s"1

~^`~

1	
2	
3	
9	
5	
6	
7	
g	COMMISSIONERS COURT
9	Regular Session
10	December 14, 1998
11	9:00 a.m.
12	Kerr County Commissioners Courtroom
13	Kerr County Courthouse
14	700 Main Street
15	Kerrville, Texas
16	
17	
18	
1g	E X C E R P T
20	
21	
22	
23	PRESENT: ROBERT A. DENSON, County Judge
	H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
2q	T. H. "BUTCH" LACKEY, Commissioner Pct. 2
	JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
25	BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 9

s...,

r
1 JUDGE DENSON: 2.13, consider and discuss Child
2 Care Initiative contract between Texas Workforce Development,
3 Inc., and Kerr County. I put this on the agenda at the
4 request of Workforce Development, and I think we have a
5 couple of people here that want to speak on on this, maybe
6 educate us about any issues that remain outstanding on this,
7 because this has been a -- a battle getting to this point.
8 Commissioner-elect Bill Williams, who is on the Board, is
9 here, and I'm going to to ask Bill at this time, this
10 contract, in its present form, is satisfactory to you? Do
11 you recommend the Court approve it?
12 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Judge, it doesn't necessarily
13 have to be satisfactory with me, but it is a contract that
19 embodies the changes that were sought by Commissioners Court
15 and by the two vendors here in town, to whom it makes some
16 difference, particularly on the Child Care Initiative monies
17 that they have raised in the community and what happens to
18 those monies and where they go. And, the other major issue
29 being who performs the certification of eligibility for those
20 families who are in need of use of these funds? So, after a
21 lot of debate and a lot of work by some members of the
22 Workforce Development Board, the issue -- that particular
23 issue -- those two issues were resolved in this contract.
29 And, it was sent to you with the hope that it would be put on
25 today's agenda, which it is, for the purpose of approving
61
U' I I,• 1 I I AI +I Rw Ii
r^
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
same, because it has to be approved and put into place before
the end of this year. Otherwise, the funds which are
earmarked for the purpose, you know, could go astray if it's
not in place. And it would be retroactive back to September
1st.
Now, subsequent to all of that happening and you getting
the contract in the form in which you see it, there was a
memorandum dated December 9 from Sharon Wade and Brenda
Chapman outlining some areas of concern of theirs. And that
memorandum is addressed to you and it's addressed to me. I
don't know what you did about it, since it was addressed to
you. I know what I did about it. And, I haven't talked to
you in person, but I passed it back to Alamo Workforce
Development, to people in the Contracts Department, without
comment. And, as I explained to Brenda and to -- or to
Sharon Wade, particularly, as a member of that Board, it's
not a good position for me to be in, to negotiate with that
staff on behalf of a couple of vendors here. Notwithstanding
the fact that the -- you know, we did get involved in talk
about solving the major issues.
So, what I've done with this particular memorandum is to
send it to the Contracts Department without any comment, and
asked them to research the rules and regulations regarding
these issues. And if there -- these changes were warranted
or necessary or made good sense, then to initiate some
62
Ail Id I d II :I A li

C .
,~-~
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
changes and send a revised contract back. I take it that you
haven't heard from them? Because I can tell you, I haven't
heard back from-them.
JUDGE DENSON: No, I have not.
MR. WILLIAMS: So, I guess what we need to do is
figure out whether or not these changes are substantive
enough to be made, or whether the Court should proceed with
-- with the contract or approval of the contract subject to
additional changes or whatever. But, my basic point is that
the major issues that we were confronted with four to six
weeks ago have been resolved by -- by the language in this
contract, which allows those initiative monies to stay in
Kerr County and to be used here for the benefit of the people
for whom they were intended. It also would require
subsequently, Judge, the Court to designate the two vendors
who raised these funds -- the Court designate them to be the
recipients. And that's all the input I can give you today.
Now, Sharon may have some more -- I see she's in the
audience; she may have some more things to say.
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you, Bill. Ms. Wade?
MS. WADE: Yes. Really, basically, the document
that we gave you kind of covered it. The big two concerns
that we had was just to make sure that -- in all the training
and all the meetings we've ever been in, we were told that
the most that could be charged to that federal pot of funding
63
u ~ i i a a.ii
~""

.r
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
was 5 percent for administrative fee. So, when we read over
the contract and saw that C.C.M.S. would be charging us 10
percent per billing on those children that they're going to
be processing the billing for now -- things that we used to
do for free here in the community will now be done in San
Antonio, and they want to charge 10 percent for that -- I was
concerned that if we signed off on that and said that that's
what we would do, and found out later that all we could be
reimbursed as a County or community was 5 percent from that
federal fund, I didn't want somebody else out hanging there
with the 5 percent. Because I know our local funders think
that the administrative fee is -- is at zero, because this is
what we've always told them; we would do it for free. So, I
was a little bit concerned that there was somebody left
holding, basically, the bill for that other 5 percent, so I
III wanted to make sure, 'cause it's been about a year since
we've spoken with Frank Lyle, our T.W.C representative, and
he told me that the 5 percent was the cap for administrative
fee.
And, the other issue that maybe -- I don't know, maybe
we're being lust a little sensitive, but maybe the other
issue we would have liked to have seen was the actual
spelling out that the clients would receive services locally
3 days a week at the One-Stop Center or whatever C.C.M.S.
facility they chose to do the intake at. But, that was what
69

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
s^
was promised to us here in this courtroom during one of the
meetings by Al Notzon, the AACOG representative -- Executive
Director of AACOG, and we would like to make sure that that's
still an issue, because, as of this date, we're not having
regular services for these clients here in our community.
It's still a 1-800 number. Basically, what they could use is
a 1-800 number, and every now and then, there's been one
person here on a Thursday. So, we want to make sure there's
still going to be these 3 days a week local services, because
our clients do not have the transportation, and a lot of them
don't have the long-distance services to call into San
Antonio to take care of their intake.
That was the two biggest issues. There were a couple
other terminology tidbits that we put in there, but we could
probably live with all the rest of it if we got those two
things ironed out. We were thrilled that there is a contract
to even be trying to iron out.
JUDGE DENSON: And that's --
MR. WILLIAMS: Judge, that raises another point in
my mind. The -- a couple of these points that Sharon talks
about, then, very well may need to be worked out between Al
Notzon and his -- his subcorporation off of AACOG, which is
handling these matters, as opposed to A.W.D.; where, for
example, she raises the question, how many days a week are
they going to staff the One-Stop Center down here? That's a
65
NV b 1 :'i 1 BI 1LII


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
decision for them, that's not a decision for A.W.D. And, so,
you know, we may have a couple things here that have to be
swung over to Al Notzon for his resolve, as opposed to the
contract people at A W.D.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I rememher when Mr. Notzon
made that comment here that day. Mr. De la Garza and Ms.
Valdez, that they were kind of all in agreement that that's
the way it was going to work.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's true, Commissioner, but it is
their bailiwick to do it, and it is signed off on that, so
they have to make that decision.
JUDGE DENSON: That's an administrative decision,
it's not contractual.
MR. WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE DENSON: And I think what we need to do is
approve this contract. Because it does -- it is a contract
with -- we've been operating without a contract since the 1st
~~t~s
of September, and it does accomplish the major rakes that
they -- we were wanting and which had been refused up until a
few weeks ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I just have one
question of Sharon. On the agreement, the cover sheet, where
you make reference to speaking with Kathy Spurgeon?
MS. WADE: About the quality improvement monies?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, and the direct care.
66
~ .d ~ i a
rr^


1 Is it important -- how important are those two little items
2 right there?
3 MS. WADE: We felt like that, by lust having the
4 checkmark in the one area that said Not Pre-K, that that
5 might read that we couldn't continue to serve our school-age
6 children, which we do serve a lot of school-age children with
7 this program. So I did make a note in my notes that I'd like
8 them to relook at that, and perhaps they need to put a
9 checkmark by the Pre-K so that they'd know we are serving
10 school-age and Pre-K children. And the quality improvement
11 monies, we were explained in Austin by Kathy Spurgeon, who is
12 Diane Rath's -- Commissioner Diane Rath's assistant, that we
13 are now eligible for quality improvement monies. If we want
19 to go out and raise dollars for that and have them matched
15 federally, then we can qo in and we can provide teacher
I6 training, equipment, supplies, and things for special-needs
17 children off of funds that we raise and receive the federal
18 match for those funds, do that also.
19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my question is, if we
20 approve the contract today -- and those things are not
21 checked on there. I mean, do --
22 MS. WADE: Well, then we could be in trouble.
23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry?
24 MS. WADE: We could be in trouble in that we are
25 currently serving children's ages that are not going to be
67
1) I 1 ~ \I ~ ~
r

r^
1 covered over that contract if we can't get that part ironed
2 out. That's true.
3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That bothers me a little
9 bit, but whatever y'all want.
5 MR. WILLIAMS: I asked that question, Commissioner,
6 of the contract people specifically about that, whether the X
7 marked in the box, Direct Care, excluding -- parenthetically
8 excluding Pre-K, not Pre-K, whether that was a prohibitor for
9 them doing Pre-K, since they're already doing it. And, the
10 response I got was, We'll doublecheck it. He didn't think
11 so, but he'd doublecheck it.
12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My concern is -- I mean, as to
13 what you're asking us to do -- Sharon sent us a letter with
I4 several points that they thought needed to be changed in the
15 contract, and Bill is saying that this has to be done by the
16 end of the year. Are you sure you want us to approve the
17 contract as-is?
18 MS. WADE: Well, that's a tough decision. I want
19 that contract approved before we lose the earmarked money,
20 that's for sure. I would hope that, maybe in good faith, if
21 they've made some omissions on the contract, you know, that
22 they would take care of that in the interim if we were to
23 send up a signed contract and said maybe we felt like you
24 forgot to put this X where it belonged, or could you do that?
25 I don't know how easy they are to work with at the point the
68
4l; I { I I II I f' ~I
C
.~-~
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
contract's already been signed. I've not -- I've not made a
contract with A.W.D.B. before, so I don't know just how they
would feel about us making some suggestions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill?
MR. WILLIAMS: Probably could let it slide far two
weeks, but if it's going to be put in place, it has to be
done before the 31st. You probably could let it slide till
the 28th, but that's cutting it awful thin. You know, maybe
that gives us couple a more weeks to see if some of these
other little issues can be resolved, but if it's not in place
by the 31st, that gives you more problems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When you say "in place," does
someone else have to approve it before we --
MR. WILLIAMS: You have to approve it and sign it,
and it has to be signed by A.W. before the 31st of this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That may -- I would think that
may not be possible if we wait till the next meeting.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's kind of my point. It's
getting awfully close.
MS. WADE: And their officers do take, you know,
the traditional holiday times off.
MR. WILLIAMS: There will probably be some holiday
time in there, as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who is the individual that
would negotiate the modifications Sharon's letter outlines?
69
----- ~ fi
AI' I. I I I II .I I, II
s~
L-
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
MR. WILLIAMS: The Contracts Department, guy named
Jerry Perez, P-e-r-e-z.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's somebody -- I'm trying
to find out who --
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's the person.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He is the person that would
have the say, I guess, on these modifications?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, he's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He would take it to him?
MR. WILLIAMS: He would take it to Nicky Valdez if
there had to be some some on-high clarification.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They have repeatedly said
that they were workable -- I mean, that they would work with
us and look at issues as we go along. I -- I, for one, think
we need to go ahead and approve the contract and hope that
the great State would be able to work with us on some of
these issues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're saying that -- and
if anyone else disagrees, please say so -- approve the
contract as presented, with the request that they incorporate
the provisions of the letter from Sharon dated December 9th?
MS. WADE: Yes, as long as we're accurate. I don't
want to presume to ask them for 5 percent if that's no longer
the accurate figure. You know, I just want to make sure that
-- that we're not being charged more than what we can be

1
~^.
~~.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
II" I 11 I II'. I id II
~ reimbursed for the administrative fee. And that -- also,
that all children who are currently being served, age-wise,
will still be served by this contract; that that won't cut
out one age group or another lust by an omission of an X.
MR. WILLIAMS: My understanding is that the policy
is in place right now allowing administrative fees as high as
10 percent. And, apparently, the AACOG folks think that's
what they need. Otherwise, it would have been stated that
way. My recommendation, Judge, would be that you approve it
today, subject to some additional -- whatever. And, also,
the Court is going to be required to -- to designate Sunshine
Day Care Center and Kerr County Day Care Center as the
recipients of these funds in a separate Court order
subsequent to your approving the contract. You may want to
put that on the 28th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
approve the contract as presented and request that the
provisions set forth by the letter from Sharon Wade on
December 9th be incorporated, if possible.
COMMISSIONER OEHLERr Second.
JUDGE DENSON: If possible? I don't want to -- and
I know we're, maybe, getting into semantics or
technicalities. I don't want it to -- I want us to approve
the contract, period, and that should be very clear.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what the motion said,
.r-- 171
u I 11'I ! ~„ II


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
approve the contract as presented and request that they
incorporate these --
JUDGE DENSON: Okair. If possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, you know, if
they do. If they don't, they don't, but it's -- we're
accepting the contract as presented.
JUDGE DEN3ON: Okay:.
MR. WILLIAMS: There are going to be some things
they can work out, perhaps, and some that they cannot.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, that's good enough. We've got
a second?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE DENSON: All right. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: And that also -- that motion
includes authority of County Judge to sign the contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we need the second motion,
Bill, which was for --
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, either a second motion today
or a subsequent action, a Court order designating these two
day care centers as recipients of these particular funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We probably need a separate
agenda item for that, I think, by the wording of this one.
JUDGE DENSON: I think we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that need to be done
r ~~ 72
Nkl I. I d I 11' I ~~ II
. ~ s


~""
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
before the end of the year? We'll lust put it on the next
agenda.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And those two vendors are
the only two which --
MR. WILLIAMS: At this point, who have raised any
matching funds. Is that correct?
MS. WADE: That's right.
MR. WILLIAMS: Now, if, subsequently, another
vendor comes along and raises some -- some funds, their name
could be added to the Court order.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
73