1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Special Session Monday, August 23, 2004 9:00 a.m. Commissioners' Courtroom Kerr County Courthouse Kerrville, Texas 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 ~i ~i 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,_., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I N D E X August 23, 2004 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 4 1.1 Set a Public Hearing for Revision of Plat for Tracts 28A & 25B of Y.O. Ranchlands 7 1.2 Consider list of roads for name changes, regulatory signs, and road abandonment; set public hearing for same 8 1.3 Status report on Rabies and Animal Control Department activities 11 1.4 Status report on Environmental Health Department activities 16 1.5 Resignation of Justice of the Peace #3 -- 1.6 Consider approval of Telecommunications Equipment Lease for Kerr County Courthouse 2 3, 30 1.7 Consider authorizing insurance requests for proposals, with or without assistance of a consultant, for employee health benefit plans for next year, or alternatively, authorize procedure(s) for interview and/or selection of consultant 24 1.10 Consider and discuss confirmation of appointment of members at large for the Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board 33 1.11 Eminent domain proceedings for property to protect airport approaches (Executive Session item) 36 4.1 Pay Bills 37 4.2 Budget Amendments 38 4.3 Late Bills -- 4.4 Read and Approve Minutes 44 4.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 45 1.8 Consider and discuss 2005 Texas County & District Systems Plan Rate and Plan changes 46 1.9 Consider permitting Shannon Air 1 subscription program available for purchase in Kerr County, authorize County Judge to sign authorization letter 87 3.1 Action taken on Executive Session items (1.11) 112 --- Adjourned 113 25 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 On Monday, August 23, 2004, 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: Good morning. Let me call to order the meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court posted for this time and date, Monday, August 23rd, 2004, at 9 a.m. Commissioner Williams, I think it's your pleasure this morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please join me in a word of prayer and pledge of allegiance to the flag. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there is any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter or item that is not an agenda item, you're free to come forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we'd ask that you wait until that item is called. And we further ask -- it's not essential, but we request that you fill out a participation form; they're at the back of the room, so that hopefully I won't miss you when we get to that item. But, at this time, if anybody has any matter that they want to speak to that is not a listed agenda item, feel -- feel free to come forward at this time. I see no one coming 8-23-04 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 forward, so apparently we have no one there. What do you have for us today, Commissioner Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have anything that pops to the front of my brain immediately, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Gee, that was easy. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a lot of rain, at least in our part of the county, but it was pretty localized. We had 5 inches at our house, but I know Comfort only had a little over an inch. So, just that little corner of the county got a pretty good shower last night. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I pass. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gosh, yeah. Okay, I'll say something now. I get all that time? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't say that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No? I just wanted to say that I'm glad to see the honorable Gerald Johnson from the city of Ingram with us today, and our good friend comes in occasionally and observes and advises, and glad to see him here. And I don't know if you guys have been watching the Olympics on TV, but, man oh man, some of the most exciting stuff I've ever seen. In my opinion, the best athlete on the whole deal is tonight, Jeremy Warner. He's a quarter-miler I told you about from Baylor. 8-23-09 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,,,., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Bill's got his Baylor coat on today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, you do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to wear it tonight. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: His teammate's in the mile relay tomorrow, so two guys to watch. Jesse and I got to talk to him a little bit earlier, before we even saw him run, and this guy -- this guy is a phenomenon. He truly is, and he's white. I know I shouldn't be saying that kind of thing, but I did. And I'm glad I did. That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. As I'm sure most of you recall, we had last week a visit from a representative of the Texas Workers Compensation Commission that was here to review our recently initiated safety program, especially as it pertained to the administrative personnel that work in Kerr County. I say recently initiated. Actually, we -- we began it back in the latter part of 2003, but formally began in February, I believe it was, 2004. Already, I -- I see that program as having made some gains for us. Number one, one of the initial considerations for getting into a safety program was the -- was the incentive provided to us by the Texas Association of Counties which we received, which was a 10 percent credit or rebate, as it were. I'm not sure how they characterize it, 8-23-04 6 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 but it cost us $18,000 less on our workman's compensation coverage, so in effect, it saved us $18,000. Further, by initiating this safety program, we ascertained that since its formal initiation in February of this year, as to the administrative personnel that this particular segment covered, that we have had no lost-time accidents since we initiated that program in that personnel classification. Things weren't perfect. We had some things that were brought to our attention that needed to be addressed, and we're going to address them. But I think the important thing that we need to keep focused on here is that safety is an everyday thing, and we need to think safety, do safety, and -- and do it as an ongoing part of our everyday employment here. I particularly want to thank Ms. Nemec and -- and Ms. Nix in her office, who's taken the lead in this -- in this safety program. She's the one that's doing all the documentation with respect to the admin people. Now, Road and Bridge has a separate program, and they're working very hard on theirs. And I think probably in about three months, they'll -- they'll have a visit from this -- or some representative from the Workers Compensation Commission. But they're very much involved in their program, and I think things are improving for them in the way of lost-time accidents. But, bottom line, the thanks goes to every 8-23-04 7 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 employee of Kerr County who is now involved in the safety program, and who's going to end up -- the net result is going to be that we're going to end up saving money, having fewer injuries to our personnel, and it's just going to be a win-win deal all across the board. Our comp rates are going to go down. Our health rates are going to improve. It's going to be a win-win thing across the board. So, I want to thank all the employees for their participation in this program, and we're committed to going forward with it. That's all I got. Let's get on to the first item on the agenda. We need to set a public hearing for revision of a plat for Tracts 28A and B of the Y.O. Ranchlands. MR. JOHNSTON: Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. MR. JOHNSTON: September 27th, 2004, at 10 a.m. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to set the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a public hearing for the revision of a plat for Tracts 28A and 25B of Y.O. Ranchlands for September 27, 2004, at 10 a.m. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Franklin, do you know the plans for the property? Is it going to be -- I 8-23-04 8 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 mean, I noticed the person who -- the developer, and he's a real developer; actually did Falling Waters. MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know of any future plan. He's just combining these two lots. He hasn't discussed anything in the future. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, that's kind of a -- he does some pretty large developments around here. He's out of San Angelo, you know, and is a big-time developer in that part of the world. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: If I might, let me restate the motion. That involves Tracts 28A and 25 -- 28B. I think I originally said 25B, and that was in error. Should be 28A and 28B of the Y.O. Ranchlands. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10 a.m.? JUDGE TINLEY: September 27th, '04. 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: That motion does carry. Thank you, Mr. Johnston. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is consider a list of roads for name changes, regulatory signs, 8-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ...-.. 25 9 and road abandonment, and to set a public hearing for the same. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, Mr. Odom. MR. ODOM: Good morning, Judge. It's the intent to set a public hearing on September the 27th at 10 a.m. in Commissioners Courtroom at Kerr County Courthouse at 700 Main, Kerrville, Texas, concerning the proposed signs and name changes as follows: The old name of Bee Caves, which was sent in to the court records. When we accepted that, it should have been Upper Bee Caves. The regulatory signs are a yield sign on Cedar Springs; stop sign at Westwood Subdivision on Acorn, and Fox Trail to Skyview; 45 mile-an-hour, Center Point River Road; and also, we have 40 mile-an-hour on Wharton Road, but I went back and checked the records. We already have an existing court order, Number 23480, that makes it 40 miles an hour, so that is not necessary to have Wharton Road. And then abandon, discontinue, and vacate from Kerr County maintenance Lackey Road. That has been gated over. That is off Camp Verde; goes down, and I believe that gentleman's bought all that land. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Goes into private property? MR. ODOM: Goes into private property right 8-23-04 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there. And also, that we have -- I talked to Mr. Nixon about this, that we've had -- been approached to end that portion of Teagner Road, to abandon that back to the citizens back there, and we're waiting on that petition. So, we would ask -- I don't know if we could ask the Court to go ahead and accept this abandonment contingent on receiving that petition, but we have no problems on abandoning that. I'll leave that up to y'all's judgment. I would say that we would go ahead and abandon that portion based upon that petition coming into the office, which hasn't been done yet. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can have a public hearing, and we can decide based on what you get between now and then. JUDGE TINLEY: Question, if I might. This is a proposed notice? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Only reason I mention that is that you stated 10 a.m. We just got through setting one for 10 a.m. Maybe we ought to change this one to 10:15. MR. ODOM: How about 10:15? I'm sorry, I couldn't remember -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, what did you do under the regulatory signs? Did you do Fox Trail? I didn't hear you say that, but -- 8-23-04 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 11 MR. ODOM: Acorn and Fox Trail, yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve the name changes and the reg -- move to approve setting a hearing for the name changes and regulatory signs and the abandonment for September 27th at 10:15 a.m. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you very much, Mr. Odom. MR. ODOM: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is a status report on the Rabies and Animal Control Department activities. Mr. Allen? MR. ALLEN: Morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Good to see you here. MR. ALLEN: So far, we're starting off with about an average year. The good thing is, we haven't had a confirmed case of rabies since last year, which is very 8-23-04 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 good. We've handled 2,579 animals in the shelter up to August. We've still got two months left in the year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 25 what? MR. ALLEN: 2,579. That's just dogs and cats in the shelter. JUDGE TINLEY: That's since last October? MR. ALLEN: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Fiscal? Okay. MR. ALLEN: We've euthanized 1,674. Reclaims is 325, and we've adopted out 193. Those numbers are all averages. We ran 2,835 calls, and 78 P.D. or S.O. assists. That's after-hour calls. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the last item? MR. ALLEN: After-hour call outs was 78. JUDGE TINLEY: How many reclaims? I'm sorry, I didn't get that one. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 325. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Marc, what constitutes an after-hours call? MR. ALLEN: Emergency, police assist, where they go out and arrest somebody; we go pick up the animal that they have. Dog bites, aggressive dogs. A lot of our calls, we'll send -- we'll have them send a police officer out to make sure that we need to go out on it. We get a lot 8-23-04 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 of calls that -- "Well, this dog's really mean," and we don't know. I mean, a lot of times it's not mean; they just want us to come pick the dog up after hours. And we'll send a police officer out there, and he says, "Oh, yeah, it's mean; come on out." So, any -- mostly just assisting the Sheriff's Office and the Police Department, and any animal bites. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Marc, you say this is about an average year. So, for each of these categories, number of animals handled, euthanized, reclassified, adopted, it's about -- about the same as it's been the last few years? MR. ALLEN: Yeah. We still have two months left, and August and September are really busy months for us, so we don't -- it's kind of hard to predict what it's going to be. But until summer's over -- I mean, we stay pretty busy those last two months, especially when school's just starting. We'll pick up more animals, 'cause kids are putting dogs out and not putting them back; going to school and forgetting about them. The numbers go up a little bit. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that why they call it the dog days of summer? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. Boo. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's been the experience on registrations? 8-23-04 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 MR. ALLEN: Really good. This year, we've sold 2,211 registrations, and we didn't start selling them till January 1st. So my prediction was to sell at least 2,500; I think I'm going to beat that this year. We've brought in $10,259 just on registrations alone since we started selling the tags in January. Impounds, we brought in $9,436. And this year we've -- we've separated impounds from registrations, which in the past we didn't do that; it all went into one line item. And last year alone, we had $11,273. Now, there's -- it's going to be hard to separate that, but there's an $8,000 difference that we've brought in already this year, and like I say, we still got two months left to go. JUDGE TINLEY: Your -- your operation covers both city and county, does it not? MR. ALLEN: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you maintain records with regard to your calls or activities that -- that designate whether the call is a city call or outside-the-city call? MR. ALLEN: We didn't in the past, but this year we have done that. I can break it all down to what we did in the city and what we did in the county. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What, generally, does it show in -- in respect to your calls or your activities with respect to in the city or outside the city of 8-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 Kerrville? MR. ALLEN: It's still about -- well, some months it's fifty-fifty, but its 60/40, about. JUDGE TINLEY: Overall? MR. ALLEN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 60 city, 40 county? MR. ALLEN: Yeah. But, like I said, these numbers are going to change, and I won't have any exact numbers until, you know, September 31st. And -- JUDGE TINLEY: But, to this point, as you've averaged them from the beginning of last fiscal year, when you started keeping these -- MR. ALLEN: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- these types of records, they're averaging 60 percent city calls and 40 percent out-of-city calls? MR. ALLEN: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ALLEN: That's about all I have. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good report. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it. MR. ALLEN: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you, Marc. 8-23-04 1 ..._ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ._.. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. MR. ALLEN: See y'all tomorrow. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is a status report on the Environmental Health Department activities. Mr. Arreola? MR. ARREOLA: Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir. MR. ARREOLA: I've got some little handouts, please. First graphic that we have there is basically what we have been doing this year, where the percentage of our activities went, and compared to the last year. It's pretty much the same. We have different activities this year, like transfers are not being done -- real estate transfers. The rest, it's good. We show that the new construction is still being the number one item in our department, and this year went up compared to last year. The repairs went down a little bit. I think that is because of that transfer rule, that we're not getting any -- that many systems to be repaired. The rest look -- looks okay. The staff is handling it real well, the amount of activities. It's okay. Yes, sir? ,,.~ 2 4 25 8-23-04 MR. ARREOLA: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: When you're using -- JUDGE TINLEY: On your '03, does that also include just the period from October 1 through July 31? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 MR. ARREOLA: It's all from October 31st to July 31st on both. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Miguel, the transfers, -- MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- 115 for the period last year and 93 for the period this year. Not a significant change. What's -- transfer inspections are no longer required. What's the impetus for that? Is it buyers or sellers or realtors? Who -- who wants those transfers? MR. ARREOLA: Basically, the economy. That's what it -- that's what it mandates, how it's going. The same with the new construction. If we have a lot of new construction going on, we'll get a lot busier, so that's something we depend on. JUDGE TINLEY: The transfer rule was not modified until, I believe, December of last year? MR. ARREOLA: January. JUDGE TINLEY: Effective January 1. MR. ARREOLA: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ARREOLA: So those numbers are for the first three months on both years. JUDGE TINLEY: And there have been some since 8-23-04 1 .-. 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 then -- some transfer activity since then? MR. ARREOLA: We call it -- you know, registrations is the next line down there. It's basically a voluntary registration. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ARREOLA: So -- but the transfers were compared with transfers of last year only. JUDGE TINLEY: The registrations, do you see those being driven in some measure by lender requirements? MR. ARREOLA: That is basically what is mandated. When they are required to -- to transfer the documents, they come in. When they're not, they don't. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ARREOLA: The next graphic, it basically shows revenue and total activity. We have done more in the last year. We increased about 22 percent on total activity. The revenues are up 20 percent. Non-fee activities, we're pretty much the same, little bit higher -- 2 percent higher. The average running per activity went a little bit -- it's lower this year, 2 percent, 2 and a half percent. That is basically because we're trying to do a little bit more service. And a few items like -- thank you -- like the expedite fees or research fees, we try to do it fast and easy in the office without charging customers to do that, so it's not a significant amount of revenue, but I think it's 8-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 positive for the -- for the image of the department. JUDGE TINLEY: Am I to understand that, heretofore, maybe, your predecessor's operation may have charged for an expediting fee, and you're trying to operate your office such that the service is done within the time period, and there's no need for a customer to pay an extra -- an expediting fee? MR. ARREOLA: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. ARREOLA: We're also trying to do -- when the people need to know information about their license and their files, we try do it right there in-house without charging them to do a full research when we can. When we cannot, we have to charge that fee, but we try not to. Do you have any other questions on that one? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have a question. I just -- just got an observation; that -- that I don't hear near as much about O.S.S.F. as I did a year or so ago from the builders or -- JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- owners. So, my sense is things are going pretty well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, also -- I think there was a -- we've been -- I mean, it's getting close to a year now that the County's taken it over, and I think that 8-23-04 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 20 there were -- at the time we took it back, I heard a number of comments that they didn't think we were going to be able to do it in the way we said we wanted to do it, in a positive way, but effective for the environment, and I think we've done it, and I think Miguel should get a lot of -- or all of the credit for that. He's done an excellent job running the department. MR. ARREOLA: At the beginning of the year, we tried to make a projection of what will be our revenues. We projected for 30 percent. We didn't quite make that mark, but we did 20 percent -- 22 percent so far, and we believe it's going to stay about that. And that's what I think it will be next year also. Of course, depending on the economy. If the economy continues to be the same, we should be about the same, a little higher. On non-fee activities, we have -- the number I gave you is only for O.S.S.F. I do have numbers for Solid Waste also. To-date, we have 115 complaints received and investigated. Of those, we have closed 77, and we're still open on 35 -- 38 of them. So, that's also a big -- big number. We've been so busy in Solid Waste. That's basically what I have. I don't know if have you any other questions. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, we'll see you tomorrow. MR. ARREOLA: Okay. 8-23-04 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one question. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Miguel, I'm trying to -- I'm trying to reconcile a couple numbers here. MR. ARREOLA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just help me out a little bit. It's not in the form of a complaint or anything like that, but on this -- these sheets, you're showing '04 activities, total activity, that 496, various activities. MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking on your last sheet here, and the number of 543 -- MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- pops up in terms of what looks to me to be total activities. What -- MR. ARREOLA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the difference there? MR. ARREOLA: The difference in there is I decided not to include the lot charges for the subdivision reviews. We are counting subdivision reviews as one item, and for accounting purposes, they added that lot charge. We charge $10 for each lot, depending on, you know, whatever the plat is. And I didn't think it was a good reflection of 8-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 activity. It's basically that -- all the activity is just one plat review. If you have five lots or ten lots, it's one activity, so I didn't include that in both -- in both years. I took that out from last year and took it out from this year, and next year you should haven't that number. I just got it when I was doing this, but I don't think it's reflective. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. And I want to add my comments with respect to the manner in which your department has handled its task. I appreciate it. I think you guys have done a good job, and the amount of comments I've had with respect to O.S.S.F. or its administration have been reduced to almost zero, so I think that's -- that's a credit to you and a credit to the way in which you've managed this department, and a credit to the people who work under you and their willingness to do cross-training and do other tasks. Are you going to address Solid Waste when you get the budget? Or are you -- MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, we'll save that for another day. Is that right? MR. ARREOLA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything? I, too, have heard virtually nothing. It's a classic "no 8-23-04 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 23 news is good news," you know. And -- because, previously, we heard a lot of -- a lot of things about O.S.S.F., and we're hearing virtually nothing, which means everything must be going pretty good. We thank you for it. MR. ARREOLA: Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. MR. ARREOLA: I really enjoy what I do, and the people in the field, I think they're -- they're happy. I don't have problems. We'll be all right. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Miguel. JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not going to bring up for consideration the next item on the agenda, at the request of the -- the official who placed it there. We'll move on to the next item; consider, discuss, and approval of the telecommunications equipment lease for the Kerr County Courthouse. Is Mr. Motley here? We may have to come back to that one, 'cause I'm -- he had that under review, and I'm not sure where he is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let me just ask you a question about this. Is this a renewal? All these -- the figures and the numbers, is this a renewal? JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And you don't -- I notice that 8-23-04 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 24 we don't have a base document. That's what's in the County Attorney's hands. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Well, you know, Norstar, Nortel and all those words don't mean anything to me. So, I -- JUDGE TINLEY: That's the manufacturer of the equipment. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: You have no reason to know about that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. And I -- you know, and I don't know if this is something new we're looking at. Is that -- did we have Nortex last year, and now we're going -- moving to Nortel? Or is this a renewal? That's my question. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll come back to that one as necessary. Next item is consider and discuss authorizing insurance request for proposals, with or without the assistance of a consultant, for employee health benefit plans for the coming year; alternatively, authorizing procedure for interview and/or selection of a consultant. If the members of the Court will recall, I don't know whether it was last meeting or the meeting prior to that, we discussed our other coverages, and I indicated that -- that before time gets away from us, we were going to have to take 8-23-04 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 25 another look at the insurance -- the health benefits. I think the first situation that we need to discuss is, are we going to bring in a consultant from the get-go on the request for proposal? If so, we probably need to come up with some sort of a process to select that individual or firm or organization or entity. If we're not going to use that process, then we -- we need to go it on our own. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my vote is that we do, and Mr. -- I'm happy with Mr. Gray. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm going to weigh in on this. I don't want to get into that thicket one more time without the benefit of a consultant, and my -- and my view is, that consultant has to be with us from the get-go. He has to help us formulate the request for insurance -- first he has to evaluate what we have in place, and probably take some comment from Commissioners as to what they think the program should or should not be. He has to help us formulate the RFP for insurance proposals, and then he has to help us review those proposals. That's the only way I'm going to begin this thing this time. JUDGE TINLEY: You know, I think having the benefit of a consultant is great. I would suggest handling it on an early basis to allow some others that are in -- in that field -- I know of at least two or three others, and at least give them the opportunity to -- to indicate their 8-23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,-. 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 interest and make a proposal to us, tell us about their experience and so forth. And then, if -- if we want to go with who we've used in the past, we have that option -- and assuming that individual has an interest. We don't know at this point if he does. But I think we should give those in the field the opportunity to at least make an expression of interest to permit to us see what we want to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem with that. My hesitation was kind of thinking about the best way to proceed. I certainly agree, I think, probably with both Commissioner Williams and Baldwin, from the standpoint I don't want to get into this without advice from the beginning again. I think it has not gone smoothly this year, certainly. And I -- I see two ways of doing it. One, we appoint a committee of two to interview consultants and come back with a recommendation, or we can do it as a Court. I mean, a lot of times it's more efficient to do interviews with a committee of two to do some of these things. But with the timing, you know, if we start going with -- setting workshops and -- and, I mean, interviewing and all that, the whole Court being involved with it, we're talking about a month until we figure out who we want to hire. And then -- I mean, in reality. And then it takes -- we really start getting ourselves up against the time problem again. So, I think I'd really prefer to appoint -- I don't know -- two 8-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 27 members to review consultants. JUDGE TINLEY: Come back to the Court with a recommendation as to a consultant to assist the Court? That would certainly be another option. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Y'all said everything would I say. I think time is critical. We need to get on with it and not run out of time at the end. I think we need help, and that we don't have the knowhow to do it as well as it needs to be done. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd recommend Commissioner Baldwin and Judge Tinley. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good to me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To? COMMISSIONER LETZ: To be -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To interview consultants and come back to the Court with a recommendation. And if it's two recommendations you want to give the Court, that's COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make me easy to get along 24 with? ..-. 25 8-23-09 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not being easy fine too. I mean, that way -- I mean, it doesn't make any difference how many to you recommend, to me. Just that -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did -- did this good rain last night do something to you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 to get along with. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Unlike last week? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with what you're saying, but -- but do we not have to go out for RFP for consultants? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. I think it's professional services. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I realize that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I don't think we have to. I think we need to, you know, publish it in some way, but I don't think you need a formal RFP. I don't know how you do it, you know, but I think we need to -- certainly, I'd recommend Mr. Gray; I think, he's done a real good job, so we can contact him. I can't remember if the Court's used, since I've been a Commissioner, anybody other than Mr. Gray. JUDGE TINLEY: I know of at least two others that may be appropriate. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's go with your suggestion, Commissioner Baldwin and the Judge. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Interview three candidates and tell us -- JUDGE TINLEY: Three or more. Three or more. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As many as they 8-23-04 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 29 want, and come back with a recommendation to the Court at our next meeting. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine. JUDGE TINLEY: You made a motion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- that's a COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for a committee of two, comprised of Commissioner Baldwin and myself, to consider and interview or whatever consultants to assist us, and come back to the Court with a recommendation. Any further question or 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: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That wasn't very enthusiastic raising your hand, Commissioner Baldwin. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, if y'all would just pay attention, I can end this today. We'd be off and running. And I can tell you, if we get bogged down in selecting a guy and it looks like it's pushing, I will not support going out for any bids, anything. I'm not going to. This time frame thing is not going to push my vote up 8-23-04 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 against the door any more. It's going to be done in a timely way, or not going to be done. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was very, very frustrated last year, because I didn't think we had adequate time to consider. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pick a consultant quickly and come back. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have picked mine. I'm ready to go. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought I heard that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a -- did we vote? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Just got through, yeah. Let's come back to Item 6; consider, discuss, and consider approval of the telecommunications equipment lease for the Kerr County Courthouse. Mr. Motley, have you had an opportunity to review that -- actually, that's a renewal of a lease, is it not? MR. MOTLEY: Right. I've reviewed it, and I reviewed one that -- kind of a sister agreement that was proposed between Advanced Tel-Com Systems and -- well, if I got the name right -- and Road and Bridge. I'm real familiar with it. I've written up my -- my areas of concern. I've just not talked with the representative of the phone company on that. And I probably should have; I 8-23-04 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 kind of forgot it was on the agenda today. But, in any event, it's -- it's something I need to do, but there's kind of a list of a lot of things I need to do. Kerrville Telephone, I need to talk to Mr. Stacy over there. And I -- we've talked in generalities about it, but I haven't gotten down -- I got an agreement, I marked it up and typed a letter and everything, just haven't talked to him. So, I just need to do that. JUDGE TINLEY: There are some issues that you still have unresolved with the other party? MR. MOTLEY: Yeah -- well, and they're not very serious issues; kind of minor issues, to be honest. JUDGE TINLEY: But at this point, they're unresolved? then. one question. MR. MOTLEY: I would say so. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we pass that, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to ask JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll direct it to Tommy, basically. This is for renewal for equipment in-house; is that correct? Individual telephones at each station and so forth? MR. TOMLINSON: It's a maintenance agreement 8-23-04 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on the system that we have in place right now. You'll notice there's an inventory -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. MR. TOMLINSON: -- of items. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we -- we had the phone company's representative to come in, inventory all the equipment, and that's -- this is the result of that -- of that inventory. We had -- I think we initially had a five-year maintenance agreement with -- with the company. That's expired, and we -- we need to have something in place for maintenance on the system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we own this equipment now? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, we do. MR. MOTLEY: I was thinking that this was a lease purchase -- what I was looking at was actually an agreement -- a contract for lease-purchase of equipment that's in place and has already gone through one contract cycle with the people at the -- what I'm looking at in here is not what I've been reviewing. This is just like some kind of a listing of stuff. But, in any event, I -- MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's -- I'm mistaken. That is right. We were on a pure -- we're on a lease agreement. a-23-a4 33 1 „_,. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, is there a JUDGE TINLEY: If it's operating the same as the one out at Extension Service that we recently approved, it automatically went to the new lower rate, and so we're not prejudiced by failing to act on it. And I believe this one's the same way; is that not correct? MR. MOTLEY: That's right. There's no -- the agreement is in operation. There's no stated deadline. I mean, it needs to be done, but no stated deadline. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that issue? Let's move on to Item 10, if we might, then. Consider and discuss confirmation of appointment of members at large for the Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board. This is a matter that Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Letz have been deeply immersed in, so I'll let them decide who's going to run with the ball here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is pretty simple. I think we probably actually had authority at our last motion to do it, but the agreement is very specific that the Commissioners Court and City Council have to approve the at-large members. And the current -- Commissioner Williams and myself and the mayor and Councilman Smith had a meeting, and came up with the list of John Davis on a three-year term, Roger Bobertz on a one-year term, and Granger 8-23-04 34 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 MacDonald on a two-year term. Staggered terms are required by the agreement. I'll make a motion that we approve. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of -- of those designated individuals for their respective terms, and that the Court confirm the same. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. Is this another step toward the final product? Or is this knocking on the door? COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the final -- this is the final step. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the final step. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Actually, the final-final will be taken tonight at -- tomorrow night at City Council when they do the same thing, and then we'll have a seven-person board in place. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's almost the final-final. One other thing we have to -- the board -- then the seven-man board has to get -- the City has to sign the operating agreement. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, they have to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that doesn't come back to us. 5-23-04 35 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: And choose a chair. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And choose a chair. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're about done? COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're about done. The only thing, too, we're going to -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're rounding third base. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only thing that's going to probably be a little bit of discussion, I think, at our first meeting, the full board, is looking back at the agreement and figuring out exactly what the board does and what has to come back to the City and the County. There's -- you know, there's -- you try and make agreements as -- to cover all things. And the next agenda item is one that I'm not sure needs to come here, but I'm not sure it doesn't, either. So, anyway, doesn't hurt to put things on the agenda to get approval of the City and County Commissioners Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next agenda item won't be coming back in the future like this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't think so. But, anyway, we're almost there, to answer your question. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exciting. Big-time move. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did it. 8-23-09 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Congratulations. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 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: That motion does carry. Let's go to Item 11, consider, discuss, and approval of a joint resolution authorizing Texas Department of Transportation to enter into eminent domain proceedings for the purpose of acquiring real estate to protect airport approaches and proceed with airport improvements, and authorize County Judge to sign all documents to accomplish all land acquisitions associated with that TexDOT project, being Number 0315KERVL. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does this need to go in executive session? MS. BAILEY: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER MS. BAILEY: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Yes, it does. WILLIAMS: Pardon? LETZ: Executive session. It's litigation. LETZ: I thought it did. WILLIAMS: Move it into exec. 8-23-04 37 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, we're going to have to come back to that one, then, also. I suspect, at this point, we want to start taking some things out of the way. Even though, apparently, the folks are here on the 10 o'clock timed item, in deference to members of the public that may have relied upon this posting, I'd hate to start on it before the time that it's designated, so I'm reluctant to do that. So, why don't we go with our housekeeping portion of the agenda, then, and go to Section 4. Mr. Auditor, are you ready to go? MR. TOMLINSON: I'm ready. JUDGE TINLEY: The first item that we have on that is the payment of the bills. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to pay the COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded to pay the bills. Any question or discussion? I think I had a couple of tabs here that I may have had a question on that I didn't get resolved. Had one item on Page 6, under Sheriff's Department budget. Custom body armor? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's our half of a grant payment for bulletproof vests. We get the bulletproof vest grant every year; we have a matching part that was in 8-23-04 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the budget to do that. It was asked for last year and it was budgeted. We just finally got them in. Just replacement vests. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The other question I have is on Page 15, the Landata, $14,999. That's the new licensing going into that new system that you had talked about implementing this coming budget year, but instead did it out of your Records Management budget for this year, Ms. Pieper? MS. PIEPER: Right. That is correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Any further question or 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: The motion does carry. Let's go to budget amendments. Budget Amendment Request Number 1. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1, I have a request from the County Clerk for the transfer $390.20 from Operating Expenses to Machine Repairs. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, wait, wait. It comes from where and goes where? MR. TOMLINSON: Comes from -- I'm sorry. 8-23-04 39 1 ,,., 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's -- this is not our form, so I'm -- it's backwards from what we're used to doing. It comes from Machine Repair and is transferred to -- $390.20 into Operating Expenses. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any further 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: That motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 2. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for the 198th District Court. The request to transfer $100 from Special Trials to Books, Publications, and Dues. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question or 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.) 8-23-04 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,~ 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request 3. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is from the District Clerk. She's requesting a transfer of $449.80 from Group Insurance, $131.39 to Microfilm Expense, and $318.41 to Lease Copier line item. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question or 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: That motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request 4. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is a request from Roy Walston and Ag Extension to transfer $700 from Group Insurance to Office Supplies. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any questions or discussion? 8-23-04 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 41 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, it just seems to me that $700 is an awful lot of money to be putting in office supplies this time of the year. We're talking about pencils and paper clips and things like that? Or are there other things out there that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on the current -- the original budget amount, it's got to be -- it's got to be some -- I'm thinking copier paper or computer paper, something. It's -- $5,500 is pretty big item for -- I hadn't thought about it. I noticed the same thing. But I'm not -- some of the departments have consolidated a lot of those into operating supplies, and some haven't. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 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: That motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 5. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is for the Jail and Sheriff's Department. First part of it is for the Jail, to transfer $1,384.51 from Group Insurance, $47 to Vehicle Maintenance and $1,337.51 to Operating Supplies. For the a-a3-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 42 Sheriff's Office, the request is to transfer $8,343.08 from Deputies Salary, $331.75 to Operating Expenses, $4,248.57 to Vehicle Gas and Oil, $2,756.76 to Vehicle Repairs and Maintenance, and $1,006 to Maintenance Contracts. I do have -- have a request for a hand check to Identix for $7,006. It's for the maintenance contract renewal on the fingerprinting system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What system? MR. TOMLINSON: Fingerprinting system. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 5, and authorize issuance of a hand check to Identix for $1,006. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seven thousand. JUDGE TINLEY: $7,006? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How -- how does seven thousand -- oh, I see it there. Nevermind. Good. What is Operating Supplies in your mind, Sheriff? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Everything that we use. It covers papers; it covers all your pencils and pens, covers forms when we order forms, ticket books, a lot of that type of stuff. 8-23-04 1 „_„ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 43 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, a lot of things you order on the tail end of year, and -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: As corrected to $7,006 for the hand check. Any further question or 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: That motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 6. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is a request from Constable, Precinct 3, to transfer $29.60 from Office Supplies to Postage. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 6. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It seems that he goes totally the opposite direction that everybody else does. That's good. He's doing a good job. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 25 ~ your right hand. 8-23-09 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 44 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 7. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4. His request is to transfer 3,000 -- I mean $300 from Machine Repairs to Utilities. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 7. Any question or 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: That motion does carry. Do we have any late bills, Mr. Auditor? MR. TOMLINSON: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have before me the transcripts of the Kerr County Commissioners Court regular session, Monday, July 12th, 2004, and the Kerr County Commissioners Court special session of Monday, July 26th, 2004. Do I hear a motion that those transcripts be approved 8-23-04 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 45 as submitted? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval. Any further question or discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: I also have before me reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; District Clerk; Justice of the Peace, Precinct Number 1; County Clerk; District Clerk, annotated as an end of July report; and the County Extension Agent. Do I hear a motion that those reports be approved as submitted? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the designated reports as submitted. Any question or 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: That motion does carry. Looks 8-23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 like we're about to run out of rope here. Why don't we go ahead and take a break until about -- oh, say five to ten after the hour. We'll start with the 10 o'clock timed item at that time. (Recess taken from 9:52 a.m. to 10:10 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if we could, please. We went into recess a bit before 10 o'clock, to reconvene at 10:10. It's now that time. We have a timed item, Number 8, consider and discuss 2005 Texas County and District Systems Plan rate and potential plan changes. We have a representative from T.C.D.R.S. system, I believe, with us today. Ms. Nemec? MS. NEMEC: Yes, Judge. At one of the previous budget workshops, I had given you all some information on cost-of-living for retirees, and I felt that this was a great year for the Court to consider that, since our rates are going down from 7.97 to 7.61. And ever since we've been on the plan, the retirees have not received a cost-of-living increase. I had told you all at that time that I would come back with more information, so what I did was, I called a rep from the retirement system, and he's here to give you some numbers to help you make an informed decision on this agenda item. And I'll just pass this out to you. Jose? 8-23-04 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 47 MR. DELEON: Thank you. Morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning. MR. DELEON: Few things I'll talk about, since Barbara had me come over here and talk to you about cost-of-living increases. One thing I will say is that -- a little history behind them. In the retirement system, unlike other retirement systems, the retirement system as a whole, once somebody retires, they don't have automatic built-in increases. In other words, if -- if the County never allows for an increase, then the person receiving the pension, or the annuitant, will always receive the same amount for as long as they live. In the old days -- this is back in the '80's -- the system used to do cost-of-living increases as a whole, and -- but those were system-wide. Some of those increases actually affected some of the Kerr County annuitants that are receiving annuities today, but not all of them. So, anybody past '86 has not received a cost-of-living increase for Kerr County. So -- but just a little history; in the old days, they used to do that. But that -- that practice has gone pretty much by the wayside, and now what we do is we allow every employer -- which is every county or district in our system -- to decide that for themselves, whether they want to approve cost-of-living increases or not. There are essentially two types of -- for the longest time, there was 8-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 only one type of increase, and that was the CPI-based increase, the C.P.I. standing for the Consumer Price Index, which is pretty much tied with inflation. The newest form was adopted, I think, in 19 -- or 2000. 1999 Legislature; started off in 2000, and that was the flat rate increase. Okay. So, there's two ways to provide increases to benefit your retirees. I'm going to talk about both. Do you have any questions on how they work? 'Cause each of them has a different purpose, and each of them could work differently, for -- depending on the annuitants or the beneficiaries that are receiving annuities today. The first type is the easiest type, and that's the newest one they got. That got created about four years ago. That's the flat-rate COLA. Now, that one's pretty easy. You adopt a flat rate, say 5 percent, and every eligible annuitant -- which includes retirees -- or beneficiary will receive a 5 percent increase. So, in the example that you're holding there, if you look at the flat rate over here, if you have an increased basis of 1,000 -- or 5 percent, excuse me, and everyone's making 1,000, every eligible annuitant or beneficiary will receive what is a 5 percent increase; in this case, 1,050. Pretty simple. Pretty straightforward. That one, though, is based on the current annuity amount. And that's important to say, because sometimes the current annuity and the original 8-23-04 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 49 annuity are different. Because if you have -- if a person has had increases before, their original annuity is actually going to be lower than their current annuity. So, the flat rates -- flat-rate increase is based on the current amount, so if you do 5 percent this year, guy gets a 5 percent increase, or if he's making $1,000, he has $1,050. If do you another increase next year -- and before I go on, these type of increases are one-time increases, but the benefit is not one-time. So, in other words, if you do an increase this year -- say, a 5 percent increase -- annuitants' increases would be at 5 percent, but they would keep that benefit for as long as they live, for as long as the pension is paid. So, you don't have to adopt these every year. Not -- you can do that if you want to, and have a practice that every year you -- you come and, you know, propose another increase. And then what would happen in this case is, if you -- if you propose another flat rate in the future, then that person would get 5 percent on their current. So, if you think about it, if you do that every year, that would be 5 percent on 5 percent on 5 percent until the guy pretty much dies. So, that's the way that one works. What's important to stress is that that flat rate is based on the current annuity amount. So if, you know, you got this group of retirees and you're doing 8-23-04 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 50 5 percent or whatever a year, if they never die, you're pretty much increasing those benefits every year by 5 percent what you're paying now. These are ad hoc increases, which means that they're not proposed, so there is a potential increase in rate to the contribution that you pay to T.C.D.R.S. when you adopt these. So, we can go over that later, but I just want to go ahead and make sure that you understand how flat rate works. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me interrupt you, if I might -- MR. DELEON: Sure. Please. JUDGE TINLEY: -- on that point. On a flat MR. DELEON: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: -- if that, for example, is adopted by this Court, that would be for the coming year only at the increased contribution rate as specified. It has no bearing on what would occur in years following? MR. DELEON: That is correct. It's only for those eligible beneficiaries and annuitants at that time. So, if -- say I retired this year, or this upcoming year; I was somebody eligible to retire and I could retire. If I do so, this increase has no effect on my benefit. It's only for those people that are eligible -- that are already retired and are eligible for benefit. So, in essence, 8-23-04 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 51 anybody that retired, for a COLA or cost-of-living adjustment effective 2005 -- 'cause they're effective the beginning of the year. It's anyone who retired December 2003 or before. So, you know, anyone that retired this year is not going to see a 5 percent increase on their benefit. And -- and, you know, subsequently, anybody that retires, say 2005 or 2006, if you don't do any other increases in the future, they would never see a 5 percent increase. So, that's what we mean by one-time. It's kind of catching those people, that window, and those people only, and that's it. So, you're not pretty much increasing benefits for people going into the future. That's kind of the way that works. I mean, there's two ways to increase benefits for employees, those that are currently working and those that are retired. For those that are retired, it's this way, you know, where it's increasing their annuity amounts. For those that are actually working, then you increase the match rate; you provide better retirement rules and so on. But, yeah, you're absolutely right. JUDGE TINLEY: But the other way that applies to the current workers, would that also benefit the current retirees? MR. DELEON: No. See, they don't work the other way, so if you increase the match rate, that wouldn't benefit anybody that's already retired, receiving a pension. a-23-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 52 So, the only way you would increase the benefit for those that are actually receiving a pension would be this way, would be to provide ad hoc post-retirement annuities. So that's kind of the way to distinguish between increasing benefits from one end or the other. Good question. So, that -- anyway, that's the way flat rate works. Again, it's based on the current annuity amount. Now, the second way, which is the -- the one that's been in place, you know, the longest time -- I think since the early '90's -- is the CPI-based COLA. This one is specifically tied to inflation, and what it says is that every retiree or every person that's eligible for a pension will receive an increase equal to a percentage of the cumulative change in the Consumer Price Index. So, I'll repeat that in English. The way that works is that if somebody's been retired, say, since 1992, and that person -- say their cumulative change in the Consumer Price Index has been 30 percent, so if we had an index of 100 here, the index has increased to 130, so that's a 30 percent increase in the index. Then that person would get a percentage, depending on how -- what the Court approves, of that C.P.I. change. Say we take, for example, the one -- the example I have in front of you there; everyone is making $1,000, and everyone's making the same amount. But if you 8-23-04 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .-, 25 do a 50 percent C.P.I. increase, what the Court is saying is that, for every person that's been retired, we're going to calculate what their C.P.I. -- cumulative change in the C.P.I. has been since they've been retired. We're going to offer them a 50 percent percentage on that increase. So, in this case, if you take the person that's been retired the longest, that person's going to get the highest percentage increase. Not necessarily the highest percentage -- not necessarily the highest increase amount, but just percentage-wise. The theory is that what you're trying to do is you're trying to catch up people to what the C.P.I. or the inflation rate is doing. In this case, if you authorize 50 percent, it's 50 percent of that inflation. You can go anywhere between 30 to 80. I just took 50 there, 'cause it seems pretty easy to explain. But that's really what you're doing. This used to be called in the old days a catch-up COLA, 'cause what you're trying to do is you're trying to catch up people's annuities to what inflation has eroded, or the benefits that have been eroded by inflation, essentially. So, this one, if you had a -- a lot of retirees who've been retired a long time, it's easy to see that this -- this one would be a great benefit for them, because they've had -- actually had the most exposure to inflation, as opposed to somebody that retired -- in the example there, somebody that retired in 2002, hasn't been 8-23-09 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 54 exposed to inflation as much. Does that kind of make sense? I've tried to simplify that in the easiest way. I -- JUDGE TINLEY: This would apply to those persons who are presently retirees, or current workers that are under the system, or both? MR. DELEON: Again, present retirees. JUDGE TINLEY: Only? MR. DELEON: Yes. This -- this would apply to anybody that's been retired, that has an effective retirement date of 12-31-2003 or before. Anybody that retires, you know, after that, like now or later, this COLA won't apply to them, unless you do another one in the future. Let's say next year you do the same thing. Essentially, what you would be doing is you'd be authorizing the C.P.I. increase for only one year, because you've already provided that for the past -- for everyone in the past already. So, this doesn't apply for anybody that's -- that's going to retire or that's presently retired after 12-31-2003. So, remember what I said earlier; the increase is one-time. In other words, the authorization is a one-time increase, but the benefit is permanent. And if you wanted to increase the benefit again, you would have to do another one-time increase and another one-time increase. So, if you -- if -- essentially, if you think about it, if you did a 50 percent COLA every year and you authorized it, 8-23-04 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 what you're doing is that you're telling everyone that's retired, that's eligible, that you're going to provide a benefit that will provide a 50 percent of C.P.I. increase every year. So, whatever inflation is doing, we're going to try to catch you up 50 percent every year. That's kind of what that's doing. The theory -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, in our case, it would only require one retroactive action. MR. DELEON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One retroactive, catch-up action. MR. DELEON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And subsequent courts, then, would -- would deal with the C.P.I. on an as-is basis. MR. DELEON: That's exactly right. Let's take, for example -- say I retired this year. If you did this 50 percent COLA, it wouldn't apply to me, okay? But say a court five, ten years down the road decides to do one, and they hadn't done it before. Then that one would apply to me up to now, whatever that case would be, and it'll apply to everybody else that needs the COLA. This one's based on the original annuity, and that's -- sometimes it -- it's cost-saving in a way, because you're not increasing on top of an increase on top of an increase. We just go back 8-23-09 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 to the original amount, calculate what the change in C.P.I. was, and give you an increase based on that, so we don't top one increase on top of another increase. So -- and it's directly tied pretty much to inflation. So, it's sometimes difficult to explain, but in concept it's easy to -- it's easy to really understand. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me draw you out on what you just said. MR. DELEON: Sure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we did a retroactive -- made this adjustment for all of our retirees from the get-go till now, -- MR. DELEON: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and that adjustment had taken place, are you saying that any subsequent adjustments are not based on the total that that retiree has? Or only based on the original annuitant amount? MR. DELEON: Yeah. Yeah. Say, for example, somebody that -- I'll take this -- let me take that first example. Ms. Rosalind there retired in 1998 -- it's fictitious, but to prove a point. This person -- if you did a 50 percent increase, in this example, they would get a 29 percent or almost 30 percent increase. So, essentially, what we're saying is that the C.P.I. since she's been 8-23-04 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 57 retired has pretty much changed 30 percent -- or 60 percent, but you're only offering half of that. So, in the future, what will happen if do you a subsequent increase, then the increase would be from the last increase to the current increase, if it's the same amount. So, if it's another 50, it would be this, because you already provided this, see? So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you. MR. DELEON: -- you take a nice big hit in the beginning, but then it's pretty much softened, because you're only doing an increase tied to the C.P.I. Inflation lately has been around 30 percent or so, so even if you're doing 50 percent, you're doing about a one and a half increase. But at least you have the backing that you're doing something to at least provide for those eroded benefits. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. DELEON: The other one would be -- the flat rate would be based on the current, so if you did an increase, then a 5 percent increase would be on top of the increase that you're doing. That's what I'm trying to say; that this one's more based on -- on time -- more time-sensitive. Does that kind of make sense? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. MR. DELEON: Those are the types -- two 8-23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 types. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Question for you. MR. DELEON: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's your experience with other counties and districts who have a situation similar to ours? What are they doing? MR. DELEON: Well, with -- with cost-of-living adjustments, and the research that I've done there, we have a -- we have a lot of what we call repeat offenders. And it's nothing to do with people breaking the law, but has to do with people that, once they do one, they pretty much do that every year. They authorize it, or they skip a year or two, come back a year later, and the future court does that. Right now, the -- the breakdown of who does what, there's about 80 counties and districts combined that provide cost-of-living increases. It's pretty much broken down to have -- I think 39, little bit more, offer the C.P.I. rather than the flat. But, I mean, it's pretty even. It really depends on their needs. And, like I say, in a newer district, somebody that just has new retirees, well, they could do a -- a CPI-based, but then we would only provide, like, a 1 percent increase or so for them, but since they have recent -- new retirees, sometimes they would decide they want to go with a flat rate, because it just seems fair, since everybody retired recently. 8-23-04 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 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, do most counties not provide for increases? MR. DELEON: No, sir. I mean, a huge percentage of our counties do not do that. I mean, that is correct. There's only -- we have 540 active employers, but only 80 provide that, so -- do the math -- it's a little bit less than 20 percent that actually provide the benefit like this. JUDGE TINLEY: How long have you had this -- these increase programs in place? MR. DELEON: We've had these -- the CPI-based, we've had it since -- I'm not sure; either the late '80's or early '90's. Early '90, '91, if not late '80's. The flat rate just was created by the 75th Legislature, I think 1999, so it was effective 2000. So, the flat rate is rather new. The C.P.I. has been in place, you know, for quite a long time. JUDGE TINLEY: And -- but your retirement system has been in place since when? MR. DELEON: Since 1968, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So what I'm trying to get to, you say out of 500-plus qualified systems -- MR. DELEON: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: -- enrollees -- MR. DELEON: Mm-hmm. 8-23-04 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 60 JUDGE TINLEY: -- you've got only 80. You've been in existence since the 60's, and the first one only came into being, at the earliest, the late '80's, probably early 90's. The other one just came into being about five years ago. You don't think that -- that the '80's are the standstill; that it's not going to increase based upon the -- the track record here, do you? MR. DELEON: I don't have exact figures on that. I do have some speculation, and part of it is -- one, our system is rather -- it's only 30 years old, so the people came in; by the time '80 rolled around, people started retiring people. So, especially smaller counties -- some counties didn't come into the retirement system till, you know, 1980. There's some that didn't come in till '85. The other thing is, we have a lot of new districts that have come in, so, you know, we've had -- since '97 or so, about 50 or so districts have come into our system, so it'll take some time for them to actually get retirees. But, aside from the numbers, I think the -- the most important thing is, on our part, I don't think we've actually -- I like to point the finger at the retirement system, because -- and that's me, too. I mean, we -- I don't think we did a good job of communicating these type of increases or benefits before to our employers. So I think it was, one, mostly lack of communication. We didn't really communicate these 8-23-09 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 kind of benefits to employers the way we're doing now. So -- that's what I like to think. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Our current contribution rate is 7.97? MR. DELEON: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: And this coming year, that contribution rate is going to decrease to 7.61? MR. DELEON: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: So, in essence, that leaves us 36 hundredths of -- of a percentage point that we've got excess, based upon what we've been dealing with. MR. DELEON: Yes, you can consider that that way. Some -- some people decide that they want to increase benefits when -- when rates go down. Others decide to put more money in. But, yes, I mean, based on what you're contributing now, your rate did go down 36 basis points from last year's -- this year's rate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we could do the 50 percent of C.P.I. increase at 7.9; is that right? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we can get that in under the 36. It's .29 and .36. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MR. DELEON: The -- let me check my numbers here. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8-23-04 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 MR. DELEON: The 50 percent of C.P.I. is .29, which is -- which C.P.I. are we talking about? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 50 percent. MR. DELEON: That's .29, so that would be -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3.9. MR. DELEON: -- 7.9, yeah. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How many retirees do we have, Barbara? MS. NEMEC: Seventy. MR. DELEON: Seventy. Now, it won't affect -- if you do the -- I gave her a list of -- of all your 70 retirees. I felt it was -- in the beginning, when I started talking, I mentioned that in the old days, the retirement system used to do system-wide COLA's. Well, there was some retirees that had pre -- or retired before 1986. Some of these people would not be eligible for these -- for these increases, because the increases they received in the past were -- were so high that -- that the C.P.I. still is below what the -- the new calculated increase is actually lower than what the regular amount is. So -- we're never going to bring somebody below what they're making, so -- but they wouldn't be eligible for an increase. Anybody that retired after '86, I believe, in that case -- MS. NEMEC: Right. There's 14 of them. MR. DELEON: Yeah. Would be eligible. 8-23-04 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Fourteen since '86 that this would be applicable? MS. NEMEC: Fourteen that were -- that retired prior to '86 that this does not affect. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, 56 would be applicable. MR. DELEON: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, there was a question here. MR. DELEON: Because these guys received already increases in the past, and those increases are greater than the new cumulative increase that's provided under the -- in this case, 40 percent the C.P.I., but I could go back and recalculate it at 50. Some of those may actually have an increase. Who knows? But I brought the -- only the 40 percent there; I didn't bring the 50. But under the 40 percent, there's a few there that won't be eligible. JUDGE TINLEY: But current indications are we'd have at least 56 that -- MR. DELEON: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: -- that would obtain some benefit from a 50 percent C.P.I. increase? MR. DELEON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty good. The -- what causes the rate to go down? 8-23-04 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 64 MR. DELEON: That's a very good question. There's three things that -- that -- there's a lot of things, actually, but three main things that cause the rate to either go up or down. Three things to look at from -- from -- you know, I'll begin by saying it this way. These rates are the estimations of costs. The actual cost of the plan is not known. We won't know that till the last person receives the last check and dies. So, before we can even do that, the only way -- the only thing we have in front of us is an estimate. So, by nature, any estimate is going to be wrong. The question is, how much? And that's what these variations are. And the reason the rate goes up and down from year to year is because there'll be variations in assumptions. The three main assumptions that really are -- are key, one is the investment return assumption. That is -- that is really, by far, one of the most important assumptions in the retirement system. The employer -- as employees or members of the system, you get credit at 7 percent, your employee accounts. That's not the same thing for the employer. The way the design is, the employer bears pretty much all the risk, if not all of it. The employer -- employee really doesn't bear any risk. So, an investment return -- our target return is 8 percent every year. If we make 8 percent, then that assumption is met. 8-23-09 65 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 If we make above 8 percent, then there will be a favorable experience. That's what actually brought the rate down a little bit this past year, because we had a better experience than in years before. The second assumption is a termination assumption. I think a lot of people can relate to this one. A lot of county people know this one very well, and that has to do with people leaving, you know, employment and taking their money out and going elsewhere. When they do that, what happens is that they take their -- the employer's liability pretty much is done when somebody takes the money out. That's another assumption. So if you have more people take their money out than what's expected, that's a gain. Vice-versa, that's a loss. So, it's a variation. And the third one is payroll, which, of the three, is probably the least. But it could be -- it could be a big one, depending on the size of your county. So, if you had a big jail disperse and you had all those employees leave, then that's going to -- 'cause these rates are based on employer payroll, so what that's going to cause, that's going to cause that payroll to be lower. But, again, you have a gain if people take their money out, because now they have a chance to... So, basically, the first two are the most important ones, the termination and the investment return. In this past year, you've had favorable experience in both, 8-23-04 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 so, that's one of the reasons why your rate went down. Did that answer the question? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, thank you. MR. DELEON: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a -- I'm in favor of -- I like the C.P.I. approach, personally, better than the flat rate one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a real increase based on inflation. And, to me, either 40 or 50 percent of C.P.I. seems reasonable. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just one thing I'm not clear about. MR. DELEON: Sure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The number, 50 percent, is that a real number? Or is there a range? I thought I heard you say this goes from 60 to 80. MR. DELEON: Well, the -- what the Court can authorize is anywhere between 30 and 80. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I meant 30 and 80, yeah. MR. DELEON: Yeah, percent of cumulative change in the C.P.I. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fifty, you just used as an example? 8-23-09 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 MR. DELEON: I just used it as a general example. I provided estimates of what people would gain to Barbara, or what their increase would be under the 40 percent, so she has those. I can easily go back and provide those at 50 or 60 or 70 or 80, whatever you decide -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. MR. DELEON: -- you want to do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the idea of the 50 percent adjustment. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Aside from pensions, do we -- does the County incur any other liability for post-retirement benefits? The employees don't get -- MS. NEMEC: Not the retirement. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They don't get medical care. There -- there's no pension, as a whole. MS. NEMEC: No. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or no liability. MS. NEMEC: No. If they retire and they're eligible for retirement benefits, they're allowed to stay on the insurance program. At their cost, though. The County does not pay anything towards their insurance. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's been -- oh, over the last decade or so, there's been a lot of organizations -- employers come to the realization that their post-retirement liability expenses are just 8-23-04 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 overwhelming, and most of it comes from -- in my -- my understanding, most of it comes from medical plans, not -- not retirement benefits. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean, the -- basically, because the County salaries are not particularly high to start with, I mean, any position, you know, and these people are depending on their work for the County for, you know 25, 30 years, I think we should try to adjust them, you know, if we can afford to. I think it's a -- it's a way of recognizing people who've done a lot of service for the County. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Isn't the retirement based on about 50 percent of what their actual income is when they retire? MR. DELEON: Well, sometimes. It's different SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Depending on which option they take, but only about 50 percent? MR. DELEON: I mean, really, in our retirement system, the longer you work, the greater replacement you're going to have, and there's no limit on replacement income. There's people out there that have worked 40 years. Clerk out there for Victoria County who retired can make twice as much retired as they're making 8-23-04 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 69 now. I mean, there's -- that's -- that can happen in a retirement system. There's retirement systems that can, because it's based on a cash balance account. The more money you have put into the retirement system and, you know, top it with a good match rate -- you guys have, what, 100, 90 percent, I believe. You know, that could really raise somebody's annuity pension pretty high. So -- but typically, anywhere -- anybody that works 20, 30 -- 30 years should see a -- you know, anywhere between 70 to 80 percent of their, you know, replacement income replaced by this annuity. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Getting ready to retire, Sheriff? JUDGE TINLEY: By doing, for example, a 50 percent C.P.I. increase, should we authorize that today, the effect of what I'm hearing is that all of these retirees heretofore prior to December 31, 2003 -- MR. DELEON: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: -- '03, they would have -- assuming it has not already brought -- been brought to 50 percent C.P.I. adjustment since the date of their retirement. MR. DELEON: That is correct. JUDGE TINLEY: And if we choose, we can do it again next year, three years down the road, and what we do 8-23-04 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 then will be based upon whatever's done today, in that period of time. MR. DELEON: Yes. If you choose the same option, what would happen is that -- say next year -- I'll give you a really good example. You know, your rate goes up because investment experience -- investment experience wasn't as good or termination experience wasn't as good, or whatever the factors. Then you can decide, okay, we're not going to do that for this year. Then, if you don't do that for a couple years, what could happen is when you do that, then anyone that retired from the time -- that is eligible from the last time that you did it to the current time would get 50 percent, and then those people that got the last 50 percent would get the 50 percent too for those three years, and that's it. Because you've already done it going back. JUDGE TINLEY: But, in either case, it's probably going to be a considerably smaller percentage or contribution. MR. DELEON: Oh, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Because you're dealing with a smaller -- much smaller time frame. MR. DELEON: Absolutely. Absolutely. JUDGE TINLEY: It could be, for example, two or three years from now, point -- .05 or .06, maybe? 8-23-04 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 MR. DELEON: Well, absolutely. I mean, two -- like, there's some counties that do the 5 percent or do the flat rate, and one of the things I warn in doing that -- not that I want to discourage that, but what I warn is that what you're doing is that if you're increasing annuities by 5 percent per year, and you develop that practice, if those retirees are not dying, you're just increasing 5 percent, and your benefit's greater; you're promising more benefit every year. So, with this one, it's kind of a good way to control what you increase and who you increase it to. It's -- that's what it was designed for. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a question there. JUDGE TINLEY: Mrs. Budow? MS. BUDOW: Thank you for taking a question from the floor. What I hear them trying to take advantage of is the decrease in their contribution; they're trying to now add that back into the benefits. Is there any way to tie what they agree to increase to, to the net change in their contribution? MR. DELEON: Well, no. I mean, what happens is that they have -- the County has what we call a variable rate plan, and that rate will vary based on the factors we've talked about from year to year. Now, it doesn't 8-23-04 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 72 vary -- even on the various -- the best of years, it won't vary a whole lot. What I mean by "a whole lot," like, a percentage point or -- or greater. Because, due to the nature of the plan, we have a lot of built-in mechanisms that kind of try to make the rates stable. That being said, you are going to have small variances. And what some employers sometimes like to do, and it's certainly up to them, is they like to make -- possibly increase benefits to offset that -- that decrease. Others like to put more money into the retirement system when -- when they feel that their rate has gone down. Either is -- there's no right or wrong. It just really depends on what the Court feels is, one, affordable, and what they feel is right for their employees. But that -- I mean, the two sides, both employers -- there's some employers that'll do that; there's some others that will -- that'll not probably decrease benefits sometimes, or even increase their contributions, because they feel it's an opportunity to provide more increases, so they do benefit increases in the future. They have already put a lot of money into the retirement system. But I -- I really can't say there's one right or the other. It's just pretty much what they feel is an acceptable contribution rate that they can tolerate from year to year. I mean, unless there's a very, very drastic change, which I severely doubt, their rate's not going to vary a whole lot 8-23-04 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 from year to year. MS. BUDOW: But there's a number associated with -- whatever they're making an offer of, say, 30 percent of C.P.I., there's a -- there is a definite number that's now going to be added to their budget from here on out, correct? MR. DELEON: Yes. MS. BUDOW: Okay. MR. DELEON: There is going to be an increase. And if we had mostly -- if you do -- let me explain that to the Court. If you do the 50 percent of C.P.I., it's a .29 increase. What that is, is that is a -- an immediate unfunded liability, and what an unfunded liability is, is a -- is a benefit that you're promising, but have not yet funded. T.C.D.R.S. is an advance-funded plan. What that is, is that the rate that you're providing today is to fund the benefits of the future. In other words, you can promise all the benefits you want; 100 percent match, COLA, all these kinds of things. If no one ever takes advantage of the benefit, the ultimate cost to the County is zero. So, matching only occurs at retirement. If no one ever reaches retirement -- it's not going to be likely, but say, in the extreme example, no one ever reaches retirement, never collects a pension. If you don't pay pension benefits, you're not paying benefits. So, 8-23-04 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 74 I mean, that's one thing to understand. What you're doing right now is saving in the event somebody does retire and needs a pension at that time, and that's what the contribution rate is for. So, that's why you'll have variances. I mean, it's no different than -- really, it's really not -- you can use the analogy of, you know, saving for college for a child. You know, if -- if you save for college for a child and, you know, when they're a senior, they tell you they don't want to go to college and they want to be a rock star or something, and if they never go to college and you never pay a tuition payment, what's your ultimate cost for his college education? Nothing. I mean, the benefit payments -- the cost of the plan is when benefit payments are being paid. So, I mean, you're -- and say that the rate goes up and down. It goes up and down because if less people terminate, you know, then that's telling our actuaries that calculate the rates that the probability of people retiring increases, so therefore, your cost increases slightly. But rates are pretty -- rate stability is a big thing in our system. We -- we try to provide as stable a rate as possible, because we know we're dealing with taxpayer funds here. And if -- if our rates were going up and down severely, I wouldn't be working for this retirement system. It would be tough to explain that to courts. 8-23-09 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 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the addition this year of .29 percent for a 50 percent C.P.I. increase -- MR. DELEON: Mm-hmm? JUDGE TINLEY: -- that would hold for this year only? MR. DELEON: That would hold for this year. As -- as far as next year -- next year's concerned, that increase would be tied to your benefit. So, in looking at your two benefit structures -- or your cost rate structure, you're looking at a normal cost rate of 5.91, and unfunded liability rate of 1.70. See that there? The total is 7.61. The normal cost rate is -- I'd like to say usually is the normal cost of funding current benefits. In other words, that's what it's costing you to fund the benefits that you're promising today for those people in the future. The unfunded rate is simply benefits that have been promised, but not yet funded. That sounds familiar, because that's exactly what you create when you provide a benefit like a -- like a cost-of-living increase. Now, the -- the relationship between those two, and -- well, the actual assets and liabilities, if you look at those two items down, you see that you have an unfunded amount of $1.8 million, almost 1.9. Well, again, remember what I said. These are -- these are projections. These are estimates at best. What we do with -- with that unfunded amount 8-23-04 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 is that we amortize it over 20 years, and then we have you fund the first year, hence the 1.70. In other words, the way we -- we calculate the employer rate is that we assess a rate that normally -- that is the normal cost of funding benefits, okay? And then we assess a rate for maybe -- for benefits that have been promised, but not yet funded. So, it's kind of a backward-looking way, but from year to year, that -- that can fluctuate. The normal cost rate is not going to fluctuate from year to year. The normal cost rate will fluctuate somewhat slightly from year to year. It's going to be probably the most stable of these two rates. The unfunded rate is going to be the -- the one that's going to go up and down. From last year to this year, that was the one that actually went down, because we had good experience. So, the -- that rate, if you want to budget -- one thing some counties do is, there's -- sometimes they like a rate that's a little bit higher than what they're putting in, and we allow for that. So, say your rate was 7.9; you wanted to go with 8. We just cap it at 8. As long as the total rate from year to year is lower than 8, you'll always be at 8. You could have it that way as well. But that -- that cost would be implemented as an unfunded liability, and depending, you know, what happens from year to year, you know, that liability could be lowered 8-23-04 77 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 next year. Could be higher. This year was lower because we had good experience. MS. BUDOW: If you add the cost on, the .29 that we're talking about, though, and everything else held true from here on out, it would be basically -- what's 1.7 plus .29? MR. DELEON: What it's doing -- that's a very good question. If you look at -- look at the two rates there, normal cost and U.L. rate, the 7.61, okay? If everything held true and the actuaries had every assumption right -- that's not going to happen, but, you know, let's say, for example, that happens -- your rate should be going down to 5.91 over 20 years, because what you're doing is you're funding this unfunded amount over 20 years. And we're -- pension funding is a long-term arrangement between the time somebody starts and somebody dies, and a benefit could be anywhere between 50 to 60 years. So, we know that's the case, and that's why we amortize those liabilities over 20 years, because, you know, we know you're going to be here tomorrow and pay for this. So -- and that's kind of the way we do that. So, if you're not making any changes to your benefit, that rate should be going down to zero every year. If it's not, then you need to be asking why. And, in theory, that's what we're doing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The total rate, the 8-23-04 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 78 7.61 percent, that's 7.61 percent of the total payroll? What's that of? MR. DELEON: Of payroll, yeah. Based on employee-covered payroll. And the reason I say that is because there's some employees -- and I don't know if you have any here -- that may not be eligible for the retirement system. Anybody that does contract work and those kind of guys. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if MR. DELEON: COMMISSIONER 50 percent of C.P.I., it's MR. DELEON: COMMISSIONER MR. DELEON: Part-time. LETZ: -- you go to the 0029? Yes, that is correct. LETZ: Of total payroll? That is correct. That's one way -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7.90. MR. DELEON: That is one way to put that, yeah. Yeah. Usually what I tell people to budget, look at their true costs of the plan. That's usually the normal cost rate. So, if your plan is going towards 100 percent funded -- if it was 100 percent; in other words, the assets and liabilities equal, then your total rate would be 5.91, essentially. I mean, but even if you target for that, you're going to be off, because assumptions change -- well, 8-23-G4 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 79 not assumptions, but there's going to be variations in the rate every year. But -- MS. NEMEC: I believe in the budget figures that you all have from the Auditor, he might have put a certain percentage in there already. Is that correct, Tommy? So some of this is already considered in the budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7.90? MR. TOMLINSON: No, it was more than that. I -- I think -- MS. NEMEC: He put a 5 percent MR. TOMLINSON: -- we assumed a flat rate. MS. NEMEC: A 5 percent, you think? .18? MR. TOMLINSON: I think so, yeah. MS. NEMEC: So, that's -- it would just be the difference of 29 and 18 that we would have to add to the budget. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you know how many dollars that is? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Payroll is probably $10 million. MS. NEMEC: I couldn't say right now without looking, 'cause it would just be the ones that are on the retirement system, not part-timers. MR. DELEON: It would be those -- it's only those that are in the retirement system. Not total payroll. 8-23-09 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 80 MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the rate change is as to the total amount. MR. DELEON: Yeah. I mean, it's going to be 7.90 if you do the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Times total p ayroll, which is, you know -- COMMISSIONER WILLIA MS: Whatever. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- ballpark, $10 million or so. MR. DELEON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: But that -- that rate adjustment is for the coming year only. MR. DELEON: Yes. We add that to the -- to the rate. Next year, we -- what we do every December 31st is that we go ahead and reassess the plan, look at the assets in the plan, look at the liabilities, and then figure out what the unfunded amount is, amortize that over 20 years, and apply a rate. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it has an impact on all future years, because the liability's -- we're increasing the liability if you do it one time. MR. DELEON: You have to fund it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not going to be point -- 8-23-04 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 MR. DELEON: Well, the .29 -- usually what I tell people is to actually just figure that this rate will be around that amount the next year as well, because what you're doing is you're adding that liability that you hadn't funded before. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. DELEON: So, I mean, to say that next year it'll be 7.61, though that's not going to be the case. It will hover around 7.9, you know, plus or minus the same basis points that you saw this year. I mean, always -- if you budget around, you know, 50 basis points up or down, that's very conservative, but some people do that. But in this case, even in the very good year that we had last year, you didn't see a 50 basis points change. And, yes, last year we did have a good year. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm still a little bit unclear. What is going to be the dollar impact on this year's budget? I'm thinking it's going to be about $30,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I think it's going to be. But, I mean, I think that -- to me, I don't know that we need to make that decision today. I'd rather make that decision when we get the budget numbers. I think -- I mean, I think I'd like to try to do it, but I want to make sure that we can afford to do it. And I think we can, but I think we have to weigh that against some other 8-23-09 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 options -- other budget considerations. JUDGE TINLEY: If I'm not mistaken, -- MR. DELEON: Yes, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: -- your enrollment runs calendar year, January 1 to December 31? MR. DELEON: Mm-hmm, yeah. And you have until December 15th to get us the resolution or order approving this, so you have -- JUDGE TINLEY: For the '05 calendar year? MR. DELEON: That is correct. Yeah, the resolution or order is due by the 15th of December to adopt any changes for the upcoming year. So, every year you can look at this the same way. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It seems to me that the reality is that there is no new economic impact or additional impact to the '04-'05 budget, because we're currently at 7. -- 7.97 or something like that. We would drop -- if we add this back, we're still within the same dollar amount we're paying now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is no ongoing extra impact. We're already there. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That sounds right. I'd like -- I'd like to sleep on it for 24 hours and have Tommy tell me that. 8-23-04 83 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. DELEON: But we -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. I understand, sure. MR. DELEON: Are we kind of clear on the concept? Any questions? I want to make sure that y'all understand. JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing I want to get crystal clear in my mind is that if you add point -- if you add 29 basis points to this year, -- MR. DELEON: Yes, sir? JUDGE TINLEY: -- that is a continuing obligation in subsequent years. MR. DELEON: It -- it has to be. I mean -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. DELEON: The other thing -- you know, I'll give an extreme example. If you authorize a -- usually I don't like to give extreme examples, 'cause retirees kind of shake, but if you authorize this increase at .29, and every retiree -- you put them in a bus and they all die next year, you're not paying out a benefit. So, let's just say that, even though you're -- you're promising a benefit, and it's .29 for this year, what that .29 is, is an estimate of what we feel the unfunded liability is to the plan, and what you need to fund at most to provide that new benefit that you're doing. 5-23-04 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we do it, we're increasing the retirees' payments for the rest of the retirees' lives. MR. DELEON: Yeah. So, if they continue to live, then yes, you will continue to have this liability. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, 'cause their basic annuity is increased by that amount. MR. DELEON: Exactly. MS. NEMEC: What happens next year is, instead of seeing that .29 here at the bottom, you're going to see it within that 7.61. And what they're going to do is they're going to do a study on our plan. And, it's like he says; if we've lost a lot of retirees to death, then that's going to benefit our plan. So, that's where you're going to see -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: You'll never see it exactly. MS. NEMEC: Right. MR. DELEON: You'll never see the .29 exactly. It'll be already computed in the -- mostly it'll be in the unfunded liability rate, because that's what that is. But unfunded liabilities can come and go. There's some counties that -- that have had high unfunded liability amounts, and from one year to the next, they've had very low ones. It's due to the experience. Maybe they had more 8-23-04 85 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 people quit, take their money out than was expected. JUDGE TINLEY: Mrs. Buck, did you have a question? MS. BUCK: Yes. Isn't it a fact that about 30 percent of our retirees are already in their 80's? MR. DELEON: There's a lot of those. MS. BUCK: They're not going to live 20 years. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But they're going to get the adjustment. MS. BUCK: We'll get it this time, yes, until they -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we have to pay for that adjustment, even though they may die tomorrow. MS. BUCK: Yes, I understand. What I'm saying -- he was saying that it would go on for 20 years. I just wanted to make a change. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. DELEON: It will -- the adjustment to their pension would be for as long as they received the pension. MS. BUCK: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: As long as they remain eligible, yeah. Did you have a question, Mr. Tomlinson? MR. TOMLINSON: Just for information, I'd 8-23-04 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 like to know how -- how our unfunded liability of Kerr County relates to the system as a whole. MR. DELEON: Well, it's right around average. I mean, the system as a whole is right around 90 percent asset-to-liability ratio. But, in doing so, that's putting you in -- in -- you know, amongst Harris County, amongst, you know, Bexar County. MR. TOMLINSON: I just know that there's some -- MR. DELEON: It averages around 90. MR. TOMLINSON: -- some counties that have a huge unfunded liability, I mean, in relation to ours. MR. DELEON: Yeah. Oh, yeah, there is some that do. There's some that do. And it's not so much the -- the amount, that $1.8 million. It's more the relationship between the assets and liabilities that happens from year to year. Because the assets will go up, the liabilities will go up, but it's the ratio between those two that really matters. Not so much the difference, because if both increase, then the difference is actually higher anyway due to the numbers. But in relation to T.C.D.R.S., that's right around average, 87 percent. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any questions of Mr. DeLeon? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll make a decision 8-23-04 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 at budget time. I appreciate your explanation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You did a good job of explaining it. MR. DELEON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appreciate you coming. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excellent. JUDGE TINLEY: The folks on the next item -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just stepped out in the hall. JUDGE TINLEY: -- stepped out for just a moment. Would you tell the folks that just stepped out that I think we're about ready to take up their item? There they are. Does any member of the Court wish to offer anything additional with regard to the T.C.D.R.S. retirement plan information that we just got? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. I want us to take it up in budget. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody else? Let's move on to Item 9, consider and discuss permitting the Shannon Air 1 Subscription program available for purchase in Kerr County, and authorize the County Judge to sign authorization letter. Commissioner Nicholson, I'll let you run with this one. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Terry Budow, who 8-23-04 88 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 all of you know has been here before to talk to us about EMS and fire protection out in the far west part of the county, is here to ask the Court to acknowledge that an organization named Shannon Air Med 1 will be providing a subscription program in Kerr County. Ms. Budow? MS. BUDOW: Thank you. Sorry, I should have been prepared, but didn't realize I was going to be addressing the Court. Thank you. You may recall from the last time that our issue was, being out in the far west county, that we've had a couple of occasions, not from any failure on anybody's part, but just because of logistics and how far we're out, that we can't get First Responders out there very quickly. And our primary concern was really to get helicopters out there. You have to have a First Responder out there to get a helicopter sent to your location, and it -- and Kerrville, I think you've been -- even Kerrville, after EMS drove out there to see how far out they were, by their own admission, it takes a long time to get out there. So, our primary concern was to try and find a way, either through Junction providing us with the EMS services or some other way, to get the -- to find a way -- to find the fastest possible way to get a helicopter out there, and we lighted onto Shannon Air Medical Service, which is a subscription service that we can subscribe to, 8-23-04 89 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 provided that y'all will sign the letter allowing them to sell their services in the county. And that will allow for us to directly call a helicopter service ourselves, or Bi11 Amerine has agreed that he will dispatch them if they get a 9-1-1 call to a subscribed service in our area, so that we can get helicopter service through the fastest means possible, at least that we've found so far. Do you agree or dis -- MR. BUDOW: I think that's correct. MS. BUDOW: This is my husband, Harry. He's the president of our homeowner's association, so if you don't mind listening. MR. BUDOW: Gentlemen, the -- we've had a meeting, since the last time we spoke to the Court, with the Kerrville Fire and EMS people. We were successful, with their agreement, having our 9-1-1 calls on the fire side go directly to the Junction fire response, and that has worked very smoothly and well the one time we've had to use it thus far. We're now trying to address the EMS side of the equation, which is to also have Junction EMS respond as a First Responder -- as our First Responder, with Kerrville as the backup EMS response. But, in either one of those circumstances, the citizens, if you will, of our subdivision feel like we're best served if we can have a critical care helicopter transport ready and available when that ambulance 8-23-04 90 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 arrives, be that the Kerrville ambulance or the Junction ambulance. We still feel, as citizens, and we're individually willing to pay for the subscription service to have the helicopter available to us should we need it. But, because of the Texas Department of Health statutes, they require that the County sign off on allowing the helicopter health transport service to come into the county. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Come into the county, or be dispatched from here? MR. BUDOW: Come into the county. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From outside? MR. BUDOW: From San Angelo. They are in San Angelo. They serve 31, I believe, other counties in the west Texas area, and so we would be 32, if you will. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question, but I don't think it's directed to either one of you. I see the City Attorney and the Fire Chief, and a whole herd of them back here -- or a covey, excuse me. My question is, I remember, Raymond, like when the -- when we brought the EMS into the city, and there's some kind of an agreement that no other EMS can come in without permission or without invitation or whatever that might be. I'm wondering, is there anything like that dealing with chopper service into the county? MR. HOLLOWAY: No. No. Currently, there is 8-23-09 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not. We just kind of -- we have an agreement with -- with air -- I mean Critical Air; if we need a helicopter, we'll call them in lieu of calling one out of San Antonio. Previous to that, we'd call Air Life out of San Antonio to come assist us if we needed a helicopter. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what one of my questions was. And they said that was -- that Shannon -- MR. BUDOW: Air Med. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shannon Air Med would be the quickest. How could that be? I drive to San Angelo a lot, and how is that possible, comparing San Antonio with San Angelo? This thing sits over here. MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, probably -- you know, I don't -- just basing it on what the -- the air service told them, it would be about a 50-minute response time. I believe that's right, isn't it? MS. BUDOW: I think so. MR. HOLLOWAY: But the difference is what -- from what I understand what their subscription fee is, he would call -- the ambulance would -- I mean, the helicopter would come as soon as they call it. With us, when we arrive, we have to arrive at the scene and assess whether that patient needs to be transported by helicopter or not, and there's a couple of different reasons we do that. One is trauma. Our hospital currently is not a trauma center, 8-23-09 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 92 so we have to take all of our trauma patients to San Antonio, and that's one instance that we'd use a helicopter. Another would be if it's a heart attack or something, a really serious injury; then we would send them by helicopter. But our protocols tell us that we have to be on the scene and assess the patient before we call a helicopter. A helicopter ride is about $8,000 to $10,000, and so we need to make sure that that patient really needs to go by helicopter, or is it somebody that we can transport by ambulance? And this subscription fee -- and I'm not -- I just -- I don't know how -- I just kind of talked with them out in the hall a little bit about it. What I understand this fee is, they pay this helicopter service $49 a year, and they'll come pick them up. You call them, and they'll come in, pick them up without being assessed by a medic. Now, they're -- they'll work with Junction, but, you know, I'm not sure -- I haven't -- we're going to call the San Angelo people and find -- get some more information that might benefit these people too. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well -- and then -- well, one of the questions that just popped in my mind when you were talking about the prices and all of that is, seems to me that insurance companies are difficult to deal with sometimes when it gets to those high-cost issues. But my -- one of my main questions is, what -- what kind of 8-23-04 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 helicopter do they have in San Angelo? You know, I understand that those things -- as an example -- okay, I'll just do it. I'm too heavy for this helicopter right over here to carry me to San Antonio, so if I had -- if I needed a chopper service to get me to a trauma center, one would have to come out of San Antonio and come up here and get me. That one over here won't carry me. MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct. Now, what I understand from information that they've given me is that the helicopter they're going to use is similar to the one that they have in San Antonio. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Air Life? MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, which is capable of doing that. But we're going to also contact the people and find out, 'cause, you know, I don't want these people -- people out there to subscribe to something that they find out later is not going to do them right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me either. That's my only concern. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would that helicopter take a patient from your area? MS. BUDOW: Wherever you ask them to. But they do assess your -- what care you need, and more than likely, they'll take us to San Antonio. MR. BUDOW: San Antonio or San Angelo are the 8-23-04 94 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 two facilities. MR. HOLLOWAY: Trauma center. Their hospital is designated a trauma center. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shannon? MS. BUDOW: May I address something that you asked earlier? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you another question; then you can address both of them. Will that thing have to refuel while it's in Kerrville? I know that's funny. MR. BUDOW: It's a fair question. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very serious question. MR. BUDOW: Fair question. I don't know the answer. MR. HOLLOWAY: I don't know that either. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty long flight for a helicopter. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. MS. BUDOW: Our approach to this was, as you may recall, we asked that we have an inter-county agreement with Junction EMS so that Junction could respond to us. Since Junction is a volunteer fire department, they've not committed to us yet that they would respond to us. So, best-case scenario that we've had respond with a First Responder to us in the west county was 56 minutes. That's 8-23-04 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...,, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the best case, onto our property. So, if you've got somebody who can't be transported to a location, EMS' best response to us has been 56 minutes, and only then could the helicopter be called from Kerrville EMS. What we were looking for is a way to go get -- to be able to pick up the phone and say, "We believe we need a helicopter out here." Somebody's missing a limb; somebody's clearly had a heart attack. Shannon has said that, in worst-case scenario, they can get to us in 50 minutes. Their literature actually says probably more like 40 minutes, but in either case, Kerrville EMS and their helicopter would be arriving at the same time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any liability or exposure to Kerr County by -- as a result of this service flying in? MR. HOLLOWAY: Well -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've had some conversations with the County Attorney about it. First, I want to note that we're not contracting with Shannon or with Y.O. Ranch Estates. We think we have no liability, or really no standing in the matter. All we're being asked to do is acknowledge that Shannon would be -- will be serving portions of Kerr County. That's currently being done, to my knowledge. The La Hacienda Treatment Center contracts with a private helicopter service for use during floods and high water. They've been out there within the last few months 8-23-04 96 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 providing transportation for physicians and -- and patients. So, in my mind, we're not taking on any liability or any costs. We're simply acknowledging that a subdivision is contracting with a provider. David, do you want to speak to it? MR. MOTLEY: I think you're exactly right. The only thing that I can see in talking about it is that, in order for the ambulance -- the EMS provider to be able to begin to operate a subscription or membership program within the -- within any given area, they are supposed to obtain the permission of the Health Department. And part of the request for permission includes a -- really, they call it a written authorization from -- they call it the bureau chief, elected official of the governmental entity, which I guess is you. The bureau chief. But, basically, your authorization -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There comes a salary increase. MR. MOTLEY: -- to authorize -- JUDGE TINLEY: At least 20 percent. MR. MOTLEY: -- them to do it is all that's required. And, as I see it -- and I think Commissioner Nicholson's correct. I -- to me, it's just a matter of, you know, contract law. These people want it; these people are going to provide it, and I don't think the County has much 8-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 97 to say about it. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley -- and this may also be a question to Ms. Bailey. We have some agreements in place relative to EMS service in Kerr County, with the Kerrville EMS, if I'm not mistaken, do we not? Would this Court acknowledging the existence of this subscription service, or otherwise allowing them to do what they feel like is in their own best interest, would that be in any manner in contravention of any portion of these agreements that Kerr County has in place with Kerrville or the EMS service? MR. MOTLEY: Well, you know, to be honest about it, the best thing for me to do would be to review any sort of agreements. I don't know exactly how broad they are. I'm sure that Kerr County has made agreements. I know we have agreements with the fire department, for example, for fire service and such. I've not ever reviewed anything relating to ambulance services. I'd be happy to do that. I don't know if you're talking about a specific agreement related to ambulance-type stuff, but in any event -- JUDGE TINLEY: I think we have one, do we MR. MOTLEY: I've never -- I've never looked ^, 24 at it. 25 8-23-04 MS. BAILEY: I worked on it when I worked for not? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 98 the County, so -- MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. I've anything like that, but I'm sure -- I'm just saying I can't see that the County people out at Y.O. Ranch Estates from - they could buy their own helicopter if far as I can see. not looked at sure it exists. I'm could restrict - from -- you know, they wanted to, as JUDGE TINLEY: I don't want to do that. MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: I just want to make sure we don't have an existing agreement in place that, by our permitting them to do that, it gets us in -- in -- MR. MOTLEY: I think that's good. JUDGE TINLEY: -- in breach of any agreement that we've got in place. We may have to go back and amend that agreement. MR. MOTLEY: I'd be more than happy to look at what is in place, if the Court would like me to. I have not seen it. Ms. Bailey's probably familiar with it. MS. BAILEY: As Raymond says, I believe that it relates to the provision of ambulance service. Now, of course, that contemplated motor vehicle, on-the-ground ambulance service. I guess you might be able to stretch it to say, well, it may also include air ambulance service. So, I think probably the best thing for us to do to be 8-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 absolutely certain would be to pull that agreement and review it, and if we felt like it needed to be amended and the governing bodies wanted to do that, then we should do that as the next step to make sure that all this works COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We do have an agreement; I think it was made in 1994. Still in place, so that's probably appropriate to take a look at it. I've got a copy of it in my office, David. MR. MOTLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One question. As I understand it, the -- the residents will make the call on whether an ambulance comes or not. And the only thing I can see, really -- just to make sure I'm understanding how it works, I see a problem potentially with insurance companies, that if a -- if a person -- individual calls an ambulance, whether that's to be covered by insurance, versus an ambulance calling for, you know, service. But that really doesn't affect us, but I think the people just need to be -- it's a question I think y'all need to answer as to if you call a helicopter, who's paying for that helicopter? Your insurance, or you personally? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Shannon Air Med deals with what happens if it's not, quote, a medical necessity, so you put yourself at risk of having to pay the a-z3-o4 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 whole cost of it if it's not. JUDGE TINLEY: But that's an issue with the requester. MS. BAILEY: Absolutely. JUDGE TINLEY: And I don't want them -- if we need to change some agreement that we presently got in place to permit these people to do whatever they feel like they need to do at their own cost, insurance company's cost, or any other companies, I want them to be able to do what they want to do to protect their own best interests for their health care needs. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But my question, though, is I don't want to get Kerrville EMS in a situation that they're pressured to say, yes, an ambulance needed to be called when they don't think it does. I want to make sure who's -- when it comes to the insurance, as to who is making this call. If Shannon's going to independently always, say, make that determination, that's fine. But if they want the -- Shannon wants Kerrville EMS to make the decision, I think the Chief needs to be -- you know. MS. BAILEY: If I can make a suggestion, I'll take a look at it and make a recommendation, get in contact with David, and we can make a written report to you all so you could put it on your agenda next time. And if -- and if an amendment needs to be made, then that can be done in two 8-23-04 101 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 weeks on both the City and the County's agendas. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's a good approach. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine with me. MR. HOLLOWAY: Can I say something? JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. As long as we like hearing it. MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I guess my big concern on this -- you know, this -- our biggest concern is, of course, medical treatment. And I understand that they're a long ways away from us, but I guess my concern is, once you open the door, let this company come in, what's to keep them from going to other parts of the county to do this? And based on what they're telling me, it sounds like a pretty good deal. But we're -- as y'all are aware, our ambulance service is not tax-supported, you know. Our -- you know, it's a user-pay system, and if we stop picking up people, then we start losing revenue. And if we start losing revenue, our expenditure's not going away, as y'all know. Fuel costs and medical supplies and everything keep going up. So we need to take -- y'all need to take a real good look at some of the possibilities of what could -- can you just make this to where it only affects their area, and not make it a broad, county-wide situation? Because if I'm this 8-23-09 102 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 San Angelo company and y'all open it up for the county, I'm going to start hitting Mo Ranch and some of these other places that are out in Mountain Home, some of those other areas, and, you know, it's possible that we could -- I don't want to sound morbid or anything, but we could start losing revenue. And if we start losing revenue, then we're going to have to figure out some way to offset our expenditures, and we're -- and our expenditures right now are exceeding our revenues. So, just -- JUDGE TINLEY: I understand your concern. I think the overriding consideration, Chief, should be who can provide the best emergency MR. HOLLOWAY: I agree with that. JUDGE TINLEY: -- response service to the citizens, and that -- that's going to be the controlling factor, I would think. MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I agree that, you know, medical help is a lot more important than -- but we need to -- you know, we need to look at all those areas. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what the Chief's saying is that, yes, that's right, but there's a cost that may go to the County for making that decision. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's also one -- is there a way we can geographically isolate this? I 8-23-04 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~,. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think that's the point the Chief's making, too. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Again, Commissioner, I don't see us as being a party to the deal. I think the only thing we're asked -- being asked to do is to acknowledge that the subdivision is making a deal. And -- and I use Mo Ranch as an example. I live right across the river from Mo Ranch, and when I have a heart attack, I wouldn't mind being able to pick up the phone and -- and ask for a helicopter. And if I've made a mistake, I just got the flu, then my insurance is not going to pay for it. I am. Or in the case of this, nobody is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, I agree with that. My only question in this thing is, why would I call a helicopter that's going to take 56 minutes to get there when I can get one for about 30 out of San Antonio? I don't -- I don't follow that. MR. HOLLOWAY: I can answer that. It's going to take us 50 minutes to get out there, and then we'll call for a helicopter. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. MR. HOLLOWAY: It's going to take an additional 30 or 40 minutes to get a helicopter, and that's what their concern is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let me ask you something. And this is probably the wrong place -- this is 8-23-04 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a public setting -- to do this. You can wink or something at me. Doesn't First Responders come into this picture of assessing -- assessments? MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, First Responders will get -- we have -- the fact is, we have First Responders in that area, and one of them tonight is going to get an AED, so they'll have an AED in that area. The First Responder will get there and assess the patient and try to stabilize that patient, and relay that information to the medics on the ambulance. And that will help the ambulance -- medics on the ambulance make a decision to possibly send the helicopter. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, they could call right there and dispatch one? MR. HOLLOWAY: And we have put helicopters in the air before based on information that we received from our First Responders. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. MR. HOLLOWAY: And if it's a -- you know, if we get a call and it's a possible trauma or something, we put the helicopter crew on standby, and they're ready, you know, and all we have to do is say, "Get in the air," and so that reduces their response time by quite a bit. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Chief, your response to Commissioner Baldwin, I think, answers the question 8-23-09 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's been lingering in my mind. Are you going to continue to respond to calls that come from the plateau out there? MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, and that's something we're going to have to work out, because I would -- you know, who does respond? You know, if they call in and Junction -- and Junction's en route, then we probably won't -- won't respond. It's similar to what we had with -- years ago with the Comfort EMS. The Comfort EMS would cover everything from Roane Road east, and the only time we would respond is if they couldn't make that call or they needed additional help. So I don't -- we don't have a real problem in the far end of the county, people helping us. And that's why we said it's okay for Junction to work with them. MR. BUDOW: There was a -- excuse me. There was an open action item at the last -- when we last attended. I believe it was April 12th, that the Commissioners instructed the County Attorney's office to consider or review the need for a mutual aid agreement between the counties to facilitate our ability to have Junction EMS respond. Until that happens, Junction EMS couldn't respond to the 9-1-1 call. We still have the technology, I guess, set up. When we dial 9-1-1, it is Kerr EMS -- Kerr County -- Kerrville EMS that responds to us, and Junction just is listening in the background for backup. If we could convert it the other way, according to what we all 8-23-09 106 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 agree, where Junction was the first responder to the 9-1-1 call, and Kerrville back them up, then that would be ideal for us. The helicopter comes either way, based upon the citizen's call to them. The 800 call goes to them directly. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would the first -- if Junction became your primary call, where would the First Responder come from? MR. BUDOW: Junction. MS. BUDOW: Junction. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there one in your area from Junction? MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, no. Actually, the First Responder -- we're talking about two different things. He's talking about the ambulance service. We're talking about First Responders. First Responders are people like you. MR. BUDOW: Right. MR. HOLLOWAY: And they would still come from us -- still be Kerr County First Responders. But -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But -- MR. HOLLOWAY: But the call would go -- if it's set up right, the call would go to Junction. Junction EMS would respond, and they would also call for a First Responder, and that would be from the county. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two questions -- I'm sorry, go ahead. 8-23-04 107 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 MS. BUDOW: To -- just to Junction. Junction EMS, volunteer fire department, they have to agree to want to do this, which they have not yet done. They're still discussing it. So, we still look to, today, Kerrville EMS as our primary responder. So, until Junction decides something different, Kerrville is our primary. In any event, we still need the inter-county agency agreement to make -- to help us along with Junction responding or of agreeing to respond, but they've not yet. So, yes, we still look to Kerrville EMS. MR. HOLLOWAY: They haven't even contacted me. JUDGE TINLEY: Even on a secondary basis, we need that agreement, is what you're saying? MS. BUDOW: Yes, sir. MR. BUDOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That answered one of my questions. MS. BUDOW: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The other question was, did I hear you say that Bill Amerine said he would dispatch the helicopter out of -- what did you say? MR. BUDOW: She -- that was said. That's not exactly -- he needs to work with the -- either the Junction EMS or the Kerrville EMS folks once it was okayed by the 8-23-04 108 1 ..-. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Commissioners Court to -- for us to have this relationship. What he said is he -- he can do that. The system can be set up to do that, but that would have to be with the agreement of Chief Holloway, with the agreement of the people in Junction. So, what Terry said is correct, it is capable. He's willing to do that, but he needs to, you know, work with all of the people involved. He's not going to do that on his own accord just because we say so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more question. Is -- if the agreement is signed, it doesn't give Shannon exclusive for your area? MR. HOLLOWAY: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I was thinking, I could see a scenario very easily where Kerrville EMS goes out there and they decide a helicopter is needed, not the people making the phone call. So, you can -- if you call the helicopter, could you have called the one out of San MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, generally the one here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or the one here. JUDGE TINLEY: Unless it's someone as big as 22 Buster. 23 24 my size. 25 8-23-04 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unless it's somebody MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah. Antonio? 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 109 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like what we need to do is schedule this for the first meeting in September, and the City and County Attorneys will take a look at the contract and -- that we have with Kerrville to see if any changes are needed that could affect this 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And when you're looking at it, keep in mind the Comfort situation, again, because the County Judge down there is willing to relook at this situation, try to put pressure on the city of Boerne. I know you're willing to. MR. HOLLOWAY: We're willing to. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One final thing on this weight thing. This is going to surprise you. You may want to think about -- what is the weight? AUDIENCE: 212. MR. HOLLOWAY: 300. I think it's 300 pounds. 23 then. 24 25 8-23-04 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what you say. MR. HOLLOWAY: Borderline there, Buster. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, it's 240 pounds or something like that. If you're over 240, this thing over here won't take you. MR. HOLLOWAY: I think it's 300. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. Well, I'm safe, 110 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. MOTLEY: They're going to get a diesel helicopter. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For now, you're safe. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's one other point, though, to consider as we get this -- before we get it and bring it back to us, and that's the point that the Chief made. And it can be accomplished in the letter that it's suggested the County Judge sign that goes to the Shannon Air Med subscription program, and that being that their services are restricted to the Y.O. Ranchlands area of Kerr County. I think that's the point he was trying to make. Once in, what's to keep them from answering the call in central city, eastern part of the county or wherever? And so that's a -- it's something we ought to think about, talk about. COMMISSIONER that's going to regulate it COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER regulate a lot of things. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: is the cc WILLIAMS: BALDWIN: WILLIAMS: I tell you, one thing st. I understand that. That's going to We don't want to do that precipitously. JUDGE TINLEY: If we go to interfering with the ability of private citizens to enter into a contractual 8-23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 relationship with an entity, I'm not -- I'm not sure where that -- whether that exposes us, possibly, to some degree. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a point to consider, Judge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good point. But I think the other side of that is, when we enter into something that affects the other -- the county as a whole, from the EMS, from Kerrville -- I mean, we've got to look at both sides. I think we need to let citizens do it, but we don't want to adversely affect other residents. JUDGE TINLEY: We know you're approaching 300, but are not near there yet. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just wanted to be sure Raymond understood what it's like. Make sure they have an extra fuel tank on that chopper; we don't want to stop and gas up somewhere. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on this particular item? MR. BUDOW: No, sir. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for bringing that to us. MR. BUDOW: Thank you, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we going in executive session now? 8-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 112 JUDGE TINLEY: I think so. Okay. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At this juncture, we will -- having nothing else on the open session agenda, we will close the open session at 11:30, and will now go into closed session or executive session. I guess we're going to need our attorney. It's a matter involving the airport; Mr. Pearce, the Airport Manager, and we have the City's Attorney that's involved here also, Ms. Bailey. And I think that's going to be it. (The open session was closed at 11:30 a.m., and an Executive Session was held, the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back into open session. It is 11:47, and we're back into open session of Commissioners Court. Does any member of the Court desire to offer anything with respect to matters considered in -- in closed session? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would offer for approval the joint resolution authorizing TexDOT to enter into eminent domain proceedings for purposes of acquiring real estate to protect airport approaches and proceed with airport improvements, and authorize the County Judge to sign all documents to accomplish this that are associated with TexDOT Project Number 0315KERVL. 8-23-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 113 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 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: That motion does carry. Any -- any other member of the Court have anything to offer further for this meeting? Hearing nothing further, we'll stand adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:48 a.m.) 8-23-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 STATE OF TEXAS I COUNTY OF KERR I The above and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 30th day of August, 2004. Y p Y Y Certified Shorthand Reporter JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk B Y : ~QilGc.~ --- Kath ik, De ut Count Clerk 8-23-04 ORDER N0.28773 YO RANCHLANDS PUBLIC HEARING Came to be heard this the 23rd day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to set a public hearing for September 27~', 2004 at 10:00 am for the Revision of Plat for Tracts 28A and 28B of YO Ranchlands. ORDER N0.28774 PUBLIC HEARING ROAD NAME CHANGES, SIGNS & ABANDONMENT Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to set a public hearing for September 27, 2004 at 10:15 am for Road Name Changes, Regulatory signs and Road Abandonment. ORDER N0.28775 CONSULTANT FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, for a committee of two, comprised of Commissioner Baldwin and Judge Tinley to consider and interview consultants to assist Kerr County in the proposals for employee health benefit plans for the coming year ORDER N0.28776 APPOINTMENT OF KERRVILLE/KERR COUNTY JOINT AIRPORT BOARD Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to confirm the appointment for the members for the Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board as follows: John Davis 3 year term Roger L. Bobertz 1 year term Granger MacDonald 2 year term ORDER N0.28777 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS On this the 23`d day of August 2004, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: Descriation Amount 10 General $93,468.83 14 Fire $6,514.45 15 Road & Bridge $59,803.57 18 Law Library $665.41 31 Parks $170.00 41 Records Archival $43,991.00 50 Indigent Health Care $13,200.68 TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: $217,813.94 Upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay said Claims and Accounts. ORDER NO. 28778 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY CLERK Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer the following budget amendment; Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease 10-403-456 Machine Repair (390.20) 10-403-569 Operating Expense 390.20 ORDER N0.28779 BUDGET AMENDMENT 198 DISTRICT COURT Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer the following budget amendment; Expense Description Increase/QDecrease 10-436-315 Books/Publication/dues 100.00 10-436-417 Special Trials (100.00) ORDER N0.28780 BUDGET AMENDMENT DISTRICT CLERK Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer the following budget amendment; Expense Description Increase/()Decrease 10-450-412 microfilm expense 131.39 10-450-461 lease copier 318.41 10-450-202 group insurance (449.80) ORDER N0.28781 BUDGET AMENDMENT AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION OFFICE Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer the following budget amendments; Expense Description Increase/()Decrease 10-665-310 Office Supplies 700.00 10-665-202 group insurance (700.00) ORDER N0.28782 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY JAIL SHERIFF' S DEPARTMENT Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer the following budget amendments and issue a hand check in the amount of $7,006.00 to Identix. Expense 10-512-331 10-512-454 10-512-202 Description operating supplies vehicle maintenance group insurance Increase/QDecrease 1337.51 47.00 (1384.51) 10-560-330 10-560-331 10-560-454 10-560-457 10-560-104 operating expense vehicle gas & oil vehicle repairs maintenance contracts Deputies Salary 331.75 4248.57 2756.76 1006.00 (8343.08) ORDER N0.28783 BUDGET AMENDMENT CONSTABLE PRECINCT #3 Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer the following budget amendment; Expense Description Increase/QDecrease 10-553-309 postage 29.60 10-553-310 office supplies (29.60) ORDER N0.28784 BUDGET AMENDMENT JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #4 Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer the following budget amendment; Expense Description Increase/()Decrease 10-458-440 Utilities 300.00 10-458-456 Machine Repairs (300.00) ORDER N0.28~85 TRANSCRIPTS Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to approve the Court Transcripts for July 12~' and July 26~', 2004. ORDER N0.28786 MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve the following monthly reports: Justice of the Peace #3 District Clerk Amended July Report Justice of the Peace #1 County Extension Office ORDER NO. 28787 Kerrville/Kerr County airport Condemnation Proceedings Came to be heard this the 23`d day of August 2004 with a motion made by Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to enter into a joint resolution authorizing TEXDOT to undertake condemnation proceedings to acquire property interests for protection of airport approaches and to proceed with airport improvements, and authorize the Judge to sign all deeds and other documents required to complete TXDOT project #0315KERVL