1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, July 11, 2005
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. 9
ZJ
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
2
I N D E X
July 11, 2005
PAGE
--- Visitors' Input 5
--- Commissioners' Comments 14
1.6 Approval of City of Kerrville EIC's project to 2~j,'li3 7
provide funding to Hill Country Shooting Center 23
1.1 Consider easement across property of Juvenile
Detention Facility --
1.2 Discuss soliciting bids for long distance
telephone service 29
1.3 Seek approval to contract with Public Data.Com ~ y R 38
for data search capability, hot check collections 40
1.7 Consider/discuss granting employee an exception to
insurance policy due to late enrollment 42
1.8 Discussion and update on Professional Partners
in Pooling Workshop 48
1.9 Discussion and update on AFLAC billing 55
1.10 Consider declaring July 11, 2005 "Sergeant ~,q2~3 9
John Stafford Day" in Kerr County 78
1.11 Consider $538.38 payment to TCDRS for late reporting 79
1.12 Clarify Court Order 29075, take appropriate action 99
1.13 Consider/discuss Budget Amendment Request 6 dated
September 27, 2004 111
1.20 Employee Benefits update by insurance consultant 136
1.14 Consider/discuss awarding construction contract(s) ~ 9,$y0
to Lupe Rubio Construction, Inc., to provide first-
time sewer service for Kerrville South 157
1.15 Consider waiving plat review fees for replat of Zj9~+~~
Lots 36, 37 and 38, Southern Hills, Phase Two 160
1.16 Consider Preliminary Plat of Heavenly Acres Z9'z~Z
(Revision of unrecorded plat of Harper Valley Ranch) 163
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
July 11, 2005
PAGE
1.17 Consider Revision of Replat of Tract 56, Wood ,?,9.Zf3
Trails Ranch, Pct. 4 167
1.18 Consider Preliminary Plat of Ledge Stone 29Z`~~
Subdivision, Pct. 2 169
1.19 Consider authorizing Sheriff to prepare RFQ to %L9'Z'yr
be sent to architects for study on addition to
existing county jail 178
1.21 Consider/discuss directing Floodplain Administrator ;Z9,Z~1lo
to deny permits when there is a violation of Kerr
County Subdivision Rules and Regulations 192
1.22 Consider/discuss schedule for Budget Workshops 193
1.23 Consider/discuss plan for a one-day celebration to
commemorate 150th Anniversary of Kerr County in
April 2006 204
1.4 Approve the appointment of election judges and '1r9.Zy7
alternates for the term of one (1) year 209
1.5 Consider approval to enter into negotiation2~j,25/g
contract with Hart Intercivic and/or another
vendor for HAVA-certified voting system 210
1.24 Reports from the following Departments:
Road and Bridge 219
Information Technology 229
Facilities and Maintenance 249
Collections 258
4.1 Pay Bills z, 9,2 Y4 260
4.2 Budget Amendments z4zsm~57c 265
4.3 Late Bills Z4.L59 272
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports ~.9.Z58 273
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments 279
5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 275
--- Adjourned 282
--- Reporter's Certificate 283
~ ii os
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
On Monday, July 11, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 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, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me call to order this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for
this date and time, Monday, July the 11th, 2005, at 9 a.m.
Commissioner 2, I believe you have the honors this morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you please rise
and join me for an opening prayer, and stay standing for the
pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's 9 o'clock.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, if there's any
member of the public that wishes to be heard on a matter
that is not listed on the agenda, this is the time for you
to come forward and tell us what your thoughts are. If you
wish to be heard with respect to an agenda item -- if you
wish to participate, we would ask that you fill out a
participation form. They're at the back of the room. It's
not absolutely essential, but it assists me in hopefully not
7 11-05
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
missing	you	when we	come	to	that item.	That's	the	main
reason	that	I need	it.	We	try and be	-- have	open	and
listed agenda item, we'd ask that you do that. But at this
feel free to come forward to the podium at this time and
give your name and address and tell us what's on your mind.
Mr. Eller? Thank you, sir.
MR. ELLER: Judge, Commissioners, morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning.
MR. ELLER: I first want to apologize to the
Court for not being here when this item was on the agenda.
I would have had my input then. With your indulgence, I'll
have it now. The Ag Barn costs the taxpayers of this county
about $300,000 a year. This Court supports that expense.
The library costs the taxpayers of the county about $300,000
in county revenues, and this Court appears to resent that
expense. The U.S. Census Bureau shows that less than
one-half of one percent of the people of Kerr County declare
their living from all forms of agriculture, including
farming, animal husbandry, fishing, forestry, and hunting
combined. That's about 200 people. I grant that 4-H kids
who use that Ag Barn do not appear in front of the juvenile
7-11-ns
6
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
judge.
The statistics also show that there are over
30,000 outstanding library cards in the Butt-Holdsworth
Library. Now, some of those may be long gone, dead or
whatever, but there's 30,000 of them outstanding. There are
between 300 and 500 people who visit that library every
single day. That translates to about 12,000 uses per month,
or 199,000 uses per year. I suggest that is the most used
facility in Kerr County, by far. And I would state that
young readers who are at that library studying and reading
do not appear in front of the juvenile judge either, and
there are far more of them. I believe the educational
benefits of the library are far more important than the Ag
Barn. If there's a need to make a choice, it seems clear we
should close the Ag Barn and keep the library open.
I suggest there may be more efficient ways to
operate the library. Maybe an appeal to the public to
donate recently purchased books and have the library staff
put them on the shelf, reducing the cost of new books. I
think we should make more use of the inter-library lending
program, with the user paying the postage. That would
reduce the cost of buying more books. An appeal for books,
rather than flower memorials for the deceased, could further
reduce the cost of new books, and you could have an annual
Support the Library drive to raise funds. Now, I applaud
~-il-os

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
the Court for trying to reduce the tax burden. I just think
you have your priorities in totally the opposite place --
wrong place. I thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. ELLER: Oh, one more sentence. Took me
an hour to think this one up; can't waste it. Do the
greater good for the greater number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any
other member of the public that wishes to be heard on a
matter that's not listed on the agenda? I see Mr. Benham
asking for attention. Come forward, please, sir, and give
your name and address and tell us what's on your mind.
MR. BENHAM: Do I give this form to somebody?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's okay. We've got you
recognized, sir.
MR. BENHAM: Thank you. I have had the
pleasure of meeting all of you gentlemen at one time or
another, but for the record, my name is Joseph Benham. I
live at 522 Rolling Green in Kerr County. I am a taxpayer.
I am here on behalf of the Friends of the Butt-Holdsworth
Library. I'm the immediate past president of that
organization, and they have kindly asked me to represent
them before the various governmental entities in this area.
I will try to avoid repeating what the gentleman ahead of me
covered. I do, with all due respect to him, have to correct
~-ii-as
8
1
L
3
9
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
°- 13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a couple of things. The library already has access to any
and all books that are donated to the Friends; the library
your kind permission.
He's already covered the number of library
cards, but I'd like to concentrate on the usage of the
library in terms of people. That library, in the most
recent fiscal year, 2003/2004, was used in person by
something over 120,000 people. As you know, that's way in
excess of the population of Kerr County, and certainly of
Kerrville. It is a very intensively used facility. That
does not count the number of people who called and got
information over the phone from our reference people, who I
want to say, incidentally, are extremely efficient, and
we're very fortunate to have them. I like to use the
analogy that if the city of Houston library -- downtown
library were used as intensively as this one is in relation
to the population of the community, they'd have 12 million
people a year using that library. So that tells you, I
think, how intensively our library is used by the public.
We, the Friends of the Library, believe that
we can make a very strong case for the fact that the library
~-1.-us
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
25
is not only used	extensively,	it is	supported	extensively by
the community.	We routinely	donate	$20,000 a	year to the
year. One of the -- a good example of that is the large
print -- purchase of large print books. That's a
tremendously important item in this community, given its
demographics. We also -- that money -- we -- let me say
this; we don't try to micromanage the library. They --
Antonio and his people use that -- those funds where they
think the biggest need is. I'm sure you're familiar with
the old saying, you put the medicine where the hurt is. But
we do know what he does with it.
And 'another area which, again, given the
demographics of Kerrville, is very -- of Kerr County is very
important are the purchase of books on tape. We have a lot
of people in this community, as you know, who don't see very
well, and the books on tape are a godsend to them. In
addition to the $20,000 we routinely donate, we make
special -- special donations. We funded -- a couple of
years ago, we authorized up to $9,000 to pay what we were
assured was the preeminent library information systems
consultant, and brought him in from Cincinnati, I think --
anyway, somewhere in Ohio -- to assess the library's
computer system, which is antiquated, to say the least, and
~ ii us
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
make recommendations for a new one. That didn't cost the
taxpayers a penny. The Friends of the
cent of it. Right now, we are funding
consulting firm and which, in turn, is
groups to -- to see what the community
-- the greatest needs are. We are now
a consulting firm which will make reco
Library paid every
a work by a
operating focus
feels the strongest
funding the work of
nmendations about
future library facilities and services. I'm not serving on
that because of health reasons, but I understand that they
hope to have their study finished by the end of the year.
Let me make one more point on that. I
mentioned our volunteers, and those good people deserve the
thanks of the community, and if I may say so, the
community's representatives. An awful lot of the books that
are donated are in pretty sad shape. They've been out in
grandma's garage, and when we get them they are full of
silverfish and mouse leavings and whatever, spider webs, and
sometimes spiders, and they have to be cleaned up. And
our -- our volunteers put in many, many thousands of hours a
year between book sales cleaning those books up and getting
them ready to sell to the public. And we're -- we're happy
and proud to do that, but I do feel that it's another
example of how this community supports the library.
So, I hope that this will be of some help to
you gentlemen. I've served on the school board. I was
~-ii-us
11
1
„` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-° 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
president of a property owners' association for 13 years
before moving here. I was vice chairman of one of the
largest volunteer fire departments in the state. I know
what you face in trying to allocate the tax revenues.
There's always more demand than there is money. More --
more month than there is money, as the song goes, and I
appreciate that. I appreciate the services that you good
people perform for the community. But I hope that as you
proceed with your budget and with your deliberations about
where the County fits in -- I'm sorry, where the library
fits in in terms of county services, I hope you will -- you
will be able to use some of what I've given you this morning
and what you're getting from other sources to -- I hope it
will remind you that, as I say, this is not only a very
intensively used facility; it is an intensively supported
facility for the community. I'm grateful for your time on
this.
I do want to say one other thing, and I'll
put on a different hat, figuratively. As a member of the
Hill Country Veterans Council Board, I would like to thank
you for the support that we get and the other veterans group
gets from the county, particularly from Judge Tinley,
although I know the rest of you are involved, for our
ceremonies out here at the war memorial on the courthouse
grounds to honor those who have served, and in a tragic
~-ii-os
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
number of cases, died in the service of this country. We'd
find it very difficult to do these things on Memorial Day
and Veterans Day if we didn't have the full and generous
support of the County, and we do appreciate them. We
commend you for it. I won't take more of your time with my
remarks, but if I could answer any questions about what the
Friends of the Library do, I'm at your service.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate
you being here with us today.
MR. BENHAM: Thank you. I appreciate your
time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any other member of
the public that wishes to be heard with respect to matters
not listed on the agenda? Yes, sir? If you'll come forward
and give us your name and address, tell us what's on your
mind.
MR. HOOD: My name is Tex Hood. I live at
Aqua Vista, and I want to give each one of you a copy of
this if you'd like it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't get one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have another
one? I'll share with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's okay.
MR. HOOD: Okay. With reference to this
money that was paid to Mr. Ray Rothwell in December of 2002,
~-ii-os
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
~5
I want to know if we got any of the money back, and how much
did we get back, and we'd like to see some documents that
prove that what we got and when we got it. And that's the
reason for me being here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't enter into a
dialogue in this segment.
MR. HOOD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I mean, that's why
you hear silence up here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I presume this is a -- a
request that --
MR. HOOD: That's right. It's a letter to --
to the County Treasurer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Have you provided that
document to the Treasurer?
MR. HOOD: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HOOD: It's in the mail.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can give a copy of
this to the County Attorney.
DODGE TINLEY: Sure wouldn't hurt, I don't
suppose. Thank you, sir. Is there any other member of the
public that wishes to be heard with respect to any matters
which are not listed on the agenda? Any member of the
~-ii-vs
1
'~ 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
public wishing to be heard on matters not listed on the
And, Commissioner
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's always
good, Judge, to get away for a few days, but it's equally
good to be back home to familiar surroundings, even knowing
that when you return, there's a firestorm of public outcry
awaiting you on an issue that you didn't listen to the
previous week 'cause you were gone. So, in getting caught
up on my newspaper reading, I expected to find some letters
to the editor expressing points of view contrary to what had
been reported in the June 27th Commissioners Court meeting
about the library, but what I didn't expect to read was a
local columnist suggesting that Kerr County government had
outlived its usefulness. So, over the course of the past
week, countless folk have asked my position on the library
issue. So there can be no misunderstanding, I support Kerr
citizens. That said, however, I would be remiss if I failed
to point out that there are some underlying issues regarding
future county participation that must be addressed. They
fall into two categories; delineating exactly what county
funding is to be used for, or in the alternative, what it is
not to be used for, and governance.
Having served six years as Kerr County's
~-ii-v°
15
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
liaison to the Library Advisory Board, it is my opinion that
your intelligence or to the folks who you represent who are
putting up the money. So, having -- we put up about
50 percent of that operational budget, and I think, for the
most part, we deserve a good bit more oversight than has
been the case in the past for the dollars that we send over
there. I believe that the City and the County should begin
working on a new interlocal agreement that will change the
status of the Library Advisory Board to one that has
oversight authority. That will change the status of --
change it to one that has oversight authority for library
operations, and in the process, determine that county funds
will be used for personnel and library materials and not,
for example, for building maintenance or major capital
equipment. Agreement on these matters could become the
precursor to the City and the County agreeing to establish a
library district in Kerr County and ultimately eliminating
this line item from our respective budgets. So, that's my
position on the library, for all those who need to know or
wanted to know and couldn't find me to ask.
~ ii ns
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Having said all that, Judge, I want to just
comment about a good time was had by all at Center Point, as
is usually the case, on -- on the Saturday following the 4th
of July, which the good folks over there put -- put on the
Down Home Parade and -- and the firemen's barbecue/dance and
reunion for the Center Point High School and so forth. I
was privileged and honored to be the parade marshal this
year, had a good time doing it, and my thanks and
appreciation to all of those good folks who worked so hard
and so diligently in support of their community. It's
always a pleasure to be there. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Number 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't have any
comments, but now I do have a few. First, in response to
Mr. Hood's letter that was just handed to us, as a brief
update. That is in litigation right now, and it's more --
some of that money, there's an attempt by outside counsel to
recover that. And I have no problem with putting that on
the agenda, either next time or the time after that, to give
the public a full update as to where we are on that. Most
of the time recently when we have been meeting on that
topic, it's been in executive session because of the fact
that it's -- we're dealing with outside counsel and the
County Attorney's office. But we certainly can, you know,
refresh everyone as to what the status of that, 'cause it
7 - 1 1 - U .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
17
has been kind of, you know -- well, it's been in executive
session for the past year. So -- so I'll note your letter,
and we can certainly make that -- have an open session
discussion as to where we are on that, as much as can be
discussed in open session.
MR. HOOD: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Related to the library, I
think -- you know, and I wish Mr. Benham was still here so
he could take this back to the -- I don't see him in here --
take this back to the Friends of the Library. I wish that
people would talk to us individually or come to court before
they develop an opinion as to what this Court is or is not
about to do. There was no discussion really from the Court
as a whole to make any major change with the library. The
article in the paper -- I think there was no quotes in there
that were not accurate, but some of them, I think, were a
little bit taken out of context. I know there's one
Commissioner that was quoted other than myself that
basically, by the quote, I would have interpreted that
Commissioner to be against the library, but by the rest of
what was said, I think he was in favor of the funding the
library. So, I think the people need to be very careful
just not to believe everything they read in the paper is
exactly what the Court's about to do. 'Cause this has
happened many times, and it surprises me that this community
~-il-us
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
still believes that what the paper says is what this Court's
about to do.
There was -- there was one Commissioner who
had an opinion, and it was stated. Two of the other
Commissioners, Mr. Baldwin and myself, made our comments. I
can't remember if the Judge made a comment or not.
Mr. Williams wasn't present. Certainly, there was no action
item, and the bottom line of the discussion, I think, comes
to that, somewhat, there's been some frustration in the
operation from the City of the library. We have an
interlocal agreement with the City, and the City has not
lived up to their agreement. That's been very frustrating
to Commissioner Williams when he was on the board, and now
Commissioner Nicholson, so I think that, you know, that's
part of it. And the other part of it, I think that it is --
we are not looking after the taxpayers' funds in any regard
if we don't continually analyze if we can be more efficient.
The comments I made were that there is seven
or eight libraries in this county. Maybe there's a more
efficient way to operate them. Maybe we need to change
the -- the focus a little bit, because the Internet has
changed how we do get information. But I clearly said in
court that, you know, I'm in favor of the library. And I
think the Court, as a whole, is certainly in favor of it, so
I think there's -- there was a great deal of misconception
~ ii-os
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
came out of that discussion we had on the library. And I
think what we talked about was very healthy. And I would be
-- I think we should be admonished if we didn't have such a
discussion. I think Mr. Eller and people that are -- I
would say watch the tax dollars very carefully, I think they
would -- you know, should be in favor of us really looking
at every county operation and seeing if it's being run in
the most efficient manner. So, that's the only two comments
I have for this morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to talk
about rain, and then I'll talk about the library. The burn
ban is still on. I think it was Thursday or Friday, we had
some sporadic rain in the western part of the county, in
some places a lot of rain. I think out on 41, it rained as
much as two and a half inches; other places didn't get any.
So, there's still a need for the burn ban, and conditions
are very dry, and everybody needs to be very careful. I
appreciate Charlie Eller and Joseph Benham being here. I
listened to them. Both of them care about good government
and the work of good government, and their -- their input is
always welcome and needed. In our last meeting, while
introducing a discussion about our contract with the City
for paying the costs of the library, I raised the issue of
utility of the library in the information age. I hoped that
~-ii-n=
20
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that discussion would result in some intelligent dialogue
about how taxpayer dollars should be spent on an institution
that was being overrun by technology.
What was reported that I said was that the
Butt-HOldsworth Library was obsolete. That's wrong; that's
not what I said. It's not obsolete, but it may become
obsolete. What I did say was that brick-and-mortar
libraries were being made obsolete by the advent of the
information aqe. A -- a source for the United Kingdom
that's a library expert has predicted that the United
Kingdom's brick-and-mortar libraries will be obsolete in 15
years. The University of Texas at Austin this month removed
almost all the library's 90,000 volumes to be dispersed to
other university collections to clear space for a 24-hour
electronic information center. Here's an online library
named Questia. It features over 449,000 titles; 56,000
complete books available for -- from cover to cover, 145,000
journal articles, 173,000 magazine articles, 668,000
newspaper articles. The information age is overrunning
brick-and-mortar libraries.
What is certain is that it's timely for those
of us who are responsible for looking after the best
interests of the citizens and taxpayers to carefully
consider how we plan for the future of the library. To
address the issue, I outlined a proposal to create a board
~-ii-o=
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
to address those key issues and to manage the library. That
seems like an intelligent and prudent approach. The
inaccurate report that I had said that the library was
obsolete has not prompted the reasoned, thoughtful approach
I'd hoped for. Instead, it's caused a small amount o£
knee-jerk reaction. A columnist for the local daily
newspaper wrote an ill-informed article that served to harm
the intelligent and productive discussion that's needed.
The writer alleges that in 1969, Commissioners Court and
City Council, treated to a trip to Corpus Christi and a,
quote, elegant dinner agreed to fund the library equally in
perpetuity. Aside from the fact that such an agreement is
unlawful, there's no record of it.
He also alleges that
funded on a 50150 basis by the City
that mythical meeting. I've not --
budget for the last 36 years, but I
not fund 50 percent of the library
The writer didn't do his research.
the library had been
and County ever since
I've not checked the
do know the County did
post in this fiscal year.
The writer could have
known what was said in Commissioners Court by accessing the
minutes of the meeting; they're available in the courthouse
or online, but he obviously did not do that. If you want to
know what was said in the last Commissioners Court meeting,
you can check with Ms. Mitchell, and she'll provide you
minutes of the meeting. Now I'm ready to move on to work
~-i~-o5
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with City Council to find an approach that's good for the
library and for the taxpayers. That's all I've got to say
at this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner
1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, thank you.
I just wanted to let you know -- remind everyone that the
Cowboy Camp Meeting will be starting the first week in
August. And if -- you know, if you're not interested in
cowboy meetings and cowboy preaching, they sure got some
good barbecue out there, so I want to remind everyone of
that. And also, I understand, by reading the papers and my
phone calls, that we may have a problem with the library.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This Court and any
other government body has debates and visits about issues,
and that is all that happened here at the last meeting.
There wasn't anything ugly said, but there was some ugly
things said from the public back to this Commissioners
Court. You know, talking about -- I got one phone call;
this lady wanted to know what in the world was I doing
closing the library, and that language was never used in
this room. I'm -- I agree with everything that's been said
here today. We're all library fans. We're fans of the
-ii-os
23
1
"" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~`°' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Butt-HOldsworth Memorial Library. And by having this
conversation, that's exactly what we're doing, is having the
DODGE TINLEY: Thank you. Speaking of good
barbecue, I want to thank the folks of Center Point Alliance
for Progress for their hospitality this past weekend. They
put on a wonderful event, and it was enjoyed by most
everyone, as far as I could tell looking around, and had
some mighty good barbecue. Any of you folks that didn't
make it, why, you missed a good event. Let's move on now
with the agenda, if we might. We've got a timed item at
9:30. It's a bit past that now, so we will qet to that.
Consider, discuss -- or consideration and approval of the
City of Kerrville Economic Improvement Corporation's project
to provide funding to the Hill Country Shooting Center
located adjacent to Cypress Creek Road (F.M. 1341) in Kerr
County. I put this on the agenda at the request of the City
Manager and Ms. Mindy Wendele, who's Director of Business
Development for the City of Kerrville, and I welcome them
here today. The floor is yours.
You will
r-ii-~~
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
29
25
note on your agenda about the agenda item that we asked to
be put on the agenda for today, as it is pertaining to our
half-cent sales tax, Economic Improvement Corporation, and
the rules therefor. With us today, of course, is our City
Manager, Don Davis. To my right, the owner of -- co-owner,
I should say, of the Hill Country Shooting Sports Center,
Dr. -- doctor. I made you a doctor.
MR. BURCH: Thank you.
MS. WENDELE: Certainly. Mr. Jack Burch,
our -- our community partners in this development. Our
economic development partners, represented by Brian Bondy
from the Chamber of Commerce; Guy Overby, Kerr Economic
Development Foundation; and Sudie Burditt, Executive
Director of the Convention and Visitors Bureau. The
shooting center has made a request to our Economic
Improvement Corporation for funding out of those funds of
our half-cent sales tax revenues to help with their project
out on Cypress Creek, 1886 Cypress Creek Road, and we know
that is outside our city limits. And, according to the law,
we can't spend the money, according to the state statute,
but we have to have the governing body's permission to do
so, and that's why we're here. We had -- Mr. Davis and I
had given Judge Tinley some backup information last Friday
when we met with him. I have that available if you would
like to see it, but basically, we're here today to say to
-ii-us
zs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
29
25
you we would like to have your permission and grant approval
of the expenditure of the $200,000, $100,000 in this fiscal
year and $100,000 in the next fiscal year, for improvements
to help Mr. Burch and his family -- and his business as it
relates to their growth pattern at_ the shooting center. Can
any of us answer any questions before we make the formal
motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we need a
resolution, as such, or just a motion, in your opinion?
MS. WENDELE: Commissioner, according to our
legal counsel, we do not need a resolution, but I do have
some wording for -- I think Judge Tinley has it also, but
let's read it real quick, And what will happen is, for our
files and your files, the minutes of this meeting will serve
as our proof and approval to satisfy the State.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have that in the -- in
the information that I've been provided.
MS. WENDELE: Okay. If you will indulge me
just a moment to cite it, and then you can repeat it if that
would be the wishes of the Court. This is from Section
5190.6. It is Section 23(a), as it relates to our half-cent
sales tax, 4B sales tax information. The motion should
read, "Motion to approve the City of Kerrville Economic
Improvement Corporation's project to provide funding to the
Hill Country Shooting Sports Center." Very simple.
~-ii-os
26
1
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: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
DODGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the -- of the motion as specified by
Ms. Wendele. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd just like
to make a comment, Judge. I want to thank Mr. Burch, and I
want to thank Sudie Burditt and Guy Overby and Brian and
anybody else who's been involved in this project from the
very beginning. If you're unfamiliar with it, you've got to
know that this has great potential for Kerr County as a
whole, and the City of Kerrville, its hotels, its
restaurants, and its shops in particular. When up and
finally running, it will draw thousands of visitors to
Jack's complex out there. And I believe you're on the
threshold of being declared an Olympic site; is that
correct, Jack?
MR. BURCH: It's my understanding, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's
tremendous, and you and all those who've been involved
deserve a big round of applause for your participation and
making it come to this point. I wholeheartedly support it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just echo Commissioner
Williams' comments. Thanks to everyone. This is one of
those great things that have come to Kerr County that we
~-il ns
z?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
never thought about. It's, I think, the forethought of some
individuals, mainly being Jack Burch and his family; they've
really done a phenomenal thing, and with the help of others
in the community, are making kind of a dream come true, so
we appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have a comment.
Now that we know that they can move E.I.C. money out into
the county, we can -- (Laughter.) -- we will have a small
list for you all.
MS. WENDELE: Properly presented to you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By next week.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're working on it,
aren't we?
JUDGE TINLEY: I wanted to mention that this
marks the first time that I'm aware of that there's
consideration -- serious consideration being given for the
expenditure of E.I.C. money out into the county, and I think
it establishes a wonderful precedent. You know, we've got a
partnership here with City and County in a lot of respects,
and it's a collaborative effort and we need to look at it
that way and continue it that way, just like this effort to
bring Shooting U.S.A. and -- and the Olympic training
facility here. It was a collaborative effort of Mr. Burch
and his family and all his hard wort. out there, and, of
course, we've had the Economic Development Foundation and
-li-o5
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Mr. Overby and the Chamber people, and it's just been a
total collaborative effort in order to get this here, and
this is just an extension of that collaborative effort. And
I'm -- I'm really proud to see it happen, and it holds great
potential for the future, and I certainly think it's going
to be a wonderful thing.
MS. WENDELE: In closing, Judge Tinley, just
so you'll be aware of the time frame, this is, of course,
our permission from you today. Next week, at our regular
scheduled Economic Improvement Corporation meeting, there
will be a public hearing, as -- as required by law, and the
funding agreement considered. If this funding agreement is
-- is approved, it will go to our City Council at the next
City Council meeting on July 26th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions,
comments, or discussion? A11 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. Thank
you very much for being here this morning.
MS. WENDELE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go back to the front of
the agenda. The first item on the agenda, I'm given to
-11-o e.
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
understand that Mr. Davis, who requested that this item be
on there, has asked that it be passed at this time. If
Mr. Davis is here and desires something different, he's free
to -- it's a different Mr. Davis; this is Bill Davis.
MR. (DON) DAMS: Thank you. We'll see y'all
Wednesday, I guess
JUDGE TINLEY: You thought we were going to
spring something?
MR. DAMS: Yes, sir. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He may have some more
money.
JUDGE TINLEY: If Mr. Bill Davis is here and
wants to present something, he's free to come forward at
this time. Not seeing an indication that he desires to do
so, we'll move on to the next item, Item 2, consider and
discuss soliciting bids for long distance telephone service.
Commissioner, Precinct 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
As you know, we went out for bids, and somehow things got a
little goofy, but we only got one bid in. And just a short
time ago, the County Auditor and I sat down with Kerrville
Telephone Company and had a -- had a pretty extensive visit,
and they had expressed great interest in participating in
this and continuing to participate in it, and moved some
numbers around that are very, very attractive. And then why
-ii-~~s
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a bid did not arrive here, I'm not sure. He thought -- in
the subsequent telephone conversation, the KTC Director
thought that he handed us a bid, and neither the Auditor or
I, either one, had it. So -- but we do now. And it arrived
at the end of last week, we hear. And I understand that, as
well, Southwestern Bell has shown some interest, and I just
think that we need to go back out and get a true picture of
what's out there and who wants to participate, and let's do
some comparisons, just for -- to just see if we can get a
good service and -- and do the best. That's the best thing
for the taxpayers, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, can you
refresh my memory, what we did? Did we accept the bids
previously, the one bid that we received? Did we just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have done nothing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've done nothing on it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've done nothing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, are you making a
motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am making -- well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To reject all previous
bids and re -- rebid this project?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Were the bids due in
today, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, last -- last -- 27th of
-ii-vs
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
June.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Last meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we had them at
that time, last meeting. I thought we referred them to
Mr. Trolinger.
MS. PIEPER: There's the ad that went out.
Here are the two bids.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two bids?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had two bids in? Is
this on today's agenda?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were due in by
June 27th, which this would be the first meeting after
June 27th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think probably what we
need to do is put this on the next agenda, and then if we
choose to reject all the bids at that -- at that meeting, we
can accept or reject them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. No big
deal. I just -- I just -- my thinking is -- is that we need
to make sure that all the providers have an opportunity, and
I don't think that_ they had that opportunity. There was
just a -- some confusion between Kerrville Telephone Company
~-ii-as
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
40
21
22
23
24
25
and -- and us. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- I mean,
if we -- whenever -- if we don't like the bids, don't think
we get enough bids, we always have the option to reject all
bids.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not familiar
with the process, so help me out on this. We have an
obligation to post and advertise the bids, and we certainly
did that, and then they come in. What kind of reasons can
we have for not accepting those bids? Is it -- what I'm
getting at, is it fair to the two bidders to not accept
their bids?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One bid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two -- the Kerrville
Telephone Company did not -- that bid right there did not
arrive here in the time frame.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just got it Friday.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It is okay to reject
the one bid that was submitted timely?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We do that
occasionally.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And give people a
second shot at it?
~-Ii-us
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: We do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we don't like the
numbers, if we don't like the quantity or the amount of the
bids --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we have authority to
reject bids.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, you mentioned a
meeting that you had with the KTC people along with the
Auditor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was that after the Court
authorized going out for bids in -- I believe it was the
second meeting in May, the 23rd of May? Is that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don`t recall.
JUDGE TINLEY: That meeting occurred after
that time?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't recall.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why do you ask?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I assume they were
probably aware -- aware -- my recollection, we had a
conversation subsequent to that meeting, and that was
after -- after we'd authorized going out for bids. So, it
occurs to me that they were aware that we had advertised or
~-1~-ns
39
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were going to advertise for bids.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that
that's true. You're saying that. I don't know that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. I understand.
Certainly, they had constructive notice if -- if the -- if
there was publication.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it makes --
I don't see what difference it makes. Next meeting, we're
going to open the one bid we received, and we can accept it
or reject it. And if we reject it, we'll go out for bids
again. I mean, I don't even know why we're having a
discussion today until we look at the bid that we got.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm concerned that we're
talking about -- before we know what any bids are, I don't
know who many or -- who or how many bid until the
Commissioner put this on the agenda, because they had not
been opened. But I'm concerned that we're talking about
rejecting bids that we haven't even looked at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're --
JUDGE TINLEY: It just seems to -- to poison
the process. G7e've got a process that's in place. We go
out for bids, because it's a level playing field and there's
notice given to the world. Those that want to bid, bid.
They submit bids on a timely basis prior to the deadline,
and that's the process. And --
7 11-OS
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What you're saying is
you want to go ahead and open that one bid, then?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we have an obligation
to consider -- seriously consider that bid before we do
anything. Because we advertised, and -- and the bid was
submitted timely, in good faith.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, that's exactly
what we're doing. Next meeting -- it's not an agenda item.
We can't open that bid today.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Next meeting it'll be
an agenda item where we'll open that bid, and then we will
make the decision whether it's a good bid or not. We'll
reject it, go out for bids again, or we'll accept it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what bothers me,
Commissioner. We're talking about rejecting the bid we
haven't even looked at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I said we might or
might not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Listen. What do --
you have an interest in this thing, and I want to know what
it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have an interest in -- in us
following the process that the law prescribes that we
~-ii-os
36
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
follow.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be happy to do that,
but you have another interest in it. I want to know what it
is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I do? Tell me what it is,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You tell me.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have no other interest.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, you do. I can
tell.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Well, you'd best be
telling me, then, 'cause I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, you do.
DODGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? Come forward to the
podium if you wish to be heard on this matter.
MR. PRENDERGAST: My name's George
Prendergast. I have a little concern here, because it's
Buster Baldwin who, as I understand, put this on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
MR. PRENDERGAST: That's correct. And yet
you're not willing to allow one bid to be opened under the
due process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not an agenda
item.
MR. PRENDERGAST: I don't mean today. I'm
~-ii-os
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
talking	about two weeks from	now.	
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	No, but I'll be happy
to.
MR. PRENDERGAST: If you open that bid come
two weeks from now, then at that point the opposition or the
competition has the ability to underbid or overbid, so
you've not leveled the playing field; you've skewed the
playing field. What is your general interest in this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's none of your
business.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Really?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We frequently do this.
MR.. PRENDERGAST: It's illegal, is the
problem I'm saying. You've done it before when you've
published for insurance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We --
MR. PRENDERGAST: And you've given --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have done this.
MR. PRENDERGAST: When you --
(Several people were speaking at once.)
COURT REPORTER: One at a time, please.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Listen, we have -- we
reject bids. When we go out -- the example that comes to
mind is HVAC, electrical, plumbing, all these. We have,
numerous times, rejected the bids we received because we got
~-ii-os
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
<1
22
23
24
25
one bid and it was too high, we felt. We've rebid it.
Sometimes -- sometimes we've said, well, we'll let
Maintenance go ahead and do it. If we receive one bid on
anything, we have the option to reject it. What I said, and
I think Mr. Baldwin agrees, is I don't understand why
there's even any controversy. Newt meeting it will be on
the agenda to open the bid. We'll either accept it or
reject it at that time. Whenever we get one bid in, I have
a concern.
MR. PRENDERGAST: I do too. But I also have
a concern that if you open that bid and you reject it,
you've leveled the playing field such that other people can
come in and lower the bid. Now, that's to your advantage, I
agree. What's wrong with that? I don't think it follows
the letter of the law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you think that if we
get in a telephone bid which says we're going to pay them
$5 million flat fee, were going to go ahead and we have to
accept it?
MR. PRENDERGAST: That's kind of asking,
like, have you stopped beating your dog? That's not what
we're asking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying --
MR. PRENDERGAST: What we're asking you is,
follow the law. You published. You followed the law by
-11-OS
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
publishing for bid. You only got one bid because somebody
did not take care of their business and put in a bid in a
timely manner. I'm saying put on it the agenda. Open the
bid if you wish. But I think, if that's the case, you have
given others an opportunity that you should haven't done. I
saw you do it with the insurance, where you allowed somebody
to change their bid in this courtroom. You cannot do that
by law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe that was
done, but anyway --
MR. PRENDERGAST: Two years ago; I'll pull
the minutes and prove it. But that's my concern.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I --
MR. PRENDERGAST: My other concern is that,
obviously, there's a problem here. And by you attacking
somebody else, I'd like an answer from you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the question?
MR. PRENDERGAST: The question you didn't
answer earlier.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What my general
interest is?
MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the -- the
taxpayers of this county get the best deal we can get them.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay. As long as we follow
~-11-05
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
the law.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely. We have a County Attorney right there, and
we'll -- I'll visit with him about it.
MR.. PRENDERGAST: No, I think he probably
very well understands what I'm talking about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He probably does,
George. Don't come up here and attack me about anything.
I'm trying to do my job here that the people hired me to do.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Really?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, really.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Well, I'm trying to say
let's do it right if we're going to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. I agree
with you 100 percent.
MR. PRENDERGAST: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you for your
time.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused as to how we
ever got off on that topic, but anyway --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any motion to be offered on
this item? Hearing none, we'll move on. Item 3, seeking
~-ii-os
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approval to contract with PublicData.com for data search
capability used with hot check collections. County
Attorney.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Watch out, Rex, we're
obviously in a feisty mood up here today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see the former
Commissioner Bruce Oehler is there. Mr. Oehler, would you
like to sit in this chair for the rest of the day?
(Laughter.)
MR. EMERSON: My presentation is somewhat
straightforward. Previously, in the past, this office and
the Hot Check Department had had public data research
capability. That capability does exist in some other
departments through different means. What it's used for is
many hot check writers will not be at the address stated on
their checks by the time the check is brought to us for
collection, and PublicData.com is one of our research tools
used to locate them. Unfortunately, it's a pay service;
it's not free to us. In the prior administration, it was
placed on Mr. Motley's credit card, and then Mr. Motley
turned around and billed the County and the County paid
Mr. Motley back, and we did a whole lot of paperwork.
There's a much easier way to do it through -- they have a
commercial contract that's available to the County. It's a
flat rate, $500 per year fee for the number of searches that
~-ii-os
42
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we need to do historically, and we can sign a contract, cut
a county check, and do it once a year instead of every
month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COPIDIISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one question,
Mr. Attorney. I -- I assume that -- that the increased
revenues or decreased costs will exceed the cost of this
program?
MR. EMERSON: Significantly.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I need to
know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment? 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.
MR. EMERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nert item is -- we have some
items here that are timed items. Why don't we move on to
them? I apologize. Item Number 7, consider and discuss
~-ii-os
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
granting an employee an exception to our insurance policy
due to late enrollment. Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: Good morning, gentlemen. This
item was put on the agenda due to one of our employees had a
baby, and that dependent was covered under the employee's
wife's insurance, and they did not realize that they only
had 30 days after the birth of the child to cover them under
our insurance if that's what they wished to do. And since
they -- I'm not sure what the circumstances were, if -- if
they just felt our plan was better than the wife's or
whatever, but since they've decided that they want to put
that child under the County's insurance, the 30-day
enrollment passed and they were unable to do so. However,
the insurance company did call me and say that they would
put him on there if we granted an exemption to the 30-day
period, and so I'm here to ask if the Court would like to
grant that exception, and if they do, then I will send the
letter in to do so.
DODGE TINLEY: Question. Is the 30-day
enrollment requirement after birth set forth in the
handbook?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, it is.
DODGE TINLEY: When is the next open
enrollment?
MS. NEMEC: January.
~-~l os
44
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2F
JUDGE TINLEY: So, if we did not grant the
exception today, the child could be added in January during
the open enrollment period? Is that what I'm hearing?
MS. NEMEC: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a cost to the
County?
MS. NEMEC: No, the dependent pays for the
child's insurance. The -- I'm sorry, the employee pays for
the dependent's insurance. There is no cost to the County.
The only cost would be claims that would be submitted for
that dependent.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Has the child had
any medical expenses that would have been paid had they
enrolled?
MS. NEMEC: That I know of -- I asked that
question, and that I know of, the child is perfectly
healthy. Now, you know, that's just the information that I
have received. I don't know that for a fact, or what might
happen later, but at this point, that's my information that
I've received.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a -- a bit of an
issue for me, I mean, the health of the child, or a
statement -- I really don't have a problem with doing this;
however, I'd hate to do it -- and I hate to sound really
cold, but, you know, if the child had a heart problem or
~- 1 1- ~ 5
1
""' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"_ ~ 9
25
45
something, it could really affect us. We are a small pool,
and one significant problem can cause a major problem. And
I don't know if we can -- you know, I would think that we
could ask for the kind of preexisting condition language and
stuff that we do in our normal -- when someone's added, and
it would have to be subject to that stipulation, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, the --
the precedent that would - it would set troubles me. The
-- if we grant this one, do we grant the next one that comes
along? Why do we have a 30-day enrollment period if we
enroll any time? It seems highly irregular to me that,
under any circumstances, we'd waive the requirements for --
for 30-day enrollment.
COMMISSIONER W7LLIAMS: Well, that's kind of
what troubles me, is we're setting a precedent here. In
this instance, we may be okay in terms of the coverage,
because the infant is not ill, but what -- that opens the
door for future exceptions or exemptions -- exceptions, and
I'm wondering how that would be treated in the future.
JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if the parent is
required to wait until the open enrollment period and the
child is enrolled at that time, would there not be a
preexisting condition stipulation on the enrollment with a
-- I don't know, six-month or 90-day elimination period for
preexisting conditions? Would that not occur at that time,
~-ii-as
46
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at the open enrollment period in January?
MS. NEMEC: I believe the way the plan is set
up is that if you do it during open enrollment, then there
is no preexisting clause.
COMMISSIONER WILLiAMS: If you do it during
open enrollment?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the January date?
Or --
MS. NEMEC: The January date. Our renewal
date.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The pre -- your
understanding is if you do it in the open enrollment period,
the preexisting clause conditions do not -- do not apply?
MS. NEMEC: Right. Now, I believe that the
preexisting clause applies if there is an employee, let's
say, that has their spouse enrolled on the insurance, and
their spouse was covered under another insurance plan, and
for whatever reason they lost their job or, you know, other
circumstances, and then they enrolled their spouse. Then at
that time, they may -- they may put a clause in there of a
preexisting illness up to a certain amount of days or
months, whatever. But in open enrollment, I don't think
that there -- and I may be wrong on that. In open
enrollment -- I think that is the reason for open
~-iz os
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enrollment, that they don't put those limitations on there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question is, and my
concern is that -- does the kid have insurance coverage
today?
MS. NEMEC: Judy, do you know that? Does he
have insurance, or has he been dropped?
MS. CARR: Under his mother's.
MS. NEMEC: He does at this point. He does
at this point under his mother's insurance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Continuing --
continuinq or -- or COBRA -- a COBRA application for his
mother's policy? Does he continue to be covered by the
mother's plan?
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then what's the
issue? Why would we be here at this time?
MS. CARR: The mother's plan would only cover
31 days. Then they had an additional 30 days to stay with
that plan or go with a different plan, and they want to go
with Mutual of Omaha.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they have the option
of staying with the plan that child's on now, as far as
you're aware?
MS. CARR: As far as I'm aware.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My sense of it is if
-ii-ins
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
the child's covered and continues to be covered, when the
open enrollment period comes, then they can be enrolled.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any motion to be
offered on this agenda item? Hearing none, we will move on
to Item Number 8, which is a timed item for 9:45.
Discussion and update on Professional Partners in Pooling
Workshop.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. My chief deputy, Judy,
attended the second part of the Professional Partners in
Pooling Workshop, and she is hers to update the Court on
some new laws that are going to be taking effect in
September and just update you on how our program is doing.
Judy?
MS. CARR: Judge, Commissioners, good
morning. I'm very nervous. This is the first time I've
spoken in public in years, so y'all will have to bear with
me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pull the microphone
down a little closer, Judy, so I can hear you.
MS. CARR: Is that better? Okay. Well, if
you make me angry, I can shout, but I don't get angry very
often. I went to Austin June 20th and 21st to attend the
Partners in Pooling Workshop. It was basically a workmen's
comp workshop, and I'm here today to talk about some of the
goals set forth in that. And there will be some changes
~-ii-os
1
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
made in September. There's two Senate bills for approval
pertaining to the Texas Workmen's Compensation Committee.
They will be doing away with that, and all of Texas
workmen's comp will fall under the department -- Texas
Department of Insurance. I'm sure there will be some
changes in September. They don't know what they are. At
this point, we are to continue on with our workmen's comp
program the way we are handling the paperwork, filing and
following the claims the way we're presently doing them.
And this gets to our safety program. The
Treasurer's office implemented a safety program in 2003,
with the goal that the County would receive a 10 percent
discount on the worker's compensation premium. Because the
safety program was followed with success in 2004, the County
was given a discount of $17,343 off the premium. The
Treasurer's office goal is to continue this program. We all
have to work together as a team in order to continue in the
County's success. I'm sure we all want to work in the ideal
The
in order to save the County money on the workmen's comp
premium, and help insure that we all have a safe work
environment. These are some of the topics that were
discussed during the workshop: Safety is everybody's job.
Safety is people work. The employees are the County's
~-z1 0,
50
1
`- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
•-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
greatest assets. Studies indicate that 95 -- 95 percent of
the workplace injuries are due to attitude and behavior, not
The objectives of the workshop were to
produce overall reduction in worker's compensation costs
through better safety performance, improved professional
development of key people within members that deal with
worker's compensation claims and safety programs, develop
better tools for member use. Some of the tools: Modified
duty programs, witness statements, accident reporting,
hiring practices, fitness for duty requests. And one of
their main goals was to cut workplace fatalities in Texas
counties by 50 percent. In the year 2004, they had five
fatalities. This year since January, there have been two
fatalities. We don't really think about that, but due to
some of the accidents and things that have gone on
throughout the counties in Texas, there have been deaths.
The workshop focused on return to work policy. This may be
required with some of the changes in September. Another --
I can't think -- another situation that they're thinking
about that might be required is workplace observations.
We're not doing that now. It's not required now. That may
be required. Gf course, there's the injury investigations,
behavior modifications. Communication fraud was discussed.
i-11-US
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
51
Okay. Now, when I mention the ideal safety
culture, that's the goal of the Commission, and to get that,
these things need to be included: Team attitude, management
support, shared trust, good communication, pride in your job
and your workplace, take time or having time to do it right,
appropriate tools and equipment, proper maintenance of the
tools and equipment, behavior modification, appropriate
feedback. Whether it's positive or negative, we need
feedback. And, of course, positive consequences, which
could be an incentive program. To have this ideal safety
culture, we must be consistent with observing and enforcing
the safety policies through the elected officials,
department heads, and all the employees.
And the Kerr County claim adjuster, J.I.
Specialty Services, our workmen's comp claim adjusters
company, was there. Letty Navarro is Kerr County's claim
adjuster. I had lunch with her, had the opportunity to talk
with her about some of the programs and requests that they
have. She had nothing but praise for Kerr County and the
way that we are handling the claims, getting the
paperwork -- getting the accident reports, witness
statements, if needed, to them in a timely manner so they
can process our claims. She had praise for us, and we have
a very good, positive working relationship, so I'm really
happy about that, with me being new and getting involved in
~ ii-os
52
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°- 13
14
15
16
17
18
1y
20
21
22
23
~~~ 24
25
this, and she's helped me tremendously, but it's turned out
Since January, we've had 27 claims, of which
nine were accident -- incident only. Of the 18 that
received medical treatment, one claim was denied, and only
one employee remains off work. We have a success story. A
deputy was hospitalized due to a cracked pelvis and returned
to work on light duty within a week from this accident.
This is what the Workmen's Comp Commission is talking about,
return to work policy; light duty, modified work duty, maybe
putting an employee in another department if they cannot do
light duty within their own department. This deputy went to
dispatch and was on light duty, worked eight hours a day,
but was able to return to work within a week of that
accident. I met with our field safety specialist from TAC
last week, Larry Boccaccio. He's very interested in our
progress and our program. He asked that he be invited to
our next safety committee meeting, which will be at the end
of the month. We've not set a date. As the Treasurer's
office continues to promote the safety program, and as long
as the safety committee continues to look for people-based
solutions, and as long as employees continue to make
commitments toward behavioral change, Kerr County will
continue to nourish our ideal safety culture.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Ms. Carr?
~ ,1-05
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The -- I guess
the -- the worker's comp system has changed who's going to
have the administration and all that. Is it going to affect
rates?
MS. CARR: He did not discuss that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They just discussed more
about the safety side of it?
MS. CARR: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was my only
question. Thank you.
MS. CARR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Judy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mrs. Carr?
MS. CARR: Yes?
JUDGE TINLEY: You mention that in the safety
program, there was no requirement for observations; that may
be coming. Do we not have a required observation for each
department to make monthly to review and look over the
workplace and -- and do an updated --
MS. CARR: Right. We --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- review of that workplace in
order to determine if there are any matters that needed
correction or modification, so that we can --
MS. CARR: Yes, we do have that, and those
are being turned in by most departments. This observation
~-ii os
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is actually watching the employee, observing the employee.
And there's forms and detailed information that has to be
filled out. It's to be done at random, but not secretively.
There's a checklist the observer will follow. This is
something new that they are implementing.
JDDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Follow-up question on
that. The -- is that a County employee that would be the
observer? Or is the --
MS. CARR: They suggested possibly people on
the safety committee could do the observations. Or it could
be a department head could observe an employee. It could
be, like, a chief deputy or assistant observe. It could
even be another employee observing another employee. But
these employees that do the observations will be trained on
how to do them. And, like I said, you have to -- the
employee that's being observed, they're well aware of it,
but you don't plan ahead. It's done randomly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they --
MS. CARR: It's not to try to catch anybody
or point fingers, but just so that the County employees will
be aware that there will be observations, and so every day,
you know, they follow the safety rules. Rather than
knowing, well, Friday somebody's coming by, so I better do
thus-and-so.
~-ii-os
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- and this may
become a requirement? Or --
MS. CARR: It may become a requirement.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate your efforts and
those of your department, Ms. Carr, in the safety program
that we initiated here in 2003, and I think we've made a lot
of progress. We had a couple of designations of hazardous
workplace. We've resolved those. We're beyond that. And,
as you say, we got a 10 percent worker's comp premium credit
last year amounting to almost $18,000. We have excellent
cooperation from Texas Association of Counties and their
representative, Mr. Larry Boccaccio, and he's been very,
very helpful --
MS. CARR: He has.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in everything that we've
done, and I appreciate his efforts too. Thank you. The
next item is a timed item for 9:50. Item 9, discussion and
update on AFLAC billing. Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: I'm here to explain the -- the
process of the first few months on our insurance billing.
Back in December and January, I came to the Court and I
explained that I was not able to deduct any premiums due to
that I had not received premiums from Mutual of Omaha in
order to do this. And I sent out a letter to the employees,
which you have a copy of, stating that I was going to have
~ 11 OS
1
." 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
` 24
25
56
to double-deduct at the end of December because I hadn't
received the premiums yet. We deduct premiums a month in
advance to be able to pay for the premiums that are due on
the 1st. Well, come the end of December, I still had not
received those amounts from Mutual of Omaha, and I have
court minutes here which reflect that I had brought that to
the Court, and also employees that were upset because we
were going to have to deduct at the end of December. Well,
unfortunately, I did not receive those premiums by the end
of December; I was unable to deduct again at the end of
December payroll, and so I received them from Mutual of
Omaha on January the 12th.
So, what we did is, by that time, I would
have had to deduct December 15th, the end of December, and
January's premiums. There would have -- I would have
deducted three premiums in one paycheck. Our employees
cannot afford for us to do that. So, what I did was I
deducted two premiums, which was the December 15th and the
December 30th premium, on the January 15th payroll. Then
the end of December -- the end of the January payroll, then
I deducted the January 15th premium at the end of the
January -- the January 30th payroll. So, come February,
then I go back and I adjust everybody's deduction and just
deducted the one -- for the one pay period, and then I did
that at the end of February also. So, now we're into March.
7-11-GS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
57
We got the reconciliation from AFLAC the beginning of March,
and we reconciled that invoice going back, knowing that we
had to double-deduct on these pay periods.
On March 17th, I was at a conference, and my
chief deputy overnighted those premiums on March 17th.
However, because of the way the accounting system worked and
everything, we not only had to send the payroll escrow
checks to AFLAC, I needed to type out a treasurer's check to
make up for the difference. And, so, when my employee sent
this off, being that she's new -- and we've discussed it --
she failed to include the treasurer's check, because at that
time that didn't mean anything to her. So, AFLAC calls --
and they're in communication this whole time -- and says
they're missing $4,000; that they could not reconcile the
billings for those because they're missing $9,000. So, what
they did was, with the first four checks that they received,
they applied it to the first people that were on the
invoice, leaving 38 people not knowing -- not having the
funds to do that. So, that's when my employee called me at
my conference, and I said, "You need to send that fifth
check from the Treasurer's office," and so -- which she did.
24
25 employe
~-ii-ns
On March the 29th, there was a letter sent to
And I have attached to the agenda item where they received
those premiums or that last check on March the 28th.
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yet, and that they had 15 days to either send the premium in
or let them know what their intentions were. So, we called
AFLAC. They said, "Just tell your employees to ignore that
letter. We received your premiums on the 28th," which I
have documentation that I attached to the agenda stating
that they had received those premiums. Somehow, there's --
there was word that 38 employees -- their insurance was
terminated and that they needed to be reinstated. That was
not the case. That was -- that has never been the case, and
I'd like to give you a letter from Bryan Finley stating that
fact.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MS. NEMEC: You're welcome. And I would like
to read that to you, please. It says, "Dear Barbara: This
is to confirm that the notice mailed to 38 employees on
March 29th was not a cancellation notice, but a notice
informing them that a premium was due. The employee had 15
days in which to respond before any cancellation would be
effective. Our office was notified by AFLAC that the
missing premiums were received and applied to these
policies, therefore continuing the coverage without
interruption. No reinstatement was necessary under the
circumstances." Any questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So everything is working
now?
~ 11-u5
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Everyone's paid up and
it's being done?
MS. NEMEC: We finally were able to reconcile
-- and that's what I tried to explain back when, is it was
going to be hard to have one representative with AFLAC and
another representative with our health insurance, because
those two benefits are coordinated. Because the County --
if they choose Plan B, then the employee has the option to
go and buy AFLAC products to sub -- because the County
subsidizes for the premium from Plan B to Plan A, which
several employees have done. And so in order to reconcile
those billings, you need all the premiums in to be able to
reconcile. So, that was -- that was the delay, and we were
in communication with AFLAC. We knew exactly when they
needed the premiums. They were sent, and this letter
notifying the employees on March 29th was just sent in
error, because they did receive them on the 28th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: Yes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So what you're saying
is, then, that all the premiums that are due have been paid
and you're saying that no employees suffered any lapse of
coverage; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: Correct.
~-ii-us
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Following that, then,
would the -- to your knowledge, were any employees' claims
denied because of this action or inaction?
MS. NEMEC: None at all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None that you know
of, or none at all?
MS. NEMEC: None at all. I've checked with
AFLAC, and there was never any interruption of service. All
claims have been paid as received.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what is the direct
correlation between Mutual of Omaha and AFLAC?
MS. NEMEC: Ber_ause of an employee -- with
Mutual of Omaha, if an employee chooses Plan B, then the
County -- the County takes the difference between Plan A and
Plan B premiums that are going towards that employee's
insurance, and the County allows the employee that chose
Plan B to use the difference in those premiums to buy AFLAC
products. And, so, until I was able -- I had the AFLAC
billing and what to deduct for all employees, but I did not
have the Mutual of Omaha billing to know what employee --
what -- if I should deduct all the amount out of the
employee's contribution or deductions, or was the County
going to subsidize some of that for those that were on Plan
B. And that's why I could not deduct those premiums until I
7-11 C5
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L L
23
24
25
received the Mutual of Omaha billing.
JUDGE TINLEY: And this was in January?
MS. NEMEC: I received it January the 12th,
but by that time we were three -- three pay periods behind,
because we deduct a month in advance.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's -- there's no
contingency on the premium, one or the other, is there?
Between Mutual of Omaha and AFLAC, is there?
MS. NEMEC: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And in order for the
AFLAC coverage to continue, the premium must be paid in a
timely manner, must it not?
MS. NEMEC: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm looking at the
documentation you furnished, and the -- apparently, the
January -- or, excuse me, December '04 premiums which had
been deducted in December '09 were due in by January 15th;
is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: That is correct. But I did not
deduct anything in December, any type of insurance, AFLAC or
Mutual of Omaha, because I did not have those premiums.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Premium amounts? Is
that --
MS. NEMEC: I did not have those amounts to
deduct. And that's what the employees were complaining
-ii-ns
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
about, that I was going to have to double-deduct in
December, which I sent them a letter stating that. Well,
come the end of December, I still had not received the
premiums from -- the invoices from Mutual of Omaha, and I
was unable to deduct at that time.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're telling me is
the premiums which were payable in December of '04, which
should have been deducted from the employees' paychecks for
that coverage, you did not deduct?
MS. NEMEC: They were not deducted till
January 15th payroll, and then again at the end of the
January payroll.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's when you
caught up?
MS. NEMEC: Let me think here. January,
February -- I double-deducted in January, and then I
double-deducted in February -- at the end of January, and
that took care of the January billing for December's
premiums that weren't deducted. Now, in February -- I get a
statement in February, and that's for the January
deductions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And then, after we deducted all
that, then there was a matter of having to reconcile
everything, and so now we're into March, and we're back and
-ii-os
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
forth with AFLAC. And, of course, they -- and up to this
date, we're still communicating with them, because we were
given some wrong amounts. And -- and so we're trying to
reconcile, and I think we finally got it to where now it's
reconciled, but there were some wrong amounts given to us,
and we were deducting -- either overdeductinq or
underdeducting based on what Bryan Finley's office sent us.
And we talked to AFLAC, and they said, well, they have the
correct premiums. But in re -- and in researching
everything with Mr. Finley's office, there were some
discrepancies on their part, and now they have given me the
correct amounts. So, it's -- it's been a challenge to
reconcile, but it's all taken care of now.
JUDGE TINLEY: But if I'm hearing you
correctly, we caught up on the deductions by the end of
January.
MS. NEMEC: Well, we should have caught up on
-- we did catch up on the deductions by the end of January,
but then there was those discrepancies in February and March
premiums that we could not figure out which were the correct
amount, and we finally got those taken care of with all
three offices working together.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we deduct from the
employee's wages, and then the burden is on Kerr County,
your office in particular, to send those premiums in for
7 1 1 0 5
64
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those employees to have that coverage for which you've
already deducted premiums; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: Correr_t.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now, the remittance
that was due for January -- by January 15th of this year,
which would have been for December '04, according to the
information you furnished me, was not paid until March the
28th, 'O5; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: Actually, it was paid -- it was
paid March the 17th, after we reconciled everything. But
there was -- like I said earlier, there were four escrow
checks that were made payable to AFLAC that were sent in.
After I reconciled everything, I did a fifth check out of
the Treasurer's account. And when my deputy sent those
premiums in, the Treasurer's account check meant nothing to
her, and she did not send that in. So then that was
overnighted, and they received it on the 28th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the total monthly
premium to AFLAC, about? I mean, just generally. I mean --
MS. NEMEC: $4,000, $3,000, just depending on
what -- you know, employees coming and going.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I'm asking
that is 'cause I'm -- by what you've presented -- or what
AFLAC said and you presented, what you've attached, it shows
that January, February, and March were all paid in
~-ii-vs
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
January -- on March 28th.
MS. NEMEC: Actually, they were paid on --
that's what it shows here, but actually, we overnighted it
on March the 17th. There was just one check that they were
-- and you know why it says that on here, March the 28th?
Because when they received those four checks, they were
missing that fifth check from the Treasurer's account, and
they didn't know how to apply them, and it took them a while
to reconcile their invoice when they received our checks,
and it was posted on the 28th. It was not received on the
28th by them. We overnighted it on the 17th. It was posted
on the 28th, 'cause it took them some time to reconcile --
and conversations back and forth with my office before they
were able to reconcile their billing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When was that last
check sent?
MS. NEMEC: That last check was then
overnighted on the 27th, which they received on the 28th.
And then that's when they were able to reconcile everything.
JUDGE TINLEY: So everything was reconciled
by that time?
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Now, the
documentation which you furnished us from AFLAC dated
May 23rd of this year shows lapse pending notice. That's
~-ii-o=
66
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May the 23rd, and AFLAC states that as of that date,
apparently, they have not received remittances that were due
April 15 and May 15.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. And that's what I was
explaining earlier, that there -- we had received wrong
amounts from -- you know, whose mistake it was, I don't
know, but the amounts that we received, some of them were
incorrect. And so this whole time that these premiums are
due, my chief deputy and AFLAC are communicating and trying
to get the right amounts to be able to reconcile that
account, and so on this letter, it states that to prevent
any interruption, the payment must be received by June the
12th. Well, attached I have where that was overnighted on
June the 9th.
JUDGE TINLEY: In response to the June 23rd
letter? I mean May 23rd.
MS. NEMEC: May 23rd letter.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: Not really in response to that
letter, but, you know, just in communicating and my chief
deputy knowing when that needed to be done.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the June 9th mailer
included the amounts that are shown on the May 23rd letter?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: For April and May?
~-ii-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. And it looks like now,
with the three offices getting together -- my office, Bryan
Finley's office, and AFLAC -- that all the premium -- that
all the amounts are now -- we've received the correct
amount, and there shouldn't be any type of having to
reconcile any more, other than new hires or terminations.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I guess the question
that arises now, Ms. Nemec, is if, on June 9th, you sent the
remittances that were due April 15 and May 15, what about
the remittance that was due June 15 for the May premium?
Has that been forwarded?
MS. NEMEC: The June -- the one that was due
-- yes, that's been done.
JUDGE TINLEY: When -- do you know when that
was forwarded?
MS. NEMEC: And, you know -- no, I don't.
There was never a question on that one, so I don't -- well,
actually, you know what? That was sent in -- you know,
that -- I remember, that was sent in when we sent in these
other two invoices. Because we were able -- by reconciling
these two invoices, we were able to know what the
reconciliation would have been for June, so those were sent
in all at the same time. And now we have a premium due July
the 15th, and we have not received the billing for that,
which we should have. But Judy called AFLAC and they
~-ii ns
68
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
e-mailed it to her, and she's in the process of reconciling
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From what source is
this misinformation coming? Is it coming from Mutual of
Omaha or from AFLAC or from Bryan Finley and Associates?
Where is this misinformation that creates the problem?
MS. NEMEC: Well, when an employee signs up,
they go to Mr. Finley's office to sign up for the AFLAC
product. At this point -- at this point, as far as getting
the wrong amounts for AFLAC to deduct, at this point, that
has nothing to do with Mutual of Omaha any more. It's
AFLAC. When an employee -- a new employee gets hired -- or
right at the beginning when all this happened, they go to
Bryan Finley's office and they sign up for -- for different
products that they -- that are available to them. A lot of
it has to do with -- we -- and then what happens is
Mr. Finley's office sends us the premiums to deduct, and
those are the amounts we deduct. We only deduct premiums
that Mr. Finley sends for us to deduct. When we get the
invoice, sometimes those premiums are not the same. There's
discrepancies.
Now, whether we got the wrong amount from
Mr. Finley or from -- or if the AFLAC is wrong, it turns
out -- when we've been reconciling these accounts, it turns
out that there's been errors done on both parts. Also, what
~-ii-us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°°° 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'"~ 2 4
25
69
happens is an employee might sign up for a cancer policy,
let's say, and so Mr. Finley sends us that information; we
deduct for the cancer policy. Well, going through
underwriting and stuff, that employee might not qualify to
be able to have a cancer policy. So, therefore, when we get
the premium -- when we get the invoice, it's less that
amount, and so then we have to stop and we have to figure
out why AFLAC has this amount and Mr. Finley's office has
that amount. And so then we called and we found out, well,
they signed up for this policy, and under the qualifications
and stuff, they were not -- they were not able to be insured
under that, so then we have to make those adjustments.
There's adjustments made all the time because of things like
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A general comment that
I'd make -- and, you know, I'm -- is that it looks like
everything's straightened out, at least for the moment, but
I'm not sure it's going to stay that way. I think we really
because it seems that -- I'm very uncomfortable about us not
making the payments for employees. I mean, and it seems --
but it seems -- but I understand the way, in your system,
that it's -- you can't spend forward money until you know
where it needs to be applied. So, I mean, I'm not sure how
you fix the problem, but there needs to be a way. It seems
~-ii-os
~o
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
~5
to me that we make at least estimated premium payments to
the -- to AFLAC, and that the adjustments be made after --
down the road, as opposed to not sending the premium at all.
And I don't -- but that may not be possible, and I
understand. You know, I have learned a lot about how that
process with AFLAC works, and I almost wish we didn't offer
that.
MS. NEMEC: You and me both.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that is a good
service to employees.
MS. NEMEC: I figured out a solution to that.
I think that what we're going to do -- and I've been talking
to the girls in the office about that. I think what we're
going to do is set it up like we have Mutual of Omaha set
up. It doesn't matter when we deduct for the employee. We
have an ac~~ount that, when a billing comes in -- an invoice
comes in, we pay that amount out of our insurance account,
and then the adjustments are made in the following month, so
they either give us a credit or send us a letter stating we
owe a little bit more. And I'm thinking that the best way
to handle AFLAC is set it up that way. Not have escrow
checks from our payroll account being made payable to AFLAC,
but rather to the County Treasurer and deposit it in an
insurance account. That way, when these billings do come
in, we've got the money right there, whether it balances or
~-ii-vs
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
not, to send it in and then make the adjustments at a later
date when we reconcile everything with them, and that should
alleviate this problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really what
Commissioner Letz is suggesting.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess my concern is that if
we're deducting from employees' wages for insurance
purposes, and for whatever reason, those funds are not paid
to the carrier -- they're not paid; they're transmitted, but
they're lost in transit in some way, shape, form, or
fashion, if there's a loss that's covered under the policy,
I think we're swinging in the breeze.
MS. NEMEC: We11, that hasn't been the case.
JUDGE TINLEY: We11, I understand it hasn't
happened yet, but what I'm looking at here indicates that it
very well could have happened in this course of events with
all of this difficulty in -- in these things being paid in
an untimely manner.
MS. NEMEC: We11, like I said, we've been
communicating with AFLAC. We knew the date that they had to
have those premiums in-hand, and they had them, so that has
not been the case.
JUDGE TINLEY: What obligation do we have to
do payroll deductions for insurance for our employees?
-i, ns
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: Well, the Court decides what --
what deductions we're going to do for the employees. I
don't do any of the deductions unless it's court-ordered to
do so. And, so, when we have that, then I do the deductions
and pay them at the end of the -- or when we get the
billing.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that --
MS. NEMEC: I don't like -- I don't like
running on a deadline at the very last minute, and that's
what we've been having to do because of the discrepancies
and everything. So, that's why I was saying I've talked to
my employees, and we're going to change that procedure by
handling it the way we do Mutual of Omaha so that we're not
running on these deadlines, and so, in error, a letter is
not sent the day after they receive the premiums.
JUDGE TINLEY: 7 think my question is more
one that may go to the County Attorney as to what legal
obligation, if any, do we have -- the Court -- to permit
payroll deductions for insurance or any other purpose for
the employees? And, secondly, if we do authorize it,
whether we're obligated or not, What is our exposure if,
for some reason, there's a ]oss that's a covered loss that,
for some reason, we fail to remit payment on something that
we've deducted? I -- I think that's a question we need --
questions we need an answer -- we need answers for.
~-ii-os
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: I'm sure we'd be liable. It's
our obligation.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly my concern,
Ms. Nemec. Exactly my concern.
MS. NEMEC: And that's why we're in constant
communication with them, and they've received them in a
timely manner as we were told to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think there's
someone in the audience --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we've got two
participation forms that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that have been filed with
regard to this particular matter. Mr. Pearson, you've
signed a participation form -- submitted one. Do you wish
to be heard on this matter?
MR.. PEAR.SON: Judge, I can defer my remarks
until Item 13.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right.
Mr. Prendergast? You had also done a participation form.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Yeah. Sorry if I'm taking
up your time. And I'm concerned about this, because I put
in a request for Open Records back on June 17th in relation
to this very issue. I did not receive anything back in
~-il-os
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
response other than a letter that I would receive it on
about -- excuse me, I'll do it that way -- July 27th. And
yet it's being discussed here in the open courtroom, which
is fine; it's answering my question, but I didn't get any
backup to my request for Open Records, which would be the
last lettez there. You kind of have to work from the back
and come forward. And I think I understand this. It's that
AFLAC is sending us a bill. We have pre-enrollment, so we
know that each employee is going to have a certain amount
deducted from their account for their supplemental insurance
under Plan B. AFLAC sends a bill via Bryan or directly to
the Treasurer; I don't know.
But my concern was -- and I was given, in a
letter which was presented to me by one of the County
employees, that these payments weren't being timely
received. And I think the background information which was
given to the press certainly reflects that we were three
months in arrears at one point, and came back, and the same
letter, we were still two months in arrears at that point.
So, my concern was exactly what you guys have stated. What
is our liability here? In the press stuff, I'm still
confused about how the whole situation works, whether it's
Bryan Finley that's sending us the bill or whether it's
AFLAC. Or do we send a separate check to Bryan Finley for
his commission, and then send the -- remit the remaining
7 11 05
75
1
w
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-~- 13
14
]5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 4
25
portion to AFLAC? Or is it one bill that then AFLAC sends
the commission back to Bryan Finley? I don't know.
Irregardless of how that's done, it seems to
me like if you deducted the money on January 15th, that
money would certainly have been available for the
February 15th payment, but we didn't make a February 15th
payment, best I can tell here. And that's the reason I'd
asked for an Open Records request, so we'd have a better
explanation. I'm still confused, frankly. And I think it's
probably positioning this Court such that you have some
contingent liability that you haven't -- that you haven't
put a sinking fund into it. So, that was my concern. An
employee came to me, handed me the letter showing -- saying
they'd received nonpayment notices. This letter which I was
given, which I sent to Barbara for explanation, was attached
to this employee's next statement so that they would know
that it had been taken care of. But every time you read one
of these things, you have to ask more questions; i.e., why
is a memorandum from Kerr County Environmental Health
Department being sent out under Barbara Nemec's name? I
mean, this was in the press release, and I keep -- every
time I look at this, 10 more questions come up.
So, I'd like to ask the Court, if they would,
to come back and continue to watchdog this to see if this is
something we want to continue to do in the future. So,
~-li-ns
76
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's all I have. But I am curious why I'm not getting
Open Records requests back in 10 days, 'cause that was over
two months.
DODGE TINLEY: And the Open Records request
was dated when?
MR. PRENDERGAST: June 17th, and
acknowledged. And then the follow-up letter says I don't
get it until July 21st.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Prendergast,
just a --
MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- minor procedural
issue.
MR. PRENDERGAST:
COMMISSIONER NIC
there that you were charged $90
MR. PRENDERGAST:
bit excessive, I admit. If you
law --
Yes, sir?
IOLSON: I'm surprised to see
for research.
That -- well, that was a
go back and look at the
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The Attorney
General, I believe, has ruled that as a matter of general
public interest, which this is, then there's no cost to you.
So the County Attorney can probably --
MR. PRENDERGAST: Well, actually, I think
there were less than 50 copies. Actually, there were 27
~-ii as
77
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
copies, if you'll look on that. Yeah, and I was delayed for
over a month in getting those 27 copies. Yeah, that's some
concern to me too, but there's -- there's resolution to
that. Under the -- under the law, as I read it, as of last
Thursday -- Friday, I can seek treble damages, so I can
present the Court with a $270 bill.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't do that.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Don't do that. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MS. NEMEC: I'd just like to make a comment,
that on the $90, I did confer with the County Attorney, and
that's what we came up with. That is provided under the law
of the Open Records Act. Also, the 10 days was to respond
to the person asking for the Open Records Act, as to when
they will be getting that information. The solution to the
AFLAC is that this Court approved for us to go on the AFLAC
program, and if at any time you wish to do away with it, I'd
be glad to do that also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have
anything further on this particular agenda item? Is there
any member of the audience that wishes to be heard on this
particular agenda item? Any motion to be offered? Why
don't we stand in recess for about 15 minutes.
(Recess taken from 10:95 a.m. to 11 a.m.)
~-ii-o5
78
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
l6
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order, if we might, after our mid-morning recess. The next
item on the agenda is a timed item for 9:54.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 54.
JUDGE TINLEY: Discuss and consider declaring
July 11th, 2005 Sergeant John Stafford day here in Kerr
County. Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. I've
always been taught that if you put a strange number on
there, that everybody focuses on it and you -- and you land
on time. 9:59. It is now 11:01, so that didn't work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's close.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As everyone knows --
or you may not know; I don't know -- Highway Patrolman
Sergeant John Stafford is leaving our community, and I know
John's been a great servant to all of us for several years,
and a friend of this Court and a friend of our community,
and he's -- he goes above and beyond the call of duty, in my
opinion, for all of us. And I wanted to declare today, July
the 11th, 2005, Sergeant John Stafford Day in Kerr County.
We have a resolution in here that states that.
I
COMMISSIONER 1QICHOLSON: Commissioner, would
you consider changing that to the 18th day of July? To give
a little more time for recognition of him? Today's the
11th.
~-ii-~~,
79
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, and today is
his going away party. He's gone. I wanted to do this
before noon so I could hand it to him at lunchtime and --
and get him out of town. I mean, he's literally through
already.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate your --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- was looking for a
little more recognition, but we'll get some after the fact.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE TINLEY
adoption of the resolution.
A11 in favor of the motion,
hand.
WILLIAMS: Was that a motion?
BALDWIN: That was a motion.
WILLIAMS: Second.
Motion made and seconded for
Any question or discussion?
signify by raising your right
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's
move to Item Number 1], if we might. Discuss and consider
$538.38 payment to Texas County and District Retirement
System for late reportinq. Reporting due date was April the
16th at 5 p.m. The report caas faxed on April 17th at 1 p.m.
~ ii-o5
80
1
~° 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
]6
17
]8
19
20
21
22
23
'"' 2 4
25
Ms. Nemec?
report being late, which we knew that it was late. I don't
really like to bring my -- my medical problems to the
public, but I guess it's -- as an elected official, I must
do that, considering this agenda item. I was having
procedures done during this time, some medical procedures
done. Just to let everyone know, those reports came out
negative on everything that they were checking for, and I'm
under medication and on the road to good health now.
However, this did happen, and right around this time also
was -- and I've discussed all this with my staff; I'm not
here saying anything that they don't know that I'm saying.
But, again, in January I hired someone new. And, from what
I understand, this happened back in 2002 also. At that
time, I had just hired someone new also, and I guess maybe
deadlines aren't being explained as much as they should.
But we've remedied that by putting into the computer all our
deadlines, and they will pop up days in advance to where
this will not happen again.
And, just like I said, the report was due
April 16th at 5 o'clock. When I got back on Tuesday after
the procedures had been done, I was notified that this had
not been done, so we faxed it right away. A letter was
7-ii ~~,
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sent. My chief deputy sent a letter explaining that I had
been ill, and if they would grant an exception to the fine,
and they sent back a statement saying that that was not in
their provisions to do so. I did call my doctor at that
time, asked him to send a letter, hoping that that letter
might work, but I really don't know if it will. If it's not
in their provisions, it's not in their provisions, but I
felt that I would try that route. In the meantime, I'm
asking for payment of the $538.38 to avoid any interest that
might be imposed on us if we don't get this sent in.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further, Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I had participation forms
filed with respect to this particular item also. On Item
11, Mr. Pearson, do you wish to be heard on this?
MR. PEARSON: I want to defer to Item 13.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MR. PEARSON: Defer to Item 13.
JUDGE TINLEY: 13? All right, sir.
Mr. Prendergast? You wish to be heard, sir?
MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir. This was another
Open Records request that I had. Sorry to take up your
time, but I need to kind of go slow here for a second. I
made an Open Records request concerning this back in June,
and the Open Records request that I made concerning this was
~-11-ns
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
to the Texas Retirement Center -- System, asking if, in
fact, there had been late payments in the past to the Texas
Retirement Center -- System by Kerr County. Their response
to me was, yes, it had happened three times in 2002, which
the backup is there and the copy of the Texas Retirement
System letter, along with the amount of money, which was a
little over $2,000. That was all prior to this Court's
being on board. But my understanding is, after having
received the Texas Retirement System letter stating that
there were past payments that were late, late penalties were
assessed, that, in fact, under the previous Court, those
late penalty assessments were never paid, and I will have a
letter to that effect probably within the next two to three
days.
I do have conversations -- a conversation and
gentleman who wrote the letter from the Texas Retirement
System, Mr. Patrick -- whatever his name is, one of the
attorneys. When I talked to him on Friday morning, he had
the auditor with the Texas Retirement System there with him,
confirming the fact that $2,000 had been deducted from Kerr
County systems retirement fund. Now, that's not a direct --
my understanding is that that's not a direct deduction from
the employees' retirement. What it requires is -- is if the
internal auditors of the Texas Retirement System determine
ii o5
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that because that money was taken out, Kerr County would
then have to make up the difference in matching funds. So,
what you have is a scenario where this issue was not
addressed in 2002. I'm not sure that anyone was aware of it
in 2002, other than possibly Barbara. But, in any event,
that's what, to my understanding, has happened to the money.
I have some real concerns about some of these issues,
obviously. But I'll be glad to furnish the Court with a
copy of my letter from the Texas Retirement System as soon
as it gets here. Or you can put me under oath, if you'd
like, Judge, and I will tell you what I have to say, because
that's the truth as I know it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: George, would you tell
me again, what -- how did that -- just kind of run through
it again. What happened to the money?
MR. PRENDERGAST: My understanding,
Commissioner, is that the money -- once the money is not
paid -- for instance, this past payment, the $538, it hasn't
been paid.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
the penalty?
MR. PRENDERGAST: The penalty. Yes, I'm
sorry. The penalty -- hang on; dry mouth syndrome -- the
penalty stops as soon as payment's received. You have a
$500 assessment for late payment, plus interest. So, in
~-it-os
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
25
this instance that we have before us right now, the payment
was made one day late, so there was $500 assessed against
Kerr County Retirement System, plus the additional $38 and
some-odd cents for interest, okay? But since they had, in
fact, received payment, interest has not continued to
accrue. It's just that one-time penalty. If you do not pay
that penalty within a three-month span, then it is deducted
from the retirement system in Austin from your money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay? So if you don't pay
this bill that we're being asked to look at today, then they
will deduct that from your system by, I think, sometime in
August. But in 2002, it happened three times.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we didn't pay the
-- the interest?
MR. PRENDERGAST: Or the penalty.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or the penalty. And
it was deducted from the system?
MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir. There's letters
there. Now, the final letter stating that, in effect, is
what happened I've not received, but I should have it --
well, they said they would do it this morning, 'cause I was
talking to them Friday, both the auditor with the Texas
Retirement System and one of the internal attorneys.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
~-ii-r„
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
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Maybe -- I
don't know if you can answer it or not, George. The -- can
you go over where the money comes from? I mean, what money
is in the retirement system that's not basically employee
money?
MR. PRENDERGAST: My understanding, I
believe, Commissioner, is that you deduct a certain
percentage from each employee as to their election as to up
to a certain percentage. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
MR. PRENDERGAST: They can deduct, for
instance, up to 6 percent of their -- their paycheck
towards -- to apply towards their retirement; is that
correct? Or is that number different?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's a standard number
for every employee, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay. So, it's an either
you're in or you're out type thing. If you elect to go in,
then it's the 6 percent or whatever it is. Then the County,
I believe, then does a matr_hing fund as to that percentage,
do they not? For a one-to-one?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's actually a bit
more than that; I think it's 7.9, I believe, match from the
County.
~-ii-CS
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay. So, simplistically,
I think if an employee says I want to put my 6 percent in,
50 bucks a day -- or 50 bucks a month, then the County has
to come back and match that to that fact, or whatever it is.
At 7.9 percent, that would be -- what, another 40 bucks,
right? So, that -- roughly. So, at that point, if the
auditor with the Texas Retirement System says you have not
contributed enough because of the deduction -- because of
the late penalty assessment, then you would have to make up
that difference, plus the interest that that money would
have been accruing during that time. So, if they're getting
a 6 percent return on their money over a three-year span,
another 2,000 may become 3,000. But that sits there and
accrues against that account, my understanding, in
perpetuity until somebody comes back in and says, "Let's
make this up now so we can stop the bleeding." Now, that
I'm not completely sure about. But, I mean, just in
actuarial ways, that's the way it would begin to play itself
out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was wondering if there
might may be a way to tell --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well --
MR. PRENDERGAST: Well, we need to look into
it, I think, more than anything, Jonathan, to see if we need
to send them another check for whatever.
~-ii-os
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, simply stated,
there's a Kerr County pool within the greater pool.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if there's a
penalty or interest accruing, for whatever reason, whatever
it happens to be, they're going to -- they're going to take
it at some point in time and it probably -- it probably
washes against earnings.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Only as to Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the Kerr County
pool.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir, it does. That's
my understanding.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm still following
up on Commissioner Letz' question. The $2,000, who pays it?
Employees or taxpayers?
MR. PRENDERGAST: Taxpayers, would be my
assumption.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I was going to
say --
MR. PRENDERGAST: I don't think the employees
are at risk, is what I'm trying to say, Commissioner. I
think the taxpayers have to make that difference up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question -- my other
question, and I decided not to ask it, really, because this
~-ii-o5
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question needs to be directed to the retirement system, as
to whether it could be built in -- recovering that money
could be built in out of what we're submitting to them under
the administrative side. And, I mean, in which case, it is
still -- the taxpayers are still paying the money, but maybe
it's being spread out in next year or something. I don't
know that, but there may be a way to work it.
MR. PRENDERGAST: My gut reaction is that the
Texas Retirement System would be more than happy to talk to
us about it. When I did my Open Records request to them,
they were responsive within three days. So -- and in my
initial conversation, when I asked them in my first letter
for copies of the actual checks, they said we don't retain
that. Possibly, you know, you can apply and see how the
County took care of it. So I just went back to the Texas
Retirement System and asked in another Open Records request
how, in fact, they're getting paid and who paid it, and the
verbal conversation was, it wasn't paid.
JUDGE TINLEY: And your Open Records request,
what's the status of that?
MR. PRENDERGAST: They, on Friday, said they
were on it like a duck on a June bug, I believe was the
comment, Buster. Right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't understand
that kind of talk. (Laughter.)
~ ii ~~s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
MR. PRENDERGAST: You don't understand that?
They said they would have that letter to me by today, was
their indication.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. PRENDERGAST: They were going to fax it
to me. I'll be glad to furnish the Court with a copy of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MR. PRENDERGAST: If you adjourn for lunch,
then I'll check the house and see if I've got it and bring
it back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think -- my
preference on this would probably be to defer action till
the next meeting and have a representative from Texas
Retirement System come down and explain to us the situation,
where the money is and what is owed, and if something is
owed by the County, I think it needs to be cleared up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what the down
side of that is, if any.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And what is -- yeah.
But, I mean, I don't think there's anyone here today that
can answer those questions.
MR. PRENDERGAST: No. It's just something
that I was concerned about.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 2002, you
Commissioners weren't aware of these?
~-11-05
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't recall it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it akin to being
-- of course, you don't budget for penalties, but is it akin
to being an unbudgeted, unauthorized expense? If you didn't
hear about it, you didn't authorize the payment of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, apparently it
wasn't paid, and so T.C.D.R.S. took its alternative action,
which was to satisfy the debt out of the pool. That's your
understanding?
MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir. And I'm not sure
it's directly out of the pool, Commissioner. That's where I
was a bit hazy on the explanation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or something like
that.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Right. And I think that
the County then becomes liable, and it will probably have to
increase their -- their con -- their ratable contribution
back to the Texas Retirement System in order to make up that
deficiency. And we may have already been doing that. I
mean, the -- with --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're in speculation at
this point. That's why I think we're better off --
MR. PRENDERGAST: We're not in speculation as
to what happened. We're in speculation as to what happened
~ ii o:,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
to the money.
JODG
this year said, "If
within three months
system shall deduct
read Kerr County --
fund."
TINLEY: The letter dated May 24th of
payment is not received by T.C.D.R.S.
after date of notice, the retirement
the penalty from the subdivision's" --
"account in the subdivision accumulation
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. That's kind
of what I was saying; they take it out of the big pool.
They're going to make it whole for their purposes.
MR. PRENDERGAST: First.
MR. PEARSON: You bet.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When this occurs, is
there a mechanism for the County Auditor knowing about it?
Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When something like
this occurs, is there a mechanism for you being informed of
it happening?
MR. TOMLINSON: Not unless I get a letter
directly from the retirement system.
MS. NEMEC: The Court gets a letter. The
Court gets a copy of the letter that is sent to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I qot a copy of the -- I
believe it was May 29th, the letter I just read from.
~-ii-os
1
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. There was a copy of
that letter sent to me, and I copied all the members of the
Court on that, as I'm sure the members of the Court will
recall.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So that's how it
surfaced this time?
DODGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But the issue didn't
surface when it occurred three times in 2002?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have no
recollection of it.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Just look at this letter
that was remitted February 27th, 2002. It was sent to
Barbara Nemec, and from Bill Wendlandt, Manager, Subdivision
Accounts and Business Services. The letter of March 27th
was the same cc, and then the letter October 23rd, 2002, was
cc'd to the head of the governing board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It isn't me.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said it's not me.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Don't throw me in the briar
patch.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the May 24th letter
~-ii-us
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
shows, "cc: Head of Governing Board," and that was the one
that was sent to me.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: The May 24, '05 letter. And
that was the one I circulated --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to the Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kathy, do you have that
on the agenda for next time?
(Ms. Mitchell nodded.)
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to explain why they did
not have a record of the payment being made by the County.
It was because I did not -- in 2002, I did not put this on
the agenda like I did today. I went back to our storage
room to try to find the retirement system's 2002 records on
Friday, and I was unable to locate them. It's very dark in
there, and I'll keep working on that. But, as I explained
earlier, that I knew about the 2002 because they sent me a
copy of George Prendergast's Open Records request, and in
there it stated that it had happened in 2002. And in 2002,
I had hired a new chief deputy. She is out of the state,
but I did track her down and called her and asked her if she
remembered receiving any type of letters to that effect, and
she did not, so that's what I am researching now. I
think -- for auditing reasons, I don't think that we should
~-ii-os
1
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
allow this 538 to be taken out of the pool that is in the
Texas Retirement System, but rather approve a check to be
paid to them so we ran have an audit trail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree that the
check should be paid, but I think I'd rather wait until next
week -- I mean next meeting, when we'll hear from a
representative from the Texas Retirement System.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, you have furnished,
in the materials with your agenda item, a copy of the report
form that goes to T.C.D.R.S.?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: It appears that the -- the
single figure that's really needed to go forward to complete
that report is the amount of the employees' contributions
each month; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry, I don't understand
your question.
JUDGE TINLEY: In filling out that report,
you really only need one figure, and that's the total amount
of the employee contributions each month.
MS. NEMEC: It's the employee contributions
and then the employer contribution.
JUDGE TINLEY: But that -- that's figured off
the employee contribution, is it not?
~-ii-os
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
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, really, the only figure
you need is the total amount of the employee contributions
to the retirement system that were deducted in the previous
month's payroll.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kind of a follow-up
question, Barbara. The document, Retirement Contributions
Certification, a copy of which is in our packet -- I'm
trying to find a date -- oh, April of 'OS -- shows a balance
still due of $119.67.
MS. NEMEC: That is due to a -- that is
due -- those amounts there, you're not always going to
balance. If have you a voided check in the middle of the
month, then that amount is going to be off, and then you
have to adjust it on your next report.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is
reconcilable in the following month without penalty?
MS. NEMEC: Right, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I just have a -- I
guess a related question. I recall visiting with you about
this shortly after when you received the letter, and I guess
my question is -- and I don't have any problem with it -- is
how did Mr. Prendergast get involved asking the questions,
~ ii-o5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
96
as opposed to us handling it internally? Not that I'm -- I
mean, it still would have been public. I'm not asking that
question. I'm just curious as to why we didn't do it. And
you -- I recall you telling me that, you know, you were
looking into it, something to that effect, and I just -- you
know, I was just curious as to why -- is that what you
were -- I guess Mr. Prendergast was looking into what you
were referring to, which I have no problem. I'm just
curious as to why we didn't have Ms. Mitchell doing it
instead of someone else.
JUDGE TINLEY: We didn't make inquiry. The
inquiry was -- I mean, the notice that we got was -- was
fairly simple and specific. I furnished a copy to the
members of the Court on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no, I'm referring
more to our conversation, which I remember. 'Cause in that
conversation, you had looked into it enough at that point,
'cause you had told me at that time that this has happened
previously and you were looking into it. And I was just
wondering as to why -- and I had assumed at that point that
you and Ms. Mitchell were looking into it, and I'm just
wondering if there's a reason you had another person -- or I
presume that's where Mr. Prendergast got his information.
JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection is that
Mr. Prendergast said that he had made a request of the
~-ii-os
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
T.C.D.R.S., and they had given him the information that this
had occurred on at least three prior occasions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- okay. It
doesn't make any difference. I don't understand -- you must
have just mentioned it to Mr. Prendergast in the past, then.
I mean, it wasn't -- I don't know how Mr. Prendergast would
have known what this was to ask the question. I guess it
doesn't make any difference. I was just curious as to why
we didn't handle it through our -- through the Commissioners
Court office.
MS. NEMEC: And that's why I put it on the
agenda, Commissioner, because I was hearing some courthouse
hallway gossip, and I did not understand why, if there is --
if there was an issue in my office, you know, as several
things on the agenda are, why I hadn't been asked about it
first, or why things don't -- aren't put on the agenda so
that we can discuss them. So, I took the liberty of putting
all this on the agenda to get it out in the open and discuss
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on this particular
one, I appreciate you copying me on it and pursuing it,
'cause I think it is a -- this is a pretty big deal.
JUDGE TINLEY: There was another issue
previous to this that Ms. Nemec indicated that she did have
the information on a -- on another agenda item that's coming
~-ii-os
1
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
up here in a little bit, and I asked her to give me the
information, and she declined to provide it to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MS. NEMEC: You said it was for a
constituent, Judge. That is -- and that's an Open Records
Act; that needs to be provided in writing to my office.
DODGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, I think I made my
position real clear on Open Records. Every bit of the
public information in this courthouse is open to the public,
and it doesn't make any difference who requests it, from
whom. They're entitled to it.
MS. NEMEC: Absolutely. And I conferred --
JUDGE TINLEY: I was requested to give that
information. I was asked for it. I asked you for the
information.
MS. NEMEC: And what was my response?
JUDGE TINLEY: You indicated -- I said, "You
provide it to me, and I'll give it to the constituent."
Your response was, "If the constituent wants that
information, you have them file an Open Records request for
me."
MS. NEMEC: That's correct. That's how I do
all Open Records --
JUDGE TINLEY: You give --
MS. NEMEC: I confer with the County Attorney
~-ii-os
99
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any time I have an Open Records request. Yes, sir, that's
my procedure.
JUDGE TINLEY: You declined to give the
information to me.
MS. NEMEC: Once you told me it was for a
constituent, yes, sir. If you had told me it was for you,
that would have been treated different, but any time a
constituent requests, then that goes to the County Attorney
so that I can make sure that it is all being done in the
legal, proper way.
JUDGE TINLEY: I disagree with your
philosophy about open government, Ms. Nemec.
MS. NEMEC: We disagree on several issues,
Judge, but we -- we're entitled to disagree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on this
particular item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 12, a
timed item for 10 o'clock. Clarify Court Order Number 29075
and take appropriate action as may be necessary.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. This was another
courthouse hallway gossip item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another what?
MS. NEMEC: Courthouse hallway gossip item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
~-ii-os
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
MS. NEMEC: It seems that the motion that was
made in this agenda item back in March was not the actual
order that was submitted -- written up, and so I'm here to
ask for clarification on that. The order stated the new
policy for transfers keeping their merit and their
longevity, but the -- the motion was made to go back
retroactive to employees who did not have their merits
transferred back to the budget year and to correct those and
do so, which is what I did, but now I understand that there
is some problem with that. I did receive a letter from the
County Clerk stating that she had made a clerical error in
the court order, and I think you all have a copy of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the question would
be, is it necessary for a revised court order, or are we
just correcting the old one?
JUDGE TINLEY: How did this issue arise,
Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: The issue r_ame to my attention by
employees being upset, stating that they were told -- if you
want to know the truth, that they were told by you that I
had gone and given my deputy a raise without authorization.
JUDGE TINLEY: Gee, who did I tell that to?
MS. NEMEC: Well, there were three people.
But, anyway --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, obviously, that's
~-ii-r,s
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
what I believed if I told them that.
MS. NEMEC: I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what is the current
classification of the employees in your office, Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: 19/6.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's your chief
deputy?
MS. NEMEC: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. What about the
other employee? You have two employees, do you not?
MS. NEMEC: The other employee is a part-time
person. That's just an hourly rate; it's not a
classification.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Was your chief deputy
not brought on board at a 19/3?
MS. NEMEC: She was brought on board at a
19/3. And when we came to court and discussed the policy on
transfers with merit and longevity, in the courts -- in the
minutes that you have attached to there, it's stated on
there when we discussed there being employees that were not
transferred with their merit increases, and one was in
Ms. Rector's office. And then it was discussed -- on Pages
7, 8 and 9, the questions were asked, and it was discussed
that we go back retroactive and bring all the employees that
had been transferred within this budget year that did not
~-ii-os
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
transfer with all their merit increases, to transfer them.
And Commissioner Baldwin asked if there were any others, and
I said, well, if that's the case, then I do have an employee
in my office who was a 15/6 in her prior position, and I
only brought her in at a 19/3. And so he states --
Mr. Baldwin stated in this -- in the minutes that there was
-- that that was two employees there, and seconded the
motion, and it was passed. But that's not what the court
order reflected.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall that
exactly being in the minutes. I -- what I'm saying is, the
question was that it was a -- that your employee had been at
a 15/6. But --
DODGE TINLEY: You're claiming this is a
merit increase carryover? Is that what you're saying?
That --
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. The way I read that
motion when it was finally voted on was the merit increases
had been deleted. Longevity only was -- was carried
forward; was made portable.
MS. NEMEC: From that day forward. But then
also in the minutes, it states that there were some
employees during this budget year that had brought their
merits with them and some had not, and that we weren't being
~-ii us
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
consistent with those employees that had not brought their
merits. And that's when the question came up, is there
anyone other than in Ms. Rector's office that that had been
done with? And I said yes, my employee. She was a 15/6. I
brought her in at a 19/3, and so we needed to go and correct
hers also, which is what I did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, I
was involved with a lot of -- I think I made the motion
originally, and I believe it was -- I believe it was
Mr. Nicholson who brought up the issue that we didn't want
to have anybody taking a pay cut. And I made the motion
originally, which I said -- which I think should be the
policy, and I think is the policy. But if we stuck with
that policy or made that motion, one employee -- one
employee, I think, was -- in Ms. Rector's office, or maybe
Linda's office; I can't remember which one -- was going to
take a pay cut. And it was discussed that we didn't want
anyone to take a pay cut 'cause we didn't do our -- you
know, weren't clear enough in our policy. And then
Ms. Nemec said she had an employee as well, and I believe we
then decided to make everyone -- you know, treat everyone
the same up to that point in the year when that was done, I
guess in May.
The problem -- this thing -- I don't recall
the discussion about your employee, what she was at
~-ii-os
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
previously. And you get into -- in my mind at the time --
I'm hesitating, 'cause I'm trying to make sure I don't go
into things we talked about in executive session in
personnel. I don't think, I mean, it was -- the issue was
the prior salary of your employee, since we're talking
about -- her salary was -- it wasn't merit increases that
got her to that point. It was basically to bring in the
employee from U.G.R.A. into a different department at the
proper step, and get the grade adjusted to make the salary
consistent with where it had been. And those were not merit
-- in my mind, merit increases. So, it was to the merit
side, and that's, you know, I guess how I recall that whole
conversation going. And I did not recall at the time that
it was as big of an adjustment as it turned out to be for
that employee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 10 kind of
spells it out, Commissioner, in which we talked about not
taking away from employees. That this -- before the new
court order, you talk about receiving both the merit and the
longevity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the issue is -- and
if that -- the level that employee was at was a merit
increase, that's the issue, you know, I guess. And I think
the decision at the time was pretty much that no one should
take a pay cut.
i-i~-ns
105
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the -- what
happened is that, rather than giving a pay cut, the employee
was given a pay increase, and I'm not sure that was the
spirit of what I was trying to do at the time, anyway. I'm
not sure what the rest of the Court was trying to do.
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to read from these
minutes so that you can understand where I got this
information to go and -- and correct these salaries. On
Page 10, second paragraph, Commissioner Letz says, "I'll
make a motion that we adopt a new personnel policy as
presented, and all employees that have had increases up to
this date, this budget year, will receive both a merit and
longevity increase." And then Commissioner Baldwin says,
"And that last statement, you're just dealing with one
employee?" And then down at the bottom is when I say, "I
believe when I submitted for my employee, I did not give her
her merit increases that she had; I brought her in at a
lower step. So, if we're going to go back, then I need to
adjust hers also." And then Commissioner Baldwin asked,
"When was that?" I say, "A couple of months ago. In
January," 'cause that's when I hired her. And Commissioner
Baldwin says, "Well, then there's two."
So, right there, that told me we were talking
about my employee, and that was two. And then, further on
~-ii-us
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
down, then the motion was -- and so then he seconds the
motion at that time, when he says, "Well, then there's two."
And he seconds that right away, and then it was voted on
unanimously -- or, I'm sorry, Commissioner Williams, I
believe, was not comfortable with the language on the -- on
the new policy for transfers, and voted against it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. I --
my position had nothing to do with --
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the prior
employees. It had to do with how we treated employees in
the future.
MS. NEMEC: Exactly. So, the motion was made
and seconded, and it was when we were talking about my
employee.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, as a result of that, you
increased your employee three steps; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: From a 19/3 to a 19/6, because
she was a 15/6 in her prior position.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Going back to your
language --
MS. NEMEC: And I also did that on
Ms. Rector's employee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go back to your
language, if I might, that you just quoted. When you
~ ii-us
107
1
"'"` 2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
referenced Commissioner Letz' motion, and then there was an
inquiry whether there was more than one employee, you said,
"I believe when I submitted for my employee, I did not give
her her merit increases that she had; I brought her in at a
lower step. So, if we're going to go back, then I'd need to
adjust hers also one step."
MS. NEMEC: I did say one step. At the time,
I was not prepared to talk about my employee. I had -- that
wasn't the issue at the time. As a result of us talking
about being consistent, then that's when I brought her up,
and at the time I didn't know or realize what she had been
before. I knew what I had brought her in as. And then,
when I went back and looked, I saw that she was a 15/6, and
adjusted it to that.
JUDGE TINLEY: My clear understanding of what
occurred was that after the merit discussion, Ms. Uecker had
a number of things to say about that; that if you're going
to transfer laterally, apply for another position, that you
know what that position is, you know what it pays, and they
know what the policy states. That they keep their longevity
increases, they see what it is paying. They can either
apply or not apply. My clear understanding was that the
merit stayed with the former position and it was not
portable, but rather the longevity became portable, the
longevity aspect of county employment, and that was
~-z1-n=
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ultimately what was voted on. If I'm mistaken, why --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was for --
that's what we voted on, Judge, but that was for any
employee or transfers that might have taken place from that
day forward.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct, and
that's what -- you know, I agree. I mean, that's what the
-- what that motion was. But there were -- the reason I put
on it the agenda when we did this time is 'cause we had
treated one of Ms. Rector's and Ms. Decker's employees one
way, and then at the prior meeting, we treated one of Judge
Ragsdale's employees differently.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I thought that was
inconsistent. That's what got it on the agenda when I made
the motion to amend the policy. Then the discussion ensued
about what we do with the ones that had -- had happened
already during the year. You know, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I believe -- I'm trying
to see if we have any participation forms on this particular
matter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 13. We're on 12.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Pearson, you were
deferring until Number 13?
MR. PEARSON: Correct.
~-21-as
109
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think also, back --
Judge, if there's no other comments, I mean, I personally --
my feeling is that your employee is at too high a level. I
don't think, you know, it should be transferred. I don't
think that was the intent at the time, to get -- go to a
19/6. But I also see that what you did -- I can see how you
got there from what is the discussion and the order. You
know, so it's kind of a -- that's why it's back before us
again.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I'm seeing
it like you do. And then, just as a matter of principle, I
see no reason to take money away from an employee when it
was -- when it was offered in good faith. And if the
supervisor made a mistake, then we'll leave it down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of where
I'm coming from. We talked about that before when we had
that discussion, that what an employee has earned or been
granted by reason of meritorious services, they ought to
keep it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the policy now
clear? Do we -- is this going to come up again in three
months, or are we all on the same page now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the policy's
pretty clear.
~-ii ns
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: The policy from that date forward
is that they do not transfer their merit increases, only
their longevities. And that was just effective on that
Commissioners Court date forward.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there is a
question here that -- that I think we need to satisfy, and
the County Clerk sent us a memorandum dated today in which
she acknowledges that the court order, as published and part
of the packet, is incomplete, and it lacks a -- a
parenthetical phrase at the tail end of the first paragraph.
And it states, "and all employees that have had increases up
to this date this budget year will receive both a merit and
longevity grade increase." Which gets me back to my
original question. Do we adopt a revised court order, or
does this stand sufficiently to amend the previous court
order?
MS. PIEPER: The court order has been
corrected.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The court order has
been corrected to reflect what you gave us?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, fine.
MS. PIEPER: That was just a clerical error,
so after I got the agenda and seen if there was a problem in
it, I went in and corrected my court order that I had typed
~-il-OS
111
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
previously.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
That answers my question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't -- I
mean, I think the -- I'm not happy with the result, but it's
the result.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I'm -- I'm
probably being redundant. I'm not happy with them either,
but I don't want Judy Carr to pay for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item, Item 13, is a
timed item for 10:05, consider and discuss Budget Amendment
Request Number 6 dated September 27th, 2004.
MS. NEMEC: These just come out of nowhere
months later. I wish we could take care of them when
there's a question about them. But, anyway, September 27th,
Budget Amendment Number 6, I requested money to be
transferred from my budget, which I had money left over in
my Insurance line item and in my Chief Deputy line item.
The reason I had money in my Chief Deputy line item was that
my chief deputy at that time was taking comp time, vacation
time, and just time off that needed to be taken. She was
getting ready to leave employment at the end of December,
and so we needed some extra part-time. Jackie worked some
~-ii-os
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
extra part-time that she's normally not scheduled to. I
also had to hire someone to come in with me and work to get
me caught up on everything, since my chief deputy had been
I gone, and so I requested the funds to be taken from my
Insurance line item and Chief Deputy line item. I was told
that at this meeting, the Court had asked for an explanation
before they could approve this budget amendment, and I was
told that by the Auditor. On October the 5th, I believe, I
sent the Court a memo stating the reasons why I was asking
for this budget amendment. I also asked for copies of the
minutes so that I could see what had been discussed, and
there was motions made and seconded and approved, and then
rescinded and on and on and on. Y'all all have a copy of
that. And, also, when Commissioner Williams withdrew the
motion, he stated if we can get an explanation, we'll put it
back on a subsequent agenda. I just assumed that that was
done. I apologize that it had not been taken care of. I
was under the impression that it was, and I guess I should
have followed up on it, but I thought that when I submitted
my letter, I had done as requested and that's all I needed
to do. So, I'm asking you to go back and ratify that budget
amendment. And, again, there was money in my budget to do
this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further?
MS. NEMEC: No, sir.
~-i~.-os
113
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: We did have a couple of
participation forms on this one. Mr. Pearson?
MR. PEARSON: I -- I guess my problem with
this --
JUDGE TINLEY: Give your name and address,
please.
MR. PEARSON: Williams D. Pearson, Cattle
Drive, number 71. There seems to be an awful lot of
mistakes being made. I don't know -- just all I've heard
the last two hours is mistakes that are being made, and I
don't know whether it's a lack of -- of supervision,
oversight by the Court, or whether a particular official has
taken liberties with their position, but I have deferred
some of these other comments to this particular item, and I
would like to go back to Number 1.9. In listening to
conversation this morning, is there some reason why -- I
think we could save money. Is there some reason why there
couldn't be an annual average of premiums, let's say $4,500,
and have that as an automatic deduction from the County's
bank account by AFLAC, or the insurance carrier, and then
let the -- that would give the Treasurer time to get any
adjustments that she needs to make, to bring to the court
and make one check. By doing that, there would never ever
be any lapse of coverage. And most insurance companies give
you a discount on your premiums if you have an automatic
~-~_-os
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
deduction from your account
do.
I know my insurance companies
The only thing I -- on Point 1.11 is I think
I would like to know -- I don't know about the rest of --
what the rest of the Court thinks. I'd like to know exactly
how much has been -- in penalty has been deducted from the
employees' retirement system, and exactly how much interest.
We need a statement, I think, from somebody to the Court as
to -- as to what the Court's liability might be to the
employee retirement system. On the last item, 1.13, I -- I
read the minutes and so forth, and the reason I'm here is
some of the people in the community felt that there was a --
a direct action by the County Treasurer in opposition to
what the Court had put on the record. That transfer of
funds from one line item to another was denied, and there's
concern that the Treasurer took it upon herself to just
either ignore that, or for whatever other reason, go ahead
and -- and take action that was against the Court's wishes.
That's all I have to say.
MS. NEMEC: Judge, I'd like to make a comment
on Mr. Pearson's comments. I did not go behind this Court
and do anything behind their backs that you had not
approved. I was asked to submit a letter of explanation. I
was told it would be put on the next agenda, and -- and I
had the money in my budget, and so, therefore, I thought
~-ii-as
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everything was taken care of. I will learn from this and
make sure that everything is taken care of, and that when
things are said they're going to be put on the agenda, that
they are put on the agenda, whether it be by me or a member
of this Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further?
MS. NEMEC: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Prendergast, you asked to
be heard on this particular item?
MR. PRENDERGAST: Without taking up too much
time right now, my question would be to this Court, can you
go back and amend something that's already in a previous
fiscal year? Amend that, change or ratify that change when
those books have been closed, audited, been taken care of?
Once again, if you'll distribute a few things for me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're getting thicker,
George. Hope this is the last one.
MR. PEARSON: Wait till after lunch.
MR. PRENDERGAST: I apologize once again.
Without getting into personalities involved here or anything
else, I think this Court initially approved that line item
budget change. They then came back and rescinded that line
item budget change due to some concerns about what was being
paid out. In fact, I have copies -- I've done an Open
Records request once again of copies of all of the checks
7-11-ns
116
1
""` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~°° 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~... 2 4
25
that were made from the months of July, August, September,
2004/2005 fiscal year. In fact, copies of checks are there.
There were payments made on a part-time basis to an
individual without approval. After approval was sought and
denied, there were additional checks paid in the fiscal year
2003/2004. My concern is that if our elected officials
don't have enough respect for Commissioners Court to abide
by their rulings, then who -- who is going to hold them
accountable? And I'm afraid it's come down to the citizens
are going hold everyone accountable. I don't want to
digress to that point.
Again, I -- I truly don't believe that you
can go back and amend something that's already history. I
think we've got to go forward and fix what's been broken,
and recognize that there was a judgment -- or error in
judgment, and it was done and the money was paid, but I
think it was paid erroneously, against the Court's wishes.
And I question the judgment about why this person would be
hired by the Treasurer's office to be working in that
office, where there is private information about employees
of this county that that person may or may not have had
access to. But if they did, in fact, have access to it,
that concerns me, because the information in the employment
7 11 05
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
office is not public record. Specifically, as to the
Sheriff's Department his employees, even if I were to make
an Open Records request for the Sheriff's Department and
their employees, I'm not to receive that, because that's a
separate issue. But this individual had access to those
records on a part-time basis, what they were doing, why they
were doing it. I've got more questions, so I would ask this
Court not to grant this request.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the access issue --
excuse me, Mr. Prendergast.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: What is your concern about the
access issue with this particular individual?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think -- I guess
-- I don't know that we can go into or want to go into a
specific employee's personal situation in open court.
County Attorney? I hear --
MR. EMERSON: No, sir.
MR. PRENDERGAST: This is not personnel,
because it's Open Records; it's filed in district court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will defer to the
County Attorney. I'm looking for him to advise --
MR. PRENDERGAST: Would you like to look at
the documents before you make that judgment?
MS. NEMEC: He's seen them.
~-ii-os
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. EMERSON: I think I know what the
situation is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I just don't
want to get us in a situation where we're discussing
something we shouldn't be discussing.
MR. PEARSON: Open Records.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's related to a
certain employee.
MR. EMERSON: Yeah, as a general rule, you
can't talk about anything in open court relative to an
employee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Especially without the
employee being present.
MR. EMERSON: It would be a violation of the
basic common law rules as far as embarrassment to the
employee.
MR. PRENDERGAST: Commissioners Court can't
talk about it?
MR. EMERSON: In this particular situation, I
suspect Mr. Prendergast is probably right, because the issue
he's referring to is public, open records upstairs in the
District Clerk's Office and in the District Court. Now, I
don't know that you can go beyond the basic information --
MR. PRENDERGAST: Exactly.
MR. EMERSON: -- that's in that record.
~-ii-os
119
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PRENDERGAST: That's why I didn't --
MS. NEMEC: I'd just like to inform the Court
that I believe Mr. Prendergast's concern is the information
that this employee had access to. This employee was working
under my direction at all times. We were -- and the reason
I chose this particular employee was because this was the
time when my chief deputy was taking vacation time. I was
coming up here from 8 o'clock -- I'd leave at 5:00, come
back here at 8 o'clock and work till 2:00 and 4:30 in the
morning. And the -- the job that I had to do had to be
supervised, and I could not find anyone else who was going
to be able to do that with me. During my regular working
hours, I had my regular duties that I had to do, and
therefore, I had to be coming in at night. And you can ask
my girls; the joke around my office is that I've had to come
in in my pajamas several months to get the job done. And so
I -- and I assured the Sheriff at that point that this
employee had no access to any type of records that he should
not have had.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I'll make a
general comment just on this. I mean, I agree, I think,
with -- well, with what Mr. Prendergast was saying; I don't
think we can go back and change what was done a year ago.
You know, I think what was done was done. I don't know that
that makes -- you know, I don't know what the purpose of --
~ ii cs
120
1
."` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°"' 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"~ 2 4
25
of going back and approving it now -- I don't see what that
does. The other side of the question is that -- just a
general statement from me as to I believe what was said to
the Court, is that this Court does not supervise all the
elected officials in this county. They're accountable for
their own decisions as to who they hire and don't hire and
things of that nature. So, you know, if -- if someone has
an issue with who any elected official hires on a part-time
basis, something like that, you know, I'm not -- I, as a
Commissioner, am not going to get involved with that
directly unless it's a violation of our policy. And, you
know, to my knowledge, I don't see a policy problem here.
We don't generally closely review any full-time employee,
you know, as long as they're -- they are qualified according
to the elected official. I think it's a bad precedent for
us to start going into micromanaging other elected
officials. Quite frankly, I don't think we have authority
to do so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
MS. NEMEC: I'd also like to make a comment
that, throughout the year, there are part-time line items
that are in the negative at the end of the year. It's hard
for departments to keep up with their part-time, and I'm
sure the Sheriff can tell you that himself. There have been
times when those line items are overdrawn. And what the
-r-,1-ns
121
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
outside auditors look at -- and this budget year in question
has been audited already. What they look at at the end of
the year is that your bottom line in your budget is not a
negative figure. Which mine was not, because, as I said
earlier, there was money in there to transfer. I did it as
a courtesy to put it on the agenda to get that approved,
because I wanted everything to look clean. There are times
that that is not done and it's not possible. They don't
know what -- what the end amount is goinq to be, and so
those line items do go in the negative a lot. It's not out
of disrespect for the Court that they pay those part-time
employees that money. It just happens to be that way, the
scheduling, the circumstances that are around that. And I
think at this point, I'd like to ask our County Attorney if,
in fact, they could go back and ratify this.
MR. EMERSON: Are you talking about ratifying
an amendment from the prior year?
MS. NEMEC: A budget amendment from the prior
year.
MR. EMERSON: I don't know the answer to
that.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: I'd have to research that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the
response?
~-ii-os
122
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say ratifying a
budget amendment where basically it's a -- I guess it would
be ratifying, but it's an approval -- the issue here was not
the budget amendment; there were funds in the budget. The
issue was whether the check was approved, as I recall.
Wasn't that off -- the checks? That, I think, was pulled
originally.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly, I don't
recall what caused us to rescind it. I don't recall what
the information was that we received that caused us to make
a motion to rescind.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it came back to
the -- there was a -- a combination that the Auditor made
the comment that we could have this information presented by
the Treasurer at the next meeting, in all likelihood. Which
the letter was presented, and in all likelihood, if it would
have been on the agenda, we would have approved it. But it
wasn't on the agenda, for whatever reason, and I -- I don't
think -- personally, I don't think this is that big a deal.
I mean, I think that the -- I can see there's a
misunderstanding on the -- from the Treasurer thinking that
it was going to be on -- the letter was sufficient. I think
the Treasurer should have made sure it was on the agenda. I
think that -- you know, but it wasn't, and, you know, we're
~-ii-us
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
talking about paying of a -- of a service that an employee
i made; paying for just work, and I think this Court would
have approved that, and intended to approve it, based on the
minutes from that meeting, and we just wanted an
explanation. We got the explanation, but never got it back
I
on the agenda to get it approved, That's how I recall, you
know, what it looks like. I think it's -- you know, there
was an error made by the Treasurer to make sure it was on
the agenda; I think there was probably an error by the
Auditor's office in not bringing it back to our attention,
and an error on our part for -- I guess it went through on
the bills the next month. I don't know how it got paid or
where it got paid from.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably went through
on the next month's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can see where that
series of events could have occurred to where it didn't get
properly approved. But now that I've looked through the
material that Mr. Pearson or Mr. Prendergast has given us, I
think it raises more questions. And I don't know,
Commissioner, whether or not this Commissioners Court's got
the authority to look into it, or some other authority would
have that responsibility, but I -- these questions have been
raised, and I think we need some answers from whoever can --
~ ii-ns
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
can do the investigation and get answers on it. I, too,
would like to -- like to know why this employee was hired,
what he did, whether or not he was supervised, what
information he had access to. Probably more questions after
I have a chance to study it.
MR. EMERSON: Can I make one general comment?
I think if you get into that issue, you're getting into a
different agenda item. That's not on here. You're really
getting into a personnel policy management issue, and it's
not necessarily related to this budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If, at some future
time, we were to get into that, would it be appropriate for
the Court to do it, or would it be a role that you should
play or the District Attorney should play?
MR. EMERSON: I think it's a -- are you
talking about that particular individual or the policy in
general?
MR. PEARSON: Big difference.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The circumstances
surrounding the employment/compensation of this particular
individual.
MR. EMERSON: Then I think that would have to
be done through an investigative agency, which, to my
knowledge, neither myself nor the D.A. has an investigator
on staff.
~-ii-ns
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"' 13
19
15
16
l~
18
19
20
21
2 L
23
24
25
125
MR. PEARSON: May I --
MS. NEMEC: I don't mind saying that I
individual had been charged with a crime. The -- the
individual was involved in a fight. He wasn't involved in
theft or hot checks or anything like that. This individual
never, never had access to any money in my office, and was
under my direction at all times, and as I said before, had
no access to any information that is not Open Records
information or that concerned any employees at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, to answer your
question, Commissioner, I mean, there may be a policy
concern that, you know, we could address this across the
board about people being charged with certain offenses,
things of that nature, being able to be employed by the
County, period. And that may be a policy issue. But
anything beyond that, this Court, I don't think, clearly has
any authority in. And I think if there's -- you know, if
someone is alleging wrongdoing, that needs to go to the
D.A., Sheriff's Department, County Attorney's office, and
see if they're -- if they agree that there's -- it's worth
an investigation. But I don't see how that -- I don't think
this Court's in that role.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not our job.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think it's
7 11 OS
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
our job, but I think we can do as we have stated in the
past. We can assist or recommend, whichever, that other
elected officials and department heads do background checks
on employees before they hire them. I think this calls that
into question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Okay.
MS. NEMEC: And at the time this employee had
been charged, he had not been convicted of any crime, and
did not work for me any time after he was convicted of any
crime. And this employee was doing me a favor by coming in
at night with me. He has a regu]ar day job, and so I wasn't
doing him a favor by hiring him; he was doing me a favor by
helping me get caught up in my duties.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What duties was he
performing?
MS. NEMEC: What duties was he performing? I
have everything documented. There were several things that
-- you know, I can go back and show y'all, if y'all would
like to come into my office.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did he have access
to my Social Security number?
MS. NEMEC: Never had access to anybody`s
Social Security number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or other personal
matters?
~-ii os
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
MS. NEMEC: Right. Health information; that
is, you know, privileged information. Anything like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Commissioner
Nicholson's bringing up a good point, but I really -- I
think -- I don't see it as germane to this particular topic.
I mean, I think that there -- we may need to take a look at
our personnel policy, which is another agenda item, as to
how -- who we hire, but I think we need to be real careful
what we do. We may lose some other employees, I mean, if
you say they can't be charged with any kind of a crime,
which I don't know.
MS. PIEPER: Commissioner, I may be out of
line, but I need to stand up for Barbara's defense, because
if you go in my office right now, you're going to find two
or three convicted criminals that is in there filing or
typing or doing computer entry, because without these
community service workers, I don't have enough employees.
And I don't know who she hired, and y'all seem to be picking
on this one particular person she hired, when I'm down there
right now working community service workers. So, if I'm
doing wrong, y'all let me know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I say --
MS. PIEPER: They do not have access to any
of your personal information. They're basically just down
there helping us to file other criminal cases. And -- and
~-11-OS
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I've been working community service workers ever since I
came in office.
COMMISSIONER WILL7AMS: I don't think we're
picking on Ms. Nemec, Madam C]erk. I think the issue was
put on the agenda, and we're trying to work our way through
it.
MS. PIEPER: Well, if y'al1 don't want me to
use community service workers, I'll take more hired help,
but I've got to be able to get the work done some way.
MR. EMERSON: I think we need to stick to the
agenda item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Pearson, you had some
addLtional comments?
MR. PEARSON: This particular item was
brought to me by -- I'm a consultant with the Loma Vista
Homeowners -- Property Owners Association, and this issue
was brought to me because their concern was how many other
employees of the county are under indictment for whatever
crime, whether it's shoplifting or whatever. When you bring
in Roy Barrera, Jr., from San Antonio as the attorney for a
person that's working in the -- in the courthouse somewhere,
that -- that sends a flag up. And I think the concern is
that -- is it the policy of this county and its elected
officials of hiring individuals that are under indictment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This isn't under the
1-11-n=
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
i5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
agenda item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's certainly a
matter that -- Ms. Decker? You had asked for the --
MS. DECKER: Well, I just want to clarify one
issue, on whether or not we're hiring people that are
qualified. First of all, this would address only --
MR. EMERSON: We're getting off the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; This has nothing to do
with the agenda.
MS. NEMEC: We have an agenda item about our
policy.
MS. DECKER: Well, I just wanted to answer
your question, in that deputies in the County Clerk's office
and in my office, and I think her chief deputy, have to be
bonded and insured, so the insurance company does a criminal
history check on those people.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER WSLLIAMS: Thank you. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One quick comment, and
not much on this particular person. But Barbara and I did
have a conversation about this, and she did tell me exactly
what she told this Court, okay? Because it was brought to
my attention, and once in a while, when a county department
head or official does hire someone and there's something
questionable about it, normally we're going to hear about
~-il-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
G1
22
23
24
25
130
it; our office does. And we already know, and we're going
to do our own checking into it. That's not the issue. But
back on all these other issues, the only problem I'm having
is that if I bring an item before this Court, as any
department head or elected official is entitled to do, my
only action on that item is on a court order. Once that
order comes out, I have to go by that. We can discuss all
day long in here, and what we discuss doesn't tell me what I
can or can't do. What I have to go by is what the order is.
And my problem is, what Barbara may have done -- maybe she
jumped a little bit on these, but the -- the items -- two
items we're talking about I didn't see in the court order at
any point, okay? Whether it be paying the individual extra
money, or on the merit increase on that other.
I was present during that meeting, and my
understanding was when Buster said, "Well, that's two," I
even had one employee that could concern, and it was my
understanding -- I didn't go back and read the minutes, as
everyone in here -- that that would come up later. But the
motion that was made and what was taken care of during that
Court order was that from that day on, longevity was the
only thing -- transfers to carry. And then I was waiting
for later on, if the other came back up. But I think maybe
if the Court would just make sure that department heads and
elected officials know -- you know, you can't tell me what
~-ii-os
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to do, Jonathan, 'cause I'm elected. But if you can just
stress that, you know, you'll insist that we only act on
court orders, and if we don't, bring us back here before
this Court and have us explain why we didn't, I think it
would solve a lot of these problems I'm hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the broader question,
Sheriff, that you're raising is, if there's something this
Court has the authority over, such as fiscal management and
-- and responsibility and budgets and things of that nature,
if the Court enters a specific order with regard to that,
your concern is whether or not that's heeded or paid
attention to and properly followed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. My concern is,
you know, I try and wait till we get an actual order, and we
go by the order. 'Cause we discuss a lot of things during
this open record, and it's ifs and ands, and if we talked
about everything I brought here and discussed, I could
probably have another 200 employees now if I had my own way.
But normally it's -- the order doesn't come out that way,
whether I agree with it or not. But we -- the department
heads and elected officials, I think, need to go by the
orders from the Court. And if there's a mistake in the
order, it should come back before the next court agenda and
be corrected.
MS. NEMEC: I'd just like to reply to the
~-i. u~~
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sheriff's comment. I didn't jump the gun; the motion was to
go back and give the employees who had not received their
merits, to go back and adjust those. And you got a
statement from the County Clerk saying that it was an error
and that was left off, so that was the intent and that was
the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Reverend Shults, did you ask
to be recognized? Could you come forward, please, sir?
Give your name and address and whatever comments you had. I
hope they're germane on the subject. We're trying to shut
down.
MR. SHULTS: It is. It is.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
MR. SHULTS: I came with the intention of
speaking to this issue about the transfer of funds without
authorization. And I'm not trying to be offensive, but to
me, as a citizen, the issue really is this. No employee of
the government, whether city, county, state, or national,
should make a decision based on what they decide to do
without proper documented authorization. And this is a --
this is the case about the transfer of funds. And I realize
we can all make mistakes, but I worked in the Marine Corps
for 20 years. I worked for the Department of Corrections in
Oklahoma for 13 years. And, of course, when you get hired,
you can make a lot of decisions that you want to make -- you
~-ii-a~
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
know, let everybody go on down the road. But we could not
make a decision or do something different in accordance with
our policy and procedures without getting proper
authorization. And I personally believe Item Number 1.13 is
such an issue. So, you might have all sorts of different
issues, but unless one of your people that you supervise has
proper, documented authorization, they should not do it. I
just wanted to bring that up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. SHULTS: And do I realize you're trying
to do a good job, and I do appreciate that, so don't fire
me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Looney? How long is your
presentation going to be?
MR. LOONEY: About two and a half hours.
(Laughter.) But I can boil it down to about 20 minutes,
depending on your questions that you'd like to ask, or we
can break for lunch. I'll be back here after lunch.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, why don't we recess for
lunch and come back at 1:30.
MS. NEMEC: Judge, I would like to ask the
County Attorney to give clarification on whether that budget
amendment can be ratified and approved, because I brought it
to the Court in good faith. I thought it was going to be
done. I followed up with what was requested of me, and if,
~ ii-os
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for whatever reason, that budget amendment is not going to
be approved, then I will gladly pay that money back, because
that employee did work the hours. He is entitled to that
money. And if it's not going to be reflected that that
money is being transferred into that line item, then it is
my responsibility to make it right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms, Nemec, you, as an elected
official -- I think you have the authority to ask that
question of the County Attorney.
MS. NEMEC: I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's intrinsic and
inherent in your position.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute, we got sticking
up hands everywhere. Are we germane to this thing?
MR. PRENDERGAST: I am.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No,
MR. PRENDERGAST: I can't speak for the
Sheriff.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My only deal before we
break for lunch, Your Honor, the 1.19, unless you think it
will take a Larger amount of time, I believe the backup was
furnished. I've got -- we've got all kinds of things going,
which some people are aware of, at this moment.
-ii n:,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
135
COMMISSIONER NICH0LSON: It's going to take a
while.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is it? Okay, then we`ll
wait and come back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you have anything on this
last item?
MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes. And I agree with the
Sheriff and what he's saying. My issue with it was, if your
personnel policy is such that you can hire these kinds of
people, then they have to be relegated to a situation where
they absolutely don't have access to private information.
In that regard, I would ask that Ms. Nemec, if she has that
information, bring it forward in public as to what, in fact,
he was doing. Because she was personally supervising him,
and I would like to know as a citizen what that individual
was doing in that office specifically.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. Has any member of the
Court got anything further on that item? We'll stand
recessed for lunch until 1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:18 p,m. to 1:30 p.m.)
DODGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order, if we might. It's a bit after 1:30, the time to
~-ii o=
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
reconvene. We are now down to a timed item for 11 o'clock.
Moving right along. That item is Number 20. Our insurance
consultant, Mr. Gary Looney, is here to give us an employee
benefits update. Mr. Looney?
MR. LOONEY: Thank you, Judge. Good
afternoon, gentlemen. I'm going to, if I can -- you have
your folders. What I want to do is give you a summary. As
you well know, as I said earlier, I can easily speak for
anywhere from two to two and a half hours and say nothing
that you all would immediately understand, because I speak
in a foreign tongue. So, what I want to try to do is
summarize everything, and then kind of give you an idea of
what these reports are. We've got some others that are
coming in, bringing you up to date on where we are as far as
the status of the plan financially. And I'm not going to
give you any projections at this point as far as rates or
rate direction, things of that sort, but 1 would like to put
something on the calendar for a workshop, probably in early
October, for the -- earlier than that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Going to have to be, 'cause
our budget's got to be finalized by 1 October. So we'll be
in workshops --
MR. LOONEY: We'll do two different
workshops, then. One -- we'll do one on financing only, and
then another one for an additional update toward the end of
~-ii-us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
the year that we can -- that we can bring that up. We'd
like to do that in a workshop setting, if we could, if
that's okay with the Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is he talking about
budgetary issues?
JUDGE TINLEY: We're talking about for --
MR. LOONEY: Projection.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- establishing the funding
requirements going into this next budget year, based upon
the claims that we've had so far.
MR. LOONEY: And the reason I'd like to do it
in a workshop is that the reports that we get from the
insurance company, we -- we're on a month-to-month
reporting-type function. And our reports are more concise
when we get them 7 to 10 days -- or, actually, 6 to 9 days
after the close of the month. And your meetings normally
are too early for me to really have much time to do a lot of
analysis of that, so if we can set the workshop up the third
week, it gives me more time to be able to -- to look at the
numbers, and it's more current from that standpoint. That's
why I ask for the special meeting. You have your book in
front of you. I'm just goinq to go through real quickly and
tell you about the tabs. Then we'll go a little more
specifically through the tabs themselves.
First of all, the reports that we get from
7-zi-us
138
1
w~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
`°° 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
Mutual of Omaha come under two different categories. We get
exactly	match up	one	to	the	other when I	-- when I	go
through.	It may	not	be	an	exact matchup	on dollars	and
cents. But I'm not trying, really, to give you a very
you the status of the plan.
The first section gives us a paid report
which tells us about dollars and -- gross dollars that have
been paid on account of all employees based on the plan
design itself. The page -- the Tab 2 is a prescription drug
summary. Naturally, that's really just a brief summary of
the -- the flow of the prescription drug costs through the
system. We're going to get a much more comprehensive report
than this probably -- actually, ~t comes out quarterly. But
this report comes from the Prescription Drug Management
Company, the more comprehensive report. We will be able to
identify exactly the medications that are being taken, the
high-frequency medications, who's taking the medications --
not specifically, but by class -- whether it be retiree or
~-ii-os
139
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
_'0
21
22
23
24
25
COBRA participant, whatever area that is in. It'll help us
to get a better handle on managing the prescription drug
card going forward for the next year. But that report --
this report is more of a summary. These are the dollars and
cents flowing through the system currently, as far as the
claims are concerned, by plan and by the costs associated
with it. The third tab is the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gary, before you go
to Tab 3, could you just tell me a little bit on the
prescription drug summary? You got -- formularies is 81,
almost 82 percent, and then generic utilization is almost
45 percent, which adds up to more than 100 percent. Can you
explain that or tell me -- help me through that?
MR. LOONEY: On formulary -- on formulary
means that the medication itself is listed within the
formulary. That is provided by Mutual of Omaha through
their prescription drug management company.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: That doesn't necessarily mean
that it's branded or not branded, It simply means that it's
identified as a prescription medication available for use by
the employee, available for purchase. There are some items
that are not on the formulary. Outside the brand name --
outside that, they're exceptional drugs that have to go into
a specific purchase program. So, the formulary is not
~-i~-vs
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
necessarily branded-versus-generic. Formulary is the entire
prescription program that's available.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: The generic is simply the
utilization within that total cost. That is
generic-versus-the branded.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. LOONEY: On the -- on Tab 3, what we look
at Ls obviously what we've got from the standpoint of a high
claim. Do we have individuals that have high claims, and
what those high claims are amounting to. We set the
threshold to be $10,000. Anything in excess of $10,000 on
any one claimant we wanted to get a report on to see what
that status was. A couple of reasons. One, we want to make
sure that they're under some sort of managed care program,
if, in fact, they're eligible for it. And if they are
eligible for it, that we'd like for the managed care people
within the Mutual of Omaha organization to provide us
updates with what they're doing to help them manage these
situations. We've got five major claimants right now. Of
those five, we have two that are cancer treatment
individuals, one of which was a cardiac problem, and then
one of which was a -- a premature birth, but that's been
satisfied and we don't have any more major expenses in
relationship to that. So, really, the three claimants that
z-ii os
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we're looking at, watching carefully now for the managed
care portion of it, are those two cancer patients and the
one that had the ~~ardiovascular problem. (Coughed.) Excuse
me. Under Tab 4, that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One question on that.
You say there's five. When I count it up, it looks like
there's 10.
MR. LOONEY: There's five, though, in the
diagnostic process. Five that the diagnosis was such, and
that we wanted them to be under the managed care umbrella.
The others that are in excess of that were completed cases.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
MR. LOONEY: They were situations where there
were accidental injuries where there was not any follow-up
or any condition -- any or additional problems that we could
see with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: So we're tracking that. Under
Tab 5 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 4.
MR. LOONEY: I'm sorry, 4. Under Tab 4, you
know, it's typically -- what you hear in the health
insurance industry is that 20 percent of the individuals
equal 80 percent of the claims. So, what we've done is
we've had them distribute the claim information by volume of
~-ii os
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
claim to see if, in fact, this is a true picture of -- of
that fact. The last three numbers -- the last four numbers,
as you can see, there was one claimant actually that
exceeded the $50,000 range. Actually, this report began
again. This is one of those financial reports where there
was a one-day differential, so there's actually two
claimants that exceeded that $50,000 range. But there was
only two -- there was only one that went over the -- the
high range, run into the high range. So, between those two
claimants, we had approximately $150,000 in claims on those
two particular claimants. So -- and that amounts to close
to 90 percent of the total claims paid under the plan. So,
it's true that we've got a few large claimants that are
impacting the total overall cost, but that's what we're
insuring against. That's why we have the specific insurance
in force, that one deductible we have, which is, say,
40,000. So, we've set that threshold at 90,000, so these
claims in excess of that 90,000 are being reimbursed. Total
amount of that reimbursement to date is approximately
$86,000, and so we're in that position.
MR. EMERSON: Can I ask one quick question?
The documents that were distributed, do y'all -- do they
have individual names, or -- there are no identifiers on any
of that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
~-ii-..s
1
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
143
MR. EMERSON: Ukay, thank you.
MR. LOONEY: Now, counselor... (Laughter.)
Are you the HIPAA security officer?
MR. EMERSON: In this case.
MR. LOONEY: Huh? I have a question.
Seriously, are you the HIPAA security officer?
MR. EMERSON: No.
MR. LOONEY: Who is the HIPPA security
i officer? I'll tell you. Ms. Nemec is the HIPAA security
officer. So, that's a good question, because earlier the
question had come up about employees that potentially were
working in different offices that might have access to
information that has to do with personnel history of some
sort. So, our -- our HIPAA security officer is responsible
for training those individuals that might have access to
that information so that they know that they are -- or you,
as an organization, are protecting against the misuse of
that information. So -- and I'll say something else about
that. But there are some items, if you cleanse them, the
individual's name can be listed, as long as there's no
direct relationship to the actual claim itself as to the
diagnosis and/or other information that might lead to the
termination. But you can give name and volume or payment.
But there is none of that information in this report.
MR. EMERSON: Thank you.
~-i~-ns
144
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
MR. LOONEY: You're welcome, sir. Good to
meet you. I haven't had a chance to talk to you yet. But
that is what that -- that report is. And then on -- let's
see -- Tab 5 is just a real quick summary distribution of
whether our claims are being paid for dependents, whether
they're spousal claims or subscriber climbs. "Subscriber"
in this case means the employee. Then on page -- on Tab 6,
what we do is we take a look at the distribution by plan, by
the amount that is allowed for payment; coinsurances,
deductibles, copayments. And this gets us to our net
payment basis. Under Tab 7, we take it a further step, and
then if you'll go to -- actually, to Page 4 under Tab 7,
this is really the telling report that we look at, because
these are where the numbers come home as far as our total
bill charges.
And I -- let me say first, though, that this
-- this form right here -- this particular report right here
does not match what's in Tab 1. Tab 1 was a report that we
pulled this morning to get the final paid number for the
month of June. This does not include the month of June.
This is through the month of May, so this one doesn't match
with what's on Tab 1. But the distribution is what we're
looking at. We're looking at a total bill charge, and then
what has reduced that bill charge, what the employee
contribution levels are, what the prescription drug
-ii-ns
1
... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
195
distribution is, and then what the total payment is in
relationship to the total bill charges. The reason we look
at that number -- the reason we look at these numbers is
because this gives us an indication of how our plan is
functioning in relationship to payments in relationship to
bill charges. So, we look at this percentage to see whether
or not your plan is too liberal or too conservative, whether
the benefits and the manner in which they're being
distributed possibly need to be changed in some way as far
as that distribution. The one item that's not in here is
the reimbursement under the health reimbursement account.
The next session that we go through, the next period when we
look at the actual numbers, that number will be put in here
to bring it up to date for the total cost of the plan.
Under Tab 8, one of the things I wanted to
know, because of the initial questions that were being asked
about plan design changes, the feedback for employees and a
lot of questions, this is the call center. These are the
questions that go into the call center at Mutual of Omaha.
The questions that are asked in the different categories,
the volume of those questions, and this includes -- the
first page includes all of the calls. The second page
includes the calls from the employees. These -- this is the
list of calls from the employees themselves, and this is
from January, and this one does go to the end of June. So,
~-ii-as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
146
we expect -- we expect calls to come in. That's why the
call center is there. And these are the reasons that
they're calling, and this is the frequency of the calls.
This -- this ratio, this frequency of call ratio is not
extraordinarily high or extraordinarily low. It's pretty
much what we expect on a percentage basis as far as calls
are concerned.
The next one is actually from the physicians'
offices, from the total number of physicians. If you'll
bear with me, I want to go -- go to -- not go to Tab 9 just
yet; I want to go back to Tab 1, and a little more
description on this particular report. This particular
report indicates on the first page that our total paid
claims to date -- these are gross paid claims. This
includes prescription drugs, it includes all expenses. Youx
gross paid claims to date are $589,000. From that, we
subtract our reimbursements that we receive, and under the
specific insurance, which is on the next page, it says that
our specific reimbursements to date are over $80,000.
Matching up numbers again. A while ago, I showed you a
maximum cost on the -- on the specific where I showed 114
and 52,000 over the -- those were the high claims. This is
-- there's a laq as far as that report and this report.
That report shows gross. This report shows actually what
has been paid, so there's a difference of about $3,000 or
~-ii-u~,
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$4,000 in there on those numbers, in case you go back and
try to match them up. But this is -- this shows what we've
paid in premium; it shows what we've been reimbursed, our
total premiums to date of approximately 79,000, and our
reimbursements were 83. So, our stop loss insurance is
doing what it's supposed to do; it's reimbursing us for
those high-cost areas. Any questions about that specific
deductible? I have to find my glasses; that's why I'm
stalling for time, excuse me. The numbers are getting too
small.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the number on --
on the previous page, 589,292, is that net of the 83,666?
MR. LOONEY: No, sir, that includes that
number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: That includes that number. That
is -- that is gross numbers. Our basic life insurance is on
the next page. We've had no losses, thank you, which means
we've also had no accidental death and dismemberment losses.
If you'll remember, last year we were able to increase the
death benefit for employees on the plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is it now?
MR. LOONEY: Twenty --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 20,000.
MR. LOONEY: 25.
~-ii-ns
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's 20.
MR. LOONEY: 20,000. I believe it's 20. I
don't remember.
MR. WALLACE: 20.
MR. LOONEY: 20,000? I do remember we
increased it. So, basically, that's where we are as far as
paid claims at this point. Now, there are some concerns
that I have over reading through the information, so let me
kind of go over those with you. First of all, the -- we're
making an estimation on what the paid claims are for the --
through the end of the month for June. We're running about
$20,000 a month in prescription drug charges. $20,000 a
month puts us at about -- between 20 and 22 percent of the
total paid claims are going to prescription drugs. We would
like to have that number in the 13 to 15 percent range.
We'd actually like to have it lower than that, but
apparently we've got really to take a good, hard look at
where those prescription drugs are. That's why I've asked
for that additional report.
One of the things that comes to mind
initially -- whether it's true or not, I'll have to
determine based on data -- is that we have a fairly large
number of retirees in the program, and as a result,
Medicare -- if people are eligible for Medicare,
prescription drugs are not covered under the Medicare
7-11-OS
149
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
program, so a lot of the utilization under the plan may well
be coming from the retiree group. And that's what I'm
looking for in the next report, is to determine whether
that's correct or not. The Medicare law changed, and as you
know, we're going to have an option for Medicare
participants to participate in Part D of Medicare. I'm not
sure what happened to Part C. I don't know -- we got A, B,
and all of a sudden, Part C was skipped and Part D suddenly
is going to be available to us. But Part D, for a retiree
group to be eligible for participation in Part D of Medicare
in relationship to their employer, there has to be an
actuarial study done. And Mutual of Omaha -- I've discussed
this with Mutual of Omaha, and they are preparing the
actuarial study to determine the impact under the Part D of
Medicare. We have to have that report done by the end of
September in order to be able to qualify retiree Medicare
participants to be able to use Part D of Medicare.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gary, are you saying
this Part D is something new?
MR. LOONEY: Brand new.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Brand new, okay.
MR. LOONEY: Yes, sir, starts in 2006.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what you're -- the
goal here is to shift -- if they are retirees, to shift them
to Medicare paying for the drugs, as opposed to the County
9-11-OS
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
paying for the drugs?
MR. LOONEY: Right. And we're trying to make
that determination. And part of our upcoming meetings, I'll
be able to give you a lot more specific information as to
how that potentially might -- may shift or may reduce costs
for us. The other thing that concerns me is that our HRA
program that we've put into effect appears to be working
very well. However, when I look at the distribution of the
costs that are -- where the employees are sharing in the
expense of the plan, we have some 90-plus thousand dollars
that have been expended by employees for coinsurance,
copayments, deductibles, and such as that. But out of our
HRA account -- that is the number that's under Tab 9. Under
the HRA account, we've only expended about $22,000. So, you
know, I think, at this point in time, we probably should go
ahead and notify employees once again of the HRA program,
how it works, to be sure that they are taking advantage of
the plan in the manner in which they should take advantage
of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gary, I have -- my
personal experience, I have a -- I know why that's the case.
And the reason is that every time I've gone to the doctor,
which isn't that often, and I give them that card, they say,
"NO, we'll settle it later." And they'll wait and they'll
file the insurance, and all that goes out, and then I'll get
~ ,1-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
151
a bill from them later, as opposed to from the health care
provider. And we're talking about labs, talking about
pretty much anyone who uses several different doctors.
They'll send me a bill, and I don't know how to get that
card, you know, to my Austin doctor.
MR. LOONEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, without driving
to Austin, which is an inconvenience. So, I think the
problem is figuring out how to access that money when you
get a bill in the mail, and --
MR. LOONEY: Well, once you've been -- once
your claim has been resolved, once you get that explanation
of benefits back from Mutual of Omaha --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. LOONEY: -- where it has not been
utilized, all you have to do is fax that in to the HRA
administrator, and they will reimburse you on that bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's what -- I
think that is what needs to be clearly explained to the
employees, 'cause that's where the hangup comes. 'Cause
I've tried to use it; they say, "Oh, no, we'll worry about
it later."
MR. LOONEY: We want to make sure that it's
being utilized appropriately. And the -- I've talked to
very few employees at this point, but I have talked to a
~-ii-vs
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
couple of them that said that part of the reason they
haven't used it is because they want to save it up in case
of a critical illness circumstance. The others are -- were
somewhat questionable as -- well, one of them says, "I
haven't had any claims. I haven't had..." Thank you. Come
back more often, please. But we have funded -- that HRA
account is fully funded based on your current funding
mechanism. But when I see those ratios, I want to make sure
that we've got the communication link set up properly for
the employees to know how to utilize it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: Now, when we do that, we know
we're potentially going to increase utilization, but that's
what the plan is designed to do, and that's what we want to
do as far as accomplishing that claim level. We did have
another problem with the card being used at the optometrist.
Well, the optometrist typically has two functions; they have
a medical function and they have a retail function, and when
they try to put something through the card that is a retail
nature, the card will not accept it. So, the individual
needs to be taught and trained on how to enter that
information into the system to be reimbursed appropriately.
we want to be very, very careful about how we do that,
though, because once they learn the trick, then they have
the ability to put retail through there, and the retail
~-ii os
153
1
_~ ~
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"` 2 4
25
won't be caught until the actual billing in the category
comes out. So, we have to be very careful how we work on
that particular piece of -- Mutual of Omaha has -- they're
aware of the program. We've contacted their claims people,
and we're working on making sure that that gets -- gets
The retiree situation in general, I'm
gathering additional information concerning the claims
ratios for retirees. The County is one of the few major
organizations left, really, that provides substantial
retiree benefits for employees, so we're doing an actuarial
analysis to determine what that impact of Part D Medicare
may be in relationship to your retirees to see and make
recommendations to the -- may or may not occur as far as
retirees are concerned. Simply be a recommendation based on
actuarial information. The -- I was concerned because I've
got a number of -- of calls early on about COBRA
administration, about the old administrator had been doing
certain services under COBRA administration. The new
administrator was not doing certain services under COBRA,
and consequently, one of the reasons that we had moved COBRA
administration to Mutual of Omaha was that Mutual of Omaha
accepts full responsibility for COBRA once an individual is
notified of COBRA being eligible -- or their being eligible
for COBRA. So, the notification process was where we were
~-ii-os
159
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
having a problem.
As a result of that, Mutual of Omaha and
Mr. Wallace has made arrangements with the Treasurer's
office to support them in a COBRA training seminar, which
will take place on this Wednesday, so we hope to get
additional information and training into that process so
that we hopefully will bridge those -- bridge those gaps.
The other part of that seminar also will have to do with
HIPAA and HIPAA certification and qualification, and so we
want to make sure that we're going the right direction as
far as our security and privacy issues are concerned with
the employees under HIPAA in that process. And is that --
am I right?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, that is correct.
MR. LOONEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: I do have a policy in place on
that already.
MR. LOONEY: The policies are pretty much
there. We're just -- we do continuing education on these
processes all the time. Even though I teach HIPAA and COBRA
seminars, I go back to the same seminars too, because
there's always some glitch or something that's in there that
we need to be concerned about. The one thing that I'm not
concerned about at this point, believe it or not, is that
our funding appears to be doing exar_tly what we projected it
i-ii-os
1
-~. 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
y- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°' 2 4
25
155
to do. We're right on track, within our budget
circumstances. Again, make sure that -- that our cash
flows -- we projected early minimal cash flows and then
increases and then leveling out, and if you look at the
graphs, that's exactly what we've done. Our turnaround time
with Mutual of Omaha is under 15 days, so our reporting
functions are very much up to date on our cash flow. So,
we're watching that very closely. Again, I think that the
HRA accounts are -- are something that we need to take a
look at, because that's the one thing right now that's being
underutilized. And if that utilization comes back, as I
said, we're fully funded for that and we have full access to
that. I look forward to working with you going forward in
the future. And what questions do you have, gentlemen?
JUDGE TINLEY: When do you think you might be
available to at least help us with our funding estimates
going into next year's budget? Bearing in mind that we're
probably going to be starting budget workshops later on this
month and on into August and September.
MR. LOONEY: I can -- the best numbers for me
projections early in August. I can get you those early in
August, and with the caveat that they will be conservative.
And the fact is that we may have to make some minor
~ ii-ns
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adjustments. Yes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It just looks like,
from the service call summary, that the preponderance of
problems we experienced at the beginning -- or questions
have pretty well leveled off, and things seem to be pretty
smooth. Is that your assessment?
MR. LOONEY: They're tapering off. We expect
calls constantly. We know we're going to get calls. This
-- these are the calls that Mutual of Omaha handles. These
are the calls that they have received. Some of the calls
are -- the calls that go through Ms. Nemec's office or go
through Mr. Wallace's office are not recorded in this
particular area. So, what the frequency of calls -- I've
talked to Mr. Wallace. The frequency of calls in his office
has dropped substantially. I'm not sure about Barbara; I
haven't had a chance to talk with you about the calls in
your office. Are they the same? Up? Down?
MS. NEMEC: They're not as high as they used
to be. We get, you know, a few, but not as much as when we
first started on the plan.
MR. LOONEY: Yeah. So, hopefully things are
leveling out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions for
Mr. Looney?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is I
7-11 OS
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
appreciate the report.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's good.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Appreciate your
work.
MR. LOONEY: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, did you have
anything -- Ms. Nemec, did you have anything you wish to
offer in connection with this?
MS. NEMEC: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Wallace?
MR. WALLACE: No, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody from Mutual -- Jaime?
Carey? Okay, thank you very much. We appreciate it.
MR. LOONEY: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 14,
if we might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
to award a construction contract or contracts to Lupe Rubio
Construction, Incorporated, in the total amount of
$805,898.65 to provide first-time sewer service for
Kerrville South covered by T.C. D. P. Contract 722411, 723095,
and 724441. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
This is another illustration of the bidding process at work.
~-ii-os
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We first went out for bids on this project, I don't know,
about two months or so, maybe two and a half months ago.
Received no bids back. Readvertised, putting the net out a
little further, and the second time around got one bid, and
so that's the bid that is in front of us. The issue then
came up, how are we going to pay for that? Because the
funds available in the first of those two contract numbers
were insufficient to cover the total cost of the project.
So, we -- the Court, by resolution, petitioned O.R.C.A. to
allow us to consolidate the funds in Phase 4 into Phases 2
and 3 so that we could accomplish the task of providing
sewer service in the area, which is the heart of the problem
that we originally set out to try to cure, in the Loyal
Valley area down on -- off of Ranchero Road. The Court
agreed to that. The issue was sent to O.R.C.A. And while
the document that I put in your packet indicates that
O.R.C.A. had -- was considering it and was looking
favorably, I did receive a phone call from Grantworks as of
Thursday, where O.R.C.A, has approved it, and the -- and the
documentation will be forthcoming in that regard, Judge.
So, I haven't received it yet, but it should be forthcoming.
Am I correct, Ms. Mitchell? That was the word we got back?
MS. MITCHELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, without any
further ado, I'd like to offer a motion to approve the
~-li-as
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
awarding of a construction contract for Phases 2 and 3 under
Contract Numbers 722411 and 723095 and 724441 for the
continuation of the Kerrville South wastewater project.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. I
assume that's to the Lupe Rubio Construction, Incorporated?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, it is, to
Lupe Rubio Construction, Inc.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make just a comment
a little bit. I talked to several people that I was
surprised didn't bid on this and some others about why we
only received -- no bids, and then one bid. And the
response I got was just the activity. Many construction
companies that do this are just -- they have too much work
on their plate right now. And it was not a -- you know,
that was the biggest -- well, the unanimous reason I was
given as to why we didn't receive very many bids, and some
local contractors included, that -- they said they just
couldn't handle any work right now; they're just too buried.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it is a good
problem. And that's really kind of what the engineer
confirmed, that those who can do this work are just
~-ii-n5
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
overwhelmed with work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like this is
probably a -- it wasn't lack of interest or problems that
were perceived or something like that. It was just the fact
that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Too busy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Too busy.
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: The motion does carry. Item
15. Pursuant to property owner's request, consider and
discuss waiving plat review fees for a replat of Lots 36,
37, and 38 in Southern Hills, Phase Two. Mr. Arreola?
MR. ARREOLA: Good afternoon. I was asked to
put this item on the agenda. The owner of this tract has an
existing, recorded plat, and he's planning on consolidating
these lots into one. There's three lots that he wants to
join into one lot. Each lot right now is about .85 of an
acre, and the new lot will be a little bit over 2 and a half
acres. So, he's requesting to waive the fees for the
Environmental Health plat review.
~-ii-os
161
1
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: Is this the one I talked
to you about, Miguel?
MR. ARREOLA: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't talk to you? We
talked about one of these at one point, Well, either way,
I'm in favor of waiving these. I think that we're in --
this is really encouraging what the County wants to do in
our Subdivision Rules, which is enlarge lot sizes. And the
reason is, by law, O.S.S.F. has to review the plat, but we
do set the review fee. And I think it's a deterrent to
people to doing the right thing, and we're charging them
$200 for moving in a direction -- and there's really --
clearly, if they could put three septic systems in, common
sense tells you that you can put one septic system in, and
they still have to follow the same rules. I'm in favor of
this; I think we need to make some accommodation for this on
a permanent basis so Miguel doesn't have to bring these to
court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
DODGE TINLEY: That will take an amendment to
the rules?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I need to look at
how we do it, because I don't want to get into amending our
O.S.S.F. rules. I think it's probably a court order that --
for combining lots, that we could let -- Miguel is
~-11-OS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
162
authorized to waive the fee. We don't want to get into
changing the O.S.S. F. rules. We did that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's probably the
simplest way of handling it, is by court order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we can do
this today. All we can do is -- I']1 make a motion to waive
the O.S.S.F. plat review fee for Lots 36, 37, and 38 in
Southern Hills, Phase Two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just wanted to make a
comment. I couldn't see -- going through this thing with
Miguel and the property owner, I couldn't see anywhere where
the guy benefits anything by paying this fee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He doesn't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, he's just
paying the county a bunch of money to do something; he gets
no benefit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something that we want,
too. Something that we're encouraging him to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're benefiting by
having one larger lot rather than three smaller.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
~-ii-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
163
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 BALDWIN: Thank y'all very much.
DODGE TINLEY: Item 16, consider preliminary
plat of Heavenly Acres, a revision of an unrecorded plat in
Harper Valley Ranch located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Morning -- afternoon, Judqe.
Sorry, my mind's just stuck in this morning. What you have
before you is an unrecorded plat in Harper Valley
Subdivision, and it had three tracts, and what we have it --
the preliminary is before you for five tracts. And it meets
subdivision requirements, and I put it before the Court to
accept this preliminary plat of Heavenly Acres.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Seems like we've had
this discussion before. Down here on Tract 5 --
MR. ODOM: Tract 5, okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Included in that
~ ii o5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
164
tract is this part that --
MR. ODOM: Goes back to the right there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 409 feet.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the reason
for treating that -- why is it on there? Does it have --
have something to do with the amount of frontage on the
road?
MR. ODOM: That's 200 -- I don`t have an
answer. I don't remember what it was specifically, but
203 feet, that's more than enough. That may have been it
right there. To -- each one of them meets 200 feet, so you
have over 500 feet frontage on Tract 5, 303.07 and 203.32.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard -- are you
finished, Commissioner? My only question is, what is the
reason for mentioning that it's an unofficial, unrecorded
subdivision?
MR. ODOM: Because this came to -- it was
unrecorded. They came to O.S.S.F. to do that, and which
they turned it over to us. The Court has directed us that
it's an unrecorded plat, and that we contact the
individuals. And they came before us to -- they were trying
to sell -- I believe they sold 16, and I believe this 5.6 is
to a brother or something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. But I
~ ii os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
165
quess --
MR. ODOM: And so we just had -- it was
brought to our attention. We ca]led the people up, and we
were directed by the Court to take any unrecorded plat and
to have it platted, so that's what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You misunderstand my
question. My question is, why have the terminology on
there? I think it just -- it kind of is confusing to have
all this "unrecorded, unofficial subdivision" language on
there. To me, you know, it's just a subdivision. And,
granted, it's -- and I think on the final plat, I'd prefer
to leave off some of that language, 'cause I think it's
confusing and doesn't really mean anything. What I'm
talking about, the box where it says "Heavenly Acres,
Revision of Plat of Tracts A, B, C. Unofficial, Unrecorded
Subdivision."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, because
after you do this, it's no longer unofficial and no longer
unrecorded.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 7 agree with them,
though at this point is a good time to say that, to alert us
to what it's really about.
MR. ODOM: That's the reason it's before you;
it's just unrecorded.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But the final doesn't
~-ii-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
166
need --
MR. ODOM: Don't need that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It`s just Heavenly Acres
when we're done.
MR. ODOM: That's right. And it was trying
to delineate, you know, Tracts A, B, and C -- it is -- it's
a little bit confusing, but it's a revision of those three
tracts into five.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is -- again, the
terminology, I'll ask the County Attorney. If it's an
unrecorded subdivision, is it a revision of an unrecorded
subdivision, or is it just a subdivision plat? Does that
make sense? The reason is, we're --
MR. EMERSON: I understand what you're
asking. It's just a subdivision plat at this point, 'cause
it's never been officially recorded.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we'll just call it a
-- you can -- it's probably good to leave this map the way
it is right now on the final plat, but I wouldn't call it a
revision. I'd just call it --
MR. ODOM: Fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a plat, Heavenly Acres
Subdivision.
MR. ODOM: Heavenly Acres, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And y'all are doing
~ ii_u_`
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
exactly what we asked.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Government's
working here. Thank y'all. Thank you, Gary, for doing it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comments? 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
move to Item 17, if we might. Consider revision of replat
of Tract 56 of Wood Trails Ranch.
MR. ODOM: This is also in Precinct 4. What
we have -- what was presented to us is -- we're not changing
any lot lines. We're not changing any acreage. What
we're -- apparently, it was for sale. Tract 56 was for
sale, and the two counselors got together, the buyer's
counselor and the seller's counselor, and they wanted the
wordage off the O.S.S.F. taken off this plat. So, we think
that we could come to the Court -- I've talked to
Commissioner Nicholson, and also Mr. Letz has been contacted
about his opinion, but what we would have to do is, we would
have to set a public hearing for this, 30 days, and then --
and than have a final on this. But I -- we don't see that.
Really, this should have been a revision of plat, maybe a --
~-ii-os
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?~
23
24
25
notes taken off. But counselors want to do this clarifying
and clean this up. U.G.R.A. had -- Mr. Brandenberg put
these notes on here, and they're not necessary. So, what we
have is a revision to clear that up, that Tract 56 is clear.
We haven't changed anything. No lines, no signs, just the
notes. So, we think that the Court -- if it's this Court's
decision to do so, we could take care of it right now as a
revision of plat.
MR. EMERSON: If I may clarify something,
too, the -- the complete rest of the story is that they were
running into problems because the title company was not
going to allow them to build a house where the dotted lines
are,
MR. ODOM: Where the dotted lines are.
MR. EMERSON: With the language.
MR. ODOM: We don't understand why that was
necessary to be done. My understanding is it was a
5,000 square foot area. And then they told Mr. Brandenberg
to put an alternate in there, so he just chose a place, he
said, where they said put one. So, he put one down there,
and that was U.G.R.A. doing this. So I'm not quite sure,
but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What we're doing, we're
deleting some language -- some verbiage off the original
plat, and that just necessitates it to be a revision of
~-ii-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
169
plat. Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Second. Sounds like a
revision to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or comment? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JDDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.}
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next
Item, Number 18, consider preliminary plat of Ledge Stone
Subdivision in Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. When this was presented
to you, everything was all right. We met Wednesday to go
over drainage, as well as when the contractors would start.
They told me that they had -- and this doesn't preclude us
approving this, but I want to bring it to the Court's
attention; there has been a change. When I went out there
Thursday morning to look at their center line, they had an
L.C,R.A. 100-foot pole within 6 foot of the center line, so
there was some readjustment that needs to be done. And I
don't see this adjustment in this right-of-way -- and I'll
let Lee verify this, but I don't see that much of a change
as far as the acreage at all involved in this. Am I right
~-ii-vs
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
170
in that assumption, Lee?
MR. VOELKEL: Let me address that one issue,
yes, sir. Instead of moving the pole as to Lot 2, the
expense to do that, we shifted the road over a little bit,
is what it amounts to. We have the same number of tracts;
we have the same acreage. We moved the road about 20 feet
to the east to make the pole that Mr. Odom was concerned
about -- or has talked about at the right-of-way line so
that it's outside of the drivable area of the road. That's
what we've done with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This one called
Tracks Trail, that moves east by 20 feet?
MR. VOELKEL: 23 feet, if I remember right,
Commissioner. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER W7LLlAMS: Okay. Does that
change any of the lot sizes in any way?
MR. VGELKEL: Lot sizes all stay the same.
Only thing that will change is the actual dimensions that
you're seeing there. They`ll vary a little bit. The tract
size will stay the same and the number of tracts will stay
the same.
COMMISSZONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'm sorry,
Judge, what was your question?
JUDGE TINLEY: The adjustment was done down
where it intersects State Highway 27?
~-ii-vs
171
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. VOELKEL: Actually, if you look at Tracks
Trail, it's the north and south link to that up and down.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
MR. VOELKEL: The whole thing, parallel
shifting it to the east.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause that power line
goes right there.
MR. ODOM: Power line goes across it parallel
to the road there. And -- just a point he just missed,
but --
MR. VOELKEL: If you see Lot 4 and 5 there,
that common lot line has the power line on it, that little
line that's got the "U" on it there, Commissioner. That's
the overhead transmission line that exists on the property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. VOELKEL: And I think there were three
poles on the property, and I hit one. Amazing. But we took
care of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's prescription, isn't it?
MR. VOELKEL: I don't know what that is,
Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just so -- it needs
~-ii-os
172
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
individual wells platted for this.
MR. VOELKEL: That's correct, everything will
be served by individual wells. As the plat notes, it's a
private road; will not be a County-maintained road, although
it will be built to county standards. We also have today
with us the engineer, Les Harvey, if you have any questions
of Mr. Harvey, or the owners of the property are here also
if you have any questions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: These guys want to get
it done. They've been here since daylight.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're ready to
leave.
MR. VOELKEL: They were camping out here last
night.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any other issues that
we need to talk about? Are you satisfied?
MR. ODOM: Well, I think there was a question
we had on drainage there, and I will -- Les, do you wish to
address that to the Court? Because he was -- some things
had changed as of Wednesday. We thought this pit was going
to be filled in, but that's going to be left open, so
drainage goes over there. And I'll let Les tell the Court.
MR. HARVEY: My name's Les Harvey. I'm with
Harvey Engineering here in Kerrville, and I'm here on behalf
of the owners to request from the Commissioners Court a
~-ii-os
173
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
waiver from stormwater detention requirements. And I can
address the reasoning behind that. This tract of land is
approximately 95 -- 95 acres. If you look on the plat, in
the lower southeast corner of this property there is an
existing multicell box culvert that goes underneath Highway
27. As you're probably all aware, the old railroad
right-of-way runs through there and serves kind of as a
berm. There's some cuts in it. And, frankly, the lower
southeast corner of this property, the 95 acres, is also the
outlet for an upper drainage basin of 878 acres, and this
95-acre tract represents slightly less than 11 percent of
the total drainage area. And that's the only drainage
structure near this subdivision. Area-wise, this
development, the effect is slightly less than 11 percent.
Hydraulically, it increases the runoff about 1.4 percent.
When you change the runoff conditions of the 95 acres, and
the remaining balance of the 878 remains unchanged, it'll
have a hydraulic impact of only 1.4 percent. In other
words, what's going through the box culvert now is 806 cubic
feet per second. After the development, what'll be going
through there is 815, so the difference in runoff you won't
even be able to tell by the naked eye.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the culverts are
sized sufficiently to handle that?
MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir, the cul -- and the
~-ii-os
174
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
numbers that I just quoted you, the runoff, is for the
5-year storm, as required by the county rules. This
structure is designed by the 25-year storm, which is well
over 1,000 cubic feet per second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Odom referenced
the pit which is at the northeast corner on Lots 6 and 7.
MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you tell the
Court how that fits into the picture?
MR. HARVEY: At one -- at one time, the
developers were considering filling that pit in and dressing
it up so that there was more buildable area on the two
affected lots. They have since changed their approach to
where the pit will remain; they'll dress it up as a water
amenity to those two lots. And in the past, water from
runoff from the upper acreage has drained into this pit,
overflowed, and gone down their easternmost property line to
this drainage structure I referred to a minute ago. That's
what will continue in the future.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How will that --
MR. HARVEY: And it was good news to me,
because it keeps upland runoff from traveling through the
heart of the subdivision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are any steps
necessary, Mr. Harvey, to make certain that that water
~-ii-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
sheeting off of the 800-plus acres above is directed to the
pit appropriately?
MR. HARVEY: Just -- just to be on the safe
side, excess material from road construction and from
dressing up the pit is going to be used as a diversion berm
along the north boundary.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: And along the eastern boundary,
a -- a purposely cut diversion channel will be cut to guide
water towards the drainage structure in a more positive
manner than just the topography that lays out there now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: That fence line along that side
will be cleaned and dressed up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And after -- after
dressing up the pit and so forth, Lot 6, to me, is more
obvious than Lot 7. There is sufficient property left upon
which to build a dwelling and --
MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- septic and drain
field and so forth?
MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- you mentioned
after the development, there'll be a one point -- small
~-ii-us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
176
percent increase flow. Is that due to the roads?
MR. HARVEY: Yes. Basically -- basically,
the small amount of the impervious cover that is purposely
built in the subdivision is the main hydraulic function in
the 1.9 increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's no change in
really -- that's not really redirecting any water or --
MR. HARVEY: No, sir. We're -- actually, we
don't want to redirect any water. We want it to go where it
has always gone before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
MR. HARVEY: And we're putting in some
drainage culverts on the road to help facilitate that
because of road construction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- what
do you -- are you requesting a waiver here?
MR. HARVEY: No, sir, it wasn't -- it wasn't
officially listed that way on the agenda. We discussed it
in a meeting last week. If the Court would feel better with
me coming back at a later meeting before the final plat
comes up, I'll be glad to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- I'm not sure
it requires a waiver. I think it can be addressed in a
letter, if you would just reduce what you said in writing to
the amount of the slight increase.
~-ii-vs
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
MR. HARVEY: Yes, I can address that in a
transmittal letter that will accompany the master drainage
plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think that
would suffice. I think -- 'cause, I mean, I guess we can
look, and maybe Rex can look at our actual language, which
is just kind of poorly worded at the moment in our current
rules, whether it requires a waiver or not. But we can let
you know that, but I think a letter would be sufficient.
That would be enough. If we do need to do a waiver, we can
grant it off of the letter, based on your letter.
MR. HARVEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval
of the preliminary plat for Ledge Stone Subdivision
containing 95.67 acres in Precinct 2, east of Center Point,
as per the presentation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's already a lot of
interest in this one. People ask me all the time about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If anybody hasn't
seen what's already taken place there on that old railroad
right-of-way, the developers thus far have cleaned that up;
it is absolutely gorgeous. And that will become the
~ ii os
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
entrance, I believe. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, it's very
interesting that they -- the railroad right through there --
that's a pretty good berm, and that's kind of being left for
the most part, and then cut through to the roads, and it'll
be a natural, probably, sound barrier and visual barrier for
the subdivision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's looking good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's good.
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. We'll
move to Item 19, consider and discuss authorizing the
Sheriff's Office to prepare an RFQ to be sent to architects
for study on an addition to existing county jail.
Mr. Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, you have what I
have attached. Trying to figure out exactly, this being my
first time, what was meant by an RFQ, and calling several
agencies that are in the process of doing that. What we
have in the proposed Request for Qualification you have
~-ii-os
1
_.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"`" 2 4
25
179
before you is kind of done off of Anderson County. They had
that, talking with the Jail Commission, there is a list of
about 48, I believe, if I count them right, architectural
firms and that, that the state Jail Commission keeps on file
for this	type	of -	- of purpose.	And if we	're going to	go
forward	with	this	at all, I would	request	that, number	one,
that the last four lines of this -- I need a date on which
the qualifications ought to be due back that we could fill
in in the letter. And then I will instruct the secretary to
send one of these letters out, either by registered mail or
by regular mail, whatever the court would prefer, to every
one of the architectural firms listed on the two pages that
I got from the Jail Commission. Now, word evidently is
already out. I'm already receiving qualification notices,
statements of qualifications from a number of architects,
but I think we need to have it totally documented if you do
it this way.
A little update on jail status that I think
you should do before you vote on this is, of course, we all
saw the statements and analysis -- the facility needs
analysis Jail Commission did, which they recommended 96
beds, if y'all remember reading that. I had kind of
recommended 144, and I recommended that just off of what our
populations have been going, ups and downs. It was also due
~-ii-os
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the number of years that -- when we built the current
facility, that it was stated that it would last us, and
falling way short of that, in my opinion. So, you know --
and a lot of that was built on recommendation on number of
beds that the jail facility needs analysis back then had
recommended. And I -- I would love to see, if we're going
to do this, for it to address the problem and take care of
the problem for the full number of years. If we say -- if
we tell the public this is going to handle it 15, 20 years,
I would want to be able to stand behind that and say it's
going to handle it for 15, 20 years, whatever, and not fall
short of that.
Now, jail population lately, especially the
last two weeks, has drastically dropped. We had been
running in the 190's. I've seen it over 208 back in 2001
and 2002. We're constantly hitting above that 80 percent
maximum -- or 80 percent ideal situation that the Commission
likes for us to stay at, which would be 153. You know, most
of the months throughout the last several years, we've been
running over that 153, some of it due to our being able to
house out-of-county inmates, so it has put us up to that,
but I'm not housing any. This morning, population was in
the 130's. By tonight or tomorrow, I expect the population
to be back up to about 170 -- or 150 at a minimum, due to
some investigations that are climaxing today and some
~-ii os
181
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°•- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
roundups that are being done right now. And some of those
are going to have some high bonds, and I don't know what --
We can sit back and just let this happen and
end up like we did 10, 15 years ago, where we're too late
and too far gone and we're paying for out-of-county housing
right and left, or we can take a proactive approach and at
least get the qualifications in, and then start taking it
and seeing the -- what the Jail Commission would recommend
with this Court and what the citizens of this county want,
because I think that's going to be a key -- key to it all.
I don't see this jail lasting much longer without starting
to get to a point of running over capacity most of the time.
And I will say one thing, and I'll say this for our newly
elected County Attorney. The biggest reason our population
has dropped in the last couple of weeks is 'cause the County
Attorney has been running people -
through the County Court right and
and that; I mean, legitimately tak
They're just working. And I think
jury panels this morning for three
picking them all at once. There's
- misdemeanor cases
left, without dismissals
ing care of these cases.
y'all were picking three
different jury trials,
been an aggressive
approach to the prosecution of misdemeanors and moving
through the system and not letting them just sit, and that
is definitely having an impact on our jail population.
~ ii-~s
182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
Now, one of the other things that can be
studied is the work program. We'll get into the budget
process with something like that. That could help some. I
still see that we're going to -- to have to address this
issue very soon. And I'm very pleased; the problem we're
having with some of this investigation that we're climaxing
today, we're starting to round up -- I've already had the
District Attorney tell me, "Well, I don't think there's
enough defense attorneys around to be able to represent all
these people." And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh-uh. Who said
that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- the unfortunate part
about that is, it very well may be true.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, man.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because you have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is Bill Pearson on
your list?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- conflict of interest
when they represent different defendants in the same type of
case. You also have a set number of defense attorneys in
this county, okay, so a lot of these are going to have to
come from other counties. These defense attorneys are going
to have their dockets in all these other counties with
defendants. And, you know, the majority of our defendants
~ ii-ns
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in jail, a lot of them are represented -- are represented by
probably about five defense attorneys, which slows down the
entire process of moving these people through the system.
You know, sharing courts with other counties slows it down.
I -- it's not an easy answer. They just know we are going
to face some problems if we don't address it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's trying to tell us
there's a shortage of attorneys in this town.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm the last one to want
to admit --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought
he said, but we all know better, of course.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Me being in law
enforcement, I'm the last one to say we have a shortage of
attorneys, but that's what's being relayed to me. And I
think, you know, even the Judge can attest to how that works
with the defense attorneys.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think we need
to move forward with this step, and -- and then take a look
at where we are at that point. I mean, that's a long ways
from actually spending any money.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Taxpayers' money.
So --
~-ii-os
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. Now, I did put
in here, in the second paragraph -- the one that I got to
use in the sample had a certain number of beds, period, and
I felt we were still too early to -- to say we want to add a
certain number of beds, okay? The Jail Commission
recommended at least 96. My proposal to the Court last --
or Commissioners Court before the last one was 144, if we
want to stay out of trouble, so I worded it in this, "Will
add an addition that will add approximately 96 or 144
maximum-, medium-, and minimum-security beds," 'cause you
have to -- and then also address some of the other issues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My thoughts are, I mean,
I agree with -- I see no reason not to go forward with the
process. However, I think that we should put the date
really about September 30th to get this back. I don't want
to get -- we're going to be knee-deep in budget from now
until the end of this fiscal year. Once we get all these
in, though, we've got to start going through them,
interviewing. That takes a lot of time. So I really don't
want to -- you can get them back September 15th, sometime in
September, and then look at October really to start looking
at the -- you know, interviewing and going forward. And I
think we have the luxury of time, which is rare. We can
take our time and go through.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As far as I understand,
~ ii os
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the request for qualifications coming from all these
firms -- and I won't list the names, because this was sent
without even asking, but this is one of them. They pretty
well have them already in packets and what their
qualifications are and how they work, but -- so I think
getting them in is not going to take very long. What I
think this Court needs to take a very long time in doing and
seriously looking at, and even if we have help doing it by
going and visiting all 48, you know, places all 48 of these
architects has built, is make sure we do pick one and we
thoroughly go through these qualifications, and make sure we
don't have the same problems we had --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last time.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- 15, 20 years ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I say I think
we ought to do it after budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm okay with going
out with an RFQ at this time, only because it's a first and
necessary step. If we're going to someday build a jail,
let's get started. And also, because it doesn't cost much;
some postage and some time. I don't think that that ought
to be read by anyone as an indicator that we've made a
decision to build a new jail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're a long way
~-ii-os
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And on the other
side of that formula, if and when we ever get there, we
don't know if the taxpayers are -- are going to -- the
voters, I should say, are going to go along with that. So,
let's go ahead. I want to go ahead and do this, but I don't
want that to be read as a commitment that we're going to add
on to the jail.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, my idea -- I would
hold off sending out the letter until maybe early August or
something.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the only thing I'm
saying, Jonathan, as far as getting it back, is, you know,
you're talking about October or so after the new budget year
is -- of actually getting them in and interviewing them. I
would like to also take, you know, either by me or some of
my staff or one or two of the Commissioners, if they want,
during that to be able to have a large amount of time to
thoroughly evaluate these before we even start narrowing
them down to come back to this Court with the one that ought
to -- I think just the legwork part. The last thing I want
to see happen in this, gentlemen, is that -- in being here
when the last one was built, number one, I want to make sure
~-ii-vs
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the public has every opportunity to ask and get answered any
questions they have; that we look at every alternative that
we can possibly look at before we commit to this type thing
or get too far, and that we take ample time. You had
mentioned the last one in the fall. I think the fall may be
next fall, you know, with the way we're going. We'll have
to try and do something. It's coming. We're headed there,
but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
I'm not going to have time to look
after September 30th. You can get
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER:
What I'm saying is --
Take baby steps.
I'm liaison to the jail;
at these things until
them in when you want.
Whatever y'all want to
do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll comment a
little bit further on -- and compliment Rex for what he's
done to speed up the system, to make it operate faster and
more efficiently. I don't know -- again, I don't know if
we're ever going to get a new addition to the jail or not.
Regardless of whether we have confidence that we will, all
components of the judicial law enforcement system need to be
doing the kind of things that Rex has done to see if we
can't make this thing work to where our current facility
would suit our needs for the future.
~-ii-os
188
1
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: Amen.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know how we
do that. We say thank to you Rex and maybe -- and Rusty,
and maybe some of the others.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's one of the
reasons I publicly said thank to you Rex standing right
here, because he has saved me a lot in just the last few
months by the way they aggressively --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judges, lawyers,
everybody involved in the process needs to make an effort to
try to make it work better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, is it your
plan that -- that when we get past this selection stage,
that we look at all of the options that may be available to
us?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to
authorize the Sheriff to solicit --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you've got
somebody else that wants to speak.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- RFQ's for architects
doing the new jail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
~-ii-us
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the return date?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He can get them when he
wants.
JUDGE TINLEY: At his discretion? All right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Don't do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying that,
from my standpoint, I'm not going to be able to spend much
time --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you want to put the
1st day of September?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If that's what you want.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes no difference. I'm
just not going to have a lot of time till after the budget.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With as much as we've
gone up and down, I wouldn't mind taking till September
either. Of course, once you get into this, we'll be able to
tell a little bit more.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you seconded, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Pearson, you had filled out a participation form for
this item, I believe.
MR. PEARSON: I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
~-ii-os
190
1
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: Haven't even started
construction and he's already back. (Laughter.)
MR. PEARSON: I got to tell you, I got a
Xerox box full of stuff from the last one. I hope a certain
four-letter-word contractor isn't on your list.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're on the list.
All of them are that are possible.
MR. PEARSON: I'll get with you; we'll
scratch that one. And it's a shame to hear that you -- that
we don't have enough defense attorneys. I bet we could find
some low-income housing for some. But -- but, anyway, I
would like to draw the Court's attention to the fact -- and
I hate to be redundant, but the last fiasco we had, we did
not have a registered professional engineer as project
manager, as required by law under Article 3271a, Paragraph
19, Vernon's supplement. The County is required, in any
construction of over $8,000, to have a registered
professional engineer as project manager. And I hope, like
I say, we don't make that mistake again. I also would like
to congratulate Mr. Emerson. I hear a lot of good things
happening, and moving these things through the courtroom.
If these other judges are going to work, you know, at
nighttime, we could probably have some night courts up here,
move these things a little faster.
But on the size of the jail, this was kicked
~-11 os
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
around on the last jail, and there was people that wanted to
go to 46 and so forth -- or 48 and so forth. But I'd like
to ask Rusty, are you housing any out-of-county people now?
Are you making any money off of that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: gp until a month ago,
two months ago. You know, there were -- there have been
about three or four times in the past where I've had to ship
them all back because we hit way over that, but for the most
part, since the day I took office, we have been housing
out-of-county inmates, and we have billed out -- I would
have to get with Tommy to see, or I can run it on our
computer, but if you look in the last five years, well over
a million dollars or so easily in out-of-county housing. We
house any of them we can when we can, because most
surrounding jails need our help.
MR. PEARSON: I say that's pretty good on a
5.4 million jail, and I think that the Court should consider
the 144 beds, since there is a -- a definite shortage of
jail cells all over the country. And I think that we can
probably do the same thing -- the Sheriff could, to help
facilitate paying for this facility. That's all I have to
say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. You have
anything further for us on this, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, sir.
~ ii-os
192
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions?
Comments? A11 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: The motion does carry. We'll
go to Item 21, consider and discuss directing the floodplain
administration -- administrator to deny permits where there
is a violation of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations. Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda,
the same as we had at our last meeting. At that time, Rex
had not had time to really look at the floodplain order and
that whole program to see if we could do it. He has since
informed me that we can do the same type of requirement that
we had for O.S.S.F., so I will make a motion that we direct
the Floodplain Administrator to deny permits where there is
a violation of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. That's the
right thing to do. That's a good, easy way to bring people
~-ii-os
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
193
into compliance, and I'll just say again, my thinking that
we need to do this in a -- in a helpful, professional way.
It's not an "I got you." It's, "You applied for a permit,
and here's what -- here's how I'm going to help you get into
compliance."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comments? 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: The motion does carry. We'll
go to Item 22, consider and discuss schedule for budget
workshops. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seemed that time
is fast approaching. We don't have a schedule yet, so I put
it on the agenda for when we should have budget workshops
scheduled. I figured the Judge would put it on, but if he
did, I didn't know. I attached the dates that we had last
year, just so we can get an idea of the number of workshops
we had. What we're looking at for this year -- I mean, my
preference would be -- and I'm not sure where the Judge is
on presenting the budget to the rest of the Court, which is,
obviously, a real important piece of this puzzle.
~-ii-os
1
.` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"~` 2 9
25
194
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me answer that one right
quick. I gave Ms. Mitchell the -- there are still two small
components that I'm still working on, but the rest of it is
being packaged up to go to each individual department. And
then, of course, the Court -- each member of the Court will
get copies of all of them, so hopefully they will get a copy
this week, and we'll have that step accomplished.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With that being said, you
know, maybe a week -- well, last year it seemed that we were
meeting an awful lot, you know, one after the other, and I
get budget burnout when we meet that often. You know, my
preference would be if we can schedule where we meet, you
know, maybe two times -- or once or twice a week at most in
our budget workshops, at least in the beginning part when
we're going through it. And then I think towards the end,
we always have a couple catch-ups. And, you know, with that
-- with what the Judge said, that we'll get the budgets this
week, maybe next week can be a free week, just to kind of
look through it, and the following week maybe we can have
our first -- our first workshop where we can kind of have
just a general discussion about where we think we are, where
we think we may be going.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When will we aet our
numbers from KCAD through the auditor's office?
JUDGE TINLEY: My general understanding is we
~ it-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
195
don't get those until the very tail end of July. Isn't that
correct, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: From the Appraisal District?
JUDGE TINLEY: From KCAD.
MR. TOMLINSON: We have preliminary numbers
now. I don't -- I don't know how much is in protest. The
information that I -- that's on what I have doesn't have
that amount. So, I think we need some more definitive
answers as to how much is in protest and the percentage he
perceives as being lost.
JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of the
certified tax roll, or what's the forerunner to the
certified tax roll, we don't get until the very tail end of
July. I believe that's correct, isn't it?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're still -- the
certified tax roll, all the protests -- or still a majority
of protests are unresolved at that point, I believe.
MR. TOMLINSON: They -- they do -- at this
point, they do know exactly how much is in protest.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: And there's always -- there's
a good indication of what percentage they're going to lose
to that, so I think that would be a good number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to start the first
~-ii-os
196
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
week in August, then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably, once we get the
numbers, we have a pretty good idea where we're at. Or we
-- you know, either that, or if we get them the last week in
July, we could meet and have a general discussion as to
priorities and things of that nature. I think we did that
last year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that kind of
meeting is necessary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe one meeting the
last week of July, and then first meeting of August, another
meeting, and then someone go from there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In August -- well,
when does this process have to be completed?
JUDGE TINLEY: September 30.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: September 30.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there another
benchmark date in between?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a bunch of
hearings coming in.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have tax rate hearings
and -- under the new law, we're probably going to have at
least two public hearings, which are not less than three
days apart. That's primarily for the city and the tax rate,
but it all kind of bundles together. You've got to do one
~-ii-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
197
for the other and vice-versa.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty much -- we pretty
much need to be done by the middle of September.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, to satisfy all
the publishing requirements.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we set a date
for this first meeting where we talk about the budget and
what we hope to see, and then maybe set a -- a date -- the
same date each week for the next month or something like
that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Be another option, sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next court meeting is
the 25th. We're talking about 26, -7, -8, something like
that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, this month?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the first
meeting.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Our organization
meeting?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I cannot that week.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will you be here on the
25th?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about the first of
the next week?
~-ii-os
198
1
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: Yes, August 1.
August 1 through 4, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's
important that all -- everyone be here for that first
meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First week in August
is probably soon enough.
JUDGE TINLEY: My best days, of course, are
Wednesday and then Tuesday afternoons. I don't -- don't
have dockets on those days. And I don't have dockets on
Fridays, but I don't think most folks like Fridays. But I
have dockets other days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Wednesdays are free?
JUDGE TINLEY: Wednesday's really my best
day, all day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wednesday, the 3rd?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wednesday, the 3rd.
JUDGE TINLEY: What time? 9:00? 10:00?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 6:30 a.m.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Send a cab after me,
will you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00? Doesn't make any
~-ii-os
199
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
difference.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have seen the
Commissioners Court officially adopt a budget late in the
evening on September the 30th, and it wasn't funny. It
wasn't anything funny about it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that the one you
spent all night putting together the night before?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we're not going to
talk about that; Gerard's in here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, what is it
you're going to give us sometime in the next few days?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to give you the
copies of the budget requests made by each of the
departments with any adjustments or modifications that I'm
recommending, with a caveat that will go out to each of the
submitters that personnel items -- additional personnel,
part-time, full-time, overtime -- I'll take reductions.
Salary increases, be they COLA's, merits, everything except
what's plugged in by policy, longevity and educational and
capital outlay, those will be reserved for the Court's
action, very similar to the process we've had in the last
couple years.
~-rr-os
200
1
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: My question of the
Court is -- it would be, I think, very desirable to give the
City information about joint ventures as soon as we can.
Would it be good to give them a copy of, say, for example,
Animal Control and -- well, those at this point in time?
Say, "Here's what we're working on. If it'll be helpful to
you in your thinking, you can have the information."
JUDGE TINLEY: That may be one of the things
that we want to take up at our initial session on some of
these joint City/County projects, to get some general
direction on those, because that's going to be a court issue
necessarily, I think.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can't see any harm
in saying to them, you know, here -- "Here's what we know.
We don't know how this is going to come out, but if it is
helpful to you in understanding the scope of -- of your
budget, you can see what we're looking at."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, do we have any
indication as to if or when we will have joint budget
sessions with the City on projects that we do together?
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got EMS scheduled for
Wednesday -- this coming Wednesday, I believe. Beyond that,
we don't have any.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we're going
to have a joint, it's my understanding, from talking to --
~-ii-os
201
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking about a
general joint? I'm not aware that one's been proposed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Airport Board will
be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's on the 19th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we'll be looking at
July 19th, so we'll have the airport recommended budget by
the first meeting in August.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll have animal -- you
know, I don't know where we are in a couple of them,
obviously, like the library and recycling. But -- well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, EMS is a
biggie.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: EMS is a big one, and the
airport are big ones. They're a little bit more unknown,
probably, than the other ones, 'cause they're -- we know
there's big changes in those two.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think it would be well
if we would, in that initial session, get those City/County
items, because that's going to take some direction from the
whole Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I -- so, Wednesday is
a good day, so I would -- maybe everyone block out every
~ ii-~~s
202
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Wednesday in	August.		
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Well, I was going to
bring that u	p. We're going	to start	on Wednesday, the 3rd,
and then the	very next Wednesday some	of you guys are at the
legislative	conference.		
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	That's correct.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	So that's out.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Ho	w about --
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Skip that week.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: We	ll, I hate to skip a
week.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about Tuesday of that
week? Tuesday afternoon at 1:30?
JUDGE TINLEY: Tuesday afternoon is generally
good for me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The 9th?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be the 9th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can always cancel
them, but it's good to get them on --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1:30.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1:30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or 1:00 is fine with me.
Judge, you don't have hearings on Tuesday afternoon?
~-ii-us
203
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Not in the afternoon. I've
got them in the morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1:00 or 1:30?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm showing at 1:30.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1:30?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's Wednesday of
the next week?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then back to
Wednesday on the following week?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 17th. Sure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 9 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00. Then the 24th at
9:00?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That ought to be enough
for right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll be gone, but
y'all can do fine without me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's our plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kathy, you'll get that
schedule out?
(Ms. Mitchell nodded.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if I happen to
be working with anybody on the City side of the contract and
they want to know what Animal Control costs me, I'll share
~-ii vs
204
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with them the information I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Animal Control, we've
furnished them the historical figures.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know. Just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If there was a
question in there, Commissioner, I -- the answer from me is,
absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is just my role
as facilitator and peacemaker.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Tator. Facilitator.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hunt boys don't talk
like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that
item? We'll move on to Item 23; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on a plan for a one-day celebration to
commemorate the 150th anniversary of Kerr County in April
2006. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I put this
back on the agenda, and we haven't talked about this
together for a long time. We have about 10 months remaining
before Kerr County gets to the month of April of '06, in
which it celebrates its 150th anniversary. You'll recall by
reading -- if you looked at the material I put in there,
most of that was prepared by -- all of it was prepared by
~-ii-os
205
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
General Schellhase, who's chairman of the Historical
Commission, with respect to a multi-day celebration. Only
problem with that is, we can't find anybody to chair, and I
think we still have that problem. But the problem could be
lessened to some extent if we were to narrow our scope a
little bit and go from four days of celebration down to one
day of celebration. So, I just wanted to get it on the
agenda, let somebody talk about it, see whether we're going
to get -- whether they're not going to do it, whether
they're going to skip it and go for 200 or whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should do it,
but I think it's not this Court to ramrod. I think we can
-- we're supportive of it, but I don't see the Court funding
it, and I don't see the Court, really -- unless one of the
individual members chooses to take the lead on it, I just
don't think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not suggesting
our funding it, Commissioner, not at all. You
misunderstand. Not at all. If it's going to be done, the
money would have to be raised by the private sector.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a
terrific idea. Looks like a fun thing to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you like to be
the chairman, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
~-ii-os
206
1
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: As long as we're not
funding it, I agree. I think it's a great idea. I think it
should be done. And I --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who is it your
contention that could logically organize it and pull it off?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there some
organization that would logically do the organization and
management of it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know, we thought
about that, and General Schellhase and I went out to see Bob
Miller out at the River Star Park, thinking maybe Texas
State Arts and Crafts folks might want to undertake it as a
project, but they felt they had enough on their plate
without doing this, and so they didn't. But, you know,
there may be another organization out there; I just don't
know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the likely place
is the hysterical -- historical group.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: His group or the Chamber
of Commerce, or a combination of those or something like
that, to me. I mean, the County really doesn't have a -- I
mean, the historical association, I guess, is under the
County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we have a
~-ii-~~s
207
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
IL
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
commission, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's basically a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, they don't have
any fundraising capability either. The funds that they
raise, for example, were -- that were raised for the Union
Church, the Commission didn't do that, but the Friends of
the Commission did. It is a separate organization, and they
raised those dollars that were necessary for renovation of
the Union Church. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The one that comes to
mind -- I said Chamber; I really probably meant Convention
and Visitors Bureau. I mean, they kind of help spearhead
this stuff as well, but maybe contact them and see if they
can get with the -- through the City, see if they're willing
to do something.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suggested Commissioner
Williams take it home.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I detect a little bit
of buck passing here. It's kind of going around the table.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Most of it's
stopping right there, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's what I'm seeing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It seems to be right
back here. Well, okay. Thank you for your kind attention.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further -- anything
~-ii-us
208
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
further to be offered in connection with Item 23?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so,
Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Buddy, where I got
excited on here is when you were talking about having a
hound dog show.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hound dog show.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I saw a hound
dog show.
JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't say where it's going to
be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was kind of
interested in that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to get
old what's-his-face --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I was thinking
about entering it myself.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. Would you like
to chair that event?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. I'm going to be
one of the dogs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Let's move on,
Judge.
	DODGE TINLEY:	All right.	We	have	our
reports.	Let -- before we get	into that,	let	me	inquire if
~-ii-os
209
1
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's anything that we need to go into closed or executive
session about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We skipped two items.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I skipped two items?
Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, you did, way up
front.
JUDGE TINLEY: A thousand pardons. That's
right. We'll go back to Item 4, if we might; consider and
discuss and approve the appointment of election judges and
alternates for the term of one year in accordance with Texas
Election Code Section 32.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item as submitted. Any question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. I have two
questions. In Precinct 107, that person lives in another
county? Can you do that?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's just
the address.
MS. PIEPER: That's just the address.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does the person live
in Kerr County?
-il-ns
210
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the next one
109, isn't that Clayton?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Clayson. No, it's
Clayson.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it with an "s"?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, that's
correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
comments? 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. Item
5, consider, discuss, and consider approval to enter into a
negotiation contract with Hart Intercivic and/or another
vendor listed with the Texas Building Procurement Commission
for a voting system that is certified by the Secretary of
State to meet HAVA requirements. Ms. Pieper.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, basically, it's just like
it stated. I would like a motion to -- or approval for me
and the County Attorney to enter into a negotiation contract
with Hart Intercivic to we can get our funding and our
election equipment stuff here on time so we could have it by
~-ii-os
zll
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
March 2006.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we -- and I probably
shouldn't even ask the question; I should know it. Have we
voted to go with Hart?
MS. PIEPER: No. That's what I'm asking you
to do now, is to approve negotiating a contract with Hart
Intercivic.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you say or
someone else as well.
MS. PIEPER: 'Cause the Judge asked me to put
that language in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you -- do you have
a proposal from Hart? Or --
MS. PIEPER: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But are you
recommending Hart?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
DODGE TINLEY: And she had previously
indicated, I believe, there were four certified providers of
this equipment, and they're all under state contract, or
were under state contract.
MS. PIEPER: So we don't have to go out for
bids for each one of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. I
~-ii-os
212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recall the Secretary of State's comments here.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And in discussing this
with the County Clerk earlier, my understanding is that we
don't -- we get a better firm -- we won't get the best price
until we enter into negotiations.
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really, at this point,
we're not committing to Hart.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As much as we are
committing to negotiating with Hart to see what the price is
going to be, and have them come back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we don't go with
Hart, we'll go another direction and come back.
MS. PIEPER: That is correct. But Hart's
equipment -- after reviewing all the equipment, Hart is the
one that suits Kerr County the best. We will still be able
to keep optical scan ballots, plus we will have D.R.E.'s,
which is the HAVA-compliant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the
Clerk's request.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That the County Clerk
and the County Attorney --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, be empowered to
7-11-n5
213
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enter into negotiations about a contract with Hart
Intercivic.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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: Quick question, Judge, on
that. Jannett, do you know when they'll be coming back?
How long it's going to take and when they'll be coming back
-- when y'all will come back with a proposed contract for us
to look at?
MS. PIE PER: I'll have to call them and tell
them this has been approved, and then they're ready to go
after that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a budget
question. We need to know how much it's going to cost us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've --
MS. PIEPER: We're thinking the HAVA funds
will completely cover it.
~-ii-os
214
1
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: It's going to be close,
according to the numbers that I've seen so far, I think.
Are there any matters to be -- any member of the Court wish
to take to executive or closed session? Okay. Hearing
none, we'll go to Item 24, a timed item for 2 o'clock.
We're catching up; it's only 3:10.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you mean? If
we stay till 9:00, we'll catch up?
JUDGE TINLEY: Department reports. I.T.
AUDIENCE: He just stepped out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, he missed his
turn. Road and Bridge.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I have a copy for
everybody, including the Clerk. Since our last meeting, we
have done sealcoat on Peterson Farm Road, Mosty, Fall Creek,
Eugene Lane, Indian Creek, and Clark. We've shot
515,240 gallons of emulsion. We have all the gravel in
place for our sealcoat program, and you have -- back in this
packet in each precinct are the projects that we -- that we
have to do. This week, we hope -- we plan on shooting,
maybe starting Wednesday, Alvin, Earl, Douglas, Alta Vista,
Chula Vista, Loma Vista, Contour, Poco Vista, Palo Verde,
and Bailey Jo, and also Monroe. It may run into next week,
but we're going to get that area. What we will have left is
Ranchero Road. On the 19th, I have a vendor coming in; it's
~-i!-ns
215
1
'°° 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
`"` 2 4
25
called a zipper, which connects to my 930 loader, and which
does scorifying, so we're going to have that demonstrated
there that we're always having problems with. I've
contacted Mike Coward several times. I just called again
and told Mike Boyd that we're going to do this on the 19th.
I'm going to cement stabilize that. They already put that
on timing. I've encouraged -- I've been told that they
probably will leave on it timing for a while, which will
probably get compliance. They're a little bit different,
what they're getting now, 'cause it will be phased by
traffic. Either they will go back with timing, which we
don't want to, or go with a camera. And they implied that
they will put that camera back up, so I'm hoping that would
be the case. And they'll get off that timing sequence or
they'll go back in, but we're going to cement stabilize that
area right there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was wondering, would
it help with the camera issue if Commissioner Williams and I
wrote a letter to court requesting that?
MR. ODOM: I think that would probably help
some. I've even volunteered to pay for it out of -- you
know, to get it done. They told me $9,000 or $5,000 is what
they talked -- then they were trying to schedule it, so we
~-ii os
216
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think we will have it handled in the next week or so. We'll
be up there working that, and then we will try to get that
section between 16 and the school, and then drop the other
side around Shannon and go toward the creek right there and
try to pick that seal up. We won't do around the school
right now; that'll be next year, when I have enough money to
do striping, stuff like that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, question,
please, on Elm Pass. Where are you going to pick it up? At
-- pick it up at the game preserve, Pecan Valley, and then
go out to how far?
MR. ODOM: Well, what we're going to do is --
as a matter of fact, they're up there cutting brush right
now today. We're going to pick up a mile from where we left
off, which I think is called -- what is that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sanders Road.
MR. ODOM: Sanders Road, okay. We're going
to change that intersection up right there and bring it
straight out instead of that wide-angle, but we're going to
cut brush right now, so they're working on that next mile.
They're going to try to cut brush to Elm Pass II.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And we'll work and try to get that
ready. We'll take a look later on and see what my budget
~-ii-vs
217
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is, 'cause I don't have that plan. I just have a mile, so
it's another half a mile in there to go. So, we'll take a
look-see where my money's at, if we can pick that up and
seal to Elm Pass. If not, then we're going to pick it up in
next year's budget; we'll finish -- we'll do a mile. I
think we'd pick up past Elm Pass, but we want to go to the
county line cutting and working that back in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. ODOM: That's over the next couple years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 4? I don't
want to -- don't want to get in your business, but -- one,
two, three -- the fourth one on your list on the front
page --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cutburth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cutburth. That is an
actual -- these are not two words; it's one word, and it's
an old family name over there. And I think it's B-u-r-t-h,
Cutburth.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Road signs are
right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The road signs are
correct, I think.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I was just
going to ask you, is Baldwin --
~-iL-os
218
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Baldwin is correct.
MR. ODOM: Baldwin's still there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We did some work on
Byas Springs, and I see down here we have work on Beach
Road. Isn't that Byas Springs?
MR. ODOM: That is Byas Springs.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Used to be.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Road and Bridge has
done a lot of good -- good work, a whole lot. I mean,
there's a lot of resurfacing going on, and people notice
that, so that's good.
MR. ODOM: We have that section around Clark
Ranch right there; we stopped right there. I think it's W-2
or something like that, ranch, but we hit this Clark Ranch
in there, and then we're going to try to take it back to the
end of our pavement, and we still have some dirt. We're
going to look at next year, trying to clean some things up
over the next couple years, finish this single seal. We've
done some dirt -- we don't have dirt roads; we have all
gravel roads, but we've done some of those this year, so
we're down to the single digits on the amount of roads we
still have left. And --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Len, is Indian Creek
the road that we had a problem with that land owner who
7-11-OS
219
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wanted to put a gate across it?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that --
MR. ODOM: That is sealed. That is sealed.
Well, at this point, I -- knock on wood -- so far, we
haven't had any more complaints.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sealed all the way
back to the gate?
MR. ODOM: We have it sealed all the way back
now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good.
Without anybody getting hurt.
MR. ODOM: And I guess I could go through, if
the Court wants me to, on each precinct on the sealcoat, but
what we're going to be doing -- but we're going to try to do
some seal -- you know, get caught up. Then in the fall
sometime, we'll pick up on the remainder of it and try to
finish it. Anything left, we'll try to finish up before the
end of the budget year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 5 --
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 5, Fall Creek is
in Precinct 1? It's not a different one, is it? It's
Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Well, Fall Creek is in Precinct --
~-ii-vs
z2o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oh, I see what you're saying, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We only have one of
those, huh?
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We only have one of
those?
MR. ODOM: I hope that's all I have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There are some folks
that live out on Fall Creek that swear I'm their
Commissioner, and they have actually voted for me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How'd they do that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know, but I
like it. Its good. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Want to give me their
names so I can go talk to them?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great tax base.
MR. ODOM: And under what -- the way we have
the county divided up, I have five crews working, so we
divide -- it's not just one precinct. They overlap into
where they're -- they're working and all. So, when you look
at this, you say, "Hey, I've got some," but this is the
crews assigned to that and the way these roads hit, and they
knock them out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len, I don't see too much
work being done in Precinct 3. I just thought I'd point
~-ii-os
221
1
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 out. An awful lot being done in 9 and 1.
MR. ODOM: Mr. Holekamp was there, and I just
want to point out there's only 450,000 compared to
1.2 million. So, to -- for me to be able to do that, I do
yours in about four years when we get rolling. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know.
MR. ODOM: -- just look at the computer list
next year; we'll see how it all falls.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, you got
more going on than I do and Commissioner 1 has.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, depends on which
one you're talking about. The speed zones is. But,
speaking of that, on the first page, going back to your --
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I'm reading this,
you're looking at these roads for possible putting speed
limit signs on?
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you thinking 30
mile-an-hour sped limit on these roads?
MR. ODOM: We'll find out what the
85 percentiles are.
DODGE TINLEY: What's that mean?
MR. ODOM: If we have a subdivision, I don't
need a court order; we have it by Vernon statues.
~-ii-us
222
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no subdivision on
any of those in mine. That road's going through --
MR. ODOM: Lane Valley, Hermann Sons, Gaddis
Bluff, Cypress Creek, and Schwartz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no -- I mean,
that's -- those roads aren't going through a subdivision.
MR. ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any of those. So, you're
looking at a speed limit. But you think we need a speed
limit. I agree with you; I think we do. But my question
is, will your traffic flow study come back, or will you come
back with a --
MR. ODOM: I will come back with something.
I will talk to the Commissioner before I start to put this
on the agenda. Each one ought to know where we're at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: We'll take a -- there are
mitigating circumstances. If you take a look at --
Commissioner Williams had one, and which I had the wrong
information. We went back and did a data before, and it
showed 50 miles an hour was the average. That's the reason
we did it 50. I was told the City had 45 down there, but we
looked at it. We've done the same thing over the holidays,
over -- what was it, 4th of July or something like that.
I -- we had four or five days, and I had an average speed of
~ ii-os
223
1
L
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
around -- between 31 miles an hour and 36.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, your count gives you
average speeds as well?
MR. ODOM: Oh yes, sir. My count gives me 85
percentile. The stat -- the manual says to set it at the
85. So, there -- there may be mitigating circumstances; we
may have Mooney traffic when it's running. Just -- and I
don't do that facetiously. I'm just saying there are
mitigating circumstances of a traffic flow that may be, you
know, higher speeds than what's actually out there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one that Leonard
is referencing is Peterson Farm Road, and the Court
adopted -- based on information he gave us earlier, and
republished it and so forth, we adopted 45. Lo and behold,
when we checked to see what the sign says on the -- and
Leonard was misadvised. When we checked the sign coming
west to east -- east to west coming out of Mooney, it's 30.
So, we got one going west to east, 45, and they got one
coming back, 30.
MR. ODOM: It was 35. It was 35 there, and
we had some others, but I -- it doesn't make any difference.
I made a mistake, so I brought it to the Court. But we did
another survey, and that other survey itself was less than
the first survey. But it -- the reason was, Mooney wasn't
running traffic during the holiday.
~-ii os
224
1
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: Okay. I was just curious
what you were doing. That sounds good. I mean, I would
like to know what you would recommend on these -- on roads
in my precinct.
MR. ODOM: That counter will give us the -- I
can even tell what's the actual type of weight
classifications across that, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On some of these roads,
do you go multiple spots on a road?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: It's just not going to be one
place up front. I'll probably put out four counters in an
area if it's long enough to justify putting that in there.
Break it up. What -- we just see that -- that the D.P.S.
and the Sheriff's Department, when there's enough complaints
there, if we have an accident -- we've had, unfortunately,
two working, which signs are out and everything else. But
if they don't have them on there, then I'm sort of caught,
even though I have a placard working, "Road Construction
Ahead" or "Men Working Ahead." People going through there,
I'm told that they can go 55 miles an hour. We're told 60.
The manual says if it's unmarked, it's normally 55.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Len, the speed limit
I've heard the most about over the last two and a half years
~-li-os
zzs
1
L
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
is Goat Creek Cutoff. You and I have driven it, talked
about it. What is it, 30 or 35?
MR. ODOM: I think it's 35. 35.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And you can't drive
that slow on that road, and nobody does.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But they should.
MR. ODOM: But it's narrow. But the other
thing is, is that when you take Goat Creek Cutoff -- and I
don't mean to take the Court's time -- you look at every
driveway that's on there. I think I counted 140 driveways.
And so you start calling a driveway an intersection, you
start having that many intersections and adding to that,
that's like Ranchero Road. You've got 30, and then you've
got another area that's 35 by court order. That is way too
many driveways to allow people doing 45 miles an hour.
Another 10 miles an hour is probably another 100, 125 feet
of stopping ability, and people pulling out of their
driveways, that just -- it's an unfortunate situation. But
it's just too many intersections on Goat Creek Cutoff.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And you know all
about that, and I don't. It just seems to me like where you
have a -- any law, particularly, but a speed limit that's --
that's not right for the perceived conditions, that people
quit paying attention to speed limits. Another place on the
state highway right there near Hunt Crossing, it's 35 miles
~ ii ns
226
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an hour. I know why it is, 'cause there's a lot of children
and tourists and all that. But, you know, you almost can't
go below 45. It takes a conscious effort to get it down to
35.
MR. ODOM: Well, when you take the warrants,
and you look at the warrants on the M.U.T.C.D. and then you
say, all right, I run it. You run it, and your
85 percentile's running in there. There is one warrant. It
says political warrants. So, if the Court determines -- and
that's a determination by the County Commissioners, if we
want to change it. That's the reason I say I will be
discussing it with you, and we'll try to come up with what's
reasonable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's good. I'm
glad you're doing it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, before we
get off this, would you make a note -- either you do it, or
come pick me up sometime and you and I will do it together,
or you can send a member of the crew or somebody up on
Sanders Road. They're out there working now, you told me?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I'm told -- and I
did visit it, so I know it's the case. There is a property
owner there that has put a gate with an electronic --
~-ii os
227
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
electronic opener across Sanders Road way up there. That's
a terrible road, and we both know it. I don't know if the
Sheriff's been up there lately or not. And then, as you go
a little further toward the end of it, there's another
intrusion into the right-of-way, and it's been there, I
guess, a long time. But in that second instance, it's a
cattle loading chute which intrudes well into the
right-of-way. Would you take a look at that? And then you
and I can talk about what we can do --
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I'll take a look at it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- do about those.
MR. ODOM: I'll try to get out there this
week. I won't be able to make it this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
Appreciate that.
JODGE TINLEY: Anything else, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Well, then also attached to this
list are subdivision plats that we've done, and as well as
floodplain construction permits. And the one that you had,
Commissioner Nicholson, was that Casa Bonita. That is
F-005 -- I mean 05-006, I believe, so I got a permit. We're
aware of some of these. And my memory is not what it used
to be; takes me a while to remember some of it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Drive by there and
take a peek in there.
~-11-OS
228
1
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. ODOM: It's supposed to be a two-story
structure like the other one. It's not set on the ground.
It will be in --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I haven't seen the
stilts yet.
MR. ODOM: Well, I -- I can't remember all
the specifics on the thing, but we had it, and I went over
that with Truby. And that was my number on it, so I
remember someone coming there, and I've gone over it. So, I
get a lot of different calls or talks, and I -- but I'm
aware of it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: If they don't do it right,
we'll -- we'll remind them. In a nice way.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Right. I'm open for
any questions, if you have -- or any improvements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like this report.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's helpful to
see what the activity is, and the type of inquiry we've been
getting.
MR. ODOM: You can see, a lot of things that
come into the office, we can handle over the phone, or in
person for a map. Or any questions on platting, a lot of
times Truby can handle it. If not, I'll contact the people
~-ii-us
229
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or meet with these people. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the report,
too. It's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for
Mr. Odom? Thank you, sir. We appreciate --
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
JODGE TINLEY: -- your report. Information
Technology.
MR. TROLINGER: I apologize if I missed the
first call. I had to step out for an emergency call. I
provided a written report as a bimonthly report, and it
speaks for itself. There's a correction on the first line;
the Sheriff's Office had a couple of seized computers, not
newly purchased computers. Specifically, I think the thing
I want to highlight here for us is I finished the evaluation
on our Software Group -- on our mainframe server, how it's
used, what we can do better, and what we can do to replace
it. I saw training as the number one issue, either way.
Another significant item, I'd like to thank the County
Attorney; we're using his server. It used to sit down in
his space, and now we're using it for multiple purposes
county-wide. There will be a consolidation there. And the
issue with e-mail, we're finished with the conversion, I
hope.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be --
~ it-os
230
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would that be what's prompting this love-in between you and
Judge Wright that I'm getting all this mail about?
MR. TROLINGER: I don't know if that's the
core issue or not, but it's -- it's been strenuous for a few
of the users. I think if we look at the end result, we're
going to have a lot of savings in efficiency, unrealized as
~t may be. I've got numbers that I've generated, anywhere
from $25,000 to $100,000 per year in unrealized gains in
efficiency and loss of time by switching this e-mail server.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How's that apply to
Judge Wright and her operation?
MR. TROLINGER: She's going to receive less
-- less unwanted mail in her mailbox. That's the objective
for her. She's received quite a bit from the KTC and
kerrcounty.org account.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spam and pop-ups?
MR. TROLINGER: About 60 messages, she
reported to me last, for -- for one -- coming in on a Monday
after checking it on Friday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the e-mails that
-- well, the copies of the letters I keep getting from Judge
Wright, and I think maybe sent to somebody else, refer to
our personnel -- or our policy on computer or technology
use. I'm just asking you, at some point, to look at our
policy again and make sure that everything -- that you think
~-ii-os
231
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it is efficient. I know one of the concerns was that people
wanted to play music and -- you know, and which is, I guess,
allowed in our current policy, over the computer, or listen
to radio over the computer, things of that nature, if they
wanted to. And I know there's some communication back and
forth about that. And the other one is something about
deleting or changing some -- or e-mails being deleted or
something, not knowing about it. But the bottom line is,
look at our policy and make sure that you think the policy
is still where it needs to be, and mostly on some of the
things -- if there's things that are costing the County
money that are not necessary. For example, it seems to me,
'cause of my computer and my dial-up speed, that whenever
I'm listening to music or video or something over the
computer, the -- it slows my computer down throughout. And
if this is -- and if, by employees doing -- listening to
music and radio on their computer, it's slowing down our
overall system or requiring us to do more upgrades than we
would have to do if they weren't doing it, I'd like to know
that. I think they need to be stopped, 'cause I don't think
it's a priority, in my mind.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay.
~~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: That type of thing. I
would like you to look into --
MR. TROLINGER: To address that, to start off
~-ii-os
232
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
with, I did initiate with Commissioner Williams -- prompted
him for a review of the policy, the network usage policy.
We did not get to that point. I missed you last meeting.
There's quite a bit --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. But,
you know --
MR. TROLINGER: And we are going to proceed
with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good. That's
what Commissioner Letz is saying. You know, it should be a
living document. It's not written in stone; it can be
changed and updated or amended to meet our needs as they
evolve. So --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I thought
MR. TROLINGER: And I did see
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I thought streaming was
against the policy, which is what the listening to music is.
MR. TROLINGER: It is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause we ended it with
all ours when that came out.
MR. TROLINGER: It is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Listening to music is
not allowed on the county computer system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of our employees
thought it was.
~ zi-ns
233
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, he's always said
it wasn't -- it is not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay.
MR. TROLINGER: The -- and I saw that before
-- before the conversion to Time-Warner, I saw the problem
with the network with the bottleneck going on, and I was
going to head that off with the review of the policy. I saw
it was going to take too long, and it just turned out that I
had to turn off all the access to the streaming audio -- to
the music, which is what prompted Judge Wright's first
letter, and for the reason of -- our network was
bottlenecked where there were departments that couldn't do
work, because they have to have access to the state computer
in Austin through the Internet; for example, for the County
Clerk. So, I took the service that was taking the most
traffic, that was doing the most harm to the network, and
since it was against the policy, that's what it took to --
that's the action I took. Instead of going after individual
users and saying, "You can't have Internet access because
you're doing this," I just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So --
MR. TROLINGER: -- disabled it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They thought you could do
it, and you can't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be
~-ii-os
234
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
helpful for you to notify them that you're going to do --
take one of these actions.
MR. TROLINGER: I didn't look at the specific
users when I turned it off.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: I only heard afterwards.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, maybe you can
get a megaphone or something and walk up and down the
hallway and let everybody know. But I just think
somebody -- that that's half the rub.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that they don't get
notified, and suddenly they're turned off.
MR. TROLINGER: Right. And it was an
emergency. It was
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine.
MR. TROLINGER: -- basically a work stoppage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not getting into
that. I'm just telling you that it would help a lot if
people were notified that you were going to do something.
I'm not arguing with whether it needs to be done or not.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At all.
MR. TROLINGER: I will do --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Commissioner's
~-il-us
235
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right. And you know -- you know where the source of the
problem is, right? You can look at the system, tell what
the source of the problem is?
MR. TROLINGER: I could take the time and
find each individual --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In each of these
situations, if you go to the elected official or department
head first and say, "Here's the problem, and here's the
corrective measure," it would ease the problem. It would
ease their angst considerably.
MR. TROLINGER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'd have fewer
letters from our J.P.
MR. TROLINGER: There's a communication tool
in place called the mailing list; actually, several mailing
lists, and one of them is for department heads and chiefs,
where we're just getting everybody signed up on that, and
I'll be able to make a broadcast announcement, so to speak,
more easily than in the past, where I had to -- I didn't
know what all the e-mail addresses were in the county before
this. The -- the second piece on the -- on the Justice of
the Peace 2, Judge Wright, this morning I received another
letter complaining of the e-mail accounts and right to
privacy. I received a -- a call or an e-mail message; I
~-ii-~~s
236
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
can't recall which. She was complaining of Spam last Friday
before last. I didn't get to it probably until -- probably
until late at night, and I logged on to her computer,
cleaned off the Spam e-mail messages, and changed the e-mail
accounts around to the county e-mail, and I left a note on
the computer, which is what I normally do any time that I do
work on computers; I'll leave a note specifying what I did.
And I think that's where this letter came from.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- one of the
things that -- and maybe we need to look at -- bring our
policy back with elected officials, is there is no privacy
on a county computer. I mean, that word doesn't exist. And
if she has a concern about privacy, she needs to come to the
Court and she needs to be explained. I mean, you're using
county equipment and county computers; there's no such thing
as privacy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we may want to
take a look at what she cites here in that regard, 3.5 of
the I.T. policy, which says Right to Privacy. If that needs
to be tweaked or modified, then we can do that.
MR. TROLINGER: I appreciate her documenting
that, so -- I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Maybe there's some others that are affected.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it says here some
e-mails were even deleted.
~ ii-os
237
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TP.OLINGER: That's correct. She had
Spam; unwanted, unsolicited e-mail from, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, she should be
giving you a kiss for that, but I don't think that's -- that
that's what this is saying.
MR. TROLINGER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see any
kisses in here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
MR. TROLINGER: No, there hasn't been many
recently.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, we need to figure
out --
MR. TROLINGER: Well, here's how I treat
people's privacy, because I do feel that it's intruding when
I log on to their computer and do work on it. If I'm doing
regular maintenance or requested maintenance, I do the work,
leave them a message. If I do it during the day, I call
them before I do it. If it's after hours, I leave them a
note. Yesterday -- or Friday, excuse me, I had a request
for -- oh, golly. I had an Open Records request to find the
date that a file -- a particular document had been modified,
when it had been modified, when it had been created. Well,
I didn't just log on to that computer and check it. I went
to that user and said, "Here, I'm going to check for this
~-ii-ns
238
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
file and -- and see what the dates are." So, typically,
when I access a computer, whether I do it remotely or during
the day or after hours, the user knows that I've done the
work. And I'm -- if it's anything that looks like it's
going to upset them, if they're going to get their guard up,
I'm pretty careful to -- to talk with them about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to
belabor the topic about, you know, your correspondence in
relationship with Judge Wright, but there is one sentence
here that I want you to talk to us about. She writes in the
middle of her paragraph, "We would also appreciate any open
files on our computers that we may be working on not be
modified or deleted without consent." Now, what would that
be?
MR. TROLINGER: I do not know what she is
referring to. That's probably a week ago that I -- I made
that change. But I did -- I simply -- if there are any
files already opened, I just -- I don't touch them; I leave
them alone.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When's the last time
you had a sit-down with Judge Wright and her assistant, and
talking?
MR. TROLINGER: Since the -- since before the
music died.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May I suggest that it
7-11 OS
239
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
might behoove us all if you and Judge Wright and her
assistant have a little sit-down and just talk about the
issues, and so you can see if we can get on the same page?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. I've attempted to
break the ice via e-mail by asking if the hostilities had
ceased, but I did not receive a response. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a pretty good
sign they haven't. You may want to take the Sheriff with
you to this little meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can always throw
your hat in the door first and see what happens.
MR. TROLINGER: And I know it's a big issue,
privacy. You know, it looks like I'm in control of
everything, but the fact is, there are 200 e-mail users and
probably 170 computers, and I just don't have time to --
even if I'm not happy with a person, I don't have time to
spend -- whatever you want to call it that they're --
they're saying that I'm doing here, deleting files and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: John, you made a comment,
and I'm -- it was in passing, and I'm trying to figure out
why or how it works. I'm not objecting to it. You said
Open Records requests as to when a file was created and
modified?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you -- how would
~-ii-vs
240
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you get in that loop?
MR. TROLINGER: I received a request via
writing after George Prendergast had approached Ms. Mitchell
about an Open Records request to find out if a particular
document had been modified. I have the original here, if
you'd like to see it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; I guess I'm -- Open
Records requests are -- are good, and open government is
obviously good, but I'm just trying to figure out -- and I'm
a little bit looking at Rex for thoughts on this. At what
point -- I mean, you know, we can get bogged down in -- is
this for me?
MR. TROLINGER: It's a copy of the original.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want it.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not asking for a
copy. It just seems like if we start getting Open Records
requests and asking us to go back and search when
documents -- every time they were changed and modified, is
that under the scope of Open Records for us to do that?
Because, I mean, I can just see -- if -- you know, most of
the time when there's an Open Records request, they're
searching for something. If they want to go back and know
every time a document was modified during that period, boy,
that could really, you know, be difficult. So, anyway, I
7-ii-os
291
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
guess -- and I'm -- I was always taught that Open Records
requests were directed at -- the ones I receive are, "Do you
have any of this information?" And, generally, I don't keep
anything; I throw it all away, so the answer is no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my line of
questioning.
MR. TROLINGER: That's why I want to show you
-- that's why I wanted to show you this document.
Basically, Mr. Prendergast came up to the desk here, asked
for if -- whether or not this had been modified and when.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is that?
MR. TROLINGER: This is the actual original
document, a memo dated October 5th, 2004. Would you like to
see it? There's the original request.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I'm shocked.
MR. TROLINGER: So, he had the original
document. He had asked, "Does it exist on the computer? If
it does, when was it modified last? When was it created?"
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See, my question is,
why -- why didn't he go to the keeper of the record instead
of you? I mean, I don't get that, but whatever.
MR. TROLINGER: I don't know how he was
directed to me, other than --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You feel comfortable
doing this kind of thing?
~ ii os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
242
MR. TROLINGER: No. That's why I went
directly to Barbara and said, "Let's please sit down at your
computer and watch me when I do this."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I guess, Rex, at
some point, we probably need to look at, you know -- well,
our I.T. policy, probably you need to be involved with the
next time we review that, but also as to how John's position
should be involved in Open Records requests, I guess is
really how I'm -- you know, I always thought it went to a
certain office, and that's kind of the county-wide umbrella
thing. I can see if someone's asking -- you know, I can see
if Buster goes to John and asks for help, that's one thing.
But if John gets in -- other than that, if the elected
official or that department asks him for the request, I
don't think the -- you know, John's office should be
involved in it any more than Maintenance should be involved.
MR. TROLINGER: And I did speak with Jannett
before I came to you with the review to --
MR. EMERSON: I think you've got about four
different questions.
MR. TROLINGER: -- to get an idea how that
process works, the Open Records requests.
MR. EMERSON: I think you have about four
different questions inside your questions that you've thrown
~-ii-os
243
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
MR. EMERSON: I think the answer to that
is -- is that any time a department head or elected official
gets an Open Records request, they have a duty to respond.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. EMERSON: John kind of falls in there as
the department head. But, having said that, any information
that's available, whether it's electronic or paper, is open
to public access. Now, having said that, you don't have to
go in and create something that doesn't exist to answer a
question, if that makes sense.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You can't be asked
for analysis.
MR. EMERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You can't assign
them; "I want to look at these percentiles," and all that.
But, under the law, I believe you do have a right to access
any -- any government document.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And one of the
things that the act covers is removal, alteration, or
destruction of government documents. So, it might be that
you -- somebody uncovers a document and says, "This doesn't
make sense. I wonder if this is the original, or has it
~-ii-~s
244
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been altered?"
MR. EMERSON: I think that's correct, if
that's what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I guess my question
is, can the individual just go to John Trolinger -- or, you
know, the I.T. person and make a request for him to do that
query? Or --
MR. EMERSON: I think, as a department head,
my answer would be yes. Now, if John had three people
working under him, I don't think they could go to them. I
think it would bounce back up. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so he can access
your office and look at a lot of things in your office
without you even knowing it?
MR. EMERSON: I think if John gets hit with
an Open Records request for information in my office, you
know, probably the proper response is exactly what John did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
MR. EMERSON: Would be to go to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that 100
percent.
MR. EMERSON: Because, technically, I'm the
one in possession of that information.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
That's just not what I'm hearing.
~ ii os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
245
MR. EMERSON: If somebody serves you with the
information -- with a request for information out of my
office, then you're probably perfectly legal in saying, "I'm
not in possession of that information."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- and I
think we just may need to go over this, basically, the
technology Open Records requests, how to handle this change.
And I think that a request to John for anything out of
John's office, John is obligated to answer, but for John to
be asked -- for someone to ask John to find something from
Rusty or you or me seems odd.
MR. EMERSON: I think that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems out of sync,
because it's -- he may be able to get to the information,
but he does -- he's not the one that has it.
MR. EMERSON: I'm sorry, I guess I didn't
understand what you were saying early on. I agree with you
on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: 'Cause, technically, John's not
the one in possession of that information. He knows how to
access it, but it's not in his area of control.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So he should,
pretty much on request, if it's something that's his
~-ii-os
246
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information in his computers, he should respond like I would
respond. But if he's asked to go into someone else's
department, he goes, "I'm not in possession of that
information. You need to contact this office."
MR. EMERSON: Correct. If somebody served me
with that -- with that information -- information request,
technically, I would have a duty to try to answer it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. EMERSON: If I don't answer it, then I'm
subject to whatever penalties go along with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But his answer --
MR. EMERSON: And John would be the resource
that I would use to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. You may want to
go to John, have him help you fulfill the request. But if
he gets asked for a request directly about your office, his
response is, "I don't have that. You might contact the
County Attorney"?
MR. EMERSON: Yeah.
MR. TROLINGER: Being that it's a technical
issue of accessing the record on the computer, and if the --
you know, if the taxpayer had requested of Rex, "Tell me the
file change date and last access for file XYZ," I think I'd
still get a call from you saying, "Here, come down and..."
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But you should get that
~-ii-os
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
247
call from Re:;. You shouldn't go into Rex's computer and try
and get that information. Rex is -- you control the system,
but he is part of the system. He's in possession of that
information.
MR. TROLINGER: Right. So, what I'm hearing
is the request should have gone straight to Barbara instead
of me going to Barbara, and then carry out the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I see
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or you should have said,
"I don't have it. You need to go there."
MR. TROLINGER: Okay, will do. Understood.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Another scenario
that could occur is, somebody might make an Open Records
request of you and say, "I want to see this document you
prepared two years ago." Your response might be, "I deleted
that," which we do.
MR. TROLINGER: And I have a backup.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They pursue it, say
to John, "Can you help me find that on your hard drive?"
And he probably can do it.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, I can.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I think if it's
still on that hard drive, it probably -- if that request was
otherwise legitimate, that would be something we need to do.
~-ii-us
248
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TROLINGER: As a matter of fact, the last
thing that's not on the written report that I wanted to
mention is that I got a request from the 216th D.A. --
actually, a court order from Judge Ables from the D.A.'s
office to do a forensic analysis of a computer for a
defendant, and I'm underway with that now to do exactly
that, search the hard drive for messages and retrieve those.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did you tell him we
charge $75 an hour for your work?
MR. TROLINGER: I wanted to charge them 100.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Little different than a
court order.
MR. TROLINGER: But it is a court order from
Judge Ables.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last comment -- this is
going back to your monthly report. I don't think there's
anything wrong done, but just as a reminder. I think you --
the first item was you changed out 12 computers. Your
second item is, we're going, I guess, to redo them to give
to the juvenile facility.. Be mindful that any computers
that we have can't be given away. I mean, those computers
were given to be reworked and come back. We can't give
broken or old things away; they have to be declared surplus
and go through auction.
~-li-vs
249
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TROLINGER: Understood. They did all the
work in my office on-site, and then they went straight to
the detention facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying, you deal
with a lot of old machinery. Just remember that it -- it
can't be thrown way. Even if it makes a lot of sense and
does a lot of good, we can't give it to other entities that
may be able to use it; we have to declare it surplus.
MR. TROLINGER: Unfortunately, that's --
basically, Lion's Club basically were volunteers for us.
Actually, Tommy gave me a real good lead this morning. we
had been taking computers completely apart, once they were
depreciated, stripping out all the useful components, and
then sending them to recycle here locally. There's actually
a state agency that will handle that for us, and -- and the
preference for Tommy is that I go through that route to
recycle old components.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? Thank you.
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Facilities and Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Glenn, what do you
want the speed limit on Cypress Creek to be?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Fast as you want to drive.
What do you think?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 25.
~-ii-os
zso
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOLEKAMP: I've got a -- no. I -- I have
a very brief one this time, unless there's some questions.
This last -- since we last met, we completed the County
Attorney's remodel, and my best calculations is -- is by
doing it in-house and with trustees, community service and
et cetera, we saved approximately $10,000 over using a
contractor to accomplish that task. So -- and that's even
just taking the money out for my employees, their time. I
felt like we did pretty good on that project. And we're
about 50 percent finished on a close-in space over at the
Sheriff's Office, which, with a little luck, we'll be out of
there in about a week and a half to two weeks. So, I think
they're changing some office space in the C.I.D. area to --
to make things flow a little easier. We're doing that
in-house. Right now, on our trustee program, we're -- we're
not blessed with any real high, high-level intellect like
those that are fixing to go up, I think, Wednesday in outer
space. So, we're -- we're kind of in a transition right now
with some of our trustees. They're not -- they're picking
up trash on the roads, as all of you noticed. We're doing
quite a bit of that. Generating a lot of trash, quite
frankly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a lot of good P.R.
Doing a great job with that.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. I'm
~-ii-os
251
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a little concerned, in the afternoons, with this oppressive
heat; I'm trying to find areas where they can work without
getting somebody sick, but the supervisor doesn't seem to
think it's a problem at this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, he's in a truck.
MR. HOLEKAMP: He's in the truck. But the
other -- other thing is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Keep the motor
running.
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- Commissioner Williams and
myself, before he went on vacation, before the 4th of July,
we talked briefly about getting with Bob Miller with River
Star on some possible positive changes to the restroom
facility at the park, and that -- I think we'll probably get
back on that as soon as we get that leveled out. Park rules
and booking policies, two areas that -- I don't know; maybe
we can do it all in one document, I don't know, since
they're all under my department, basically. But both things
are issues that I really feel like we're going to have to
tackle. The park thing is -- more and more people are
wanting to use it. They got questions about, "Can I roast
ween'~es down there? Can I set up a camper down there?"
They can't keep it overnight; that is the rules, no
overnight. But I don't have any rule that says they can't
set up a fifth wheel for the afternoon to have a watermelon
~-ii-os
1
2
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
252
party. So, I think -- I think one of the things that we
need to do is kind of discuss this and put it in a policy in
some form or fashion. I don't mind doing a summary to -- to
give y'all some ideas of what I think might work, short of
closing down the park at night, and I don't want to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glenn, we took a run
at that about three or four years ago, as you may recall.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it never got to
completion or fruition.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, somewhere between
your office and mine, there's probably still a draft of what
we were playing with then, and maybe that becomes the basis
to start again.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Could be. And I'm willing to
try to tackle that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- first, I
think it's a separate issue than a booking issue. They
don't need to be combined. And the other side of it is, I
think with the -- as I understand it, they're starting some
work on the bridge across Third Creek.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As that gets moving
forward and that bridge is installed, I think there will be
'1- 11- ~i 5
253
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
]1
12
13
]4
15
]6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
a lot more access, which I think will necessitate more
reasons for rules. And I also think on the roasting weenies
and things of that nature, 1 think if we can find some basic
components, we probably can get the trustees, someone in the
Sheriff's Department, to start building some of this stuff
right there, rather than buying barbecue pits and park
benches and that. I think we can make some of that stuff
pretty easy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Give me the equipment; I
know we got the welders.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying.
I think we -- you know, that way you could have rules. I
mean, we don't want open campfires out there. And the way
you don't have open campfires is you provide barbecue sites
and different sites out there.
MR. EMERSON: Just a discussion --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have some park
benches that are in storage in the Road and Bridge yard that
we picked up out of San Antonio, remember, as a gift? As a
freebie. And some of those went to River Star Park, but I
don't think they took but about six or seven or eight of
them. There's still a bunch of them there that could be
spread out along throughout the park.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex?
~ 11-ns
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
L2
23
24
25
254
MR. EMERSON: I was just going to say, I know
several Boy Scouts looking for Eagle projects.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
MR. EMERSON: I know several Boy Scouts
looking to complete their Eagle projects that would be
perfectly capable of building benches or fire rings or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or frisbee golf courses?
We've been looking at that for a long time.
MR. EMERSON: I'm sure they'd love to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're serious about that.
I think that would be a good, safe thing to have out there.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. 'Cause I'm doing this
for time; I know y'all have been here a long time. Another
question -- or statement is, I know budget is fixing -- and
budget hearings are supposed to start. I just want to plug
a few things into your head for you to think about, as to
the possibility of -- of some of the major repairs or
additions. Commissioner Letz, last time we met, said
something about ventilation fans for the Ag Barn arena.
That might be something that we need to look at. Generator
for juvenile detention. That's an emergency generator. If
y'all are not aware of that, there's one on the new
building, but there's none on the old -- the original
building. And there should have been one, because there's a
pad for one, but there never -- I'm not aware of one sitting
?-ii_~,5
255
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
]8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there, so that's an issue that may need to be addressed in
this budget year. The other thing is, is I've -- and I've
heard this mentioned several times about the trustee
program, expanding it somewhat. Operating equipment. When
we start expanding it -- right now, my department buys the
lawnmowers; we're buying the weedeaters, and we give them
the tools for them to work, which -- and the trash bags.
They're going through almost two boxes -- almost $50 a week
in trash bags, so -- and we're trying to go with a lighter
grade; trying to, you know, stretch this as much as
possible, but if we really get into picking up a lot of
trash -- which is impacting our trash pickup also, you know,
our pickup fees for our trash. I think we need to look at
possibly -- this -- the operating equipment, which is
supplies, needs to be considered at budget time if we expand
the program.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER; If I can mention in
that, there -- there is some funding, with the change in the
law, that we could possibly use some of the inmate
commissary account, but it would not be anywhere enough in
that account to be able to fund all that equipment. But
we're going to have to look at that.
MR. HOLEKAMP: And I'm not complaining. I'm
just saying if you expand the program, it will expand the
expense considerably, so I would really like for that to be
?-ll-DS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
256
taken into consideration. So, questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know what the
timetable is on the bridge across Third Creek?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No. I should have asked
Leonard	a while ago.	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Can't be any sooner
than we	get the spans out fr	om Hermann Sons.
	MR. HOLEKAMP:	But they --
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: It's pretty soon. The
bridge	is done, the new brid	ge. They're working on the
approac	hes right now.	
	MR. HOLEKAMP:	But it's not far off.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Say within a month.
	MR. HOLEKAMP:	Right, I'm pretty sure. Looks
good.	I like the grade that	they -- they used.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: It's a big bridge, anyone
that ha	sn't seen it.	
	MR. HOLEKAMP:	Any questions?
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Glenn, you look good.
	MR. HOLEKAMP:	Oh, thank you.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Need to get a haircut,
but you	look good.	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS; Got hair back.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: That's a good thing.
	MR. HOOD: Th	at's a good thing. Any other
~-11-OS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
zs~
questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, one more thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, Glenn? Wait.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In your -- regarding the
budget that you were talking about, I thought of it; then I
forgot to ask the question. You might get some pricing on
tractors with large mowers that can be used at the airport
and park and possibly other facilities. Just to --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Batwing type.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Batwing type. Whether --
in your department, trustees, whatever, I see a -- you know,
one as a priority. I really would like to look at possibly
more than one tractor, I guess a smaller tractor and a large
tractor; big, open areas versus sma1L areas, and see kind of
what we're looking at.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard can probably
tell you that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. You might
-- I'm not sure if it goes under Leonard or -- well, you can
figure it out. Probably not that hard at all.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I'll probably get with him
anyway and talk about that.
~-ii-us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
258
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Thank you.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Collections.
MR. ALFORD: Afternoon. It -- today must be
Rex Emerson's day, as far as dog and pony show goes. After
reviewing our last year's budget versus this year's budget,
quarter versus year, just real briefly, we're up $46,676 in
the first quarter from last year. For the year, we have
$123,740. And I would like to think that's because of the
aggressive enforcement, whether it be the Sheriff or whether
it be the County Attorney's office, or combination thereof.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know, if
everybody keeps bragging on Rex Emerson here, he'll become
useless. He's going to be coming in wanting a pay raise.
MR. ALFORD: Well, they say it rolls
downhill. We figure we're under Rex; make him look good.
That's basically my whole nutshell, just we're up.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good.
MR. ALFORD: So far this year to-date, we're
at $434,995. So, you know, we'll be half a million probably
pretty quick, next 30, 90 days.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was your
estimate for this budget year?
MR. ALFORD: I don't even try to estimate
what it's going to be because of so many underlying factors;
~-il-vs
259
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
law enforcement, criminal justice. My estimate was hoping
to be half a million dollars, 'cause, you know, that's -- to
me, we cost y'all about $90,000 a year. I figure if we can
make you a half a million, it's probably not too bad of an
investment. Last year we were at 606,000, but with us
already being at 129,000 ahead, I mean, I'm -- I don't know.
I mean, I'm hoping three-quarters of a million by the time
it's all said and done. 'Cause you have to remember, we're
almost a year behind by the time we get these cases done, we
get everybody paid off. And I'd like to see the speed limit
on Roan Road and Wilson Creek at 70.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You got it. You
bring in three quarters of a million, you can have 70 miles
an hour.
MR. ALFORD: That's really all I have. I
know y'all are late, and seems like our bottom figures are
the main thing, so if y'all have any questions on what we're
trying to do, I'll be more than happy to answer them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. ALFORD: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions? Thank you,
sir. We appreciate it.
MR. ALFORD: You bet.
JUDGE TINLEY: What else have we got? I
guess we're down to the approval agenda. Mr. Auditor?
~-ii-us
260
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
First item, the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second it, but I've
got a couple of questions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded.
Questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Page 2 on the bills.
And I know I've asked this, Tommy, since you and I have been
here, 300 to 900 times, and I -- for some reason, Tommy, I
probably still don't remember. I can't get my brain wrapped
around this thing. In the 216th and the 198th both, we
have -- what are you? -- a court reporter that we pay salary
to, and then here in both courts, the court reporters are
charginq us for something.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why -- why is that?
MR. TOMLINSON: They have a good lobby.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Well, the top
one in 216th says court transcript for a certain person.
MR. TOMLINSON: It would be an appeal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appeal, that's the
answer. You think that's both of these courts?
MR. TOMLINSON: Probably so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably so.
7-11-OS
261
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- most cases, that's
what it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I remember that
was what you were saying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not all cases,
however.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that's true.
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Page 15, Juvenile
Detention Facility. I went back and looked at some bills
that we had already paid at the Juvenile Detention Facility
to this Live Oak Industries, and we had -- or they had
purchased some goods from Live Oak Industries, the same kind
of things that we would purchase that I thought we had a
contract, or at least some kind of an agreement with the
Office --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Office Max.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Office Max. And I'm
wondering why -- why are we buying -- who is Live Oak
Industries, and why are we buying office stuff from them? A
facility reception station. What is that?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Chairs, dividers, and
office supplies. There it is. That's $485. And then one
down at the -- a third from the bottom, reimbursement for
7-11-05
262
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
one box of -- what is that word?
JUDGE TINLEY: Fluorescent bulbs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fluorescent bulbs,
$118.
MR.. TOMLINSON: That's probably -- that would
be an interdepartment accounting transfer from Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: To this budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you tell me who
Live Oak Industries is?
MR. TOMLINSON: I guess it's the spouse of
Becky Harris.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Do you have
any idea how much money we have spent with that company,
total?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's several
thousand dollars. And I just -- 1 mean, I understand the
chairs. I think Mr. Williams even has one in his office, or
two maybe. I understand all that. But office supplies,
we -- we have an agreement with another company, and I think
that we should stay with that.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know what kind of
agreement we have with Office Max.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have state funding --
~-ii-ns
263
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I know that. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know either,
Tommy. It's just --
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, there's been several
occasions that we've -- we've purchased office supplies from
different agencies or different companies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it just seems --
I mean, it just seems kind of different to me that we
purchase office supplies -- a department head purchases
office supplies from herself.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And three counties
away. That just seems a little bit strange, that's all.
And I'm just kind of looking for an answer there.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's the reason it's on
here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure that if it
were something illegal, that the legal beagles would be all
over it, which I are not one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we have a shortage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh?
JUDGE TINLEY: But we have a shortage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we have a Sheriff
and a County Attorney sitting right here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I couldn't tell you
~ 11 ns
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
264
whether it is or not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not asking that
question. I wanted to make the Commissioners Court aware
that that's happening here. That's all my questions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I have a question
back on Page 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's under County
Court. And it's not what the topic is; I'm just interested
what the date is. It's mental health cases to Pat Tinley.
The period is '03 to '04 fiscal year. Why is there such a
time lag?
MR. TOMLINSON: The Judge presented the --
the statement to -- to me last September.
JUDGE TINLEY: September.
MR. TOMLINSON: And I -- I intended to set up
a payable on the records for that, and I just didn't do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And so I'm -- we're setting
up payment for -- for the correct amount, is basically what
it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I should be glad that
he's not asking for interest on this, by what you're telling
me.
~-ii-os
265
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
ly
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: It's for hearing fees that --
that he's legally --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- there's no
question --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That we collect from
other counties.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I mean, that
wasn't the question. I was just surprised on the time
period that there would be -- okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've computed the interest,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the only question
I had.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Motion and
second. 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 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 1 is for
Collections Department. They're asking to transfer $274.31
in Postage and 274.31 from Office Supplies to Operating
Equipment to replace a computer in -- in their department.
~-ii-o=
266
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I hope you note
the amount of unexpended postage in that item so that --
MR. ALFORD: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you can adjust it
appropriately in next year's budget.
MR. ALFORD: He's already done it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect I may have -- that's
one of the items we look at to try and amortize, and it was
before the amendment. Any other questions or comments? 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: The District Clerk asked me
to pull that amendment, so it's no longer --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- viable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't get to ask my
7-ii-es
267
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request
Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for Maintenance
from Glenn Holekamp, to transfer $72.07 from Repairs and
Maintenance to Capital Outlay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this to make up the
slight difference in what we --
MR. TOMLINSON: It's -- the invoice is
payable to Custom Carpets, for the downstairs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment? 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 9.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is from Judge Brown.
His request is to transfer $630 from Employee Training to
~-ii-os
268
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Operating Equipment, and that is to replace a printer and a
monitor in his office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 5 is for
Indigent Health Care. This, we don't have a notation on
here, but this -- this amendment is to actually increase the
budget by the sum of $9,104.03 and $1,176.01. We have
current expenses -- eligible expenses for indigent health
care for 36,000, and we only have a $27,120 balance. Same
applies for the next line item. We have current expenses
for our third-party administrator of $2,747, with only
$1,571 remaining.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that include declaring an
emergency?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it does.
z-ii-os
269
1
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: Transfers come from
where?
MR. TOMLINSON: Surplus Funds in that fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, we're going to
do this again next month?
MR. TOMLINSON: Probably so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the rest of the year?
MR. TOMLINSON: Rest of the year. Our
8 percent of our general tax levy is -- is approximately
700,000, so we have --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10,000 to go.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: More or less. 731 -- 631.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion to declare an
emergency and approve Budget Amendment Request Number 5.
Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you figure 630,
do you -- do you include, like, third-party administrator
and those kinds of things? It's just the actual expense?
MR. TOMLINSON: The actual eligible expenses
paid.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what the 8 percent
applies to, the expense, not the administration aspects of
~-ii-vs
270
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
comments? 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is for the 198th
District Court, asking to transfer $717.50 from Special
Trials to Special Court Reporter line item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
MS. PIEPER: Who made the motion, Judge?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or comment? 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. Budget
~-ii os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
271
Amendment Request Number 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 7 is for the
County Treasurer. She's asking to transfer $230 from Books,
Publications, and Dues to Office Supplies.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 8.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is for the 216th
District Court, requesting to transfer $706.25 from Special
Trials to Court-Appointed Services. It's for a
psychological exam for a defendant. Actually, it's for
Vincent Seard.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this -- the
Special Trials, is this the money we budgeted because of
that high-profile murder case?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Yes, it is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And he will most likely
be going back to Vernon within the next couple weeks.
~-ii-os
272
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
45
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This budget
procedure's allowed, but it seems like things like that can
wind up as a slush fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It does.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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. TOMLINSON: I have one, payable to Brett
Ferguson.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: For $3,710. It's for
court-appointed attorney's fees. Actually, this was a June
invoice, so I'm asking for it to be paid with a hand check.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
~-ii-cs
273
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approval of late bill and hand check to Brett Ferguson for
$3,710. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I have
before me monthly reports from the Sheriff, Justice of the
Peace Precinct 2, County Clerk, Constable Precinct Number 1,
Kerr County Juvenile Facility, Justice of the Peace Precinct
1, and Justice of the Peace Precinct 4. Do I hear a motion
that these reports be approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one --
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The juvenile facility,
help me understand. Are you there? June average
population, I understand that. And post-adjudication, I
understand that. So that means there were seven Kerr
County -- of the 20 -- or out of the 30, there -- no, out of
the 21, there were seven Kerr County?
JUDGE TINLEY: What it indicates --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the
~-i~-os
274
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
]3
14
15
16
17
]8
19
~0
21
22
23
29
25
preadjudication was 10, and out of that 10 there were six
Kerr County?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what it indicates.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: June revenue, 73. So,
we -- $7,000 dropoff in -- in May; is that correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what it indicates.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And
expenditures, 151,000. And so we had an increase of -- a
$15,000 increase in expenditures on -- from May. Is that
what that -- okay. I'm reading it right, then. Okay, thank
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions
or comments? 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 reports from any of the Commissioners in their
capacity as liaison committee assignments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'm sleepy
and I'm hungry and I miss my mother, but other than that,
everything is fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll do what we can do to
satisfy those -- those problems.
7- 1 1- u 5
275
1
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: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll see y'all tomorrow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any elected officials
or department heads have any reports they wish to render?
MR. EMERSON; Look up. Just one thing I want
to bring to the Court's attention. It's my understanding
that your Crime Victim's Assistance Coordinator, the
position was set up and funded through June 30th pending the
state grant that was supposed to be in July lst, and I think
we're stuck in a nowhere land -- no-man's Land right now
where the state grant has not come through. But,
technically, the position that y'all created has expired, so
I think probably the next Commissioners Court agenda, one of
you guys needs to put it on the agenda and figure out what
you're going to do with the position.
JUDGE TINLEY: The best information I have at
this point, Mr. Emerson, is that there's been a delay in
getting the paperwork out, but that our funding was high
enough -- our priority was high enough on the list that we
will be funded. But, here again, until you get the official
notification, you don't know what you got; you're exactly
right. And we are in a no-man's land, and I'm not sure who
she belongs to or what manner -- in what manner we're
proceeding at this point in time. Precariously, I would
say.
~ ii-~s
276
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that being said,
based on some of the earlier discussions today, if there's
no position currently, where is she going to be paid from?
Or if there's no money in the position, where is that
paycheck coming from? What account? And if she's -- and if
there's no money if the account, then the individual needs
to be told to stop working. Or, you know, work without pay
potentially until it's resolved.
JUDGE TINLEY: What I'm confident we'll see
pretty quickly is a -- a notification that, effective
July 1, that position's been funded through the grant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I expect that.
But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: However.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: However.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We currently are in a
situation of having an employee that there's no money in the
budget to work, and I think the employee needs to be told.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can you fund it out
of 216th Special Trials? (Laughter.) I'm serious. Can
you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could.
-ii os
277
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Kind of like the Judge
sitting on that Criminal Justice Committee with AACOG. I
know that grant was approved high enough up to be funded --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It scored high.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- when it went to
Austin, but I think all of the grants across the state in
that group, Austin just -- whether it's due to the
Legislature tackling their stuff or the governor's office,
whatever, they've been real late sending out the
notifications that -- when you're going to get your money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Funding problem could
delay the state sending it down.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I actually got, if there is
such a thing, a letter of apology on some of this grant
funding money, that -- that we're sorry that the
notification's going to be late coming out.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I saw that too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I still think that
the employee needs to be told that, as of today, there is no
funding -- or as of July 1st, there was no funding, and I
think the person was on vacation the early part of July, so
I think -- you know, I think it's probably her first day
back to work; that there's -- you know, that there's no
funding to pay you, so stop work until we're advised.
-ii-us
278
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Otherwise, we're asking someone to work without having
money. 'Cause unless we do a budget amendment --
MR. EMERSON: Second part of that is that you
do have somebody working in a position that doesn't exist;
that if they get injured, are they going to be covered by
workers comp or not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I think we
need to notify -- whether it's -- you know, and I would --
the Treasurer's still here. I think it probably comes out
of her office.
MS. NEMEC: To notify her? I don't mind
notifying her.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That, you know --
MS. NEMEC: I guess she won't be getting a
paycheck, then, on the 15th of July.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no funds in the
budget for it. So, I mean, we'd have to do a budget
amendment, or have the grant funds in the next three days.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We get --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to make
a query of AACOG, see where it stands.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I would think that --
I mean, if -- the Treasurer should send a notification that,
as of today, that position does not exist. And --
MS. NEMEC: And also, I would need a court
7- 1 1 i i 5
279
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
order of the position existing with the amount to pay her
and the line item to take it out of, and I don't have that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That should exist,
because you've been paying her.
MS. NEMEC: But that was from the grant.
July 1st --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a temporary arrangement
that ran through June 30th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the only funding that
we provided in the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't do a court order
today, but clearly you can get that information, what it
would have been. But I think, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me put in a call
tomorrow and see where it stands, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think what Barbara's saying,
the only court order she has now is to pay only through
June 30th. She doesn't have anything beyond that.
MS. NEMEC: So, even if you get funding
tomorrow, I still can't pay her.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, if you can
just send a letter out saying that, you know, until our next
court meeting, that job doesn't exist --
MS. NEMEC: I will do that.
~-ii-os
zso
1
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: Does Mrs. Lavender
know that?
JUDGE TINLEY: She knows that this whole
thing on the grant funding is up in the air. We had a
general discussion about it last week sometime. But --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't feel very
good about this situation. It's pretty shabby treatment to
have somebody by letter say, "You've been working the last
four weeks; we're not going to pay you."
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I'm confident that it'll
ultimately get resolved, but we -- we still got these other
issues to be concerned about. What if it doesn't? And what
if there's an injury? There's a lot of what-ifs here.
MR. EMERSON: If I may expand on that, just
for the Commissioners' comfort, we had several discussions
about it prior to her going on vacation for two weeks, and
she knew that when she came back, the position may or may
not be there, depending on what happened at the state level.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's better.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think this will just be a
matter of memorializing what legally our position is right
now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think it's going to
come as any surprise to her.
ii-~s
281
1
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: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: If and when the grant funding
is approved, and -- and the -- and the position is an
authorized full-time position, then, of course, it's going
to kick in, and it'll kick in effective presumably as of
July 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just thinking the
formal letter should come from the Treasurer's office, and
then Rex can explain the situation. Doesn't -- doesn't Rosa
report to you?
MR. EMERSON: Well, kind of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's another issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: We've had that discussion
several times. Rosa and I have probably had this discussion
half a dozen times or more, that we were caught in limbo
with the position expiring June 30th, but no grant money to
pick up the new position.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's different.
She's not being bushwhacked.
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not really.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, she's knows it's up in the
air.
~-ii-os
282
1
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: But, Number 4, she
worked here, what, a month and a half and took a two-week
vacation?
(Court reporter ran out of paper. Discussion
off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was your question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything you had to say,
Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not a thing. I'm
ready to go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have nothing. Weren't
we going around the table? I have no comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? We'll stand
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:30 p.m.)
~-ii-o~
283
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 20th day of July, 2005.
JANNETT PIE PER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : ___ _ ~f~ ~(~----- -
Kathy Ba ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
~-ii os
ORDER N0.29237
Hill Country Shooting Sports Center
Came to be heard this the 11~' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 to approve the City of Kerrville Economic Improvement Corporation's project to
provide funding to the Hill Country Shooting Sports Center.
ORDER N0.29238
HOT CHECK COLLECTION
Came to be heard this the 11~' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 4-0-0 to approve the contract with Public Data.Com for data search capability
used with the Hot Check Collections.
ORDER N0.29239
RESOLUTION
SERGEANT JOHN STAFFORD DAY
Came to be heazd this the l la' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 4-0-0 declaring July 11, 2005 as Sergeant John Stafford Day in Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 29240
KERRVILLE SOUTH SEWER PHASE II & III
Came to be heard this the l ls' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 4-0-0 to award the construction contract for Phases 2 and 3 under Contract
Numbers 722411 and 723095 and 724441 for the continuation of the Kerrville South
wastewater project
ORDER N0.29241
WAIVING PLAT REVIEW FEES
Came to be heard this the l ls' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 to waive the O.S.S.F. plat review fee for lots 36, 37, and 38 in Southern Hills
Phase Two.
ORDER NO.29242
HEAVENLY ACRES
Came to be heazd this the 11~' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 4-0-0 the preliminary plat of Heavenly Acres.
ORDER NO. 29243
WOODS TRAILS RANCH, TRACT 56
Came to be heard this the l1`" day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 the revision of replat of Tract 56, Woods Trails Ranch.
ORDER NO. 29244
LEDGE STONE SUBDIVISION
Came to be heard this the l la' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 the Preliminary Plat of hedge Stone Subdivision as per the presentation.

ORDER N0.29245
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR ARCHITECTS FOR COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 11`s day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 to authorize the Sheriff to prepare RFQ's to be sent to azchitects for study on
addition to the existing county jail.
ORDER N0.29246
FLOOD PLAIN ADMINISTRATOR
Came to be heard this the I l~h day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 directing the Flood Plain Administrator to deny permits when there is a violation of
Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
ORDER NO. 29247
ELECTION JUDGES AND ALTERNATES
Came to be heard this the 11~' day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 the Election Judges and Alternates for the term of one (1) yeaz as presented.
ORDER N0.29248
ELECTIONS
Came to be heard this the 11`s day of July 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by
vote of 4-0-0 to authorize the County Clerk and the County Attorney to enter into a
negotiations contract with Hart Intercivic for a voting system that is certified by the
Secretary of the State to meet the HAVA requirements.
ORDER NO. 29249
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 11~ day of July 2005, came to be considered by the Court vazious
Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
10 -General	$100,757.82
14- Fire Protection	$10,416.67
15 -Road & Bridge	$32,670.86
19- Public Library	$26,944.08
50- Indigent Health Care	$38,972.72
61-1998 Tax Anticipation Note	$768.50
76- Juvenile Detention Center	$5,646.49
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED	$216,177.14
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 29250
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COURTS COLLECTIONS
Came to be heard this the 11`" day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes
Expense Code	Description	Amount
10-429-569	Operating Equipment	$548.62
10-429-309	Postage	($274.31)
10-429-310	Office Supplies	($274.31)
ORDER N0.29251
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COURTHOUSE & RELATED BLDGS.
Came to be heard this the 11`s day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amount
10-510-570 Capital Outlay $72.07
10-510-540 Repairs & Maintenance ($72.07)
ORDER N0.29252
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY COURT AT LAW
Came to be heazd this the l ls' day of July 2005 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 expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amount
10-427-569 Operating Equipment $630.00
10-427-216 Employee Training ($630.00)
ORDER N0.29253
BUDGET AMENDMENT
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
Came to be heard this the l l~h day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to declare an emergency and transfer the following expense codes from the Surplus
Funds in that fund.
Expense Code Description Amount
50-641-200 Eligible Expenses $9,104.03
50-641-486 Third Party Administration $1,176.01
ORDER N0.29254
BUDGET AMENDMENT
198`" District Court
Came to be heard this the l la' day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amount
10-436-494 Special Court Reporter $717.50
10-436-417 Special Trials ($717.50)
ORDER NO. 29255
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY TREASURER
Came to be heard this the l la' day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amount
10-497-310 Office Supplies $230.00
10-497-315 Books, Publications, Dues ($230.00)
ORDER N0.29256
BUDGET AMENDMENT
216TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 11`h day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Amount
10-435-401 Court Appointed Services $706.25
10-435-417 Special Trials ($706.25)
ORDER N0.29257
LATE BILL
COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY
Came to be heazd this the l ls' day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount of $3,710.00 to Brett Ferguson from expense
code 10-435-402 for Court Appointed Attorney fees.
ORDER N0.29258
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the l la' day of July 2005 with a motion made by Commissioners
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
Sheriff
JP. 1, 2, and 4
County Clerk
Constable Pct # 1
Kerr County Juvenile Center