1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Friday, December 22, 2000 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X December 22, 2000 PAGE 2 --- Commissioners' Comments 3 3 1.1 Pay Bills 7 4 1.2 Budget Amendments 8 1.3 Late Bills 13 5 1.4 Read and Accept Monthly Reports 15 6 2.1 Renewal proposal for health insurance plans 15 7 2.2 Presentation by Cameron Cornett of H.U.W.C.D. regarding proposed Production Limitation Rules 47 8 2.3 Replat, Tract 16, Silver Hills Subdivision 61 9 2.4 Minor replat, Tracts 64 & 66, Ingram Hills, 10 & variance for lot size 77 11 2.5 Preliminary minor revision of plat, Tracts 16 and 17, J.L. Nichols Subdivision 83 12 2.14 Resolution supporting Texas Community Mental 13 Health & Mental Retardation Centers 87 14 2.7 New contracts for cell phone service, authorize County Judge to sign 91 15 2.8 Going out for bids for repair, parts, labor, & 16 service and related items for county vehicles 98 17 2.9 Going out for bids for body shop repairs 100 18 2.10 Facilities Use & Maintenance bid documents for electrical, HVAC, and plumbing 101 19 2.12 Request for emergency road maintenance, Val 20 Verde South and Tierra Grande 103 21 2.13 Approval of contract with Grantworks, Inc., to provide TCDP Colonia Comprehensive Planning 118 22 2.15 Approve Mountain Home VFD contract with County 119 23 2.16 Set amount of Sheriff's bond at $5,000 120 24 2.17 Set amount of Constable's bonds at $1,500 each 121 25 --- Reporter's certificate 122 3 1 On Friday, December 22, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., a Special 2 Session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's 8 9 o'clock on Friday, December 22nd. We'll call to order 9 this special Commissioners Court session, which is the last 10 session for this calendar year 2000. Commissioner Griffin, 11 I believe you have the honors this morning. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. If you'll please 13 rise and join me in a moment of silence, each in our own 14 hearts, in our own minds, to seek the wisdom and give 15 blessings or give things for the blessing of this great 16 holiday season. 17 (Moment of silence and pledge of allegiance.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, any 19 citizen wishing to address the Court on an item not listed 20 on the agenda may come forward and do so. Is there anyone 21 who wishes to address the Court on an item not listed on the 22 agenda? Seeing none, we'll move into the Commissioners' 23 comments. Let's start with Commissioner Griffin. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, just to say what 25 a great time of the year it is. I think we've, all-in- 4 1 all -- if we can get the courthouse annex finished, we will 2 have had a great next year, or the year after, or whenever 3 that is. But, things have gone pretty well for the County, 4 and I -- I just feel proud to have been a part of it. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I have 7 three comments. One, I want to echo my good friend on the 8 other end of the table, that I think the County has done a 9 good job. You gentlemen have done a good job for the year, 10 and I appreciate it, enjoy working with you. Also, I want 11 to remind everyone, tomorrow at 1:30 on the front lawn is 12 the unveiling of the -- of the dedication of the James Kerr 13 marker. Although he's not a -- the actual founder of our 14 county, his buddy named this county after him, and we're 15 finally getting the marker set up and we'll unveil that at 16 1:30 tomorrow afternoon. And, some -- some of Mr. Kerr's 17 family, a great-great granddaughter, I think, will be here 18 with some other folks, so -- I don't have anything else to 19 do, so I'm going to be here, and I would assume there's many 20 of you like that that just don't have anything to do a 21 couple days before Christmas, so come on by. Also, our 22 friend Maggie's leaving. I guess this is our last court 23 meeting with her, and she's been absolutely fantastic. We 24 all -- I think everybody in the courthouse feels like that 25 they are the most important cog in the wheel, but personally 5 1 I think this position right here, to keep our -- keep us out 2 of jail and keep the county flowing and moving along, and 3 Maggie's done a fantastic job of that. And, Maggie, I 4 want -- from this seat, I want to say thank you very much. 5 You've been extremely helpful to me, and I wish you the very 6 best in your future. 7 MS. BARBEE: Thank you. 8 (Applause.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just to say thank you 11 to my colleagues for all of your hard work and for the 12 opportunity to serve Kerr County and work with you folks. 13 It's been a pleasure, and to everyone in Kerr County, a 14 Merry Christmas, a safe holiday, and we'll see you later. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Echo the same comments. 17 Just thank everyone, all the employees and everyone that's 18 helped make my life as Commissioner better and easier. 19 Appreciate it. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. There's a famous 21 quote that says there's no telling what good a group of 22 individuals can accomplish if they're not concerned with who 23 gets the credit. I think that very accurately describes how 24 this Commissioners Court and how the employees of Kerr 25 County work. We have a mission to accomplish. We sometimes 6 1 don't always agree with the -- with the ultimate end, but I 2 think we all agree that we come to the table with the 3 benefit of all in mind and with the goal of progressing for 4 everyone's benefit and services to Kerr County. In addition 5 to Maggie, who we're going to miss greatly, I want to take 6 this opportunity to thank each and every one of the people 7 who we have the opportunity to work with throughout Kerr 8 County, whether it be at Road and Bridge or the Sheriff's 9 Department or Collection office or Treasurer's office or the 10 Auditor's office or wherever. We have the finest group of 11 employees, public servants that I've ever been privileged to 12 work with, and I've had a number of jobs in the public 13 sector. And, it makes our jobs a lot easier when we can set 14 policy and the tone and have people who work for you all who 15 carry that out, and we owe them a great deal of thanks. 16 Little bit of scheduling. I'll remind 17 everyone that we have the employees luncheon, which will 18 start at 11:30 today. We're going to meet until 11:00 this 19 morning. We're going to break at 11:00. If we have to come 20 back and clean some things up, we'll reconvene at 1 o'clock. 21 The luncheon is downstairs in the -- in the annex, in the 22 basement of the annex, and it's, as usual, going to be an 23 incredible, joyous time. We can all come together as Kerr 24 County family. We do have a meeting posted for January 1st 25 at 9 o'clock upstairs in the District Courtroom Number 1. 7 1 This is for the purpose of approving the bonds and 2 administering the oaths to the newly elected officials so 3 that they can legally and properly begin their duties at 4 that time. Those of you who are able to get out of bed at 5 that time in the morning, we invite your attendance. Also, 6 the next -- the first regularly scheduled meeting in 7 January, on January the 8th, because of the demands to get 8 the 1099's and different employee reports and tax forms out, 9 I've been informed by the Auditor that the bills will not be 10 available on January the 8th, so we will have to have a 11 special session on January the 12th briefly in order to 12 review and approve the bills. So, if y'all would put that 13 on your calendars and keep that in mind, that's the upcoming 14 schedule. So, with no further ado, let's take to the 15 business at hand. Mr. Auditor, do we have some bills? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Merry Christmas. Always, we 17 have bills. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any 19 questions or comments regarding the bills as presented? 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Move we pay the bills. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 23 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the 24 Commissioners Court approve the bills for payment as 25 recommended by the Auditor. Any further questions or 8 1 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hands. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 6 amendments. First budget amendment is -- 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is -- 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- for the County Clerk's 9 office. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: And Records Management. I 11 have a bill for -- to repair a scanner in their Land -- Land 12 Department. The Clerk has asked for a transfer of $185 from 13 Office Supplies to Machine Repairs. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 17 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve 18 Budget Amendment Request Number 1 for the County Clerk, 19 Records Management department. Any questions or comments? 20 If not, all in favor, raise your right hands. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion caries. Budget 25 Amendment Request Number 2 relates to the Courthouse and 9 1 Related Buildings. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This request is from 3 the Maintenance Supervisor, Glenn Holekamp, to transfer 4 $2,500 into contract fees, $2168.44 from Maintenance 5 Salaries and $165.89 from FICA expenses, $165.67 from 6 Retirement. We originally budgeted the maintenance of the 7 Probation Office as a part of the job of regular maintenance 8 person, but he hasn't been able to fill that, so we -- we 9 don't have anyone currently available as a regular employee 10 to -- to do the maintenance over there. So, he's asking 11 that we move this amount out of the regular salaries into 12 contract fees for him to be able to contract with someone to 13 do that. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 17 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 18 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2 for Courthouse and 19 Related Buildings. Any further questions or comments? If 20 not, all -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, sir? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the contract? 24 MR. HOLEKAMP: It's for cleaning the office, 25 $250 a month. 10 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 2 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next, Budget 7 Amendment Number 3 for Constable Precinct 3. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this is to correct an 9 oversight in Constable 3's budget, for the payment of his 10 bond, and it's a request to transfer one-half -- $177.50 in 11 Bonds, $2 to Postage, and $5.50 into Gasoline from his 12 Training line item. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 16 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget 17 Amendment Request Number 3 for the Constable Precinct 3. 18 Any further questions or -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. The bond, 20 we're putting $177.50 into the bond. How much does the bond 21 cost, total? $177.50? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: It's $177.50. But he -- he 23 wanted -- he needed another $2 in postage, and -- and $5.50 24 in gasoline, so he -- rather than having the -- apparently, 25 he's not using his training school monies to -- 11 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He wouldn't have -- would 2 only have left $7.50 in Training, which is a worthless 3 amount, so he decided to put it where he could use it with 4 those funding other parts of his budget. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm glad he's doing 6 that. We're two months into the budget and we're 7 transferring a whole $2 over to postage. I don't follow 8 that. But, cool. He's an elected official. And $5.50 into 9 his gasoline for 10 months left? 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that was to 11 zero out the training account. I think that's all that was 12 really doing. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 15 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 20 Amendment Request Number 4 is for the Commissioners Court. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: This -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: These guys' bonds. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: What do you want to say about 24 this one? 25 (Laughter.) 12 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Always put the 2 Commissioners Court stuff first, okay? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This -- this is also 4 for -- to correct an oversight in the budget for a bond. 5 There are two bonds totaling $356. We need to transfer $6 6 from Office Supplies to Bonds. 7 (Laughter.) 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here we are, two 9 months deep into budget. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 13 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget 14 Amendment Request Number 4 for the Commissioners Court. Any 15 further comments or questions? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Comment. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Comment. A whole $6? 18 That's cool. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like that. So that 20 means Commissioner Letz has been bonded for $3, I'm being 21 bonded for $3. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or 23 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hands. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 13 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have 3 any late bills, Tommy? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I do. First one is to 5 Garvin Henry Lacy for $400 for a countertop. It's -- 6 actually, it's for a built-in desk for the District Court 7 receptionist. They budgeted a desk, and -- in there, and 8 opted to put one in as a -- just a countertop rather than a 9 desk. So, that's for the payment of that. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: There is -- this was a 11 budgeted item? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Funding is already in the 14 budget for this purpose. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Needs a hand check 17 also? Second. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 19 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the 20 late bill in the amount of $400 for Garvin Lacy and 21 authorize a hand check in that amount. Any further 22 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 23 right hands. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 14 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is -- is 4 to Yolanda Cervantes for $81.54. It's for part-time 5 custodial hours. I need a hand check for it. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 9 Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that we approve a 10 late bill in the amount of $81.54 for Yolanda Cervantes and 11 authorize a hand check for that amount. Any further 12 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 13 right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: The last one, and I also need 19 a hand check for this, is to Ford Motor Credit for 20 $53,649.96, and it's for the first payment on the six new 21 Sheriff's vehicles. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 25 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we 15 1 authorize and approve a late bill in the amount of 2 $53,649.96 to Ford Motor Credit and authorize a hand check 3 in that amount. Any questions or comments? If not, all in 4 favor, raise your right hands. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: That's it. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I'd entertain a 11 motion to approve and accept the monthly reports as 12 presented. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 16 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 17 approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. Any 18 further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise 19 your right hands. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Turning to 24 the consideration agenda, the first item of business is 25 consider and discuss Kerr County renewal proposal for 16 1 employee health and life insurance plans. Mr. Rothwell, 2 Mr. Finley, good morning, gentlemen. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I make a 4 comment? I notice this is listed as a 45-minute item, and 5 my preference is, if we really don't have to spend 45 6 minutes on this, I would appreciate it, because I just -- I 7 don't -- I really think we should try to end by 11 o'clock 8 today. You know, if this is something that has to be dealt 9 with today, fine, but if it can be deferred, I'd almost 10 rather defer it or do it a lot quicker than 45 minutes. 11 MR. ROTHWELL: We can do it quicker. I would 12 hope so. I was asked just to kind of put the outside limit 13 on that. I would love to do this in about 5 minutes or 14 less, and I'll shoot at working with you on that. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. At 9:30, we're 16 going to move to the next agenda item. 17 MR. ROTHWELL: All right. I'll work with 18 that. I'm Ray Rothwell with Employee Benefit Administrators 19 out of San Antonio. We work very closely with the Bryan 20 Finley Agency as your local agents. We're the 21 administrators and have been for the last three years for 22 your health insurance plan. I was asked by the Treasurer, 23 and that's who we work more directly with in the -- in the 24 county here, to put my package together in a little bit 25 different fashion this year, as far as the discussion 17 1 document. I've got several tabs here in the -- in the 2 packet you have, and I've got a couple of things that I want 3 to change, but I'd like to go through it in order and 4 entertain your questions as we go through, if you would 5 like. 6 First off, I'll say that the numbers we'll be 7 talking about are within or very nearly within the budget 8 that the Auditor and the Treasurer have developed for this. 9 So, in talking to the Auditor, the -- the budget should 10 work, and maybe we won't have to come back with some $6 11 changes, Commissioner. First off, we bid your plan every 12 year for reinsurance, and one of the -- under Item 2 or Tab 13 2 in the packet you have, you'll see where we did that. I 14 went out to five sources for reinsurance this year to -- to 15 get quotes, and I went to three others verbally, and they 16 just said, "Hey, you're wasting your time. We don't do 17 municipalities in Texas any more." And, there's a variety 18 of reasons; there's some new legislation that has changed or 19 is pending change. A lot of reinsurers have taken a 20 bloodbath in municipality types of business. 21 The second page in that Item 2 shows you I've 22 got the three proposals. I got one from Standard Life and 23 Accident, Century Insurance, and Union Labor life. And the 24 Union Labor Life, obviously, was the best priced one. When 25 I went back to them and started talking, I got the prices 18 1 down a little bit better than we were doing. When we get to 2 the funding, the dollar pages -- I want to do those last; 3 they're under Tab 3 -- we'll see some things that went on 4 with that. 5 I do have about four benefit changes that I 6 would like to visit with you about for your consideration, 7 and they're under Tab 4. And I hope that they're correct, 8 but if there's a couple pages dealing with life insurance 9 before we get to the pharmacy plan or the Rx program, I'd 10 like to get you to that Rx page, and it's one that has -- 11 that's headed up "United Provider Services Pharmacy Plan." 12 Right now, we have a $5 generic co-pay and a $10 name brand 13 co-pay, and we've had that for the full three years that 14 we've been working with it, and those numbers are starting 15 to get antiquated and outdated, and generally they're too 16 low for co-payments for medicines. 17 The second page behind that first page just 18 gives a little narrative on it. Should be a -- a little 19 thing that says "Claims Summary Report" on top, and it's 20 just about 2, 3 inches long. If you look at that, you'll 21 see generic drugs. There's a percentage there of how much 22 percent the generic were in the form of prescriptions, and 23 then the dollars -- percent of dollars. And, right under it 24 is name brand. We have about 80 clients, and virtually all 25 of them were changing from a $5, $10 Rx program or plan. 19 1 We're recommending leaving the $5 like it is; that's fair 2 for generic. It's not a problem, it's not hurting us. But, 3 you look at the numbers and see we're not getting enough 4 usage out of brand names. We're recommending going to a 5 three-tier plan. So, generic at $5, a name brand at -- a 6 preferred name brand at $20, and a non-preferred name brand 7 at $35. 8 Generally -- and there's -- behind that 9 schedule, there's a -- a little chart that has "United 10 Provider Services" on it. And, if you look at that, you'll 11 see the three sections. The first column is all generic, 12 second column is preferred name brand, and the -- and the 13 third column is non-preferred name brand. And, you'll see 14 the variety. In the vast number of cases generic's 15 available, we're not getting enough usage out of generic. 16 We need to be -- the employee needs to be more proactive, if 17 you will, in medications by asking the doctor or the 18 pharmacist, "Is there a generic available? Can I use that 19 generic?" And pay $5 rather than our recommended future $20 20 or $35. I think that's very important to keep your plan in 21 a stable arena. About 27 percent of the dollars paid out 22 are for drugs. That's too high. It needs to be down into 23 the 17, 18 percent range. 24 The next thing I'd like to give you for your 25 consideration is, last year we put in -- in your plan a 20 1 laboratory -- a Lab One card program, meaning if your 2 employee uses the Lab One card and goes -- has laboratory 3 work done, there's no cost to the employee. The employer 4 pays the total bill, and there's an average in Kerr County 5 of about a 52 percent discount by going through Lab One 6 program. The lab in town that takes it is down by Family 7 Practice on Wesley Avenue, and there's seven locations in 8 San Antonio if your employees go there. Again, it's a 9 proactive thing. "Doctor, I want to use my Lab One card," 10 and if they go that direction, they pay nothing. Currently, 11 they're paying 20 percent; it's an 80/20 after deductible 12 kind of benefit, and that says lab and X-ray. We're 13 recommending for your consideration leaving X-ray at the 14 $20, but -- or the 20 percent, but moving lab to a 15 30 percent. Saying if you use your traditional lab program, 16 and there's -- and you can do that if you don't use Lab One, 17 you've still got your traditional lab benefits. We're 18 saying change that to a 70 percent plan benefit, where the 19 employee pays 30 percent if they elect their traditional 20 program, as opposed to the Lab One program. And, lastly -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Question, Ray. How does that 22 Lab One work? I mean, you present your card, but then what? 23 MR. ROTHWELL: Okay. You present your card. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Present your card to the 25 doctor or to the lab? 21 1 MR. ROTHWELL: If you're in a doctor's office 2 that does not draw blood or urine or whatever it is that 3 they're doing, you present them your Lab One card and they 4 give you a lab sheet to go to some lab to get -- and they've 5 ordered their providers -- you take that lab sheet to the 6 lab -- the Lab One lab in town, the one that contracts with 7 Lab One, get your lab work done, you leave with no payment. 8 Okay? If you go to one of the other labs in town, you have 9 to pay 20 percent at least, or maybe the deductible and 10 20 percent, if you haven't made your deductible. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, where's the Lab One lab 12 here in town? 13 MR. ROTHWELL: It is on Wesley Drive. 14 It's -- I forget the name of the lab, but it's down by 15 Family Practice and Dr. Greer's office and down in that 16 complex down there, and that's the only lab in Kerrville 17 that -- that is a drawing site. Now, any doctor can draw 18 blood or the specimen or the sample and call -- on your Lab 19 One card, if you look at it, there's an 800 phone number 20 that the doctor can call Lab One. Lab One, in turn, calls 21 Airborne Express. Airborne Express picks it up that 22 evening, takes to it Kansas City. The analysis is done and 23 the doctor, most of the time, has the results back by noon, 24 1 o'clock the following day. The lab in Kansas City is 25 accredited at the highest accreditation by all the lab 22 1 accreditation agencies in the country. They're a very high 2 quality lab. It's a proactive employee program. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can use any of the 4 Lab One locations around, right? It doesn't have to be in 5 San Antonio or Kerrville? 6 MR. ROTHWELL: No. No. And there's -- 7 Fredericksburg has a location. And -- and anywhere you go, 8 as long as you use your Lab One card -- it's a national 9 program. We've got clients in South Carolina that use it, 10 clients in Oklahoma and Kansas City that use it. One 11 recommendation that we're making -- want to make for your 12 consideration that's not covered in here is, currently, 13 your -- your plan is a $300 deductible plan. One of the 14 things we're asking you to consider is to go to a $500 -- 15 from a $300 to $500 deductible. The office co-pay of $10 16 for Kerrville doctors, or $20 for San Antonio or out of 17 Kerrville -- or out of Kerrville, would stay the same, so 18 you're dealing with a deductible with lab and X-ray work, 19 with outpatient surgery, hospital, those kind of things. 20 Your doctor office visit would still be that $10, $20 21 co-pay. So -- so, there would be an increase of $200 in the 22 deductible for your consideration. Incidentally, you can do 23 one or all or none of these, and we'll talk about the 24 pricing in a few minutes. 25 The last thing I'd like for you to consider 23 1 is, you have a number of active working employees that are 2 over 65 years old that are on your plan. We would -- we 3 would like to consider being able to visit with each of 4 those employees, asking them and explaining to them the 5 advantage of opting for Medicare Primary insurance, and 6 staying on this plan as a -- as a Medicare supplement, 7 keeping the drug card in place and treating this plan 8 secondary to Medicare. What it will do in the future for 9 the plan, as we go into new -- other years for rating 10 purposes, it lowers the average age block and, in your case, 11 substantially. And, that will drop the age -- the rating 12 into -- into lower age factors. I will tell you this, 13 that -- that those employees that would elect to do that 14 will have a better insurance plan than any of you guys 15 sitting here, unless one of you are over 65 and -- and opt 16 for that program. That will have -- our friend over on the 17 right is, I know. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Larry's the only one. 19 MR. ROTHWELL: But that would be a better 20 coverage for the plan. There's a smaller dollar 21 contribution on a monthly basis. I think it's $105, as 22 opposed to whatever the contribution is. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's enough 24 difference there for the employee to pay the Part B? 25 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes. 24 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's enough 2 reduction -- 3 MR. ROTHWELL: For that $100 deductible, yes, 4 sir. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But the employee has 6 to pay that Part B? 7 MR. ROTHWELL: The deductible. The -- yes, 8 the Part B premium you're talking about, yes, the employee 9 would pay that. And the County would -- would keep them on 10 this plan, though, so they'd have Medicare A and B, and this 11 Plan B would be a Medicare supplement with the drug card. 12 So, it's a -- it's a great advantage benefit-wise to the 13 employees, and an advantage to the County. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: But that's something that the 15 employees have to do voluntarily? 16 MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's not required -- 18 MR. ROTHWELL: It's a total voluntary deal, 19 and in the back of -- I think in the back of that section in 20 -- of Section 3, you'll see the form that they have to sign, 21 the Medicare election form. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: What you're talking about is 23 having a meeting of those persons that might be eligible 24 sometime after the first of the year, and explain the 25 benefits and the -- and then allow them to determine whether 25 1 they wish to elect to make this change or not? 2 MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah. The Finley agency 3 and/or I will meet individually with each of those 4 employees, not in a meeting environment, and -- and go over 5 the program to see if they would like to do that, and 6 explain the advantages and the -- and, really and truly, I 7 can't think of a disadvantage. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Only disadvantage that 9 comes to mind, very quickly -- and I know the time's running 10 out, but -- but the employee would have to pay the Part B 11 premium, and if you leave it the way it is now, the employee 12 does not have to participate in Part B and there's not 13 anything out of his pocket. 14 MR. ROTHWELL: What is the Part B premium? 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Its about 48 bucks or 16 49 bucks a month, something like that. 17 MR. ROTHWELL: And I think there's a way that 18 we would work that into this plan and still be at a -- at a 19 much larger -- at a much smaller contribution on a 20 per-employee basis. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, yeah. 22 MR. ROTHWELL: Than the County dollars are 23 currently. I don't think that would be a problem, 24 Commissioner Griffin. Okay. The last -- going through that 25 -- and, incidentally, Commissioner Letz, this -- this is a 26 1 January 1 thing, so we really do need to try to make some 2 decisions, and it can be done next week as far as a final 3 decision. In the -- in the schedule under Item 3, the -- 4 the dollars, I want to give y'all a -- another -- another 5 handout for your book. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, thanks. 7 MR. ROTHWELL: I changed this. The prices 8 are a little bit lower, by $3.50, I believe, than they're 9 presented in the book. And the reason, in the lower -- if 10 you'll look down on the one that's in the book, you'll see a 11 P.P.O. rate of $3.25 or $3.50. That P.P.O. rate -- we use 12 the Greater Hill Country Health Care Alliance as a primary 13 P.P.O. We currently pay them a percentage or savings -- or 14 percentage of that discount savings that they do for us for 15 the access of getting the discounts. They decided early on 16 that they wanted to get the capitation, that three and a 17 quarter a month. Through my conversations with them and us 18 analyzing the last couple of years of claims data with us, 19 it -- it was -- it was to our advantage to stay on a 20 percentage of payment of -- to pay claims, so we -- finally, 21 they agreed to do that. So, that's what the change is. 22 Basically, if you look at it, there's four schedules, and 23 each of them incorporates a different -- different type 24 change. In all cases, the fixed cost -- the total fixed 25 cost on any one of the four pages is lower than we're 27 1 currently paying. I was able to get better -- we're 2 changing reinsurance companies. Of the quotes I went out 3 for, I got a better quote than the current company. The -- 4 the current fixed cost, as an example, on an employee is 5 $61 -- 62 bucks a month, and we're down to $55 a month. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From $61.55? 7 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, from $61.55. Six dollar 8 deal, but it's times 275 or so employees. And, the same 9 thing on the dependent basis. Another thing that -- when 10 you look at the cost schedules, that's not obvious to you, 11 but every employee that's on this plan with employee 12 children do not have a nickel increase in cost. Employee 13 spouse, employee families. Their -- the employee 14 contribution for the plan they're on will be exactly where 15 it is now, so we're not asking the employees to contribute 16 more. In so doing, the employee rate to the County goes up 17 slightly, but one of the prerequisites that I was given to 18 work with was -- was leaving the employee contribution 19 alone, not letting -- not having more money out of their 20 pocket for their family health insurance or for their 21 dependent. 22 The first schedule you look at in there is 23 exactly like your plan is today. No changes. The second 24 schedule is no changes, but using a reserve figure of about 25 $75,000. That is basically -- it fluctuates a little bit, 28 1 but basically it's in the account that -- that Barbara keeps 2 for employee benefits. There's generally -- that number, 3 through the payroll deductions, transferring money to us and 4 things, always has a reserve in it. We use that reserve. 5 Last year we didn't draw any of it, so that's an available 6 thing to lower the monthly contribution. It's still a 7 County liability. If we had to call on that money, we would 8 ask Barbara to transfer some of it to us, but it lowers the 9 funding rate a little bit. 10 The third sheet -- I'm sorry, I'm past the 11 8:30 mark -- the 9:30 mark. But, the third sheet is the 12 same -- same set -- same scenario with a $500 deductible and 13 the Rx card going to a three-tier plan. And the last one is 14 that scenario with the -- using the reserve figure. The 15 claims funding amount is where you're increasing -- as I 16 said, the fixed costs remain -- it's a little bit lower. 17 The very back section of this packet that you have gives you 18 some monthly reports. And, along with that, I'll just give 19 you -- this is for your information -- this is a listing 20 with no identifications on it of your high claims. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say again what this 22 is? 23 MR. ROTHWELL: This is a listing of high 24 claimants. That first number is the number for the pharmacy 25 benefit with -- with a few other minors things in it, but 29 1 that's basically the dollars we spent for -- for 2 prescriptions in your plan. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $270,000? 4 MR. ROTHWELL: Pardon? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $270,000? 6 MR. ROTHWELL: It's a major number. This -- 7 in every plan that we look at, it's a huge number. If I 8 were to go back and ask them to give me a rate with Kerr 9 County without an Rx card in it, it would probably drop $70 10 per employee, the overall rate. And, the family or 11 dependent rate would probably drop $175. That's how 12 material the Rx benefit is to the cost structure of a -- of 13 a premium schedule, and it's that way in all plans. 14 Virtually all plans have gone to three, four tiers. Many of 15 them have gone to $15 generics, $30, $40 name brands. We, 16 in all of our analysis, believe $5 for generic is still not 17 a major contributor to your problem. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then your experience 19 is that those tier changes, then -- this tier number will -- 20 generic will take this number down? 21 MR. ROTHWELL: It will do two things, 22 Commissioner. One, it will lower the overall payment, 23 because the -- the employee is going to be more a party to 24 pay -- more a partner in the payment for prescriptions, and 25 we believe it will move some of those brand names to generic 30 1 usage. That happens in most of the plans that we make, so I 2 think it will have a fairly material effect on that $270,000 3 number. Yes, I do. That's my program. I'm sticking to it. 4 If y'all have anything you'd like to ask or comments, I'd 5 like to -- 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any 7 questions for Mr. Rothwell? If not, I'd like to hear from 8 Barbara. Barbara, what do you -- will you give us your 9 analysis and opinion? I am particularly concerned about 10 the -- interested in your thoughts about the change in the 11 deductible from $300 to $500. 12 MS. NEMEC: Well, as an employee who uses the 13 insurance plan quite a bit, you know, I -- I don't -- I 14 don't like it. I mean, all these changes are going to 15 affect me, too, as well as they're going to affect a lot of 16 employees. But, just in looking around and -- and with my 17 husband's employer going out for bids and things like that, 18 it's not unreasonable, what they're proposing. Again, it's 19 our plan. If we don't want to go to $500, we don't have to. 20 We just have to realize that it is going to impact the 21 funding levels at the end in our rates. You know, it's 22 totally up to us. And -- and I -- again, I -- I don't like 23 our employees having to go from $300 to $500, but if -- to 24 give you my honest opinion, it's not unreasonable. It's -- 25 $300 is pretty low for this time -- you know, for all the 31 1 years that we've been with them. In Year 2000, a $300 2 deductible is low. We've got a great plan. Our employees 3 have benefited greatly from -- from the plan that we have 4 because of the $300 deductible, because of the 80 percent 5 coverage, and because of our Rx card. But, you don't see 6 too many plans like this any more. And I'll be one that 7 it's going to affect greatly, because I use it, but it's not 8 unreasonable. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. Ray 10 mentioned that the program goes into effect January 1. What 11 if this Court -- I don't want to interfere with somebody's 12 phone call -- what if this Court wanted to actually do their 13 job and study this a little bit closer and wanted to bring 14 it back January the 12th and take a look at it? What would 15 happen on that January 1 thing? 16 MS. NEMEC: I really don't know. That would 17 be a question for Mr. Rothwell. 18 MR. ROTHWELL: Technically, your contract 19 ends December 31. We went last year from October, you know, 20 to a 12-, 14-month. Technically, it ends then. If you want 21 to study this and -- and go with it, I cannot commit to, nor 22 will the reinsurer, I don't believe, commit to giving us a 23 12-day corridor. The worst-case would be we're going to 24 have to stay exactly like we are as far as deductible and 25 things. I think we can still do a -- an Rx card, we can 32 1 still make the minor modifications up to the middle of the 2 month, and -- and technically, if we had something major 3 blow up, we'd probably want to sign the contract and stay 4 like we were going into the next year. So, I -- to answer 5 your question, your insurance technically stops, but I'll 6 see that that doesn't happen. 7 MS. NEMEC: Let me also explain to y'all that 8 the changes that Mr. Rothwell is proposing -- I think that 9 he works for us, and -- and he is hired to watch our plan 10 and to make sure that our plan is one that's going to work 11 and we're not going to end up with, you know, major problems 12 at the end where we're going to have to pay a lot of money 13 or we're not going to have enough funding in the budget to 14 pay for -- for our claims and our -- our funding. And, so, 15 I think what he is -- just to get -- clear up some things, I 16 think what he has done is -- is that he is working for us 17 and trying to keep an eye on the plan, and he's giving his 18 opinion of what we need to do in order to be successful in 19 this plan. And -- and, like I said, at the end it's our 20 plan. If we don't want to do it, we don't -- we don't have 21 to. But, I think that's just basically what he has done. 22 And, the Lab One card, I know y'all had a 23 question on Lab One. I use the Lab One card, and it's 24 great. You just go -- I mean, there's -- you just hand them 25 your card, they send off your -- your -- your test, and 33 1 you -- they send you an E.O.B. at the end where they have 2 paid everything. You don't pay a penny if you use your Lab 3 One card. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you use yours? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not this year. 6 MS. NEMEC: I love it. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I have. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I forgot it. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Works like a champion. 10 MS. NEMEC: I love it. And I know a lot of 11 employees don't -- probably don't understand. I know last 12 year, Mr. Finley's office and Employee Benefit came and 13 tried to have some meetings with the employees and try to 14 explain to them what the Lab One card -- how it works. But, 15 you know, I think it's kind of hard for them to understand, 16 and sometimes people forget that they have that benefit. 17 And it would benefit them and it would benefit us at the 18 end, too. 19 MR. ROTHWELL: And we will do some mailers 20 and some things, and some things that Barbara can put in the 21 -- some flyers and things that she can put in the pay 22 envelopes that remind them further, explains that Lab One 23 card. I think it's a tremendous avenue to save some major 24 dollars on a decently significant expense. Not a huge, 25 'cause it only deals with outpatient lab, not inpatient lab. 34 1 MS. NEMEC: And on the three -- the Rx card, 2 the three-tier that he's proposing, it's going to be harder 3 and -- but, you know, I'm guilty of it. I go in, I get 4 prescriptions and I don't ask for generic. But if -- if 5 this -- this is in place, I'm going to ask for the generic 6 brands, so that's going to save us some money. So, I think 7 -- I think what this is doing is putting some responsibility 8 on us to use the plan wiser. That's all it's doing. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm all in favor of the 10 changes. Only one I have a question on, really, is the 11 deductible. I think the Lab One card and also the Rx card 12 changes, they make sense, and I don't have a problem. The 13 deductible change, that hits the employees directly out of 14 their pocket. I mean, it's -- I'm less inclined, probably, 15 to go with that, but -- 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I can make -- only 17 comment I'd make, I agree with Commissioner Letz that the 18 Lab One, the -- the prescription card -- I can see those 19 deductibles, but that $300 to $500 would really hurt some 20 of -- of the Sheriff's Department employees. And I know 21 gradually we'll probably end up doing that, but I'd like to 22 give them more time with that, if we could keep it down to 23 the $300, and I think it would really help. Because what's 24 happened, a lot of other plans have all gone to the $500 25 this year, as a matter of fact, which is hurting, so I've 35 1 had some other ones switch over because they like the $300 2 the County's on, and it just would make a big impact on our 3 employees all of a sudden to go from three to five. I'd 4 like to see it stay at three. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How does that stack 6 up against the City's plan, peace officers? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think some of those 8 are five or something. The highest -- or the school's gone 9 to five, and it's -- you know, it's really gotten bad, and 10 the County is -- right now, I mean, I think the County has a 11 -- not the best in the world, but darn sure a pretty good 12 plan for around here. And, one of the big things that the 13 employees like about it is the $300 deductible, and it's 14 really going to change some things if we have to go to five. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question of 16 Mr. Rothwell. Does the change from three to five -- those 17 are initial dollars spent. Does that just help us hold the 18 line, or does that, in effect, create some savings? 19 MR. ROTHWELL: It creates some savings in 20 this -- in the dollar today; about -- I think that was a 21 4.9 percent decrease in the funding rate. Not in the 22 specific -- in the premium in specific, but in the funding 23 rate, going from a $300 to a $500 deductible. It's like a 24 4.9 percent decrease in the -- in the monthly funding, 25 claims fund amount you're self-funding, your self-funding 36 1 portion. You know, I -- I agree with -- with the Sheriff's 2 conversation about a major impact in -- in some areas. I 3 think it's inevitable that that's going to happen. We've 4 got counties -- I've got two counties that went from a $300 5 deductible this year to $1,000, went from a 90/10 plan to an 6 80/20 plan. We've -- we've had -- I hate using the word 7 "butcher" -- we've had to butcher some benefits with a 8 number of our groups this year because of high claims and 9 expected high claims in the future, being increases in the 10 medical trends, the costs of doctors and hospitals, and just 11 the high-tech medicines that -- that -- high-tech procedures 12 that -- that are costing so much. 13 Now, the -- the $300 to $500 is not a 14 material change in your -- in your funding rate. It may be 15 a material mental change for many of your employees, but 16 remember, the office co-pay is still low. I really wanted 17 to recommend we raise that also, 'cause I think $10 is too 18 low to go to the doctor. I don't -- we don't have any plans 19 we don't -- and I don't see -- I get 15 or 20 across my desk 20 weekly to look at for bidding purposes, and -- and I just 21 don't see $10 co-pays any more. But, one of my thoughts was 22 if we went from a $300 to a $500, let's leave the co-pay 23 alone and address that next time, and -- and maybe have to 24 go to $15 or so. That's strictly y'all's option. Like 25 Barbara says, that's y'all's -- it's your plan. It's your 37 1 money. We -- we're the steward of it to the best of our 2 ability, and we think we do you a very good job from that, 3 as well as from -- from working with your employees. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only -- last thing I'd 5 like to say, you know, the County -- y'all did fabulous with 6 the employees this year, giving them decent raises and 7 bringing things back up. The City ended up giving them a 8 lot of raise, but then their insurance went way up, and 9 it -- and mental state is more than -- than actual figures, 10 that it -- everybody got a sour feeling that I've talked to 11 with a lot of those saying, "Well, yeah, but our raise went 12 away because they upped our insurance." And I would hate to 13 see that attitude to come over the County employees by 14 upping the deductible this year, at least. I'd like to see 15 it stay to where it really stays good -- 16 MR. ROTHWELL: And the City, both ends of 17 that stick went up, created a pretty big horseshoe. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think Rusty wants us 19 to stay at $300. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think so. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all pick up on that? 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, I picked right 23 up on that. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Absolutely right. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kind of do, too. I 38 1 don't quite see exactly what's going to happen to us if we 2 stay with the $300. What's the -- where's the booger that 3 comes out of the darkness? 4 MR. ROTHWELL: Well, it's an additional front 5 end $200 spent -- I mean, you know, staying at $300 is going 6 to keep you right where you are. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Funding level stays 8 the same? 9 MR. ROTHWELL: Well, the funding level's 10 higher than it currently is, but as far as out-of-pocket 11 costs to your employees and things as it relates to 12 deductible items would stay the same. I would ask that we 13 change that -- refresh your minds that we want to change 14 that one lab thing to a 70 percent. Now, it's not a big 15 deal. I -- you know, if it -- if it's perceived to be a 16 major problem with your employees, I would suggest leaving 17 it at $300 this year and let's look at it. And we can start 18 looking at it at midyear and talking about it and that sort 19 of thing. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do I hear a motion? 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what is being 22 suggested is that we approve the fourth scenario with the 23 deductible left at $300. 24 MS. NEMEC: I know we're running out of -- 25 we're running out of time, but -- 39 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: We've got to do this today. 2 We've got time. 3 MS. NEMEC: I respect the Auditor's feelings 4 a lot on this insurance, because I know that he understands 5 it, and I sure would like to hear some comments from him. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, do you have -- want to 7 offer us your thoughts on this? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I just look at it from 9 the budget side of it. I think we budgeted about a 10 15 percent increase. We've -- we've -- so far, for the 11 first three months this year, we've expended the current 12 rate, but we've budgeted an increased rate for the entire 12 13 months. I think -- I think this increase with -- with a 14 $500 deductible is about 17 percent. We increased our 15 budget around 14 to 15 percent, so I -- I think it would 16 be -- I think at 70 percent with -- including your $500 17 deductible as part of our option, we will be close to 18 budget. If -- if we -- if we choose to eliminate the $500 19 deductible and go -- and stay with $300, then I think we may 20 be short, budget-wise, in the year. I have not analyzed 21 this, so I can't give you any different numbers, but -- but 22 that's my -- that's what I think will happen. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did I hear Mr. Rothwell 24 say we can change it midyear? 25 MR. ROTHWELL: No, I said we can start 40 1 looking at it mid -- at midyear and see what various impacts 2 and things are happening, and -- and start doing a little 3 bit earlier planning on where we -- where we want to go, 4 structure-wise. I can't really get any pricing done 5 midyear, because there won't be enough current data, but we 6 can -- we can certainly visit structure, and I'd be happy to 7 sit down in a workshop and brainstorm with you guys some 8 ideas. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I would say one more thing. 10 I think that our plan in relation to the others in the 11 market is very good, and I think it's more cost-wise for the 12 employee. I would -- I would guess that we probably leave 13 this in that area. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And in your analysis, 15 Tommy, did you look at the change in the drug card to the 16 three-tier -- 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You looked at that and 19 you also incorporated the Lab One changes? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm -- I'm judging my -- my 21 estimate on what he said about the 4 percent. If -- if the 22 difference in the $300 and the $500 deductible is 4 or 5 23 percent, then -- then that tells me that -- that we're close 24 budget-wise with a $500 deductible. If we stay at $300, 25 then -- then I think we're going to be short. I can't tell 41 1 you right now what it is, because I haven't had a chance to 2 look at that. 3 MS. NEMEC: I've never heard -- all the plans 4 that I've heard of is either $300 or $500 or $1,000. What 5 if we compromise and do $400 and show the employees that, 6 you know, we are trying, but -- for -- you know. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was going to be 8 my next question. Do we get about half the benefit out of 9 the increase if we went to $400? 10 MR. ROTHWELL: I'd have to answer that 11 question probably next Tuesday or so, but I believe -- I 12 believe that I could get a $400 deductible at the same price 13 as I've got the $500; I believe I can talk my underwriter 14 into doing that. I would not know that till next -- 15 assuming she's at work between Christmas and New Year's, I 16 could -- I could better answer that question. And, we're -- 17 and we can certainly make a -- do what we need to do today 18 with that as an open-end item, and close it -- close that 19 deductible side not to be over four -- $300 or not to 20 increase over $400, or however you want to word that. But, 21 I believe I -- Commissioner, I believe I could get that 22 number in there with no change in the -- in the best of 23 these rates. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, Mr. Finley? 25 MR. FINLEY: We provide benefits for quite a 42 1 number of businesses in the area, not only the County, but 2 several school districts and private businesses. The plan 3 that the County has presently is unquestionably one of the 4 best plans, richest plans, that -- that I know of in the 5 area. The service that has been rendered in the claims 6 payment area by E.B.A. has been exceptionally good. 7 Fortunately, we can judge that by the number of calls that 8 we get to our office about claims that are hung up on high 9 center at some point or other, and we have a minimal number 10 of those. I don't think that there's any question but that 11 if you make a -- a deductible adjustment, that, as the 12 Sheriff says, there's going to be some adverse reaction to 13 that, but a $400 deductible perhaps might be a reasonable 14 solution to this, Rusty, from the standpoint that it's -- 15 that's a -- a minor impact overall. The fact remains that 16 you still only have a $10 or $20 doctor's office co-pay, 17 which, incidentally, is among the least of any plan that we 18 know anything about. So, you can -- you can begin to make 19 these minor adjustments, in my opinion, gentlemen, and -- 20 and keep your plan in a strong financial position, and 21 that's the key to a plan like this, since you are obviously 22 partially self-insured. 23 MS. NEMEC: One last comment. Rightfully so, 24 our -- and have I dependent coverage so, you know, like I 25 said, all this affects me. Our dependent coverage really 43 1 should have gone up the way our -- the way our -- our 2 experience has been in the past year, our high claims. 3 Our -- our employee funding level should have gone up. Our 4 employee rates, dependent rates should have gone up. But, 5 in -- in talking to our insurance agents, I said, "Please do 6 not affect our employees by increasing the dependent rates. 7 Increase the employee portion of it." So, you know, we -- 8 our employees and myself really need to be grateful that the 9 County is picking up that increase, and -- and our dependent 10 coverage is not going up because of that. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only thing I'd comment, 12 just a little bit different, not to totally disagree, is 13 I've got employees dropping their dependents because they -- 14 they can go to Blue Cross/Blue Shield or some of the other 15 ones for a lot lower dependent rate than what the County's 16 paying. There's a lot of them that are changing insurance 17 totally because I -- you know, we have a good plan, but when 18 you're looking at the employee side of it, in listening to 19 the employees, they think we're paying a whole lot more than 20 -- than what we should be. But, of course, in my deal, 21 they're looking at State insurance, as far as what the State 22 employees pay, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which is a lot lower. 23 You know, the City, until this year, was a whole lot lower 24 than the County's and that, so I'm just afraid that we're 25 really treading -- if it goes up very much, that the 44 1 employees are going to have a -- it's going to have a 2 definite adverse effect. 3 MS. NEMEC: I'll admit, our -- our dependent 4 rate is high, but the reason I have not gone to that -- to 5 another insurance company is because for my husband and my 6 daughter, I cannot get the kind of coverage that the County 7 has -- I can get a lower rate, but I will not get an Rx card 8 and I will not get the benefits that this insurance has. 9 So, I -- I don't -- you know, if they've gone out and got 10 lower insurance, I'd like the name of it, because if I can 11 do that, I'll do it too. But I don't think that they're 12 getting the same benefits. 13 MR. ROTHWELL: That was going to be my 14 comment. We often -- and with your county, last year in our 15 meetings we suggested to those employees that you can go buy 16 an individual insurance policy on a healthy dependent for 17 much less than you're paying here. If that dependent is not 18 healthy, has diabetes or some -- some physical problem, they 19 can't go out and get that plan. So -- so that further puts 20 into your plan those dependent units that are, quote, 21 uninsurable on the open market, which runs your cost up by 22 claims experience. So -- but we still recommend that -- 23 because we know a lot -- we'd rather have them insured with 24 an individual policy than noninsured. Sid Peterson writes 25 off a lot of dollars every year from uninsured money. I 45 1 live in this community, and I'd rather that not happen, so 2 we want everybody that we can get insured, whether it's with 3 your plan, City plan, school plan, or an individual plan. 4 And, in many cases, they can -- and we encourage that. We 5 encourage for those that have healthy dependents to go out 6 and -- and visit with the Finley Agency or some other agent 7 in town and try to see if they can do better financially. 8 Generally, the benefit structure is different, and that's 9 what Barbara's already said. 10 MS. NEMEC: And with my daughter, I am going 11 do that this year, because I don't use the insurance on her. 12 I don't need the $10 doctor visit for her, because she 13 doesn't go to the doctor. I don't need the prescription 14 card on her, 'cause she doesn't get medication. So, I am 15 going to look for another insurance to insure her, because 16 I'm paying, you know, high -- a high premium for something 17 that she doesn't use. So, in that case, yes, it's good to 18 go and shop around and get another insurance. But, if your 19 dependents use these benefits, this -- you're not paying too 20 much. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had a question for 22 Tommy. I couldn't hear all of what you said. If you 23 wouldn't mind coming to the podium to give me the answer to 24 my question? My question is, in your analysis of the -- the 25 amount that the County pays for underwriting, given that we 46 1 would not benefit by a 4.9 savings in funding if we kept the 2 -- the deductible at the $300 level, does your analysis 3 include the amount that might be offset from -- from our 4 total by reason of the changes in the Rx plan? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: That's already included. I 6 base -- I base my -- my analysis on -- on all the changes 7 that he's talked about. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: So, if we -- if we deviate 10 from those changes, then -- then we're -- we're increasing 11 the change in premium dollars from -- from one change to the 12 next. And, I have not had the chance to -- to thoroughly 13 analyze, but I feel sure that -- that we will go over 14 budget. It may not be material, but I think we will. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Insurance is one of the most 17 difficult, complicated, and maddening things that we do, but 18 it's also something that's extremely important. I heard 19 Mr. Rothwell say that he thinks he can convince his 20 underwriter, with his natural charm and grace, to give us 21 the same rate for a $400 deductible that they would for a 22 $500 deductible. I believe it's my inclination to give him 23 a chance to do that. At this time, I think I'd entertain a 24 motion to approve Proposal Number 4, which includes the 25 reserve, the Rx plan changes, with a $400 deductible, as 47 1 opposed to a $500 deductible. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 5 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve and 6 authorize renewal of the insurance on the Proposal Number 4, 7 which is the current plan, plus the three-tiered Rx plan, 8 but with a $400 deductible as opposed to a $500 deductible. 9 MR. ROTHWELL: And, does that include the 10 70/30 for the lab work? 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. Yes, it does. 12 MR. ROTHWELL: Thank you. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other -- any questions or 14 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Ray and Bryan, thank you very 19 much for your help and your service. I think we have one of 20 the best insurance teams that you can find anywhere around. 21 We appreciate it. 22 MR. ROTHWELL: Thank you, and Merry Christmas 23 to you guys. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item Number 2, a 48 1 presentation by the Headwaters Underground Water 2 Conservation District on the proposed Production Limitation 3 Rules. Mr. Cornett? I asked Cameron to come over and give 4 us just a brief explanation as to what we've been reading 5 about in the papers. Where they are, where they hope to go 6 with this, and then in the future. 7 MR. CORNETT: I'm Cameron Cornett with 8 Headwaters Underground Water Conservation District. Thank 9 you for the opportunity to make a presentation to the Court. 10 One of the things that we've seen -- and before I go into 11 this, I want to hand this out. 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 MR. CORNETT: One of the things that we've 14 seen and we've been looking at over the past few months is 15 the -- basically, the physical properties of the aquifers 16 that we're dependent upon, because we know there are many 17 unknowns in this variable. We took it to -- or tried to 18 take it to its simplest form, and one of those being the 19 ability of water to transmit through the formation. I've 20 given you there a cross-section. This is something that I 21 worked up last night, just to give you an example. The 22 cross-section is approximately 7 miles across. I took 23 the -- an approximate depth of the Lower Trinity at that 24 area to be around 80 feet. I took a cross-section 25 permeability of 20 percent, a recoverable yield of 30. What 49 1 this basically equated to was around 20 million gallons per 2 day. 3 Now, that sounds like a lot until you put the 4 reality into it, and the reality is, the City plans on 5 3 million gallons per day production. As they pump, they're 6 having a cumulative effect, which basically means the cone 7 of depletion or the area of influence never fully recovers 8 before the next cycle of pumping, and it grows and it grows 9 and it grows. Some of the numbers that we looked at, we use 10 200 gallons per minute, and we saw influence as far away as 11 15 miles. And, there again, that was not a full recovery. 12 We were still seeing some draw-down at 15 miles. Now, the 13 3 million gallons per day basically comes out to 14 2,000 gallons per minute. There's a factor of 10 there, 15 from our calculations, so you can see the influence would be 16 much greater. 17 One of the things you'll notice from the 18 handout, the majority of our wells in the Lower Trinity are 19 within this area, and they are dependent upon it. And, 20 therefore, the District felt it imperative that we start 21 looking at a planning process, and the planning process was 22 Rule 18. Whenever we looked at the spacing that would be 23 necessary to try and keep wells from interfering with each 24 other, it became prohibitive, because the areas of influence 25 were so large, depending on the variability on well pumping, 50 1 that it could possibly impact not only contiguous land but 2 noncontiguous land, and so we took another approach. We 3 stepped back and said, well, let's apply a quantity of water 4 to an amount of surface area, and try and basically step 5 back from the spacing prohibitions and see how that works. 6 It's -- it's a much simpler method. Generally, people can 7 understand it. They can come in there and they say, "Well, 8 I need "X" amount of water," and it's easy to apply to your 9 service area. And, that is how we came up with Rule 18. 10 Now, Rule 18, in its current form, is a very 11 simplified rule. There are a lot of "what-ifs" that are 12 possible, and we are currently forming a committee to 13 address those. We heard many concerns last Monday, and we 14 felt it important that we pull this back in and take another 15 look at it and allow people to give us input, because we 16 would never be able to address everyone's concerns if we 17 were trying to write it ourselves. One of the comments that 18 I've heard is the fact that we rushed this, and we should 19 have taken it to committee before. Well, the District has 20 had a -- a history on that where we have sat in committee 21 and it has dragged on for months and months and months 22 without ever getting the -- the final product, and so we 23 felt if we put it on -- went about it this way, we can put 24 it on a fast track, and it very much has. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm glad you're doing 51 1 that. I'm glad you're doing a committee, because this 2 government body doesn't deal with "what-ifs," you know. If 3 you -- and I don't know of any that do. And -- but they 4 definitely should not. We have to have some hard facts to 5 deal with, particularly when you're dealing with -- dealing 6 with the water under the ground that, in my mind, you know, 7 it seems like -- it seems like that we're -- we're being 8 caused to prove what we can do and how much water there is 9 there and how much we can use and all that. And, in my 10 mind, someone needs to prove that -- how much water's down 11 there. And, you know, at some point -- and I know this is 12 part of -- part of that, and Letz' Senate Bill 1 group and 13 all that is -- you know, we're going to get some data in 14 our -- in our new program. We're going to get data out of 15 it, and I like that. But, also, these kind of things scare 16 me a little bit. And they should, should scare everyone, 17 and -- but we need to be careful. And, I understand what 18 you're doing, but I -- I approve of your committee. I think 19 we need to go real slow and real deliberate, and don't deal 20 with "what-ifs." 21 MR. CORNETT: That's one of the reasons that 22 I went through and looked at just the physical properties of 23 it. If the formation -- if we grow so densely in one area 24 that the formation will not transmit the water through, 25 we're seeing -- we're going to see a serious problem. And, 52 1 the transmissibility of it -- transmissivity of the 2 formation is fairly well-defined for this area, and that was 3 one of the principles that we took in guiding this. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Cameron, I have a 5 question, because it is not clear in any of the articles 6 that I've read, which is all that we've heard till today 7 about this program, but are domestic wells, wells for 8 domestic homeowners' use, included in this program? 9 MR. CORNETT: No. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, see, I think that 11 has led to a lot of misunderstanding, and it probably needs 12 to really be emphasized by the committee and by Headwaters, 13 and that is that these pumping limitations are on 14 non-domestic wells, if they were to be implemented. And -- 15 because I've got a number of calls from people who are 16 saying, "Are we going to evaluate the flow on every well in 17 Kerr County?" Well, the answer, obviously, is no, but I 18 think that needs to be said. 19 MR. CORNETT: Well, that was written into the 20 rule. Generally, your domestic wells are those that produce 21 less than 25,000 gallons per day. And, we wrote in there 22 that this was non -- this was not applicable. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 25 comments? 53 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my only 2 comment -- I'll just -- you know, I think Cameron is very 3 much aware of my opinions on -- on this, is that we need to 4 move very slowly. The one thing that we learned, I think, 5 is we agree that we didn't learn a whole lot from Senate 6 Bill 1's first phase. There's just so much we don't know 7 about the Trinity. I think we're at a very precarious 8 situation where we need to be careful that we don't 9 overreact with lack of information, but at the same time, we 10 need to be careful that we don't under-react. And I think 11 we've found a fairly good balance with the Water 12 Availability Rules, which are really geared more towards 13 collecting data through new wells as much as anything. 14 There are some limitations on subdivision size and things, 15 or -- and density, but I think that the things that we need 16 the most as a community and look to Headwaters to be the 17 lead on is to get better data so we can get a clear 18 understanding of the Trinity Aquifer, both the Lower and 19 Middle, and that is the primary goal of the next 5-year 20 planning phase for the Region J planning process. And, it 21 looks like now we'll get funding, and that's what we're 22 focusing on for the future. And, Cameron obviously serves 23 on that board with me and is aware of that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cameron, in this 25 little map you've given us here, you show a preponderance of 54 1 the Lower Trinity wells in the 7-mile square, if you will. 2 By a quick count, there's some 25 to 30 of those in there. 3 My question is, how many of those are monitored on a regular 4 basis? 5 MR. CORNETT: Not very many of them. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you get your 7 data? 8 MR. CORNETT: As far as? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As knowing, you know, 10 what's happening underneath there. What all these -- if all 11 these wells are pumping, and they're pumping at reasonably 12 their limitations, whatever that might be, how do we know 13 what the aggregate or the compound draw-down effect of that 14 is in this 7-mile radius? And -- and what does it do 15 outside the 7-mile area? 16 MR. CORNETT: Because of the densities of 17 these wells, we see an overlapping on their area of 18 influence where, basically, we have a localized depletion 19 zone. Therefore, the monitoring of one well can be inferred 20 upon another. As far as the exact, no, but we can get a 21 good idea that we are seeing localized depletion. And, I 22 brought some graphs -- and I want to try and hold down my -- 23 my handouts, but one of the things we've seen since the 24 '90's in the Lower Trinity is we've seen a drop of 100 foot. 25 It has not recovered on average 100 foot. As we are 55 1 growing, we're seeing more dependence upon the aquifer, and 2 this -- like I said, it is a cumulative effect. One pumping 3 cycle, the aquifer does not recover. Then it goes into its 4 next one, and basically, within a small area, we see 5 depletion. And, therefore, that is how we're able to -- to 6 monitor within, you know, just a limited number of wells 7 within an area, because of the overlap. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: How many Lower Trinity wells 9 do you monitor, Cameron? Is it three or four? Four? 10 MR. CORNETT: Approximately. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: But, those are wells that 12 you've monitored for a number of years, and you have fairly 13 good data going back at least six or eight -- 14 MR. CORNETT: Yes. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- years. So, do you have 16 data on that to support what you've just told us about? 17 MR. CORNETT: Yes. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back to your 20 committee. I was there Monday when y'all -- you called for 21 people to volunteer to serve on the committee. Is that 22 coming about? 23 MR. CORNETT: The committee's around 50 right 24 now. We're getting ready -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to have to 56 1 charter buses to get them -- has anyone from this Court 2 signed up? 3 MR. CORNETT: No, not yet. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see two gentlemen 5 sitting in the back of the room that are excellent, 6 excellent committee members, and just go ahead and get them 7 on your way out the door. 8 MR. CORNETT: All right. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They'll be happy to 10 serve. 11 MR. CORNETT: I believe I have a -- a 12 volunteer from the Court also. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here in the middle. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cameron, what's the -- I 16 presume Headwaters board's going to make the decision on 17 who's on the committee? Or how is that -- how do you -- 18 MR. CORNETT: The chair -- all committees are 19 formed by the chair. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any indication 21 as to how -- I mean, is there going to be, like, a 5-member 22 committee or, like, a 50-member -- 23 MR. CORNETT: We're going to try -- from what 24 I've been told, we're going to try and work it down to a 25 workable committee, group size. I've been writing the list. 57 1 Like I said, it was -- I had about four pages on my desk 2 last time I looked at it, and I believe someone called in 3 this morning before I left, but we're trying to break it 4 down into groups, similar to the regional process where we 5 have representative from -- from each group. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Just for clarification, I was 7 approached by the Board to participate, and have agreed to, 8 and will of course keep everyone here fully informed as to 9 what's going on. We've had a request from Mr. Cornelius Van 10 Bavel to address us on this issue. Mr. Van Bavel, do you 11 wish to address us at this time? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Cameron. 13 MR. CORNETT: Thank you. 14 MR. VAN BAVEL: Your Honor and members of 15 the -- of the County Commission board, I am Cornelius Van 16 Bavel. I am a resident of Kerr County. I live in Pecan 17 Valley. I'm also a director of the Headwaters Underground 18 Water Conservation District. I did not know that 19 Mr. Cornett was going to be here speaking this morning, and 20 he did not know that I was going to speak this morning. We 21 have not communicated over the last 24 hours or so, or 48. 22 However, you may be pleased to know that what he has said I, 23 by and large, agree with. Very much so. And, I have a 24 written presentation that I will make available to you, and 25 I will make my comments a little shorter. Rather than 58 1 reading this off, I want to react to a couple of comments 2 that were -- that were made, particularly by the 3 Commissioners. 4 I -- I think it's been pointed out that we 5 are overdrawing the Lower Trinity Aquifer in this area, and 6 we do have enough records in response to the question raised 7 by His Honor, the County Judge. We have a record of Lower 8 Trinity wells that goes back to 1940, and since that time 9 until 19 -- approximately 1970, in 30 years, the water level 10 in the Lower Trinity went down about 400 feet. In fact, it 11 came pretty close to the top of the aquifer, which, of 12 course, would be a total disaster. And, of course, the City 13 saw this coming; they changed to surface water. And, in -- 14 and it took seven years, supporting what Mr. Cornett has 15 been saying about the slowness with which water moves into 16 the area where it is being withdrawn, took seven years to go 17 back to almost the original record, the original recorded 18 level in 1940. Not quite. And, it remained stable for a 19 few years, but in the last five years, the level in the 20 Lower Trinity, as recorded every month, has gone down so 21 that we are within 100 feet of that near disaster level of 22 1970. So, we have to, indeed, be extremely careful. 23 Now, what kind of care should we exercise? 24 I'd like for you to quote something that was said by, of all 25 people, Governor Christine Whitman of New Jersey, who is 59 1 going to be the new administrator of E.P.A. after January 2 the 20th. She said, "We must shift the burden of proof away 3 from those advocating protection," and that is Headwaters, 4 "to those proposing an action that may be harmful." In 5 other words, we don't have to show -- we don't have to show 6 that protection is needed. I think that is pretty obvious. 7 Somebody else has to show that he is not making the 8 situation worse by what he proposes or what he is asking 9 for. 10 I'm here to tell you, and so is Mr. Cornett, 11 that overcommitment of our local groundwater resources can 12 be extremely harmful to Kerr County, to the people, to the 13 business, and to everything else that's going on here. And, 14 if you ignore this danger, and if you want people to ignore 15 this danger, you have to refute the evidence that we have. 16 Now, I don't disagree with Commissioner Letz, that says we 17 need more data. We always need more data. I'm a scientist; 18 we always say this. However, and it's thanks to 19 Commissioner Letz' work, we do have two very complete 20 reports that have been prepared by the best experts 21 available, and for which there has been a great deal of 22 money expended. I don't know exactly how much, but I'm sure 23 you do. And, it's going to be very difficult to get more 24 information -- pertinent information out of a committee of 25 50 people. Not that I am against this. I think we are 60 1 interested in the reaction of people to what is being 2 proposed, but they are not going to come up with any new 3 data. Now, we have two aquifers that we're dealing with. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Excuse me, Mr. Van Bavel. 5 We've got a very busy agenda. 6 MR. VAN BAVEL: Yes, I am aware. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: We've got 15 more items to 8 go. I'm going to, with all due respect, ask you to -- 9 MR. VAN BAVEL: Can I summarize one sentence? 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 11 MR. VAN BAVEL: I ask that you take the 12 limitations proposed for the Lower and -- and the Middle 13 Trinity very seriously. I also ask that you make everybody 14 understand that the majority of domestic wells are not 15 affected. We don't have the right to do this. It's only 16 the large wells and the ones that serve platted 17 subdivisions, and we do have the power to do this and it's 18 our obligation as a district to take the appropriate action, 19 which we will do with consideration and not hastily. Thank 20 you. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, sir. Okay. Thank 22 you, Cameron. Thank you, Mr. Van Bavel. We'll look forward 23 to the work of the committee and the efforts to protect the 24 water resources in Kerr County. 25 MR. VAN BAVEL: Excuse me, sir. May I -- 61 1 (Document handed to the Court.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, you may. Thank you. 3 Next we'll take up Item Number 3, which is consider replat 4 of Tract 16, Silver Hills, set public hearing date for the 5 same if needed. Commissioner Williams. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The County Engineer 7 will talk about this. This is a -- a -- a replat that will 8 be required by reason of an earlier proposal we had here 9 that we took into consideration about the subdividing of a 10 242-acre tract of land. I forgot the name of it now. This 11 has to do with trying to get in and out of this proposed 12 subdivision. Franklin? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: I think this is proposing a 14 revision of the existing plat of Lot 16, dividing it into 15 two lots with a road right-of-way shown to provide a high 16 water access to the subdivision. I think it's Paso Creek 17 Subdivision. And, Charles, would you like to make any 18 comments? Only comments I have, quickly, is the -- we had a 19 letter from Headwaters about the well, septic tank that's 20 shown on Lot 16-B, the proposed Tract 16-B, septic being 21 within the sanitary easement of the well. And the only 22 other question I would have is that the 3 acres -- I'm not 23 sure that meets the new rules, if they put a well on the -- 24 on that lot, it wouldn't be large enough. Go ahead. 25 MR. DOMINGUES: Charles Domingues. The well 62 1 on the -- I mean, the 3-acre tract, if we go by the new 2 regulations, from the way that I understand them, the 3 minimum number of tracts that you can have is the total 4 acreage of the subdivision divided by three, and the total 5 acreage of this subdivision is 15.53. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the source of the 7 water? 8 MR. DOMINGUES: Would be this individual 9 well. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a 5-acre minimum. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Divisible by five, 12 Charles, not three. 13 MR. DOMINGUES: Okay. If you -- well -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's -- oh, divisible. 15 The acreage is only if you're on a public water supply, can 16 you vary it. If you're on individual wells, the minimum 17 size is 5 acres. 18 MR. DOMINGUES: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well and septic. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On 16-A, the water is 21 going to be supplied, it says, if -- am I reading the note 22 correctly? 16-A's water will be supplied by the well on 23 16-B? 24 MR. DOMINGUES: By the well from 16-B. So, 25 therefore, that will be a community water system, and under 63 1 the new regulations, if I'm interpreting them correctly, 2 under 5.01 and .E, Number 2, no acreage limitation for lots 3 served by community or public water system that's served by 4 O.S.S.F. Such O.S.S.F. can be installed in compliance with 5 the current order or rules in Kerr County, Texas, for 6 on-site sewage facilities, which this is. Which the well 7 being on this one lot, on 16-B, and supplying 16-A should 8 fall within that -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Water is going to be -- 10 you'll have to get final plat approval by Headwaters -- 11 MR. DOMINGUES: Right. Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- of that water system 13 as a requirement. 14 MR. DOMINGUES: Right. Yes, sir, we have no 15 problem with that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That -- it meets the 17 criteria. I didn't see the footnote. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The purpose of it, 19 however, is to provide a road -- an ingress and egress to a 20 242-acre subdivision, and I think the County Engineer has 21 raised some questions that I think need some responses. New 22 road is to be a public road. Does it mean that all roads in 23 the new subdivision will be public? Do we have some feel 24 for what the traffic count is likely to be, minimums to 25 maximums? Do we have any feel for what the impact of this 64 1 cut-through road will be on Silver Hills Road? Is Silver 2 Hills Road capable of handling that extra load of traffic 3 without being rehabilitated or upgraded? I don't think any 4 of those issues are addressed in your request. Would you 5 like to address them now? 6 MR. DOMINGUES: Well, I am not familiar 7 with -- with a lot of the -- of what you were saying, 8 because I have not received that information, other than 9 what was requested as to whether or not this is a public 10 road. Yes, it will be a public road. It will connect to a 11 proposed subdivision, which is a public -- will have a 12 public road within the subdivision. The lots in the 13 subdivision as it is proposed now, which was submitted for 14 approval last month, at this time I believe it has 18 lots, 15 and I think one was added to it, which is 19 lots in the 16 subdivision. The -- the lots in the subdivision are 10-acre 17 tracts. More so than the lots -- I think one of them is 18 even 15 acres or so. As to what the impact is on Silver 19 Hills Road, as to how many of those 18 people will be 20 traveling out this way to access egress and ingress to and 21 from their property, you know, I can't tell you for sure how 22 many that would be. The subdivision with this access will 23 have two access right-of-ways. One of them will be coming 24 off of Wharton Road or the Center Point River Road, and so, 25 therefore, these 18 tracts will have two places of entry and 65 1 exit. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that, 3 and I -- and I know that 18 tracts of land are subdivided 4 into -- a site subdivided into 18 tracts of land probably 5 doesn't produce, in and of itself, a lot of real traffic, 6 but that's not the only thing that goes into the traffic 7 count. It's that which serves those 18 homes, that kind of 8 traffic; the visitors to the area, et cetera, et cetera, to 9 make up the total traffic count. And, what I want to know 10 is -- and I think the Road and Bridge Department wants to 11 know, is what is the impact on Silver Hills Road? That's a 12 country lane, wasn't designed to be a collector road. It's 13 a country lane, and I want to know what impact it has. 14 MR. DOMINGUES: That's something that, you 15 know -- you know, the City Engineer or the County Engineer 16 would have to come up with what -- determine that kind of 17 impact. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's raised the 19 question, so I guess we're looking for answers. 20 MR. DOMINGUES: Well, I can't tell you what 21 kind of impact it is until the subdivision is built, 22 determine how many people use it. I do know that this rear 23 entry or -- or this back entry is a considerably longer 24 distance for many of the tracts, rather than the other entry 25 and exit. 66 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- 2 MR. DOMINGUES: But I can't tell you how many 3 is going to use the entry over -- the other entry. You 4 know, if you say nine -- nine different people, that's nine 5 people, you know, on the -- traveling that road. That would 6 be half of the people in the subdivision. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is Paso Creek Road 8 proposed as a -- to be a county-maintained road? 9 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, it will be brought 11 to county standards? 12 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The extension of it on 14 up to the other site, to the big site? 15 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, those would be -- 17 those would be more than country lanes, but it would tie 18 into a country lane. 19 MR. DOMINGUES: The big reason for getting 20 this is because there is a crossing that crosses the Turtle 21 Creek. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think it's obvious 23 that the -- most of the traffic's going to be at the north 24 entrance, not the south entrance, which is not a whole 25 lot south of there, but why would you do that? Most of the 67 1 stuff is going to be coming out along -- 2 MR. DOMINGUES: You're really looking at 3 going away from Kerrville. If you're going to Kerrville -- 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 5 MR. DOMINGUES: Most people think, you know, 6 even if it might be longer, if you go in the direction 7 towards Kerrville, at least you think it feels shorter. I 8 don't know. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 10 MR. DOMINGUES: I'm not a traffic flow expert 11 as to be able to determine that. And, a number of people 12 that would be using that -- 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the reason we brought it 14 up, like Commissioner Williams said, the country lane road 15 is limited to 15 lots. You know, the -- I'm not -- I think 16 there's more lots than that in Silver Hills right now, and 17 so it's a narrow road. I'm not sure the County has 18 authority to have a developer upgrade a county road. I'm 19 not sure where we stand on that, either. That's not 20 included in our rules. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but -- yes. I'm 22 going back to the acreage sizes. Is there a reason that you 23 wouldn't -- or the developer wouldn't want to enlarge that 24 3-acre tract to 5 acres so there was the flexibility of 25 putting a well on that site? It's not a requirement; it 68 1 just seems -- more as an observation, seems it would be -- 2 MR. DOMINGUES: Now, I'm sorry, I cannot -- 3 you know, I -- when we kind of first started this, they 4 tried to decide where was a good location for future use of 5 the property, and this is kind of where an existing road is 6 through the property. There is a little bit of an advantage 7 here, rather than moving it to the north because of the -- 8 kind of a lower area, lower gravel area over there for the 9 construction, and you may run into groundwater possibly for 10 this -- that. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, is there a reason 12 that the owner wants to subdivide it? Could -- and does it 13 have to be subdivided if the road runs through it? In other 14 words -- 15 MR. DOMINGUES: The owner -- 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- if you just took 17 Tract 16-B -- 16, just took Tract 16, deeded a right-of-way 18 to the County, that would solve the problem. You don't even 19 subdivide it. 20 MR. DOMINGUES: That would be fine with us, 21 'cause he's not interested in subdividing. The problem 22 is -- is the fact that, you know, to bring this to the 23 County's -- put the road through possibly the County 24 Subdivision Regulations, that a lot cannot be split by a 25 road. 69 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. That's the 2 answer to my question. 3 MR. DOMINGUES: But that would be fine with 4 us, 'cause all he's interested in doing is selling that 5 strip through there for access into the adjacent property. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I would almost be 7 -- you know -- 8 MR. DOMINGUES: And if that's the pleasure of 9 the Court, that's fine with us. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm almost more in favor 11 of doing a waiver than splitting up a little lot like this. 12 I see problems developing down the road, but it doesn't make 13 -- it's up to the developer, really. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You're saying grant a 15 variance on having -- letting the lots be split, and just 16 deed a right-of-way to the County to build a road? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's up -- it's 18 purely the developer's discretion as to how he wants to do 19 it. I mean, I just -- it seems like it's a problem for the 20 future, but other than that, I'm not -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has this -- Charles, 22 has this tract been acquired by the developer of the Paso 23 Creek -- 24 MR. DOMINGUES: No, sir, not until he's sure 25 that he can get the access. 70 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Franklin, what other 2 comments do you have? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: I think that's all the 4 comments I have. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My final comment is a 6 change of terminology. In the future, this should be 7 revision of plat, as opposed to replat. Replat's not a term 8 recognized in the -- replat's not under Section 232. It's 9 called "revision of plat," not replat. We're trying to be 10 consistent. But, anyway, it's just a -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Charles, I really -- 12 I believe we ought to follow the recommendation of the 13 County Engineer and wait on this until you come in for 14 preliminary plat approval on the 242 acres. We'll take them 15 all up at one time. 16 MR. DOMINGUES: I guess the only question 17 would be -- would be whether or not there would be a problem 18 with this, because the man that's -- that is doing this -- 19 this, you know, that we -- you know, this septic, is -- is 20 fouling the well possibly, and he wants to change it. But, 21 to be able to change it, we need to be able to convey -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of thought 23 there might be something there that we hadn't heard about 24 before. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: He wants to drill 71 1 another well? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He wants to drill 3 another well? 4 MR. DOMINGUES: It is -- the septic is close 5 to the well. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 7 MR. DOMINGUES: Very close. And it needs to 8 be corrected. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why doesn't he drill 10 another well and then rethink the -- rethink the break of 11 these two lots? 12 MR. DOMINGUES: Well, what we really need to 13 do is -- is to move the septic outside of the -- farther 14 away from the well. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or move it out, 16 rethink the positioning of the road so that you're not 17 caught with a 3.3-acre tract and an 11.26. 3.3 acres, the 18 length that you're talking about, is really kind of weird. 19 Why can't we rethink that whole thing? Reposition the 20 septic, reposition the potential -- potentially reposition 21 the road, then come back at one time. Why can't we do that? 22 MR. DOMINGUES: Could you make that a 23 recommendation so that I can take it to them? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to make you 25 that recommendation. 72 1 MR. DOMINGUES: I'll be glad to present it to 2 them. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else on this 5 item? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we talking about 7 revision of plat? Are we talking about granting a variance 8 to something? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we're 10 still -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Either. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either/or. But the 13 terminology is "revision" as opposed to "replat," but we'll 14 entertain either, whichever you want to come back with at 15 the time you come back in with the other plat. 16 MR. DOMINGUES: I really don't think they're 17 really married to that road location. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. 19 MR. DOMINGUES: You know, I don't think so. 20 I think it was kind of a decision that -- you know, on their 21 part, you know, where do we put a road? 'Cause that was all 22 that was interested -- that was really the intention of this 23 whole thing, was to get a road through here. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- but I 25 think you -- I mean, I agree with Commissioner Williams. I 73 1 think it's better to look at the whole thing at one time. 2 It can also be said that -- tell the developer that, I mean, 3 this does meet the rules. I mean -- 4 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's kind of peculiar, in 6 my mind, but it does meet the rules. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The idea of having a 8 high water -- high water in and out is something that's 9 good, so probably -- 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Could we put the developer's 11 mind at ease one way or the other on Silver Hills Road? 12 Anything that, you know, you would require on that? I'm not 13 sure we can, but -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm not sure we can. 15 I'm not sure we could. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know, unless 17 you give us a recommendation of some kind. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I wouldn't -- wouldn't 19 know what to recommend on that. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think we can -- I 21 think we need to look at that, because it's an interesting 22 question. If we have a -- say, a country lane, which is 23 only designed to serve so many cars, so many residences, and 24 it becomes the primary access for a subdivision which is 25 much greater -- 74 1 MR. JOHNSTON: As a result of a future 2 subdivision. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Does that developer have -- 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that gives us the 6 ability to deny the new subdivision, unless there's some 7 improvements made to the feeder road. I think that's 8 something that we need to look at, perhaps ask our County 9 Attorney's office to give us some guidance on. But when we 10 design a road for a specific tract or purpose, and then a 11 new subdivision changes that purpose, then it would seem to 12 me logical that we would have the ability to require that 13 that road be changed to reflect the -- the actual usage of 14 it. But, we'll get the County Attorney to help us with 15 that. 16 MR. DOMINGUES: There is one thing that I 17 would like to mention here. The Silver Hills Road has a 18 right of way of 50 feet, and the road was -- was built and 19 the subdivision in place in Volume 3, Page 43, which was 20 approximately the mid '60's, or 40 years ago. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Point being? 23 MR. DOMINGUES: The point being that there 24 are a lot of roads that are accessed by subdivisions that 25 were built way back in those times. 75 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 2 MR. DOMINGUES: And that, as subdivisions are 3 built, they go through these old county roads that are not 4 any wider than this. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That may be the case. 6 And what we're talking about is the impact of a 242-acre, 7 and then, as I read the Road and Bridge memorandum from the 8 County Engineer, possibly an additional subdivision adjacent 9 to the proposed road. What does that mean? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, there's additional land 11 between -- tell me if I'm wrong here -- between Hidden Hills 12 and Paso Creek. There's another -- 13 MR. DOMINGUES: Right. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: -- several hundred acres in 15 there, right? 16 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. 17 MR. JOHNSTON: That could be developed. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Without relabeling it, 19 though, I think the Court ought to be careful, because if we 20 were to say, "Don't build that road there," okay, they don't 21 build the road. They do the subdivision, and now there's a 22 high water way out of the subdivision. We've just bought a 23 problem that we -- we may not want to have bought. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not -- not 25 talking about -- we do need a high way to ingress and 76 1 egress, no question about that. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, my point being, 3 is that -- that, yeah, we can look at it in the aggregate, 4 but if there is -- if the developer is looking at a way of 5 having a second way out that gets people out in high water, 6 then we should look for ways to make that happen. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not looking for 8 ways to stop it. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Rather than saying 10 that Spring or whatever the road is that we're talking about 11 can't support it, because I would agree that there are -- 12 all over this county, there are roads that were country 13 lanes that serve large, major subdivisions, and we did not 14 make that distinction in this case that says you can't put 15 it there, because that road wasn't spec'd to that 40 years 16 ago. So, that's all I'm saying. Just we ought to look at 17 it from a public safety issue, too, of getting -- having a 18 high water way out. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's another reason 20 to look at it in the aggregate, is subdivision of the road 21 as well. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 24 MR. DOMINGUES: Thank you very much. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that perfectly clear, 77 1 Charles? 2 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes. 3 (Laughter.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moving right along. Item 5 Number 4 is consider minor replat -- I guess revision of 6 plat of Tract 64 and 66, Ingram Hills, set a public hearing 7 date for same if needed, and set a variance for lot size, 8 Precinct 4. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me jump in on this 10 one real quick. I think, after discussions with Jonathan 11 and Franklin, when he looked at this under our new rule, 12 this probably did not even require a revision of plat, which 13 is what this should be called, in that the -- the reason for 14 the subdivision, making four out of one tract of land, was 15 to deed these other three to relatives of the person doing 16 the replatting. So, I think there was a -- am I correct on 17 that, Franklin? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Are you -- did you get the 19 information on this? 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I've gotten Ms. -- the 21 client here. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I think they mentioned that, 23 but I want to make sure that's correct. I think part of the 24 transaction is for that purpose, but I don't think it's 25 purely for that purpose. That would all be family. Is 78 1 that -- 2 MR. DIGGES: Right. Right, two lots would 3 be. Two would be. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which two? 5 MR. DAVIS: This one right here. This one, and 6 possibly this one (indicating). 7 MR. DIGGES: 66-A and 64-B. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: You live on this one, right? 9 MR. DAVIS: Right. We currently are on this -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which one? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Owner lives on 64-A. 12 MR. DAVIS: 64-A, yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the -- under our 14 rules and State law, if you transfer it to a relative, you 15 don't need to plat it, up to three lots. So, 64 -- but 16 66-B, what's -- that's going to be sold to someone, to -- 17 MR. DAVIS: Well, not necessarily. We'll 18 probably just hang onto it right now. We could, you know, 19 in the future, but no intentions right now. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're -- I mean, this 21 is another problem, putting the road in. But, if you keep 22 64-A, and 64-B and 66-A are going to relatives, and you keep 23 66-B, I don't see that it needs to be platted. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, see, the question is, 25 it's already platted. They want to divide it. 79 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: He wants to go ahead 2 and plat it, since they've gone through this. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: It's in a platted subdivision. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To make it a legal 5 transaction with a plat, rather than metes and bounds, and 6 that's up to the owner. If he wants to plat it, that's 7 fine. 8 MR. DIGGES: And I want to interject 9 something, because I think this will be an easier route that 10 you're talking about, Jonathan, for my client. But, I'm not 11 sure in the long run that it would be in his best interests, 12 because I think Franklin's making the point that what you're 13 saying would be true if it would be unplatted land, but 14 there's also provisions in the Local Government Code for 15 having to go through a replatting or revision process when 16 it's already in the platted subdivision, and I'm not sure if 17 that -- that bill that was passed last time that opened up 18 that door was in -- in platted subdivisions. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Unclear whether it's acreage 20 or in a subdivision. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Should be a revision 22 of plat. 23 MR. DIGGES: Has to be a public -- has to be 24 a public hearing that gives the folks an opportunity to 25 voice their opinion about the -- the replat of the 80 1 revisions. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: And the lot sizes are below 3 the minimums for a well and a septic, correct? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 5 MR. DIGGES: Yeah, and we're kind of 6 confused. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: As of the -- they were in the 8 process of doing this before the new rules were -- 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was my question. 10 MR. DIGGES: We don't know if -- 11 MR. JOHNSTON: They waited 30 days to get on 12 the agenda. In the meantime, the rules changed. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: They're covered by the old 14 rules. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they're covered. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: They filed -- if they deliver 17 to the County Attorney prior to the new rules, I think 18 they're covered by the old rules. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, we would have to 21 have a public hearing for this, right? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: We need to set the date for 24 public hearing and send notifications. 25 MR. DIGGES: And the only thing I would 81 1 offer, then, is that I have researched the restrictions for 2 the subdivisions, and -- and there isn't anything that would 3 disallow these lot sizes per deed restrictions. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: January the 12th? 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 6 MR. JOHNSTON: I think 30 days, probably the 7 second meeting. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, it would have to 9 be the second meeting. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we're looking at the 11 22nd. The 22nd is our second meeting in January. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Thirty days from today. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: January 22nd. So, 14 I'll make the motion that we -- let's see, what are we -- we 15 approve the preliminary revision -- they probably should 16 hear what I'm saying. I would make the motion that we'll 17 approve the preliminary revision of plat. 18 MR. DIGGES: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And set a public 20 hearing for January 22nd at 10 a.m. 21 MS. PIEPER: I have a question. Do any of 22 you gentlemen know how many times we have to publish this 23 notice in the newspaper? 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think just once? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Three times, isn't it? 82 1 MS. BARBEE: It's three times. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you not know? 3 MS. PIEPER: Not right off the top of my 4 head, sir, I don't. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: I think it's in the new rules. 6 MS. PIEPER: I was thinking it was three 7 times, once every one -- second week, if I'm not mistaken. 8 MR. DIGGES: Over the course of 21 days. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can work that out. 10 MS. PIEPER: I just need time to do this and 11 send out the certified notices. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: I would suggest, Commissioner 13 Griffin, that we have the public hearing the first meeting 14 in February, which gives another two weeks to get the 15 notices signed. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Notice must be published 17 at least three times during the period that begins on the 18 30th day and ends on the 7th day before the date of the 19 meeting." 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: We really don't have time to 21 get the notices between now and then. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. What's our 23 first February -- 24 (Discussion off the record.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 83 1 Griffin to approve the proposed revisions of Lots 64 and 66, 2 Ingram Hills, and to set a public hearing on the same for 3 10 o'clock a.m. on February 12th, Year 2001, here in the 4 Commissioners' Courtroom. Did we have a second on that 5 motion? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Second by Commissioner Letz. 8 Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, 9 raise your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 14 Item Number 5, consider preliminary minor revision of a plat 15 of Tract 16 and Tract 17 of J.L. Nichols Subdivision and set 16 public hearing. Again, Commissioner Griffin. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Say the words on this 18 one. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: This one's been here several 20 times before. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think it's ever been 23 approved. It was just a -- a preliminary conference-type 24 items. Harvey's still here. All they were doing is 25 changing the lot line from one direction to the other, from 84 1 east-west to north-south. Lots are exactly the same size, 2 just change the frontage. And, they were -- they were back 3 here on April 24th, and the Court said they agreed and they 4 would grant him a variance to the -- the frontage, which was 5 185 feet instead of 200 feet; hashed that out, and said they 6 would approve that. So, back then, they had minor replats. 7 I guess we can still call it, one more time, that? 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, I would -- I would 9 say that I'll make the motion that we accept the -- this is 10 a preliminary, right? 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should be a final. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Should be final. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, under the old -- what do 15 we have on the thing? I think it should be a final. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's okay. 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Posted as preliminary, though. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It is, in fact, a 20 final. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, it is. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can't get around 23 that one, can we? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Harvey, we could deny 25 it. Which I think we should, to be honest with you. He's 85 1 got to bring it back, and the way I see it, that's the way 2 we treat everybody. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know how I got 4 preliminary put on there. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, it's actually -- 6 this is actually the final plat. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Minor replat usually just 8 comes once. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Does this come under 11 the old rule? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: It's coming under the old 13 rules. Actually, the -- you know, the Commissioner -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In April, when they 15 made this first application under the old rule, the -- 16 MR. JOHNSTON: They didn't have to come to 17 Court, but they decided to bring it to Court because there's 18 a variance involved. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: If it's under the old rules 20 and the Commissioner can do it, why don't we just pull it 21 and you do it? 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Why don't we do that? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: I think it's typed up on the 24 thing already for the Judge to sign it. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Who? 86 1 MR. JOHNSTON: We had to change it because it 2 had a variance. We said, "Well, bring it to Court." It's 3 already been signed by everyone. The Judge's name is on it 4 instead of yours. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, since it's under 6 the old rules, can we authorize the Judge to sign it? We 7 don't have to -- 8 MR. JOHNSTON: What we've done in the past. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that makes 10 sense. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be 12 better, going under the old rules, to scratch his name out 13 and you sign it. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, we'll do that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause that just 16 doesn't -- 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't have any authority to 18 do it, but there's no reason -- simply because my name is on 19 there doesn't mean you can't scratch through it and put your 20 name on there. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure, I'll do that. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's take up Item 25 Number -- well, Linda Parker's here and she's been here 87 1 diligently all morning. We're going to go ahead and take up 2 Item Number 14, which is consider and discuss a resolution 3 supporting Texas Community Mental Health and Mental 4 Retardation Centers. Linda, do you want to come forward and 5 tell us a little bit about this? 6 MS. PARKER: Thank y'all very much for 7 allowing me to be here today, and I just wanted to give you 8 a very brief overview. I spoke with Judge Henneke about 9 this issue, what -- Texas Department of Mental Health, all 10 the advocacy groups for mental health, all the individual 11 groups for mental retardation, and the Texas Councils, which 12 serves the outpatient community for people with mental 13 illness and mental retardation. We are, as a group, for the 14 first time going to go to the Legislature and say, with our 15 funding for mental health and mental retardation being 43rd 16 in the nation, we are asking the Legislature if they would 17 -- we realize we can't be brought up to the top, but we 18 would like to come at least to the middle. And we're asking 19 for a 5-year plan, and each year it would require that the 20 Legislature give mental health and mental retardation an 21 additional $285 million. 22 As -- where this directly affects Hill 23 Country MHMR Center, we serve 3,000 consumers in 19 24 counties. We have -- we have 637 employees. We have a 25 $24.3 million budget. We have ten mental health centers, we 88 1 have nine centers for people with mental retardation, and 2 ten early childhood development centers. There was, during 3 the last legislative session, an increase in medication, the 4 amount of money that was given for new generation 5 medications. That was wonderful, but as people are thinking 6 better and they're living healthier lives, they have more 7 need for homes and jobs and being better integrated in the 8 community. But, just to bring it down completely to Hill 9 Country, we have -- in mental retardation services alone, we 10 have 479 people on a waiting list, waiting to get services 11 for mental retardation. Many of those people need 12 assistance just to help their children and their -- their 13 family members live in their homes. 14 What I'd like to ask you to do as a 15 Commissioners Court is to think about the fact that we have 16 88 employees that are in Kerr County. Our budget for Kerr 17 County alone is $3,504,779. We have 65 clients that we 18 serve with mental retardation services, and we have 406 19 clients that we meet their mental health needs. So, what 20 I'm asking you today is to support the resolution that I 21 have brought to the Court; that you would agree that we do 22 need and deserve more funding in mental health and mental 23 retardation. If I went over my time limit, I apologize. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions of Ms. Parker? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. 89 1 MS. PARKER: Yes, sir? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Certainly, I 3 definitely agree with you 1,000 percent. What happened 4 to -- when the center was put together a couple years or 5 several years ago, what happened to the substance abuse 6 treatment? 7 MS. PARKER: Okay. What we did, as opposed 8 to trying to gain licensure ourselves, Commissioner, we were 9 not in a position to do that. It would require too much 10 additional staff and money. We have worked cooperatively 11 with Hill Country Independence House and we have 12 agreements -- he and I have gone to Austin, along with the 13 chairman of our board, and asked for money for the detox 14 center that exists now. And, we -- we continue to work with 15 him and with Ginny Stevens and people that are in the 16 communities. This is one of the things that we realized 17 early on; we don't need to be doing things that we can 18 assist other people in getting funding for. We don't need 19 to be duplicating it, okay? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve the 21 resolution in support of the Texas Mental Health and Mental 22 Retardation Centers. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 25 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 90 1 approve the resolution supporting Texas Community Mental 2 Health and Mental Retardation Centers. Any further 3 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 4 right hands. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 9 MS. PARKER: Thank you, Judge, and I'm 10 leaving a video with the Commissioners and you so that you 11 can look at -- it's a 14-minute video. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of what? 13 MS. PARKER: Of the request -- the 14 legislative request, but it's about our clients. It's not 15 about us. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 17 MS. PARKER: You need to watch it. You'll 18 like it. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Want to recess at 20 this time, or do we want to push it a little longer? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It doesn't start till 22 11:30. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can get my three done 24 in about two minutes total for all three. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we need to come back 91 1 after lunch. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're not very nice to 3 me today. Then you have to sign all those contracts. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's wait till after lunch; 5 I don't have to sign those till next year. Okay, let's push 6 on for a few minutes. Item Number 7, consider and discuss 7 new contracts for cell phone service and authorize County 8 Judge to sign same. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. No, just 10 joking. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To make it real short, 12 the Sheriff's office has nine cell phones that we currently 13 utilize. A lot of those contracts went way back for years 14 and years and never been looked at, never been redone. Out 15 of those nine cell phones, we're paying an average of about 16 $700 a month in phone bills. I thought that was outrageous 17 and that could be redone. So, getting with the phone 18 company and that, and redoing everything to totally provide 19 us with new equipment, new phones, and changing the rates 20 and everything. What this will do is give us 19 cell phones 21 so that the investigators, the sergeants -- patrol 22 sergeants, warrants, and all them can have one. For these 23 19 cell phones, it's a 15-month contract, and it will lower 24 our monthly rate to about $500 a month or in that 25 neighborhood, $550, but we're still going to drop our 92 1 monthly phone bill on cell phones by -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, from what to 3 what, now? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On an average, say $700, 5 $750, down to $500, $550. Close to $200 a month. The first 6 month will be a large increase, 'cause we are replacing the 7 phones, the phones themselves. Total phones are 19, and 8 some of those are bag phones that we have the higher wattage 9 for the patrol -- or for the sergeants. We'll be right at 10 $1,000, but there are all the discount things, which cuts 11 that in half. So, our initial increase, we will have $500 12 for equipment. We'll be saving $200 a month in bills, and 13 we will get that $500 rebate at our February bill, is what 14 it amounts to. So, we're going to save money on the cell 15 phones at the end of the year. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does this require 17 bidding? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Service contract doesn't? 20 Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty, under the 22 service agreement part, under calling features, you've got 23 caller ID, call forwarding, call waiting, three-way calling. 24 The prices are marked out. The services are checked. Does 25 that mean we're getting the services without charge? 93 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My understanding is -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Or services are not 3 available? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, my understanding is 5 I think we're getting those services at no charge. That's 6 not something we asked for; that's just the way they did 7 the -- the contracts. It's -- I think it's becoming 8 standard of the -- what these are is, all these go under one 9 bill. It's -- the normal plan is 2,000 minutes a month for 10 all 19 phones. On the back of the main contract is the 11 doubling of that, which -- which puts it at 4,000 minutes a 12 month for all 19 phones. In other words, it's all a pool 13 deal where one uses 300, but the other one only uses 10. 14 You know, it's kind of a wash deal; it doesn't matter, so it 15 will work a whole lot more efficiently for our department. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One last question. I 17 thought the County was -- I thought the Judge and 18 Commissioner Griffin were talking with the phone company 19 about doing all this, basically, for the whole county. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: We will. That's the next 21 step. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the next step. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is to go out and determine 24 how many other cell phones the County pays for, to bring 25 those in and take a look at pagers and take a look at the 94 1 basic telephone services. But -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that's still working 3 through? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's still working. You 5 know, the -- 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Tied up with internet 7 service. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Tied up with internet 9 service, it's tied up with the telephone system at the jail. 10 Current contract expires in April, and the Sheriff has 11 initiated discussions with K.T.C. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to make sure we 13 don't get -- I mean, we had multiple phone companies and 14 everything else scattered all over. Our goal is to try to 15 consolidate. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's all through 17 Kerrville Phone Company. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We're getting it 19 right. 20 MS. PIEPER: Judge, when are y'all going to 21 look at either the cell phones or the pager systems or 22 something? 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Next. I mean, next -- in 24 January, I'm going to ask Tommy to provide me with a list of 25 all the cell phones the County pays for, see if we can 95 1 aggregate a pool to include the same agreement, or set up 2 our own agreement; give a list of pagers and see what we can 3 do on -- on pagers county-wide, and then we'll look at long 4 distance service and probably go out for proposals on long 5 distance service, since that's more competitive. That's 6 kind of the -- 7 MS. PIEPER: And the reason I'm asking is, I 8 go on call 24/7 as of January 1 for burial death permits, so 9 I have to have -- 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: How do you do that? Is that 11 a new law, or -- 12 MS. PIEPER: Yeah. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Aren't you lucky? You get to 14 go with Dawn and Bill, do all the -- 15 MS. PIEPER: Well, depending on where they're 16 being transported to. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we approve the new 18 contract for cell phone service and authorize County Judge 19 to sign same, the contract as presented by the Sheriff. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm going to vote against it. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 23 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the 24 new contract for cell phone service for the Sheriff's 25 Department and authorize County Judge to sign same. 96 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only question, 2 before you vote -- and this may be something Travis needs to 3 -- this is the way they wrote this, and the way they had to 4 do it is a 15-month contract. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Duncan over at the phone 7 company told us what it had to be because of all the current 8 ones. There was, like, three that were not quite as old a 9 contract as everything else with the County, and it's a 10 15-month type deal. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: We do multiple-year contracts 12 all the time. It's just subject to appropriation of funds. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. That's -- 14 MR. LUCAS: Yeah. You just have to make sure 15 there's availability of funds. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's in the budget. I 17 can't -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only comment, 19 Rusty, is when you -- first thing, to please get them 20 numbered and get them on our inventory list. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, definitely. 22 Everything we issue now is all on inventory. That's one 23 thing we have started. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think the Commissioner 25 makes an excellent point. By serial number, who's got the 97 1 -- you know, who gets them, and -- 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We do. It goes on -- 3 any officer that gets any county equipment, you know, the 4 serial number and everything goes on the officer's inventory 5 that we keep. And if it's in addition to actual county 6 equipment, Capital Outlay stuff, it goes on Tommy's 7 inventory also. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: One of the things we have to 9 look forward to is the new change in the standards for 10 public entities, which has to value all of the physical 11 assets. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion's been made and 14 seconded. Any further comments? If not, all in favor, 15 raise your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You took your two 20 minutes. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The Judge started 22 talking. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can do Number 8 24 real easy. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's called a filibuster. 98 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 8 and 9. You want 8 and 2 9. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 8 is consider and 4 discuss requesting bids for repair, parts, labor, and 5 service and related items for Kerr County vehicles, trucks, 6 and vans. I think part and parcel of this item is to set a 7 deadline for receipt of the bids on that. Sheriff? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is the bid -- 9 Glenn's not here. 10 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, I am. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, you're hiding back 12 there, okay. Glenn and I have also looked at this. David 13 Motley helped get it drawn up. It will cover all the 14 maintenance on vehicles that Glenn has and cover Sheriff's 15 department vehicles on repairs. And, the bids are pretty 16 specific. I did enlist some help from one of my deputies, 17 being John Lavender, because he has a lot more knowledge on 18 auto mechanics and the type of certifications of maintenance 19 done. 2.9 is the same type thing, for body work on 20 vehicles. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the date you 22 want on this thing? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Whenever y'all feel it 24 needs to be set for. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Given the holidays -- I mean, 99 1 we -- I would almost suggest that we set the request for -- 2 bids be back by February the 9th. We will -- we'd then take 3 them up to be opened the 12th. Does anybody -- Rusty? Do 4 you -- 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no -- no problems 6 with either way y'all do it. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make that 9 motion, Judge, that we authorize the Sheriff to go out for 10 bids for repair, parts, labor, and service and related items 11 for Kerr County vehicles, trucks, and vans, and that the 12 bids will be back into -- your office? This office? Our 13 office? County Clerk's office? -- February 9th, 2001. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: To be opened at 10:15 on 15 February 12th? Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 18 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 19 authorize the -- the bid package for repairs, parts, labor, 20 and service and related items for Kerr County vehicles, 21 trucks, and vans, for the bids to be received in the County 22 Clerk's office no later than 5 o'clock p.m. on Friday, 23 February the 9th, Year 2001, to be opened at 10:15 on 24 February 12th, Year 2001, at the regular term of 25 Commissioners Court. Any further questions or comments? If 100 1 not, all in favor, raise your right hands. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Two more. Item Number 9 is 6 consider and discuss going out for bids for body shop 7 repairs for Kerr County. Sheriff? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Same exact thing. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to 10 make a motion that we authorize the Sheriff to go out for 11 bids on body shop repairs for Kerr County, and the same 12 dates following. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion's been made by 16 Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the 17 Court authorize bids for body shop repairs for Kerr County 18 vehicles, for bids to be received in the Kerr County Clerk's 19 office no later than 5 o'clock p.m. on Friday, February 9th, 20 Year 2001, to be opened at approximately 10:30 on 21 February 12th, Year 2001, during the regular term of the 22 Commissioners Court meeting. Any questions or comments? If 23 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 101 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Glenn, do you want to do 3 yours right quick? Item Number 10, consider and discuss 4 Kerr County Facilities Use and Maintenance Invitation to Bid 5 documents for electrical, H.V.A.C., and plumbing. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further -- any other 8 motion? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same return date, 10 Glenn? 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, that's fine with me. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. These 14 are three separate -- 15 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One for electrical, one 17 for H.V.A.C., one for plumbing? 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. What you do -- the way 19 I understand it, we -- you send that same document and they 20 bid which one they want to, because they are -- there's a 21 couple of entities here in the county that could bid both if 22 they so choose, but they have to list on there which one, if 23 it's air conditioning, electrical, or plumbing. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: Same document. 102 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe the motion is by 2 Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Reverse that. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 5 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 6 authorize the Facilities Use and Maintenance Department to 7 solicit bids for electrical, H.V.A.C., and plumbing 8 services, such bids to be received by the Kerr County Clerk 9 not later than 5 o'clock p.m. on February the 9th, Year 10 2001, with bids to be opened in the -- at approximately 11 10:45 a.m. on February 12th, Year 2001, during the regular 12 term of the Kerr County Commissioners Court meeting. Any 13 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 14 right hands. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We will be 19 in -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me pull 21 2.11 off. I am under the understanding that Mr. Wiedenfeld 22 has taken care of the immediate problem. Do I understand 23 correctly, Frank? He's taken care of the immediate problem? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: That's what he told me this 25 morning. 103 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's paving driveways 2 and so forth, but still has some trench work to be done in 3 the vicinity of a fire hydrant. So, with the Court's 4 permission, I would withdraw 2.11, and if I need to put it 5 back, I'll put it back. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I -- this really 7 brings me down, that we don't get to talk about this thing 8 on Christmas. I'll -- this is the reason I came in here 9 today. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: We will be in recess. We'll 11 reconvene at 1 o'clock and move through the rest of the 12 agenda. 13 (Recess taken from 11:10 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll now reconvene this 16 special session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. 17 It's 1 o'clock on Friday, December 22nd. Next item for 18 consideration is Item Number 12, consider and discuss 19 emergency road maintenance for Val Verde South and Tierra 20 Grande due to deterioration of road resulting from excessive 21 rain in October and November. Commissioner Williams? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure where 23 this is going to go. We do have a situation in which the 24 people in that area have called me and have sent us a 25 petition asking for us to do a little emergency work on the 104 1 road. The road is in awful condition. Thank you. Pictures 2 were just handed to me. This one probably -- these probably 3 symbolize the character and condition of the road better 4 than anything. I've driven it myself, almost got stuck. 5 One of the people who signed it -- who called me about it 6 cited the fact, I believe it was -- she did, in fact, get 7 stuck and had to be bailed out by a tow truck, I believe. 8 And, so, I -- I bring it to the Court, and I don't know what 9 the sense is, where we're going to go with it, whether we 10 have permission to do it, whether we can do it on a one-time 11 basis and grade it, provide a little relief or what. So, 12 I'm throwing it open for discussion. I can tell you, having 13 driven it, it's bad. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: The immediate -- go ahead. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please identify 16 yourself for us. 17 MR. WALKER: I'm Jack Walker. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hi, Jack. 19 MR. WALKER: I live at 105 Tierra Grande. 20 And, last week there was, that I know of, five people that 21 were stuck in the middle of the road, and we've got young 22 children there. And also, the folks I live with, they 23 are -- well, she's got her leg in a cast right now and he is 24 confined to a wheelchair, and if we have any emergency-type 25 situation out there, it could get very serious. And, we -- 105 1 we appreciate -- you know, if we could just get it taken 2 care of for now, I think we can get together and maintain 3 the road, you know, on out. And -- so we would appreciate 4 any help that we can possibly get. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we're going to 6 talk about it, Jack. There's some legal restrictions we 7 have, but we're going to talk about it, and we've got the 8 County Engineer here. And others, I'm sure, on the Court 9 have experienced some of the same things in other areas of 10 the county, other roads similar to this. Where do we go 11 with it? 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think my -- my first 13 question is, do we have the legal -- this is a private road, 14 I assume? 15 MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a private road? 17 MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I thought it 19 was not one, that it was just -- had never been taken over 20 by the County. But it is, in fact, a private road? 21 MR. WALKER: Well, now, the way that I 22 understand it, as I -- they had a survey crew come down 23 through there, and they told me when they finished the 24 survey that it would definitely be a County road. But then, 25 on further investigation, they tell me -- says no, it's not 106 1 a county road until we upgrade it to the county 2 specifications. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We know that. We 4 know that it has not -- it is not in the county road 5 maintenance program. 6 MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because it was never 8 built from the origin -- from its origin to county 9 standards. So, we know that. The question is, is it a 10 private road? Does it go specifically to a residence, or is 11 it a road that has just never been turned over to the County 12 for maintenance purposes? 13 MR. WALKER: Well, that I couldn't answer, 14 you know. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many residences 16 are on this road? 17 MR. WALKER: Okay. There's one, two, three, 18 four, five, six, seven, eight. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eight on Val 20 Verde South? 21 MR. WALKER: That -- Val Verde South plus 22 Tierra Grande. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus -- 24 MR. VEGA: It goes right into it. Goes right 25 in. 107 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I know how it 2 goes. I've been there. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is it -- is it platted 4 as a public road and does the public have access to it? Can 5 anybody drive up and down that road? 6 MR. VEGA: It's a dead end. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The answer to that is 8 yes. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It is a public road; 10 anybody can drive on it. That -- okay. That's -- that's 11 the first question. Now, the second question, has it ever 12 been, by court order, accepted into the county road 13 system -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- for maintenance? 16 If the answer to that is no, then that's the first two 17 questions to ask. And -- and I made these up last night 18 after I saw this. This is -- and I've got one for 19 everybody, because this is something that I have found very 20 handy. This is a reprint of the County Information Bulletin 21 from January of '98. That's a periodic publication; it's on 22 file at Road and Bridge. It is probably the best -- in 23 almost layman's terms, the best treatise on -- on state road 24 law that has ever been put together, and even though it's a 25 couple years old, it's still very current. Also in this 108 1 package are two previous opinions, one by Tom Pollard back 2 in '97, which was a similar kind of situation in Shadow 3 Ridge which we addressed again last year, and there is a 4 December -- nope, wrong one -- I think you may have it in 5 your packets, right. But, anyway, there was -- in '99, 6 there was a -- David Motley also wrote an opinion on Shadow 7 Ridge that went through the -- exactly the same discussion 8 again. 9 So, it's -- it's very clear. It says that if 10 the road is never -- the only way the County has the 11 authority to maintain a road is if the road has been 12 accepted by court order for county maintenance. So, we 13 can't do maintenance on a road until that happens. Now, for 14 that to happen, we go to our Subdivision Rules, and it says 15 that before a road can be taken into the county system by 16 court order, that it has to be constructed to county 17 standards. So, we probably have several hundred miles of 18 roads like these in the county, and if we were to -- and I 19 certainly -- and, by the way, I've had -- I've had three 20 occasions of these kinds of incidents in Precinct 4 in the 21 last year. Rustic Hills, the owners assessed themselves, 22 put the money up, and we did that. That road's finished now 23 and is complete. Lake Ingram Estates, very similar 24 situation. In fact, the road was unpassable -- is 25 unpassable. And, that's also one where we formed a road 109 1 district. The voters voted to be taxed, and we're trying to 2 sell that bond right now, which, by the way, is looking up 3 as of last week. 4 So -- so, it's a -- it's a bad situation, 5 but I -- I don't think -- and we can ask our County Attorney 6 to look at it again a third time, in essence, but I think 7 the law is very straightforward. If you read through just 8 the first five or six pages of this County Information 9 Bulletin, I think that's very clear. There are also two 10 Attorney General opinions in here, one from 1994, one from 11 1991. And it was interesting, because the one from '91 says 12 even if a road that's not in the county system is used for 13 school buses, that the Commissioners Court may not -- are 14 not authorized to put that road in for maintenance unless 15 it's done through court order. In other words, we -- even 16 if there was a school bus issue, you can't go out and 17 maintain a road that's not in the county system. You have 18 to take the road into the system by court order. There's no 19 ambiguity to it. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about -- about 21 the issue of emergency vehicles and those kinds of things? 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, it's the same 23 thing. It -- you would want to go fix that if you could, 24 and obviously if -- if an emergency vehicle is trying to get 25 in there, the emergency agency can come to the County or to 110 1 anybody to seek assistance. That's a different -- that's a 2 different thing. Another -- there is a provision that, for 3 health, safety, and welfare -- and this is a little bit 4 different kind of statute, but there is a statute that says 5 that a Court can take the road into the system and then 6 assess the landowners in that subdivision to -- the money -- 7 assess it, now, not taxation or bond. You assess it in real 8 time, take the money up front, that you -- you can assess 9 the -- the property owners for the money to bring the road 10 to county standards to take it into the system, which I 11 don't think we would want to try to do in this case. It's a 12 dilemma. It's one of those things, but counties aren't -- 13 we can only do what we're authorized to do. We can't do 14 what we're not authorized to do. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. 16 MR. WALKER: Let me ask you another question, 17 which is something I've checked into and I've always run 18 into dead ends. What do we have to do to bring this road up 19 to county standards? I've been down to the County yard and 20 -- you know, just very negative all the way around. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I talked to that 22 issue. I don't know if you were in some of the meetings 23 that we held out there in the area with the Shadow Ridge 24 folks, in which we tried to bring those people together with 25 you folks on Val Verde South and Tierra Grande, with the 111 1 idea of forming a road district like Commissioner Griffin's 2 talking about. And, I've had several meetings, been out 3 there, helped -- tried to get people signed up so that they 4 could get their voter registration number so that the 5 petition could be filed so that we could entertain the whole 6 subject, and it just seems to hit a wall. We don't go 7 anywhere with it. The idea -- the answer on the permanent 8 basis is, you got to form a road district. And if you folks 9 on Val Verde South and Tierra Grande want to try to do it 10 separately, well, we'll do it, but I can tell you right now, 11 from his experience -- he mentioned bonds, Commissioner 12 Griffin did. The cost to be borne by you folks in that 13 short stretch of road would be pretty heavy, and that's the 14 reason why we tried to bring Shadow Ridge in with Val Verde 15 South and Tierra Grande to spread that base around -- the 16 cost around a little further. That doesn't deal with the 17 emergency. That deals with the long-range. But I'm willing 18 to pursue it with you again if you think that the folks on 19 Val Verde South and Tierra Grande want to try to go your own 20 way and do that. And I'm certainly willing to work with you 21 and take it step by step, see if we can get there. 22 MR. WALKER: Well, it would be highly 23 appreciated, you know. 24 MR. VEGA: We all signed the petition. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. 112 1 That was for today's discussion. 2 MR. VEGA: No, two or three. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that was -- 4 MR. WALKER: That's back when we had the 5 meeting out there. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That one put the two 7 on the other side of the ridge with you folks. Now, if you 8 want to go separately, we'll start the process separately 9 and go all over it again and get another petition just for 10 Val Verde South and Tierra Grande and see if we can go 11 through. I would warn you ahead of time, I don't know what 12 the cost will be, but you're bearing that cost with a 13 smaller group of people, and therefore, the per capita 14 apiece that you're going to have to assume is going to be 15 heavier. Once it's done and the road is up to standards, 16 then you don't have to worry about it again; petition the 17 Court to take it into the maintenance system, and away we 18 go. 19 AUDIENCE: Well, now, Mr. Schwethelm owned 20 the land, and he was a Commissioner at the time. And I've 21 talked to the County and I've talked to him and everything, 22 and he said that he had turned it over to the County when he 23 platted it all out for everybody, you know, and that the 24 County accepted it. Well -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't show on our 113 1 records. 2 MR. WALKER: Apparently he hasn't, you know. 3 But what -- another thing I would like to know, you know, 4 like on this road, exactly what have we got to do, you know, 5 to bring it up to standards? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a 7 question. Did you say a while ago that you had been out to 8 the Road and Bridge and asked that question, and they would 9 not tell you? 10 MR. WALKER: Well, what I did, I went out and 11 talked to the secretary, and she says -- well, she says, 12 I'll -- "What do you want?" I says, "Well, I'd like to, you 13 know, speak to the foreman or whatever to see about -- if we 14 could get some gravel or something out here on this road." 15 And she come back, she says, "We cannot do that; it's 16 against the law." I said -- she says, "It's against the law 17 to give gravel away." I said, "That's not what I want to 18 know." And she kept on, "We cannot do it, it's against the 19 law. It's against the law." And finally, you know, I 20 was -- I wasn't getting nowhere, so I walked out the door. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that they have 22 pieces of paper prepared out there; you can walk in there 23 and ask them, "What does take it to bring a road up to 24 county standards?" And they'll hand you -- and it's a 25 play-by-play how to do it. Isn't that right, Franklin? 114 1 MR. JOHNSTON: We do. Yes, we do. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I cannot imagine 3 them not giving you that. 4 MR. WALKER: Well, see, this is basically -- 5 of course, probably, more than likely, I went about it the 6 wrong way, you know. But, like I say, I was wanting to talk 7 to the man. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I bet we can get that 9 information to you pretty quick. 10 MR. WALKER: All right. We appreciate it. 11 You know, and that way if we can't get this emergency deal 12 going through, this will give us something that we can look 13 forward to and work for at home to -- 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Franklin, do you have any 15 idea what would it cost us to blade that road? 16 MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure how long the road 17 even is or anything. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How long -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How far up there is 20 that, Jack? What's the length? 21 MR. WALKER: Let's see, how -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Half mile? 23 MR. WALKER: Together, say, probably 24 three-quarters of a mile, maybe a mile. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Including Tierra 115 1 Grande? 2 MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's probably not 4 more than three-quarters of a mile. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other option -- 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: To blade, do you have any 7 idea? 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To blade 9 three-quarters of a mile, probably take a day? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, probably a day. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Probably a maintainer. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $500, $600? 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Five, 600 bucks, and 14 you could assess yourselves amongst the homeowners -- the 15 fastest way to get it done would be for the homeowners to 16 pitch in and go hire somebody and -- 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Hire a contractor. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Hire a contractor to 19 come out and blade it for you. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: The law's very explicit, the 21 County can't go on those private roads, but a contractor 22 sure can. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yep. 24 MR. JOHNSTON: Basically, what you're looking 25 at is 6 inches of crushed base and then paving it. 116 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is bringing it to 2 county standards? 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Brings it up to standards 4 where we would maintain it. 5 MR. WALKER: But it has to be paved before we 6 can -- 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Has to be paved in order for 8 us to take it in. 9 MR. WALKER: See, that's more information 10 than I've had in the last year. I appreciate it. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: It'd be just like in the 12 Subdivision Rules; you can look in there, be the same. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think the immediate 14 solution, though, is the suggestion -- is get your group 15 together, get you a contractor, and we probably could -- 16 couldn't we help with the names of some people who would do 17 that? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Schwarz Construction, Jenschke 19 Construction, Reichenau, Walter -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Masters. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: -- Masters in Ingram, some of 22 those kind of folks. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's the immediate 24 solution, is to get yourselves together, get the money to do 25 a -- just blade it, get some of those ruts out, move some of 117 1 the high centers off, and then, as Franklin says, get 2 together and decide whether you want to bring it up to 3 County standards or -- and there's several different ways 4 that can be done. 5 MR. VEGA: As far as getting it graded, right 6 now we can't even -- you can't even drive down the road. 7 And it's supposed to rain this weekend, and, I mean, as soon 8 as it starts raining, that's it. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: You have to understand, the 10 County -- the County is legally prohibited from spending 11 money on private -- on roads that are not county-maintained. 12 We do not have any wiggle room in this. 13 AUDIENCE: I'll go see Mr. Schwethelm. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think you might do that. 15 MR. WALKER: That ain't going to do it. 16 AUDIENCE: He didn't hear me say that. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jack, what's your 18 telephone number? 19 MR. WALKER: 257-6738. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be in touch with 21 you after Christmas, and we'll see if we can move this other 22 process forward, okay? 23 MR. WALKER: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only thing I can 25 suggest is what's been suggested so far, if you guys pool 118 1 some resources and ask Jenschke or somebody like that to 2 come in and put the blade to it. But, it looks to me like 3 there's not much there to hold it, 'cause it's all mud, 4 right? 5 MR. VEGA: Just dirt. 6 MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. 7 MR. VEGA: Slightest drizzle, and -- 8 MR. WALKER: It's all right, you know, until 9 it rains, and we have got problems. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not too pretty in 11 these pictures. 12 MR. WALKER: There was a lady the other day 13 said she was going to make up a petition to rename the road. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you going to 15 call it? 16 MR. WALKER: "The Road From Hell." 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Thank you, sir. We 18 appreciate your time. 19 MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll be in touch. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's take up Item Number 13, 22 consider and discuss approval of contract with Grantworks, 23 Inc., of Austin for comprehensive planning services for the 24 purpose of mapping all unincorporated areas of Kerr County, 25 identify needs, and inventory land uses, housing conditions, 119 1 existing water, sewer, streets, and drainage facilities. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is a contract, 3 Judge, that was brought to -- before the Court at the last 4 time we met. I sent it down to the County Attorney for 5 perusal. Does it meet your standards? 6 MR. LUCAS: Sure does. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move that we adopt 8 it and approve the contract with Grantworks for those 9 services, and authorize County Judge to sign the same. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 12 Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 13 authorize the approval of the contract with Grantworks, 14 Inc., and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any further 15 discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 20 15, consider and discuss approving the contract with the 21 Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department and authorize County 22 Judge to sign same. Commissioner Griffin? 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Glad to report 24 that Mountain Home has returned the contract, and everything 25 appears to be in order. They've signed it, and I would make 120 1 a motion that -- that we approve the contract as returned to 2 us, and that we authorize the County Judge to sign same. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second -- third. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner 6 Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court 7 approve the contract with the Mountain Home Volunteer Fire 8 Department and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any 9 further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise 10 your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 15 16, consider and discuss setting amount of Sheriff's bond at 16 $5,000. As in your packet, the Code requires that the 17 Commissioners Court set the bond in an amount of not less 18 than $5,000 nor more than $30,000. Appears to be a 19 tradition around here that we set it at five. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 23 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court set the 24 amount of the Sheriff's bond at $5,000. Any further 25 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 121 1 right hands. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried. Motion -- 7 next item is Number 17. Again, consider and discuss setting 8 the amount of the Constable bonds at $1,500 each. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, 12 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court establish 13 the amount of the Constable bonds at $1,500 apiece. Any 14 further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise 15 your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: If there's nothing further, 20 we stand adjourned, and Merry Christmas to one and all. 21 (Court adjourned at 1:25 p.m.) 22 - - - - - - - - - - 23 24 25 122 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 27th day of December, 8 2000. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25