1 ~ , ~-.. <, ,~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, September 24, 2001 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas Q PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 z I N D E X September 24, 2001 PAGE --- Commissioners Comments 3 1.1 Pay Bills ~/~~3 5 1.2 Budget Amendments ~7~~~f-~?7~5~ 5 1.3 Late Bills ~7aSa 17 2.1 Authorize issuance of Public Property Finance Contractual Obligation, Series 2001, authorize execution of Paying Agent/Registrar Agreement & other related documents ~~7~5 3 17 2.2 Adopt FY 2001/2002 Budget ~ ~ ~ g~ 28 1.4 Approve monthly reports ~ ~dSS 44 2.5 Allow Road & Bridge to advertise for bid on items approved in 2001/2002 budget ,;~/~ Z~ 45 2.6 Discuss course of action for final plat of Buckhorn Lake Resort, Precinct 9 ,~r/;~`j`~ 48 2.3 Adopt FY 2001/2002 'l'ax Rate .~ 7~ ~~ Sl 2.7 Engagement letter for 2000/2001 audit by Pressler, Thompson & Co., authorize County Judge to sign ~7~5 ~/ 53 2.8 Request from Ingram Marshal to discontinue fee for dispatch services [liSc~.sS~~~ 55 2.9 Appoint Central Counting Station personnel v~ 7~~eC 60 2.4 Presentation of independent consultant for risk management & insurance management services 17iS~uss~z61 2.10 Approval of OSSF/Flood Plain fee schedule ,27dCz~ 84 2.11 Renewal of VeriClaims, Inc., contract for indigent health care claims administration U'~~4~ 100 2.12 Approval of Kerr County Economic Development Program, authorize Judge to negotiate contract with KEDF for implementation of same '~7:~43 101 2.13 Approval of 12th Amendment & Extension of City/County Firefighting Agreement `~~~'*`~ 103 2.14 Approval of $25,000 grant request to L.C.R.A. for restoration of Union Church ~ 7,a lo)~ 104 2.15 Six-month review of adopted Teen Curfew i~~scti y:o.~ 105 2.16 Consider extension of county burn ban .l7:sc,.~;s.~,~ 109 2.17 Discuss final and best offer from Dailey Wells, authorize Judge to sign contract ,~.~7~,t{(, 111 --- Adjourned 135 --- Reporter's Certificate 136 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Un Monday, September 24, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S DODGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's 9 o'clock in the morning on Monday, September 24th, Year 2001. We'll call to order this regular special session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Commissioner Letz, I believe you have the honors this morning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would everyone please stand and join me in prayer? (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) DODGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, any citizen wishing to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda may come forth and do so. Is there any citizen who would like to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? One more time, is there any citizen who would like to address the Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? Seeing none, we'll turn to the Commissioners' comments. We'll start with Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any, actually, Judge. DODGE HENNEKE: All right. Commissioner 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Griffin? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No comments this morning. JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tivy 28, Dripping Springs 10. The Fighting Antlers are at home this week for the first time in a couple weeks against the Uvalde Coyotes. And we're in town two weeks in a row, as a matter of fact, so if y'all want to see some good football, Antler Stadium out here on Sidney Baker. That's a11. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No comments. JUDGE HENNEKE: I want to thank everyone who had a role in the Hill Country Junior District Livestock Show dinner and fundraiser last Saturday. It's always a joy to go to that, and I'm always thrilled to see so many of the County employees who are involved in that extremely worthwhile effort. A good time was had by all, and a great deal of money was raised on behalf of the Junior District Livestock Show for the youth of our community, and I want to thank everyone, again, who had a role in that. I certainly enjoyed myself. That's really about all I have to say today. We were going to lead off this morning with a presentation on the financing for the radio project. I had a phone call just 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before I walked in here from Bob Henderson; he's had car trouble. He expects he'll here by 9:20. So, Tommy, if you're prepared, we'll go ahead and do the bills, which we originally were going to defer until after the budget stuff. So, at this time, does anyone have any questions or comments regarding the bills? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court authorize payment of the bills as presented and recommended by the Auditor. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget amendments. We'11 start with Budget Amendment Number 1 for the Parks Department. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I have an amendment to add $219.73 to the Parks budget. We have -- I have a bill in hand for -- I guess it's for labor and material on slabs for -- and two tables, concrete tables, for $1,240. We'll actually be adding to the total of this budget, but the next 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 amendment also has something to do with this one, when we're transferring funds from the General Fund to this fund. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As was ordered by the Court at the last year, at the end of the budget adoption last year, that was moving the remainder of the funds from the previous year into this year. MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only question is, on the first one, it says coming out of surplus reserves. Is that the reserves -- MR. TOMLINSON: We're sending -- we're sending it -- we're moving it from the General Fund to -- to Parks, and that's the -- that's the total -- total M & 0 surplus is what we're talking about. DODGE HENNEKE: So, we're not declaring a budget emergency. MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE HENNEKE: We're simply moving funds. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, sir, a budget amendment from one fund to another. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: M & 0 reserve, rather than budget. MR. TOMLINSON: I think, really -- I think we 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just -- in last year's budget, we didn't budget enough tax money in this fund. This is the first time we ever used this fund for -- for maintenance and operation. I think that that was one of the problems. And -- and we didn't -- we had talked about moving some -- some -- carrying over some money that we didn't use the year before, and it didn't get in the budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The $846.09 is the remainder of the previous year's budget. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which the Court approved moving into this year's budget. MR. TOMLINSON: And just never -- it just didn't happen. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, do we move them both, one and two, or separately? MR. TOMLINSON: Either way. You can do both; they're related. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the approval of Budget Amendment and Payment Request Number 1 and Number 2. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. DODGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 and Budget Amendment Request Number 2 for the Parks Department. Any 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 3 is for the Sheriff's Department. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This amendment is requested by the Sheriff to transfer $27,673.32 from Jailers Salaries to Deputies Salaries. DODGE HENNEKE: How is it we we're off that big on Deputies Salaries? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a good question. When I started figuring the budget is when we came up with it. It was a miscalculation in the original budget part. It's not that we had more or anything else. It just wasn't figured quite right last year when the budget went into effect. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, we were over on jailers. MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $27,000. Isn't that about one human being? One employee? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it exactly one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 employee? JUDGE HENNEKE: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3 for the Sheriff's Department. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 4 is for Commissioners Court. MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from Commissioner, Precinct 3, to transfer $407.05 from Professional Services to Conferences. Also, I have attached a late bill that I need a hand check for, for Commissioner Letz for that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4 for Commissioners Court, and authorize a late bill and hand check in the amount 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of $407.05 payable to Commissioner Letz. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Griffin voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll abstain. JUDGE HENNEKE: Number 5 is for J.P. Number 1. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. We replaced a fax machine in J.P. 1's office, and this is to transfer $129.99 from Nondepartmental Capital Outlay into Capital Outlay in his -- his department. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 5 for J.P. Number 1. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Amendment Request Number 6 is for Courthouse and Related Buildings. MR. TOMLINSON: This is to replace the floor out in the courthouse lobby. This amendment is to transfer $784.30 from Leasehold Improvements to Major Repairs. I also have a late bill attached to this to Lexi's Carpet and Flooring for $1,610. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 6 for the Courthouse and Related Buildings, and authorize a late bill and hand check in the amount of $1,610 payable to Lexi's Carpet. Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. The work hasn't been done. MR. TOMLINSON: Part of it has. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It has? MR. TOMLINSON: Out here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I guess I missed it. Is that what we were talking about out there the other day, the flooring? JUDGE HENNEKE: We were talking about which tile, yeah. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. See -- well, I mean, if that's what we're talking about, we're paying a bill that we haven't even begun the work on yet, but nevermind. MS. NEMEC: They did it this weekend; they were working on it yesterday. JUDGE HENNEKE: The work's done. If you walk out here, you'll see that from -- MS. NEMEC: I tried to come to work yesterday and Glenn wouldn't let me in. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I really am, I'm sorry. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just haven't been out here in the hallway, I've been in here working. JUDGE HENNEKE: We had you locked in your office again. Budget Amendment Request Number 7 is again for the Sheriff's Department. MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from the Sheriff to transfer $5,157.74 from Jailers Salaries, $269.14 from Radio Equipment Repair line item, $4,916.77 to Prisoner Meals, $240.97 to Prisoner Transfer, and $269 to 13 1 2 3 4 S 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 Investigative Expenses in the Sheriff's Office. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. MR. TOMLINSON: Then also I have late bills attached to this one. It's -- I need a hand check also to Sysco Food Services for $18,940.80, and -- let's see, there's another one -- to Chevron for $183.12, and one to H.E.B. Grocery for $342.20. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second, but I've got a question. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 7 for the Sheriff's Department and County Jail, and authorize late bills and hand checks payable to Sysco Foods in the amount of $18,940.80, Chevron in the amount of $183.12, and H.E.B. in the amount of $390.20. Commissioner Griffin, you had a question? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Have we scrubbed the new budget to make sure we've got the jailer/deputy thing right? I mean, I assume that's happened. I just -- I just wanted to make -- get some comfort that we've actually -- you're comfortable now. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm comfortable now. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've got the right numbers in the right slots? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's my question. COMMISSIONER LE'I'Z: My comment was a little bit broader, but the same tone. Can the Sheriff insure that all of his line items are a lot closer than last year? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, yeah, they -- we're a whole lot closer than last year. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 8 for County Court at Law. MR. TOMLINSON: We have a -- excuse me. (Discussion off the record.) MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from Judge Brown to transfer $263.50 from Statement of Facts and $926.50 from Conferences into Miscellaneous, and it's for the payment of some investigative expenses which we don't have a line item for in his budget, for $1,190. And, I also have a late bill that I need a hand check for to PAK Private Investigations for $1,190. JUDGE HENNEKE: This is related to a case that was in his court? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. It's -- it's K. Hookman, is the defendant. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second it. I want to make a comment, though. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 8 for the County Court at Law and authorize the late bill and hand check in the amount of $1,190 payable to PAK Private Investigations. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just think that it would be neat if we could be able to -- or Judge Brown could be able to pick up a phone and call one of the investigators that we have on staff already, that we already pay salaries to, that would assist him in this kind of thing. That's all. JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a feeling this was for the defense side of the trial, would be my guess. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Are we going to add a line item for this purpose so that we can track that in the future? MR. TOMLINSON: He doesn't have any budget for that next year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather not. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Probably nothing 1 2 3 4 S 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 will happen. (Discussion off the record.) CUMMISSIONER LETZ: Was that seconded? JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUll6E HENNEKE: Upposed, same sign. (No response.) DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 9 is for Tax Assessor/Collector's office. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The Tax Collector is requesting the transfer of $512.65 from her Yart-'l'ime Salary line item to Overtime. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 9 for the Tax Assessor/Collector's office. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Any other 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 late bills? MR. TOMLINSON: I have one from VeriClaims, Inc., for $1,630.69, and it's for -- it's a fee for the claims process for indigent health care on 9/9 of this month. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought that was an agenda item. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's to renew the contract. MR. TOMLINSON: That's the contract. JUDGE HENNEKE: This is to pay a bill that's pending. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. DODGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve the late bill and authorize a hand check in the amount of $1,630.69 payable to VeriClaims for administrative expenses in connection with processing of indigent health care reimbursement. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: A11 opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Let's move on to the regular consideration agenda. The first item for discussion, Item Number 1, is consider and discuss order .--- 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 18 authorizing the issuance of Kerr County, Texas, Public Property Finance Contractual Obligations, authorizing the execution of the Paying Agent/Registrar Agreement, purchase contract and other related documents, and approving the official statement. We have our financial adviser with us, Mr. Henderson, who's gotten here this morning after great travail and personal difficulties. Bob? MR. HENDERSON: Just seems to happen that way. How are y'all? JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. MR. HENDERSON: I have three bond sales to conduct today; one here, one in Gillespie County, one down in Aransas Pass, and naturally my transmission decides to give. me trouble. So, I'm pulling out of my little girl's school parking lot, and I thought I had hit a pothole, and it turned out to be the transmission jerking the truck instead of a pothole. But, anyway, I ran over to Ancira, got a rental car. I apologize for being a few moments late, but I do have dependable transportation at this point. It's a pleasure to be with the Commissioners Court again this morning. As you know, we're here to consider an order authorizing the issuance of $1 million in personal property contractual obligations to finance a variety of radio and computer equipment improvements for the Sheriff's Department. We had provided a memo to the -- to the Judge and Tommy -- I'm not 1 .--_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .--. 25 19 sure if it went to the entire Commissioners Court -- about a report that we have been able to do this transaction at substantially lower interest rates and substantially lower cost than was contemplated a month ago in that memo. The first thing, and I think the most important thing is that we work together with the underwriters on the analysis on selling these obligations on an unrated basis instead of paying a rating agency $5,000 to have them rated, because we're talking about $1 million over just seven years. The net present value difference between the interest rate we could get reconfirming the County's 8-plus underlying credit rating and an unrated basis was -- was less than what the rating was going to cost us, so we opted to save $5,000 of the County's money and not apply for that rating. Additionally, the underwriters agreed to market the transaction with a -- an official statement that was not officially printed by a financial printer, but rather a Xerox copy. We will print a final, but I think the savings on that's going to be a couple of thousand dollars, or at least $1,500. When we first started this process, we had talked in terms of interest rates of about 4 and a quarter percent -- actually, a little higher than that. Interest zo 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rates as of last week or two weeks ago had fallen, and we had produced this official statement estimating interest rates at 3.8 percent. That was misspoken when we talked this morning, Judge. So, we estimated this thing at 3.8 percent 10 days ago -- 14 days ago, and we negotiated on behalf of the County a rate of 3.75 percent last Friday. The -- overall, we are substantially under budget in terms of our annual debt service requirements, our net effective interest rate, and our total cost of issuance. I do want to advise the County that one aspect of our cost did go up because of the uncertainties in the marketplace that are the result of the terrorist activities in New York City. We had a substantial disruption of the bond market. Some of the normal entities out there, most particularly the property and casualty insurance companies that buy bonds, are now net sellers of bonds in order to liquidate their portfolios to meet the insurance claims that they're going to have, as opposed to being buyers. For that reason, the underwriters were forced to take on a little extra risk, because they're going to have to hold these bonds in their portfolio until they're able to retail them out. So, our -- our gross spread is about $1,500 higher than I expected. However, as I indicated earlier, we saved $5,000 on rating fees, we saved $1,500 or so on printing expenses. Our total cost is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 substantially less than we had budgeted. I wanted to let you know that that one category of expenses was slightly higher than we had talked about. Having said that, it is our formal recommendation that the Commissioners Court accept the bid offered by First Southwest Company on these personal property contractual obligations. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. DODGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any questions or comments? MR. HENDERSON: Hearing none, I'll turn it over to Mr. Spurgeon. He'll be handling the legal aspect. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Bob. MR. SPORGEON: To follow up on Bob's comments, in order to approve the bid that's been given by First Southwest Company, you have an order in front of you that would really do all that; it would set out the -- award the sale of the bonds to First Southwest Company at the interest rates that are set out in the sheet Bob gave you. They range from about 2.8 percent, if I remember right -- 2.8 percent, beginning in Year 2002, at maturity to 4.1 percent, but as Bob said, that comes out to about 3.75 percent annual average interest cost. The order, as I said, does a number of things in terms of authorizing issuance of the notes. It awards the sale to First Southwest Company, obligates the County, obviously, to set a tax to pay off the notes over the next 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 seven years, but approves the form of the official statement that was -- as Bob said, was essentially presented in preliminary form to the underwriters for them to be able to market the bonds, and will be printed then in final form. It approves the form of Paying Agent/Registrar Agreement. The bank actually acts as the intermediary as you go in terms of paying the principal and interest to the bondholder over the next seven years. And, essentially, in a nutshell, that's the essence of the order. So, it will just take one action to approve the transaction. JUDGE HENNEKE: Question. The order references a million dollars. We actually -- we're going 990. MR. SPURGEON: Pardon? JUDGE HENNEKE: The order references a million dollars. We're actually -- I think we're financing 990. Is that right, Bob? MR. HENDERSON: That was the budget. We rounded up to $1 million, per our discussion, did we not? JUDGE HENNEKE: No, we -- our discussion was we'd go with 990, as opposed to a million. MR. HENDERSON: Okay. I'm sorry, I misunderstood that. That's not a problem. What we can do is adjust the B.P.A., 'cause it's normal to move these maturities around a little bit. So, we can just amend it to 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 990, and I'll discuss that with First Southwest Company. That won't be a problem. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. MR. HENDERSON: I'm sorry, Judge, I misunderstood. MR. SPURGEON: With that understanding, then, Judge, if you approve the order, the 990, just authorize Bob essentially to adjust the maturity, whichever makes sense. 'Cause at this point, I'm not sure Bob can actually tell us which maturity will move, but it will slightly change. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. The reference is in the documents to a million. Do we need to adjust those? Or -- MR. SPURGEON: In the document, they will be -- we will adjust in the final order. And, the -- and the official statement will certainly go to 990, and everything essentially in terms of reference to $1 million will be moved down to 990. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. First of all, I want to say a great deal of -- great thank you to Bob and to Tom for pulling us together in this time frame. When we extended the deadline for accepting the bids for the radio project, we put them under severe time constraints. So, basically, they have performed in half to a third the normal calendar time that you would do for a deal like this, and they've worked very closely with us and kept us on track to make sure that we 24 .^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 could do this transaction for the coming fiscal year. That's resulted in a little bit of confusion, as has happened here. The day I got the final number on what we're going to present this afternoon, I called Bob and he rolled up the cost of issuance and we talked about whether we should go ahead with a million, which was the estimate, or ratchet it down to 990, which was closer to the actual cost. And, since there -- since there is some savings to the taxpayer, the decision was made to take it down to 990, and we just lost a little bit of communication, but that's not going to be a problem. The second thing I think we need to do, technically, is to approve the order subject to adoption of the budget and execution of the contract with the vendor, both of which are scheduled to happen today. Is that okay, Tom? MR. SPURGEON: That's fine, Judge. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think, in order to keep us in the right -- MR. SPURGEON: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- posture, we need to do them in that order. MR. SPURGEON: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only that I guess we 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 can do this with the assurance that the Item 2.17 at 2 o'clock will, in fact, be in the $990,000 range, and not greater than. JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. If it -- it's the number the Sheriff and I have talked about, and that number plus the cost of issuance comes up, actually, to 287-something. MR. HENDERSON: 287, 288, something like that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Which -- which we rounded up to 990. MR. HENDERSON: I apologize for this miscommunication. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we are -- we've only got two projects in the hopper, and one that we're talking about, so -- a lot going on. Given that, what I would entertain at this time is a motion to approve the order authorizing the issuance of Kerr County, Texas, Public Property Finance Contractual Obligation, Series 2001, authorizing the execution of a Paying Agent/Registrar Agreement, with purchase contract and other related documents, and approving an official statement subject to passage of the budget and approval of the contract with the vendor for the radio communications project. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, as amended, for the 990. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 26 JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Versus the $1 million. JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, before we leave that subject, just a general economy question. What do you see happening in the bond market overall over the next year or two, with the big hit that the secondary insurers are going to be taking -- MR. HENDERSON: Well, I tell you, -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- after the terrorist attacks? MR. HENDERSON: -- Commissioner, if I knew that, I'd be talking to you on my cell phone from my yacht in the Carribean, because I would be •such a fortune teller. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't mean the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 general ups or downs, but I mean, how do you see money availability and all that sort of thing over the next several years? MR. HENDERSON: I don't think it's going to be that -- that big a problem. And here's why. Money, of course, circulates. The insurance companies, which have been a primary buyer of municipal bonds, did take a big hit, somewhere between 90 to 60 billion at this point, and quite possibly more. But, we've seen reports. Those risks were well insured. And, of course, the reason that these property and casualty insurance companies have been buyers of municipal bonds is to provide the capital to meet these risks when they come up. What happens, of course, is that the -- the money will be paid to the -- to the loss holders. That money will get spent, premiums will be paid, portfolios will rebuild, and they'll be net buyers again. I don't think this is, you know, any more so than the big hurricanes we've had and the other natural disasters that we've had in years past. I don't think, in the long-term, this is going to impact the availability of liquidity in the municipal bonds market. I think what's more of concern to -- to the bonds market is just the intermediate outlook for the economic conditions of the United States and what this terrorist attack has done to that. I personally am not as -- nearly as pessimistic as some of the people that you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 see or hear on the radio. I think their job is to be extremists and to be pessimistic. I don't think things are going to be that bad. I think that the fourth quarter of this year will likely see significantly reduced growth than what we've seen, and this may stretch into the first quarter of next year, but I think most people, including Mr. Greenspan, are expecting a -- certainly by the third quarter or fourth quarter of '02, things will be well on their swing up again. But, again, all of this is speculation, and we don't know what the president and our leaders are going to do over the coming months with respect to responding. Just have to wait and see. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thanks, Bob. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions of Mr. Henderson and/or Mr. Spurgeon? If not, thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your assistance. MR. HENDERSON: Thank you. MR. SPURGEON: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item for consideration is Item Number 2, which is posted for 9:30, consider and discussion adoption of the FY 2001/2002 budget. Tommy, I believe you have some amendments to the budget as filed with the County Clerk? MR. TOMLINSON: I think the latest list I gave you showed a net decrease in the total budget of $21,640. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 gave you one Friday afternoon, and another one this morning. So, the items -- the items listed on this budget, on the 2001/2002 budget amendments, are all the items that we've discussed since the budget was -- proposed budget was filed, with the exception of one item, and it has to do with Lake Ingram Road District, and we did not include the amount of the principal and interest for payment of the debt. And, that total is $29,975. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, both the revenues -- the revenue side and the expenditure side will be affected. 'There's no bottom line effect in the latest one. MR. TOMLINSON: We've already -- the Court's already approved the transfer of the $21,000 from the proceeds of the bond into the sinking fund, and the tax -- related tax for -- to generate $8,000 was approved, and the amount of the tax is estimated to be $8,000 to -- to pay this principal and interest. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, Line Item 10-560-104, Deputies Salaries. In light of the additional personnel that's going to the Sheriff's Department, can you explain that number going down for me there? MR. TOMLINSON: 10-50 what? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Deputy Salaries, 104. 560-104. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. That's a reduction, 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 approximately $3,000. The Treasurer might be able to help me with that. I don't -- MS. NEMEC: I believe that that is -- there was some positions moved around or something, and so we're saving -- when they were moved up, they went back to the entry level. Is that correct on that? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, one that did. But we've also had a couple of the educational deals that -- that came in. MS. NEMEC: Okay. When it goes -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We gave them to y'all last week before all this, the ones that came in. MS. NEMEC: Okay. Whatever we were given, we put in there, except for -- for the one that we discussed this morning on the nurse. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, that's -- MS. NEMEC: Which is about -- that's about $500. MR. TOMLINSON: Any more questions on -- I can -- I mean, I can go through each one of these, but -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. I just thought it was curious. MR. TOMLINSON: -- the majority we've already discussed. The major change I made this morning from -- from the one -- from the copy that I gave you Friday has to do 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 zs witYi the oil -- oils that Road and Fridge could not use this fiscal year because of the weather, and they wanted to transfer -- or to carry forward enough to pay for that next year. And, that was an amount that I got from -- from them this morning; it was $8,000. So, that's -- that's listed from about -- that's approximately the seventh one from the bottom, where it was -- $122,000 was the original budget, and we've changed that to $130,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, what -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Go ahead. COMM155IONER LETZ: What is the radio equipment item, the $4,500? MR. TOMLINSON: That -- the Radio Equipment line item is -- excuse me -- for the payment of a lease for the two Kerrville Telephone Company towers. One is $2,500, one was $2,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: These numbers -- and getting back to Commissioner Williams' question, I think these numbers are dealt us from the last run. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They're not dealt us for the year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's from the last run, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 so any adjustments that were made are reflected from the last budget, not from the last budget year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? Barbara? MS. NEMEC: I have a question. On the mental health, the 10-926-104, it went from $3,600 to $6,000. I don't have a copy of the proposed elected officials' salary, and so I just want to make sure. Was that included in that proposal? 'Cause if not, I won't be able to pay that amount. JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, it was. Yes, it was. Because it shows their supplement going up from $1,200 per for three to $2,000 per for three. So, it is included in what was published, yes. MS. NEMEC: Okay. And then I have another question, but not on this. So, when we finish this, I have another question. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any or questions or comments? Everybody a happy camper? MR. TOMLINSON: The summary that's attached to this does reflect all these changes, except for the -- the Lake Ingram Estates Road District. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only one I don't understand, Judge, is the deputies' salaries. I don't know why it would have gone down that $3,000. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is a change from the last budget run. This is not changed from last year. So, if there is any manipulations that were done, for whatever reason, taking someone back to an entry level or whatever, it's just since Tommy ran the last budget, not for -- that's not a change for the year. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: If there are no other questions or comments -- MS. NEMEC: May I ask my question now? Okay. I hope I never have to say this word again, but last year, when we had the Nash study, the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which word are you talking about? "Nash? "Study"? MS. NEMEC: Don't confuse me, Bill. The positions that were not reclassified were given a one-step increase, and then, so -- and the positions that were reclassified were just reclassified up to whatever step and grade he recommended, and all the others were given a step increase. This year, the Court approved five reclassifications. My question is -- I don't think we ever talked about this. What's happening with those employees is they're not only getting the reclassification, you know, they're also keeping their step increase from last year. Is that the way the Court intended for those positions to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 done? Or should I move them back one step? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Here -- here's the issue, and 1 think -- MS. NEMEC: One grade. COMM15SlONER GR1E'FIN: -- Barbara states it well, but the ones that we did not reclassify last year as a result of the Nash study, we gave a step increase. Now, this year, we're reclassifying them one level higher, so instead of being 19/5's, we're reclassifying them 19/6. To really be parallel and to be fair, we probably need to reclassify those that weren't reclassified last year as 19/5's, with the proviso that the clock started running on their step increase as of the time we implemented the Nash study. That makes all of them the same, is the net effect of that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They get the time in grade. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But they get the time in grade from the time we -- from last year's start. They get the time in grade for the next step increase, but that puts all of those deputy level-slash-first deputy and all that sort of thing at the same starting point as of the Nash study. That's the net effect of that. Sounds complicated, but it's just the fact that we gave them a step raise and then we just took them up a -- from 17's to 19's, and we still left that step in there, so they're actually ahead now 35 1 2 3 4 S 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 instead of being the same as the others that we did last year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why'd we give them a step last year? DODGE HENNEKE: Because they weren't adjusted as a result of Nash. MS. NEMEC: All -- DODGE HENNEKE: Last year, everyone who did not get an adjustment as a result of the Nash study got a one-step increase, so that everybody got something last year. And, Commissioner Griffin and Barbara are saying, now that we have gone back to retroactively adjust those people's step and grade, we've actually put them one step ahead of where they would have been had the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because we adjusted last year. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And what we're trying to do -- the logic of that is that we're sort of righting something that we would like to have done last year, and -- when we got a second look at it. So, we're trying to make it as though we had done it last year, which would put them at 19/5's, and they'd be just like all those other deputies. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it helps our employees, let's rock and roll with it. JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara, do we need a motion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 36 on that, or what do we need to do? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't believe we need a motion. MS. NEMEC: I don't believe we need a motion, if you'll just give me the authorization to adjust those figures as part of the budget process. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will change these numbers slightly. MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. MS. NEMEC: I think they went from six -- anywhere from $600 to $800 for four positions. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any other questions or comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a comment, if -- are we at that point? Or what are we doing here? I can't seem to get a handle on -- JUDGE HENNEKE: At this point, we're still kind of working on the nits and nats. Once we get a motion, I think we'll go to the -- if you have a specific question, let's have it now. If you have a good comment, why don't we hold it till after we have a motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or bad comment. JUDGE HENNEKE: Or bad comment. Any comment. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was going to say, my 37 1 2 3 9 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comments are -- you're not going to consider good. JUDGE HENNEKE: We11, I -- you never know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I'd like to make some comments. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anytime you're ready. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, thank you so much. I just think, in -- in light of the recent tragedies in New York and Washington, and particularly the stock market downswing and the thousands and thousands of people being laid off, that, as the County fathers, the leaders of this county, I think that -- personally, I think that we need to delete the salary increases for this Commissioners Court. I know that it doesn't do anything to the tax increase, or really doesn't -- I mean, we're talking pennies and peanuts here, but still, I think the fact that, you know, it's really and truly time -- we talk about tightening our belts up and doing all these things all the time, but it's really and truly that way now. And I think, as a sign of leadership and encouragement to the folks in our county, that -- that we need to do that, and I'm prepared to make a motion to do that if you, as the chairman of this board, deem it necessary. I guess that's all. I just kind of -- that's my heart. That's what I really and truly feel. That's not any kind of political move or -- and I don't care, you know, if people see that as politics or -- I really don't care how they see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 it. It's just the way I feel. And I think it's the right thing to do. It's just my opinion. I'm not going to fight with anybody. I'm going to -- I know that it takes three votes to do this. And, you know, I still intend to speak with one voice here as a Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment to that. One, I mean, I -- I don't disagree at all, and I would probably support that. I mean, I think, you know, we should get back to that point at some point to be fair to future courts, probably, more than this court. I think that Commissioners Court's salaries need to be looked at. But, I also -- I've never been a proponent of raising our salaries, and so -- I mean, I think cost-of-living adjustments, we should get. I don't think we should lose money as we go forward on the court, but I would be perfectly willing to, you know, support Commissioner Baldwin's motion, and would respect his motion. You know, I think that I still would like to continue on with the community advisory board that we appoint after the 1st of the year to look at our salaries and make a recommendation of where we should be and how we should get there, but I think it is a -- you know, basically, I think Commissioner Baldwin said it very well. I'm surprised by -- I didn't know he was going to say that. JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that a motion to delete salary increases for the Commissioners? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 39 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we delete the salary increases, except for the cost-of-living adjustment. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: For all elected officials? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, this Commissioners Court only. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court delete the salary increases, except for cost-of-living for -- I presume you're including me in that motion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE HENNEKE: For the four Commissioners and the County Judge. Any further questions or comments? Well, I'm going to say that any elected official is always free to decline an increase, if they feel that that's the necessary step. So that in the event the motion doesn't pass, there's still that capability to -- to decline an increase in their salary. So, everyone knows where we are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, in that area -- and I just bring this up; when I was first on the court, I was actually even opposed to cost-of-living increases, and I talked -- I believe I talked to Barbara about it, and she pointed out the error in my ways. And the standpoint was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 that the County has spent a great deal of time, you know, certainly in the last ten years, equalizing salaries so that all Commissioners get the same, and all -- you know, and if -- if any -- if individuals -- you know, if they want to give the money back, I think they should take it and give it back, if they want. Otherwise, it gets the whole thing out of skew in the future. So, I mean, I think if someone -- if any Commissioner, you know, chooses not to accept part of the salary, they're certainly willing to -- or able to donate the money back to Kerr County; write a check back to Kerr County. But, I think the salary levels, from a budget standpoint, should stay equal for the various positions as we set out. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a good comment. That's your right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I, you know, would just add to that, that I think when we started this whole process, our idea was to get the salary levels at the right level, and it still is part of the process ongoing that you mentioned. And, certainly, in the short term, I and any other Commissioner will very seriously consider returning any moneys, but I am still convinced that the right thing to do is to get the salary levels at the right level, and let the Commissioners, in the short term, or Judge, in the short term, choose what they want to do. I already know what I'm going to do. But -- 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1 think Commissioner Griffin's point is well-taken. We all have the right to accept or not accept whatever's in front of us, and I would be guided accordingly. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to respond to that, if I could. My motion and my -- my thinking really didn't have anything to do -- I mean, we're talking about -- we're talking about a very small amount of money here. We really are. And that's not the point. The point is the leadership role that we -- that we play in our -- to our citizens, and that how, just possibly, by doing this, we could send the message to the taxpayers, "Look, you know, things are really not as cute as they appear to be sometimes." And, I just think it's time to -- you know, the tightening of the belt is a real deal right now, and scary things going on out there. So, that's all. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, and I understand where y'all are coming from, and that's cool. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? Okay. If not, ready to vote? All in favor of the motion, raise your right hand. 1 2 i 4 S 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 (Commissioners Baldwin and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (Commissioners Griffin and Williams voted against the motion.) DODGE HENNEKE: Two-two tie. Motion fails. Okay. Let's move on to the consideration of the budget. Any other comments or questions regarding the budget as presented and amended? Again, the amendments are to reflect the payment of the principal and interest of the Lake Ingram Road District, the state road district, and also to make the one-step downward adjustment for those deputy clerk positions and comparables who were recently adjusted upward. Everyone got clear where we are? Okay. I'd entertain a motion to approve the -- adopt the 2001/2002 budget as presented and amended. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the Fiscal Year 2001/2002 Kerr County budget as presented and amended this morning. Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a comment. You can see -- I mean, it just becomes more clear every day that we're members of this court how important this vote is. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 We vote thousands of times during the year, and they're kind of -- at this very moment, they seem kind of like -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nothing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- a waste of time, almost. You know, 'cause here's the big one. This is the big one. This is the one that counts. It's exiting. Exciting moment. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hurry, Judge. JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I want to make a comment, Commissioner. I actually get to speak up now. One of the big differences I perceive between county government and any other form of government in this county is the way that the Commissioners Court budgets and handles the expenditures on behalf of the County. You can go to any other government body in this county, and none of them approve the bills. The bills are approved and paid by staff within the overall umbrella of the budget, but none of the other entities actually see what's spent, and we do. We sit here every two weeks, and the Auditor presents the bills and we have an opportunity to look at the bills and we have an opportunity to question the bills. And, I think that's the way that we keep county government tight, because we're the ones with the last responsibility, and the buck stops here, as Harry Truman says, as it does on all fiscal matters. And, 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 so, the way that we pay attention to the County's fiscal side, I think, is responsible and appropriate. County government is the government closest to our constituents. If someone has a problem with a road, the first person they call is their Commissioner, as you all know. If they have a problem with the flag at half staff, or not at half staff, the first person they call is the County Judge, which is appropriate. And, that's the way we stay close to our constituents. I think that's why our government -- county government is more responsive to the needs of the people than any other form of government in the county, and probably in the state. So, having said that, we have a motion and a second. All in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The budget is adopted. Okay. We have the next item scheduled for 10 o'clock, so let's do a little other business while we wait for that hour to arrive. At this time, I would entertain a motion to approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 45 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Franklin, are you ready to go forward on your item'? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we take up Item Number 5, consider and discuss authorizing Road and Bridge Department to advertise for items approved in the 2001/2002 budget. MR. JOHNSTON: Good morning. We ask permission to advertise for items listed in the 2001/2002 budget as follows: Lease of two -- or lease of 12-H maintainers, purchase of a shop truck, foreman's truck, a bucket truck, and a tractor and shredder. Bidding process will be completed for purchase and/or lease to be accepted after October 22nd, 2001. This just gives us a start so we can bid them early in the process. JUDGE HENNEKE: You're asking for approval to -- MR. JOHNSTON: To advertise. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- send out the bids to have them returned to the County Clerk's office by 5 o'clock on the 19th? MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. JUDGE HENNEKE: And to be presented to Commissioners Court at 10 o'clock on the -- MR. JOHNSTON: On the 22nd, I believe. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize the Road and Bridge Department to advertise for items approved in the 2001/2002 budget, with bids to be returned to the County Clerk's office by 5 o'clock p.m. on October 19th, Year 2001, bids to be opened and accepted or approved on Monday, October 22nd, Year 2001, at 10 o'clock in the morning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. JUDGE HENNEKE: Question? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, when you do the bidding, do y'all look at the state purchasing or the state contracts as well, just as a standard practice? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, we do. In fact, in the past several years, we've bought most of our trucks through state purchasing. JUDGE HENNEKE: Haven't you bought several 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 pieces of equipment from Houston/Galveston? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. It was a similar type thing, a pre-bid arrangement with a negotiated price. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have my boy-dummy question of the month here. Lease of 12-H? You're going to lease 12 of them? MR. JOHNSTON: Two of them. One of them, the lease is -- we've had them for five years. The lease has expired. We're sending it back and -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you're leasing two, and the maintainers are 12-H's? MR. JOHNSTON: That's the model number, yes. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I never did see that "two." I didn't know if you were leasing 12 "H" maintainers -- and I know you don't have that many maintainer operators. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thanks for asking the question. I didn't understand either. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll send you a bill. MR. JOHNSTON: I should have made that more clear. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do Item 6, too, while you're up there, Franklin, which is consider and discuss course of action for the final plat of Buckhorn Lake Resort, Precinct 4. MR. JOHNSTON: I think the plats we sent in were accidentally printed in reverse, so I -- here are some plats you can read. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: These are ones you can actually read the writing on. JUDGE HENNEKE: What's the status of this, Franklin? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the best I can figure out, the -- is Mr. Christiansen in the audience? No. He said he was going to come. I guess he didn't come. We approved this back in August -- in May of 2000, pending -- they received the letter from FEMA stating that all the floodplain items were completed, and they've never been completed to my knowledge. I called the engineer that was doing the work. He said they sent it in to FEMA shortly after this. FEMA sent a letter back, and they wanted additional work to be done, but apparently the owner of Buckhorn, Mr. Christiansen, did not approve him to do the work. He told him he didn't want to spend any more money on the project, so it's just sitting in limbo. I 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 99 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You have no idea it's there. MR. JOHNSTON: So, it can set like that forever unless we take some action. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there any reason we shouldn't just refer this to the County Attorney for action, and either with -- directly to the owner and/or T.N.R.C.C.? Is that -- if it's a floodplain -- if it's a floodplain issue and a drainage study and that sort of thing, then T.N.R.C.C. may want to play a role. We might ought to refer it to T.N.R.C.C. as well. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems to me, though, Larry -- I'm not arguing with you, but it seems to me that that is our issue. I mean, I'll tell you, I oppose it until they comply with our rules. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, yeah. No, that's exactly it. That's the reason we turn that piece over. That's the reason I'm saying, give it to the County Attorney to take action on the fact that the terms of the -- of the plat approval -- contingency plat approval has never been met, and therefore the subdivision is not valid. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm with that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what I'm saying. And, in addition, I'm saying, refer any of the drainage issues to T.N.R.C.C. as well. Not just us. But -- you know, 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because the T.N.R.C.C. and FEMA actually require those drainage studies. But, we need -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a two-prong thing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you a hundred percent. My only question in all that is, do we have an attorney to help us? Of course, that's an outside question, but -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that's a good question. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's a great question. JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a County Attorney. We can refer it down to him. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's his problem to find somebody to do it. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we need a motion to -- I'll make the motion that we refer this issue to the County Attorney for proper action on both the county level and any other state agency. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want to put a time frame on that, we should ask him to respond? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two hours? 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. By -- JUDGE HENNEKE: How about the second meeting in October, the 22nd"? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, second meeting. By the second meeting of October. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court refer the issue of the final plat of Buckhorn Lake Resort, Precinct 4, to the County Attorney's office for recommendation and action, and ask them to report to the Court on October 22nd, Year 2001. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) DODGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Posted for 10 o'clock is consider and discuss adoption of the 2001/2002 tax rate. Paula? Do you want to walk us through this one? We need a -- MS. RECTOR: You caught me by surprise. JUDGE HENNEKE: We need a motion to set the specific tax rate, correct? And it's a record vote? Is that also -- MS. RECTOR: It does not have to be a record vote. 52 ,-, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Tax rate is .3521, correct"? MS. RECTOR: I don't have my -- MR. TOMLINSON: 377. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 377. MS. SOVIL: Rollback is 37.71. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, it's 3721. MS. RECTOR: I didn't bring my information. I apologize for that. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we need a motion at this time to adopt a tax rate of .35 -- .3721 for Fiscal Year 2001/2002. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court set a tax rate for Fiscal Year 2001/2002 of .3721 cents per $100 of value. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. unanimous vote.) I, same sign. carries. Okay. We -- do you want to do Whenever my guests get (The motion carried by JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposes (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion have a presentation at 10:30. We can that exactly at 10:30, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here. They're not here. JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do a couple more items, we'll take a break and come back at 10:30 for that specific item. We'll take up Item Number 7, consider and discuss engagement letter for 2000/2001 audit by Pressler, Thompson and Company, and authorize County Judge to sign same. Tommy, do you have any comments on this? MR. TOMLINSON: I can answer questions, but I don't have a comment. JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any questions? I think this is a particularly significant year because of the implementation of GASB 34; is that correct? MR. TOMLINSON: 'That's correct. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: However, this -- this one will not be in accordance with GASB 39, right? MR. TOMLINSON: No, next one will be. COMMISSIONER GRlr'FIN: The next one will be. MR. TOMLINSON: I prefer to have someone on board that really -- that knows our system to give me some support for that, for the transition to GASB 34. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm just curious, Tommy, what the value is of the letter of Carneiro, Chumney and so forth, dated December of 1999, which is part of this packet. Looks like a letter -- MR. TOMLINSON: That's a -- their peer 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evaluation of -- of the firm. The firm has an operation audit -- I believe that's correct. And, that's their -- they just included that to show that there has -- that has been done. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the engagement letter for the 2000/2001 audit to be performed by Pressler, Thompson, and Company, and authorize the County Judge to sign same. Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Tommy, how long has Pressler Thompson been doing the audit for the County? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall. I think it's been five years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five years? At some point -- and not right now, but maybe you might look at it after we get into the GASB -- I know right at this time you don't want to change, but if you'll go out for proposals on this at some point, in a year or so, just -- MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I think that's right. JUDGE HENNEKE: Actually, we discussed that about six, eight months ago, and at the request of the Auditor, because of the transition to GASB 34, we put it back 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a year or so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE HENNEKE: It is our intent to go out for proposals in the near future. Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 8, consider and discuss a request from the Ingram Marshal, Rowan Zachry, to discontinue the fee for dispatch services. Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A little bit early, so Rowan's not here, but I did invite him. Rowan Zachry and I have been talking for quite a while over this issue. One, it's $100 a month, $1,200 a year. It's been in force since October the 1st, 1994, when there was an agreement between the Sheriff's Office and Ingram for their dispatching services. Ingram pretty well dispatches themselves all during the day, and which was part of that agreement also. The Sheriff's Office does do some dispatching for them in the evening hours and at night. But, the way I feel about this is, it's a very small amount, for number one. Number two is we use Ingram's services, especially those of Ingram Marshal Rowan Zachry, because he is a State-certified arson 56 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-. 25 investigator, and we have used his services numerous times this year at fire scenes. And, he does not get compensated by the County for that, nor does he wish to, but he -- he spends -- the last one we had out on Harper Road, out in Aqua Vista, I know he spent just about a week out there with us all during the day going through that to determine cause and origin of that fire. At night, when we dispatch, we actually pretty well dispatch one of our own guys to anything that goes on in Ingram, too, because we do have that type of working relationship, you know, with Ingram. Their marshals come out into the county to assist us, because a lot of times we only have one guy that's on that west end of the county. We go into the city of Ingram, of course, to assist them, and during hunting season, you know, we dispatch a lot for the game wardens at times. They have the same type deal; we don't charge game wardens for doing it during hunting violations and that, and I just honestly -- I feel, due to spirit of cooperation and due to the way the agencies all work together, I don't agree that the County should have this type of deal with Ingram and be charging them to do something we would do anyhow. And, with their small town and their small budget, it does make an impact on them and on their guys. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a real 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 provide -- I think we have to have an interlocal agreement that we're getting something back, 'cause I don't think we can provide a service that's free. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're not really -- and tYiat's where I guess the technical part is. You know, I mean, we're not really -- I guess we are providing services to the extent that, at night, if a -- if there's a call inside the city limits of Ingram, we will call one of their units on the radio and say about the call, or our unit hears it, too; we all go. Now, I don't know if that's providing that type of service in what you're talking about or not. It's the same way that if we have a fire out in the county, we call Rowan Zachry and he comes out in the county and assists us. This just seems to be one of those deals that, just cooperation and teamwork, working together, we would do it, you know, regardless. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: With our new whiz-bang radio system, we're going to be talking to everybody. SHERIP'r' HiERHOLZER: Very easily. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, I think they can make the argument that if we -- if we wanted to have -- we'd almost have to have an interlocal agreement be able to work with ll. Y.S. and other people, because we're supposed to be able to talk. Here's a case where we just want maximum communication. And, I don't know, we could probably look at 58 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whether or not we'd need some kind of agreement, but I think we could certainly do without the fee for dispatch. JUDGE HENNEKE: But I think Commissioner Letz is right. The way the item is posted is to discontinue a fee for dispatch services. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We can -- JUDGE HENNEKE: You can't provide services to the Ingram City Marshal without receiving something in return. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, the consensus -- the consensus of the Court is that, you know, the -- we can do without the fee, but if we're going to provide dispatch services, we have to come up with some other quid pro quo. And it may be very general, to assist us in law enforcement investigations outside of the city of -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And -- DODGE HENNEKE: -- of Ingram or something like that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can have the County Attorney and 1 and Rowan Zachry rewrite this contract to where what we're doing is for these services. Rowan Zachry, you know, as long as he's the marshal -- if he's not, you won't have a certified arson investigator, but that the Ingram Marshal's Department does assist us outside the city 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 limits of Ingram when we need them, when called upon. If you want to do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. Do that. DODGE HENNEKE: I think we could do that. So, the proper way to do this is, you all work that out and bring it back. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Bring it back, just a new contract without the fees attached? DODGE HENNEKE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But you might tell -- DODGE HENNEKE: A new arrangement. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- might tell Rowan that the sense is -- is that the fee for dispatch can go away, but we need some kind of agreement to be able to do that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's fine. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you. DODGE HENNEKE: Let's take one more. Jannett, do you want to do yours? Consider and discuss appointment to serve as the Central Counting Station personnel pursuant to Section 127.001, which is Tab Number 9. MS. PIEPER: This is just some more of the housecleaning things we have to get done prior to the constitutional amendment election. This is pursuant to the 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 zl 22 23 29 25 Texas Election Code, and this appoints me as the central counting presiding judge and manager, Nadene Alford as the tabulating supervisor, and just -- the assistant supervisor would be Mindy Williams, and then the clerks and our person to telephone the Secretary of the State's office. Basically, all you have to do is just appoint the first three, and then the rest of them 1 just put on there for your information. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And this is just for the -- MS. PIEPER: Just for the constitutional amendment election in November. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court appoint the persons recommended by the County Clerk to serve as counting station personnel pursuant to Section 127.001, Texas Election Code. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (NO response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's take a break and reconvene at 10:30 for our insurance presentation. F1 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Recess taken from 10:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's reconvene this regular special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Commissioner Baldwin, are you ready with your presentation? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. JUDGE HENNEKE: Take it away, buddy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much. As you know, we have our worker's comp insurance handled by Texas Association of Counties, and this year our -- it went up 90 percent with us, and I understand that there's many counties around the state that -- that the same thing has happened to them. And, I recently -- as you know, I sit on that board, and we were in a board meeting, and I simply started asking the questions, you know, how can you increase us by 90 percent and then turn around and start this -- this huge building project'? And, I won't go into detail, but needless to say, I don't get along real well with Texas Association of Counties at this point. And, just a couple of days ago -- I don't know if you guys got one or not, but I got an invitation to the groundbreaking ceremony for the Texas Association's new $5 million building over in Austin, and I just don't think that -- I just I don't get it, okay? Raise Kerr County taxpayers by 40 percent, and then turn around and build a SS million building. 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So -- and I've known Ms. Hicks for a while through my association with South Texas, and her company and what they do, and Mr. Williams and I had visited with her down in Beaumont and had asked her to come to our county. And, basically, what I asked Kathleen to do is to show us how we can get good services and save some -- possibly save some money. And, that's really all I've asked her to do. So, Kathleen Hicks is from San Angelo with Texas Risk and Insurance Management Services, and she's going to come now, Kathleen, please, and make a brief presentation to us about what her company does and how she can work for us. This is Kathleen Hicks. MS. MILLER: Good morning. I appreciate this opportunity to be here. And, I've brought a little additional information regarding some of the accounts that I've worked on. I have a small firm. We do not want to be a large firm. So, we usually work with an account, and then we will work with them for several years until their program gets under control. And, I have copies for the court reporter, as well. And then we will periodically go back and do projects again. Commissioner Baldwin had asked that I bring you some information about a county that might be equivalent to you in size, and I have one that we've been working with, actually, since 1994, and it's Matagorda County. When I started working with them, Judge Sneary was 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 the judye there, and he resigned to run for the House of Representatives, and I've been working with Judge Westmoreland since that point, and the Commissioners Court. The information I have on the first sheet that is included here is just information since 1996, and the thing that I would really like to stress with you all is Lhat once we got the cost under control in Matagorda County, we have been able to keep that cost consistent from 1996 through current. Now, that's not to say what is going to happen in light of the World Trade Center. I always thought that when the country says we're at war, that the war exclusion would come into play in insurance policies, but that is not the case since there's not a sovereign country that has declared war on the United States. So, all of those losses that occurred in the World Trade Center and Washington will be covered by insurance, and the -- the Business lnsurance dated September 17th has already begun to talk about it. It will be the largest insurance loss in the history of the world, so we do not know what the long-term impact of that will be. The insurance executives are already talking with the government about some way of helping to possibly bail them out to some degree, because the insurance industry as a whole is what we consider in trouble. They've been writing insurance for about the last 15 years for less 64 1 ~. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 r-- 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,-. 25 dollars than they're paying out in claims, and they've been recouping what they've lost through investment income and -- and investing in the stock market and doing a lot of things like that, and operating on that cash flow. well, as we all know, interest rates are lower than they've been as long as I can remember, and the stock market is not in the condition we'd all like to see it. And so you, as the ones that are going to end up paying consider, after being in this business f very bad management for a long period of go into this market, the things that are policy holders, are for what I would ~r 34 years, really time. As -- as we going to be more and more important is for you to have more control in your program and to have control of your claims, and to know that if you are sharing your risk in any way, that you're sharing that with folks that are like you and -- and have a similar kind of claims that you do. Because if you're sharing your losses with someone like Tarrant County or Bexar County or those larger counties, that's not what is happening out in this -- this part of the country. So, the -- the first sheet in these additional packets I brought you today is just showing the level, size. If you will look in this Total column, it's how relatively level. We began at 403,980 -- I'm sorry, we began at 909,982 back in '96. The cost has decreased, and now we're back up to 403,980. That is because they had a 1 ,~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 65 year where they had several public official liability claims that were from employment-related exposures, and so their -- their claims history is causing their cost to go up a little. If you'll look at the actual cost where I'm showing reinsurance costs, that is the actual premium dollars that they have paid, and again, that's remained very level, when you consider that each year their payroll is increasing, the amount of values on their buildings are increasing, and their expenditures are increasing. And, then the first two columns under Administration is what they're paying actually to have their claims handled, and these kind of costs you will see in any insurance program. You usually do not see them broken out so you know what those components are, but those are the components that drive the cost of your insurance. So, the cost of claims administration, and that will increase as claims increase and decrease as claims decrease, and then the cost of other administration. And, you'll see back in 1996 -- and this is when they first implemented a partially self-funded plan -- their administration costs were very high, because a lot of safety -- and we had some bad law enforcement exposure there, so we brought in some law enforcement specialists to do some training and get their jail procedures and all of that set up, which it sounds like you all are already in wonderful condition there. But then, 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as the job goes along, then those costs began to decrease because the level of service is not needed. The graph here just shows you number of accidents. They have approximately 275 employees, and in 1994 they had 22 worker's comp accidents. In '97, they had 25. So, rather than utilize the safety program we had to that point, which is we would go in and train their people to do their own safety meetings and to do their own inspections and those kind of things, I actually now send in a safety representative to hold safety meetings for them once every couple of months, and he holds safety meetings for all the different departments, and it's a lot more hands-on. And, that was really at the request of Commissioner Deshotels, because he felt that it was hard for his people to focus on safety when they have so many other things that they need to be doing. So, we just amended our contract a little bit and started doing more hands-on safety. The newspaper articles that are in here are old, because they're when we first started working for Matagorda County, and -- but I just wanted to let you see the comments that -- that were made then, and this is 1993 and -- and 1994, and the Commissioners Court was being praised for doing something to get a handle on their costs. In the past, the costs have just increased every year, to 67 I ~- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the tune of anywhere from 10 to 20 percent, routinely. And you have probably seen this article that was in County Magazine about it's a hard market for worker's comp. And, I'm going to be very critical here and say the reason it's a very hard market for worker's comp is, when you've been writing worker's comp for 19 years for less dollars than you're actually paying out in claims, you're going to then find yourself facing a hard market. When all of those things you were depending on previously, like the high investment income at 11 and 12 percent is gone, then you're going to start having to pay for these losses. One of the other things that was in this is the -- the graph that is showing how their contributions have gone down, and then how their claims have gone up. And it's really hard for me to understand how there's been this drastic jump in the number of dollars being paid out for claims. If, indeed, the safety programs and the claims management really managing those claims has been as tight as it should, it seems odd to me that you would have that kind of jump. Now, I had previously sent you all, in the packets, I believe, this example of where I compared a little group out here in west Texas, and these guys are much smaller than you; they're less than 20,000 population, but there are now 18 of them in this little pool. And, what they did was group together so that they would have the 68 1 .-. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 zl 22 23 24 .--. 25 buying power of a larger -- of a larger entity, and then combine safety services. So, again, we do go out and do safety meetings for them and do the things for them that a risk manager, if they had one on staff, would be doing. So, this comparison was 1999 to 2000. And, at the point I did this comparison, the results for this little group were 13 times better, and Matagorda County will fall right in the same picture as this group. So, if you look at that, and we were comparing the '99 year and the losses in '99, they're showing somewhere in the area of about 18 million, and then they did this drastic jump. I have no idea what those numbers are going to look like and how much better this is going to be. The next sheet, again, is just showing the consistency of costs and the -- the contributions over here are for various numbers of entities when they were added to this pool. But, the cost to really pay attention to is the risk management cost over here, and if you can look in '96, they had 16 members, and their cost -- that was for reinsurance, all their administration, their risk management, the safety -- was 659,769, and that has -- and the -- and that was 52 percent. In the year 2000, it was 49 percent, and then in 2001, it was 58 percent, because that's where we saw the -- the growth in the insurance 69 1 .-. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-- 25 premiums for the reinsurance during this past year. And, there's a letter of reference from Culberson County -- who, by the way, when I first started my consulting business in 1991, Culberson County was my first client, and I traveled from Austin to Culberson County about six times on the first little contract I had with them, but then they joined this pool that this group put together. The other articles in here are just news -- news articles about Fort Bend County and they won an award with the National Association of Counties the first two years. We took their program out of Texas Association of Counties and put it in their own hands, because once it's in your own hands and you know that every dollar you spend is your money, then it's so much easier to get your employees to focus on safety and saving those dollars. Because if you're not spending them in insurance and you're not spending them on claims, then they're available for other things, for salary increases and to help offset some of those high costs in health -- health plans and all of that. The -- this -- that is in your packet. Innovative Safety Services of Texas, this is the firm that I utilize for our safety services. This young man, I always have to disclose, is -- is my son-in-law. He started working for me back about six years ago, and he grew to the point that he really would like to expand his ~o I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 business, and I'm at the point I don't want to expand mine; I want a certain number of clients, and I want to hire a lot of additional people to help do those jobs. So, we -- we office right next door to each other. He has done an incredible job with these programs, and I utilize his service with my clients. So, those are just additional things that I wanted to bring so that you would have them to read. In the packets that we provided previously, it gave you my background. I've been in the insurance business for 34 years, and I've done everything from being the -- in the accounting department of an insurance company to, you know, being a risk manager. I've been an independent agent and I owned an independent insurance agency and left that end of the business back in the late '80's during the last liability crisis. I believe that with the knowledge that -- that I've accumulated over the years, that I serve the client much better working directly for the client. We do not take commission from any insurance provider or insurance company. There's one small exception, and that is with Met Life and their Texas Protect. They're paying our expenses to introduce that program, but it's strictly expenses. We're not paid by insurance companies, and have never taken a cent from any provider since we have been in the consulting business. It's the only way that we 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 can truly be unbiased in the recommendations that we make. Now, as the rates begin to grow -- and they're growing dramatically in some accounts that we work with. We saw renewals come in at as much as a 50 percent increase on property insurance, and had to put some new programs in place to offset that. And, the people who are selling those programs, they're going to also cause increases, because in insurance, the more the premium is, the more the people selling the product make. And, in situations that are set up like Texas Association of Counties, where they make a percentage off the contributions, whatever the contributions are, there's a percentage of that that is pulled off to pay for the servicing and all of that account, so it's really hard sometimes for those people to stand back and look at it totally objectively. And, yes, it's terrible it's going up. It has been too low in the past. But, in good management, you would always think that you would rather see gradual increases, maybe 10 percent a year or 5 percent a year, and not 40 percent in one year. And, it's not just Kerr County. It is statewide. The entire state of Texas got that letter. Some people have been notified -- as they made it known that they're looking at alternatives, they've been notified that maybe their rate increase will be less; maybe it will be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~.. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 72 only 10 percent. And, I'm telling you that if, by just looking at other things, you accomplish that kind of savings, it still should make you say, "What in the world is can tell you that your coverages may -- no matter what you're paying, your coverages may also have big holes in them, like some of the law enforcement policies and coverages that are sold have exclusions in them for the law enforcement liability, for auto-related exposures, which you would expect because you have tort limits on your auto liability, but it also says that they exclude claims arising out of any policies, procedures, supervision, or lack of supervision with those automobiles. So, if you have a situation where someone gets involved in a hot pursuit chase, and they collect the tort limits on the policy, they can still come back under law enforcement liability and say, "You violated our civil rights because you did not have policies and procedures and enforce those to prevent this kind of accident from happening." And, you know, Tarrant County is dealing with a claim that could lead to that kind of thing right now, where a young man stole a vehicle from a detention center and was driving at 120 miles an hour with all the -- everybody in hot pursuit. And, of course, he ran through a stoplight and 1 .- 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 73 killed an innocent -- another driver who was -- who was not have, and then again, you may. But, to have a very good review of that, to look at everything together and to say this is what you have, this is what you don't have, and then to possibly go through the request for proposal process to see if you put it all together at one time, then what kind of rates that you might be able to accomplish and what kind of coverage you might be able to get, and to also then do a physical evaluation or hazard survey of your premises to see -- these things are very positive, because when you start looking to insurance companies for proposals, you want them to know every possible positive thing about you, and you want them to know that you know the things that need to be corrected. And, you may not be able to do that immediately, but you're aware and you're making temporary adjustments until you can accomplish those things. So, I'm here at the -- at the invitation of Commissioner Baldwin, and I don't know how much money we can possibly save at this point, but I would be very interested in working for the County, and we could quote -- our fees are always flat. We don't believe in saying, "Well, we'll 74 1 ,-- 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably do it for this, but we're going to add a lot of extra expenses." Our fees are flat. What we quote you is building appraisals on all of your buildings so that -- you know, that whatever level of property insurance that you're carrying, when have you a claim, you can collect that without them coming in to second-guess after a claim occurs on what the insurance value is of that building. We would do that for a flat fee of $15,000. I can tell you that, to this point, we have them. And, I have to preface that with, we'd be looking at what you're anticipating on your renewal coverage, and at this time you know what you're anticipating on worker's comp. It's really very hard to know what is going to happen with property -- especially property insurance. We know the worker's comp will be impacted even more, because the letter you got was back in June, and with the World Trade Center, reinsurance is going to be difficult for everyone, for every single group. We already have the officials pleading for insurance companies not to gouge the public, and I sincerely hope that they don't. But, we have seen in the past that there's an opportunity there, and if there's something to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 ~s hang your hat on and say, well, it's all these things -- you know, there was a hurricane up north, so we all have to pay for it here. There's always those things, and they're afraid. They're very afraid of what the future will hold. One positive thing that they are already looking at is asking the government to set up a terrorism fund the way the United Kingdom does. They provide terrorism insurance on the same basis that we do here in the United States with national flood, so it's a government- backed program. You have to actually purchase the coverage, but the rates are subsidized by the government, and then the claims are subsidized by the -- by the government as well. But, you need to encourage anyone you talk to -- it's something that needs to be dealt with. I can tell you that the premiums were never set -- and I -- and you can tell I'm not a big insurance company advocate. But, I can tell you, the rates were never set to deal with the kind of losses that we're going to be seeing out of this terrorist attack, and we all are very afraid that it's not going to be the last. And, so, something needs to be done and done quickly to protect governmental entities and all the people that are your taxpayers that are here trying to do business in Kerr County, because it's going to have a devastating effect on especially small business people. And, during the 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 last liability crisis, the reason 1 could no longer be an insurance agent is, I saw many of my clients who I'd done business with for seven and eight years go out of business because they could no longer purchase -- they could not afford the cost, if they could find someone to provide liability coverage. And, if -- if something is not-done by the federal government, you're going to see that happen again, and it's going to be quick and it's going to be really awful. So, anything you could do to advocate help would be wonderful. There's one other book that I put in there that is the State of Health Care. Take that home and read it. It has got some wonderful, wonderful information. It is not put out by the insurance industry; it's put out by the medical community, and so you have to weigh a little bit some of the stuff that -- that's in there as well, but it is an excellent -- there is some excellent information in there on what's going to happen in the future in health care and what kind of things that we need to start looking at. So, please take that. Are there any questions? JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you very much for that presentation. Does anyone have any questions or -- or comments? Buster? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't. I was wondering if -- Tommy, do you have any questions? ~~ 1 2 3 4 S 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Not anything specific. I just -- I would like to know -- you mentioned something about a pool. MS. MILLER: Yes, sir. MR. TOMLINSON: That wouldn't be -- is McCulloch County in that pool? MS. MILLER: In the risk management pool, yes. Yes. Now, they're -- they had a little health pool that they ended up closing, but they are in this risk management pool. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who? MR. TOMLINSON: McCulloch County and Menard County, I know, were in a -- in a west Texas pool, and in regard to health insurance. But, I -- I don't know -- they had some bad experiences. MS. MILLER: That -- yeah. That health pool was an absolute nightmare, and it's still a nightmare. And they closed it June of last year, and still are not through with -- with finalizing that. I had -- in January of last year, I said, "Guys, you need to use this health professional, Michael Janeke, who's a consultant. Our firm does not want to do this any more." And then they ended up closing it in June, and unfortunately, we're still working with them and trying -- trying to finalize that. But, it -- it, like so many other health plans, is just a nightmare. The interesting thing about that is that at the time they 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 closed the pool, they were paying about $180 a month per employee for coverage. Their spouse coverage was $159. Most of them now are paying $528 for employee coverage through Blue Cross, and have been offered family coverage at $702 a family. So, it's -- you know, it's something the health -- health, you can't control, and there were a lot of people that were giving these guys some really bad -- really bad advice. And, I'm going to say there's some folks out there with Blue Cross that was giving them some very bad advice, and we've said, you know, "Stand back and follow the dollar, and you see who won when this pool decided to close." So, Judge Elkins with Reagan County would be an excellent -- an excellent person to talk to about that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kathleen, thank you so much. MR. TOMLINSON: Only other thing I -- this is just general information, but I've -- I've been in contact with -- with the private sector. I mean, as far as -- as liability and worker's comp, property coverage. And, I mean, in the private sector, I've -- I mean, in talking to individuals, I've heard some real horror stories about -- about increased premiums on -- on all those lines. I know some -- some private sector people were paying better than a 100 percent increase on worker's comp. And, what -- the comment she made -- and this is what I'm hearing. What you 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~9 said about -- about one of the reasons is that underwriters, over the past few years, have -- have forgotten how to assess risk. MS. MILLER: You're exactly MR. TOMLINSON: And they've made their money on -- on investments, and they can't make money on investments any more, so the only way they know how to assess a premium is just to grab a number out of the air, and that's what you get. MS. MILLER: That is exactly correct. And they can't lose their job for saying no, but they can lose their job when they say yes and underprice an account. MR. TOMLINSON: So, I guess my point is that this is not a real friendly market. JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's very true. And, you know, here on the court, we've actually been fortunate, in the three years I've been here, in that we've been able to absorb some significant insurance premium costs through good management and -- and some -- a good work force. But, I think the face of the insurance picture for all local governments in the next two or three years is just horrendous. I don't think we have any idea of where we're headed, and I think that's going to be a significant challenge to this court to come up with ways we continue to provide insurance coverage, both risk and health, without the 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 costs significantly impairing our ability to provide services. I mean, we're right on the edge of falling into the abyss on this insurance stuff. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment is -- my question would be, on the evaluation -- we're running a little bit long, so maybe if you have something you could send to us as to what do we get for the $15,000 evaluation, exactly what's covered under that. If you have, like, a -- you know, just some sort of a contract or something you can send to us, we can look at it and figure out -- 'cause I think we do -- I mean, insurance, as long as I've been on the court, is one of those areas I'm never -- I've never been real comfortable with, 'cause I don't know enough about it personally to make a lot of the decisions, and we're relying on a lot -- a lot of agents and some of the County staff as well. So, I'm -- I'm interested in looking at what you're -- you offer, but I'd like to know what we're getting for our money exactly. MS. MILLER: Yes, sir, I would be glad to do that. And, just to cover it briefly, we would come in and evaluate -- we would gather all the insurance policies that you have, and we would actually go through and read those -- read those policies. There's some of us that enjoy doing that; I know it must be a sickness. And then we would say, here's what you do have covered and here's what is excluded. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,-. 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 And we would then say possibly you don't need to buy insurance for these things that are excluded; maybe we can transfer that risk to someone else that you're either doing business with or -- or some way to transfer that risk, and sometimes maybe eliminate it if it's not -- the exposure, if We would review your exposures and be sure And, then we would do an actual safety walk-through to say here -- you know, this is -- everything's in great shape. You need to put these extension cords under the desk, you need to do these things, you need to label this. Just the normal things that someone who would be doing an OSHA-type inspection would do. But, we don't just come in and say, "This is wrong, this is wrong." We say, "This needs to be corrected," and if it's not something that's just -- put a card underneath the desk, then we say, "Here are some suggestions that you might use." And some of those may be until you can invest the finances in it to do it right, that you just put a sign up warning. Because in -- in government, if you discover a defect and you warn against it, that's fine until you can get into the next budget cycle and actually budget to correct that. And, then we would do building evaluations. 1 ._. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .~-. 25 82 We would come in and actually measure the buildings. We'd take photographs. We would issue a building valuation on the Boeckh system, which is widely accepted by all insurance companies, so that you have -- and furnish you with that, so you have in the county all your buildings, photographs of them, what their square footage is, and the insurance valuation. That helps you with any -- anyone that you get your insurance with. And, again, when have you a claim and you have that, it stops all the nonsense about, well, what was the building really worth to begin with, or what was the insurable value to begin with? And, then we would issue requests for proposals for you, and when those came back in, we would evaluate the -- the actual proposals. We would go through the process of answering questions, and I'm sure you know how many questions you get once you issue those proposals. You're flooded with -- well, we need this question answered and in this manner. We would do all of that and oversee that process, and then come back to you with spreadsheets and say, "Here is what we received, and this is what we would recommend." But it is always your decision in what you want to do, but we would give you a recommendation and tell you why we recommended that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one question of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 83 Tommy and one of Kathleen. Tommy, do insurance policies run on a fiscal year basis or a calendar year basis? Or are they all over the lot? MR. TOMLINSON: It just so happens that ours is -- is a calendar. We -- our renewals are January 1. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: We have just -- just this month, had all of our buildings appraised. And I don't know if this Court remembers, but we did this very thing two years ago. JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not sure we did it quite as in-depth as Kathleen is talking about. We hired Don Gray and he helped us put together an RFP, and then he evaluated the proposal. MR. TOMLINSON: We didn't -- we didn't go through the -- the process of -- of reviewing all our coverages. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right, but we went out two years ago and hired Don Gray to do RFP's, and he evaluated all the responses and -- kind of like what Kathleen is talking about. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Exactly so. JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. But we didn't go the extra step that she's talking about, which is -- MR. TOMLINSON: No. As I recall, we -- this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 84 came about after the budget was approved, and we -- we didn't -- we didn't have the funds to -- to go the whole mile. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kathleen, typically, how long does it take you to do this evaluation? MS. MILLER: To actually do the insurance policies and come in, probably -- probably about three weeks. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you very much for your time. We greatly appreciate it. Good to see you. MS. MILLER: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's take up Item Number IO next, which is consider and discuss approval of the O.S.S.F. Floodplain Fee Schedule as recommended by the U.G.R.A. You have in your packets the memo from Mr. Brown, as well as the letter and the proposed fee schedule. This is the fee schedule on which I believe the O.G.R.A. is basing the budget that they're debating at this time. It provides for small increases in certain of the fees for O.S.S.F. or floodplain, but not any radical increases in their -- in the fee schedule. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The numbers that are in parentheses, is that -- JUDGE HENNEKE: That would be the new schedule. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the new number they want. JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, for example, la does not currently exist, but will be -- will become -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- a number, as well as 2a and so forth. JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What they did was that they ran an analysis on several counties, as I recall. Judge, do you remember how many? I think there were five -- four or five other counties. JUDGE HENNEKE: More than that, I think. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And they compared fees. Not -- and the fee schedule that they are proposing here was sort of mid-range. I mean, there were some counties that had higher fees. A few counties had smaller fees. And then they took these numbers and plugged them into their budget, their known costs, to try to figure out where they were going to -- you know, how much of the -- of their shortfall it would cover. And, they ran several cases, I think, on that. Am I right on that? Ran several cases, four or five different counties that you were -- MR. BARRON: I believe it was more than that. 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think it was 10 -- 10 or 12, something like that. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. And this was -- this is the -- the last version that you have currently in your budget -- MR. BARRON: Yes. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- shows -- reflects this fee schedule. DODGE HENNEKE: I believe that item -- the item labeled 2a has a typo in it. It says Application for New Licensed O.S.S.F. less than 500 gallons. That should be greater than 500 gallons. MR. BARRON: I don't have a copy of what you're looking at. JUDGE HENNEKE: 'Cause it would be the same as la if it was less than, so I'm sure, since it's under 2, it should be greater than. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have is the -- is Number 3, Application for Repairing a Licensed O.S.S.F. I mean, I guess that's an application to repair and keep it licensed. MR. BARRON: Yes, sir. If they needed -- if they have an unlicensed system, we usually don't get them -- repair them. They have to be brought up to -- to today's standards, because if -- if it's an unlicensed system and it's failed, then we feel it has to be brought up to today's a~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standards and be licensed at today's standards„ so we don't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you define "repair" then? MR. BARRON: Repair can only be -- only be done on a licensed system, and it's -- if something needs to happen to that -- to a licensed system, or if it has a -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A crushed drainfield or whatever. MR. BARRON: -- a crushed drainfield, or the tank's leaking or something, they can't go in and fix the tank itself. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To do the reinspection, do the -- the paperwork and reinspection on that is what you're talking about on a repair. That's where the system actually has a component that you can repair. The tank cracks or it starts leaking. MR. BARRON: A lot of the older systems have -- have a tank that has two -- two portions to it, like someone said Eddie Taylor makes there in Center Point, and the center ring will go bad and it will leak out from that area. They'll go in, take the lid off of it, and then clean that crack out and seal it again where it won't leak any more. That would be an example of repair to a licensed system. ftft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You say you -- I guess, looking -- I mean, I'm looking at this. It seems like it's -- it's almost a disincentive, in a way. If you have an unlicensed system, our fee structure is making it so you let it limp along rather than try to license and fix it so it's more efficient. I mean, 'cause it's -- we're making the fees -- it's getting pretty expensive to -- to get a licensed system. If you have an unlicensed system, which the majority of them in the county are right now, it's just -- it seems like we're not encouraging people to upgrade and fix their systems. We're kind of, you know, penalizing them. And it just seems like we're going into -- the effect should be to improve systems, not deter people from, you know, bringing them into compliance. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, the most -- the most cost to the program, no matter who's -- the most cost to the program is when you are starting from scratch to build a new system. I mean, it's just because that's where you have to have an evaluation -- you have to have a site evaluation, as well as inspection and repair -- or not the inspection and repair. You have to do inspections during construction and that kind of thing. So, you -- you have the most cost when you're dealing with a new system. If you're repairing a system, and even if it's an unlicensed system, you know, the work required is not as great, because when they discover 89 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that IL's unlicensed, there's not as much personnel time spent, not as much office time spent, 'cause, you know, you got -- it falls into having an updated system. If you're repairing it, then you've just got to inspect the repaired part of it. So, it's -- and, actually, the fees are based on trying to recover the costs associated with that, as much a5 -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's the reason I think you see the fee structure the way it is. No matter relatively where they fall, I think you're going to always see that the new system is going to have the highest cost for the program. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell me, what would Lhe fee be for a person with an unlicensed system who came to you seeking to make application to repair his system and become a licensed system? What would the fee structure be? MR. BARRON: If they came with an unlicensed system, they would have to pay to get the whole system licensed, so it would be the Number 1 there, depending on the gallons per day, with $200 to get a license. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $200 plus the application for repairing, or just the $200? MR. BARRON: Just the $200. And that would -- that would encompass all the -- the inspections that we go 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 out and do, which would require a couple of them on an unlicensed system. The number we use is about one in 400 unlicensed systems meet the requirements of today's standards to be licensed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many? MR. BARRON: Without upgrades, one in 400. 'That's a ballpark. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought -- and we've done this as kind of an incentive, I understand. I thought that we were going down a road that would take us to -- if a system was -- if it's in compliance, it's okay to keep it there. If it's not polluting and it's in compliance, you can keep it an unlicensed system. But what you're saying here, by these rules, unless I'm misunderstanding you, is that the -- if there's an unlicensed system that's working fine, that needs -- that has -- a cement truck drove over one line and crushed one line, you're having to go in and redo that whole system rather than fix it, rather than fix the one little component that may be broken. Am I understanding the rules right, and the fee structure? MR. BARRON: Somewhat. I think the problem that -- and the question I ask -- that I'm asked more by individuals that come to me with that question, if it's working, what's our definition of working? Most people's definition is, is it taking the -- the black water and the 91 1 ,... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 gray water out of the house where they don't have to deal with it any more. We go a little bit further and say that it's actually treating that water; it's getting rid of all the -- all the microbes and everything in it that can is to go by the state standards. They say that if we build them to these standards, then we're almost certain that there will be no groundwater contamination. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But I think, under the case -- the way the rules are written, both T.N.R.C.C. and Kerr County rules, we give some latitude to our Designated Representative, who is us. We give some latitude to make a judgment call on that. If it's a system where -- where, literally, the drainfield is -- has had a crushed line in it, notwithstanding the fact that the tank may be a proper size for licensing, you don't license the system, but say, "Go fix the drainfield." As long as you've got the proper size tank and all that sort of thing, go do it. And we've given him that flexibility. MR. BARRON: And the -- one of those unlicensed system scenarios, we let them use as much of the old system as they can that's still functioning properly, that will meet the soil and -- and other criteria in the rules. 1 ,~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1--. 25 92 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You've got to remember, the fees will cover costs of the program, and we charged our Designated Representative to go try to build that kind of a fee schedule. Actually, what O.G.R.A. did was -- was they said, "We will eat part of the enforcement piece of this and try to make these fees cover the real costs associated with putting in and repairing systems." And, so, some of the follow-up -- the 90 percent, I think, that was mentioned in one of the letters of manpower is actually on putting cases together and that kind of thing that are outside of this rule. And so they, in essence, are eating that as a part of the follow-up enforcement activity, and this is the schedule that comes as close as they can make it to covering the cost of the program. And, they have cut those down in some cases a little bit, 'cause they thought to really cover all the costs would drive the cost too high -- drive the prices too high. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a real problem; I'm just making sure we going in the right direction with the fee structure. It's getting to the onerous point. I have two more questions. Septic License Search. This information is all public record, so they can go in and check it themselves for free? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 MR. BARRON: Yes, sir, we have it in there. They can come in and do it themselves also. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The $10 is if they ask you to do it? MR. BARRON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other one is on -- actually, I guess it relates to both of them. It's come up a couple of times, and about to come up again, I think. Does the County pay these fees? If the County does have property with septic and has some things -- you know, various things, are we subject to paying the fees? In the one that's coming up right now, we have a floodplain determination Stuart and I have been talking about on Flat Rock, and there's an application fee -- or I mean the fee application pending. And, it's -- it came up once -- I think twice before since I've been on the court, that O.G.R.A. in the past has wanted us to pay the fee, and I think then they waived it finally last time with the floodplain. And, I just think it needs to be clear between us if we pay it or don't pay it. Doesn't make any difference to me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No would be a good answer. (Laughter.) MR. BARRON: I don't know. I have a little trouble answering the question. I don't feel that -- that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 I'll be able to answer it and be able to stand behind whatever answer I give you. So -- JUDGE HENNEKE: I guess the Court could grant itself a variance if we needed to. MR. BARRON: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. And should. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess I have one question on the expedite fee. You charge $100 to do it within 5 working days, right? Or -- yeah, five working days or more, I would assume. If I want that done more quickly than that, it would cost double that amount of money? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, we discussed that in one of the meetings we had. That's a priority issue. Usually what happens is -- is that -- is that these are usually on properties that you have a very anxious buyer or seller; it's on the more expensive properties, usually, not the less expensive properties. And somebody says, "Well, I want to close this thing next week, by golly. I don't care what it costs." Okay. If you want that kind of priority, then you're going to have to pay for it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because you -- you take people out of the line to move them -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- up in priority, and so it's a -- if you want it, you pay for it. I don't think double is bad. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only question I have in regards -- and I disagree with all that. But, only question I have on this particular schedule here is -- is the la and 2a. The way I read it, la is new license for less than 500 gallons. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That should be greater than. MR. BARRON: That should be greater than. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it's greater than, okay. And, the 2a is greater than. What is the difference between 1 and 2? JUDGE HENNEKE: la is less than. la is -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- is left the way it is, and 2a -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm thinking. JUDGE HENNEKE: -- 2a should be greater than. MR. BARRON: Both of them should be greater than. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1a is less than, 2a is greater than. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96 MR. BARRON: You're asking the -- the difference in the $50 fee between la and 1? JUDGE HENNEKE: No. No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm just trying to establish what -- what we're saying here -- MR. BARRON: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to begin with, and we're there now. la is less than 500, and 2a is greater than 500. JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. MR. BARRON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you double -- I mean, what do you get for that -- doubling the price on that? MR. BARRON: Most of those -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm a property owner, and I have -- I have two pieces of property. On one piece of property, I have a tank that's less than 500, and then on this piece of property over here, it's greater than 500. You're going to come out there and inspect both of them. What do I get differently on the greater than 500? JUDGE HENNEKE: My understanding, Commissioner, is that 500 g.p.d. break is really the difference between a residential and a commercial system. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's gallons per day. It's not the capacity of a tank. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's how many gallons per day can you process through the system. And, 285 makes the distinction that if it's more than 500 gallons a day, you've got to go with a commercial -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is our way of controlling commercial? JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's passing on additional costs to commercial, as opposed to residential. Residential is the lower number, the 1 or the 2. The commercial is the la or the 2a. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My related question to that comment is, why is there a distinction if there's a maintenance contract? Why add a different licensing fee to that? What I can envision happening -- 'cause we -- in many areas where there are subdivisions going in, it takes an aerobic system. I can just hear it already. They're going to say, "Well, they're making me do an aerobic system so I have to pay a bigger fee for the licence there." COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Again, that's because if you look at the cost involved in the program, what the D.R. and his parent organization have to do requires more work for aerobic systems, because they have to file the 98 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 report, they have to get -- they have to get copies of the management, they have to certify that the system, indeed, has been inspected. So, it's -- again, it's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's, where is the work required? It's not -- if it were something that we could use as an incentive, it would be great, but that's not the way the program is designed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there is additional work for the aerobic system. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's additional work for an aerobic system. If it's continued -- MR. BARRON: They have to carry a maintenance contract for the life of the system, and U.G.R.A. or whoever is doing monitoring of it has to make sure that they have a valid maintenance contract for -- until the system is -- is disposed of. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're talking about -- now, I mean, I want to be real here. I mean, I own one of them and I participate in that. I'm behind in renewing my contract, and I may get way behind if you make me mad here, but you simply receive a form from my engineer that says that it's been paid. That's all there is to it. You don't charge a fee to receive a form to file away, do you? MR. BARRON: We receive that -- the initial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 form, which is the initial contract for one year. Then three times a year, we have to receive their -- their report. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know, but all you're doing is receiving a piece of paper. Please don't call that work. That's why -- I mean, I'm not fussing at you. Don't -- don't misunderstand me, but I -- I have a hard time relating to that being considered work, and charging people for it when you receive a piece of paper from Charlie what's-his-name down here on Water Street, and you file it away. That's not work. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think the new 285 requires you to do more than that now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: File it in two different places, maybe, or something like that. MR. BARRON: Well, I think the ones that send in the aerobic forms are not the ones that -- we're not targeting them. It's the people we have to end up taking to court and sending them numerous letters. If they're -- if they're behind, then we send them -- we have to send them a certified mail, at the County Attorney's request. If you get behind, if you -- you know, two or three times, you've almost paid $25 or $30 just in the mail fee itself to send them the letter that says, hey, we need to get -- you need to get on top of your -- and get your contract. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I've got your i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 letters before. MR. BARRON: So -- and it's just more paperwork to keep up with. And, like I said, it never -- it's never going to stop until that system's terminated. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I just wanted to say receiving a piece of paper and filing it away is not -- please don't consider that work. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions? Do we have a motion to approve the fee schedule as presented? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll move. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve the O.S.S.F. and floodplain fee schedule as presented by our Designated Representative. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Reluctant "aye." JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 11, consider and discuss renewal of contract with VeriClaims, Inc. for Indigent Health claims administration, subject to approval by the County Attorney. This is pretty straightforward. Does anyone have any questions or comments 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 regarding renewal of this? It has been recommended by the Auditor that we do so for a two-year period. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve renewal of the contract for VeriClaims, Inc., for indigent health claims administration, subject to approval by the County Attorney. Any further questions or comments? If not all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 12, consider and discuss approval of the Economic Development Program, and authorize the County Judge to negotiate contract with the Kerr Economic Development Foundation for implementation of same. We discussed this about a month ago. This is a very bare-bones program which tracks the statute. It has been reviewed by our former Assistant County Attorney, Travis Lucas, who says that it meets all the requirements of the statute. What I'm asking is that we adopt this, and then we can contract with KEDF to implement it on behalf of the County. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve the Kerr County Economic Development Program and authorize County Judge to negotiate a contract with the Kerr Economic Development Foundation for implementation of the Kerr County Economic Development Program. Questions? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Item Number 3, Judge, method of accomplishing the program. JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These are just alternatives; is that correct? JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because we don't have any Kerr County employees -- JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that could do that. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's straight out of the statute. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, what was your question on Item 3? JUDGE HENNEKE: These are just alternatives. 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Looks like a pretty good job condensing that down to a nice one-pager. JUDGE HENNEKE: Small type. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Requirement of the law. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 13, consider and discuss approval of 12th Amendment and Extension of the City/County Firefighting Agreement. This is the -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And authorize County Judge to sign same. JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. This is the document that increases our contribution to the City for payment of the -- their s ervices in firefighting up to $100,000, per the discussions in the budget. Anyone hav e any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a motion that we approve. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 104 the 12th Amendment and Extension of City/County Firefighting Agreement and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 14, consider and discuss approval of $25,000 grant request to the Lower Colorado River Authority for restoration of the Union Church, and authorize County Judge to sign and submit the grant request. I've been requested to do this by the Historical Commission to attempt to get some funds from the L.C.R.A. for further renovation of the Union Church. Pretty straightforward. Does anyone have any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. With regard to the notation in the middle of the application about $5,000 or more requires a minimum 20 percent match. Is that a match of dollars or match of income, or match of both? JUDGE HENNEKE: It can be either, and they -- they far surpass the in-kind, because they actually have some money in the bank if they need to do actual dollars. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move that we approve the grant request and authorize County Judge to sign same. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 105 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Haldwin, that the Court approve a $25,000 grant request for Lower Colorado River Authority for restoration of Union Church, and authorize County Judge to sign and submit such grant request. Any further questions or comments"? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 15 is consider and discuss 6-month review of the adopted Teen Curfew. Sheriff Hierholzer. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's actually Jonathan's deal; I believe he put it on there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're the one doing the update. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, darn. Very quickly, what it amounts to, some of the stats that we have, for a year's period of time prior to the enacting of the curfew, from April of 2000 to April of 2001, the Sheriff's Office dealt with 101 juveniles. Okay. I could not tell you exactly what time of day those were -- were dealt with during the -- each of those encounters. I did not go that in depth I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 into doing it. We were counting case files on number of cases we've actually dealt with. In the time since April 1st of 2001, we have dealt with 102 juveniles, so you're talking six months, we've dealt with just about what we did for the whole year before. Actually, one juvenile more, which is a drastic increase, but we've had a drastic increase in a lot of the juvenile stuff. And, most of these were not dealt with during the curfew times. During the curfew times, there were a number of curfew violations, whether they be warning or whether it be actual citations. We have written a total of 19. Of those 19, we had -- 13 of them were warnings that we wrote the juveniles. Six of them were actually citations that we filed. And, so, there's your stats on what we've done. Now, in reality, I feel this program has worked excellent in the county. We did have one establishment out in the county that we were seriously having problems with, that had juveniles in there way past the curfew times. We were having to deal with them. We ended up writing actual citations to the establishment owner, which the curfew calls for that we can do. And, since that time, the establishment has gone out of business and sold, so it's solved. I feel it did play a part in solving the serious problem that we were having with juveniles congregating. I feel that the number of kids that 107 1 ,- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 .--. 25 we're dealing with during the hours of the curfew has gone down. I think it's giving the parents -- at least me, for one -- a little bit more leverage in getting our own kids to stay in and get them in at certain times before the curfew hours actually take effect. And, my personal opinion of it is -- as you can tell, 19 total citations written, only six of those actually being ones that they had to show up in court for. The other 13, we just called parents, we gave them a written citation or a written warning and released them to their parents and explained the consequences to their parents. The establishments around pretty well have having problems with. I know most of them, especially like Crider's or different places where we always had a lot of teenagers hanging out that would fit into the curfew ages, were making announcements during their activities that there is a teenage curfew in Kerr County; you know, teenagers under this age must leave at certain times. We saw that at Quiet Valley, we saw that at Crider's and several different ones, and I think it has definitely helped us. We haven't had the problem, and yet we haven't had to actually write, as you can tell, that many citations involving it. It's been an excellent tool for us, and I think an excellent tool for parents and for the establishments. 108 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Have you had any complaints of people that thought they were being harassed, or from parents saying that they -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have not had any. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Other than those cited, probably, would always -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Really, we haven't even had any from them. I have not had any from parents at all, to my knowledge, that have complained, even those that were cited. We had some confusion at first, you might say, with Crider's over one deal where we gave them blank copies of the -- of the warnings that we would use. We gave them two just so that they were really aware of everything, and somehow, in communications, it got turned around, even though they weren't filled out. But, one of the co-owners or owners of Crider's thought we had actually written them a citation, when all we were doing was handing them a copy of stuff that they could use, 'cause it sets out all the guidelines on the back of our forms. And then the one establishment that we actually wrote citations to. Now -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, of the six, how many were repeat violators, if any? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe any of those were. Just a minute. Okay. Actually, of those six, we -- one of those, we have a deal -- a checkmark where we 109 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 1/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 check in these actual citations whether they were released with a warning or whatever, and one of the six, I just noticed one of the checks we did on it was that the -- the minor was released to a parent or guardian with counseling, which means he didn't ever have to show up in court, either. Sometimes we just give them warnings, but out of the ones -- the five that had to actually go to court, none were repeat offenders. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you think we need to continue it? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I do. I think it's really been a good move. After all the -- the initial deal that -- about rights and taking things away, I really think it's been of very good benefit to -- to the county at this point. JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions of the Sheriff on the review of the teen curfew? Thank you. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item, and last one this morning, is Item Number 16, consider and discuss extension of Kerr County burn ban. This is simply on here out of an abundance of caution. If there's anyone here who believes we need to extend the burn ban, speak now or forever hold your peace. Or we simply let this one go by, and it will expire today -- 110 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It did this morning at 7 o'clock. JUDGE HENNEKE: So, as of now, there is no burn ban. Okay. We will stand in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon. (Recess taken from 11:47 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.) JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 2 o'clock in the afternoon on Monday, September 24, Year 2001. We will reconvene this regular special session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Before we take up the item that we're considering this afternoon, Commissioner Baldwin has something he wants to announce. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I had a phone call a few minutes ago, and I'm sure everyone is aware of the benefit for the Mooney Aircraft employees, but they called especially to invite the Commissioners Court to be there. It's this coming Saturday, the 29th, from 12 noon until 6:00 at Kerrville Aviation hangar. There's going to be four bands, and the dinnertime clowns will there be there for the childrens. Eight barbecue teams will be there. They're planning on feeding somewhere between 600 and 800 people. So, it's -- and it's free of charge, and it's -- and what they're going to try to do is just round up a -- quietly round up some funds for some of the employees who are maybe I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 struggling with some insurance and medical bills and things like that, and -- and do it out of the community, which is exactly the way they're supposed to be doing things. And, so, the Commissioners Court, you're invited. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do we make contributions? To whom -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: H.A. Baldwin. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't take me long to learn, did it? I know the guy's name who's putting it together. I'll give it to you later. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do. JUDGE HENNEKE: That's great. They deserve it. All right. The item for consideration is to consider and discuss the final and best offer from Dailey Wells and authorize County Judge to sign final contract. Sheriff Hierholzer. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you. I was glad the Judge set this at 2 o'clock so that we can really kind of go over it, and we do have representatives here today. First, George Weimer from Trott Communications is here. Jim Sawyer and two other ones that may have to introduce themselves with Dailey We11s Communications is also here. I really kind of thought I'd start this off -- if we can take 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 112 about five minutes of your time and show a videotape, and hopefully also the public that's here and other people can see it, as to why this is so important to the Sheriff's Office and to Kerr County. The video takes about five minutes. It's showing one of our officers, Sergeant David Billeiter, making a traffic stop out on Highway 27 at Airport Loop, which is right where the blinking lights are, which is even still in Kerr County. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. (Discussion off the record.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The videotape was actually taped from a patrol car camera that was not one of the new ones we have. This was in June of 1999, and this type of camera he was using is actually a regular home video camera, so the focus is way out right at first, because the auto focus on that type of camera, not being a law enforcement camera, focused on the blinking lights instead of the car and the officer right in front of him. Okay. So -- and the audio, when he's talking from his car radio, is a little bit off, 'cause he's also got a mic on his person. Once he gets out of the car, you can see that a little bit better. (Video tape started.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's another officer that just passed him. That's how close we could have had 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 113 another officer. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this being recorded at your office? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, in the car. This is the car video. (video tape continues.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our new video cameras don't record this badly, thank goodness. (Video tape continues.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's actually three other passengers in this car also. (Video tape continues.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's three times he's called it so far. He's trying to tell the passenger to go to the car radio and get some help. (Video tape continues.) COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Who's that speaking? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Both. David does have the man in a choke-hold, but then David's breathing hard. But, they're laying on the ground in the traffic there. Then we've got the passenger out of that car, just walking all around. David can't do anything with him. If they'd have had a weapon in that car, it would have been Katie, bar the door. They called for help. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was he handcuffed? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: (Nodded.) (Video tape continues.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Here comes the backup. They were a little wound up. Then it focuses, once the other officer broke that auto focus. (Video tape stopped.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Every citizen in the community needs to see that. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It does get your attention. It got mine real quick. So, I think that's the basis of -- of one of the reasons, and that happens time and time again. It's a miracle that, one, they didn't have any weapons and that in that car, and two, that all three of the passengers, irregardless of the one that got out and was walking around, didn't decide to help their buddy out, and they could have definitely hurt David, if not killed him. So, that's what we deal with. That was at 2:00 something in the morning out by the airport. You noticed right after the fight started and they're actually rolling around out in the middle of the road, there is another car that drives by it, okay? And then Mr. Fowler -- Deputy Fowler was just right up the road the whole time, because he had actually stopped a pickup that was in front of this car. That's why you saw him pass David when David was pulling this one over, but there wasn't any problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-, 25 115 But David could not get. out on the portable David was laying on the ground trying -- he tower. Once he stood up -- and, of course, the communication people and Trott can tell you, once David got him handcuffed to where David could actually stand up and hold the radio up higher, he could finally break the tower, okay? And that's actually even inside the city limits, but during the fight, just trying to holler for help on your lapel mic, he couldn't do it. The other basis for this is what you see over here in this diagram. One was done by -- this one was done by Motorola back in 1993, showing what they -- with a portable, the coverage that we have currently, because that was done using the L.C.R.A. south tower site, which is Granada tower, which is the only one we have. This is portable coverage. Everything in white is what's covered; everything in orange is not covered. I'll pass this around in just a minute. Because if you look at Kerrville, all the way out 27, most of that is not covered in our current coverage. You get on Loop 534 and try and key the mic on a portable radio, you're not going to be able to talk, all right? It will not break the tower. The tower is way up at Turtle Creek at Granada Spring. 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And, Dailey Wells' projections are the 95 percent coverage that we will have using four sites in this proposed system. This is the coverage using a portable in Kerr County. What they're predicting is 97 percent, and guaranteeing 95 percent coverage throughout the county. Now, you also have other maps showing mobile radios in the car and that, but your hardest one is always your portable coverage and what we can get using a portable. But, you can actually see -- Buster thought I was bringing in a new building. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought he was going to try to build a new jail. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: With that coverage map, lots of the county has pretty steep canyons -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and hills, and it shows coverage in that area; is that true? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, that's a drastic improvement. If you look out on this, anything in purple is not -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- what we would call covered. If you look at that, there's some areas out Highway 39 and up towards Mountain Home that are still weak, and, of 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 course, some areas way in the tip of the eastern part of the county. Pipe Creek is not covered. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there are areas that are -- there's still a lot of areas that are petty hilly and mountainous that show coverage. At the bottom of those canyons, you -- you will get coverage? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What they will do to test this site is, the County gets divided up into 1,500 little grids, and then they have some equipment that -- it will either go in one of our cars or their cars, but be driven on any public access road or public road we have. Once -- once the system's up and running, they drive through all that and it receives, and they see what signal strength, what kind of coverage we're going to get. Then that's all fed into a computer and averaged out to give us a 95 percent coverage throughout the county. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that, what I just talked about, the canyons, the reason that you don't get the coverage along -- looks like the -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which highway? COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- south end of Johnson Creek? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. A lot of that is because you have to look at the four towers that we're going to be using, which I think they picked four very good towers 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to use, 'cause it scatters it out. Hut there's going to be some areas, no matter what we do, that get too deep where the towers can't read each other. And, with that, 1 will let Trott come kind of more or less give -- MR. WEIMER: On the coverage in the canyons, when you look at the map, what the map does is, it's based on a statistical analysis of the signal levels. Anything that is outside of the clear area on the map has less than 95 percent reliability. That doesn't mean you don't have coverage. It's just that your probability of successful communications in those areas is going to be somewhat less than 95. Actually, an 80 percent reliability is not that bad if you're in certain areas, and obviously, it you can move around a few feet in either direction, chances are that you will be able to get some communications from the areas that are actually shown in the dark color on the map. So, it's not that it's a wall, and you when you cross the wall, it dies completely. It's a fadeout, a gradual fade, because the stats say that you can't exceed the 95 percent unless the signal level is above a certain point. So, it's more of a statistical analysis, and it's impossible to get 100 percent coverage -- or financially impossible to get 98 or 99 percent coverage, but the system that you have here is -- is going to be so much better than what you have now. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that, y'all have one 119 1 ,.., 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I ~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 book that gives their -- their predicted coverage and their guaranteed coverage at all the sites, if you got the most updated book. Otherwise, you can pass that around. And then the same coverage map using mobile, which is the car radio, itself; that's what you're looking at. You can see a lot less of -- the purple even goes away at that point. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. And, as far as some of the technical parts of the system, when we first went through the -- the accepting of the bids and the proposals and all that, Trott had said there were a few deficiencies in Dailey Wells compared to the other -- and also in all of the proposals that we got had gotten. But, in the meetings and negotiations for this best and final offer, they -- those deficiencies were corrected. One of them was they were originally saying a three-site system. We went to a four-site system, the fourth site being the one on the east end of the county out on Elm Pass Road, to help increase that coverage down on the east end. And, still, we don't get perfect coverage down there, but we're getting a lot better than what we could even really hope for in a lot of that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, this map that we're passing around up here shows considerably less purple down here in the eastern -- southeastern corner than that one shows. 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's 'cause the one you have there is the car radio. This is a portable radio. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mobile talk-back. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is -- MR. WEIMER: That's the hand-held portable. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the difference in the coverage. Car radios are 40-watt radios, where we're going to get a lot better signal coming from them than a portable radio, which is a 5-watt radio. Makes it a lot clearer. That's why I showed you the worst case. That's the worst coverage we'll get, that's using a portable radio. Okay. This one's more or less the best coverage we're going to get, using the mobile radio. The other addition in the best and final offer negotiations we did was to go ahead and add the console at the Sheriff's Office, replace the console itself. The radios in our cars will not be replaced. Our hand-held portables will not be replaced. Any agency in this county does not have to replace any of their equipment to be compatible with this and for us to be able to talk to them. If we get the two new frequencies, which we will apply to F.C.C. for, then we may have to reprogram -- or will have to reprogram our current radios to accept those frequencies, which the other agencies would have to do the same. That's just kind of an anticipated thing, so we can 1 ,_., 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 121 hopefully get away from these -- what we get from Mexico and the different interference problems, and get clearer day-to-day operations goes on that channel. If we end up in a pursuit or end up in a -- where we have to go in and clear a building, and it takes you 30 minutes to clear the building, you need to clear a channel for that officer to be able to holler for help if he needs it or whatever goes on there. Then we can have that group of officers that's doing that switch over to Channel 2. It does not interfere with our primary channel, but yet they have direct communication with our office. It would also be of great assistance during situations like a fire or flood or things like that, where we can go over to Channel 2 for all that activity and leave our primary channel the way it is. The console, the big addition in it is, they can do what is called a patch-in with that console. If we have Road and Bridge, Highway Department, and us out there, and we're working with a flood or whatever and we need to be able to talk to the Highway Department directly -- not Highway Department, but TexDOT 1 r.. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 122 directly, they can create a patch from our console by the dispatcher pushing a button on the -- on the screen, and we will be able to use -- if we go to Channel 2, we'll be able okay? Where we have the -- we're unable to communicate with, like, Fredericksburg and Boerne now because they're 900 Megahertz, where we're conventional VHF, it will also take care of that problem. If we go into a pursuit or something in Gillespie County or they come into ours, we can create the same patch, regardless if they're 900; we'll be VHF, and we will be able to talk to their units. So, it pretty well puts us being able to talk to anybody in our county, okay, no matter what happens anywhere else. And it puts us as more of a regional-type deal, to where -- there's a lot of changes in communication technology. There's a lot of advances. We don't know, you know, if Fredericksburg is going to stay with 900, if D.P.S. is going to go to 700, like they're talking about, or what Bandera or Junction is going to do. This way, it doesn't matter. We will always be able to communicate with all these agencies, and at what I feel, looking at the other bids and the way we came out, is the least cost to the County. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, what if at some 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me finish my question. What -- what capabilities do we have of expanding that, that you just described? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This one's very simple. With the new consoles we have -- we get two consoles that will go in there. One of them is our main component, and they tell me it is capable of handling six consoles. All that happens is P.D. or those other agencies that actually have a dispatcher already in there can buy another console at a lot less than all the infrastructure we're having to pay for this one. All the computer equipment goes into it. Theirs plugs into this one, it splits off of it, and they have another station, however many we want, up to six on this one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, you mentioned that we're not planning to replace the radios in the -- in the fleet of cars. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How old are they, and what's the remaining life expectancy of them? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Ever since Kerr County went to six cars a year in the budget process, these six cars come with radios in them. So, every time we get one, all this equipment's brand-new. So, we will have 18 after this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 124 year, 18 cars with brand-new radios in them, or up to three years old. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two, three years old? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. And, right after I took office, we had one of the L.L.E.B.G. grants, and we at that point went out and bought all new portable radios, 35 of them, for the department with that grant, and so all our portable radios that we're using are all within two years old. I don't see any need in replacing radios, except maybe, you know, you may have one or two burn out a year, and we'll just replace that with the budget process and with the equipment process. But, it also keeps other agencies from having to change theirs, and that is a big factor for us and everybody else. I don't want to lose communications no matter what with Kerrville P.D., Ingram, fire departments, game wardens, any of those. I don't want to go to something where we can't talk to them. Other than that, as far as some of the details in it, I'll let Trott and -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I had another question. Are you going to talk about the towers? Or is someone going to talk about the towers? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can talk some about them. I might need their help. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- in particular, I've been asked a question of -- I don't -- out in the 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 western end, the tower on -- by Black Bull -- help me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Scott Parker's -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Five Star Cellular's tower. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Five Star Cellular. And I understand that there is a similar tower nearby across Highway 41 that we could use at no cost. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: T.D. Hall's tower. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. What's the problem with that? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The problem with that, one, T.D. Hall's tower -- and T.D. has offered it to us. In fact, he'd love to just sign it over and let the County own it. If we were to use that tower, in talking with Dailey Wells and with Trott, that's an old tower. Number one thing -- it just seems minor, but it would have to be painted, most likely, which they tell me that costs anywhere from $8,000 to $10,000 to have a tower painted. You're going to have to upgrade the building on it and put in a new air-conditioning system and environmental control system for the equipment that goes into that building. And, with the Five Star Cellular tower site, it's already there. The electricity is there, the environmental controls with the radio -- with the air-conditioning and heating systems are there, and an alarm to that, to where if that air conditioner 126 1 ~-- 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 or heating goes out, it automatically notifies Five Star Cellular that their air-conditioning and heating is out at that site, and they have so long -- or their electricity's out. The expense in doing T D's tower, I'm afraid, would be -- would even be a whole lot more than what we would ever end up paying on the lease from -- from what Five Star's offering us on the lease deal. The other part of that is, we'd have to have a generator out there, which we'd have to get; we don't have now. You'd have continuing electricity payments, which aren't much, but you still have electricity to those tower sites. With the lease that we're doing, all that's already taken care of through Five Star. It's all -- we don't have to worry about all that, and they have all their own technicians go out there and maintain that tower site. We would have to maintain our own equipment in it, but the tower site itself, Five Star's is a lot newer. T.D.'s, you environmental-type studies done on to it see if that tower could hold the microwave systems that have to go up on it, with the windage and everything else. I know T.D. had mentioned something about some of the guide wires may have to be replaced. I'm just afraid that the cost would be cost-prohibitive to the County. It would cost us more than leasing one that we don't have to worry about. Plus, if 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they signed it over to the County, we're also accepting a heck of a liability on owning a tower, and on the lights being up there and making sure they're working. They got to be checked daily and all that. I agree with Dailey Wells and with Trott, that I don't think it would be beneficial to the County to get into that tower. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Sheriff. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're welcome. JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's talk about the L.C.R.A. lease. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They are -- the L.C.R.A. leases at this time, thanks to the County Judge, who did some negotiating on our part with that, the lease of the tower sites will cost us zero for the next two years. There will not be a lease price on that. They're trying to work L.C.R.A.-wide and come up with a good lease plan for public entities and on public safety entities on providing that. But, the nice thing about that is the same; we don't have to provide the electricity, we don't have to provide the generators. The two towers of L.C.R.A.'s that we will be using is the current one that we're using out at Granada Springs, which is Upper Turtle Creek, and their Legion tower site, which is the very large one off Cypress Creek Road at Red Rose Ranch. The -- like, the -- Five Star's, of course, the one up at Mountain Home on 41, and the one down by 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Starlight Hospital on Elm Pass Road, and that one does have to have a building put at it and some other improvements, but that is part -- the cost is part of the best and final offer from Dailey Wells, installing that building and putting all that there. DODGE HENNEKE: Okay. So, what's the bottom line? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You want the price? Or you just -- you have one copy of it. I know they want it. The bottom line on the price is in your red notebook, $957,805.71. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 957 what? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $957,805.71. The contract negotiations itself were done with County Attorney, David Motley, Assistant County Attorney, Travis Lucas, Trott Communications, and Richard Wells and Jim Sawyer with Dailey Wells, and there were some revisions that were done. We -- the copy the Judge has in the one book I gave y'all, and the one I have for -- for the County Clerk's office, is the final contract negotiations that were approved by all attorneys. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Time frame for getting all this done? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The last they told me, depending on when we -- the Judge will write a -- a letter to proceed, if this is all approved. Once the financing part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 from Henderson and all them is done, and after that letter -- after they receive that, that's when they start doing it. When I talked to Jim a few weeks ago, he's saying about March, towards the end of March, depending on how quick everything can get up and all the testing. JUDGE HENNEKE: George, do you have anything you want to add? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I got a quick question. How's the contingency account going to be administered? Wi11 that be up to the contractor? That's up to Dailey Wells, or -- on the use of the contingency funds? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As far as when a certain percentage is paid and all that kind of stuff? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, no. If I read this correctly, there's -- there is a $65,000 contingency. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. What that -- COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would assume that's a management reserve of some sort. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. What that is, is in our -- in our proposal, we also said that there were a couple buildings in the county that had to be covered, such as the jail itself, such as this courthouse, and those are amplifiers -- that cost is for amplifiers that would go into the building. Now, Dailey Wells does not feel that those amplifiers will be necessary with this system and with the 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 number of towers and repeaters we have, but that is put in there in case they are. If they are not necessary and that equipment is not having to be used, if we don't have to have it to cover inside the courthouse and inside the jail, then that equipment won't be purchased. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me rephrase my question, then. Is there any management reserve in the contract dollars, or is it a pure fixed price? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a fixed -- MR. WEIMER: It's a pure fixed price. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There is no management reserve? Okay. I just wanted to make sure I had that right. And that's good. I mean, I don't have any -- any argument with that at all. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If those amplifiers aren't needed, it could drop to 60-something thousand. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure, I understand. Great. JUDGE HENNEKE: George? What do you want to -- MR. WEIMER: Well, I've been through the -- the agreement, the contract, the bid process. What they're offering to you is a very functional system. It would take care of the requirements that the Sheriff's Department has placed on the system. We reflected those in the Request for ,~-, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 131 Proposal. In reviewiny the -- the original proposal from Dailey Wells, as I told you last time, there were some problems in LhaL. Those problems were resolved. The new contract overcomes all of those problems. That's the fourth site, chanye out to a different type of microwave service, the building contingencies. Basically, the system is completely functional for your intended use. And, the contract does conform to the requirements that we did list in ttie -- in Lhe RFP, and you're getting it for substantially less money than the alternative bids. So, I think it's a good deal for the County. JUDGE HENNEKE: And your company will continue to stay involved until such time as this system is accepted? MR. WEIMER: All the way through testing; through design and installation, inspection and testing. JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions or comments of George, other than to say thanks for your hard work, and everyone at Trott. Mr. Sawyer? Welcome. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: We're pleased to have the opportunity to do business with you, and we appreciate the way in which you and your company have handled the negotiations on the best and final. We put you under some time pressure, and y'all performed magnificently, so thank you very much. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 132 MR. SAWYER: Thank you. You're right, what would -- normally would take a couple of months, we did in a couple of weeks, and put in a little highway time, but that's all right. It was all well worth it. JUllGE HENNEKE: Just wanted to give you a chance to say anything and introduce you, and you might introduce the other members of your team that are here today. MR. SAWYER: Okay. We have C.J. Hijazi; he is Vice President of Sales for Dailey Wells. This is Cheri Perales; she's in-house counsel for Dailey Wells. And, so, they're here to answer any questions that you might have on the contract or -- JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I just want to say thanks for the professional approach by everybody concerned. It's a very well-run procurement. I think we'll end up with quite a good product. We hope to see you around during the execution of this. MR. SAWYER: I'll be around often. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As a matter of fact, we've had a little problem with -- with some contractors in the past who didn't choose to ever come around, and it's sort of nice to see someone who it appears is going to be here. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 133 That's good, somebody's going to be here. MR. SAWYER: Sure. JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. MR. SAWYER: Any other questions? JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, unless there's something else, I would entertain a motion to accept the final and best offer from Dailey Wells for the Kerr County Sheriff's Department advanced simulcast public safety radio system, and authorize the County Judge to sign same. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Williams. JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams, sorry. That the Court approve the best and final offer from Dailey Wells Communications for the advanced simulcast public safety radio system, and for the fixed-price amount of $957,805.71, and authorize County Judge to sign contract for such system. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 139 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Outstanding. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you all. Unless there's anything else to come before us -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I would like to make a comment. Sheriff, stay right there. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Uh-oh. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Last Friday, I went out to his facility and sat in on his morning briefing with his team out there. It was very, very interesting, and I think at this time Rusty wants to invite you all to -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I do. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- do the same thing and ride in the cars and all. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Well, I've always extended that, but when Buster happened to be out there -- and I do have, except on Commissioners Court days, because y'all start at 9 o'clock -- we have a 9 o'clock meeting at our office in which the Jail Administrator, Dispatch supervisor, investigative lieutenant who's in charge of that, Chief Deputy, and myself go over -- and a patrol sergeant, go over the day's previous 24 hours events, and any problems. That keeps good, open lines of communication. But, I invite 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 any of y'all at any time to come out and sit and listen to that each morning, and I invite y'all -- since y'a11 have been paying the price for the new cars for the last three years and that, to come out some night or some day and jump in a car with one of our guys. It's even in our policy deal that any Commissioner or County Judge can do that at any time they wish to ride with our guys and see what goes on. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, would it be all the same to you if we deferred until we get the new radios in? (Laughter.) SHERIFF HIERHOLZER I thought that might happen. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or just ride around the courthouse. DODGE HENNEKE: Touche. COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: parking lot at the jail. Got to get out of the SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You need to see a tour of that jail. JUDGE HENNEKE: I did that four years ago, and if you have never done it, it is instructive. About time for me to do it again. So, we stand adjourned, gentlemen. Thank you very much. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:42 p.m.) 136 ,-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF KERR The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this day of September, 2001. JANNETT PIE PER, Kerr County Clerk BY : __ _ ~_~_~//(~ Kathy ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter ORDER NC7. ~7c43 CLRIMS RMD RCCOUNTS Un this the c4th day of September ~@~1, came to be considered by the Court vario~.is Commissioners' precincts, which said Claims and Recounts are: i.0-Gener'al for• 574, REi9. EE; 11-Jury for• Sc15. 7Q~; 1 -Road A Bridge Rdd'1 Registration Fee for 51..,3.:,;.5; 14-F-ire pr•otect:ion for 58c7.0Q~; 15-Road 8• Bridge for• SJ7,97J.78; 50-Indigent Health Care for 58c,713.79; 70-F'er•manent Improvement for• 57, 849. E4, Bi-District Rdministr•ation for SE~3'C.~~d; 83-State Funded-~1Eth District Attorney for• SE3c.99; 8E-State Funded-c1Eth District F'r•obation for• 51,357.73; 87-State F~.inded--Comm~_inity Corrections for• 51,9i4.:~i3; "FOTRL CHSH RE6~UIRED FUR flLL FUNDS IS: Scc.O, 74c'. ~7. Upon motion made by Commissioner Lets, seconded 6y Commissioner Paldwin, the Court uninimously approved by a vote of 4-~D-0, to pay said accounts. ORDER IVO, c7c44 BUDGET pMENDMENT5 IN F'ARKS AND GENERRL FUND RND LRTE BILL On this the E4th day of September C001, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner^ Let z, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Co~ar~t uninimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer $c19.73 from Fund 31 S~.v-plus Reserves to Line Item No. 31-EEc-487 Lions Par-k in Parks and to transfer $B4E.04 from Line Item No. 10-700-015 General F~_ind:Tr•ansfer 0~_it to Line Item No. 31-390-01 °, F'ar^ks:Transfer In and appr^ove late bill in the amount of $1,'40.00 to Dr•ymala Sand and Gravel. The County R~_iditor and the Co~_tnty Treas~_irer are hereby authorized to write a hand check in the amount of $1,c40.00 made payable to Drymala Sand and Gravel. ORDER NO. 2724 PUD6ET RMENDMENT IN SHERIFFS DEGT. RND JRIL On this the 24th day of September 2001, upon motion made by Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Co~_irt ~.inanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr•ansfer^ ~27,E7~.3c from Line Item No. i0-Sic--104 Jailers Salary to Line Item No. i0-~60-104 Deputies Salary in the Sheriff°s Department and Jail. ORDER NO. 57546 BUDGET RMENDMENI" IN COMMISSIOhIERS' COURT RND LRTE BILL ~, On this the 24th day of September^ 5001, upon motion made by Commissioner^ Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Co~ar•t approved by a vote of 3-0-1, witl'r Commissioner^ Letz abstaining, to tr•ansfer• 6407.05 from Line Item No. 10-401-486 professional Services to Line Iterti No. 10-401-485 Confer^ences in Commissioners' Court and approve late bill in the amount of 6407.05 to Jonathan Let z. The County R~aditor and the County Tr^eas~_rrer• ar•e hereby authorized to write a hand check in the amount of 6407.05 made payable to Jonathan Letz. UFtDER N0. c7~47 BUDGET RMENDMENT IN JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #1 RND NON--DEPgRTMENTAL On this the c4th day of September' X001, upon motion made by Commissioner^ Gr^iffin, seconded 6y Commissioner^ Letz, the Coiar^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr'ansfer' ~1G9.99 fr^om Line Item No. i0-400-570 Capital Outlay to Line Item No. 10-455-570 Capital 0~-~tlay in J~-istice of the Geace #1 and Non-Depar^t mental, ORDER N0. c7~48 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN COURTHOUSE R RELATED BUILDINGS RND LRTE HILL On this the c4th day of September c~01, ~.ipon motion made by Commissioner' Let z, seconded by Commissioner Gr^iffin, the Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr•ansfer• 8784.30 from Line Item No. iZ~-510-470 Leasehold Improvements to Line Item No. 10-510-~i50 Major Repairs in Cour^tho~ase R Related Huildinys and appr^ove late bill in the amount of 81,E10.00 to Lexi's Carpet R F=boring. The Co~.inty Audi'tor• and the Co~_rnty Tr•eas~_rr•er ar•e hereby authorized to write a hand check in the amo~_~nt of S1,E10.~0 made payable to Lexi's Carpet ft• Flooring. ORDER N0. c:7249 BUDGET RMENDMENT IN SHERIFF'S DEPRRTMENT RND COUN1"Y JAIL RND LRTE RILLS On this the 24th day of September 2001, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Cvmmissioner^ Griffin, the court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr•ansfer- 52E9.14 fr^vm Line Item No. 1~--5E0-410 Radio Equipment to Line Item No. 10-56~-2~8 Investigation Expense and transfer 55,157.74 from Line Item No. 1~D-512-1~i4 Jailer Salaries with 5240.97 to Line Item No. 1G-512-335 Prisoner T'r^ansfer• and with 54,916.77 to Line Item No. 10-512-332 F'r•isoner• Meals and approve late bill in the amount of 518,9~r0.80 to Sysco Food Services, approve late bill in the amvunt of 5151.13 to Exxon/GECC, approve late bill in the amount of 5183.12 to Chevron, and tv approve late bill in the amount of 534^c. 20 to H.E.P Grocery. The Co~_inty R~_rditor and the County Treasurer ar•e hereby a~_rthorized to write a handcheck in the amo~.rnt of $18,94.80 macle payable to Sysco Food Services, a handcheck in the amvunt of 5151.13 made payable to Exxon/GECC, a handcheck in the amount of $183.12 made payable to Chevron, and a handcheck in the amount of 5342.20 made payable to H.E.R Gr•ocer•y. OI~DER NO. 2725N PUDGET AMENDMENT IN COUNTY COUI'~T AT LAW AND LATE 8I Lt_ On this the 24th day of September^ 2¢01, upon motion made by Commissioner^ Gr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner- Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr•an<.afer- X263.50 from Line Item No, 10-427--497 Statement of Facts and $926.50 from Line Item No. 10-427-485 Confer^ences to Line Item No. 10-427-499 Miscellaneo~_is in Co~_inty Co~..~r•t at Law and approve late bill in the amount of 31, 190.00 to pRN. F'r•ivate Investigation. The County Ruditor• and the County Tr-easi_ir-er^ are hereby author^ized to write a hand check in the anio~_int of $1,190.00 made payable to F'Af', private Investigation. C]RDER N0. 27c°ii BUDGET RNENDMEN'f IN TAX RSSESSOR COLLECTOR .- On this the 4th day of September 2001, ~.ipon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded 6y Conimissioner• Let z, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr•ansfer- 512.65 from Line Item No. 10-499--108 part--T'iine Salary 'to Line Item No. 10-499-iic^ Overtime in Tax Rssessor Collector. ..-~ ORDER NO. c7c5c VERICt_AIMS, INC. --I_RTE HILL On this the 4th day of September E001, ~_rpon motion made by Commissioner^ Sr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-0, to approve late bill in the amoi..int of 31,630.6`•3 to Ver•iclaims, Inc. The County R~_rditor and the Co~_rnty Treasurer are hereby authorized to write a handcheck in the amount of 31,630.6'3 made payable to Ver-iclaims, Inc. ~-- ORDER N0. ~7~5, I;ERR COUM(Y, TEXAS F'USL,IC F'RUF'ERTY FINANCE CONI"RAC"fUAI_ OPLI6ATION, SERIES c~ZiQii On this the~4th day of September- c_ON1, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner 6riff'in, seconded by Commissioner Williams, t:he Co~ar't unanimo~.asly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to approve Order- R~_~thor•i'zing the Iss~.aance of I:er-r- L'or.inty, Texas F'~_iblic Proper-ty Finance Contractual 061igation, Series E0~1, A~athvr-i~ing the Exec~_itivn of a Paying AgentiRegistr•ar• Agreement, A F'ur•chase Contract and Other Related Documents, and Approving an Official Statement, subject tv passage of the b~_tdget and approval of the contract with the vendor for the radio communications project, and, as amended, for the $99Qi,000.00 versus the 31 million. ORDER N0. ~7c54 ADCIF~T N.ERR COUNTY BUDGET FOR FY2001/r0~ On this the 24th day of September cOQ~i, upon motion made by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to adopt the ~~01/~0~t2 Kerr County budget as presented and amended this morning. DRDER ND. ~_'72G5 RPPRDVE RND ACCEPT MDNI"HL_Y REF'URTS On this the 24th day of September- 2001, ~"upon motion made by Commissioner- L.etz, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the Coy"irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept the following repor-ts and direct that they be filed with the Coy"inty Clerk for future a~"idit: Jannett Pieper, Coy"inty Clerk General - R~"igi"~st 2001 Trust - August 2001 Linda Uecker, District Clerk Rugs"~st 2aa1 Vance Elliott - J.P. #1 Rugg"~st 2001 Dawn Wright - J.P. #2 Rugi.ist 2001 ,--- Robert Tench - J. P. #3 R~agiist 2001 William Ragsdale - J.P. #4 A~"igust 2001 County Extention Report - A~"ig~"ist 2001 ORDER NO. c7c~E RORD R FRIDGE A1='F'I~OVRL T'0 RDVERTISE FOR BTD ON ITEMS AP'P'ROVED IN c001-200c BUDGET On this the c4th day of September ~~01, ~_rpvn a motion made by Commissioner- Lets, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the Co~.irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to a~athvr•ize the Road & Bridge Department to advertise for items approved in the ~0~1/^cOQi;_ budget, with bids to 6e returned to the Coi_tnty Clerk's Office by v o'clock p. m. vn October- 19th, Year•'~001, bids to be opened and accepted or• approved on Monday, Octo6er- 2End, Year 20Q1 at 10 o'clock in the mvr•niny. ORDER N0. c7'c57 FINgL F'LgT PUCKHORN I_RI'.E RESORT On this the c4th day of September ~'~D01, ~_ipon a motion made by Commissioner Or•iffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 5-4~-0, to refer tl-ie iss~_re of the final plat of P~.rckhor•n Lake Resort, F'r•ecinct 4, to the County Attorney's Office for• recommendation and action, anti ask them to r•epor~t to the Co~ar•t on October c'r'nd, Year 204Zi 1. ORDER NO. c'7258 f-1DOF'T FISCRL. YERR c001/c00c F:ERR COUNTY TRX Rf3TE A'T .:s721 On this the Loth day of September 2001, upon a motion made by Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the Coi_irt unanimo~_isly approved by a vote of 5-~-0, to aclopt the FY2001/2002 Kerr Co~_uity Tax Rate of .6721.. ORDER N0. ~7c59 F'RESSLER, 7'HOMF'SON R CO. LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT AUDIT FYcP.~4~0/c0~1 On this the c4th day of SepL-ember• cG01, upon a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Conimissioner• Gr^iffin, the Cour^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-0, the enyayement letter^ for^ cG~O/~V~Q~1 a~_idit to be per^for^med by F'r^essler•, Thompson, anti Company, and authorize the County Ji_idye to sign same. ORDER N0. ~7~_f;~l CONSTITU"fIONAL AMENDMENT ELECTION CENTRAL COUNTING STA1"ION F'ER30NNEL (F'ER SECTION 1C7.0~1 TEXRS ELECTION CODE:) On this the c4th day of September EOG1, ~_ipon a motion made by Commissioner^ Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to appoint the persons r^ecominended 6y the County Cler^k to ser^ve as counting station personnel p~.rrs~_iant to Section 1c7.~01, Texas Election Code, Appointments are as follows: Co~antiny Station F'residiny ,Jiadye and Manager-J'arrnett F'ieper^ Tabcilatiny Super•visor^ - Nadene Alford .... Rssistant Tabulating Supervisors - Mindy Williams ORDER N0. c7c61 DSSF/FLOOD PLRYN FEE SCHEDULE On this the 04th day of September- 2001r ~.ipon a motion made by Commissioner Gr•iffin~ seconded by Commissioner Williams the Co~_trt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0~ to approve tFie OSSF and Flood Plain Fee Schedule as presented by o~_!r• Designated Repr^esentative. ORDER N0. 27262 VERICLRIMS, INC. CONTRACT On this the 24th day of September 2V~~D1, upon a motion made by Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the Co~_~rt unanimously appr-oved by a vote of 4-0-0, to renew the contract with Ver•iClaims, Inc. for• indigent health claims administration subject to approval by County Rttor-ney. GIRDER NCI, c7c63 IiERI; COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELCIPMENT F'FtOGRAM On this the c4th day of September c~DS~i, upon a motion made by Commissioner- Gr-if Fin, seconded by Commissivrier- Williams, the Co~ar-t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-4~-0, the Ker-r• County Economic Development F'r-ogr•am and author-i::ed County Judge to negotiate a contract with the Kerr Ecorioniic Development Foundation for implementation of the Kerr Co~.mty Economic Development Grogram. ORDEI~ N0. :_72E4 1cTH RMENDMENT RND EXTENTION CITY/COUNTY FIRE FTGFiTING R6REEMENT On this the 24th day of Sepi;ember i_Q~~i, ~_~pon a mot :ion made by Commissioner- Aaldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Letz, the Co~_irt unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-~D, the 1'~th Rmeridment and Extention of City/County Fire Fighting Agreement and authorised Co~_inty Judge to sign same. .-, ORDER ND. ~7~E5 L..DWER CDL.DRRDU RIVER AUTHORITY GRRNT FDR RESTDRRTIDN DF UN:[DN CHURCH Dn this the c4th day of September DU1, upon a motion made by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the ~5~:5,000.00 Grant Rey~aest to the l.ower• Colorado River• Ruthority for restoration of the Union Church, and a~_cthori~ed the County J~.cdge to sign same and submit such grant request. ORDER NU. ~7cEE DRILEY-WELLS COMMUNICA"fIONS FINAL AND HEST OFFER FOR ADVANCED SIMULCAST F'UHLI[: SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM On this the c4tli day of September- L@@1, ~.tpon a mo{:ion made by Commissioner- Griffin, seconded by Commissioner- Williams, the Co~ar•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, to ar_cept the final and best offer- fr•vm Dailey Wells for- the Kerr County Sheriff's Department advanced simulcast public safety radio system and authorize the County Judge to sign same.