1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,~-., 13 ,~; 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-. ~` 2 5 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, April 28, 2003 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas Mi ~ ., PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 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 2 I N D E X April 28, 2003 PAGE 1.1 Introduce new Airport Manager to Court 4 --- Commissioners Comments 7 1 . 3 Final plat, Cedar Ridge Mobile Home Park +~~G~y~ 16 1.4 Variance request for The Reserve of Falling Water ~ ~~~~ ~ 18 1.2 Update on effects of State budget cuts on Texas Department of M.H.M.R. 31 1.7 Approve extension of annual bids, allow Road & Bridge to purchase paving oil as needed ~ ~'~5~ 37 1.13 Discuss allowing American Cancer Society to use HCYEC tables & chairs free of charge 41 1.5 PUBLIC HEARING - final revision of Tracts 15 & 16, Y.O. Ranchlands 48 1.6 Final revision of Tracts 15 & 16, Y.O. Ranchlands ~~SL'~5~ 50 1.8 Road name changes for county-maintained roads in various locations in Kerr County v~ SfC"~!Z- 52 1.9 Road name changes for privately maintained roads in various locations in Kerr County ~ ~~'~~ 58 1.10 Approve Kerr County Sheriff's Department to apply ~b~5 y for COPS in Schools Grant Program for three years 59 1.11 Approve Kerr County Sheriff's Department to apply~b,;~S.~ for Universal Hiring Program through COPS office 63 1.12 Conveyance of Indian Creek structure to City of Ingram :~~~"5~ 68 ~ ~C ~~ 1.14 Resolution in support of HB 2191 - 71 1.15 Report from third-party administrator/insurance representatives on pending reimbursement claim 74 1.16 Discuss Mandated Provider Agreement for indigent health care service providers 104 1.17 Discuss compliance with HIPAA privacy rule by ;S ~~~ adopting policies & procedures regarding PHI 112 1.21 Request to make application to LCRA for grant to,~ 1JC;'S`f install underground wiring on courthouse grounds 126 1.18 Discuss adoption of State Travel Allowance Guide for per diem allowance/reimbursement of expenses 130 1.19 Approve Earth Day Proclamation and ratify County Judge's signature ~~S~CG:t~' 153 1.20 Discuss seeking applicants for AACOG Economic Development. and Environmental Review Committee 155 4.1 Pay Bills ~ ~ ~ ~~^j~~, ' ~ ~f1,~7 ~ 156 6 4.2 Budget Amendments 1 1 4.3 Late Bills ~ --- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports ~~G6 175 --- Adjourned 187 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 3 On Monday, April 28, 2003, 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's a bit after 9 a.m. local time. I will call to order the meeting of the special Commissioners Court posted for this date, April 28th, and I believe Commissioner Precinct 3, Mr. Letz, you have the honors this morning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stand and join me in a moment of prayer, please. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Any of you present this morning that wish to address the Court on any matter that's not on the agenda, we would welcome you to come forward at this time. If there are matters on the agenda that any member of the public or the audience would like to address the Court on that's listed on the agenda, we would ask that you fill out a public partition form there at the back of the room. It's not absolutely necessary, but it helps us in identifying you and making sure we don't overlook you when it comes to that point on the agenda, so that everybody has an opportunity to be heard. But, at this time, if there is anybody in the audience that has anything they'd like to -~~-o~ 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 4 give us an earful about, why -- that's a matter not on the agenda, why, come forward and let us hear from you. We welcome it. There being none, why, we will move right into the consideration agenda. We've -- we're trying a little experiment here. We've taken some of the mundane business and threw it at the back of the agenda; we'll see how that works. First item on the agenda is the introduction of Mr. David Pearce, who is the new Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Manager. And, Commissioner Williams, I think this is your matter. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I did invite Mr. Pearce, our new Airport Manager, to be here today, but before we get to Mr. Pearce, we've got a whole raft of City folks, and might as well start at the top and work our way down. City Councilman Gene Smith is in the back. City Manager, Ron Patterson. City Director of Public Works, Paul Knippel. And now that I've gone through all of those, we'll get to the main event. I'd like to introduce to the Court Mr. David Pearce. David, if you'd come up to the podium, please? And he has been selected to become our -- or he is currently the new Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Manager. It was my privilege to serve on the interview committee that went through, I think, 50-some-odd resumes to get to the point of making a selection for a new airport manager, and Mr. Pearce managed to rise to the top ~-,e-o~ 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 5 of the class, and so it's a pleasure to introduce David Pearce to the Court. David, tell us a little bit about yourself and how you come to Kerr County. MR. PEARCE: Thank you. Thank for the kind words. I'm very thrilled to be here and very honored to be selected for this position to serve the community as the Airport Manager. My background stems -- I had 20 years in the Air Force, was what they called a maintenance officer/ logistics officer; very familiar with airports, working with facilities people, aircraft, support of aviation. From there, we spent the last seven years up in McKinney, which is north of Dallas, had a couple of different airports in my career, civilian airports, and during that period of time did a lot of development/expansion of airports. This, to me, is a great opportunity. Once again, I'm very honored to be here, to be able to serve the community. I think, as a more important note, I've been married 27 years. I have two children, two sons. One of them is an A & M grad, just graduated, so he is brainwashed. And the other one is a junior in high school, and he has desires to go to the Air Force Academy, which we're really -- I think he's very competitive, and we`re really excited about that. But anything I can do -- anything I Carr do to help the community, I am very excited to be here, and thank you very much. 9-~h-G3 1 ,-- 2 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a comment on -- or a question. Mr. Pearce, your son is -- do you live in Kerrville? Or Ingram, or Center Point, or -- MR. PEARCE: Right now I'm living at an apartment over here in Riverhills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In Kerrville. MR. PEARCE: My family's not in Kerrville; my family is still up in McKinney, and we're going to be commuting for a little while until I get resituated here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does he play football? MR. PEARCE: No. Actually, he's a track -- he's a runner. (Laughter.) What can I say? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Welcome. We are so happy to see you. And I will meet with the City as soon as possible to see about getting you some more money. MR. PEARCE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does he run hurdles, by any chance? MR. PEARCE: From me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, welcome. I'm -- I just want to say to you that I'm glad you're here, and you're in excellent, excellent hands with the City of Kerrville. Great organization, very professional, and you made a wise choice by choosing them, so thank you very much -: ~8-G3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for your service. MR. PEARCE: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Mr. Pearce? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Welcome. JUDGE TINLEY: Glad to have you here, sir. MR. PEARCE: Thanks again, and thanks for taking the time. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me confess this, if I might, to my colleagues here on the Court. I completely overlooked their opportunity to speak, and I know there's probably at least one or two of them that are busting at the buttons to offer their thoughts about something or another, so let me go straight to that, too. Commissioner Letz, I'll allow you to be first. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we moved all that to the end, but that's -- I'll speak now. JUDGE TINLEY: We didn't move that to the end. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have two comments. One, after a long and frustrating time waiting, the contractor arrived at Hermann Sons, and the four piers have been drilled and the abutments have been poured, and the project's finally moving forward with the temporary bridge. And the permanent bridge is also moving on schedule. And 4-~ ti-0 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 _. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 the other comment I have is just a -- I guess an interesting note. I doubt many people are aware of it, but Kerr County was fortunate to have the ambassador from Mongolia; Ambassador Bold was here for the weekend. I had an opportunity to spend quite a bit of time with him. I just want to let everyone know Kerr County's relationship with the country of Mongolia is in fine shape. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was really worried about that. Couple -- couple of good things to report from the western part of the -- well, the first one involves the whole county. I attended the Professional Republican Women's annual -- or monthly meeting last week, and the theme of their meeting was honoring those who serve us. And they had about 30 law enforcement personnel, fire department people, chiefs, EMS people there, and honored them and gave there a proclamation and plaque thanking them for their service to the community. And I am reminded that we -- we do have good law enforcement, good fire protection. And we get -- on the fire protection part of it, we get that at a good price; we get a whole lot more than we pay for. The other thing that occurred there was young Mr. Matt Crow, who just recently finished a tour of duty with the U.S. Coast Guard, was honored. He came upon an auto accident on F.M. 1340 one night about two weeks ago, where the auto, at a high rate of speed, had gone through the guardrail and ~-~8-G3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 '' 0 L 21 22 23 24 25 9 entered the Guadalupe River and sank. And he got out there and -- in the river; he`s a medic, and using his skills and his Coast Guard training, he was able to get them out of the car and they were all safe. So -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God. COMMISSIONER NIC.HOLSON: He's a Hunt resident, and he needs a job if anybody knows of one. A job for -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where did that accident happen? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Right there -- right there at -- right there at Waldemar. In fact, they replaced that guardrail when they repaved the road a year or so ago, and it's -- they've done it -- redone it three times since then. There's been three cars go through that. That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, being the humble person I am, I was not going to talk about track until it was brought up from the -- from the audience. And I'm just here to meet your needs, is the only thing I am. (Laughter.) But, as -- as y'all know, track season's closing down. We're winding down, and we had the -- had the regional meets last weekend. And I think there was one young man from Comfort -- I may be wrong about these numbers, but 1 think there's one young man from Comfort, one .-~8-U3 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 from Center Point, maybe two from Ingram, and three from Kerrville-Tivy that are going to the -- qualified and going to the state meet in Austin. My little boy qualified in two events, so he's going to represent Tivy High School; he's the only bcy up there who's going from Tivy High School. That's all ? know about that. I'm pretty nervous about it. But I'll also remind you that I think Thursday is -- May lst is National Day of Prayer. There will be a mayor's breakfast, I understand, at Trinity Baptist, and then in the afternoon -- or late afternoon, there will be a ceremony on the front lawn of the courthouse, and it's a -- it's really something to participate in to see -- to see literally hundreds of people gathering together and praying and being of one mind, and it's just really a neat thing to participate in. And everyone's certainly, definitely invited to that. So, that's all. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When are we leaving for Austin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May 9, early in the morning. He jumps -- he high jumps around noon, and runs the hurdles at 7:35 in the evening. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good luck. Judge, I was going to do this at the tail end of the next agenda item, Linda Parker's report with regard to certain cuts that are being proposed, budget cuts by the Texas Department of 4-'r-%3 11 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mental Health and Mental Retardation, but I decided to do it r:ow in advance of Linda's report, because it all ties. I just want to take a moment of the Court's time to call to your attention some other things -- here's a copy for the press, if you'll come get it, please. Let me explain what this is. At the most recent AACOG Board of Directors meeting, this information was passed out to the board with the hope that the board members would share with their respective governmental bodies about certain legislative cuts and the effect on local government, and this one has to do with the legislative cuts to Medicaid. And the recommendation came down from the Legislative Committee as a result of a report from the Bexar Senior Advisory Committee, and according to the Center for Public Policy Priorities, proposed cuts to the cost -- will cost the Alamo region, which includes Kerr County, a total of $272,622,106 in state dollars and payments. It will reduce services to 30,296 elderly, disabled, children without health insurance, and pregnant women, of which 270 of these categories reside in Kerr County. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not 270. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, 720. Dyslexic, older age. 720. The attached spreadsheet that I provided to you gives you a look at how these cuts will affect Kerr County. The potential loss in dollars to 4 -~ ~ - G "? 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 12 various agencies that provide services to those in need in Kerr County is estimated to be about 4.7, almost $4.8 million. The net result of these cuts could likely be a greater demand on our Indigent Health Care dollars, which the County, as we all know, is mandated to provide. As a reminder, by law, we are required to fund up to 8 percent of our tax base for indigent care, and we, as County officials, should be registering our opposition, if we so -- are so inclined, to our local representatives. The spreadsheet shows all the various categories of human services that can be affected, but the bottom line is, 720 people in Kerr County stand to lose a total of about $4.8 million. If that happens, these folks are going to undoubtedly end up in the Indigent Health Care safety met, and that means Kerr County's going to pay. So, I wanted to share this with you. If you are so inclined, contact a State Representative and register your thoughts and complaints about that. Ron, for the City's benefit, if you'd like to have a copy of that? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Williams, you say here by law we're required to fund up to 8 percent of our tax base for indigent care. Do you know, are we up to 8 percent now? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have not funded up to 8 percent, but if -- if we had a run on the bank, so-to-speak, we would be required to fund up to 8 percent. _-~~-~~ 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 13 In the past, we've not done it. We've funded, I believe -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have gone over in COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- somewhere in the range of what we spent the previous year, I believe. And, of course, there's another agenda item in here that deals with that same issue in terms of some of those dollars. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We budget the full amount each year, don't we? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we didn't budget the full amount. We knew if we got in a bind, we'd have to fund it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't gone over since I've been on the Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What this points out is, if these services go away, those folks are going to fall into that safety net; it's going to come back right here. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that's probably not the only item that this Legislature's going to pass down to counties to fund. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is one of many, probably. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further, Commissioner Williams? I'd like to mention to you for a moment -- you know, oftentimes we hear about our young people, some of the 4-~P-U3 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 14 negative things that they do and some of the problems that they cause for us, and -- and maybe we don't hear enough about the positive things, but I'd like to give recognition to and express my admiration to the students at Center Point. Two weeks ago they showed their respect and honored a citizen, resident of this area who gave his life for the country over in southwest Asia. And I can tell you personally that that was an overwhelming sight, going down through Center Point as they waited, all with their flags at the curbside on both sides of the street and the roadway, all the way through Center Point and out to the cemetery, and it was a very, very moving sight. And those people down in Center Point have every right to be proud of those young students, I can assure you. Along that same vein, I would like to mention to you, those of you who have not been over to the Kathleen Caillcux Center, I urge you to do that. And the primary reason I urge you to do that is when that original structure was built, it was built pursuant to a charge in the donation of the land for that facility that whatever structure be built there would be in honor of the veterans of this area who serve their country. And, for those ~f you that have been here awhile, that are familiar with that structure over there, there were some plaques and some other -- other indications of recognition. But I want to personally thank 9-~a-o3 1 --- 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 the Cailloux family and the Foundation for the extraordinary memorial that they have created over there to the veterans of Kerr County. It is a very, very overwhelming experience when you look at that memorial. It is showcased there at the landing of the stairway. There's a double stairway that goes up to the balcony area, and it's showcased there, and I urge you to take a look at it. They've done a wonderful job of honoring the charge that was given them by the citizen that donated that land for that structure, and -- and I think we have every right to be proud of it. You have an opportunity to take a look at it by going to early vote. It goes on through tomorrow, and that's where it's going on, at least for the Headwaters, K.I.S.D., and City Council. There are other elections in the county for school districts. I'm sorry, I cannot give you the exact location of those, but it -- but the K.I.S.D., the Headwaters, and the City Council early voting is taking place there at the Cailloux Center. I urge you to vote. The people who are honored at that memorial at the center and Mr. Keogh, they gave the ultimate sacrifice so that you have that right. So,~vote; express your preference. And if you can't early vote, turn out Saturday and do so. That's all I have. Let's move on. Next item on the agenda, Commissioner Williams -- thank you, gentlemen, for being here. Update of the effects of the State-proposed budget 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 16 cuts. I assume that Ms. Parker was going to present that. We'll probably need to come back to that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She had something else, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Did she ask you to present that for her? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When she comes back, we'll go -- when she comes, we'll go through it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is in addition to her -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll come back to that item. Let's do the next item, consideration of the final plat of Cedar Ridge Mobile Home Park. Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I see the faithful Road and Bridqe Department just walked in. Leonard, are you here to present Cedar Park Mobile Home -- MR. ODOM: No, but Franklin -- may I -- may I go -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd appreciate if you would ask him to -- well, nevermind. I want to be nice. (Mr. Johnston entered the courtroom.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cedar Ridge Mobile Home Park. I think this is the final plat, is it not? 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 17 MR. JOHNSTON: This is it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the big one. MR. JOHNSTON: It's actually called a development plan. And this -- this is actually the first mobile home rental community development plan that we've completed. And they've, I think, done an excellent job. They've built a detention pond, paved streets, approved sewer and public water. Meets all the requirements. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's your recommendation for approval? MR. JOHNSTON: I signed the plat. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Judge, I move that we -- MR. JOHNSTON: Development plan. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oops. What was it? Judge, I move that we approve the final plat of Cedar Ridge Mobile Home Park in Precinct Number 1. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JliDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Williams, respectively, that we approve the final plat development plan of Cedar Ridge Mobile Home Park located in Precinct 1, Kerr County, Texas. Any further discussion? Being r:one, all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) -_e-o~ 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 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next item that we have is a consideration of a variance request for The Reserve of Falling Water, located in Precinct 3. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll turn it over to Franklin to go over these -- there are several, I guess, variance requests, mostly on frontage issues. MR. JOHNSTON: I think these items are all frontage issues. As you can see, there's a list of them that I've pointed out. The -- the last couple sentences in my memo there was -- I wrote that before I went out to see the site. Then I went out with Dale and several of his people late last week, and the site is a difficult one. There's a lot of unusual conditions out there, most of which being very steep hills. Several lot frontages are just a little bit below the 200-foot frontage, I think from 188 to -- one of them's 199.94. There's about -- one, two, three, four -- eight lots that are less than 200 foot in that respect. There are four -- a total of four lots -- three actually have frontage on a cul-de-sac of 33 feet instead of 60, and one has a frontage of 41 foot instead of 60. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. MR. JOHNSTON: I believe that's the issues 9-~a-o,5 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 ..__ 2 4 25 involved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this 200-foot frontage thing, is that a state law? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. No. MR. JOHNSTON: Just something we come up COMMISSIONER LETZ: That came about when we were -- really, before the Legislature corrected the rules last time. Basically, to help eliminate flag lots is why that originally was put in, and it was left during the last revision. Overall, I mean, I think it's -- this is -- it's an interesting -- this is an interesting project here. And it's -- it shows a problem -- another problem with our Subdivision Rules on that frontage requirement. If I can kind of give a -- Mr. Crenwelge -- Dale's back in the back; he can add mere if he chooses, but this is a subdivision where there's very steep hills, ridges, and the concept that he's come up with is exactly what we have encouraged at the county, which is to cluster the -- the homes and have open space areas. Not -- you know, whereas we looked at one -- whatever one was out there -- Stablewood Springs; similar type basic concept. That gentleman used a condominium conr_ept. Dale is using a property ownership concept, but they're basically cluing the same type thing with these, and that's the reason these lots are long and skinny. All of 3-~~-0~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~_ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 '' 0 G 21 22 23 24 25 20 the building sites are right next to the roads, so there'll be basically clusters of homes near the road and then large areas of open space that will be privately owned, as opposed to a condominium setup. You know, the development is putting in quite a few fewer lots than they could, based the acreage requirements. I mean, I think they could put in 60 lots, about. MR. JOHNSTON: 61. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 61 lots. And I don't know how many are on here. There's -- MR. CRENWELGE: 47. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Forty -- MR. CRENWELGE: 47. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 49. MR. CRENWELGE: I think we're combining some of those. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dale said 47, so he's putting in quite fewer lots than -- than they could. So, basically, I think the developer is meeting the overall intent of what the County's rules are, even though the -- to do that, his frontage -- he's not able to meet the frontage requirements. I don't really have a problem with it, any of the variances. They've made quite a few -- I've looked at them, arld I think Franklin's looked at them several times. They've tweaked them to quite a few -- you know, to a large 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 degree already. That's just kind of a general comment. Do you have anything else, Franklin? (Mr. Johnston shook his head.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only one that I thcught was strange when I really looked at it was the square cul-de-sac. And I -- but, as I understand -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be kind of hard to get a radius in a square. COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I understand it from talking to the developer, the cul-de-sac itself will probably -- will be round. This is deeding a square area, because they want to do some landscaping and planting and parking around the cul-de-sac, so it's -- the pavement's not going to be a square in there, I don't think. But, anyway, tYiat's why it's -- and if that's the case, I mean, I guess they can -- you know, the right-of-way for the -- which is what's actually shown on the map, can be square or triangle or circle, anything you want, as long as the actual road meets the requirements. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. I don't have any problem with it either. I just -- you know, it seems like that we have a lot of requests for variances from this 200-foot frontage issue, and I'm wondering if -- you know, if we lowered to it 180, would they still want a variance down to 150? You know. Where -- how do you -- how 9-~~-~3 1 2 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 do you get to a point to where we quit giving variances, you know? I agree that 200 feet may not be the real number. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, my personal feeling is w.e probably could eliminate that frontage requirement, you know, altogether. The problem comes in that you can -- I mean, there's some safety aspects that go into it. I mean, you clearly -- MR. JOHNSTON: Separation of driveways. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, separation of driveways. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Site distance. MR. JOHNSTON: Before we had them, we had some very -- you know, we had flag lots, basically. Everybody was having small frontages and then clustering them in the rear. This eliminated that problem. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But a lot of that was done away with -- you know, some of the state law revisions to the flag lots, you can't really do any more, or not as easily. But it's a -- you know, it's a good question. I mean, you know, it's -- in my mind, when a developer is basically following the intent of the county rules and really going beyond the acreage requirements, some of the other requirements we have, it's kind of -- why not give a ~.Tariance in these areas? But then the other side is, you know, the -- I guess you need to probably have some 9 -.:,~-03 23 1 2 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,._. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 amendments. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, too. Franklin, in your Number 3 in your letter, you talk about the lots west and east divided by a road, technically divided into separate lots. Do you want to speak to that issue, make it a little more understandable? MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. I think the -- like, 8 -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7 and 8. MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, 7, 8, and 9, that area. I think on the one side of the road, it's actually unbuildable. I think there's -- they're going to put a note on the plan that says that that lot is unbuildable, and the buildable part will be the part on top of the hill, on the right-hand side of the cul-de-sac on the road. And the other side will just be -- they own the property, but it's in a big valley, like Jon was talking about earlier. Just protects their view, but it doesn't -- MR. CRENWELGE: What the intent is, that basically~s -- there's going to be a note on the plat; like, for instance, 8E and 8W will be sold together. They have to be sold together. And, we're going to make sure no one builds on 8W. That will be -- their building will be on 8E, but that land's just basically a dropoff, okay? And they can utilize that land, you know, to hike and bike on, 4-~' ~-03 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-.. 25 but no one will ever build on it. But we just -- it was just land that we had there; we're just going to give it to them. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about 7W? MR. CRENWELGE: It was the same, all those with -- 7E/7W, 9E/9W, those lots will be combined on the plat. 'They'll have to be sold together, and they can't build on one of them. MR. JOHNSTON: You don't have the topographic map. If you look at that, you can see the drastic dropoffs on the -- on that side of the road. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dale, is there a reason you -- and you and I talked about this a little bit, on those 8E and W, as to why you just don't leave them, from our standpoint, just a lot, and combine them through a deed or through deed restrictions or, you know, some way that doesn't involve the County? I mean, I don't know why they have to be -- you know, why the County really needs to be involved in how you -- why you can't just make those two different lots, and then you just sell them together. You can call them 8E and W if you want. MR. CRENWELGE: It could be done that way also. It could be done that way rather than -- we could renumber it, okay? We could renumber, but it wouldn't -- it would be the same purpose. You just -- it's still going to __,~,-v~ 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 be -- I think it would be better to be in the plat rather than the deed restrictions. You know, it's going to be more clear to people. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. CRENWELGE: I think it's more clear. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. MR. CRENWELGE: Once you do the final plat, you'll see a note on there, which lot is the building lot and which two convey together. JUDGE TINLEY: Franklin, your -- your review of the topography and so forth, all of these -- is it your belief that all of these variances are generated by the topography of the land itself? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I think most of them are. Like I -- the 199.49-foot frontage, you know, they could make it 200 and just not get a variance, but we're talking about that much. That much. MR. CRENWELGE: We had Voelkel out there surveying. We're trying to put the lots where the building sites are, you know. The land goes like this. We're putting the lot where the building site is, as opposed to just cutting it every 200 foot. Every area has a building site. Every one has a building site on it. If we moved it over 10 feet, it would hurt the building site, but we're going to designate by the revisions where their building 4-'~-n3 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 26 envelope is on every one of these lots. MR. JOHNSTON: I think they're working around trees and stuff too, trying to keep what they have out there. MR. CRENWELGE: Yeah. We'll be keeping, you know, square foot minimum. We're just trying to protect where they're going to build, make sure nobody's going to be looking at somebody else's rooftop. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Franklin, what's the rationale behind the -- we're barring the square cul-de-sac? MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think we have a rule. I think it looked odd. I think they're going to use it for parking, and I kind of had a -- you know, I don't think the right-of-way, I mean, is used for general parking, but -- unless it's -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not a variance request? MR. JOHNSTON: The square one? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. MR. JOHNSTON: I don't -- that was it. I think I was pointing out where the 33-foot frontages were. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on the -- on the -- where the square cul-de-sac is, I believe that's the one that -- and my idea was, why they can't extend it a little ~-_~-,_ 27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ,g 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bit further so you don't have those low frontages? But I understand, with the topography, you really can't do that; you drop off, and you end up with a cul-de-sac up the side of the mcuntain. You're kind of limited as to where you can put that cul-de-sac. MR. CRENWELGE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm okay with that explanation. JJDGE TINLEY: Here, again, driven by topography. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. MR. JOHNSTON: I think if they move the road out much further, it would eat up the building site. MR. CRENWELGE: That's a heck of a point out there. MR. JOHNSTON: Number 6, you probably cculd do something with that one if you -- if the Court wishes. That was not as critical. MR. CRENWELGE: Yeah, it would be down to the bottom. MR. JOHNSTON: Going downhill, anyway. So that one could be extended to 60 instead of 41, but -- on Number 6. Or you could grant a variance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the -- MR. JOHNSTON: It's the driveway to get to ~-~~-~~ 28 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that lot. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That cul-de-sac could get -- MR. CRENWELGE: Could be widened if you want. JUDGE TINLEY: How is that going to affect 7E, though? MR. CRENWELGE: If we moved it over to the -- where 7W -- ~W is a non-building lot. We could move that. That way, it's just -- you make the cul-de-sac 60 feet, but you're -- it's a dropoff anyway; never be used. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, I think, based on the Judge's comment, and I agree with it, is that, you know, if topography is the reason, a variance is understandable. If you're doing this because you don't want to build the road a little bit further, that's not a good reason. And it sounds like, on 6, the topography is not really the issue; it's just -- whereas on the rest of them, topography is the primary driving force. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I don't know what it is there on the -- on 7W, for example. MR. CRENWELGE: Yeah. If you move that -- JUDGE TINLEY: If you -- MR. CRENWELGE: If you moved it over 20 foot, you could move it over 20 foot on paper, but it goes . -~~-o~ 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,-.. 25 straight down. Those are, I think, 10-foot -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, would that be a danger to someone, being that close to the edge, if they're driving on that road over there on -- on the west side? You know, if that's a consideration. You understand my inquiry? MR. CRENWELGE: Yeah. The access to E is going to be a single lot off that drive. They'll probably have a 10-foot drive off that lot. We can move it to 60 foot; it wouldn't hurt, but we'd never use it. That 20 feet could never be used for utilities or anything like that anyway, 'cause it's just straight off. But -- it would look pretty on paper, but it would never be used. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Franklin, do you have any other comments? I mean, I don't -- MR. JOHNSTON: We had one more thing that came up after this. I don't know if you want to talk about it or -- MR. CRENWELGE: I may wait on that. It's the -- we'd be talking about a variance for the utilities inside the road on some areas, like we had at Cypress Springs, but I'm trying to get a single trench for all the utilities. Right now I've got AquaSource to agree to it. I think I've got Hill Country Telephone, Central Texas, because if you have to do two trenches for both utilities, you know, it's tough on some of these areas. 30 1 ._. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JOHNSTON: If you do them single, you won't nave to go to the road. MR. CRENWELGE: Maybe in one or two areas. But I don't have enough to talk about that now; I'm still working with utility companies. Sometimes they want to be in one ditch, sometimes they want to be in two ditches. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I'll make a motion that we grant the variances as outlined in the letter from Franklin Johnston. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Mction made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, that the Court grant the requested variances to The Reserve at Falling Water, as outlined in the communication from the County Engineer. Is there any further discussion? If not, ail in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, Franklin, in rase I forget when we get to doing our update on Subdivision Rules, which will be pretty quick, we need to look at that 200-fcct language and maybe add some language in the rules related to topography, specifically, so these aren't 31 1 ..., 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 1_ 12 13 14 15 16 l~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 variances that way. They don't have to come to the Court for a variance; they can be done between you and the developer. MR. CRENWELGE: Thank y'all very much. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be the call of the engineer? JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go back to the second item on the consideration agenda now, and that item is update on the effects of the State's proposed budget cuts on Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. Commissioner Baldwin and Ms. Parker. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge. Linda Parker from M.H.M.R., the M.R. side of M.H.M.R. I've asked her to come cver, and the reason I did is similar to what Commissioner Williams was referring to earlier. And, as far as we're concerned, the possible unfunded mandates is, of course, my concern, but I wanted to give her the opportunity to just kind of give us an update on what's going on with M.H.M.R. in our community that affects every one of us, and particularly us financially. So, Linda Parker. MS. PARKER: Thank you. Thank you, Judge, Commissioners, especially Commissicner Baldwin, for giving me the opportunity to come here today and talk about some of the concerns that we have within M.H.M.R. Just to give you y ~~-03 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a very brief -- there's a five-minute limit, but I could talk longer. The M.R. services, the House has cut M.R. services 5.3 percent; the Senate, 4.2. On home and community-based services, which are the services that have the waiting list attached to it that you hear a lot about, 6.4 percent in the House, 6.6 in the Senate. The general revenue M.R. services that go to people who do not live in group homes or who are not receiving home/community-based services are being cut 11 percent in the House and 13.8 in the Senate. For children's mental health services, the House is cutting them 3.3 percent, and the Senate is cutting them 9.1 percent. The -- that was the topic of the last week, and that was a great disappointment, because at the beginning we thought the Senate was going to be kinder. The adult mental health services, the House is cutting them 6.3 percent, and the Senate is cutting them 12.8. In group homes -- in specific, the funding of group homes, the House is cutting them 3.3 percent, and the Senate is cutting them 4.2 percent. One of the ways that that will affect Kerr County is, currently, if these -- if these funds are cut in mental health services, we will be cut $461,000, which will mean 125 clients per month that will be -- not be served. This is across our 19 counties, but certainly a significant portion of those would come from Kerr County. In M.R. 9-~'8-03 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1G 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 „~ 24 25 services, $604,000, because those are in many cases 24-hour services, will be cut, which would mean 57 consumers would be cut. A total cut of one point -- $1,065,188. You know, in our 19 counties we have 10 mental health centers, nine mental retardation centers, and nine early childhood intervention ~-Pnters. The Kerr County payroll annually is $3 rlillion. The total payroll -- this is our payroll. Our budget is 25 million; the payroll is 15 million, 6. Annually, the reduction would be three -- $312,000 just in payroll a year. I want to also give you an idea of what we're doing in terms of jails. Of the 75 -- 78 people that were in jail in March, 42 of those were connected with our mental health service system in some way. That's Kerr County figures; that's not the 19-county figures. We receive about 60 crisis calls a day that impact either your police, deputies, or the E.R. room, and these are not walk-ins to our community mental health centers. If -- if funding is cut, you will be seeing an increase in those. You wil~ be seeing an increase in your jails. The other thing that I wanted to point out is that Dr. Perryman, who is a state economist, has put out a report, and many of you may have seen it, but it may not hurt to reiterate that if the cuts that are made -- that are being proposed by House Bill 2292 -- and many of them will be cut; we do recognize that -- the tax rever_ue drops by 47 _-~8-03 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ..-, 2 4 25 percent. The local tax drops by 51 percent. Health insurance would be -- go up by $1.34 per person. Health care losses will be $2.81. Texas business activities will decline by $19.14. These are all local numbers. And the retail -- retail sales will drop by 51.77. So, this all goes to say that the C.H.I.P. dollars, the Children's Insurance Programs, and the Medicaid, our state general revenue Medicaid dollars, are important to our economy, not only throughout the state of Texas, but locally, and that it will bring about -- instead of efficiencies in trying to cut the budget without taxes, it's going to bring about a reduction in the amount of money that comes in, and inefficiency in business and inefficiency in government. I will go on record as saying I understand the consolidation at the state level from the -- the large amount of state agencies into three. I don't have a problem with that, because every dollar that's taken out of there don't get into services. I will tell you that Hill Country Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation leads the state in accountable care, operating as a business, billable hours. We've been recognized throughout the state as being a leader in that. We've recently made a presentation to Representative Davis, who was the liaison with M.H.M.R., on our accountable care system, how we have productivity standards. P_nd we have achieved efficiencies in our 9-tee r,~ 35 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ._-- 2 4 25 commitment to you, as even with these cuts, we will continue to operate in an effective and efficient manner. But our focus is on outcomes to our consumers, and their goals and what they need to reenter into society to become effective and efficient and productive members of our community. And I think that's your goal for them as well. So, if I have covered everything, Commissioner, that you wanted me to cover, or if you have any questions, I'll welcome those at this time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have none. You've done exceiient; you did exactly what I asked you to do. I wanted to point out, though, that she's talking about possible cuts of $1.6 million in their cachement area, and Commissioner Williams is talking about the potential loss in Kerr County of $4.7 million dealing with -- Medicaid, I think was the issue there, the Medicaid program; that these cuts and losses are coming down the pike if the State does what they say they're going to do, in their wonderful mathematics up there. I don't think that it's going to impact the County budget those full numbers, but it will impact Kerr County's budget. I mean, this is -- and I'm just trying to get us ready, 'cause there's some -- these are two issues, and we're talking about almost $6 million right here. And these are just two -- two issues that are going to affect us. So it's kind of scary, in my opinion. -.' R - 0 3 36 1 ~--~ 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 1a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-^8-U3 MS. PARKER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: -- for these types of -- of But, Linda, thank you so much. I have served on one of their boards over at the -- at the Opportunity Center for a number of years, and it's just one of my favorite places in town. You need to go by there; just pull in there and go in and meet those folks and -- and, yes, they produce for our community, and very low budget, and just a neat, neat part of our community. Neat place. MS. PARKER: Thank you. I have with me our Director of Mental Retardation Services, Paula Paddock, who is also here today. And I want to apologize; my going back to Austin -- back and forth to Austin two and three times a week, trying to communicate the need to have proper funding and the ability to manage not only to the Legislature, but to our own central office without such onerous reporting standards that they have, I -- I become somewhat discombobulated, and I -- for some reason, I had 9:30 in my mind. And, yes, I did get the agenda, but I still had 9:30 in my mind. So, thank y'all. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Parker, I'm given to understand, from your comments a little bit ago, that your community operation is now being looked at because of its -- its efficiency and -- and delivery of service per tax dollar expended as the business model -- 37 1 ~^ 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agencies throughout the state? MS. PARKER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're to be commended for that. We thank you for your efforts. MS. PARKER: As a matter of fact, central offir_e Texas Department of Mental Health staff will be here or_ Thursday to look at how we do what we do, so -- and I don't know that that will change anything, but they're going tc look, so that's a first. Thank you so much. JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe they'll learn something. MS. PARKER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Linda. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Parker. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Paula. JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 1.7, consider approving the extensions of annual bids and allowing Road and Bridge to purchase paving oil as needed. Good morning, sir. MR. ODOM: Good morning, gentlemen. JUDGE TINLEY: How are you? MR. ODOM: Well, what I'm here for this morning is to talk to the Court about extending some bids on annual contracts. In January, our primary -- my biggest obstacle is the oil bid. In January, we had the supplier and started calling around, and we had $40-a-barrel oil on 9-"' 8-03 38 1 ~- 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 y 10 11 12 .--~ 13 14 15 i6 1i 18 19 20 21 22 ?3 24 25 speculation, and which they said petroleum prices were going up at least 9 cents. That was in January. My argument was that this war is about a three-week war, and that the price of petroleum should be coming down. This has happened -- in 1973 they tried it, et cetera. So, I was around then; I knew that it would come down. I couldn't get the oil prices down, and everybody was fearful that we were going to $~0-a-barrel oil, so I decided not to -- at that time, to extend the contracts. We just -- we were in the wintertime, we didn't do much; we weren't going to be shooting any oil. Basically, what we see is the oil prices are coming down. They're still at 9 cents above last year's bid. I -- ? speculate -- this is Odom talking, but I -- you know, I anticipate $20, $22 a barrel, and I think by the time we get into the summer, I think that it wculd reflect that. I'm hoping that could be the case. So, what I'm doing is asking that the Court would look at extending the prices that -- we've talked to the people with equipment by the hcur and corrugated metal pipe, the cold mix, and also the base material. We had this down. At the time, we hadn't got hold of someone, but they said that that stabilized; that they'd be -- be providing it May the 19th. So, basically, I'm looking at the possibility of taking emulsion as we go out to bid for certain projects, and look at it in late May, possibly June, to put out a ~-^3-;,? 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 formal bid for emulsion. I'd hate to get trapped with that dollar cost high, and I think that if I bid -- if we had bid this back in March, that that would have occurred and I'd have been trapped right into the new budget, which starts in October, and we still do some shootinq in October. So, I prefer to -- to address that emulsion later on, as I think the president gets a handle on Iraq, production and all, and I think we'll nave some subsiding of prices and that will be reflected. We were scared that all this fear would be reflected in the prices of everything, but we've got some stability and people feeling a little bit calmer, so I would be addressing the Court in the future for petroleum and possibly paving aggregate. I haven't got a return from that supplier yet, whether they would freeze that price at last year's prices, but my recommendation to the Court is to allow -- the statutes allow us to extend those prices, if they do not increase, for up to a year, and I would ask the Court to consider that. And for those items that -- like, eliminating petroleum and paving aggregate at this point, that the others be submitted from last year's bid to extend that contract for one year to March 15th of '04. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Convinced me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You answered my question at the very end there. The statute allows for us to -- 4-~8-G3 40 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 •-- 25 MR. ODOM: The statute does allow for us to do that. I believe that we could even extend that two years past that, but I'm only looking at one year. I like competition. I think the fear factor's there. If we had done this early, we would have had prices going up. That's uncalled fir. And right now, we've stabilized prices on the majority of everything, and I'm 9 cents higher now. We will call and get comparable bidders from qualified suppliers as we go out to bid, and I have some projects to -- to do, like Y.O. Ranch out there, that mile that we're responsible for, and I have Sheppard Rees. So, we'll get competitive bids. I don't see it being any more than 9 cents, but I believe that the price will come down, just given time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate you being a good steward of the County money. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we approve the extension of annual bids, allow Road and Bridge to purchase paving oil as needed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Also, thank you for being on top of this and making this effort to save County money. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JJDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively, -_s-o~ 1 ` r-_ 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 that the Road and Bridge Administrator -- that his request for extension of annual bids and allowing him to purchase paving oil as needed be approved. Mr. Odom, I appreciate your frugality, and -- and I know you're -- you're just trying to squeeze the maximum you can out of every single dollar that you get hold of. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: And I appreciate that. Is there any farther discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? Motion does carry. Thank you. We appreciate -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, before we get to the 10 o'clock, could we take up 13? I think Mr. Tuschak is here. That will take all of two minutes; that will get us to 10 o'clock. Treat way he can go back to Schreiner and take care of advancement. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, very good. We'll move to Item 13 on the consideration agenda, consideration and discussion and any appropriate action on allowing the American Cancer Society to use I2 tables and 100 chairs from the Youth Exhibit Center for the Relay of Life that's scheduled to be held at the Antler Stadium on the 2nd and 3rd of May of this year, free of charge, with the 4-~ ti-03 ` -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 stipulation that the volunteers from that organization be responsible for picking up and returning those tables and chairs. MR. TUSCHAK: Good morning, Commissioner Williams. Thank you very much for considering this, Judge Tinley, rest of the Commissioners. My name's mark Tuschak; I'm Vice President for Advancement of Schreiner University, but I'm here today as a volunteer for the American Cancer Society. On Friday and Saturday of this week, we are having the first ever Relay for Life in Kerr County. This is a 12-hour event, starting at 6 p.m. at Tivy Stadium and going to 6 a.m. the next morning. The purpose of this event is twofold. One is to celebrate survivorship and bring publicity on what can be done to prevent cancer and -- and promote early detection of cancer. The second is to raise money for the American Cancer Society in support of cancer research and local programs and services. I'm here today to ask you if you would be willing to donate 12 tables and 100 chairs, which our volunteers will pick up and return. We'd like to pick them up at noon or 1 o'clock on Friday, and we'll return them about 9 a.m. on Saturday morning. This is -- we have about 30 volunteers working on this, and as of last Thursday, we had about 40 teams that were signed up to participate in this event. There's at least 10 members on each team, so we ,_~~ 03 1 --~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ,~ L~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 expect somewhere between 400 and 500 people actually walking 12 hours. There's going to be many people who are actually camping overnight on that at Tivy Stadium. Some team members will come and go, but -- but a large majority will be camping, and we anticipate having between 100 and 150 volunteers, so I just would like to request you donating these tables ar.d chairs for that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mark, you said return them Saturday morning. Did you mean Saturday morning, or Monday morning? MR. TUSCHAK: Whenever we can. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause the event is Friday and Saturday, is it not? MR. TUSCHAK: Event's Friday and Saturday; it's over at 8 a.m. Saturday morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. MR. TUSCHAK: So we can return them Saturday morning by 9 a.m. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Make sure someone's out there to receive them. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSTONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we'll have to ma'~e certain that we have somebody at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center to check them out. MR. TUSCHAK: Or we car. return them during ~-~~-o~ 44 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 1a 20 21 22 23 24 25 regular business hours. JUDGE TINLEY: That: will be a matter you'll need to coordinate with the maintenance people, and whatever arrangements you might make with those folks that would seem to be appropriate from a timing standpoint. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment. I mean, I -- I don't mean to be a party-pooper on this, but -- and I think it's a great project. I support what you're doing, but I don't think it's appropriate for the County to donate our property to a nonprofit organization without doing it for ail of them. And we clearly don't, right now, do that, so I can't be in favor of this. I think it's a good idea, but I ust can't go along with it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You took the words out of my mouth. We ought to -- I don't know how we can have the rule, but we ought to either donate this property to all not-for-profits or to none of them. And I've been involved before in paying for and picking up the chairs and tables. And, also, we shouldn't be dealing on this Commissioners Court and taking their time on a -- to waive a rental fee that's less than $100. It's a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the idea was it Yiad to come before this Court, so whether it comes before this Court so that you can say no or that we waive the rental or that we let everybody do it, it had to come before 45 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 L 25 this Court. COMMISSIONER NICHCLSON: I would be in favor of either denying this request or changing the rule and letting all not-for-profits have the property. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they going to walk all night? MR. TUSCHAK: They're night. There'll be at least -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: MR. TUSCHAK: One per be on the track at all times. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: going to walk all Man, I'm in favor. son from each team will God, that's incredible. MR. TUSCHAK: Starting out with the survivor's lap at 6 p.m. on Friday. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's see if I can craft a motion to solve some of our problems, Judge. I would move that the Commissioners Court grant approval for the use of tables and chairs, beginning with the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life, and any subsequent worthy community projects that might come before us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't do it by the agenda item. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just do that one. Second. 9-~8-03 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, we'll do that one. Second? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion has been made and seconded by Commissioners Williams and -- and Commissioner Baldwin, respectively, that the Court approve the request by the American Cancer Society to use 12 tables and 100 chairs without cost from the Youth Exhibit Center for the Relay of Life program that they are planning to hold at Antler Stadium the 2nd and 3rd day of May of this year. Is there any further discussion on it? Being none, all in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Baldwin and Williams voted in favor of the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, signify by raising your right hand. (Commissioners Letz and Nicholson voted against the motion.) JUDGE TINLEY: The motion -- the vote is tied 2-2; it goes to the chair. The chair votes in the negative. The motion is denied. Until we change the policy, as a matter of course, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to vote in the affirmative. And we appreciate your interest, and maybe you've caused something to happen that needed to happen. Unfortunately, you just didn't get the benefit of 4-~~-0~ 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 it if it does happen. MR. TUSCHAK: That's okay. Hopefully this will be an annual event. I appreciate your consideration for this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'll just make a comment on that. Whoever is going to be -- I presume someone's going to be looking at the rule. I think another option is to have a quid pro quo, per se, where someone -- they do a service to the County, as opposed to -- they can either pay or clean something up or, you know, assist somewhere. I just don't think we can -- and I think that's legal. I just don't think we can give property -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or a donation to the Commissioner's son's college fund, something like that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That could work. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd want the County Attorney to look at that. JUDGE TINLEY: It is now a few minutes after 10:00, so we will recess the Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date, and I will call to order a public hearing on the 10 o'clock timed item on the agenda, that public hearinq being in connection with the proposed final revision of the plat of Tracts 15 and 16 of Y.O. Ranchlands ,.-. 25 4 - ~ - i~ ~ located in Precinct 4. 1 2 3 Q 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .... 13 14 15 16 17 ,g 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-, 25 48 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:04 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public present here today that wishes to be heard on the public hearing item of the final revision of plat of the -- of the plat of Tracts 15 and 16 of Y.O. Ranchlands? MR. VOELKEL: If I may speak? Lee Voelkel. I'm here this morning actually as a messenger. This is not my ccmment, but it's a comment that I've been asked to bring to the Court. I have a letter from a man by the name of Paul Bryant, who's the president of the Y.O. Property Owners Association, and I'll just distribute these. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I pass them around for you? MR. VOELKEL: Sure, that'd be fine. As you read the letter, I think you'll see Mr. Bryant's concern. It's not really with the plat itself. He's -- you'll see in here, he mentions they -- they have a minimum of a 50-acre tract, which is satisfied by this plat. I think Mr. Bryant, in my conversation with him on the phone -- and, by the way, he could not be here this morning because of some prior commitments, or he would be here himself -- was maybe just a little confused about all the little squares that he's seeing on the plat for possible drainfields, possible well 4-?~-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .-. 13 14 IJ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-~ 25 49 locations and things of that sort. And I think that he just wants to make sure that once the plat's approved, that these items will still have to be governed, so to speak, by the Property Owners Association, by their C.C.R., which I told him I thought that was for sure going to be the case. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Voelkel, to respond to that, this Court, of course, as you're aware, has no authority to modify, change, or negate any of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and they are of record, I assume, and any purchaser of the property that falls under those covenants, conditions, and restrictions will be bound by them. And we -- our action here today should not be construed, in my thinking, in any manner affecting those covenants, conditions, and restrictions. But we do appreciate your acting ~n Mr. Bryant's behalf and -- and his concerns. MR. VOELKEL: And that's essentially what I told him, what you've just said, Judge. I told him anything different that came up this morning, I'd certainly relate to him, but y'all don't govern that. If the plat meets the regulations, which apparently it does, that it will be approved. These things will be taken up later with the Property Owners Association. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard on the public hearing -_~-03 1 2 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,..~ 25 50 for the final revision of plat of Tracts 15 and 16 of Y.O. Ranchlands? There being no one else to indicate they desire to step forward, I would close the public hearing for final revision of plat of Tracts 15 and 16, and I will call to order again the Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:07 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: And we will proceed to Item 1.6, the consideration of the variance and final revision of plat of Tracts 15 and 16 of Y.O. Ranchlands, Precinct 4. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we approve the variance of final revision of plat of Tracts 15 ar,d 16 of Y.C. Ranchlands in Precinct 4. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion has been made and seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Baldwin, respectively, that we approve the variance and final revision of plat of Tracts 15 and 16 of Y.O. Ranchlands located ir. Precinct 4. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. I must have had a -- a mental lapse. What's the variance for? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have a mental lapse. 51 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cul-de-sac size. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't -- I'm missing my plat, so I couldn't -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's cul-de-sac size, okay. 6 7 right? 8 cul-de-sac. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did I not read that MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The size of the MR. JOHNSTON: If you notice, the road's not actually on the plat itself, it's on the existing easement. And that -- this road actually extends down to Lot 15A, and it's a private road, gated-lot subdivision. It's not like anybody's just going to be traveling out there. If he built a cul-de-sac of -- of 60-foot diameter -- AUDIENCE: 67. MR. JOHNSTON: -- instead of 100, he can turn around. We turned around on it the other day. It's actually just a drive into Lot 15A; no one else would have reason to go down there. And if he extended it out, which he could have, on -- onto the Lot 15A outside the right-of-way, I think he calculated it'd be up in the air 8 feet, and you'd have to drive down into the lot. So it's better to leave it the way it was and to have a reasonable 4- ~ E- 0 3 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 entrance. That's all they use it for anyway, is an entrance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion? Being none, all in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next item on the agenda is consideration of road name changes for county-maintained roads in various locations of Kerr County in accordance with 911 guidelines and regulatory signs, and the setting of a public hearing for same. Am I given to understand that the -- the focus here is on establishing a public hearing? Is that the primary focus of the agenda item? MS. HARDIN: Yes, approving the ad for the paper. The second page would be the notice of public hearing. JUDGE TTNLEY: Okay. MS. HARDIN: We have four roads that are county-maintained roads. The first one, Old Highway 16, has two portions. We have just always called it old Highway 16. 911 wanted it to have a formal name. So, the second portion 4-~~-G3 53 1 ^_ 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of that road would be Lantana Road South. The first portion would be Liggett Lane South. Then we have Beech Road, which is sometimes spelled with two E's and sometimes with an E and an A, and those folks are interested in changing that road name to Byas Springs West. And then there's a small road up in Mountain Home that's Estes Cottage Road. They would like to change that to Bethel Way. We also have full regulatory signs. We only have three on the list here. I've added another one this morning that I think Commissioner Baldwin looked at out on Rim Rock, no parking on Rim Rock. We have a stop sign at Upper Turtle Creek at Rocky Hill, a no parking sign at Rocky Hill, and a no dumping on Scott. And the public hearing date that I've put on there was June 9th at 10 o'clock. Will that work? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve to have a public hearing June 9, 2003, 10 a.m., in this courtroom on the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- regulatory signs and name changes. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Nicholson (sic), respectively, that we approve for public hearing tYie road name changes for privately maintained roads, as presented by the Road and Bridge -- 4-?a-u~ 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 excuse me. MS. HARDIN: Those are county-maintained, JUDGE TINLEY: County-maintained roads, MS. HARDIN: That's okay. JUDGE TINLEY: County-maintained roads, as presented by the Road and Bridge administrative personnel, the public hearing to be set for -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10 a.m. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the Commissioners Courtroom. JUDGE TINLEY: What date? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: June 9. JUDGE TINLEY: 6/9. I note that we have a public participation form here. Mr. Bernard Syfan wishes to be heard, and before we move further, I'm going to give him the opportunity to tell us what he has to say on this issue. Mr. Syfan? MR. SYFAN: I'm Bernard Syfan, and I don't know where I live. When I first came to the county, I moved onto Beech Road, B-e-e-c-h, and one day I had company coming -- the reason I'm speaking to you today is 'cause I'm not going to be here; I'm going to be out of the country on business when your hearing is. I'd like you to hear me now, 4-~' 8-~i 3 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 excuse me. And they came in and they called me, and they said, "We can't find your house. We don't have a number." And I said, "Well, there are no numbers out here." And, in fact, there still are no numbers out there. Come to find out he was in the south end of Kerrville looking for my place on Beach Road in Kerr County, and that's what brought it to my mind. It has been B-e-e-c-h, and it is on County records here both as B-e-e-c-h and B-e-a-c-h. It was originally named for a Mr. B-e-e-c-h. But there is already a B-e-a-c-h and there's a whole lot more people that live on B-e-a-c-h in Kerrville than that live on B-e-e-c-h or whatever in the west end. They changed the names three times since I've been there; it's been changed to B-e-e-c-h and then B-e-a-c-h again, and then back to B-e-e-c-h West. And if you look on the two sides of the street, it's different on both sides. Please change it. I talked to a number of the people that live there. I don't think you're going to have anybody objecting to it being calmed Byas Springs Road. And that's a little different from what you're saying right there, but Byas Springs Road is what everybody seems to want. Byas Ranch goes up the canyon that this read goes up. There is a -- the biggest subdivision back there is called Byas Springs Ranch. And, so, you've heard me. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm impressed with you 4-^8-03 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 being able to say all those B-E-E's and B-E-A's. MR. SYFAN: It's very confusing. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Syfan. We appreciate that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Baldwin, could we amend that motion to -- to have the public hearing include Byas Springs Road, instead of just Byas Springs? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says Byas Springs Road West on here. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, it does? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On my list. I'm looking at this. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Notice of public hearing. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're right. MR. SYFAN: There's really no west involved. MS. HARDIN: In the geo-region, there is a west. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one other comment. I've had occasion to work with Ms. Hardin and the folks over at 911 recently on road name changes, issues like that. I've got more confidence now than I have in the past that that's moving along. So -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. ~-~~-o? 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 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And it might get all done without too many late night phone calls. I don't know. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion on this item? All in favor -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a minor question. It's just I'm not. sure who -- you had Buster making the motion and Commissioner Nicholson making the second. JUDGE TINLEY: No. I -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reality is, I made the second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you said -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just said it wrong. JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize. I misspoke, apparently. I meant to recognize Commissioner Baldwin as making the motion and Commissioner Williams as making the second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I -- JUDGE TINLEY: I stand corrected on the record. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- just wanted to clarify. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your apology is correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glad you did that, Judge, 'cause I wasn't going to accept an amendment. ~-~~-o~ 58 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 TINLEY': With that out of the way, do we have any further discussion? Being none, all in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll now move to next item. This is privately maintained roads. MS. HARDIN: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Consider and approve the road name changes as requested for privately maintained roads in accordance with 911 guidelines. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another one. MS. HARDIN: I left one off on my query. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Substitute list? MS. HARDIN: You have the backup for it; it's just not on the list. I wanted to be sure that you got it in order. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Another comment about this issue. If you remember, maybe even as recent as a month or so ago we were looking at over 900 of these, and we're winding down. We're getting close to the -- to the bottom of this thing, right? MS. HARDIN: We hope. Unless they come up with some more. These are all roads that 911 had as a 4-~a-n, 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 number, and they now have a name. And they're privately maintained, and there's eight. The one that was left off was Stahl, which is number four on that list. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, that we approve the road name changes for privately maintained roads in various locations in Kerr County in accordance with 911 guidelines, as presented by Road and Bridge administrative staff. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll go to the next item, consider and discuss the approval for the Kerr County Sheriff's Department to apply for a COPS in Schools Grant Program award for three years, starting with '04/'05 school year. Mr. Graham? MR. GRAHAM: Good morning. Basically, this -- as you know, three years ago we applied for and was granted a grant from the federal government to place three officers in three different school districts in the county. This is our last year of federal funding. The Court 4-~d-~~3 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ._.. 2 4 25 graciously said that they would pick up next year, and after that, it's over with. The response that we've gotten from the school districts has been mainly positive. I think we've done a lot of good with the schools and everything, and I would like to -- or the Sheriff's Department would like to ask permission to reapply for this grant to keep this program in place. We've instituted several different educational programs within the schools, and most recently, there was a lot of graffiti and things that was put at a site on the interstate. One of our School Resource Officers has had several meetings with the senior class in Ingram. They have, in essence, decided that that class themselves wants to approach D.O.T. and provide the cleanup themselves, instead of the State or the County having to do that, which I think is a direct result of our relationship with the schools through our S.R.O.'s. It has been a very worthwhile project. I think it helps our manpower situation. Instead of having to call an officer in off the street or something like that, the S.R.O.'s are right there. They have built a good rapport with the students, the staff, the families and everything else. I think it is a positive program, and it is working well for the County. We would like permission to reapply for the grant. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The first grant that 4-^8-43 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we applied for and received, we had an obligation to fund that; is that correct? MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The fourth year of the project, and that becomes the '03/'04 budget year; is that correct? MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIP.MS: Is the same requirement inherent to this application? MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir, it will be. It's a -- the way it worked out, it's basically about a 25 percent match, depending on the salary structure and everything. That's why it worked out that we could basically be supported for three years from the federal government and one year from the County, which the same -- allotment of money is the same this time. It's $125,000 per officer position, which, putting a pencil to it, I think we can fund it through them for three more years if we pick up the fourth year. JUDGE TINLEY: So, essentially, it's not a per se match, but we're matching effectively 25 percent? MR. GRAHAM: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: On the end of which, the last year being our obligation, just like it is in this one? MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir, correct. ~-,s-o~ 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, you answered both questions that I had. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had also talked about the school district participating in funding this employee, and I -- obviously, by your comments and your presence here today, shows that we're -- we're not approaching the school district and them picking up the tab for the service. So -- but I think we should. I think the school district -- I mean, it's there for them. I mean, I see some benefit to us as citizens out in the county; we receive it in the future benefits, but it's really -- that's really a school district employee-type person that -- it's a function of the school district, and they should be paying fir it. MR. GRAHAM: I can understand that, but I can also see a conflict of interest in that -- COMMISSIONER MR. GRAHAM: actually has the employee o Sheriff's Department. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Commissioner Baldwin's idea them now with -- through an BALDWIN: I do, too. -- if the school district r the employee is governed by the BALDWIN: I understand. LETZ: I think we could follow on that and start talking with interlocal agreement, and having ~-~~-c~ 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,... 2 4 25 them provide the funds to the County for us to keep the deputy there. I think it's a good idea, Commissioner. I think that -- but I think, you know, that's something -- we need to go forward with the grant now, but I think we need to start the communications with the school districts. MR. GRAHAM: And that has been done. I've talked to several of the superintendents, basically seeding at this time. But I just don't want to wait till the last minute and see the program go -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. MR. GRAHAM: -- to the side. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, that we approve the Kerr County Sheriff's Department to apply for a COPS in Schools grant program for a three-year period, starting with the 2004/2005 school year. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next item is the consideration and discussion for approval of Kerr County Sheriff's Department applying for Universal 4-~9-G3 64 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 Hiring Program through the COPS office, which would enable the Department to supplement the current sworn force, noting that a minimum of 25 percent match is required. MR. GRAHAM: That is a -- it's similar to the COPS grant, but it's a yearly match on the 25 percent. The Sheriff -- of course, we're always wanting more personnel. We've come a long way in the last three years and provided good services to the County with what we've got. Unfortunately, the more services we provide, in any county that's growing, the more that is r_eeded. Currently, our investigative staff, we have six in there that are doing a very -- extremely well, along with our patrol division and all that. But, you know, it's -- it's out there. Our r_oncept of it is that we would be spending one dollar to make four. If -- you know, depeliding on how the Commissioners feel, trying to save as much taxpayer money as we can, because the county is growing; eventually we're going to have to add more personnel. This just seems like an advantageous way to do it at this time. And the way the federal funds are at this time -- this grant just opened up recently, and the way the federal funding is going, who knows how long we're going to be able to apply for grants or how long those moneys are going to be there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the timing of this? 4-~~-Oi 65 1 ' 2 3 4 5 H 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GRAHAM: This is a yearly -- this one would last three years, the same as the other one, and we would have to either renew or drop it in that fourth year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: When would the -- would it coincide with our budget? Hiring? MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. The cutoff date on this is for the -- applying is June 6th, and usually you -- it's been my experience, within two to three months you get the answer, yes or no, from the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What would the personnel -- would they be patrol deputies? Investigation? MR. GRAHAM: Of course, the Sheriff and I have a little bit different points of view. And I apologize; he had to be out of town, and I was -- JUDGE TINLEY: He loses. MR. GRAHAM: -- was notified this morning -- sir? JUDGE TINLEY: He loses. You win. MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. I love him to death. We have different points of view, but basically, I guess in the long run, we see the same thing. We do need personnel in the Investigations, depending on how many, you know, we could apply for. I would think one to Investigations and two to the streets, or to the Patrol Division. Patrol is answering more calls. And, of course, Investigations is 9-^~-03 66 1 ^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 handling more investigations. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a -- I guess if we apply for the grant, I guess, what -- do we know what we're going to get? I guess, is there a way to get out of it if we've received it? MR. GRAHAM: Once they awara it, you ao not have to accept it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. 'Cause I think it needs to be taken up with the overall scope of our budget, but I think it's a good idea to go ahead and apply for it. We'11 also be -- we'll be into our budget process by the time we find out. JUDGE TINLEY: We could decline if it appears that it's going to be too onerous on our -- on our budgeting. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not only look at the impact -- or look what it does to our budget this year, but in the long-term. And -- you know, and what is our -- you know, if we're looking at adding on four employees -- did you say four? MR. GRAHAM: Three. T'll take four, though, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know you would. We're talking about adding on three employees here. It may be the long-term plan that we're really thinking about 4-~8-03 67 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 adding on five. So, is this the proper way to go to reach that goal? I guess we really need to sit down with the Sheriff and have a long-term type plan and -- MR. GRAHAM: Well, according to the projections of the Long-Term Planning Committee, which is to add more personnel -- of course, you know, I've got a pretty simple mind for a simple country boy, but if somebody else is going to pay for most of it, I can't see where we could lose on it. JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to add them anyway. MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would this pay the salaries of officers you hired because of attrition? In other words, could this be used even though you don't increase the total planning level? MR. GRAHAM: No, sir, you can't sub-plan this. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You have to add? MR. GRAHAM: You have to add. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we approve the Sheriff's Department's plan for the Universal Hiring Program. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by 9-" h-U 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 68 Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, that we approve the Kerr County Sheriff's Department applying for Universal Hiring Program by a grant through the COPS office, which would enable the Department to supplement the current sworn force. Is there any further discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. It's knocking on the door of 10:30. Why don't we take about, oh, 10 minutes and reconvene about 20 of, and we'll get through the rest of this agenda. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you. (Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We will reconvene the meeting of the Commissioners Court. scheduled for this date. Next item is consideration and discussion of conveyance of Indian Creek structure to the City of Ingram. Mr. Motley? MR. MOTLEY: There's not much to say on that, except that last page that's paper-clipped to it is just informational. That's not part of the quitclaim deed. That's that thing that's been going on for quite some time, and if you want to sign the original, I'll make sure it gets .-~8-u3 1 --~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,-- 2 4 25 69 to the City Attorney over there so they can get it on their agenda for their next meeting, accept that or whatever they do. Not a whole lot to say about it, I don't suppose. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, I have a question. Does the county road now begin at the end of the bridge where the asphalt begins? MR. MOTLEY: It -- well, if you look, there's actually a property description there. Go back one page. There's a property description on that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I saw that. MR. MOTLEY: That's exactly -- all that we're making no claim to any more, so anything that's outside of that that adjoins that would be -- yeah, I think that's exactly right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, probably where the asphalt begins would be the county -- actual county road? MR. MOTLEY: I would assume that that would be asphalt. It may be the structure underneath. Now, as I understand it, the surveyor is describing the -- this is the land underneath the river, along with all this thing, so it could be some substructure that's on there, as opposed to asphalt. I would assume that's -- but that is going to give them the structure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bridge abutments? Is that what you're saying? 4-~~-r; 1 --~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,-. 25 70 MR. MOTLEY: Yes. Any supporting structure of the bridge that goes down, touches the bottom. Might be wider or longer than the asphalt travels the surface. But -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. MOTLEY: Okay? That should take care of that. I'm not -- anyway, that -- and this actually is riot part of the deed; that's just for information. I don't know what else. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm glad we're able to save Indian Creek. Appreciate your work, and -- MR. MOTLEY: No big deal. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- County Attorney Edwards' work. MR. MOTLEY: Well, the holdup on the thing was we were going to quitclaim the bridge, but really, you know, to give them the bridge, you got to give them -- quitclaim the dirt on which it lies. And -- and, you know, so that was a holdup to get the survey on that, so that's where we are. Anything else? Nope? Only five minutes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does this take a motion? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move we make the 4-~R-fi 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 71 conveyance of Indian Creek structure to the City of Ingram. JUDGE TINLEY: By quitclaim deed? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's made and seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Baldwin, respectively, that Kerr County convey by quitclaim deed the Indian Creek Bridge structure to the City of Ingram. Any further discussion? A11 in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item on the agenda is consideration and discussion of the resolution in support of House Bill 2191 before the current Legislature. Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda at the request of Linda Uecker. It's a bill that she has been working on, and I support it; I think it's a good bill. It basically -- the background -- this gives the details, but it is legislation that enables counties to go after the money convicted felons are -- I guess fees, court costs, things of that nature, levied against them. It allows a stronger mechanism for the court -- district courts or the counties' collections departments to go after those funds -~s-o3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ G G 23 24 --- 25 72 when they get released from incarceration. JUDGE TINLEY: By way of background, the current mechanism in place for fines and fees due to Kerr County to be collected if they're misdemeanor cases, and our Collections Department has been very, very active in doing that and pursuing the collectior_ of those funds. What we don't have in place under state law is a procedure whereby some of these fines and fees that are due from convicted felons may be collected. This is -- this bill implements or would implement a procedure whereby Kerr County, on a case-by-case basis, would have the option of -- of going after these -- these convicted felons that owe fines or fees to Kerr County. The option being there so that in the event it's a small amount, we wouldn't be out the expense of putting a detainer on them at the -- at the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and being out the expense of bringing them back to Kerr County. But, rather, if there was a sufficient amount involved, that we could make that option selective and go after a convicted felon who's due to be released, and then -- and then pursue our recommendation to collect those. So, essentially, that's where we are. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Decker, do you have anything else to add? MS. DECKER: Well, since I didn't hear the 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 73 first part, do you have any questions? Or -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could you guess how much this -- if this law was passed and we implement it in good fashion, how much we might expect to collect? MS. UECKER: Well, that's going to be a tough determination, depending on what type of procedures we set up, of course, but I would guess the first year probably would not be as great as those to follow. But, you know, I'm thinking we could collect more than -- between 50 and 100 thousand the first year. The good news is, I was a little bit worried it wasn't going to get a hearing, and it still may not, but I did receive word last Thursday or Friday from my secret source at the Capitol that the State Comptroller is doing a statewide fiscal note on it for judiciaries as part of the appropriations package. So, I mean, they are taking a serious look at it. And Shyra Darg in Terry Keel's office even said, you know, "Linda, this may not -- this bill may not even require a hearing. They may just take it to the House floor and vote on it." Which would be a great compliment to us that -- I don't think I've ever had a bill do that. So, I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that we can -- we can get it done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I make a motion to support the resolution. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 9-~8-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,.-_ 2 4 25 74 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioner Letz and Williams, respectively, that we support the resolution in support of House Bill 2191. Is there any further discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. If I might, I'd just like to thank our District Clerk, for one, for following up on -- following through on this bill, but also on this -- just keeping, you know, me and I presume the rest of the Court informed on what's kind of going on in the Legislature. It's difficult to track it, and she's done a real good job really keeping, I think, the County aware of what is pending and what the impact of those bills are going to be to the County, so thank you for that. MS. UECKER: Thank you, Jonathan. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Great. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item on the agenda, discuss and consider a review and report from the third party administrator and insurance representatives on Kerr County's pending reimbursement for a claim paid by Kerr County on behalf of an employee. I put this on the -~5-0~ 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 75 agenda so that we might be apprised of the current status. Back last -- last calendar year, in December, I believe it was, prior to my coming on the Court, the Court advanced $400,000 on a claim on the condition that the third party administrator or the insurance reps or both would pursue reimbursement for those claims, because otherwise we were going to be put in a position of having to either waive it or pursue -- purchase additional coverage in order to keep pursuing reimbursement. And the indication that was received was that there was a belief by the third party administrator that all, or certainly a considerable portion, of that $400,000 would be reimbursed. And I guess the question, Mr. Rothwell, is where's the money? MR. ROTHWELL: Where's the money? We'll talk about that. I'm Ray Rothwell with Employee Benefit Administrators, and we are the third party administrator for the County's partially self-funded plan. With your permission, I'd like to take us back to last November-December very briefly, and then I'll get us to where we are today. We have an insurance plan in place that is partially self-funded, has a $40,000 specific stop-loss with an aggregate coverage behind that. We took over this plan and we bid this plan several years ago now, and one of the -- one of the benefit structures within the plan at that time, andlt's continued to be in the plan through a variety ~-=~-:;~ 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 76 of conversations about benefit changes going forward -- for the most part, those benefit changes have been in the form of increasing deductibles, increasing co-pays, not dealing particularly with the structure of the -- of the benefits themselves. And those -- some of those things have been discussed to try to keep the premiums down. `i'he -- the claim in question, the benefit related to it has a $250,000 plan benefit maximum for that particular benefit, and when we started getting the bills in for -- from the providers for this sequence of events that happened in early September last year, it became clear to us, and I started some conversations with -- with a number of folks in the county that we worked with, and our agents, and -- and a little later with the Court. We knew the -- the claims were going to be substantially above $250,000. We also felt very strongly, and still today feel very strongly, that some of those dollars should not relate to that specific benefit structure; that -- that we should be able to file those as reinsurance claims. When the benefit of $250,000 was paid by the reinsurance company, it was paid 250, minus the 40 specific, plus about $6,200 of some minor claims that happened leading up to that hospital stay. This was kind of a unique situation, in that this individual had had virtually no medical bills prior to -- prior to -- to the problems he ~-~~-„s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 subsequently had. Anyway, the 25C was paid right off -- right on the front end, very quickly by the reinsurance company. Again, minus the 40, plus $6,000 or so, they paid $216,000. I visited with the Court, after visiting with some County staff, that it would require a budget amendment to advance some funds if we -- if we and the Commissioners Court deemed that to be an appropriate action. It was deemed that because we didn't really know the dollar values -- I mean, we were getting claims in and that sort of thing, so it was deemed to -- the County Commissioners Court approved an advance of up to $400,000 to cover bills that we felt should be covered -- we, as the administrators, felt should be covered in that -- in that process. So, we got -- we had a subsequent meeting after the Commissioners Court to -- with the then County Judge, with the Auditor, the Treasurer, and one of the representatives from the insurance agency, and the County did in fact give us a $400,000 check to be used for this specific set of events. Part of the good news is, this morning I gave the Treasurer $141,900 and change back out of the 400. We've kept that isolated, so we have returned 141 -- almost $142,000 of that $400,000 back as of today. We actually Have paid out about $258,000 out of that 400. I kept that isolated in a separate fund within our -- under our fiduciary control, and we've paid out that 258. We have 4-~fi-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 appealed with the reinsurance carrier twice, and in both cases they've deemed all of the bills to be related to that specific benefit. We still disagree with that. We have the Methodist Hospital in San Antonio that, about a month and a half ago, agreed to join us in the appeal. We finally got, last week on Wednesday, I believe -- it could have been Tuesday, but I believe it was Wednesday -- the Methodist outline of the sequence of events from September 3rd through September 11th, and they are a little more ambitious about -- about where the -- what categories those moneys should be applied to than probably we are. We felt like through about the 6th or potentially the 7th of September, we could justify those moneys, these days, and the costs related to those days as being not. related to that specific benefit, but to -- to a general set of benefits that would be lifesaving, just hospital stay due to the conditions, and that's why we paid 258 rather than 400 or some other number. We -- we had -- I had the claim reviewed twice after the fact internally in our shop by a senior processor and by our claims manager, and we felt like the 258 was a -- was a sound number that we could justify getting most of the money back from. The -- the reinsurance carrier -- and I have other business with them; they're very strong. They're -- it's Union Labor Life Insurance Company. They're an extremely solvent, very, very healthy company. 4 - ~ - 0 ? 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .~ 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ^ 24 25 They've taken the position, because of the facility that the person was transferred into and the type of equipment and procedures used, they were all related to that specific benefit, and that's been their position on two occasions. We, last week, received from Methodist Hospital kind of a sequential listing of what they felt like they were doing, and their feeling was all the way up to the 11th should not be related to that benefit. To me, that`s not realistic. We -- I don't think that the outline and the opinion they've put -- that they have expressed would -- would be a true and accurate set of -- set of events that would be used to determine the -- the procedures they did as non-related to the benefits that we're specifically talking about. I suspect that within the next 30 days, we should hear back from this third appeal. I would hope that we could get some portion or the majority of the $258,000 back. But at the meeting we had where we got the $400,000 released after the Commissioners Court meeting, I again emphasized that while we've got a great track record on recovering reinsurance dollars, there's no guarantees in this, because it's a very specific sequence of events related to a very specific benefit, not as general. as many of them are. And -- and I think, at that meeting, it was again voiced from the Commissioners Court meeting that the County had some responsibilities, had some -- had some ~-~~-o~ 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reasons to pay the money and hope to get it back and that sort of thing. With that, I'm open to questions, if anyone has anything more specific that they'd like to -- yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ray, we appropriated $400,000 -- MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- thus far. You have spent 258 of the 400; is that correct? MR. ROTHWELL: And returned the 141, 9 back to the County, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which leaves 142 unspent from the original 400; is that correct? MR. ROTHWELL: That's true, and that's the moneys returned today. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the disposition of that 142? MR. ROTHWELL: It's back in your County treasury as of today. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus the 191? MR. ROTHWELL: I'm not sure where the 191 is coming from. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said you reimbursed $191,000, sir. Isn't that what you said? MR. ROTHWELL: No, sir. I said that -- that the reinsurance company paid the $250,000 benefit, minus the 81 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 $40,000 specific, plus about $6,200 of earlier claims. So, they've -- the reinsurance company has paid about -- paid 216 thousand -- MS. NEMEC: 285. MR. ROTHWELL: That $216,285, the reinsurance company paid. We have, in addition to that, paid $258,084.02. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. ROTHWELL: And that's the money -- that $258,000 is the money in question now that we are appealing for a third time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I -- MR. ROTHWELL: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: -- if I understand this. MR. ROTHWELL: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: The Court authorized the payment of $400,000 at -- at your suggestion. MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: Back in December, I believe it was. Is that correct? MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ttie 9th. MR. ROTHWELL: That suggestion -- may I comment on that? 4-~fi-03 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Surely. MR. ROTHWELL: That suggestion was -- we -- I presented two options. I said, one, if we wanted to buy a -- an insurance contract that was approximately $270,000 lower, wP could fund this money in advance and pay it prior to January 1st. If we didn't want to fund the money, then it was my recommendation for us to spend an extra $270,000 for this 12-month period to pick up that gap, that -- that gap of coverage. JUDGE TINLEY: That would have purchased an additional three months in which to attempt to negotiate the -- MR. ROTHWELL: No, it would have purchased claims that were incurred during that time period. That would roll forward into the current contract. It would be a 15/12 type contract -- we talked about that with Commissioners Letz -- back then, rather than a 12/12 contract that the County has traditionally purchased. And the County Judge runs -- typically runs 75 to 100 -- about $150,000 reserve in their insurance account, so it's always been deemed and approved by the Court to be -- to be the best buy for the County, would be that 12/12 contract, and that's the reason I -- you know, one way of looking at that is we're about $20,000 better off than we would have been if we'd have soent the 270. ? - 3 - U i 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: But, at the time it occurred and the decision was made to expend the $400,000 with the hopes of getting it back, you indicated at that time that you thought that we will get the majority of that $400,000 back, if not all of it; that your track record said that you'll get it all back, and that you believed that you would. MR. ROTHWELL: And I still believe we'll get some of that money back. JUDGE TINLEY: So, you paid the $400,000. MR. ROTHWELL: No, sir, we paid $258,000. JUDGE TINLEY: So, you never actually paid the 400; you only paid 258? MR. RCTHWELL: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah. When we went through -- when we -- when I said, "Okay, guys, this is the deal," back in our shop, "I want to make sure that what we're paying is, in our opinion, not specific benefits related to this restricted benefit," and so when we did that, rather than $400,000, we needed $258,000 and change. JUDGE TINLEY: So, the 142 was never actually paid out? MR. ROTHWELL: It was never paid out; it's been maintained in a -- in your account with us. -~~-o~, 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. We transferred it into the reserve account with you as third party administrator? MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now, you mentioned we're now on the third appeal, I believe? MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ROTHWELL: And we've finally got the hospital to join in with us and give us more substantive data than they provide in medical records. JUDGE TINLEY: Explain to me the appeals process and the levels of appeals and where those take place, before whom they take place, and the time frames under which they take place, if you would, please. MR. ROTHWELL: Okay. There's really no time frame for stopping it, as long as you keep it active. The appeals are all done by letter, phone conversations and that sort of thing. At this -- at this point, the first two appeals have been at a management level within -- within Union Labor Life below the vice president level. This third appeal will be appealed with -- with that person involved in it. When we sent our first appeal, they went out to their medical peer review that would -- that are specialists in this particular set of benefits, and their review came back 4-^~5-iii 85 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and said, "We think all those dollars, because of where they put that person and the type equipment and providers they were using, were related specifically to that benefit." We had -- prior to us paying the 258, I sent that off to another utilization company that we use a lot, and just asked them for a cursory review; not an in-depth, we're going to pay some money to do this review. Their opinion was the guy was very definitely a candidate for that procedure. That they felt like the procedure itself was done appropriately, and that they weren't going to make a comment on the costs related to the benefit -- restricted benefit level, since they weren't being involved in that kind of a rPView. Methodist Hospital has come back with an independent peer review that says they believe the majority of the dollars, at least those dollars we're asking for, were not directly related to the benefit, even though the person was in that specific unit and things were being done for him that would normally be done in delivery of that benefit. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: In anticipation of it? MR. ROTHWELL: In anticipation of it. And that's -- that's -- that's the down side of it. And that`s the part that -- that I was a little disappointed that the hospital records came back trying to push it all the way up to the day before the procedure happened. I felt like it 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 would be -- 1 felt like we would be in a much better position to push for the -- through the 6th or maybe into the 7th day of September, and try to get those dollars back. That's what we've paid. We haven't paid anything past that. We felt like that 250 picked up at that point and went forward. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you finished, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is -- I think you've gone over this in December, but if you'd go over it again? MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Explain how the $250,000 stop-loss works. MR. ROTHWELL: The $250,000 stop-loss -- it's really a $1 million stop-loss, or it's a spec of 40 and above in this one case; 40 with no cap on it, actually. The plan document in the -- in the benefit plan documents that Kerr County has for their employees has a specific limitation of $250,000 total for the benefit related to this set of -- this sequential set of events. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That limit -- that's the limit that our -- MR. ROTHWELL: That's not a stop-loss limit, per se. That's the limit your plan -- your policy -- ~-~~-G~ 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Contract limit. MR. ROTHWELL: -- your contract with your employees has. That's where that's arrived at. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ray, help me out one more time. MR. ROTHWELL: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We originally appropriated $400,000. MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You paid out in claims $258,000? MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you said you delivered a check back to the Treasurer today for? MR. ROTHWELL: $141,915.02, or something like that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 141, thank you. MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That represents the un -- MR. ROTHWELL: That's the $400,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- unspent portion? MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 4-~8-03 88 1 --` 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 JUDGE TINLEY: What -- had the -- had that $400,000 not been placed into the reserve account back in December, what would be the situation today? MR. ROTHWELL: The situation today is, on December the 31st at midnight, those funds would not have been chargeable to the reinsurance carrier. The County would not have paid tYiem, so your employee's spouse would be -- would have a debt of $258,000 or $400,000. That person has a debt, in my opinion, whether they're being chased or not. We've heard nothing from them. I don't believe the County staff has heard from them. But that person technically has a debt of $300,000 or $400,000 currently. Again, I don't know if any medical folks are chasing them or whatever. I'm not -- 23 24 ,--. 25 4-gib-03 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's basically JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they've been -- the employee would have had that debt? MR.. ROTHWELL: Yes, the employee's spouse. JUDGE TINLEY: Why the employee`s spouse? MR. ROTHWELL: Well, the employee deceased. The employee would have had the debt; I'll leave it there. JUDGE TINLEY: And/or his estate, if he became deceased? 89 1 ^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ,--~ the underlying reason that the -- that -- JUDGE TINLEY: There would have been no residual liability to Kerr County? MR. ROTHWELL: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who do we contract with for this coverage? MR. ROTHWELL: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who do we contract with for this coverage? MR. ROTHWELL: It's a self-funded plan. We, Employee Benefit Administrators, are the third-party administrator to administer your health insurance plan. We annually go out and shop the market for reinsurance coverage to get the best price available for the reinsurance, and we shop with eight or nine carriers. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have a contractual relationship with that reinsurance carrier? MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, you do. JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. MR. ROTHWELL: Any other questions? 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the contractual relationship that we're under appeal on now to try and recover from. MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. 4-~~-03 90 1 ^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 1i 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,,_, 2 4 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The 258. MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. Yeah, that -- that reinsurance contract is -- is not with my company; it's directly with the County. The County signs that contract each year. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if we have a quarrel about this $258,000 -- I guess that's what the issue is -- it's the reinsurance company that we would look to, to -- MR. ROTHWELL: Well, I guess, yeah, there's two options. That would be one of them. The other one would be to ask the hospital for a refund of those overpayments, and -- and see if we can get those overpayments back. At that point, they're denied as benefits by the reinsurance carrier. Then we might consider going back -- and, again, that would be something we would discuss with y'all, the various options available. But -- but that would be one of the two options. The other would be Kerr County's legal assault on Union Labor Life Insurance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what's your best assessment now as to our ability to recover any part of the 258? MR. ROTHWELL: I'm not sure I want to make a best assessment. I believe that we have a strong position -_~-o~ 1 ~-' 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 91 to get some of those moneys back, r.ow that the hospital has joined us in -- joined with us, I wish the hospital hadn't done it the way they did, but that's what they did and that's what they wanted to do and that's all they would do, would be to push it all the way through the 11th of September, and I think that's a stretch. That may put us into a negotiating place with Union Labor, so -- you know, we have a great relationship with Union Labor. I mean, it's unfortunate that we had this here, but we've got some other groups with them, and we do have a -- a very open, candid relationship with Union Labor Life. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions about this matter of Mr. Rothwell? Mr. Finley, coo you have any comments that you wish to make with regard to this? I guess technically you're the representative, as the agent for the -- the reinsurance carrier; is that correct? MR. FINLEY: We are the ones that brought E.B.A. and the County together to serve as third-party administrators. The only comment I have is that, having worked with E.B.A. for, oh, 12 to 15 years now, I can say that they've gone to bat for clients in every -- every occasion where there's been any event where we needed a negotiator. They've been very good at pushing the insurance companies to the limit of the contract. We have complete confidence in their ability. The policy has, obviously, a 4-"d-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 92 limitation within it. It's this gray area of interpretation abcut how mach of that was actually related to the event and how much of the expenses could have actually been covered under other policy provisions. And this third appeal that is being made at this time, I think, will be the -- possibly the finial resolution of that. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have any questions for Mr. Finley? Thank you. We appreciate you being here today. Is there any further -- any further discussion or questions concerning this? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just an observation, Judge. This -- this seems irregular, I guess, is the right term. AS an employee, if I have an insurance claim and the insurance company doesn't pay it, I can't look to my employer to pay it. I have to look to the insurance company to pay it. Why do we take on the -- the responsibility of paying this claim? JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have a response to that question? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd like to hear again from either Tommy or Mr. Rothwell, who made the original presentation. It's a fair question. You need to hear the answer. What were the compelling reasons why we had to do it? 25 ~ MR. ROTHWELL: I guess I'll do that, since -~'R-n3 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~, 24 25 you didn't jump up and offer, Tommy. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't remember the details of it. MR. ROTHWELL: I'm kidding. I guess the compelling reasons was probably two, and I'm going to say "probably," because I can't answer that any more definitively than that. Number one, we were looking at a renewal insurance policy that gave us two options. One of the options was about $270,000 less cost for the exact same coverage with -- but a -- but not that three-month run-in period. We felt comfortable because of the funds available in that -- in the -- in the insurance account at that time, that we didn't really need to worry about the three-month run-in. We had money available in reserves, and that had stayed in that account. And that account is a trust fund; it's got employment mixed with employer money, and it's an employee benefit account, so it's a trust fund. It can't be used for dump trucks and things like that. So, one option was to spend $270,000 to pick up some of that money, or to advance up to $400,000, with the intent of getting the majority of it back. And I think the County, on the other hand, including the Commissioners, and -- and there's at least three of you still here, and maybe y'all can remember some of that. There was a feeling of County responsibility for paying its employees' debts to the maximum extent 4-2~-0~ 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 possible to the level of benefits. We then believed, and I continue to believe, that all of those dollars that were billed were not related to -- to that particular set of benefits. Unfortunately, the reinsurer has taken the position that they believe it's all related, and a case can be made for that because of where the fellow was and the type equipment and procedures used. A case can be made for it. JUDGE TINLEY: In fact, they had -- they had taken that position when the decision was made for the advancement of the $400,000, I think, had they not? MR. ROTHWELL: Not officially. They -- they had not officially taken that position, but they had indicated that they might. We didn't have an official opinion from them until we provided all the records, which were after the fact. JUDGE TINLEY: Of course, the third option at the time it was presented, other than extending the coverage or paying the claim -- MR. ROTHWELL: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- would have been to do nothing. MR. ROTHWELL: To do nothing. And that -- JUDGE TINLEY: And then the employee and/or his family and/or estate, as the case may be -- -~-n~ 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 95 MR. ROTHWELL: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- would then be in the position of being in a dispute with that -- as a covered employee under that reinsurance contract. MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah. And I really -- Judge, I don't really believe that option was discussed much at all. I mean, I don't Yiave a -- a memory of that being discussed as a third option. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It wasn't. MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah, I don't think so. JUDGE TINLEY: But it was an option. MR. ROTHWELL: But it would have been an option, yes, had it have been brought forward. JUDGE TINLEY: In your experience, has it been customary in -- in acting as third party administrator for groups in which there is reinsurance such as this, with claims-paid coverage, for the employer, in the event of a disputed claim, to step forward and pay the claim on behalf of the employee, as it were, and to then seek reimbursement? Is that usual and customary, in your experience? MR. ROTHWELL: It happens. One of the -- one of the advantages of a self-funded plan versus a fully insured plan is the employers -- employers have the ability to make some decisions related to claims outside of that contract arena, and it happens frequently. It -- it happens -_a-o_ 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 very frequently that employer units will advance funds, because in the reinsurance business, to file a specific insurance claim -- and I think we covered this back earlier -- the claim has to be prepaid. You can't not pay the claim and then try to get reinsurance to pay it. You have to prepay it, and that's the reason -- that's one of the reasons we came forward and asked the County to consider advancing the money. Compounded with that was, we were -- we were in the -- in the late November, early December stage where the contract was going to be ending December 31, and if we didn't do anything, that third option would -- would have automatically invoked itself. JUDGE TINLEY: But it's your experience that in -- in self-funded plans where there's reinsurance contracts -- MR. ROTHWELL: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: -- that it is quite common for the employer to pay the disputed portion on behalf of the employee? MR. ROTHWELL: No. In my memory of the last several years, we've never -- we, my company, has never had a disputed claim of this nature with a restricted benefit that we would ask to be paid for, that we would ask for consideration on it. So, that's not a common, everyday occurrence. Advanced funding and filing for reinsurance on ~-~a-o3 97 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 benefit structures is a very common, everyday occurrence. But, to use your words, disputed benefits of disputed claims, that's not -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, maybe my terminology is not correct. I think what I'm trying to get to is Commissioner Nicholson's question -- MR. ROTHWELL: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: -- about the employer stepping into the breach where, rather than the employee suffering the loss if there is an ultimate determination that it is not a covered expense, which means it's not covered under the plan or under the contract in this case, the employer is suffering that. MR. ROTHWELL: Yes. And -- I'm sorry, go JUDGE TINLEY: And, like Commissioner Nicholson said, that doesn't seem like a normal thing. If the plan covers it, fine. If it doesn't, you're on your own. MR. ROTHWELL: Well, that's what I've said. In response to your direct question, that's not -- on a disputed claims issue, that's not something you would normally do. In our opinion at the time, and in our opinion today, some of those dollars should not be disputed. Some of them are. And I think I made that pretty reasonably 3-~~-.,~ 98 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .-,. 2 4 25 clear, that we've had a great track record on recovering dollars. If we don't recover the majority of this, it will be the first for us. We run into a 90 to 100 percent bracket virtually always, but we also aren't into the kind of gray area with the kinds of procedures that were done during a very short period of time. JUDGE TINLEY: Does that answer your question? Any further questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the resolution? MR. ROTHWELL: I suppose the resolution -- we're waiting for the results of this third appeal. Depending on that, and depending on where I can take that in a short period of time afterwards, I guess the resolution would be coming back to this body and saying, "Here's the situation. What do you guys want to do?" COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ray, are we talking about 2003? 2012? MR. ROTHWELL: Well, you know, one of the resolutions to this specific thing that we tried to do last year was to buy a fully insured policy for that specific benefit, but at that time we had someone on the same list, and so there was not a policy purchasable for that, quote, transplant benefit list. Now we're in a position of where, at renewal time, we will be recommending to the County that ~-~,~-o~ 99 1 --~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we package with this reinsurance umbrella a fully insured transplant policy. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When is it renewable? MR. ROTHWELL: January 1. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: January 1. Will we know if we're going to get our money back before January 1? MR. ROTHWELL: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about 2003, possibly knowing what the resolution is going to be. Talking about 30 days from now? Or -- MR. ROTHWELL: I'm hoping we'll know something, Commissioner, in 30 days. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In 30 days. MR. ROTHWELL: I mean, I can't guarantee 30 days, but I will tell you that we're pushing it very, very hard. And I've got a phone conference -- phone schedule to talk to one of the upper management -- upper echelon management folks with Union Labor hopefully today or tomorrow. He was out last week and the week before. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, Judge, question to the County Auditor. These moneys came from the Indigent Health Care line? MR. TOMLIIQSON: No, they didn't. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No? MR. TOMLINSON: No. _-^_8-03 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where'd they come MR. TOMLINSON: Thev -- the funds came from surplus funds out of the -- out of the General Fund. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did you say General Fund? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought they were going to come -- were coming out of Indigent funds. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought so, too. The minutes reflect that. MR. TOMLINSON: At that time, we didn't have the cash to pay $400,000, so we had no choice but to pay it out of -- out of -- we actually -- we wrote the check from the clearing account for -- for claims -- or for the County's portion of our health insurance coverage. It shows up in our balance sheet as receivable right now, is what it amounts to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this is kind of confusing, because the motion that this Court adopted, made by Commissioner Letz and seconded by Commissioner Baldwin and approved by the Court, was the transfer not to exceed $400,000 from Indigent Health Care budget for purposes of paying the medical reimbursement. So -- MR. TOMLINSON: The -- 4-~?3-U_ 101 1 .- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-~ 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Indigent Health Care. MR. TOMLINSON: The funds weren't there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They weren't there? MR. TOMLINSON: They weren't there. The -- we did not -- we had not collected enough taxes at that point to have the cash available to make a payment from medical -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if that was the case, I think -- and I think we still need to do this. This needs to go back and be corrected, because there's no authority to take the money out of any other fund. I mean, 'cause our motion was very -- my motion was very specific, and I think that needs to be -- from an audit standpoint, we need to go back, then, at our next meeting and, you know, change where the money came from. JUDGE TINLEY: Why -- why would we have to do that at the next meeting? Now that there -- now that the resources are available, which I assume they are, should not it be corrected and done in accordance with the court order that was passed? I'm -- my question is, do we need to take any further action on it? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there's a way to correct that. We can transfer the -- we would have had to transfer the funds from the General Fund to Indigent Health Care anyway. I mean, that -- and, essentially, that's what ~-~d-c~ 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 happened. We just -- we just didn't transfer the money. We would have had to come back to court to get authority to transfer the funds from the General Fund to the Indigent Health Care. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see that. I just -- it just seems to me that I -- one, the Court's order was very -- very specific, so it's got to be corrected to fit what was -- you know, what we were able to do. But the -- and I'm going on memory, 'cause I really didn't read that carefully this part of the minutes, but the reason we did that was to keep from increasing the budget artificially. It appears now we may need to -- it won't be artificially increasing the budget; we will be increasing the budget, possibly. But the reason we took it out of Indigent Health Care was to keep from, in the future years, when we go back and look at the budget, of having a 5400,000 blip that really was not a real expenditure item, and I think it -- in my mind, it inflates the budget. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don`t see the need to -- to change -- to inflate the budget until we know the outcome. I mean, I look at this $400,000 as a -- as a deposit -- as a -- and not as an expenditure until we know the final outcome of the -- you know, the situation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: However, in the 4-~8-0? 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 lU3 meantime, if Indigent Health Care line item is overextended, does that create a problem? MR. TOMLINSON: It would at the end of the year. We'd have -- we'd have to -- we need to -- we either need to have the money back, or increase the budget by the end of the year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if the money's not coming out of Indigent Health Care, we need to get it ors the agenda to fix the court order that was passed. Or -- JUDGE TINLEY: Either that, or the appropriate -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or take the money out of Indigent Health Care now. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are the only options. MR. TOMLINSON: I don`t have a -- my balance sheet with me, but I don't think the money`s there now, either. JUDGE TINLEY: When this was first brought to my attention, Commissioner, I -- I remembered the $400,000 from Indigent Health Care, and as I continued to see the expenditures for Indigent Health Care, I thought we're bound to be out of money, so I called and verified the balance, and we were a long way from being out of money. That's what 9-~8-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 ran up the red flag. That's how we got to where we are today. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't have a problem. I think, clearly, counting it as receivable makes sense. My concern is that we make sure the court order and -- and where the money -- you know, match what was done. Otherwise -- 'cause I have a hard time remembering what happened in December already, much less a year from now when we're trying to figure out what was done. But I'll leave it up -- I'll put it in the Judge's hands, if we need to do anything at the next meeting to adjust the funds. JUDGE TINLEY: Guess we'll discuss that as an agenda item, won't we? Any further questions on this matter? Let's move on, then, to the next item, Number 16, consider and discuss Mandated Provider Agreement for physicians, pharmacies, and other agencies providing services to the Indigent Health Care program, and authorize County Judge to sign same. I put this on the agenda because we had a contract come in for -- under the Indigent Health Care program for provider care, and that prompted me to take a look at what we had in the way of contracts in being, and I did find a contract in being for the hospital, but it was wide-open everywhere else. Acid I think -- and this is going to tie in with the HIPAA thing a little bit later, and probably real strongly in the future, but I -- I think what 4-~~-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~--. 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,-. 25 105 we need is, we need to move forward to work with -- with all of our health care providers under the Indigent Health Care program, whether it be collectively under the hospital and whoever is on staff over there as a provider under their contract, or whether we have separate, individual provider contracts with those persons providing health care services to our Indigent Health Care program, and we need to have those contracts in place. And I guess what I'm seeking is a direction from the Court to work with the County Attorney, as though he didn't have enough things to do already, to work on developing those -- those contracts, and probably ultimately bringing the contracts back to the Court for approval once we -- once we got a stack of them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I've always seen this a little different. Obviously, I've been mistaken, but I thought that we would simply have a contract with the hospital, and then whatever they're required to do -- I mean, they are the payee of all the -- MR. TOMLINSON: Not always. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not always? MR. TOMLINSON: We pay all kind of vendors in Kerr County for indigent health care; pharmacies, doctors -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This list here in the -- JUDGE TINLEY: Laboratories. ~-~~-~~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 COMMISSIONER BALDWIPI: That we pay? JUDGE TINLEY: There's all sorts of various health care providers. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where do they get the care? I mean, do they -- I'll pick on Dr. Speck; he's on the list. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they go to his office to get this, and it's just on their own? They just decide, well, I'm injured; I don't have any money, and I want to get something done, so I'm going to go see Dr. Speck? How does it work? MR. TOMLINSON: They have to get qualified first. COMMISSIONER LETZ: By the hospital, or -- MR. TOMLINSON: By our employee. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our employee at the hospital? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're not -- the service they get has nothing to do with the hospital? MR. TOMLINSON: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And once they get qualified, they can go anywhere they want? MR. TOMLINSON: As long as -- as long as -~a-o3 1 2 3 4 5 6 -, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 there's an agreement with that provider. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we don't have an agreement with that provider right now, so how do they get -- how'd they get the service done? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're operating under custom and practice that's evolved over a period of years. And that's the whole point. I think we need to get these agreements in place. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I -- you know, unless we want to go all the way -- if we have to go to every one of these people and get an agreement, I think it`s a total waste of, I mean, their time, the County Attorney's time, our time, clerk's time. And I can't imagine -- and let's go pick on Harris County -- that Harris County Commissioners Court has a contract with every doctor and medical association in Harris County. I -- that isn`t true. I know that isn't true. Therefore, we need to find out -- there's got to be a different way to do it other than going to every health provider. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I went to Dr. Speck and got my bill paid. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I went to Dr. Speck and got by bill denied. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, just -- ~-za-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 72 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to Dr. Speck. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm with you, Buster. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, I can't imagine that this is how other counties do this. There`s got to be some way we can enter into -- some way. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, Commissioner, a lot counties have county hospitals, and when you have a -- when you have a public hospital, you don't have an indigent health care program. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct, too. That is true. JUDGE TINLEY: This whole thing was prompted by my office receiving in the mail from a pharmacy a proposed health care provider contract. Now, what -- what has happened in the past on a lot of -- of doctors is that they've been piggybacked onto the -- the hospital contract, because they are -- they have staff privileges at this hospital, so they pick those up with them under the hospital contract. But, still, as Tommy's indicated, there are a number of other health care providers independent of that; you know, physical therapy services, pharmacies, other clinics -- especially the clinics, labs. MR. TOMLINSON: A lot of them are -- I think some are -- some of the recipients are referred to these --~'~-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 109 providers via the hospital, because of -- JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure they are. MR. TOMLINSON: -- because a lot of them are treated through the hospital's emergency room. A lot of them are. And so, for that reason, they`re -- those providers are -- are piggybacking on the hospital's contract. JUDGE TINLEY: There's some -- I'm sorry, go ahead. Ms. Sovil had something. MS. SOVIL: In the early '90's, we had a hospital agreement that had a physician`s agreement attached to it. It was two -- it was one contract, but that was inclusive of two things. We had a contract with every pharmacy that was a provider, and the physicians were the ones that could practice at the hospital, unless they were referred by one of those physicians for a specialty. That was the only way they got paid. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the physicians had a contract with the hospital, or physicians had a contract with us? MS. SOVIL: Well, it was a double contract. It was a hospital contract., and then they -- they made their agreement, and then they had what they called a physician's agreement. And it -- those were the physicians that were allowed to practice at this hospital. But I was talking to - ~ R - U 3 110 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 Scott, and they don't do that any more. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Scott? MS. SOVIL: Stehling. He's the attorney for Sid Pete. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Judge, we can cut this short, I think. I'm certainly in favor of you working with the County Attorney and finding the answers to all of these questions and move forward. That's what was asked for. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think that's exactly what I'm asking for. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I'm certainly in favor of it. If you want a court order, I'd even make that motion. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that I need a court order. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that either. JUDGE TINLEY: It's just as much for informational purposes, that we need to go that direction. I think once we have the contracts in place, maybe we'll come back and ask the Court to either approve the contract format, or the specific contracts in a stack or in multiple stacks . COMMISSIONER LETZ: It -- I mean, that's fine -^~-o~ 111 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 do all that, but I'm still going back to the contracts. I mean, so your thinking -- or your plan is to go out and create a contract and send it to every one of these doctors, and then every other doctor that does any work in Kerr County or with any of our patients? And every -- and all that -- I mean, basically, the whole healtYi care industry in Kerr County, we're going to do an annual contract? JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think you have to do an annual contract. You can do a contract, put it in place, and have it -- have it on automatic renewal unless canceled, which is a -- like a number of agreements that we have now. MR. TOMLINSON: Commissioner, one reason you need -- you need a contract with the individual providers is that you need -- you want to make it clear that -- that the provider agrees to accept the tee that's -- that's provided by the State. In other words, the State Indigent Health Care program allows specific amounts for specific drugs, specific procedures that the health care industry provides. They get no more or no less than that amount. And, so -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's not what they bill. It's what the State says -- MR. TOMLINSON: They can bill whatever they want, but they only get that dollar amount. JUDGE TINLEY: Kind of like Medicare. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see a benefit to this - ~ 8 - 0 3 112 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now. MR. TOMLINSON: And so they -- you know, so the provider needs to go into it knowing that that's the case. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, could we -- perhaps we should contact the Texas Association of Counties and see if they've already raised an answer to the question you've got. I'm thinking like you are; I don't think Harris County does it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: May have been. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe TAC has got a solution. JUDGE TINLEX: That certainly would be a consideration of the County Attorney and I as we pursue this question, I'm sure. You know, I don't think he or I, either one, have a desire to reinvent the wheel if it's not necessary. Anything further on that item? Next item, consider and discuss compliance with HIPAA privacy rules by adopting policies and procedures regarding protected health information and authorizing the Judge to sign -- execute agreements of compliance. HIPAA just came down the pike; it was effective two weeks ago, I believe. It applies -- it's a federal bugaboo that controls a lot of health information dissemination, the means of it, and if we fall under any of 9-~8-03 113 1 -^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 the categories that the act applies to, we are obliged to adopt the policies and procedures to see that we comply with the act. At this point, as extensive as the act is, and -- and there's some of the literature in front of you, I think one possibility will be that we -- we designate a HIPAA committee to work on this subject, and in doing that, I would like to have a resource as to whomever that committee might consist of. I don't necessarily mean this Commissioners -- all the Commissioners, but as resources, our -- our third party administrator and -- and other insurance representatives in connection with the health care programs. 24 choice. ..-. 25 4 - ' 8 - U 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Treasurer would be COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a great idea, Judge. I just had this flash in my mind; I could hear me telling my grandkids, "Hey, I'm on the HIPAA committee," you know. And it's just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a volunteer? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. But what -- are we going to appoint a committee today? JUDGE TINLEY: That's an option. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do it. You know, we're talking about the Treasurer. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's a logical 114 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 -- thank you for volunteering; you're a great servant to the community. And who else was it? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Employee Benefit Administrators. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I would definitely want, at least as a resource to this committee, our third party administrator and -- and an insurance representative to be available. I assume they're probably -- they're a little bit more up to speed on this stuff than we are. They've been getting ready for a whole lot longer than we have. MR. MOTLEY: This is something that TAC also robably has some current information on with this amendment, or this amended HIPAA deal. Isn't it -- this is kind of a newer one or more stringent one than the old one. Or are they expanding the coverage or something with this one? JUDGE TINLEY: This is the new one that came down the pike effective -- effective April 14th this year, and there are some phase-in periods, depending upon which manner it applies to you. It can apply to you two or three different ways; health plan -- whether you're a health care provider, all sorts of different ways they can run at you. MR. MOTLEY: I'll check with TAC. JUDGE TINLEY: And that has some q R - n 3 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ?3 24 25 determination as to when you've got to have everything in place. There's also a suggestion that maybe anybody that deals in any of this medical information, you might have to have some training sessions to go on. It's a big brother-bugger. MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, we received a HIPAA agreement from our Indigent Health Care third party administrator. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. TOMLINSON: Have we -- have we negotiated that yet? JUDGE TINLEY: I think that certainly would fall under what we got here. MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's what brought it all to light. That is what brought it all to light. JUDGE TINLEY: One of the things. MR. TOMLINSON: That contract is already available to be approved. I just remembered receiving that from -- from our administrator. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think that's -- that's necessarily the end of what we got to do on that. MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am? MS. NEMEC: Judge, also, the HIPAA part that concerns my office, we're pretty much in compliance with -^~i-G3 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 everything already. I do have to send a privacy notice on it to the employees that we're in the process of doing now, and our third-party administrators are sending us an agreement for you to sign. And our computer doesn't have any codes that we would need to delete or modify for the records to be private. We're already in compliance with that. Now, the jail, the Sheriff's Department, I think they're probably going to have to do something in regards to this. But we're kind of -- we've kind of taken care of it on our end already, and we'll just put it on the agenda for you to sign the agreement next time around, if that's okay. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm tickled to death to know that you -- you guys are much further along on this thing than -- than I had any idea you were, and I -- I appreciate that. You know, we got this stuff right after the last meeting of the court, this alert from Texas Association of Counties, and it was like the federal privacy police were going to be down here banging our door down any minute. And I appreciate your work. MS. NEMEC: As far as health insurance for employees, we're in compliance. But, you know, as far as the providers for indigent and all that, I don't -- I don't know where that is. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Rothwell? MR. ROTHWELL: I'll make a comment that the ?-^R-n3 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 position we've taken -- and most TPA's, through the -- through the various literatures, of course, that we get, most TPA's have decided that we're going to contract with all of our providers -- I'm sorry, all of our vendors, our reinsurance carriers, our utilization review companies, all of those kind of things, and our clients, but we're not going to contract down to the -- excuse me, down to the agent level. Some have made that decision, but most haven't. Because all it says to us is, we don't give, in this case, Finley and Associates any kind of medical information that they don't have a release from that individual for. And, so, once they get that release that says we can tell them what's wrong with Ray Rothwell, then we are then in compliance, and they are also. As far as the County, we don't send any -- we send sensitive information, but not confidential information, per the HIPAA regs, to the Treasurer's office. And, to date, we've not been asked for any sensitive and any confidential information from the Treasurer's office. And none of the reports we send -- nothing that we send to the County violates HIPAA. She's got to be in compliance with HIPAA from the privacy confidentiality with her -- within her office and her filing system, and her computer system most especially, as of the 16th of the month. But, generally, unless you get really nosy and want too much 4-~8-C3 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 information, stuff you really shouldn't have anyway regarding an individual, there's -- the HIPAA compliance is pretty general. It's really a confidentiality statement, is basically what it boils down to, dealing with medical JUDGE TINLEY: I just want to insure -- MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY application of HIPAA -- -- that if there is any MR. ROTHWELL: I agree with you. JUDGE TINLEY: -- to this county, that we're in compliance, so we don't have our big-brother privacy police come in. MR. ROTHWELL: You might be more sensitive in the -- in the issue y'all were talking about with Tommy a few minutes ago in the provider community there. I don't have a clue what kind of information comes from that community back in here to pay a claim, or if that's done by a third party administrator, and you don't get that information from that source either. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the Indigent Health Care you're speaking of. MR. ROTHWELL: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: And I think that comes from a third party administrator also, doesn't it? ~ _~-c~ 119 1 --~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,,,_, 2 4 25 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. We have a contract within this building somewhere, yeah. MR. ROTHWELL: And then, if you had a confidential HIPAA partnership agreement with them, I would have a sense that you're probably covered from that. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have a need to know that information. They -- they process that. MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: Let them worry about the compliance. We never get the information, would be the way to handle that one. MR. ROTHWELL: That's true. And that would be my -- I don't really understand how that works. It works something similar to my system, I'm sure. So -- so, I would -- but I think it's something that, certainly, as Commissioner Letz says, y'all need to be totally aware of. You need to make sure you're not, but once you get those partnership agreements in place and with the administrator of those areas, like our relationship with the Treasurer's office, those relationships have never, ever once, to my knowledge, crossed into a personal medical information-type thing. And that's really what you want to avoid. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, you may want to -- ~-~~-o_~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 or is there a need to involve somebody from the Sheriff's Department? Because of the responsibility that the County has with inmate health care, especially on the indigent side. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got the County enough? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't that close COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's an area that we probably have the most vulnerability or exposure to people -- to the jail population for any kind of lawsuit, I mean, for them to claim we don't do something right. I just want to make sure that they're in the loop, because that's probably the area that we would have our biggest problem with. is not up to the Is that what you M done anything or if they did fall weeks ago I went they do, because COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Barbara made same speed as the rest of our compliance. were referring to? S. NEMEC: Well, I don't know if they have not. I know Tommy had asked the question into the HIPAA regulations, and a couple of to school, and they said that definitely they dispense medication. 4 - g - 0 3 121 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 TINLEY: They're a provider. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway -- and the County Attorney may be able to handle that part of it as to what needs to be done out there. I just don't know. MR. MOTLEY: I think probably -- I think they're on it, and, you know, we do have a County, at least, contract physician who goes out and treats individuals out there in the jail, whether they be indigent health care or not. You know, and I assume that they're probably looking at some sort of deal where they provide these HIPAA warnings or whatever, notification disclosures to them, you know. This -- this jail, on behalf of that doctor, is going to probably provide that, and the nurse -- I don't know what. the nurse does with the information that she -- you know, she puts it in a file, but I think the nurse is probably going to have to -- it may be just a joint disclosure for the nurse and kind of the physician that needs to be given to those persons who are incarcerated who need medical care. I suspect that Rusty -- I wish James were still here; I bet he could tell us where they are on that, but I'll bet you that they're pretty far along on it. I'll be happy to check and let Commissioner Letz know, or whatever y'all would like. JUDGE TINLEY: I think the question was, Commissioner Baldwin was -- was making his little list over -_a-oj 122 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 here. I think he was considering putting a Sheriff's Department representative down there, and I think it's a good point. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 6 on the list. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I assume you have a -- you have a motion that you're getting all stirred up, ready to go? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm pretty exited about it. JUDGE TINLEY: I thought you were. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Before your motion, just one more observation. This -- this document that you provided us, Judge, from Texas Association of Counties -- JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- Page 4 and 5 have 17 points, and I've noted that most of them says the County -- the County may wish to do things, and then three of them -- four of them say the County must or County should. And it occurs to me -- just three of them, three points, we must do or should do something. It occurs to me that between the Personnel officer, the County Treasurer, and the Sheriff, these "must do" or "should do" things could be taken care of pretty easily. JUDGE TINLEY: I hope you're right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As I've gone around 4-~6-03 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,.- 2 4 25 the medical community the last two weeks, I -- well, with my mother, I think she must have signed about five of those privacy -- I've read and received the Privacy Act thing, so that's going to be a -- some activity like that that we're going to have to undertake. But -- MR. MOTLEY: Judge, the Auditor mentioned to me -- and I have not looked at the HIPAA regulation or the definition of persons who would be entitled to these disclosures, but Tommy says he believes there's something in there that excludes prisoners; they may not be persons entitled to these warnings. So, I mean, that may well be. I have not looked at it, so it may be that that will cut down the Sheriff's workload substantially. JUDGE TINLEY: I think we need the answer to that question. MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. I haven't looked at it. I don't know. You know, I'm sure it's a big, old, thick thing that's too long to read. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now your motion, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. I move that we appoint a HIPAA committee to deal with the HIPAA privacy rule, and to provide -- I guess provide this Commissioners Court with a set of policies and procedures regarding the protected health information agreements, and execute the ~-~a-os 124 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 agreements of compliance. And I have a small list of folks here I'd like to just throw out. It would include the County Treasurer and Mr. Rothwell, as our third-party, and someone from Mr. Finley's office, the County Attorney, the County Judge, and someone from the Sheriff's Office to be that committee. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second the motion. JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second by Commissioners Baldwin and Letz -- and Williams, respectively, that we appoint a HIPAA committee, with the representatives as designated by Commissioner Baldwin to review and -- and prepare policies and procedures for presentation to this Court as may be required by the HIPAA privacy rules. Does that fairly state the motion, Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, it does. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can go all over town bragging that you're on the HIPAA committee. ~-_~-„~ 125 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 TINLEY: Yeah. Well, you were wanting to tell your grandchildren. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to tell them that anyway. JUDGE TINLEY: I see, thank you. An ex-officio member as having made the motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be "hippo" instead of "HIPAA." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, that did it. Judge, are we going to work on through? If we are, let's just take our time, 'cause a couple of these issues I want to take our time with. I don't want to just -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to go eat. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd rather do General Schellhase and then come back. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Me too. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You want to do the -- the addendum item right quick and then come on back? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or we can make him come back later. Doesn't bother me at all one way or the other. JUDGE TINLEY: May be one of the few times, with the high rank that you obtained, that you're able to have him at your beck and call, as opposed to vice-versa, right? 9 - ~ o - 0 3 126 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's bring him back this afternoon. That feels good. No, I'm just joking. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we at least know the feeling. That's right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Know the way it feels. JUDGE TINLEY: Without objection, then, we will move to the addendum item that's before us. Let me get to that little rascal here. Yeah. Consider and discuss the request that -- that the Court approve making application to L.C.R.A. for a grant of $20,000 to install underground wiring on the courthouse in accordance with the schematic furnished with the item. General Schellhase. MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water Street, Kerrville. Thank you, Judge, for getting this on the agenda at a late date. The group of community participants is requesting the Court to allow us to make an application to L.C.R.A. for a grant to do underground wiring at the courthouse. This, of course, stemmed from -- beginning with the Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation. As you recall, maybe a few months back, our agenda called for that and we presented you with a program which we would like t~ do, which y'all signed off on. We've been unable to raise those funds for that, so we got together with all the other participants that are involved in the courthouse. As you know, it's -- courthouse grounds are used extensively 9 - ~ ~ - 0 3 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i6 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 now thrcughout the year. We have a Saturday market day function now that requires electrical outlets. We have the courthouse step auctions that could probably use more electricity. We do the Memorial Day function. We do the -- of course, the holiday lighting season. We have a patriotic music program that's conducted, the observance of Veteran's Day, Flag Day, and Memorial Day. All those activities take place and, you know, require electricity at the courthouse. What we would like to do for all these groups is do the underground wiring once and for all that would provide the needs for the courthouse lighting and any other functions on the courthouse grounds. We would like to apply for a $20,000 grant. We now have in our possession $5,000 as a matching amount far that program, and request the Court to allow us to proceed with that application. We have made a preliminary drawing for the electrical outlets needed to be for all the services that we just discussed or just presented. And the first step would to be do this by phases as outlined in the application. Questions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does this mean all the lights and wires hanging from the trees will disappear? MR. SCHELLHASE: Never. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the extension cords will. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mean the lights 9-~~3-03 128 2 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~-- 2 4 25 hanging; i mean the -- the plugs, I should say. MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the plugs will disappear, not the lights. I know the lights won't disappear. MR. SCHELLHASE: All those that are out in the yard, and you just wonder what they're doing there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a great deal. MR. SCHELLHASE: The big issue always has been safety with all of these that we have. The market day that we do on Saturday, we have a lot of extension cords running around. The Memorial Day and Veteran's Day service, we always run a lot of extension cords. There was a lot of people involved -- and, of course, the holiday lighting, we have an extensive number of extension cords, and that would be the primary purpose to create a more safe environment. As you know, the -- the bank function at Christmastime brings probably 1,500, 2,000 people to this courthouse square, and you do not need all of the exposure that we have now. So that's the primary purpose of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea. I make a mction to authorize -- who's doing the grant? MR. SCHELLHASE: The Court. JUDGE TINLEY: The County would make 129 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 application. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll make a motion to authorize the County to make grant application as presented. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Do y'all want to flip a coin or what? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll take it. JUDGE TINLEY: Break the tie. Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Williams, respectively, that -- that the Court make a grant application to L.C.R.A. for courthouse exterior lighting in accordance with the information provided on the agenda item. All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: General? Were you going to redo this portion we talked about? MR. SCHELLHASE: As we discussed, yes. 4 - ° - 0 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 --- 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 JUDGE TINLEY: And get it back to me so that -- okay, yes. MR. SCHELLHASE: Our deadline is April 31st (sic), so it will be back tomorrow. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What's the pleasure of the Court? Everybody wants to go to lunch? Is that it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do. 8 9 10 1:30. 11 12 CUMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess until (Recess taken from 12:10 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I will call back to order the Commissioners Court meeting for Monday, April 28th. When we were here last before lunch, we had, I think, left remaining, beginning at Item Number 18, consider and discuss adoption of State Travel Allowance Guide, published by the Comptroller of Public Accounts for per diem allowances or reimbursement of expenses for Kerr County elected officials and employees going out of county on official business. I put this on the agenda as a means of hopefully coming up with something that's, number one, uniform; number two, recognized. Number three, for planning and budgeting purposes, I think it makes things easier, more predictable. And also, we had a -- we've had a problem in y-_a-o? 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..-, 25 past years where employees going on County business have been put in a position of -- because of not having credit cards, which may or may not be a good idea -- that's a whole 'nother issue, but they were put in a position, because of -- of how they were reimbursed, that they were, in essence, financing their own situation, and then relying upon reimbursement when they got back from whatever their official business was. And I'm not sure that was fair to those employees. If there was a procedure whereby they could -- if there were a definite per diem amount that they could draw in advance, it might make things a little bit easier on them, and I just thought -- thought it would be a good, uniform way to handle it, rather than having each department just kind of helter-skelter, scattered hither, thither, and yon. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, do you or anybody have an idea about whether or not we would spend more for travel expenses under the per diem plan or less than we -- than the way we do it? JUDGE TINLEY: So far as having done a statistical survey, no, I haven't. My sense is -- is that we would probably end up spending less. The Auditor might be able to give us, just off the top of his shoulder, an idea. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We11, if you cap -- 4-~~-~3 132 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there's an incentive to be frugal if you cap it at a per diem amount. JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Unless you want to spend your own money. JUDGE TINLEY: And we're all -- you know, we'll always have the option to do that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would be -- I would -- I bet anything it isn't going to be very different. I mean, 'cause I look at those per diems, and what I think the -- you know, hotel rates are pretty much set. Usually, going to a convention or school, there's a discounted rate; it's going to be within that amount. And the per diem they have for meals, I just don't think most of our employees are eating more than that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do, too. JUDGE TINLEY: $30 a day. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, $30 a day. I don't think that we're spending $30 a day on average for employees. I don't think I -- I have -- you know, I may eat a -- you know, a meal, like, in -- a good example is in Dallas, I ate one meal that was higher than the limit here, but I didn't put more than -- I just, on my own, reduced how much I billed for the County, 'cause I don't think it's right to bill, you know, for me to go to a nicer restaurant. 4 - _ ~ - ~~ 133 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- i 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 z~ ,.-, 2 4 25 That's my choice. I just don't think they're doing it. I bet our County employees, on average, aren't spending more than $15 a day on food. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like the idea. COMMTSSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, I don't mind doing it, but I don't think it's going to save us any money. I think it's a good rule, but it's not -- JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a sense of that, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: No, I really don't. There's -- on the average, I mean, there's -- there's a lot cf people that -- you know, there's a lot of day trips; you know, you only have one. And then there's cases where -- where you go to a place and maybe one meal is furnished, or -- so it's -- it's kind of hard to -- I would say that -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not certain how this -- how this plan works to mitigate against the point you made about the employees having to fund their County business in advance, except that they could draw down a per diem. That doesn't take -- and travel and hotel; both of those are larger than the per diem. JUDGE TINLEY: Granted, they wouldn't get reimbursed for the travel. Now, their -- their travel would be based on state mileage tables, so, you know, there's uniform -- uniformity to that. The -- the aspect of the ~-~e-~~ 134 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 hotel, we still have that problem about securing reservations because of no credit cards. Virtually all these hotels either want prepayment or they want it to be secured by credit card. Now, in a lot of cases where -- where there is a conference or something that's scheduled several months in advance, there will be checks sent in for the lodging and the registration iii advance. But, you're right, it doesn't solve the entire problem. We still have the problem in those cases where -- for example, the lodging issue. But it -- it puts somebody -- it puts everybody on -- on the same footing. There's no -- no favoritism shown to the guy on the top or the guy on the bottom or anybody in between. We're all in this thinq together. And I think -- I think, probably, the people at the State have looked at these things enough over the years that they're convinced it's the right way to do business. And for planning purposes, I think it will help us, too. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wonder how the employees would feel about it. Have you got any feel for it, Paula? MS. RECTOR: How we feel about COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we switch to this per diem route, as opposed to actual expense reimbursement. Would employees welcome that change, or -- MS. RECTOR: I don't think, in my case, it 135 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be a problem, because, like you say, we don't eat $30 a day. But -- I've been here a lot of years, and I'm the one with the credit card that has to give my personal credit card to my employee to take, so that's -- we -- I have one credit card I designate for just that. But I'm still ultimately responsible for it, so they're good enough to bring me all the receipts, turn it in, get the reimbursement to pay my credit card back. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under this plan, I mean, so you get the money even if you don't use it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per diem. JUDGE TINLEY: You just draw that per diem. MS. RECTOR: As far as meals, I think if they're going to get a per diem in advance, then they need to submit some receipts afterwards and then give that money back, 'cause that's coming out of our conference line items. And it's not for them to put in their pocket if they don't eat $30. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not the way the COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per diem is per day. MS. RECTOR: Yeah, they keep it. JUDGE TINLEY: We give you per diem, and if -- you know, if you want to eat cheese and crackers, 4-~8-03 136 i 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,,, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's up to you. If you -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sardines. JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sardines and crackers. MS. RECTOR: Sardines and crackers. JUDGE TINLEY: Sardines and sweet onion and crackers. Like the oil patch, huh? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm getting excited. I love it when you talk that way. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When I was in the oil patch, we had a policy like this where some -- not all, but some assignments, like short-term, temporary assignments, were per diem, and the reason we did it was it's simple and it saved money, so it encouraged us to stay -- spend less on per diem. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the simplicity of it. I like that Tommy's office doesn't have to go through all these little receipts, and they just need to put -- employees, too. I mean, if you -- if an employee forgets to, you know, pick up a receipt or forgets to get the receipt or something, all of sudden they lose money. This way, they don't have to worry about it. They get -- I mean, I think it's simpler for both the County and the employee. I just don't think it's going tc be a whole lot of net -- I don't think it will be much change, dollar-wise. 137 1 2 3 4 5 E i 8 9 10 li 12 .-~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the key to the thing is the actual -- the ability to plan a little bit better and budget for it. I can see how that works. I don't like the thought of you telling me that I can't rent a car. You know, if I -- if we fly into Dallas and -- I mean, how are you going to get around, get somewhere? JUDGE TINLEY: You would be reimbursed for your travel costs while you're there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it sayeth here -- "sayeth" is Old Testament talk. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Reimbursement for rental cars is not authorized. JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. It says that on the reimbursement form? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The travel voucher. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. I'm -- I'm not sure that the rule is that -- the rules that the State has are not that hard and fast. I think what it's not saying there is that if you catch the -- a taxi or an airport limo, you're entitled to get reimbursed for that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would hope so, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: And in some -- in some cases, I suspect, under the rules, on close examination, there's probably some cases where you can get a rental car, if your -~~-o~ 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~.. 2 4 25 activities there and -- and the amount of movement you're going to have to make are such that the cost to get a rental car would be considerably less than it would be for doing all this taxiing and other public transportation around. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I never have rented a car on one of our trips, but you defir_itely have to -- you have to travel one way or another, taxicab or -- JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- otherwise. JUDGE TINLEY: You've got to at least get from -- if you're flying in, from the airport to your destination at the hotel or conference center or something like that, yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One place this talks about $70 a day for a hotel, and another place it talks about $80. JUDGE TINLEY: Current rate is $80. Most of your -- most of your conferences where there`s any involvement with government employees, believe me, they stay up with these rates, and when they negotiate the -- the block contract rate, they generally peq it at that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: $79.95. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what about the tax aspect on top of the room rate? How is that handled? JUDGE TINLEY: I think the tax is -- you're 4-~a-o3 1 --- 2 3 4 ' 5 ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 L 23 24 25 139 entitled to receive the tax in addition to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be an incidental expense, just like parking would be an incidental? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think they're talking about $80 is -- is the base rate, the room rate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what do we need to do? Do we want to adopt it for next budget year? JUDGE TINLEY: I would -- I would like to, I would think beginning October 1, put it in place for the next budget year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But adopt it now, so that during the budget process, this -- this format is used. MS. SOVIL: Make it effective October 1 -- adopt it effective October 1. MS. RECTOR: But if we choose to go ahead and pay for it on our credit card and be reimbursed, we can still do that? We don't have to do the advance per diem? JUDGE TINLEY: No, you don't have to do the advance, but you'll be limited as to the -- the -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amount. JUDGE TINLEY: -- the same amount. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be a per diem reimbursement either way. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ceiling amount could -,~-o=, 140 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 be interpreted two ways. You'll get the per diem no matter what you spend. Spend more, you need it; spend less, you keep it. JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. You don't submit any receipts for that. You don't have to keep up COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it would limit -- under that system, it would limit the use of your credit card. In other words, meals would no longer -- MS. RECTOR: Sometimes we may have something come up, like Plano had a school for some stuff in taxes. It was, like, two weeks notice, so we got two of my people in, sent them up there. There was no time, because -- to get -- no time to get it in advance on that prior to them going. MS. SOVIL: That brings up the discussion you and I had, Judge, about the Treasurer maybe keeping a $1,000 fund so that it could be drawn upon in cases just like that. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I was going to get to that. What -- what I would see implementing in connection with this, to handle this per diem thing, would be a -- some segregated amount or account, probably, whereby if you were going to go send your two girls, fir example, on that and you wanted to go ahead and draw down their per diem, you would be in a position to do that out of this account. Then _-,a-o~ 141 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 they could charge back to your travel line item or whatever and replenish that account, so we can keep that account where it's available for use to do these per diem advances, for example. MS. RECTOR: I would like for some of the other elected officials to be here to discuss this, too. Not just me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to say you wanted it like this. MS. RECTOR: No. No. You know, I think it's fine just the way it is. I don't mind using my credit card. I mean, it's -- I don't have a problem with it. And I know it's come up in the past about that, because some of them don't have -- some other elected officials don't use credit cards, so when their people go, they have to get the actual cash, give it to their employees for their meals and their gas and that type thing. But -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, this doesn't solve any of that problem. All this does -- JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't solve all of it. It will solve some of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It doesn't solve the problem, either, that Commissioner Baldwin made reference to a couple weeks ago, where, for example, we went to Fort 4-~t~-U 3 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 1i 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~,,, 2 4 25 Worth to cbtain what we thought would be the bulk of our hours we're obligated to do. We ended up, the most we could get was 12. Right, Buster? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That particular trip was 12, still leaving us short, which means that we've got to find another seminar someplace, go to that and do that all over again. So, it doesn't deal with that at all. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just deals with what you're going to get if you do it. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we still have to deal with, in budget time, how many conferences we're going to go to. JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So forth and so on. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- yeah, and that point is, that's just really a budget item that we're going to -- I think we made some mistakes last year in the budget when we made some, basically, arbitrary cuts on the -- on the conference line item. We just can't do that. I mean, you've got to -- everyone's going to have to budget what they -- looking at state law, what you're required to get, and the County's got to fund that. You know, that's :~-~s-~_ 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 --~ 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just not -- that's just going to have to be the way it is. I think, from a budget standpoint, this process makes it easier, 'cause you figure, okay, you're going to be -- each Commissioner's going to be gone for three days, four days to get that many hours, and it's going to take this much money for each day, plus the registration fees. And I think that's relatively easy to do that for most of the schools. I mean -- MS. RECTOR: Well, if you have a place that you're going -- you say that the State rate is $80 per night, plus your tax and their local tax that they charge. Tn7hat if it happens to be more? You only get the $80. The rest comes outs of your pocket? JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. That's exactly right. MS. RECTOR: I don't think that's fair. Because if they block them in their -- they may be $90 a night, and you're staying four nights, so the extra $10 a night's going to come out of your pocket? I don't agree with that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're making a good point. MS. RECTOR: I don't agree with that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In Austin, Texas right now is a good example. There's not a way in the _-~ ri3 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 world -- that's okay for the State to do this, but if you were going to go up there right now for any purpose of State business or County business, I challenge to you find an $80-a-night room. You won't find it. MS. RECTOR: Unless it's blocked prior to a convention or conference coming in, like they block it for us. But sometimes when we go to things that -- where they're not blocked, we have to pay the normal rate, and it may be $110 a night. And you're only going to be gone one or two nights, but if you're only saying I'm only allowed $80, and I've got to go off-site and find a Motel 6 to stay in so I don't pay the fees the hotels are charging, I don't think that's fair. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Paula makes a good point. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I said I think Paula makes a good point. If we were to adopt this, there's no reason why we can't adopt a basic plan and have some exceptions of our own as part of the plan. That happens to be one of them. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my thinking is that if there's anybody that's going to be going to Austin, Texas, that's State employees, and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're already ~-~~-c~ 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's a lot of them that come from out there, and I can assure you, they've got to live with this plan, and -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to hear more input from other employees, elected officials, department heads. MS. RECTOR: I agree. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I kind of like the idea. I do like it. But if it's going to cost people money or it's going to upset people, then maybe it's not worth doing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could always adopt the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have more input. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could adopt the per diem. The per diem part is the part that I really like, because it is simpler for both the employees and for the County. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, Tommy's nodding his head, 'cause I know -- I mean, I think Mindy, the other day I was down there, was saying it would simplify their life if they didn't have to worry about all these little meal tickets, trying to figure out what's what on them and, 4-za-o~ 146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you know -- MS. RECTOR: Well, I agree with that. I think that would simplify it. But it can't be as cut-and-dried as, You're getting "X" amount of dollars for all these things, and that's it. Anything above that -- you know, meals, if you go over what you're allowed, then that's out of your pocket; I agree with that, yes. But I think hotel accommodations might be something that needs to be a little more flexible, 'cause your mileage is all that's set. You know, how many miles it is to and from and what the state mileage pays. That's another set thing, just like your meals, but -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only difference here is they're talking about using the Comptroller's -- I guess, the mileage book. You no longer have to keep track of your mileage. If you go to Austin, you're getting -- from Kerrville, you get paid whatever that book says that distance is. that. MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is -- we used to do MS. RECTOR: There's a mileage guide -- we get on the Internet and use the mileage guide. MR. TOMLINSON: You can -- I mean, on the hotel thing, if you -- I mean, if you search and find a 4-~~-U3 147 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 place that falls within that -- those dollars, your -- you might eat up the difference in mileage. I mean, I know I've -- I've had -- I found a place out close to -- to Ben White Boulevard. My conference was at the University of Texas. Well, the time -- you know, I made six trips from my motel to the campus. My mileage almost -- well, probably the difference between what I paid for the hotel and what I would have paid if I'd stayed at the conference -- at the conference -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point. MS. RECTOR: I much prefer staying at the host hotel and not having to get out and drive, for some of us who don't like to drive in the city. Like, we're going to Houston for our annual conference. I don't drive in Houston, sorry. I'm staying in that hotel and I'm not leaving it. But if I had to stay somewhere cheaper and drive in, you can guarantee that I'm not going to go, 'cause I just -- I don't do it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we necessarily have to adopt these documents? JUDGE TINLEY: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like -- as an example, like, on the lodging, it says up to $80 a day. Could we change that $80 to $100, and -- or $81.50 or whatever the ~-~~-~~ 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 number might be? JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. You can do anything you want. I -- I'm hoping to get some sort of a planning tool and something that will help -- help the administrative aspect of it, because that can be a problem. And also something that can be utilized with some degree of effectiveness in prefunding some of these employees so that they're not financing what's our obligation out of their pocket. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: And if that means merely adopting a per diem for meals, or if that means adopting per diem for meals and whatever the actual -- per receipt on hotels, or if that means adopting a per diem for meals and an allowance for lodging of whatever amount you decide, you know, it's wide-open. You can kind of roll your own any way you want to. But I was looking to try and get -- I think the meals part is probably the most difficult part of it, because, administratively, it's a big hassle for the Auditor's cffice. Employees tend to get penalized because some of them fail to ask for receipts, or they're lost, and -- and when it's on that kind of a reimbursement basis, they're reluctant to go get a draw for their per diem. It's mainly the per diem aspect that I have the most concern 25 I about. 4-^8-03 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per diem and mileage, I don't have a problem with. I think we have to deal with the hotels, and I think I agree with Commissioner Nicholson; we need to hear from other department heads and elected officials. JUDGE TINLEY: If that's the sense of the Court, that's -- you know, let's just kind of hang it on the hook and -- and pass the word, and we'll get it on the agenda again. MR. TOMLINSON: With this receipt business, some -- sometimes my people are -- are forced into making calls about whether or not they -- they pay the bill or not, and especially if there's -- you know, there's a spouse involved or -- and the person dcesn't take the -- take the spouse out of the ticket. And, I mean, it's just -- it would be very helpful not to have to worry about those things. JUDGE TINLEY: That's on the meals aspect, you're talking about? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have that much of a problem with the -- with the hotel? MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause generally the single/double rate's the same anyway, normally. 9-~8-03 150 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hotels -- and even under these guidelines, you need a receipt for the hotel, so it would be pretty easy to adopt the mileage and per diem, and leave the rest of it kind of the way it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. SOVIL: Could you just word that, "as receipted" on the hotel? COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is right now. You just put out the maximum -- you delete the maximum rate and just say -- MS. SOVIL: Right, as receipted. COMMISSIONER LETZ: A receipt's required, as it's written. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about setting up that separate fund, that $1,000 fund to draw from? JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure that's the right amount, but I -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not either, but I think that's what was thrown out. JUDGE TINLEY: We've got several opportunities to work on that if we're trying to plan for the ensuing fiscal year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We -- we always -- Paula threw out something there treat I think is kind of 4-~'8-G3 151 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 rare, though, that -- that they would notify you from Plano and say there's a meeting coming up, and -- MS. RECTOR: No, they don't notify me -- well, we get a little brochure in the mail. I start looking; I go, "Hmm, something's coming up next week in Plano." And it's not going to cost us for the particular day course, but it's going to cost them to get up there, stay, and come back. No registration involved. I mean, it could be a week or two before it actually takes place. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We know months ahead of time, and we try to -- we try to get our hotel and registration, everything paid prior to. You try -- you know, we always try to get everything as much paid for ahead of time as possible so we don't have to do all that stuff when we get there, but -- and I think the majority of the time, you can do that. JUDGE TINLEY: Probably most of the time. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably the Sheriff's Department has things come up frequently where they can't plan it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They do. That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, they're probably the one that's most hit by the spur of the moment. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What Paula's talking .-3~-03 152 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 about has to do with the subject matter more than anything else. We might get that brochure and it's a subject that you'd really like your people to know about. MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not the fact that the meeting was there; you knew the meeting was going to be there. MS. RECTOR: Right. Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Next meeting you're going to bring this back? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, or the one after that, or whenever; we'll just put it back on. We'11 start circulating the word, I guess, that the Tax Assessor/ Collector was -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: In favor of this. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, or against it. MS. RECTOR: No. I like the per diem for the meals, I think, because I have to be sure I keep all those little receipts and be sure I get them all turned in and added up correctly to go to the Auditor's office. I think that would save them a lot of time and save us a lot of time too if we went to a per diem on that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Bill and I will go around and say that she was against it, and you two guys go around and tell everybody she was for it. 4 - 0 ~ - 0 3 153 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 MS. RECTOR: Conspiracy. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Motel 6 was fine, and a $40 rate, tops. COMMISSIONER BALDWiN: That's exactly right. And we'll hitchhike over to the capitol. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think 30 minutes is long enough on that one. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, discuss and consider approval of Earth Day Proclamation on April 26, 2003, ratifying County Judge's signature on same. I've gone out on a hook, gentlemen. Gone out on a hook. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks like you already signed it. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If it winds up two-to-two, are you going to break the tie? JUDGE TINLEY: You betcha. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know how, too. Let's see, now. What organization -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's made and seconded by Commissioners -- 9-^8-03 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See if he gets it right this time. JUDGE TINLEY: -- Williams and Nicholson, respectively, that the Court approve Earth Day Proclamation which was executed by me previously, and to ratify my signature on the same. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll just make a comment. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not against Earth Day; however, I am against part of what they talk here about, the Environmental Protection Act and Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. The way the federal government has used some of those acts to burden the counties, including Storm Water Coalition, I certainly don't want anybody to construe this as a vote in favor of the federal acts that the Earth Day -- the reason this came into being originally. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it is asking you to agree with that. 23 ,~. 2 4 25 -~~-o? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but I'm saying that I don't agree with EPA and some of these other acts and some of their programs under those acts. Part of the programs are good. 155 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. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We may have to break the tie yet. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, working on it. All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry, luckily for me. Consider and discuss seeking applicants for appointment as Kerr County representative to AACOG Economic Development and Environmental Review Committee. Where is the media when you need them? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is the what? JUDGE TINLEY: The media. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. They're gone. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Working on deadline. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they took a hike on this. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd just like to say about this, Judge, that is an important committee and there are things that are beneficial to Kerr County that are reviewed by the committee, the most recent being the City's ~-_e-os 156 1 2 3 4 5 h 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 application for 700-some-odd thousand dollars for this sewer project and so forth, our own sewer project. It's important that we have representation. At the last AACOG board meeting, the staffer that heads up the environmental review asked if we could mention to you -- I didn't have time to get it on here, but you have it on your agenda -- that it'd be good if you had somebody there. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Well, previously, the media has been kind enough -- and we waved our arms and beat them over the head and said, "Please put the word out on this," of a recent appointment to the Senior Advisory Committee, and we were sort of lucky enough to get that one applicant who sent in a copy of the newspaper article, and his resume with it. Absolutely wonderful. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And maybe you can write -- or call the paper up and just tell them. I think we're all in favor of it. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just go that same approach. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's obviously what we're left with at this point. I assume there's no objection to that. Now, let's go on to the approval agenda. Payment of the bills. Mr. Auditor, you're here late in the day. I'm sure it's different for you. 9-~8-03 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'm close. JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? MR. TOMLINSON: I said I'm close when you need me. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. MS. SOVIL: You're interfering with his nap. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mine, too. JUDGE TINLEY: That was the intention of doing it this way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. How do you want to do it? Do you want a second on the motion and then me ask my question? JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a motion right now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second the motion. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded that we pay the bills by Commissioner Letz and Baldwin, respectively. Any questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question, sir. On Page 6, Item Number 149442. MR. TOMLINSON: From the Sheriff's Department? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't my hog. 4 - ' 3 - J 3 158 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: I missed it. JUDGE TINLEY: I did too. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 442? Oh, yeah, there it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's for hog processing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back when I was in high school, I could figure this out, but -- do you want me to look it up, or do you want to tell me about it? MR. TOMLINSON: I know what it's for. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: It's what it says it is. But they -- the Sheriff's Office gets donations from individuals for specific purposes, and rather than handle the cash, we set up a separate revenue for those purposes, and then they spend those revenues -- those revenues for that specific purpose. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you say "specific purpose" -- and I have a reason behind this question. When you say "specific purpose," does it say "hog cleaning" or "hog processing"? MR. TOMLINSON: Doesn't say specifically that, but it's for those -- those things. Like, for instance, we had a situation where somebody wanted to get -- to give some money to the Sheriff's Office for -- to help 4-~3-~3 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 G 5 with -- it was back several years ago -- with this metal detector out here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. MR. TOMLINSON: And, I mean, that's an example of -- of a specific-purpose donation. And that's -- at that time, they were -- they were -- the Sheriff's Department was keeping those funds in a bank account of their own. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I remember that. MR. TOMLINSON: You remember that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, they don't do that any longer. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- MR. TOMLINSON: And so, I mean, that -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those kinds -- those kinds of things don't -- I think that's good, you know, to purchase something like that or a radar unit or an investigator, something pertaining to the law enforcement thing. Commissioner 4 and I both have sent donations out there recently, people that have come to us and said, yoti know, "We'd like to do something." "Well, take it to the Sheriff, 'cause, you know, they do good things with it." And when I see they're out here processing damn hogs with that money, I don't know that I'm going to send anybody out 4-~8-~J3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 160 there. I don't know if I agree with that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, what -- just as a -- I don't know whether I'm trying to change your mind. I'm figuring how this came about is probably from the stock show. Or is this a separate -- I can see that this -- if someone donated -- "Here, Sheriff, here's a hog. All you have you to do is pay for the processing, and it will help your food bill." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But wouldn't that be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that what this is for? I have no idea. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think, probably -- I think they're having their annual Sheriff's party. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's what it is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what it is. And, of course, if I was invited, I wouldn't be so mad about this. JUDGE TINLEY: Wouldn't be raising a ruckus, right? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right, no ruckus here. But I wasn't invited, so I'm a little bit hurt. But -- but, you know, for them, I don't know -- I don't think I'm going to send any more people out there to 4-~~-~,~ 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _... 13 14 15 i6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,-.. 25 donate, unless it's going -- I'm just letting y'all know that -- I know you don't care one way or another what I do, but it's a separate thing. I mean, it's not -- I mean, I'm certainly not going to vote against it, because it's not tax dollars involved in the thing. But it just bothers me a little bit. When I ask people to go out there and make a donation to the Sheriff, I'm thinking that it's helping the law enforcement at protecting the public in some way. Doesn't have anything to do with processing hogs. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not pork chops. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pork chaps in the river. That bothers me a little bit. Unless we're invited. Now, that changes the whole show. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you send Rusty a copy of these minutes? Okay. That's all -- that's the only question I have. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have any budget amendments? 4-gig-o~ 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we do. We have five. JUDGE TINLEY: Got five of them little buggers. MR. TOMLINSON: The first one is to Road and Bridge, and it's for some property coverage on a leased grade-all, $199. So, they're asking to move $199 today from Contract Fees to Insurance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved -- second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded that Budget Amendment Request Number 1 be approved. All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 2. MR. TOMLINSON: It's for the 198th District Court. We're transferring $1,953.47 from Court-Appointed Attorneys; $700 goes to Special Court Reporter, and $1,253.47 to Special District Judge. I have a late bill from Judge Delaney for $2,369.87, and a bill from Paula Richards Loetz for transcripts in that trial for $700. JUDGE TINLEY: $700? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I do need a hand check 4-~8-U3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 163 for the Delaney bill. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move we approve it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you make a motion? Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioner Nicholson and Williams, respectively, that the Court approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2 and authorize hand check for $2,369.87 to Judge Delaney. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, did you get a breakdown on -- I mean, how many hours is that, and -- MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it's -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that hotel too, and -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the per diem rate? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the per diem rate for judges from Bryan, Texas? MR. TOMLINSON: He claimed $25 per diem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's way too much. MR. TOMLINSON: And then fuel, and four -- let's see. Hotel room, four weeks, is $957. I believe that's what it is. ~-~~-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 164 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, four weeks. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, four separate weeks. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Entire weeks? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some time in each of four weeks. MR. TOMLINSON: In a four-week period. He has the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do judges charge an hourly rate, or how do they do that? MR. TOMLINSON: This is just reimbursement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, just expense reimbursement? MS. SOVIL: We don't pay salary. MR. TOMLINSON: We don't pay salary. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you. JUDGE TINLEY: At least not this year. We may. MR. TOMLINSON: We may get that opportunity. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. This is where we need some legislation in civil fees. Any further questions? I'm sorry, did you have something further? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- yeah, I have three more amendments. 9-~'~-G3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 165 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We11, okay. Nothing more on this item? MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions? Discussion? All in favor of Budget Amendment Request Number 2? (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 3. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is for the County Court at Law. We have a bill to -- I have a bill to Fred Henneke for $736.65. We have $403 in that line item, so we're asking for a budget amendment of $333.58 from Special County Court at Law Judge line item to Court-Appointed Attorneys. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is just for one attorney? MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, that the Budget Amendment Request Number 3 be approved. Any further -~a-o3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,_. 2 4 25 166 question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. MR. TOMLINSON: I would like to make a comment about this -- not having anything really specifically to do with this, but -- but the County Court at Law is -- I mean, this early, is already cut of money. And we had -- you know, there's not much area to -- to come up with any more in any additional money for court-appointed attorneys in his budget. So, you know, I'm -- I'm looking for direction as to -- as to where in the next, you know, five months we need to look for money for that. Part of his problem is that it's not his court, particularly -- I mean his appointments. They're for C.P.S. cases that are heard by the associate Judge Dubose, and alternately, some of those cases are put in that court. So, I'm -- the 216th court is almost at 50 percent, and the County Court is, like, at 50 percent, so we do have some money in the court -- in the Court-Appointed Attorneys in the 198th court, but, you know, we're getting to a point that -- that we need to decide where to look for money for -- for that purpose. 9-~8-03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ..._ 2 4 25 167 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, did we reduce his requested budget? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: MR. TOMLINSON: I don't COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: heavy year, then, right? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I his -- particularly his appointments. to do with -- with those C.P.S. cases. think we did. I can't imagine that. think so. Just had an unusually don't think it's I think it has mostly COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: State agency, I might add. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think those -- those are anticipated to be handled through the district court budgets, and because of the alternate filing, Judge Brown ends up with some of those, and so they get charged to him, I think is what Tommy's saying. MR. TOMLINSON: So, I -- we -- you know, we can ask, you know, Judge Prohl about his budget. Historically, what has happened in those -- in that line item is that some years one court has more than the other, and then that's -- that role swaps the next year. So, what we've dome is -- is try to make ttre year witty the combination of both courts. And so if -- you know, if that's, you know, the direction, you know, we want to go, I 4 - ~ '~ - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 168 can go to the Judge and see if he has a problem with shifting some of his money to -- to the, you know, County Court at Law. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's the direction I'd want to go. I don't want to do a -- declare an emergency or anything until -- MR. TOMLINSON: But, offhand, I don't know of a large amount of money anywhere else. I think we're going to have some adjustments to make in some departments for health care insurance, for group insurance. In the departments where there are a lot of people and there's some turnover, I don't think we're going to have a problem, but -- but I've noticed this month that in some departments, we're already more than 50 percent spent. We'll -- I'll get a handle on what that is for -- fir the rest of the year, but I know it's -- we have a problem there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a motion on this one? JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a motion? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, there is. There is. MS. SOVIL: No, there's not. JUDGE TINLEY: As a matter of fact, I think you made it, I believe Commissioner Williams seconded it. MS. SOVIL: It was voted on. 4-2~t-G3 169 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 TINLEY: Huh? MS. SOVIL: It was voted on. JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? MS. SOVIL: It was voted on. MR. TOMLINSON: I waited until you voted until I mentioned that. I just wanted to -- JUDGE TINLEY: We actually did have a motion and second, then. I wouldn't have called for a vote without it, would I? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is for the County Treasurer to transfer $250 from Employee Training to their Conference line item, and it's for mileage and lodging at A & M. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For? MR. TOMLINSON: And there is a late bill. I need a hand check for that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's already done. Is that -- is that the elected official? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That went there? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we budgeted $1,000? MR. TOMLINSON: I believe that's right. ~-~s-u 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 11 on here. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what it shows MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that's right. Those were, like -- year before last were, like, at $1,500. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, that Budget Amendment Request Number 4 be approved and a hand check issued to -- MR. TOMLINSON: Barbara Nemec. 12 --- 13 14 correct. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ^„ 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Barbara Nemec for $222.15. MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. That' s JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment Request Number 5. MR. TOMLINSON: This amendment actually increases the budget, but we received insurance proceeds of $8,945 for the loss on a '98 Ford Crown Victoria. The Sheriff asked me to put this on in order to purchase a used 4-~fl-03 171 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 replacement with the -- with the funds -- with these funds. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A 1998? MR. TOMLINSON: 98. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one of the old cars. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just about four years old. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This was a patrol vehicle? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was this -- it wasn't a flood car? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know which one this is. JUDGE TINLEY: Not the water car. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The water car -- MR. TOMLINSON: That was a new one. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we've dealt with the water car. JUDGE TINLEY: Off the top of my head, nine grand looks like -- especially for four, five years' worth of police work, looks like we've spent a good deal on it. I'd like to sell them some more. 4-'~-0? 172 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think I'm so concerned about taking the nine grand as expending it again. Question is, what are you going to expend it for? MR. TOMLINSON: He wants to -- he wants to buy a used vehicle for -- I think -- I think he said to replace an older car that he uses for in-town use. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's -- let's take the money and we'll worry about expending it another day, all right? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move we accept the check and amend the budget. JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've already got the money, Commissioner. 15 16 budget. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,,~ 2 4 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're amending the JUDGE TINLEY: I see. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're not authorizing buying another vehicle? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, not in this motion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's made and seconded to accept the funds in the amount of $8,945 from insurance proceeds received on the loss of Sheriff's Office patrol 4-_8-03 173 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 vehicle. We'll stop right there. Any further discussion? MS. SOVIL: You have to increase the budget. JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? MR. TOMLINSON: Not if we're not going to spend it, we don't. MS. SOVIL: We don't? MR. TOMLINSON: If we're not going to spend it, then we don't need to increase the budget. JUDGE TINLEY: I'd just -- the motion was merely to accept the funds. We're not granting any budget amendment requests. At least that's my understanding of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Until we know what it's all about. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Until the Sheriff comes back to us when he decides what he wants to buy. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the reason for it. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. MR. TOMLINSON: I have one more. JUDGE TINLEY: Number 6. 9-~P-03 174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this is also from the Sheriff's Department. This is -- he's requesting a transfer of $317.63 from Operating Expenses to Investigation Expenses. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. MR. TOMLINSON: And I do have a late bill -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. MR. TOMLINSON: -- on this. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Nicholson that we approve Budget Amendment Request Number 6 and issue a hand check to -- MR. TOMLINSON: H.E.B. JUDGE TINLEY: -- H.E.B. MR. TOMLINSON: For $317.63. JUDGE TINLEY: For $317.63. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion ca JUDGE TINLEY: (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: all the budget amendments? MR. TOMLINSON: JUDGE TINLEY: MR. TOMLINSON: rried by unanimous vote.) All opposed, same sign. Motion does carry. Is that That's it. Do you have any late bills? No. -^8-03 175 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 TINLEY: Monthly reports. Gentlemen, I have before me a monthly report from J.P. 4. Do I hear a motion that the same be accepted as presented? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that the J.P. 4 monthly report, as presented, be accepted. All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Anything further, gentlemen? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'd like to bring up a topic. The -- I've sent -- I'm the liaison with the Sheriff's Department, and I sent him a memo last week in regards to these vehicles, and I've asked him to -- in my mind, it seemed like, to me, that for four years, we've bought six cars. That's 24 cars. And I've asked him to start putting together his thoughts of, you know, is that true, 24 cars? And how many of them are still i_n service and where are they, acid how many old, yellow cars do they still have in service and all that kind of thing? So, it's -- you know, number one, so we can start thinking about it, plugging in your budget numbers and what we're going to ~-~~-r.3 L 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 176 do. But what really triggered my thinking was, when we started the rotation system with him, with this present Sheriff, we had talked about, at some point, some of his old cars that he takes out of service, giving them to constables or another office, but we had talked about constables. So, I wanted -- I would ask him to kind of put together some thoughts, or put together his thoughts of where he is in all of that, and so -- and I wanted you all to be thinking about that as well. I hope I'm not the only one here that remembers talking about passing the cars along to other people. But, if my memory serves me, we've really been in this rotation thing a lot longer than any four years. How long -- do you remember, Tommy or Thea, either one, that we -- MS. SOVIL: It's four. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's the fourth year of the leasing program. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of actual leasing? MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we've been buying cars a long, long time. MR. TOMLINSON: We're at a point -- unless we -- unless we add another six, we ought to be at the point that we don't have any additional cost. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. ~-~~-o~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 177 MR. TOMLINSON: Unless it's the amount of difference between the price to lease from Year 1 to Year 4. And there may be -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. MR. TOMLINSON: -- some. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus 5 bucks to buy out the end of the lease. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: What is the story with -- of purchasing the cars at the end of the lease? MR. TOMLINSON: We have the option to purchase -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One buck a car. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A dollar a car at the end of three years? MR. TOMLINSON: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You ought to remember what -- do you remember? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember that as well. And I think what has happened now is that we have a relatively young fleet of vehicles out there for the Sheriff's Department, and I think that it's a good time to look at rolling over some of the older ones to the constables. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, we did talk 4-~~-03 1 -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 178 about it. We never did -- we never did say how we would do it, but the thought was there that it would be a pretty good idea to entertain. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Were you thinking about transferring ownership to the constables? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We never did arrive at a conclusion. We talked about the County continuing to own them. We talked about maybe the constable buy it for 100, 200 bucks. We never came to a conclusion. Frankly, I think this County should continue to own them. JUDGE TINLEY: Did -- in your request to the Sheriff about the status of all these vehicles, did you ask him as part of that report to give you a -- a report on the condition, or what he believed to be the condition of those various vehicles? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I did not. You mean like physical condition? Are there dents and -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, and, you know, whether they qot transmission problems or mileage -- high miles. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I did not, did not ask that question at all. But I thought -- I thought he would get back with me pretty soon, and we did have a verbal yesterday. But he and I could sit down and -- I want to give him time to put some things together and go over it, ~-~e-r, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i2 --~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 179 and then either bring him in here to talk about it, or just wait until the budget process and let -- let you and him and Tommy talk about it. It doesn't matter to me one way or another, as long as we are all -- I think that we all need to know what the plan is. And, actually, that's -- you know, that's what we do, is set policy in here. That we know what his needs are. I mean, does he -- does he need six more years of this six car buying before he really gets a full quota? Or, you know, at what point is he going to be able to break off, and let's assign these cars to some other department and that kind of thing? But I think we all need to know those kinds of things, because we have constables in each of our precincts, number one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's the reason why I wasn't in favor of automatically spending that $9,000, 'cause Commissioner -- I knew the Commissioner had written that memo to get an inventory of what the Sheriff has, where those cars are, et cetera. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to tell you, his answer is not going to be what you think it is. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wouldn't be surprised. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you wouldn't have written the memo, you'd have probably got some of that barbecue pork. 4-~~-0? 180 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~~ 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALD~vIN: I know. I know. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or you can turn the tables on that deal. "How do you like those new cars, Sheriff? What time did you want me to show up at the party?" I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we in the report section, or did he just start talking? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, we're in his report section. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, I thought that's where we were. JUDGE TINLEY: We were in your report section. Commissioner 1's first. MR. PEARCE: Well, Commissioner 2's next. Go COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I`m finished, COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not. Two things. One, four or six weeks ago, this Court appointed a committee to work with U.G.R.A. Board on O.S.S.F. We're finally getting out -- after a little bit of a shaky start, we're finally about to our have our first meeting this Friday. So, anyway, it's -- it's finally moving forward after a long -- JUDGE TINLEY: Any barbecue pork at that 4- 3-0"3 181 1 ~-- 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meeting? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, but we do have some sandwiches being furnished by U.G.R.A., I understand. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There ain't no free lunch. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. That's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other item is just an informational item that has come out of some community meetings that I've had at the Cypress Creek Community regarding perceived lack of enough law enforcement in that community. It appears that subdivision areas in my area of the county c_an contract with either the Sheriff's Department or constable's office to provide specific law enforcement for that community. And it's just -- it's something a little bit interesting, and it's a law that came out, something that Harris County's doing. They got a copy of the law, and I first thought it was only a couple counties can do it -- larger counties can do it, but now it appears that we can do it, and it also appears by the law that it can be done through the Sheriff's Department, not just the constable's office. So, anyway, just something that's interesting, and we're pursuing it a little bit further, trying to -- visiting with the County Attorney, because there is some interest in that area to hire _ _~-u3 182 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 additional law enforcement for that area only. And it will be funded by them through donations. But, anyway, an interesting concept, and I'm not sure of the -- all the ramifications, good or bad, of doing that. I don't -- you know, anyway, just leave it at that, but it's something that I'm locking at. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Neighborhood I lived in, the homeowner's association contracted with the Sheriff's Department to keep officers in there. Commissioner Letz, how do -- what's the impetus for those meetings? How do they come about? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- well, you don't want to have the impetus -- you don't want to -- what actually -- what really happened was, it was a double murder in Comfort that caused a big concern in the community out there. Because of that concern and calls that I received and the Sheriff received from members of the community, the Sheriff has a -- a crime prevention training officer, Mike burning; he's been going to different parts of the county, crime prevention meetings, public meetings, and he took the opportunity of the interest in Cypress Creek area to originally do one of those meetings. Because of the, you know, I guess, unusually high interest at the present time in that area, we've expanded those meetings a little bit further for input from me, and Bill Amerine and I went out 4-~8 03 183 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there, some of the 911 Board members, just to overall talk about law enforcement in general, beyond crime prevention. That was kind of vehicle crime prevention, but it was the members of the community expressing a lot of interest that got Rusty to kind of -- and I to get together and tailor these the way we have. We've had two of them so far, and probably will have at least one more. And they've been very well-attended. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Usually the impetus is something happened in their back yard. You had one in Center Point 18 months ago or 24 months ago, and it happened to be a rash of vandalism and burglaries. People got upset. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One -- one thing that's been going nn in west Kerr that is of interest -- I'm not sure it has any -- doesn't have any effect on the County that I know of -- a group of residents, people out there, I think 18 of them, have gotten together and put up $20,000 a piece and purchased that lot there at 1340 and 39. It's about a 4- or 5-acre lot; big, open field right there on the corner. And the reason was -- for the purchase was to prevent development, so it won't ever be in the hands of anybody to use it for commercial purposes. I don't know what to think about that, except s~rnebody was willing to pay about a half a million dollars to keep Hunt in pristine condition as it is today, and stop development. That -- no a-~~a-o3 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,.-. 25 indication they want to give it to anybody in the county or make a park out of it. They are still dealing with what use they'll put it to. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have two things, Judge, r.ow that these two gentlemen triggered that. I'm going to bring to the Court a revision of the Kerr County Parks Master Plan, so you might want to talk to those folks about giving it up for a park. And when I do that, we'll set a date for a workshop to discuss the revisions and seek more input for additional revisions or thoughts from members of the Court. We haven't updated that plan in about two years; I guess it needs to be updated. The original plan, I believe the Court funded a consultant to do the plan. You may remember how much the Court paid. I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: $20,000? MS. SOVIL: About $25,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I thought, about $20,000, $25,000. What we're doing this time is do it on the cheap, not have the Court pay $20,000, $25,000. I think we're going to be successful -- Item 2 has to do with the meetings at U.G.R.A. that the Court asked me to work up numbers in terms of -- spreadsheet numbers in terms of costs over there, and the last costs that we bore ourselves. I have met with financial people. Scott Loveland and Stuart Barron examined what they do over there. _-~a-o~ 185 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 There were some documents that I -- that they didn't have that I wanted. I just got them a couple days ago, and they researched for me and gave me some backing information on what the County last -- County's last obligation was when we had the program here. So, when it's time to have all that done, we'll have it done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you been able to, or are you going to see if there's any comparable counties, size-wise, that have their own program? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can do that. JUDGE TINLEY: That's certainly something that would be pertinent to what y'all got working right now, I would think. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Something we need to know. I guess T.C.E.Q. is the place to get that answer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They would know what counties administer their own program, I would think. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly, it's germane to when we bring back to the Court to make some kind of decision. I don't know that that's germane as to what the rules actually should be. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to have that information. In fact, I'd like to know what the counties that are contiguous to Kerr County are doing, how 4-_8-03 186 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 they got organized, how much it costs. Either we can do that in this effort we're making with them, or we can get some other -- I keep hearing stories about, well, over there in that county they've only got a part-time person doing it, and they got about the same -- you know, that's probably not true. We need to know. We need to know whether or not it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly need to know what our neighboring counties -- I think we can find comparable counties. Thea has, on many occasions, done research on what's comparable to Kerr County for many different projects, and there's about 10 counties statewide that are -- yogi know, it'd be interesting to see how they're handling it. Not many more than that. M5. SOVIL: The same 10 counties. Do we use Cherokee County again? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Use Cherokee. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Grayson. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brown. Grayson may be getting too big. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe. None of them have an interstate running through them and a major river, retired community. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So they're really not 4-~ ~-~~ 3 187 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 apples ar:d apples. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, you're right. JUDGE TINLEY: Soil and environmental considerations, probably two of the most important factors. Any more reports, gentlemen? F3eing none, I will declare the meeting adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:39 p.m.) _~~s-o~ 188 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 5th day of May, 2003. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk BY: __~ _ ____G__________ _______ Kathy B nik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 23 24 .- 25 4-~8-03 ORDER ND. X8048 FINAL REVISION OF PLAT CEDAR RIDGE MOBILE HOME PARK On this the 8th day of April, CD03, ~_ipan motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Cammissianer Williams, the Co~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, the final revision of plat of Cedar Ridge Mobile Home 1='ar•k, Pct. 1. ORDER N0. `8049 VARIANCE FDR THE RESERVE AT FALLING WATER - On this the 8th day of April, 203, upon motion made by Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the variances req~_tested to The Reserve at Falling Water, as outlined in the comm~_~nication from the Co~_~nty Engineer. ORDER NO. :-'BQ~°.~~ AP'P'ROVE EXTEN,S""ION OF PI DS AND ALLOW ROAD & HRIDGE 70 PURCHASE PAVING OIL On this the 2~ith day of April, c~~3, ~_~pon motion made by Cornmissioner~ Nicholson, ser_onded by Commissioner Let z, the Co~_~rt ~_~nanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~-, the Road & Fridge Administrator's r^ey~_~est for extension of annual bids and allow him to purchase paving oil as needed. ORDER N0. ~8Q~51 VARIANCE AND FINAL REVISION OF PLAT" OF TRACTS 1~ & lE OF Y.U. RANCHLANDS On this the 8th day of April, ~~~3, ~_~pan motion made by Gammissioner-~ Nicholson, seconded by Gammiss:ioner Baldwin, the Ga~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-+~-Q~, the variance and final r,evisian of Flat of Tracts 1v and 1B of Y.O. Ranchlands, located iT~~ Precinct 4. ORDER N0. c82~5 APPROVE ROAD NAME CHANGES AND REGULATORY SIGNS AND SET F'URLIC HEARING On this the c8th day of April, X00,?,, ~_~pon motion made by Commissioner° Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, for p~_iblic hearing J~_tne 9, ~~0,~, at 10:0 a. m. , the road name changes and reg~_~latory signs for ca~_~nty maintained r~aads in vario~.~s locations in F;err Go~_tnty in accordance with 9-1-1 G~_iidelines. EXISTING ROAD NAME REG?UESTED NAME CHANGE 175 S Lantana Rd S 1758 S Liggett Ln S BeechlPeach Rd W Pyas Springs Rd W Estes Cottages Rd NW Hethel Way NW REGULATORY SIGNS .-, No parking sign on Rim Rock Road Stop sign at Upper Ti_irtle Creek at Rocky Hill No parking sign at Rocky Hill No dumping an Scott Road ORDER NO. ~8~53 APPROVE ROAD NAME CHANGES FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED ROAD5 On this the c8th day of Apr^i 1, `~03, ~_~pon motion made by Commissioner^ Let z, seconded by Commissioner^ Nicholson, the Co~_tr^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, the following r^oad name changes for^ pr^ivately maintained r^oads in var^ious locations in tier^r^ Co~_~nty in accar^dance with 9-1-1 G~_iidelines as pr^esented by Raad and Rr^idge administr^ative staff. Existing Road Name Req~_~ested Name Change 30E7 NW Goatie Trl NW E+~BE W OId Sunset Ranch Rd W 1114 E Kr^amer^ Ln E 1E47 NW Old Roeder^ Rd NW 1343 N Flag Hill N cSO4 W Old Deer Cr^eek Rd W c1~7 W G?uaker Ln W ORDER NO. 8054 APPROVE GRANT APPLICATION FOR COPS IN SCHOOLS GRANT PROGRAM On this the c8th day of April, X003, upon motion made by Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, w,err Co~.~nty Sheriff's Department to apply for COPS in Schools Grant Program for a .?,-year period starting with the X004-c:005 school year, ,--~ ORDER NO. 28055 APPROVE UNIVERSAL HIRING PROGRAM APPLICATIDN ~' On this the 28th day of April, 2003, upon motion made by Commissioner- Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, the Kerr County Sheriff's Department applying for' the Universal Hiring Program by a grant thro~_~gh the COPS Office, which wo~_ild enable the Department to supplement the c~_~rrent sworn force. ORDER N0. ~8Q~~6 CONVEYANCE OF INDIAN CREEK STRUCTURE On this the 8th day of April, ~Q~03, ~.~pon motion made by Commissioner, Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, that Kerr Co~_~nty convey by q~_~itclaim deed the Indian Gr^eek Pr•idge str~_tct~_~re to the City of Ingr^am. ORDER NO`. E8057 RESOLUTION IN SUPPDRT OF HOUSE PILL E191 78TH LEGISLATURE On this the c8th day of April, cDQ~3, upon motion made by Commissioner, Lets, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-@, supporting the Resol~_~tion in s~_~pport of House Pill `191, 78th Legislature, State of Texas. ORDER N0. 2658 APPOINT COMMITTEE TO INITIATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO COMPLY WITH HIF'AA PRIVACY RULE Dn this the c8th day of April, ~0~3, ~_-pon motion made by Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner' Williams, the Count unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-~, to appoint a HIPAA committee with the representatives as designated by Commissioner, Paldwin to review and prepare policies and proced~_-res for- presentation to this Court as may be required by the HIPAA privacy rules. ORDER NO. ~8Q~59 AGpROVE LCRA AF'pLICATION FDR GRANT On this the `8th day of April, `Q~03, upon motion made by Commissioner, Let z, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-Q~, to make application to L. C. R. A. for courtho~_~se exterior lighting in accordance with the information provided on the agenda item. ORDER NO. X6060 RATIFICATION OF EARTH DAY PROCLAMATION On this the `8th day of April, `003, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~, the Earth Day Proclamation and ratified the Co~_inty J~_idge's signature on same. ORDER NO. 28061 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS On this the ^c8th day of Apr^i 1, 2003, came to be consider^ed by the Court var^ious Commissioner^s' pr^ecincts, which said Claims and Acco ~_int s ar^e 10-General for^ X79, 635. 90; 15-Road ~ Pridge far 'b38, 287. 32; 50-Indigent Health Car^e for^ X14, 415.08; 71-Schr^einer^ Road Tr~_ist for X40.30. TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS:~132,378.60. Upon motion made by Commissioner^ Lets, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay said accounts. ORDER N0. ~8Q~6~ aUDGET AMENDMENT I N ROAD AND EAR I DGE DEF'A RTMENT On this the 8th day of April, c00,?,, upon motion made by Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Qi-0, the transfer of ~199.0iZt from Line Item No. 15-611-55~ Contract Fees to Line Item No. 15-611-48Q~ Ins~_~rance - Vehicles. ORDER N0. L8063 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN 198TH DISTRICT COURT On this the Lath day of April, LQ~03, ~_ipon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Co~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, to transfer X1,953.47 from Line Item Na. 10-436-40L Court Appointed Attorney with ~1, L53. 47 to LiTie Item Na. 10-436-415 Special District J~_~dge and ~700.OG to Line Item Na. 1~-436-494 Special Court Reporter. The County Auditor and Co~_~nty Treas~_irer are hereby authorized to write a hand check in the amo~.tnt of ~L,369.87 made payable to John Delaney. ORDER NO. ~8Q~E4 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW On this the c8th day of April, cQ~03, ~_tpon motion made by Commissioner Let z, seconded by Cnmmissioner Nicholson, the Count unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-Q~, to transfer 1+~.JJJ• 58 from Line Item Na. 1~-4~7-415 Special CCAL J~_~dge to Line Item No. 1~-4~7-4~2 Co~_irt Appointed Attorney. ORDER NO. cBQ~E~S BUDGET AMENDMENT IN COUNTY TREASURER On this the 8th day of Apr-i 1, ~~~~, ~_ipon mot ion made by Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-Q~, to transfer ~:~SQ~. ~~ from Line Item No. i~-497-~16 Employee training to Line Item No. 1~-497-48~ Conferences. The Co~_~nty Auditor and Co~_~nty Treasurer are hereby authorised to write a hand check in the amo~_~nt of ~L~~.15 made payable to Parbara Nemec for reimbursement for conference expenses to AttM. ORDER NO. c80F6 PUDGET AMENDMENT IN GENERAL FUND-REVENUES On this the c8th day of April, ~~0,:,, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer^ ~8,'~45.~~ from Line Item Nn. 1~-37~-~~~ Various Ref~_inds to Line Item Na. iQ-56+Z~-57~ Capital Out Iay. ORDER N0. ~8tDE7 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN SHERIFF'S DERARTMENT On this the `8th day of April, 2~~3, ~_ipon mot inn made by Commissioner^ Lets, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Co~_irt unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer ~317.6~ from Line Item No. 1~-560-.s~OJ Operating Expenses to Line Item Na. 1~-5E,~-2~8 Investigation Expenses. The Co~_~nty Auditor and Co~_~nty Treas~_~rer ar•e hereby a~_~thorized to write a hand check in the amount of ~~?,17. 6~ made payable to H. E. R. Grocery Company. ORDER N0. X8068 AP'P'ROVE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS On this the `Sth day of April, ~00~, upon motion made by Commissioner Let:, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Co~_trt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept the following r'epor'ts and direct that they be •Piled with the C o ~_~n t y C I e r k far f ~_it ~_~ r e a ~_td i t Wi 11 iam E. Ragsdale, J. P. #4 March ~00~