,460.87; 23-Juvenile
State Aid Fund far- $74.25; 27-Juvenile Intensive Program-State
Rid Fund for $90.00; 50-Indigent Health Care Fund for•
$38,353.53; 83-State Funded-216th District Attorney for
$155.,:,8; 86-State Funded-216th District Probation for•
$4,309.91; 87-State Funded-Community Cor-rections for
$2,OOa.38.
(TOTAL ALL FUNDS-$125,410.62)
Upon motion made by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by
Commissioner Lets, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, payment of said Claims and Accounts.
ORDER N0. c5893
BUDGET AMENDMENT
SHERIFF'S DEGARTMENT
On this the :'4th day of June 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Baldwin, seconded c•; Cemmissioner~ >..___a-s_ _-_
Cour^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-a-0, transferring
$280.75 from Line Item No. iQ~-SE0-480 Vehicle Insurance to
amine Item No. 10-5Efd-453 Radio Repairs.
ORDER NO. X5894
BUDGET AMENDMENT
JUVENILE PROBATION
On this the 4th day of June 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissionar^ Lets; the
1-: is ~:'* ,. . ... _ ~ iCLe uT -~-~:-~c?, t['a ~sf er'}•xng
54,000.00 from Line Item No. 10-570-480 Diagnosis & Tr•eatmen~t
to Line Item No. 10-570-543 Electronic Monitoring.
--
ORDER NO. c5895
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
On this the c4th day of June 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, transfer^ring
BE.EB.S~d from Line Item No. ia-Sic-cc0 Employee Medical to Line
Item No. 10-Sic-457 Maintenance Contracts.
ORDER N0. 25896
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY COURT
COMMISSIONERS COURT
On this the 24th day of June 1999, upon motion: made Gy
~o:T:~~:issioner^ Let z, seconded by Commissioner- Gr^iffin, the
Court unanimously aepr^::~:e_ -- _ -___ _' .-:~->".t x~~~±~_.'°:. --_
$12,0~b0.OQ1 from Line Item No. 10-401-571 Contingency Fund to
Line Item No. 1Q-42E-402 Court Rppointed Rttor•ney.
ORDER N0. 25897
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY TREASURER
On this the 24th day of June 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, tr-ansferring
521.00 from Line Item No. 10-497-485 Conferences to Line Item
No. 10-497-570 Capital Outlay.
ORDER NO. c5898
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY LRW LIBRARY
~n this the 4th day of June 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Leta, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~, tr^ansferring
41,J~J.J~ from SURGLUS FUNDS Fund #18 to Line Item No.
18-6J0-J90 Library Books.
ORDER Nd. X5899
LRTE BILL
ISSUE HRND CHECK FOR BENNd'S ELECTRIC
do this the c4th day of June 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baid_;in; ..e
l; u'S'r'T iiiis-ie:u un '_ ____ __ a ___= CT 't-l'.-'i•, =~i2 t.-ta F`Yii
from Benno's Electric presented 6y the Auditor.
ORDER N0. c5900
AGF'ROVE REQUEST FOR THE DDNRTION
OF THE POST OFFICE BUILDING
TO N,ERR COUNTY RND THE N^E RR COUNTY HISTORICRL COMMITTEE
On this the 4th day of June 1999, upon motion made by
_oms:issioner Sr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Court
unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-~3-3, to r::_~:e f-t_sar^_ _.__::
.-_ .-_- asp .-at t;:e U. S. Costal Ser^vice donate the post
Office building by sending the letter contained in our packet.
ORDER N0. 25901
APPROVE PRELIMINRRY PLAT
OF MOUNTAIN HOME ESTATES
On this the 24th day of June 19'3'3, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q-Q~, the F'reliminar•y
Flat of Mountain Home Estates, with the under^standing that
TexDOT has some reservations.
ORDER N0. ESSa2
INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT
FOR OPERRTION OF
KERR COUNTY OSSF PR06RAM
On this the 'c'4th day of June 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Coiar^t unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-0, the
Inter-Local Agreement for Operation of Ker•r• County OSSF
Program with the City of Center Point and authorize
County Judge to sign same.
ORDER N0. E~9~3
APPRDVRL OF APPOINTING MEMBER
TO THE TEXAS VETERANS LAND BOARD COUNTY COMMITTEE
O., this the c4th day of June 1999, ,.ipon motion made by
Commissioner- Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, nominating Mr.
Gene Ritchie, as well as Mr•. Joe Strange and Mr•. Lonnie
Rutherford, to serve on the N,er•r Co,anty Veterans Land
Committee.
ORDER NO. 259~i4
APPROVE CONTRACT WITH FAMILIES R LITERACY, INC.
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998/99
On this the 4th day of June 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Or^iffin, seconded by Commissioner ~.aldc•_in. _.._
E:::i>'~ t --~-.-__-=-- s.=" _-=_ _• _ .=c= _f =+-~-L, the contract
with Families 8 Literacy, Inc. for^ Fiscal Year 1998/99.
ORDER NO. c59~715
NOMINRTION FOR SERVICE
ON THE SOUTH TEXAS WATER MASTER RDVISORY COMMITTEE
On this the 4th day of June 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the County to
nominate either Mr. John Rhodes or Mr•. Scotty Mosty as our
representative on the South Texas Water Master Advisory
Committee and a~-~thori~e County Judge to for•war•d to
the TNRCC the nominee who agrees to serve.
.-
ORDER N0. 2596
SCHEDULE FDR BUDGET WORKSHOP'S
On this the 24th day of June 1999, upon motion made by
~'ommissior~er Let z, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the Court
unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-0, to sc:`:els :.~: -=-...s
for the after^noon of July 13 and 14th, the morning of July
16th, all day on July 19th, afternoon of July 2~th, and all
day on July 21st.