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
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Wednesday, December 22, 1999
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Fct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4
z
~'. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
-^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.-. 2 3
24
25
I N D E X	
December 22, 1999	PAGE
-- Visitors' Input	3
-- Commissioners' Comments	13
l.lo~b~~ay Bills	16
1.2 Budget Amendments d6.Cf9	16
1.3 Late Bills o?le/60, ~(o/L~	17
1.4 Approve and Accept Monthly deports	19
a6i~a	
~~	
2.1~~
Preliminary Plat, Deer Park Estates	19
2.2a(./~`~Advertise for Bids, tractor for HCYEC	20
~
f	
2.3aL~
'
Apply for grant to purchase horse stalls	21
2.4a(,/dbApply for matching grant to retain planner	
for development of long-range plan @ HCYEC	24
	
2.6~~rocedures & processes for formation/operation	
of road districts w/ bonding authority	27
yy
2.7~°~~'Trott Communications Group as consultants	29
g	
2.8~16K°
Set schedule for meetings in year 2000	33
2.9aG/69Contract for County-sponsored organizations	35
~O	
2.Sc?6~
pen bids for courthouse furniture	43
	
2.10a~~~ounty insurance coverage for year 2000	48
~ R	
2.Sd6~
ecommend bids for courthouse furniture	93
3
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
On Wednesday, December 22, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., a Specia~
Session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, and
the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning. It's 9 o'clock
on Monday, December 22nd, 1999, and we'll call to order this
special Commissioners Court meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me, are those
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's stand for prayer.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, if
there's any citizen who wishes to address the Court on an
item not on the agenda, they may do so. We've had two
requests to address us. Vic Stedter, come forward, sir.
MR. STEDTER: Gentlemen, I'm not here to
argue about any of your decisions. We're more or less here
to fight the system that's getting out of hand. My Warne is
Vic Stedter. I'm representing Real People Homes. We're an
independent company that has started with no federal aid.
In fact, we've had a bit of federal harassment to get
started. The people work for about as low a wage as there
is in the country to get this thing started. Part of the
4
"~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i'^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
", 23
24
25
group is here. At the present time, we have about 50
families depending on this company for a living. We started
about two years ago with our own ideas, our own money, and
developed this country -- company, brought it up to where
now we're just about ready to kick off and hopefully give
the public what the government says that they've been
wanting, and that's an energy-free, environmentally-friendly
house. We've developed this house, and the engineering has
been done.
We've been trying to get a low-interest-rate loan
certification so we could get the loans for the working man.
At the present time, we've had no success whatsoever on
that. We're still running with private financing on our
homes. Fortunately, we have enough people so far that's
backing us, but then we get this shock in the newspaper that
they're going to have a grant to bring another company in,
set up competition against us here, and an interest-free
grant of $250,000.
Now, that may not sound like a lot of money to -- to a
politician or government that's ha_7ding Lhis money out, but
to us, it's a great deal of money. And, we're -- we're not
on -- our company hasn't shown a profit yet. It's holding
its own, but we've had to educate people to this new type of
home. It's 6.9 times stronger th;sn a conventional home.
It's -- it's been tested for hurricane, for earthquake.
5
~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
"' 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,~,~ 2 3
24
25
It's fireproof, it's bugproof. It uses no lumber. It's
the most energy-efficient house on the market, and sold at
about 25 percent less than a conventional house of -- of
equal quality. And, so, what we're here trying to
understand is why a company that is backed by or part of a
conglomerate -- I believe they're out of Michigan -- who
undoubtedly has much more money than we have, has even been
considered for a government grant to set up competition
against us. They're coming in -- it's not as good a
building as ours. In fact, there's -- already there's been
lawsuits against several of them because of the type of
construction. And, why a grant would be given for a
company like this, that certainly could carry their own
weight financially, into an area that we have trouble
getting help now, we're -- that's just one of our biggest
problems, is getting qualified help. You only see a part
of them here. They've been kind enough to come in with me
this morning. We still got more, and more are likely on
their way. We're working in Bandera, Hondo, south San
Antonio. We've just come into Kerrville. We've got about
We're
planning some more here, and our biggest problem is getting
labor. You know, they're -- they're giving a grant to
bring in a company to compete against us. Now, this -- I'm
not only speaking for Real People 3omes. I'm talking for
6
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
all the contractors in this area. There -- how can we
compete against our own money? You know, these people
here, half of them here, they can't -- their wages, they're
going from hand-to-mouth right now, all paying taxes. We're
paying land taxes, labor taxes, fuel taxes. Just taxes on
top of taxes, and still trying to support their families.
And then to have somebody come in and set up competition
with our own tax money, you know, to compete against us,
now, this is not fair to not only our company, but to every
contractor in the area. How can you --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Stedter, I need to
interrupt you so we can move this along a little bit.
Unfortunately, we have a very busy day this morning. Your
Real Homes is located in Kerr County?
MR. STEDTER: In Leakey, Texas, but we're
operating in Kerr County.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you -- so your factory is
not in Kerr County?
MR. STEDTER: No, tYle factory is in Leakey.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Do you live in Kerr
County?
MR. STEDTER: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: How many of your employees
live in Kerr County?
MR. STEDTER: Well, I don't know. You have
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
a show of hands here; there's quite a few of them that live
here and are depending on us, on our company, to survive.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We -- we have not as yet
applied for any grant to assist anybody to relocate to Kerr
County.
MR. STEDTER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The company that approached
us -- which is not owned by Michigan; it's owned by a family
in Dallas -- about assisting them in relocating to Kerr
County has withdrawn their request at this time. They are
not in a position to move forward with their plans, and
until they're ready to move forward with their plans,
they're not in a position to come and assist us. The
purpose of the program that -- that was discussed in
Commissioners Court is to assist companies in relocating to
Kerr County, or expanding their business in Kerr County and
increasing the economic base in Kerr County. If your
company was interested in relocating to Kerr County, we'd
certainly be willing to talk to you about this same type of
opportunity.
MR. STEDTER: We've already located our --
over 50 percent of our labor on our houses is in erection,
and that is being done here presently in -- in Kerrville and
Kerr County. We're -- we've got a number of houses already
set up here, and we are -- and we -- we're hoping to expand
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~-- 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~,,, 2 3
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we're glad to have you.
We appreciate your service; we appreciate your interest. I
don't mean to be abrupt, but we have a very full agenda
today, compacted by the fact that many of us plan to attend
a funeral this afternoon for a constable who died,
unfortunately, as Commissioner Letz reflected.
COMM15SlONEft LH~`I"G: Judge, may I make a
comment? I mean, your -- this is the first time I've heard
from your company. Probably, if you would just pick one of
the Commissioners or the Judge and visit with us one-on-one,
we can probably handle some of this outside of Court. Then,
if you want to come back at some point in the future, I
Lhink -- I certainly -- you know, I think the whole Court --
I speak for us -- are interested in creating jobs for Kerr
County. And, it there's something that, you know, we can
do to help your company, maybe we can do that, or certainly
be willing to talk to you and explain what we were doing or
what it is from my perspective I can tell you, and then
handle that out of Court. I think right now we generally
are not going to take any action on an item like that that's
not on the agenda. We can't comment too much to you, but I
think I would, as the rest of the Court, be willing to visit
with you at some time. Just give us a call and set up a
meeting.
9
'" 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~" 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,,,., 2 3
24
25
looking for government grants.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. STAEDTLER: This is not our purpose to be
We still believe in the American way, and private
not -- not the government enter into it. And, what I'm
primarily here for is to let you gentlemen know -- I imagine
that if I make -- meet you on the street sometime, I'll say
hello, but as far as coming in and bugging you about wanting
help, we're not going to be doing that. Just all we ask is
to be left alone. We'll do our own -- we'll carry our own
weight. I appreciate you letting me have the time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
MR. STEDTER: And, if that thing is dead, I
guess we haven't got too much more to say here this morning.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd like to make one
point; that the grant monies that you are talking about here
was -- were talked about in this ocher case are State grant
monies. Any business can apply for those. We don't -- we
can't keep you or the other company or anybody from not
pursuing those funds. If they pursue them, they end up
eventually talking to us. But, you could pursue those same
funds if you want to, but that other company also has the
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.-- 2 3
24
25
right to pursue those. That is a State program. We're not
granting them money. The State will be granting those
monies. I just wanted to make sure you understand that.
MR. STEDTER: But they're granting my money,
that is what I'm complaining about.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well -- and, if I
might interrupt for just a second, that -- if you are
against that program, then that is a legislative program in
the State of Texas, so you can contact -- Senator Wentworth,
I think, covers that district, or you can contact your local
State representative and say that you don't think that
program should be on the books. And -- but this Court is
not able to cancel that program, even if we wanted to.
MR. STEDTER: We have to start somewhere.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. STEDTER: And we've started here. Now, no,
we don't intend to stop here. We're going to take this
on -- on up. But, we're -- we're noL financially able to
have any big lawyers talking for us. We're working men.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Stedter,
appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. STEDTER: Thank you for your time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We also have a request from
Come
11
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
forward at this time.
MR. BREWER: Good morning. I appreciate
this. I'll make it brief. The funding that Vic is in
reference to, I'm here in reference to also, but who I am is
I'm the owner of Hill Country Septic and Hill Country Real
Homes. Hill Country Real Homes is my brand new corporation
representing the selling and constructing of the houses that
Vic's factory builds. The only reason that I'm here is to
let y'all know that I'm a brand-new business and I'm most
interested in an even playing field. And, knowing that
this company out of Dallas is moving in here is fine with
me; all I want is an even playing field.
If they're granted this money -- which y'all can allow
them to have or not, because it is up to y'all backing them
or not -- then -- and I do know it is a State-funded thing
that was started at the federal level, passed down, and this
corporation out of Dallas is affiliated with the Minnesota
people that he -- Mr. Stedter was talking about. They are
a large conglomerate; they are one of their people. They
We
have a complete portfolio on them, and they are listed in
the net if y'all would like to read about them any further.
What concerns us is, as I said, I'm brand new on this
playing field here. We want it to be even. They're going
to start out with an interest-free loan, which will allow
12
"^ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
^ 12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~, 2 3
24
25
that we simply could not compete against. They're looking
at bringing in people from Dallas to our area, and employing
only a few people from our area. I'm already employing
over 11 people, and we're in the process of hiring
approximately 40 to work just the Kerrville area. So,
we're looking at having our own people who will live here,
who will operate here and spend all their monies here and
pay their taxes here, and I'm asking that the Court, when
this comes up on April 20th, as it is scheduled currently to
be redocketed, that y'all consider -- as I was told,
anyway -- that y'all consider not supporting them for this
grant. And, in doing so, you'll make one happy new
business owner here. And, we will do a lot for this
community.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, thank you, Mr. Brewer,
I want to make it clear that -- that the
not been rescheduled.
MR. BREWER: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: There is no timetable at this
time before the Court for reconsideration o£ that grant.
If it does come back, obviously, it will be placed on the
public agenda. There would have to be a public hearing and
all of the other steps that were discussed at the previous
13
.-. 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
There is
bring back to Court that State grant.
MR. BREWER: Well, as a notice from their
corporation, they said they were rescheduling on April the
20th; that's the only thing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: There is no -- I don't even
think April 20th is a Court date. There has been no
schedule presented or adopted for that grant application.
MR. BREWER: But I appreciate your time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Is there anyone
else who'd like to address us on an issue that's not on the
agenda? Is there any other citizens who'd like to address
the Court on an item which is not on today's agenda? If
not, we'll go to the Commissioners comments. We'll start
with Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
Kerr County lost an elected official on Monday, December 20.
Precinct 2 Constable Carl E. Williams died of a heart attack
in his home in Center Point early Monday morning. Carl was
54 years of age. I can empathize with a family that loses
a father at that age, because that was the same age that my
father died many years ago. Carl Williams was a consummate
14
'~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,,,~ 2 3
24
25
peace officer. He served the residents of Kerr County. He
lived in Precinct 2 since his appointment in 1989 and was
reelected on several occasions thereafter. It was his goal
to continue in this service, as he was a candidate --
announced candidate for reelection in the Year 2000.
Karl loved being a peace officer. "It's my job," he
was often heard saying. This Commissioners Court, as well
as previous Courts, have often heard him speak passionately
of matters of concern to him. He was not bashful. He was
always willing to take a stand on matters when he believed
he was right. That is a quality that is not evident in
everyone. Carl was a son, a husband, and a father. He
will be missed by those he leaves behind. To his devoted
family I extend, on my behalf and I'm certain on behalf of
the Court, thanks and appreciation for his years of service,
and heartfelt condolences on behalf of the residents of
Precinct 2 upon his death.
Additionally, I think it is appropriate that the flags
-- as Judge Henneke has directed, the flags on all County
property be lowered to half staff for Lhis day, his funeral,
and if you would be to so good as to rise for a moment and
join me in a moment of silence.
(Moment of silence observed.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No comments.
15
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Larry?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No comments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just a couple scheduling
matters today. Constable Williams' funeral is at
2 o'clock, and, as I said earlier, many of the members of
the Court have expressed a desire to attend the funeral.
To the extent possible, we're going to accommodate that.
On the posted agenda, we had the discussion of the insurance
bids for 1:30. We're going to move that up to 11:30,
attempt to move rapidly through the agenda. If we have to,
we'll do the Executive Session at the end. So, I urge
everyone to stay on task and keep -- keep our comments to
the bare minimum necessary in order to accomplish the
business that's before us today. And, I'll also remind
everyone of our luncheon tomorrow starting at 11 o'clock
featuring Red Baron chili.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whoa. Fact.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Fact. I've got to get
home and finish that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Come one, come a11. Come
hungry.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's essentially done.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Essentially done. Well, Red
Baron essential chili.
16
"1 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
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I do need a quick vote
on -- amongst the Court on who has -- who has hot taste and
who has cool taste, so I -- I've still got to tune this
chili. It will be just right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It will be just right.
Good. All right. Let's move to the bills. Anyone have
any questions about the bills as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Baldwin,	seconded by	Commissioner	Williams, that	we approve
payment of the bills	as presented	and recommended by the
Auditor.	Any further discussion	or questions?	If not, all
in favor,	raise your	right hand.		
	(The m	otion was car	ried by unanimous vote.)
	JUDGE	HENNEKE: All	opposed, same	sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE:
Motion carries. Budget
MR. TOMLINSON: I just have one. I think
you have a copy of it. It's to transfer $233.50 out of
Capital Outlay in the Sheriff's Department to Computer
Supplies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
17
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 1 regarding 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.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have
any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have two that I need hand
checks for. One is -- it's a request from the Sheriff to
pay Premiere Auto Body Specialists for $2,120.53, for
repairs to a 1991 Ford.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- is that
body work?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I'm sorry, I'm not --
this is for -- this is for --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Animal Control.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- Animal Control, right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: We're down to one, I think.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is an accident?
Or --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
18
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. HOLEKAMP: Approximately two months ago.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve
handbill to Premier Autobody Specialists on behalf of the
Animal Control Department. Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hands.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2. This is from the
Sheriff's Office. It's to the National Communications
Institute, and it's for pre-registration for law enforcement
managers' course for $885.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And who is it to,
Tommy? I couldn't hear.
MR. TOMLINSON: From National Communications
Institute. It's for reyistration for a course for
apparently one of the dispatchers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, on communications.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
19
'~ 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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve a late
bill to National Communications Institute on behalf of 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.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We have two
monthly reports, one from the District Clerk and the other
is a quarterly financial investment report from the County
Treasurer. Do we have a motion to approve and accept the
monthly reports?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve
and accept the monthly reports. 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. Moving to
20
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
Estates, Precinct 2. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll let the County
Engineer take this up. Let's revisit this same one we took
up last time, Deer Park Estates, two lots out of an
8.84-acre tract. Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Burke was here last --
last time discussing this item. So, we now have a plat,
2 1/2 acres no, roads. Faces the existing County-maintained
road. Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move for approval
of -- preliminary plat approval for Deer Park Estates which
is located in Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz that we approve the
preliminary plat of Deer Park Estates in Precinct 2. 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 2.2,
consider and discuss advertising for bids on a tractor for
Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center, as approved in the
1999/2000 budget.
zl
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the
advertising for bids. Any further discussion? Did you have
anything you wanted to say, Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, just waiting for
questions.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 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 3,
consider and discuss applying for grant to purchase 45 horse
stalls and refurbish them for use at Hill Country Youth
Exhibition Center. Commissioners 2 and 3.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, with your
permission, could we combine 2.3 and 2.4?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can discuss them together,
if that's appropriate. We'll have to vote on them
separately.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Commissioner
LeLz and I both have been made aware that there was a
potential for a grant for us to purchase the remaining horse
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~„~ 2 3
24
25
place, and there are 95 remaining out at the Ag complex.
And, like I said, we've been given reason to believe that
there might be a favorable grant consideration if we were to
do that. And then, secondly, or combined with -- Jonathan,
fill in anywhere you wish, please.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that one, I think we
should do them kind of separately. We've discussed this
with the committee, and the committee supports trying to
acquire the remaining 95, I think. While they may not be
the -- the long-term, you know, 10-year solution to what we
need out there, they say that the price that they're being
offered to us that we paid before is a very good deal. We
can certainly resell them very easily if we decide to change
to a different style later on. But, the committee is in
support of pursuing the purchase of those 45.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
We'll just take that one up then, Judge. I move that the
Court grant approval for us to file a grant application for
funding and refurbishing for the 45 unpurchased stalls at
the Ag Barn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. Question.
Should we put an amount on the grant, or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. We -- if you
23
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
want to, we can. Were thinking in the range of about
$15,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think that
ought to be part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, in the amount
of $15,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are these horse stalls
still there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are the owners aware
that we are moving in this direction?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The owners urge us to
move in this direction.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that, but
they're aware that we're going to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Far as I know, they
are. They're on the premises, yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
apply for a grant in the amount of approximately $15,000 to
purchase 95 horse stalls and refurbish same for use of Hill
Country Youth Exhibition Center. Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(TYie motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
24
"~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item 2.9 is
consider and discuss applying for a grant to retain the
services of professional planner to assist in development of
the long-range plan for the Hi11 Country Youth Exhibition
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On this one, in our
budget we allocated $5,000 for this purpose. We talked
about it at our last committee meeting, and the feeling was
that we were at a point that we really need this. We have a
whole lot of ideas and directions, and it really needs to
have someone -- we're at a point we really need to start
looking at price and cost and things of that nature, and
some layout and different types of facilities. So, the
committee is in support of us hiring a professional to
assist us, or assist the committee in developing the
long-range plan. Somebody -- I say professional -- a
document that could go in the future towards applying for
future grants or other funding mechanisms that the Court
will probably review in the spring sometime.
And, it is estimated that the cost of this is about
20,000 -- $20,000 to $25,000 to do a professional job and
build -- our idea is to go for a grant for the additional
	23
~	
	24
	25
portion of that fund. We would -- the County would put in
the budget $5,000, and then ask for a grant for the
zs
"' 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
Foundation to pay for the balance of that cost.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll just add that,
in support of what Commissioner Letz is saying, the
committee, in its two meetings, has done a lot of good work,
a lot of good suggestions from all those folks who are
really interested in seeing the Ag complex improved and
expanded upon. And, part of the dilemma is that there is
a -- there's a whole list of things that need to be done to
the existing facilities, as well as the potential for new
facilities. The planning and the staging of that is
important, and how we keep the place operating and expanding
it in a legitimate, logical way. And, it just made sense to
everybody the other night at our last meeting that we
probably are at a point where professional assistance would
be valuable. And, we have reason, again, to believe that a
grant might be favorably looked upon.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do y'all think that hiring a
professional planner would -- would retard the tentative
schedule that the Court has discussed?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I think it would
enhance it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Getting the plan approved and
presented in the time considered in the next budget cycle?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, like Bill said,
it will enhance it. I think we're going to -- we have to
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
r 23
29
25
And help us deal with
feasibility of these things, as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And, also, if
we're looking at issues like parking, the number of cars,
the -- you know, just -- as soon as you answer one question,
10 more questions come up, and we need someone who is
basically professional to help us do this. The number --
like, if we're going to build an arena for, you know, 5,000
people, how many parking spaces aerially do we need to cover
that? And, then, let us look at what's available out there,
things of that nature.
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN:	Just	a proposal.
Doesn't affect this year's	budget, pe	r se,	right now.
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	It	does in that we
have conuniLLed $5,000 in th	is year's	budget.
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN:	But,	I'm saying
with -- this is committed,	but we are	not	asking for
additional commitment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At this point.
z~
.~-, 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
	
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, if we approve
this, we're not impacting the budget, is all I'm saying.
So, I would move that we approve; we do look at the
I would make that
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we apply for a
matching grant to retain the services of a professional
planner to assist in development of the long-range plan for
the Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center. Any further
discussion? I'll just say that my own information indicates
that the process is moving along and people are very
satisfied and very pleased to be part of this, long-term.
If there's no 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. We'll go to
Item 2.6, which is consider and discuss procedures and
processes under current statute for formation and operation
of road districts with bonding authority. Commissioner
Griffin.
28
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
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I put this on
primarily to bring the Court up to date on the -- if you
recall, at the last court meeting there were two open
questions. One is, how do you administer a road district?
The other was, could we only vote on bond elections at the
uniform election dates that's called for in State law? The
answer to the last one is yes, we can only do on it a
uniform election date for bond election of a road district,
which means that the first time we'll have an opportunity
from this point forward is the first Saturday in May of
2000, will be the earliest bond election for a road district
that we could have. There are also some other restrictions
about, you can't do it during primary elections, if those
happen to fall on uniform election dates. There are other
restrictions. Technically, there is an election
available -- uniform election date in January, but we don't
have enough time to have -- form road districts, have public
hearings and all that sort of thing, so it's got to be next
May.
The first question about how you administer it, the
Court must administer. There's very straight case law and
guidance out of the State Lhat you can only -- the Court is
responsible for administering the road district. It does
not say, However, that we couldn't have an advisory
committee made up primarily of citizens from that road

29
^ 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
district to bring proposals to the Court for what they want
to see done in their district. It just -- when it gets down
to pulling the trigger on ordering a bond election, that
sort of thing, we've got to do all of that.
We do not have to budget for road districts, which
is -- is good news. You don't have to put that in the
County budget. That stands apart, so that the district, you
know, operates essentially on its own. Even though it
operates through the Treasurer's office, we don't have to
actually go in and figure out how much money we're going to
spend this year or which month or whatever, so that's good
news.
I've just got a whole big package from -- from the
County Attorney's office, and by the next Court meeting I'll
try to have that reduced to something that says, "Here's
what we do, the steps that we go through, 1, 2, 3," for the
Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
DODGE HENNEKE: Any questions? Thank you.
All right, let's move to 2.7, consider and discuss engaging
Trott Communications Group as consultants on the project to
upgrade the radio communications capability al SheriL P s
Department. I put this on the agenda. In trying to work on
this communications project, it's painfully evident to me
that I'm not qualified to be the one making the decisions as
30
`~ 1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,--- 2 3
24
25
to	the	type of	equipment or	the design	of	the system.	And,
nor	do	I think	that there's	anyone in	the	Sheriff's	
spending a large amount of money on this project, and I
think it behooves us to do it -- to do it right. Trott
Communications was recommended to myself by Bastrop County
Judge Ronnie Montgomery. They were very pleased with the
job that they did over there. Tommy, I think you've had
some conversation with their Auditor as well, haven't you?
MR. TOMLINSON: Not about this.
DODGE HENNEKE: Not about this. They have
presented a proposal to the Court. It's for $12,000, which
they basically come in and review what we've done and assist
us in developing a request for proposals which would then be
sent out. If we wanted to engage them to kielp us evaluate
the proposals, that would be up to us to come to some
further accommodation with them. They're prepared to move
fairly expeditiously. They said they could have this phase
of the project completed by the February timeframe, which
should give us time to do an R.F.P. this year and have the
numbers in, in order to crank that into the next year's
budget calculations. Any discussion? Any questions?
COMMISSIONER wILLIAMS: We budgeted a
significant amount for a new communications system.
31
'-' 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
%'~ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
r, 2 3
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have $150,000 in the
budget this year for this project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it your suggestion
that this $12,000 fee for services would come from that
amount?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only question is that,
you know, I mean -- I guess time is going to be a factor,
but whether we should go out to find the best person to do
this study for us. I mean, certainly, as long as you value
his opinion, the Judge of Bastrop County. I was wondering
if we just -- just hire somebody, or do -- like we generally
do, and bring in, you know, several companies and make a
decision? If -- or are there several companies to even
choose from? I don't know anything about this.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I will tell you that I have
looked, and James Schmidt out at the Sheriff's Department
has looked, and here aren't too many.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My research shows that
Lhis the is the key.	This is	the	one.
JUDGE	HENNEKE:	I -	- I don't know if it's
gotten to you yet, but I circulated their full proposal,
which has a number of other references. It contains quite a
bit of proprietary information, which we can't disclose to
the general public.
32
'~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.-~ 2 3
24
25
(Discussion off the record.)
DODGE HENNEKE: But, I'm not satisfied that
these are the necessarily the best, but I'll be quite frank
with you. They're the only ones I can find who are
interested in doing the job within the timeframe. And, they
do have a track record of working with other counties and
cities on projects of this nature, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That answers my question.
I was just -- I have not seen the proposal yet, so -- but if
it's been looked into pretty thoroughly, I have no problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see anywhere
where there's a starting date or finish date for their --
their work.
JUDGE HENNEKE: They're ready to get started
right after the first of the year and, you know, in their
discussions with me they've indicated they would be done in
the February timeframe. You're right, I don't think there
is any firm start and finish date in the proposal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we hire
Trott Communications Group as consultants to upgrade the
radio communications for Sheriff's Department.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that -- for
$12,000, and that money comes out of the budgeted money for
the '99/2000 budget.

33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,..,, 2 3
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second that, too.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we -- the
Court engage Trott Communications Group as a consultant in
the amount of $12,000 for services in connection with
upgrading the communications for 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: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is
2.8, consider and discuss the schedule for the meetings in
the year 2000. You have in your packet the dates, and I've
included with those dates quarterly evening meetings. I
moved the quarterly evening meetings up a month in my
proposal to avoid what we ran into this year, which was a
quarterly evening meeting right during the Christmas
holidays. Anyone have any discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On behalf of my wife,
I want to express her thanks for you scheduling at 6:30 the
February 28th meeting on our anniversary. I'm sure she
appreciates that.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: She'll have more fun that
34
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
time than she will on any of the previous ones.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're probably
right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it looks good. I
move that we approve the schedule as presented.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the
schedule for meetings in the year 2000. 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. What we're
going to do now, if the Court will go along, is let's take
about a 10-minute break, get Mr. Motley up here. We will
do the Item No. 9, which is the contract for County-
sponsored organizations, then we will open the bids on the
furniture, then we will do the Executive Sessions, and that
should carry us up until about the time that the insurance
consultant is here to talk about the insurance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If that's acceptable, let's,
take a break. We'll come back at 10 till 10:00. We'll get
35
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
Mr. Motley up here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we have an
Executive Session?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Two items on Executive
Session. Okay, we'll be in recess until 9:50.
(A recess was taken from 9:90 a.m, to 9:55 a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 9:55. We'll return to
this special session of Kerr County Commissioners Court.
The next item on the agenda is Item No. 9, which is consider
and discuss approving the form of contract for
County-sponsored organizations and authorize County Judge to
sign the actual prepared contracts. In our book, we have a
form of contract, and we also have the actual contracts for
the Kids Advocacy Place, Inc., and the CASA contract.
Mr. Motley?
MR. MOTLEY: You should have four others.
JUDGE HENNEKE: They haven't made it here
yet. So, anyway, is there anything in particular you want
to tell us about the form?
MR. MOTLEY: No. I was -- it is my
understanding that what you really wanted was a form --
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct.
MR. MOTLEY: -- to be able to use. And most
36
''~ 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
-- in most every situation -- of course, a lot of these
things are going to have variants that will have to be
adjusted for the particular agency. Not really anything in
particular to say. I think that form -- on some of these,
there are -- well, there is an insurance requirement on the
part of all of the -- on all the agencies. I'm not certain
of the amounts on some of them. And, on the Dietert Claim
contract, there was an amount provided for recreation and
another amount provided for transportation. I combined
those together all into recreation, and it's the same total
amount, but I believe the amounts match what was
appropriated in the budget this year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions
about the form that's presented to us? It is basically the
same document that's been used in years past, except that
David has gone through, done a lot of work in conforming the
document, updating it, and putting it in a form so that we
can use it, certainly, for years to come, and won't have to
bring these to the -- each specific contract to the Court
for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we approving
today only as to form, Judge, or are we approving specific
contracts?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We are approving today the
form, and authorizing the County Judge to sign the specific

37
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
contracts with the different County-sponsored organizations.
MR. MOTLEY: There should be six contracts.
JUDGE HENNEKE: As we did with the jail.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fire departments.
JUDGE HENNEKE: As we have done with the fire
departments and the mental health contracts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the provision on
insurance, does that read correctly?
MR. MOTLEY: You're talking about on the
generic form?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. MOTLEY: That's Item 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: ... "shall at all times
maintain a policy of liability insurance for premises
liability for personal injury." Should there be an "and"
or something?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, this is -- my
understanding of what they're talking about is, if somebody
should be injured on their premises, we want to make sure
that there's insurance there to cover that particular
eventuality. There are other contracts, specific contracts,
under which we require more or different types of insurance,
and, like I said, I -- there should be six contracts here,
rather than two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question was just,
38
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1Z
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.-~. 2 3
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A follow-up question
on that, Commissioner. Why do we specify an amount for the
volunteer fire departments and we don't specify an amount
MR. MOTLEY: Well, you know, on -- you're
talking about in the generic contract again?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let me take a crack at that.
Over the years, different organizations have had different
insurance amounts. We have the ability to set that
insurance amount and say -- as we did with the volunteer
fire departments, if that's what we want to do. You know,
that's up to the prerogative of the Court. So, if we want
to direct that the insurance on Number 2 will be a million
dollars or half a million dollars, we have the ability to do
that, and it's probably a good idea, so that everybody
has -- has the same requirements. I'm not sure that a
million is appropriate, because I'm not sure LhaL Lhe risk
for, say, Kids Advocacy Place is the same as it is for the
volunteer Lire department. But, I think it's a good
suggestion that we should -- we should adopt a dollar figure
for that insurance requirement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In these cases, is it not
more likely that those required amounts might vary somewhat,
as you indicate? Are you saying that we can come up with an
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~., 2 3
24
25
amount that would	apply to	all	of them?
MR.	MOTLEY:	Let	me --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do that with the
volunteer fire departments, but --
JUDGE HENNEKE: In the past, as I tell you,
the amounts have differed. There have been --
MR. MOTLEY: Let me give you a little input
on this. Some of these organizations are required by their
national sponsoring organization or -- or State organization
to maintain a certain amount of insurance. For example,
CASA is required by State regulation, by Texas CASA, to have
a million-dollar policy, and I put a million dollars in
there because that's what they required. There is a
distinction between these agencies and the volunteer fire
departments, but the -- the volunteer fire department
situation, part of the compensation that the County pays for
the volunteer fire departments for providing these services
is the County pays worker's comp insurance for them. The
firefighting duties are more hazardous, by their very
nature, than are something, let's say, for Kids Advocacy
Place, you know. We're talking about a situation where
somebody could go in there, trip and fall or -- or something
like that.
The fire department, of course, you know, has people,
you know, driving vehicles under hazardous conditions and
40
"~ 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
such. So -- and, in addition, all these contracts -- when
the County contracts with these agencies, the County has to
have a quid pro quo, has to have something back. We have to
have something measurable that we receive in return, and the
fire department contract, we specifically required certain
training that had to occur. You know, if they're going to
be fighting fires on behalf of the County, we want to make
sure that they're trained, and we set forth some basic
standards and such as that, and so that contract is a little
bit different from these.
These are all basically -- I don't know. I guess, for
lack of a better term, sort of social service agencies, and
they assist the courts. They assist the County in various
ways. They assist, in some cases, indigent persons.
Their assistance provides recreational facilities,
assistance for elderly persons, and such as that, and so
they are less hazardous. And -- but on some of the amounts
of the contract, I literally did not know an amount to put
in, and so I put in -- when the Executive Directors told me
what they were trying to do, I put those in there.
And, again, the specific contracts are on disk, and
they may need some fine-tuning in that area, such as -- and
also, we have to add their tax status, the IRS -- their tax.
Some of those things would have to be added.
JUDGE HENNEKE: To go back to the insurance,
. ~ . ~~
41
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
"" 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
3
4
we ought to set an amount. Are we comfortable with
allowing that amount to be inserted based on the
organization's needs and --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like that, with the
proviso that, if we think it's necessary, we could say that
we will require a certain minimum. Not as a part of the
form of the contract, but that for any contract that we have
that has an insurance clause, that we think it ought to be
half a million or whatever -- or whatever the number is.
That -- but not have to include it on the form, because I
think, in this case, they're going to -- they are going to
vary because of other outside requirements that may far
exceed our requirement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couldn't we do this by
saying you have to have a minimum standard? That way we
wouldn't have to modify it if they have more.
MR. MOTLEY: I think that's doable. And,
also, it may be that we want to strengthen the language
somewhat to make certain that it protects us. Our
relationship with these agencies is -- is not -- you know,
it is strictly that we're providing funds for them to
provide a service to the County. But, in the event some
23
24
25
_ _
sort of a lawsuit happened, based on some service they
provided or a premises accident or something like that, we
would probably want to make sure that the insurance would --

42
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
would cover us in that eventuality.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What's our pleasure? Do we
want to approve the form, with the understanding that the
insurance requirement will be a minimum of half a million
dollars?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That makes sense to me.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any
questions on the form?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would so move.
MR. MOTLEY: Your Honor, and one other thing.
We might do sort of a phone survey of the different
organizations and see what their requirements are. That's
something that's doable.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We11, that's -- we need to do
that when we do the specific contracts. I think, for
purposes of the form, we have an understanding.
MR. MOTLEY: When you talk about minimum
insurance on cars, you know that everybody's required to
carry that minimum liability policy. I don't know if
there's an equivalent for a structure or a premises; I'm not
certain of that, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second the
motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
43
"~ 1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,^ 2 3
24
25
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve
the form of contract with County-sponsored agencies, with
County Judge to sign the specific contracts with the
County-sponsored agencies. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment on the
fire departments, just as a reminder. The City of Kerrville
and City of Ingram are not volunteer fire departments.
't'hose are special contracts or interlocal agreements we have
with those.
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, and that's not covered by
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay.
DODGE HENNEKE: 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.)
DODGE HENNEKE:
Good. We'll now open the
bids on furniture.
MR. LONGNECKER: Judge Henneke, I have a list
here of all that were -- who had received bids, bidding
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,.~ 2 3
24
25
ones who actually received bidding documents, plans and
specifications for furniture.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Longnecker.
First bid is from Consolidated Office Systems here in
Kerrville. Base bid, desk and credenzas, is $13,126.
Tables, $8,404. Podiums, $495. Jury room tables, $3,569.
Chairs, $27,575. Sofas, $2,630. Shelving, $2,514.
Filing cabinets, $2,016. Bidder proposes to provide the
products in the 8- to 10-week timeframe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the total?
JUDGE HENNEKE: There is no total on that --
COMM1SS1ONER WILLIAMS: My magic calculator's
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- particular bid.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You were doing that in
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a little more
than that. Little bit more.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The next bid is from the
Texas Department of Corrections. The bid is in a different
form. It gives the dollar amounts for the type --
different types of equipment. For instance, the desk top
size 72 by 36 is $1,796; 66 by 30 is $1,196. Credenzas, 78
45
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
by 21, $676, and et cetera.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cafeteria-style.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Cafeteria-style. That's
from the Texas Department of Corrections. And, the third
bid is from Kimball Office Group in Dallas.
MR. LONGNECKER: That would be Susan Sabre on
your -- on your list there. The last one is the Texas
Department of Corrections. What they've given us is a
per-item list of desks, credenzas, chairs, tables, et
cetera, with no bottom-line figure, but they have bid on,
apparently, all of the items. Their delivery time is on or
before March 20th of the year 2000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept all
bids.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
DODGE HENNEKE: Moved that we accept the bids
and refer them to the architect and the Court's consultant
for purposes of evaluation and recommendation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, are we going to --
we can pick and choose amongst them. We accept them all?
And authorize them to --
DODGE HENNEKE: Right. We accept all the
bids and refer them to Mr. Longnecker and Mr. Walker for
evaluation. They come back, make a recommendation --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
46
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- as to how we proceed.
MR. LONGNECKER: Who is low.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The bid was structured so
that we are able to buy tables from one bidder, buy desks
from another, if that's the way that it comes out, correct?
MR. LONGNECKER: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUllGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Keith, do you think you can
get back to us today?
MR. LONGNECKER: Well, we'll -- Mike and I
will go over them, and what time would be appropriate? Is
there a time that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We11, we're going to go in
Executive Session. Then at 11:30, we have the insurance
presentation, so we'll be here probably till 12:30,
1 o'clock. If we can't get them by then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think --
COMMISSIONER DALDWIN: No reason to rush.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- we can push it till
47
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
January, or we can --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: First meeting in
January.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What we could do is, if we
really wanted to, we could recess, and sometime tomorrow --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- since everyone's going to
be here, presumably, for the luncheon, for the most part, we
could reconvene.
MR. WALKER: Keith, just come back and tell
them whether we can do it today or not.
MR. LONGNECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm surprised there
weren't more bidders.
MR. LONGNECKER: We are, too, very surprised.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we would have
had a lot on there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm pleased with the list.
We certainly solicited a substantial number of bidders,
including the local -- Moore's Furniture is on here; Rick's
Furniture, Shamrock. Of course, we got a bid from
Consolidated. So, if --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three out of 12
responses.
(Discussion off the record.)
48
'~ 1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
„_, 2 3
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Keith, I'm reminded to
request that you turn everything back in to us after y'all
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. At this time --
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, the Court will
go into Executive Session to discuss pending or potential
litigation with the County Attorney.
(The open session was closed at 10:15 a.m., and an
Executive Session was held, the transcript of which is
contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 11:10 on Monday,
December 22nd, and the special session of Commissioners
Court will resume. The item that's still before us is to
consider and discuss workers' compensation, liability, and
property insurance, for acceptance or rejection. Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I know we have a shorter fuse
today, so I don't want to do anything but introduce this
guy, and he's our consultant for R.F.P.'s for the project
this gentleman needs to do the work for. His name is Don
Gray. He's from Austin; his business is in Austin. He's
done a lot of work for counties and other municipalities
over the years. And, so, without anything else to say about
him, I'll introduce Don.
49
'~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,,,, 2 3
24
25
MR. GRAY: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
MR. GRAY: First, let me tell you, I
appreciate having this opportunity to do this work for Kerr
County. It's something I've wanted to do for a long time,
so I was pleased to get the invitation from you. The --
this project involved preparing the R.F.P., distributing the
R.F.P.'s to various insurance companies and agents that
might want to quote, and then analyzing the proposals that
resulted from that R.F.P. Let me make clear from the
outset, one thing I did not do is to do a detailed review of
all your exposures to loss and -- and determine whether or
not your policies cover them adequately. But, I can tell
you that, in the process of writing the R.F.P., there are
some -- I took liberty to ask for some options, for agents
and companies to quote some options that I knew you had an
exposure in, just being a County government. So, you got
the benefit of many options quoted for you that we'll be
discussing today.
Now, let me just jump to the punch line and tell you
that, for two weeks now, the proposals have been in. I was
hoping to come before you and tell you that you were going
to save about $15,000 in premiums. This morning, on the
way up here, I got a phone call from Texas Association of
Counties telling me that your experience modifier in the
50
'~ 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
workers compensation will be increasing, and therefore
the -- and we'll go into that in more detail later. I want
you to know the premium savings that you'll earn as a result
of this R.F.P. has now come to about $2,500 instead of
$15,000, so the news is not near as good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From $15,000 to
$2,500?
MR. GRAY: And it's directly the result of
your workers compensation claims in 1998. You had one back
injury, supposed to cost around $54,000, and you had another
back injury at around $10,000. Then you had a volunteer
firefighter that had a slip and fall that cost you almost
$10,000. So, those three claims, in particular, plus
several other small ones, caused your worker's comp
experience in '98 to go way up. The only good news about
that is, in '99, which is almost over now, your claims are
much less than that, and so, as a result, I know that in the
year 2001 your worker's comp premium will be coming back
down. So, you're going to have a one-year --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we can make it
another six days or whatever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. GRAY: Now, let me mention something
about the business of analyzing the insurance proposals.
Insurance policy language, when you look at a general
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,,~ 2 3
24
25
liability policy written by TAC and one written by C.N.A.
and one written by Aetna and so forth, 90 percent of the
language is the same. In other words, 90 percent of the
coverage is the same. But, about 5 to 10 percent is going
to be different, and that's what -- that's what's required,
is to figure out how these policies differ from each other,
because they are not identical and they can have some very
important differences in that 5 to 10 percent realm.
And, to make this as easy as possible on you, I've put
together this spreadsheet, and on the left column, I've
summarized the coverage you now have in force. It mentions
all the highlights of the policies in effect today. And
then, on the columns out to the right -- I'm not going to --
I'm not repeating all the details of what's in the left; I'm
just -- in those columns to the right; I'm just simply
telling you areas where their proposals are either better or
worse than the coverage you now have. And, so, you can see
the -- I have enhancements and I have shortcomings, better
or worse than what you now have. We also have a third
category on these columns ouL Lo the right; that's the
options. That is where the various companies may have
responded to one of the options I requested and gave us
pricing for you to improve your coverage.
Let's just begin, I guess, approaching this backwards.
Let me just go to the -- one of the options very quickly;
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
" 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,~ 2 3
24
25
ask to you turn to the last page of this spreadsheet. To
my knowledge, and based on what Tommy's told me, you have
three above-ground fuel tanks. Was it two here and one out
west? Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have some in the
	MR. TOMLINSON:	They'	re not -	- I don't think
they're	the type of tank that	we're	talking	about here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I just know we
have fuel tanks up in the area there. Whatever.
MR. GRAY: Anyway, because do you not -- I
want to make it clear, you do not have any pollution
liability coverage in the event of a rupture in these tanks
for spillage that results in contamination of the soil at
your site or contamination of somebody else's water supply
at another site as a result of the spill at your site.
You've not had that insurance, to my knowledge, ever. And,
so, we decided in this R.F P. to ask how much it would cost
to buy it if you wanted it.
You have two proposals in front of you; one from
Zurich, one from A.I.G. One is at $3,524, one at $1,140.
The -- after reviewing both of them, the -- fortunately, the
less expensive policy is the better one. It applies to
Lhree hanks, where the one from A.I.G. only applies to the
tanks in Kerrville. And, there's a couple other
53
"~ 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
--- - ~ -
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. GRAY: That was quoted to you by the
Joseph Ivy Company out of Austin, who is an affiliate of
Texas Association of Counties. Now, let's look at the
second-to-the-last page, the workers' comp. This is where
all the savings went to. First of all, let me tell you,
when the R.F.P. was released -- let me explain two things
for you that you need to understand for this page to make
sense to you. When the R.F.P. was released, it told -- it
asked the proposers to base their quote on certain payrolls
that the County had provided, and also on an experience
modifier of 1.04 -- excuse me, 1.07. Those -- that was
calculated by TAC.
This experience modifier is a factor. It's the result
of a mathematical formula that looks at your losses over a
certain period in time, and kind of, in essence, compares
Kerr County to the loss experience of an average county.
It takes into effect the number of employees you have, the
payroll, your losses, the operations your County does, which
are pretty much similar with most counties. And, the 1.07
means that, in essence, you're 7 percent worse off, in terms
of loss experience, than the average county. And, so,
we -- you know, keep that in mind, that that 1.07 was for
54
'^ 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 year 2000 has not been calculated by TAC. They don't
calculate it, typically, until right about this time of the
year. And, they calculated it yesterday and called me this
morning on the way up here to tell me what the modifier will
be. And, you have to understand that all insurance
companies that quote on this, TAC plus the competitors, base
their quote on that modifier, and so everybody that
originally quoted, these numbers you see on this page, were
quoting on the 1.07. Today, TAC calls and says that the
modifier for year 2000 will be 1.40. It worsens. And
that is the result of the 1998 loss experience that I
mentioned earlier. And, we can already tell it will be
going down for the year 2001. But -- so, the numbers here
on this page do not reflect 1.40. These numbers should be
adjusted up to reflect that 1.40.
The second l.hing I wanted to tell you about the numbers
on this page is that they were based on a payroll figure
that was about $1 million too high. In the process of
gathering this information and working with it, I don't know
whether the Auditor's office would take credit, or wtro --
who discovered it, but it was determined that the payrolls
that were put into the R.P.P. for - for the year 2000, and
the payrolls used on the policy in effect now with TAC, were
55
`~ 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
And,
that mistake was caught, and as a result of that mistake,
you'll receive a premium refund somewhere -- say your
premium with TAC today is about $70,102. You'll be getting
a refund back from TAC to the -- I'll estimate around $8,000
now that this came to light. And, there might even be a
refund from the prior year. In other words, TAC will refund
you back to whenever this first happened.
But, their premium -- if you'll notice, they propose
$74,003 for the year 2000. I mentioned -- noted here that
I was still waiting on TAC to decrease it to reflect the
$1 million overestimate. So, let me give you some new
figures to pencil in. Under the second column from the
left, where it says "$74,003" --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "003" or "993"?
MR. GRAY: Excuse me. I've written through
it, so I couldn't read it. It's 993. I scratched right
well. The corrected premium would be $86,649. Now, tr
premium -- excuse me, I'm sorry. Even that's not right.
It's $103,154.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don, is that -- that
MR. GRAY: Yes, sir.
56

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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before the refund.
MR. GRAY: Let me back up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There could be a
refund come out of this?
MR. GRAY: No, that 103 already assumes that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. GRAY: They already corrected the $1
million payroll error.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, it accounts for
the jump to 1.40, and gets the right number for --
MR. GRAY: Yes, sir, exactly.
COMMISSIONER GRTN'FIN: -- the payroll.
MR. GRAY: It corrects those two problems.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 'That's the real
number.
MR. GRAY: It's what you'll -- 1 want to say
it's what you'll be billed; however, to go one step further,
there's a third factor here that, if you continue to place
your property and liability insurance coverage with TAC,
they will discount this $103,000 premium by 16 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. GRAY: And, I will tell you now, that is
what I will be recommending, that you continue the property
and liability coverage with TAC. And, if you agree with
that recommendation and continue with them, then you will
57
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
be -- the amount you will be billed would be the $86,699.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Getting closer.
MR. GRAY: Which should be 84 percent of the
103.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 86 -- I'm sorry?
MR. GRAY: 86,649.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Before we get
to the 16 percent discount for other coverages and so forth,
the $103,159 you quoted, that's the net number and it takes
into account the $8,000 rebate that will be forthcoming for
previous premiums paid, correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. GRAY: Almost. Actually, for the year
2000, which we're talking about now, the $1 million error in
payroll will result in a $10,000 -- excuse me, $11,000
adjustment. So, yes, it --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It accounts for that,
but it doesn't account for 1998 --
MR. GRAY: It does not account for 1999,
correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was a separate
reimbursement?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to get
reimbursed? We're going the to get a check for $8,000?
MR. GRAY: You're going to get reimbursed for
58
'~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
„^ 2 3
24
25
'99, and reimbursed for '98 if it happened then.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's not included in
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I wanted
MR. GRAY: But, the 2000 refund, which I had
not mentioned yet, the $11,000 is also in this 103 soup.
The amount -- the amount you'll be billed, if you stay with
TAC on the property and liability, is the $86,649.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. GRAY: Based on everything being current
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good.
MR. GRAY: Now, to show you what -- while I
realize you're not happy about the premiums going up on
worker's comp, look what was quoted to you. $166,000 by
the Texas Political Subdivision Fund. $212,000 by the Texas
Workers Compensation Insurance Fund. Now, that latter one,
212, that's the insurance company that writes many private
businesses in Texas, so you've certainly -- I wish I could
place my company's insurance with TAC. Again, both these
figures are low. The 166 is low and the 212 is low,
because they're not using the 1.40 modifier for 2000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would have been
higher.
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'., 2 3
29
25
MR. GRAY: It would have been a lot higher.
But, then it comes down a little bit because of the $1
million error.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. Enough said on
that one.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. GRAY: Okay. Now, going back up to the
beginning, the second page is titled Automobile Liability
and Physical Damage. And, gentlemen, I'll be as brief as
you want me to be or as detailed as you want me to be.
I've already spilled the beans and told you that TAC -- I
recommend renewing with TAC, and I'll just give you the
quick going-over, and we'll be happy to go back, or
interrupt me as I go along to discuss any of these terms.
But, TAC is quoting for -- see where it's $21,799,
discounted to $18,799 if you continue the worker's comp?
Well, let me ask you to scratch through the $18,799, because
now that your workers comp premium changed this morning, it
also changes your discount on all these coverages. So,
replace the $18,799 wiLYi $17,673.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It went down? What
was the premium? What did you just -- what number did you
just give us? What was that?
MR. GRAY: $18,799 should be replaced with
$17,673.
_..
60
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
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So --
JUDGE HENNEKE: So -- well, the workers comp
premium went up.
MR. GRAY: So, your 16 --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Bigger discount on the
property liability.
MR. GRAY: You're getting -- exactly, Judge.
You're getting the 16 percent discount.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Got it. Okay.
MR. GRAY: And now it's 16 percent of a
larger figure, unfortunately, so that's the only saving
grace to the workers comp going up.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. Okay.
MR. GRAY: Now, notice TAC, I've listed three
For those occasions when a --
you either rent a vehicle out of state, whenever you're
maybe traveling to another -- to a conference, for example,
or if you have deputies transporting prisoners out of state,
LYie limitation on your liability that's given to you as a
County by the Texas Tort Claims Act does not apply once you
leave Texas. So, you cross into New Mexico or Oklahoma, or
rent a car in California with a prisoner, the $100,000
coverage you have with TAC only provides $100,000 of
coverage. And, if have you an accident in Arizona, you may
61
'"~ 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
on auto insurance as soon as you cross the line to the other
state. And, there's not much to mention on the other
proposals. They're all higher in price and have very minor
differences in coverage.
On the Boiler and Machinery, this is a policy, I think
because of its name, that is often overlooked. You may
have had claims in this and failed to report them. I find
that occurs often. This policy should really be called a
mechanical breakdown policy. If any of your heating or
air-conditioning equipment goes out, you should consider
filing a claim under this policy, because what this covers
is the breakdown of mechanical equipment. It does not
cover, of course, your mobile equipment, your graders and
tractors, and it doesn't cover the automobiles. Again,
they're mobile. But, your -- pretty much your heating and
air-conditioning systems, your fixed mechanical systems, is
what this policy covers. Mechanical breakdowns.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Electrical or just
mechanical?
MR. GRAY: Electrical as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
62
~ 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. GRAY: And many times, for example, a
piece of equipment will malfunction just because it wore
out. A bearing just got old and worn and caused an object
to freeze, no longer spin, turn. That's covered by this
policy. And, we often don't think of it. Well, that's
maintenance. We should have replaced it and prevented the
accident, but this is covered by this policy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- are computers
covered by this, or computer-type equipment?
MR. GRAY: Often they are, but in your case,
they're covered under your property insurance policy for the
mechanical breakdown, is where the computers are covered.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about, like, the
electrical or the mechanical doors and locks and security
system at the jail?
MR. GRAY: That's a good question. That
would be -- the breakdown of that would be covered by the
Boiler and Machinery.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something that's been a
very expensive thing for to us get. It's an Alabama company
Real expensive to geL iL fixed.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's one of the more
63
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. GRAY: Here, again, I'm recommending that
the coverage be placed with TAC. I should mention that the
T.P.E.G. proposal offers some higher sub-limits, but I don't
think you'd ever -- like, TAC offers some sub-limits,
$100,000 described in the left-hand column. T.P.E.G. has a
$250,000 limit, but I think the $100,000 is more than
enough.
So, I'll move you on to the general liability page, two
pages down. Again, we need to correct this premium with
TAC. Replace the $12,425 with $11,299. The only
enhancement that TAC is making is that the liability
coverage will be extended to volunteers. That was their
intent all along, but they're going to make it clear in the
policy now. And, in terms of options, you have your law
enforcement coverage placed with C.N.A. and your general
liability with TAC. And, the prices -- it sure would be
better if the two could be written by the same company,
unless their price just, you know, was totally prohibitive
on that.
But, for example -- and I don'L know -- I doubt it's
very often that your Sheriff's Department is involved out in
the river in a jon-boat or whatever, in a drowning victim,
but, you know, for example, Grayson County up on Lake
Texhoma, I worked with them, and they still have their law
enforcement and -- and general liability with separate
64
"~ 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
insurers. And, where you get into a problem is, let's just
say a deputy goes out in a boat on patrol, or to do a search
and rescue, and there's an accident with that boat. If you
run over a swimmer, let's say, is that a law enforcement
activity or not? Your law enforcement policy you have with
C.N.A. clearly says, "We do not cover accidents arising out
of the use of watercraft." Your general liability policy
with TAC says, "We don't cover law enforcement activities."
There's this gap between them. So, if you have an incident
where the Deputy Sheriff is out doing a search and rescue on
the river and runs over a swimmer, kills them with the
propeller, it's going to be an argument as to which policy
applies. One of them should. You may end up with both of
them saying we don't, but that is a potential problem.
There's also a -- there's also problems with slips and
falls, let's say, in the Sheriff's Office, because the
general liability policy intends to cover slips and falls,
but it excludes the law enforcement activities, and the iaw
enforcement policy excludes the slips and falls, so you can
get into a problem at claim Lime between -- as to whether
it's law enforcement or not.
Anyway, the point here is that TAC is telling us
that -- that the law enforcement use of watercraft can be
added to your general liability policy for an additional
premium. They didn't tell us how much, and so that's kind
65
.-,. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~.~ 2 3
24
25
of a loose end here I think that we should follow up with
them on and find out, because if they will do it for a
reasonable amount of money, then that would fill one gap
that you might have between the law enforcement policy you
have and general liability policy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question on
that, this coverage. We use community service workers a
great deal that are not volunteers, because they're ordered
by judges to do the work. But, they're not compensated;
they're not employed. Are they covered somewhere?
MR. GRAY: You mean if they get sued?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if they get hurt.
Like, say they're out -- or say they do something. Say
they're, you know, picking up trash; they walk out in front
of a car, the car veers off and misses them and has a wreck
or something, you know. Is the County liable for them,
doing County work? I mean, they're not volunteers, but
they're not --
MR. GRAY: I do not -- the County is covered
question.
MR. GRAY: I doubt the individual would be
covered for a claim against them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the County is covered

66

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
for that?
MR. GRAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That has actually
happened, I think. Hasn't it, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think there's some --
some specific statute that applies to -- to community
service workers, and that protects the -- the Probation
Department. And, I'm not -- I do know that, through State
funding, the Probation Department carries some -- some kind
of coverage for that purpose, and I can't tell you exactly
what it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had one run over by
a motor vehicle.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as we're covered.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
I'm not sure -- it has to do with this watercraft. Do we
have exposure -- if, for example, EMS responded to a call
from the Sheriff's Department that involved water, a rescue
in the river or something, something that may have happened
in a water course, and there was an accident. Does that
fall back to us? And, if so, would we be wise to have Lhis
kind of coverage?
MR. GRAY: You mean -- well, your only
involvement was just in passing the call along to --
67
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 WILLIAMS: Well, in this case,
it might be outside the city limits, in the County's
traditional jurisdiction, and EMS responded to a call by the
Sheriff's dispatcher, for example.
MR. GRAY: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And something
happened in the course of the rescue or whatever on the
water.
MR. GRAY: But the rescue is being done by
EMS and the County's involvement is just dispatching?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or fire department.
MR. GRAY: Okay. These policies do not
protect the fire department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or the EMS?
MR. GRAY: Volunteer fire departments or the
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. GRAY: They're intended to protect Kerr
County. With the volunteer department and EMS being
separate entities, they're obviously not covered here.
The -- now, if Kerr County was found to be at fault for
giving -- not relaying the message properly, telling them --
you know, directing EMS to the wrong spot on the river and
that resulted in somebody drowning before the correct
location was put out, the County is covered by that under
68
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 law enforcement liability policy with C.N.A.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. This wouldn't
be applicable, the watercraft deal, would it?
MR. GRAY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, the law
enforcement liability is not a part of this package?
MR. GRAY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's totally
separate.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Separate policy that we
renewed --
MR. GRAY: In October or November.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- in October, because the
carrier wouldn't give us a step. So, we were doing it for
two years.
MR. TOMLINSON: For 19 months.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. That's the one
we did for 14 months, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. GRAY: And, by the way, you can cancel
that policy. You'll get a refund of premium. It won'L be
total pro rata. There will be a penalty for early
cancellation, but that's something else you may want to
consider, is moving ahead to ask TAC how much it would cost,
69
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
and then compare that to the -- the penalized cost with
C.N.A. --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
MR. GRAY: -- now.
MR. TOMLINSON: Typically, they've been --
TAC has been always higher in law enforcement than C.N.A.
That's my -- been my experience.
MR. GRAY: But, Commissioner Letz, your
question caused me to digress and think of something I
failed to bring out a while ago. I meant to -- going back
to worker's comp for a second. You were mentioning the
community service people. That reminded me of your -- in
Kerr County, I assume you're using reserve deputies to some
extent?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, for inmates we do,
yes.
MR. GRAY: Okay. To -- all right. To
handle the work of the inmates. Your worker's comp
coverage does not apply to -- if a reserve deputy is injured
on the job, you have no worker's comp coverage to protect
that reserve. TAC does make that available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When you say "reserve,"
is it reserve -- off-duty reserve officer or off-duty
deputy?
MR. GRAY: Reserve officer. A volunteer --

70
•-" 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 LETZ: We don't have any.
MR. TOMLINSON: We don't have reserve
MR. GRAY: Okay. So, that's not a problem.
I mentioned earlier that I'd not done a review of all your
exposure. 1 dust think of these things as 1 go along, in
case you have them, so that's not a concern.
Going back -- on General Liability, some of the
proposers were unique in that they quoted sexual abuse and
molestation coverage. It's questionable whether or not the
coverage with TAC includes sexual abuse and molestation.
Some of them also quoted some pollution liability coverage
for spraying, like, your herbicide control. But, because
of the high premiums for these coverages as a package, I'm
assuming that those are not of much interest to you. We
can kind of hold that thought and look at the premiums as
they're totaled. In a minute, we'll get to that area. And
also, several -- all of TAC's competition excludes -- they
will attach an enforcement excluding any Y2K problems,
whereas TAC is not doing that to you.
Moving on to the property insurance coverage, again,
let's correct a TAC premium. Scratch out the $17,475;
replace that with $16,349. Now, coverage that TAC is
quoting -- they're not offering any enhancements or any
shortcomings, but they are responding to some of the options
71
,-• 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,,,,, 2 3
24
25
I asked for. The first deals with extra expense coverage,
increasing the limits. The second deals with increasing
the valuable papers coverage. The third deals with
increasing the valuable papers coverage even more. And,
the fourth deals with increasing the insurance for loss of
income.
Let me describe each of these. The term, "extra
often overlooked coverage. Right now you have $50,000, and
as I described this coverage, be thinking in your minds, is
$50,000 worth of coverage enough? Because you have the
option to bring it up to $250,000 -- excuse me, to
$1 million. You have $500,000 now, I should say, not
$50,000. $500,000 now, with the option to increase it to
$1 million for an additional $574.
And, here's how the coverage works. If the courthouse
burns down or jail burns down, you can't just cease
operations. I mean, you have an ongoing duty, and you will
find a way to -- to continue government, continue operating
the jail. You'll continue operating the courthouse, even
though you may be doing it at other locations. If the
courthouse burns, you'll rent some facility in town to carry
on the business. You'll have the expense of renting that
temporary location; probably some remodeling of that
temporary location. You'll have the expense of maybe
72
''"~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,.^ 2 3
24
25
renting furniture for a while, putting in phone lines for a
while, while this structure is being restored or rebuilt
somewhere.
In the case of the jail, you've got the cost of moving
prisoners to other locations, maybe paying other facilities
more than you're earning now. So, these type of expenses,
in other words, above and beyond the cost of repairing the
structure are called extra expenses and would be covered by
this extra expense insurance. The rent, the refurbishing,
the furniture, the cost of moving the prisoners. And you do
have a half million now, but I just wanted to point out to
you, you can increase that to $1 million for 574,000.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: $574.
MR.	GRAY: Thank you,	sir; glad you'	re
em	2, valuable oaoers.	You have a	lot of
records here, on paper and computers. Today, you have
$50,000 of money available to you at TAC that's earmarked
to -- for your restoration effort of trying to replace those
records. Frankly, many of those records cannot be
replaced, no matter how much money you had, but others can
be, you know, with -- much of the information here is also
in Austin, with the Stale. And, so, the -- the costs
involved in restoring -- maybe going to title companies and
doing searches of their records to try to restore your
records, for abstracts and things, those costs are covered
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~'	12
	13
	14
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
„^ 2 3
24
25
by this insurance. The question is, is the -- is $250,000
sufficient? I mean, is $50,000 sufficient, or would you
like to increase to it a quarter of a million for an
additional $229,000?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $229.
MR. GRAY: Right. Yes, sir, I keep wanting
to increase those premiums.
(Laughter.)
MR. GRAY: And, Option 3 is identical to the
second option, other than just increases the limit to
$500,000 for a higher premium. Option 4, in a conversation
I had with Tommy, I learned that you were housing prisoners,
and, you know, charging a fee to house prisoners of other --
that really belong to other entities. You can -- Tommy,
what's the -- it was over a million dollars you were saying,
wasn't it?
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. GRAY: We lust picked a
limit. For example, TAC would be willing to cover your
loss of income. If the jail -- the detention facility was
destroyed and you're transferring those prisoners elsewhere,
but you're no longer getting the income, then TAC would step
in and pay up to $1.5 million. And right now, your limit,
I want to say, is $100,000.

79
'"~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,.,, 2 3
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A hundred thousand?
MR. GRAY: Yes, sir. Annual premium is
$1,607. Now, moving over to public officials, three pages
farther.
competition in premiums.
MR. GRAY: Yes, sir.
Coregis.
MR. GRAY: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And explain where they fall
short or what the differences are, just so we make sure that
we have a full opportunity to listen.
MR. GRAY: The primary difference -- the
thing to keep in mind is, we do not have the freedom of just
picking this Coregis proposal by itself here for property.
It's part of a package. And, so, not -- yes, there's no
question that $13,000 is a much better premium than the
$16,000 that TAC's quoting. But, when you -- turning
several pages down, you'll see that for Coregis' packaye,
they want $116,000, compared to TAC at $55,000.
JUDGE fIENNEKE: So, these were all bid as a
package?
7s
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. GRAY: On the property, let me make
sure -- yes, that's true. Now, that was not a requirement
of the R.F.P.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I see.
MR. GRAY: The R.F.P. gave the proposers the
opportunity to bid individual lines, so that you could pick
and choose -- so the County could pick and choose how you
wanted to place the coverages for your best benefit.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But they all chose to only
present packages and not to present the County with the
option of picking and choosing?
MR. GRAY: Correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That answers that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That answers that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. GRAY: Which I might add is a bit
unusual.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm surprised that they
wouldn't bid their strong -- you know, their strong line.
MR. GRAY: And the reason we have that, in
this case, we're not getting quotes here on property from
your normal commercial property insurers. We're getting
quotes from the Texas Public Entity Group, which was put

76
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
together -- it's very similar to TAC. It was put together
to compete with TAC in offering coverages to counties, and
it's just -- one of their requirements is they want to write
everything. And the same on the T.P.E.P., which is Texas
Public Entity Pool. And, same for PENCO, same thing for
Insurance Company of the West, and same for Coregis. They
just -- normally, it's -- we look at picking and choosing.
In this case, it's not available to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what's the
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, this page.
MR. GRAY: We're almost there. It will be
right behind the public officials. If I might, let me just
deal with public officials; then we'll move on to that
bottom line that Commissioner Letz asked about. The public
officials coverage now -- this policy, again, is a bit of a
misnomer. Sometimes people think of it being -- as
protecting only the elected officials or appointed
officials, but what this policy actually covers is all
employees of the County, all volunteers of the County, for
liability claims against the County or against the
individuals arising out of an error. And, then it goes on
to say, however, the insured error must not involve bodily
injury or property damage. And, so, really, what we're
talking about here is some type of action taken by a
~~
.-. 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
governing board or, say, of the department head's decision
to terminate someone's employment or to not hire a certain
individual. In fact, employment practice claims are the
most common type of claims under this covered policy.
Again, the coverage you have now is summarized in the
left column. TAC is renewing as-is, with the exception of
just two or three enhancements. One, defense costs. Right
now you have $2 million of limits per occurrence and $2
million annual aggregate, but as it stands now, any dollars
that are spent to hire attorneys reduces the $2 million of
coverage available to you. Beginning January 1, the $2
million of coverage you have will be reserved just for
damages against you, or settlements, and the attorneys'
bills would be paid outside of the $2 million, and on an
unlimited basis. So, you're, in essence, coming away with
more coverage.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does the $10,981 change?
MR. GRAY: Yes, sir, thank you. That
$10,981 should be replaced by $9,855. The third
enYiancement under TAC that's certainly worth mentioning; as
I mentioned earlier, the primary focus of this policy is
employment practice liability, and one of the charges in
many employment practice claims is mental anguish. TAC's
policy before January 1st has clearly excluded mental
anguish, which seems to conflict with their intent to cover
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~,.~ 2 3
24
25
employment practice claims. And, I think TAC has been, for
years now, overlooking their mental anguish exclusion and
continuing to pay employment practice claims as they should,
but they're now making the change in the policy to eliminate
the mental anguish exclusion from employment practice
mental anguish is covered.
There's also a shortcoming in the new policy, which is
really not a shortcoming. I'll explain. Property damages
will be excluded. Well, property damage is covered in the
general liability policy, and should have been excluded in
the public officials all along.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
MR.	GRAY:	On the next page, we can	also add
th	TAC.	Three options. The first	deals
with back wages. It's very common for insurance companies
that provide public officials coverage to exclude a claim
for back wages. In other words, "I was discharged and I'm
arguing -- you terminated my employment. I'm bringing suit
asking for damages, and part of Lhe damages I may be asking
for may be categorized as back wages that I felt I had
earned when I was employed by you, but did not receive for
various reasons."
For an additional premium of $3,500, TAC will cover
those back wages up to $25,000 per year. Now, that's

79
'~ 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
limited to all claims for back wages for -- per year, not
per claim. Not per person, but for all back wages claims.
TAC is one of the few writers of public officials coverage
that is offering this. You know, I've seen just a handful
in the last year or two that have started offering this
coverage. Historically, it's always been excluded. Items
2 and 3 deal with the Clerk's E & 0 coverage, County Clerk
and District Clerk. And, TAC is willing to provide the
same limits of coverage.
Now, let me back up here. Kerr County currently
spends about $2,200 a year on Clerk's E & O coverage, one
policy for the County Clerk's Office, one for the District
Clerk's Office. Those policies -- that coverage applies to
claims for errors and omissions against the County Clerk and
District Clerks. And, it's traditional for County Clerks
and DisLricL Clerks to have these policies. In fact, it's
required by law. But, about -- it's been that way for many
years, but about 15 years ago, other officials in the
courthouse began waking up and realizing that they had an
error and omission exposure; it was not just limited to
Clerks. The County Judges, the Commissioners, Sheriffs --
in other words, everybody at the County, even the employees,
have an error omission exposure.
And, so, as a result, the insurance market began
selling, about 15 years ago, public officials E & 0 policies
80
,.~ 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
that covered everybody I mentioned, just like you have now
with TAC, that covers elected, appointed, employed, and
volunteers. But, yet, Counties continue buying -- because
there's a law that says Clerks are required to have E & 0
insurance, the result is Counties started buying E & O
insurance for everybody. And, the Clerks, County and
District, continued buying their separate policies. So,
there's a duplication. It's not a complete duplication,
because the coverage in -- that the County has with TAC, for
example, and public officials does have an exclusion in
there that says, in essence, the TAC policy will protect the
County Clerk if I sue her -- in other words, a member of the
public -- but it will not protect the County Clerk if she's
sued by the County or by an employee of the County or an
official of the County.
So, as a result, the coverage that TAC provides now in
the County Clerk's and District Clerk's policy is not as
good as what they purchase on the individual policies,
because of this exclusion in the TAC policy. Well, for an
additional premium of $1,203 and $636, TAC will eliminate
those exclusions so that the coverage they provide would be
identical to the coverage TAC provides the Clerks -- be
identical to what these separate policies provide.
Identical with one difference -- and this is where we get
down to the decision process on this -- is the Clerk's
81
,.~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~' 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,r., 2 3
24
25
policies that are in effect now, the stand-alone policies,
have very low deductibles. The County Clerk, I believe, is
at $500. The District Clerk is at $1,000. With TAC, you
pay them these premiums, they provide the coverage, but the
deductible is $10,000.
And, so, it kind of -- to me, it gets down to who's
going to pay the deductible if there's a claim. If the
County's paying the deductible -- for example, if the Judge
is sued, Commissioners are sued, I would hope the County
would be paying the $10,000 deductible, and I would hope
they'd do the same thing for the County Clerk. But, if the
County were not to pay the deductible, it would certainly be
in the Clerk's interests to have the separate policies, to
have the $3,500 deductible and $1,000. So, that's just an
issue that's probably more than -- probably one that needs
more discussion internally before being made today, is my
guess. Some food for thought, or something that can be
discussed, and possibly save some money. Because TAC's --
we're looking here at, what, $800 compared to $2,200. But,
the big difference is that deductible.
Now, to Commissioner Letz' question, what's the bottom
line, we are paying $90,745 with TAC for the coverages that
will expire January 1. Let's see -- I'm sorry. When you
include the workers comp, which is on the next page, the
total is -- and this figure is not shown anywhere, so if
82
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
you'll write this down, you're now paying $160,847. That's
the $90,745 subtotal, plus the worker's comp on the next
page, is $160,847. Now, going back to that last page,
public officials, where we had the premium, the subtotal, we
need to adjust for the fact that we've scratched out TAC
numbers. That $59,680, if I'm reading that right, should be
replaced with $55,176. So, the $55,176, plus the $103,000
premium on the next page for the worker's comp, totals
$158,329.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $158,329?
MR. GRAY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: $103,154 goes to $86,649?
MR. GRAY: Because of those discounts, right.
Which, those discounts is what we've been taking into
account already.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The discounts are already
reflected in the 55 --
MR. GRAY: We don't double-discount. The
total will be $158,329, subtracted from the $160,000
benchmark, is the roughly $2,500 savings that I mentioned to
you earlier.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Looks like, to me, the
only thing we have to -- the real decisions we have to make
are on any of the options.
MR. GRAY: Right.
83
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
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That we've been
discussing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By saying that,
you're saying that it's obvious that we go with TAC.
MR. GRAY: That would be my recommendation,
is that you stay with --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's pretty obvious
to me.
MR. GRAY: -- stay with TAC. And, let me
just tell you, I told the -- the Auditor that this meeting
with you might take two or three hours. It often does,
because more often than not, the premiums are very much in
line, and we spend our time talking about very minute
differences in coverage, as to which policy is the best for
the County. In this case, we -- you don't have to listen
to me here for that long, because it's very clear to me
that, because of the pricing, primarily, that the coverage
should stay with TAC. And, yes, there are some
enhancements offered by the competition. I've mentioned two
that I felt were the most important; that was the herbicide
pollution coverage and the sexual abuse. But, for the
premiums here, I would assume that those are not major
concerns.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Don, I want to	thank
you for a good	review. I'm	going to	take leave, let	my
84
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
colleagues decide on what the enhancements will be. I
would think that we're going to go with TAC. Merry
Christmas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Merry Christmas.
Where are you going to, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to
Beaumont, Texas. I'll be back Christmas Eve.
(Commissioner Williams left the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would think that
there -- there are -- under Property -- let's see. It's
Property, first page. There are two of those
enhancements -- options that I think we might want to
consider, and one is the increase in the extra expense
limit, and the increase in the federal papers limit, at the
first level at least. Those two, I'm -- the loss of income
I'm not sure we need to insure against. That's a little
more expensive option, anyway. That's not money that we're
budgeting to use, are we? So, I'm not sure that we need
that coverage. But, those first two, I think we might want
to Lake a look at, because if we did have a -- if we did
have a real disaster in the courthouse, those are -- are
real expenses that would come up in a hurry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Especially the valuable
papers one. That doesn't even take a -- I mean, computer
information; if you get a -- a bad leak somewhere or a roof

85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
^ 12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
r.
23
24
25
torn off, I mean, that could really come up.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's far more likely than
a total destruction, basically.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the valuable
papers definitely, I agree.
MR. GRAY: And so much of this restoration
work would be done by firms that you hire at that time,
because your County employees are already working full-load,
and they would hopefully continue that load. But, you'd be
bringing in outsiders to -- to spend a lot of time in Austin
getting records for you, and -- at title companies, and they
are expensive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, that valuable
papers, I would think $500,000, because that kind of stuff,
I would presume, with the current technology and what that
type of people would charge, could easily run up that high.
That's not a real farfetched thing to have happen.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's not an
inordinate risk.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the exposure
likelihood is far less with Number 1. However, if it
So, Commissioner Letz,
86
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
you're saying that Number 3 would be better than Number 2?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me. But, I mean, you
know, that's just -- it seems the valuable paper stuff,
trying to come up with documents, and especially since
computer information is covered, that, as I understand -- I
can see things happen to computers and lose a lot. It's
pretty expensive to rebuild that, so, yes, I think Option 3,
probably.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think -- yeah, I
would certainly favor Options 1 and 3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 and 3.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about law
enforcement using watercraft? That's a joke, guys. I
wasn't interested in it. Kerrville Fire Department handles
all those kind of things.
MR. GRAY: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Highly trained.
DODGE HENNEKE: I think we need the fuel tank
coverage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Where was
that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the very last page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I forgot about
that one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe we need that. I
87
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
don't know about the back wages or the Clerks. Does
anybody have any --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we need
those. But fuel tank --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, you're saying --
yeah. Yeah, because that fuel tank storage is -- fuel
storage tank is not with TAC, because TAC doesn't carry it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: TAC affiliate.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: TAC affiliate. But,
we do have -- sort of have to approve that separately.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, what I'm hearing is that
we go with the TAC proposal, and under property, we add
Options 1 and 3; and, in addition, we go with Zurich
American Insurance Company for fuel storage tank liability.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion to that
effect.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we're in open
session. I forgot if we were in open or closed.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we accept Lhe
insurance proposal from TAC for the coverages, and under
property coverages, that we adopt Option No. 1, which is
$574, to increase extra expense limits to $1 million, and
88
~' 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
"" 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,.~. 2 3
24
25
Option No. 3, which is $516, to increase the valuable papers
limits to $500,000. Additionally, that we take the fuel
storage tank liability insurance from Zurich American
Insurance Company in the amount of $524, which results in a
net savings over last year of about $1,300. 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: Don, how -- I mean, it seems
to me like this was a very valuable exercise that we've gone
through with your able assistance. Would you comment on the
need to do this every year, every other year? What's your
belief?
MR. GRAY: You know, some consultants that
would be talking to you would say, "Well, you should do this
every three years," or whatever. Frankly, the approach I
prefer is -- since your coverage is written by TAC, there is
no legal requirement that you bid it, so that's not an
issue. The only issue is Lhe coverage and the pricing, as
compared to the marketplace, and so my advice to you is that
about three -- two to three months prior to the anniversary
every year, is you send a letter to TAC. I could help you
with it, or you could do it yourself, asking them for an
indication of what the renewal might be. This gives you
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
"' 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~., 2 3
24
25
time to respond after -- you know, if they come back and
tell you that worker's comp is going up by $30,000 or
property insurance is going through the roof or -- or we're
cutting back our limits on the public officials coverage,
you'd have time, then, to respond and go out to bid. So,
I'd say go out to bid only when there's a reason to do so,
some problem you're trying to solve.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you think --
MR. GRAY: And, also, because -- you know,
for example, and in this day and time, because I do so much
bidding around, I know that you should expect a renewal
pricing with no increase in rates in this soft market. If
they came back and said they were going up 10 percent, in a
hard market I might say, "Well, that's still the best you
can do, based on my experience, what I see other companies
get, and don't go out to bid." But, if they came back and
said 10 percent in a soft market, I'd say, "Well, that's
unreasonable with market. conditions, and you should go out
to bid." So --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you think that this
exercise has helped TAC sharpen its pencil?
MR. GRAY: I think that -- yeah, it's -- who
knows? It's my opinion that if you had not gone through
this, you would not be seeing the prices you see here today.
I do know that -- for example, on workers comp, they told me
90
~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,., 2 3
24
25
that you should have gotten a 20, 25 percent increase, or
something like -- much higher than what you got.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you think that we should
review our coverages? I mean, because, as you've told us,
you went through and basically bid what our current policies
are. At what point is it useful, if ever, for us to sit
down with someone and say, "Are our coverages appropriate
for our operation?"
MR. GRAY: That's a tougher one to answer on
the spot, because you have gotten the benefit of quite a bit
of that type work through this process. You didn't get the
benefit of it all. And, I'm sitting here just trying to --
you know, is the part that we didn't get to, is it even
worth dealing with? I really don't know.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I would just --
MR. GRAY: One thing I would like to -- while
the subject is on the table, we charge very little to
provide what we call just a minimum level of service to you
in managing your property and liability insurance program.
This means, for example, sending Lhis letter out, making
sure that there are no surprises in the renewal, advising
you as to whether or not you should go out to bid. Bidding,
if necessary. Reviewing the policies when they come in to
make sure they agree with what was proposed, helping you
with claim problems, things like that. So, I'd be happy to
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
give you a proposal later for those services.
But, one more free bit of advice, if I might, that --
and -- and I know Commissioner Baldwin knows I'm an ex-TAC
employee. I used to be the Director of Insurance there some
11, 12 years ago. This policy -- this property insurance
policy you have was developed after I left, and so I didn't
have a chance to give my two cent's worth to it, other than
as a consultant. And, TAC and I have -- well, I have much
respect for their people there. We have a definite
difference of opinion on something in their policy that
should be of concern to you, and I just want you to be aware
of it, that this policy reads -- the property policy -- you
have a blanket limit of any one loss of $17 million. Well,
that term, "blanket," is in there. Blanket limit.
What does that mean? Well, in a commercial insurance
policy written by, you know, a true insurance company, it
means that you have $17 million of coverage that applies to
any one loss, just like it says here. So, even though you
may have -- let's say the courthouse burns down. You may
have it scheduled in the policy for $100,000 of coverage.
You have $17 million overall, so for any one loss in the
county, you've got $17 million, irregardless of whether you
may have undervalued a particular location, and so you can
see the benefit of having blanket coverage is that it
25 ~ eliminates the need to be exactly on the mark as to what it
92
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
costs to replace a building, particularly some of the more
ornate courthouses. I mean, it's just so difficult to
estimate what would it cost to rebuild.
But, TAC ignores this word "blanket." They will not
pay more than the amount that's scheduled on this building.
So, it's very important, so that you're not underinsured,
that every location be properly 100 percent of its
replacement cost. And, Tommy and I talked about it, and
he's confident that they're at that level, but I just want
to make you aware that if you wanted to -- some extra
protection in that line with TAC, they will come out and do
a survey -- excuse me, appraisal. And, I think it's free,
if I remember right, for the first 10 or 15 highest
valuations. Well, that would take care of your properties
here, and --
DODGE HENNEKE: That's good advice.
MR. GRAY: That way, you'd have more than
just Tommy's comfort with it; you'd know that an appraiser
actually is comfortable with it.
DODGE HENNEKE: Okay.
Larry, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I
how much I appreciate the fine piece of
us, because this reduces a very complex
understandable terms and something that
'hank you very much.
just wanted to say
work you've done for
subject into
we can zero-in on in
93
^' 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~" 12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,,,.. 2 3
29
25
a hurry, and I think it's -- certainly, I've learned a lot
from it about our whole structure, the way this thing goes,
and I just want to thank you for it. So, good job.
MR. GRAY: Thank you. It was a pleasure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Longnecker, I believe,
MR. LONGNECKER: Yes. Okay, we managed to --
to get a quick analysis done of the furniture. I've
written it out in longhand. Bear with me on my
handwriting.	It	may not be --	here's -- I see Bill is not
here. Did you	wan	t a copy'?	
	MS.	BARBEE: Yes,	sir, please. Thank you.
	MR.	LONGNECKER:	Okay, I'll go ahead and --
and read it.	In	fairness to th	ose bidders who did turn in
bids on time and as per bidding instructions, we recommend
the Court award the low bids in part to bidders with the
lowest-priced items. Consolidated Office Systems is the
only bidder who properly filled out the bid form and bid all
the £urniLure items. Their bid of $60,293 is over the
budget amount of $50,000. We recommend that items with a
lower price from Kimball and Texas Correctional Institution
be considered, such as the two jury tables, which are
94
^' 1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,.,, 2 3
24
25
approximately $900 less than Consolidated's price. Kimball
also has some lower-priced items, which will be less than
T.C.I.'s or Consolidated. If we use a combination of
prices from all the bidders, all three bidders, the price
will be $53,314. To meet the $50,000 budget, we can delete
some of the items. No bids were turned in for marker
boards and bulletin boards. The bid went out -- the forms
and everything -- for that, but we didn't have anyone who
was interested.
Now, if you will go through the rest of this, you'll
see the price breakdowns. We have circled -- we're using
Consolidated because it is complete. It is a complete bid.
And, then we add in Kimball and T.C.I., showing where their
prices were less, and we circled those items that were less.
You'll see some of that in -- under Chairs, for instance,
and under Tables, T.C.I. had some lower-priced tables and
desks. T.C.I. also had lower-priced desks. So, I'm
recommending that we do this, and you have the choice now,
if you want to use the $53,000 to -- keep in mind that
$50,000 was allocated over a year ago, as far as the price,
and of course furniture prices have gone up. And, my -- in
my own estimating, I estimated about $56,000 for this.
Then, also, there is one other thing. We could not
get a hold of Kimball. They state right up front in their
bid package that they are offering a -- a 50 percent --
95
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
57.69 percent discount, and I don't know if that was
included with their prices or not. We couldn't get a hold
of them. It's on this very first page. We tried to call
and there was just no -- no answer at this time. So, at
this point, this is as much as -- as we can do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Comments? Suggestions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would suspect that
discount is included.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. But,
certainly --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if it's not --
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's worth confirming, sure.
Seems to me like one option is to --
MR. LONGNECKER: I might mention also that
the delivery dates on all of the bids were within, you know,
the 6 to 8 weeks, and so we would have delivery in March of
the furniture if we so desired to have it that soon.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we want to take the
additional $3,314 out of the approximately $36,000 we have
left over? Or do you want to go back and try to negotiate
with Linda Uecker to cut out a table here and a desk there?
MR. LONGNECKER: I might mention, we have --
throughout the plan of furniture -- we have, for instance,
15 chairs in each jury room. You'd save approximately x400
just by taking out -- $400 in each room by taking out one
96
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
chair, approximately $800 just to go from 15 down to 14
chairs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's 15 chairs in
each jury room?
MR. LONGNECKER: In this bid.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The jury room is the
place where the jury goes to deliberate?
MR. LONGNECKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And there's 15 chairs
and there's 12 people on a jury?
MR. LONGNECKER: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But you -- you can include
the alternates.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sometimes --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a folding
chair to drag in for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, that would make
sense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would --
MR. LONGNECKER: These are going to be some
of my -- I'm going to make some suggestions, but I can't
just yo through and -- today and get that all done, buL
there is another place -- we have a table and a set of
chairs at the lounge area which is going to be immediately
outside of the new toilet room facilities on the second
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
^ 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,,,,, 2 3
24
25
floor. That's just the vending machine area and a place to
sit down, but, in my opinion, we could do without those --
that table and chairs. That's a combination of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree 100 percent.
MR. LONGNECKER: See, we can take out some of
these things. That's why I mentioned this. In this item, I
can go back and delete several items. There's a lot of
small lamp tables and things throughout the different
offices, too, that we might cut down on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We11, we can do, I think, one
of several things. We could recess until tomorrow, or I
think what we could do is accept the bids up to the max
number of $50,000, and allow Mr. Longnecker to come back
with a revised schedule which would take the number down.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That boy is smart.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does that work for you?
MR. LONGNECKER: That sounds reasonable.
And, I would go ahead and notify the bidders of what
heir -- if you want to use the $53,000 and noLily Lhe
bidders of what items they will be furnishing in their bid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How critical is this
98
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
delivery timeframe? Like, if we ordered today, they'll be
here by March?
MR. LONGNECKER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what you're
saying?
MR. LONGNECKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, is that
important? Do we think that we're going to be ready for it
in March?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Upstairs, I think we probably
will.
MR. LONGNECKER: We could very easily be
ready for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could very easily.
MR. LONGNECKER: You know -- of course, you
know how the job has been going out there. It's been slow.
And, certainly, there's no guarantees that they're even
goiny to be ready by March. But, at this point, I do have
a critical construction meeting tomorrow to try and find out
if we can get this new schedule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's say that we
ordered the furniture and it came in before we're ready for
it. What would we do with it?
MR. LONGNECKER: Well, I have -- in the
bidders' instructions, I put in that there will be a room
99
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
ready.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. LONGNECKER: Down here in the lower level
at the west sallyport, where we will unload and place the
furniture in that room until such time as it's ready to be
distributed to the second floor.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, $50,000 -- our
motion is $50,000 limit. Keith can work that to get to the
numbers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion's been made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we
accept the bids up to the budgeted amount of $50,000, and
give Mr. Longnecker the ability to revise the schedule to
bring the price -- overall price from the $53,314, to
$50,000.
MR. LONGNECKER: Okay. I will need to keep
these catalogs and things that the bidders submitted in
order to work this up, or I can --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just understand that they go
to Maggie when you're done.
MR. LONGNECKER: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All the originals. So --
MR. LONGNECKER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because that's our backup.
100
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
MR. LONGNECKER: This is all in one book, and
basically this is all -- and I need that in order to make
sure that I've got the prices analyzed out properly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we recess, or are
we coming back tomorrow?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, this is the vote today,
that we're going to accept the bids up to the $50,000
budgeted amount, and we're giving Keith the ability to go
back and revisit the plan and, you know, perhaps eliminate a
jury chair and a table and some chairs, so that the total
order is $50,000 or less.
MR. LONGNECKER: Kight.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 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.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr.
Longnecker.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Without any other business to
come before us, we stand in recess.
(Commissioners Court recessed at 12:20 p.m.)
101
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
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
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 28th day of December,
1999.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Cler
BY: ~Ctii~ ~~Cr/nL.C'
Kathy Ba~'ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER N0. cE158
CLAIMS AND RCCOUNTS
On this the ccnd day of December- 1999, came to be considered
by the Court the various claims and accounts against N.err•
Co~_inty and the var•io~as Commissioners' precincts, which said
Claims and Accounts ar•e 1@-General F~_ind for• $77,343.81;
13-Road R Bridge Rdd'i Registration Fee Fund for• $4,451.@@;
14-Fire Rr•otection F~.~nd for• $3,353.@@; 15-Road R• Bridge Fund
for• $c8,387.15; ~3-Juvenile State Aid Fund for $11,135.@@;
27-Juvenile probation Fund for $8,3@1.6@; 31-F'ar•ks Fund for•
$5@4.~@; v@-Indigent Health Care Fund for• $4E8.48;
7@-permanent Improvement Fund for• $133,Ec3.@@; 81-District
Rdministr•ation Fund for $155.@@; ~lEth-District Attorney Fund
.-, fvr• $1,@16.33; 8E-State Funded-~1Eth District Probation Fund
for• $431. 18 and 87-State Funded-Community Cor•r•ections F~_tnd for
$E87.91.
(TOTAL RLL FUNDS-$69,857. EE)
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by
Commissioner- Williams, the Cour-t unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-@-@, payment of said Claims and Recounts as
recommended by the County Auditor.
ORDER N0. 26159
RLIDGET AMENDMENT
SHERIFF'S DERRRTMENT
On this the ccnd day of December- 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner- Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transfer•r•ing Sc33.5~D
from Line Item No. iG-560-570 Capital Outlay to Line Item No.
1G-560-565 Computer- Supplies.
i^-~
ORDER NO. 6160
LRTE RILL
F'RENIIER RUTOPODY SPECIALISTS
(INVOICE #991216)
On this the 22nd day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner- Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, paying late
bill of $2,120..°i. to Premier Autobody Specialists for repairs
on "91" Ford.
ORDER NO. 261E,1
LATE BILL
NATIONRL COMMUNICRTIONS INSTITUTE, INC.
(INVOICE #99120)
On this the 22nd day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Letx, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, paying late bill of
8885.00 to National Communications Institute, Inc. for•
registration for- NCI National Law Enforcement Manager- Course
1/24 - 2E/00.
ORDER N0. ~61Ec
AF~F~ROVE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY REF~ORTS
On this the 2nd day of December 1999, came to be considered
6y the Court the var•io~.is monthly r^epor•ts of N.er•r• County and
precinct Officials for- N.er^r^ County. Upon motion made by
Commissioner- Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, accepting the
following r^epor•ts and directed that they be filed with the
County Clerk for future audit:
County Treasurer- - Bar^bar^a Nemec
Duarterly Financial/Investment Repor^t
for- months of July, Aug~.ist and September 1999
District Clerk - Linda Uecker•
Clerk Fees, Clerk State Fees and
Interest for• November 1999
ORDER N0. 2E16~
RGPROVE PRELIMINARY F'LRT
DEER pARK ESTATES
On this the 2cnd day of December^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the F'r^eliminar•y
Flat of Deer• F'ark Estates.
ORDER N0. ^c6164
ADVERTISING FOR BIDS
TRACTOR FOR EXHIBITION CENTER
(RF'pROVED 99-00 BUDGET)
On this the ~cnd day of December^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Co~_rr•t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, adver^tising for^ bids
on a tractor^ for• the Exhibition Center^ per approved 99-4~0
budget.
ORDER N0. 2E1E5
RF'PLY FOR GRRNT TO
F'URCHRSE 45 HORSE 5TRLL5/HCYEC
On this the ~cnd day of December- 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Williams, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the
Cour^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to file for^
grant to purchase 45 horse stalls and refurbish same for- use
at the Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center^.
ORDER N0. c61EE
RPPLY FOR MATCHING GRRNT
TO RETAIN SERVICES OF F'ROFESSIONRL PLANNER
(RSSIST/DEVELORMENT OF LONG-RRNGE PLAN)
IMPROVEMENT OF HCYEC
On this the 2nd day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, applying for- a
matching grant to r^etain services of a professional planner to
assist in development of a long-range plan for improving
HCYEC. (55,000 budgeted as County's contr^ibution to match
Bands for• improvement of HCYEC).
r--•
ORDER N0. ~61E,7
RPRROVE TROTT COMMUNICATIONS GROUF'
AS CONSULTANTS ON PROJECT TO UPGRADE
RRDIO COMMUNICATIONS/SHERIFF°S DEF'RRTMENT
On this the ~~nd day of December- 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Gr^iffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, Tr^ott
Communications Gr^o up as consultants on project to ~.~pgrade
radio communications capability at Sher^iff's Depar^tment.
(S1't',00N to be taken out of 99-G0 budget)
ORDER N0. EElEB
RGPROVE/SET SCHEDULE
COMMISSIONERS' COURT MEETINGS
YEAR 2Q~00
On this the ~~nd day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Let=, seconded by Commissioner^ Griffin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, setting sched~_ile for
meetings for^ the year ~a00.
...M ..-
ORDER N0. 26169
RPPROVE FORM OF CONTRRCT
FOR COUNTY SPONSORED ORGRNIZRTIONS
On this the 22nd day of December- 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner' Gr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Cour^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, form of
Contract for County sponsored organizations and a~_ithorize the
County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. EE170
OGEN BID5/RCCEGT RLL BIDS FOR FURNITURE
FOR THE COURTHOUSE RENOVRTIONS
On this the 2nd day of December^ 1999, upon
Commissioner^ Let z, seconded by Commissioner^
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to
for furniture for• the Courthouse renovation
to Mr. Mike Walker, Rr•chitect and Mr^. Keith
Re pr^esentative.
motion made by
Griffin, the Court
accept all bids
s and referred bids
Longnecker•, County
--1 ORDER N0. 26171
RCCEP'T INSURRNCE PROPOSRL FROM TRC
FOR COVERRGES
On this the 22nd day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Cour^t
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-@-@, to accept the
insur^ance proposal from TRC for the coverages, and under
property coverages, that we adopt option No. 1, which is 5574,
to increase extra expense limits to S1 million, and Option No.
,'~, which is 5516, to incr-ease the valuable paper^s limits to
55@@,@@@. Additionally, that we take the fuel storage tank
liability insurance fr^om Zurich Rmerican Insur^ance Company in
the amount of 55c4, which r•es~_ilts in a net savings over last
~ year of about 51,3@@.
ORDER NO. 2617
RWRRD FURNITURE BIDS TO ALL THREE BIDDERS
On this the 22nd day of December 1599, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-0, accepting the bids up
to the budgeted amount of 80,000.00 and give Mr^. Longnecker
the ability to r^evise the schedule to br-ing the overall price
from the 853,314.00 to Ssa,amo.