1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, December 3, 2007
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
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
v
(~'
q
f'n
4
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
December 3, 2007
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt Kerr County Employees Health Benefits
Plan for 2008 and establish employee/retiree
contribution rates for dependents and retirees
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
information and alternative elections received
from TCDRS on retirement funding and take
appropriate action to finalize TCDRS plan and
elections for Kerr County for 2008
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
request to use portion of Courthouse grounds
and parking area on early morning of December 11,
2007, for Cowboy Breakfast in connection with
local area and Hill Country District Junior
Livestock show activities
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
confirm plan for issuance of County cell phones
to County officials and employees and termination
of reimbursement by County for individual cell
phones and/or cell phone use
5.1 Reports from Commissioners
--- Adjourned
PAGE
3
26
32
35
55
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
3
On Monday, December 3, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let me call to order this
special Commissioners Court meeting posted for this time and
date, Monday, December the 3rd, 2007, at 9 a.m. It is a bit
past that time now. The first item on the agenda is to
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt Kerr
County Employees Health Benefits Plan for 2008 and establish
employee retiree contribution rates for dependents and
retirees. And, of course, as the Court knows, this matter is
a matter that we address every year, and we're going with a
new provider, since Mutual of Omaha is no longer in the
business beginning January 1. So, Mr. Looney, we'll turn it
over to you at this time, our consultant.
MR. LOONEY: Judge, good morning. Commissioners,
good morning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Morning.
MR. LOONEY: We went through the process, you know,
two to three weeks ago, and during that time frame, it was
prior to the November 1st period -- or prior to November when
a lot of the information that the -- the stop loss
12-3-07
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
underwriters needed was not available to them, because they
wanted it in a timely manner towards the end of the year.
So, we took all of the information we had on the managed care
information that we had and produced that and gave it back to
the people who bid on the rebid process, and that information
was given to them so that we could develop fixed and final
rates on behalf of the County. In doing so, we went back and
also reviewed all of the rates and rating structures of the
rebid process. The original bids were -- were filed away,
destroyed, whatever, and we started over again. We lost a
bidder during the process, but the rest of the bidders pretty
much resubmitted bids, and then with the managed care
information, were able to give us fixed and final numbers
going forward with 2008. That information is in the
spreadsheet that you have. We looked at several things. One
was the fact that we had a setup fee, in many cases, where
the companies wanted to initially have fees for setup. Then
we had fees for the runoff claims that we were looking for to
determine what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's a runoff claim?
MR. LOONEY: Runoff claims are the claims that
Mutual of Omaha would have been responsible for had the case
carried forward into next year, those claims that were
incurred in November and December that will not be submitted
until January or February for payment. We wanted to find out
12-3-07
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
if there was a manner in which our new administrator would be
that fee might be in relationship to the new carrier.
After we examined all the information, we got all
of the requests in for what they call lasers. A laser is an
additional fee that is charged in relationship to any one
given specific individual or individuals that increases the
deductible that the County would be responsible for for
payment of a claim. Our current deductible is $50,000, so a
laser would mean that one individual that had a serious
medical history, that they potentially would charge an
additional fee for the losses incurred by that one
individual; they would raise their deductible. After the
examination that was done by the different underwriters, two
of the companies came back and requested lasers, one on one
individual, increasing the liability to 150,000. The other
-- another carrier came back with what they call an
aggregated specific on two individuals, which, again,
potentially increases the liability up to possibly an
additional 150,000. The recommendation that we're going to
make to the FAR.A third-party administrator has no lasers.
12-3-07
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There's no lasers, no additional deductibles required in any
of the individuals that are currently insured under the plan.
They have also agreed to waive all expenses for any setup
fees that might be incurred. They've also agreed to waive
any expenses that were incurred as a result of paying runoff
claims. So, there's no charges for the runoff claim payment
and there's no additional charge for setup fees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The fees are waived, but the
services remain the same?
MR. LOONEY: Services remain the same. You see by
the numbers that -- that not only from the fact that they
have no lasers, but their overall expense ratio with maximum
aggregate attachment point is the most competitive of the
bids that we received. That's the million, 893 number. It's
at the very bottom of the page, on the second page under the
FARA, F-A-R-A, heading.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- in evaluation of these,
how do you rank the total fixed versus expected versus max
number? I mean, what's the -- I guess, the criteria as to
what's the most important out of those three numbers? I
mean, I don't know -- to me, it doesn't seem intuitive that
the maximum is always the best measure or the only measure
you look at. You have to look at all three of them kind of
together.
MR. LOONEY: Well, we look at all three of them
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
together. The fixed cost is an important -- if there's a
huge variation in the fixed cost, then if it's added back
into or reduced from the maximum aggregate cost, you have to
kind of look at those in combination. But the fixed cost for
FARA in this situation is one of the lowest fixed costs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the last time we went
through these, I think -- talking about the agents, is Don
Wallace the agent in all these?
MR. LOONEY: No. There was one -- one company that
bid without agents, but I understand y'all received a letter
that said that if you wanted to include the agent, that there
was additional expense?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They said it would be 2,800 a
month from Entrust; they'd be glad to use Don Wallace. What
-- I guess, has the function of the agent changed since we
started the H.R. Department? Maybe I should ask Eva that
more than you.
MR. LOONEY: I was going to say, that's not a
question that I...
MS. HYDE: As far as -- I'm not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm -- I mean, what is
the agent doing to earn his keep?
MS. HYDE: Well, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or maybe I should ask Don that.
MS. HYDE: -- they do quite a bit. Number one, as
12-3-07
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the agent of record, I'm not an insurance agent. When we do
insurance problems, if we can't get an answer, if we can't
get information, then we're able to go through the agent, and
the agent can put additional pressure on the insurance
company to get us -- get us the information we need. And
this year he was pretty darned important, because there was a
lot of times that we couldn't get information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, he's acting as a -- I
MS. HYDE: At times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or the --
MR. LOONEY: During this particular time frame,
totally new enrollment with a new company. There will be a
lot of one-on-one action involved. As a matter of fact, one
of the things I wanted to -- because we're having the new
carrier pay the claims on the runoff base, there's going to
be about a 60- to 90-day period during which the employees
and the local providers need to be made aware of the fact
that this transition is taking place, because there may have
been claims submitted to Mutual of Omaha under an old -- what
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
will become an old number, an old classification. It may
have to be resubmitted to the new carrier for payment
purposes, and we need to make sure we get that communication
link specific -- you know, very specifically available to
employees so that in case claims are held up or, in some
cases, denied by Mutual of Omaha, that the individuals will
understand that they need to reestablish that claim process
with the new carrier, and then we pay it on the same basis of
the claims that were incurred by Mutual of Omaha. So, it's a
communication process. It's going to be very important and
the agent's going to be very much involved in that process.
The numbers that you see back in June and July, I
had projected where I felt we were going to be for 2008 and
used some of those numbers for budget purposes. The budget
numbers that you have set do not have to be changed in
relationship to this proposal, as it falls under that budget
number that you all set back in -- when you set your budgets.
Now, there are a couple of other situations, and one is the
employee contribution level is not required to be changed
based on this proposal, so the employees do not have to have
an additional premium payment going forward in 2008. The
premiums that they're currently contributing to the plan are
sufficient to meet the funding requirements of the program.
There are some changes that I feel should be made
administratively to the plan, and this is the time to do
12-3-07
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
under whatever the dependent category is. They are not
independent and out on their own, but you are paying
i maternity expenses and pregnancy expenses for dependent
children. I think that should be removed from the plan.
The other situation is just timing for new
employees. Currently, we have a period of time -- I believe
it's the lst of the month following 30 days of employment.
We'd like to change that to the 1st of the month following 60
days of employment, to give a little more time to determine
whether or not that person is actually going to be a longer
term employee for the county. It's just 30 days additional,
and it gives a little more time frame for you to determine --
or y'all to determine whether the employee's going to stick
around with you. The other thing is, I'd like to change the
definition for dependent child to be to the age of 24, but
after the age of 19, be required to be attending an
additional college or other training for educational
purposes. Some licensed school or other qualified
educational institution up to the age of 24, rather than an
open-ended dependent coverage up to the age of 24.
The other circumstance I'm concerned about is that,
as we talked about earlier at one of the meetings, one of the
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
prescription drug program. When I look at the prescription
drug program to determine who the -- the benefactors are, a
lot of the benefactors are your retired employees that you
have on the plan. You have not that many, but you have
benefit has not changed in about three years. We requested a
change a year ago, but it didn't happen. So, benefit plan.
And they're also paying $105 per month for their dependent if
that we got in place for them. Plus that prescription
benefit program is -- if they're over the age of 65, then
they're utilizing that substantially because Medicare has
that Part D, which doesn't cover prescription drugs very
well, so there's a lot of medications flowing through that
process. The recommendation is to go ahead and increase that
premium that's required. We asked for $125, I believe,
either last year or the year before, and it didn't happen, so
now we're asking that to move up to $135 a month, which is
still a very reasonable fee to be paying for the benefits
that they're receiving. That 135 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From 105 to 135?
MR. LOONEY: Yes, sir. The other portion of that
12-3-07
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
spouses that -- that are much younger, and so they're not
paying the same -- they're paying the retiree fee, and they
should be paying, I think, the same fee that any employee is
paying to receive the benefits for spousal coverage, so that
the same contribution will be made. Now, again, the
recommendation is that you've already got retirees and
retiree spouses that are paying that set fee. Leave that in
place, that -- move it to $135, grandfather those people into
that benefit, so that the spousal coverage is not -- but
future retirees, that they -- then the spouse will be paying
the same that any employee will be required to pay for the
spousal coverage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that amount is?
MS. HYDE: For right now, the amount is -- I didn't
think fast enough. For a spouse, it's $240 per month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's going from --
MR. LOONEY: Well, it's -- right now, if they're an
active employee, that's what they're paying.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And retirees are paying
how much for their spouse? 105?
MR. LOONEY: 105 right now. So, I'm saying
grandfather those people; don't change that for those
individuals. But for future retirees, have them pay the same
spousal fee, actually, that they were paying as an active
employee.
12-3-07
13
1
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: Don't change current spouses and
employee -- current retirees and spouses, except raise that
from 105 to 135?
MR. LOONEY: Except move it to 135.
JUDGE TINLEY: And future retirees and spouses
would be under the regular rate schedule?
MR. LOONEY: No, the 135.
JUDGE TINLEY: Employees --
MR. LOONEY: The 135 rate for the retiree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. LOONEY: And then --
JUDGE TINLEY: Spouse would be at the regular
dependent's spouse rate.
MR. LOONEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What is the impact right now
of a $30 increase per month per retired employees?
MR. LOONEY: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand
the question.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. How much would that
impact the budget? How many -- how many retirees are there?
MR. LOONEY: We only have about 7 or 8 retirees.
MS. HYDE: There's 12.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Twelve retirees at 30 bucks a
month, basically. $360 a month.
MR. LOONEY: Right.
12-3-07
14
1
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 OEHLER: 4,000-something a year. I
don't know.
MS. HYDE: The problem is that -- let me start
again. In 1994, the cost for a retiree's insurance was $387
a month. In 1995, it went down to 105. It's been at 105
since 1995. It's never increased. Last year, Commissioners
Court said it needed to go to 125, and it didn't go there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not?
MS. HYDE: It was not put into place by the
Treasurer's office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Recall the Rangers. Oh, my
god.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's not that much of a
budget impact, but I think they need to probably make the
change.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Well, I just wanted to
know how many there were.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't really make that much
difference, I mean, in the big picture of the total budget,
but --
JUDGE TINLEY: The definition of a dependent
basically conforms to I.R.S. --
MR. LOONEY: I.R.S. guidelines.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does I.R.S. now go to 24 instead of
23? I was thinking it went to 23. I see a nodding of the
12-3-07
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
head back there.
MS. SMITH: State of Texas -- the state of Texas is
age 24.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are there -- in any of these
proposals, are there other fees than the bottom three
numbers? Is there something else that we're going to be hit
with? I mean, is the -- like, the FARA recommendation is
1,893,895.68. Is that the actual -- that's what we're
paying, no more than that max number? Or are there --
MR. LOONEY: That's a combination of fixed cost
plus the projected claim cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But that's the
amount -- that is the max?
MR. LOONEY: That's the max under that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no -- but are there any
other fees associated with this anywhere? You know, employee
fees, claim fees, broker fees, anything else in there?
That's --
MR. LOONEY: I don't know. We've -- we've gone
through the contract pretty thoroughly to find if there was
any additional printing charges or other legal charges,
things of that sort, and pretty much identified that that fee
changes on a monthly basis in relationship to your total
population.
12-3-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. LOONEY: The fee is based on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. LOONEY: It fluctuates on a monthly basis. Not
the fee, but the dollar amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. And -- but setup fee was
waived, and the run-in, run-out was also waived?
MR. LOONEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gary, what accounts for the
variation in the total fixed, as I look across the line?
MR. LOONEY: A lot of it has to do with the premium
and stop loss insurance, as to the amount of premium required
by the stop loss carriers. There are some variations in the
actual per-head administration cost, but those are relatively
minor. Primarily, the biggest change or the biggest cost is
the stop loss insurance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are there -- are there any of these
bidders that have fees which are not included in the
tabulation which, in essence, need to be added to any of
those bottom figures that we're looking at?
MR. LOONEY: The only -- the only fee that's
difficult for us to identify is a fee that is a
per-transaction fee -- per-transaction fee that's charged as
', a result of claim payments that are being made. That fee was
projected by one of the bidders, and there's been an
12-3-07
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
estimation in the past that there was maybe .5 to .7 claims
that would -- times the number of employees per month. And
that can range anywhere from an additional $9,000 to $12,000
a year in cost, based on those transaction fees. But that's
an estimate. That's --
MR. MOHON: It's included in the maximum cost.
It's already included in there.
MR. LOONEY: It's included in the maximum?
MR. MOHON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: On an estimate that you've
indicated?
MR. LOONEY: I don't know. Is that --
MR. MOHON: Yes. Yes, sir.
MR. LOONEY: Is that lowest?
MR. MOHON: Yeah. I haven't done the math on it,
but it's included. We've included the -- your max cost is
your max cost.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're about to get engaged
in open enrollment, and we're changing administrators. Do we
see any anticipated delays for the employee group in terms of
identification cards and all the kind of things that are
necessary when they go in the marketplace?
MS. SMITH: No. FARA brought on 20,000 employees
for the State of Louisiana, and had their ID cards to them in
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
10 days, so we have a very good system. Our enrollment
process is very smooth. There's going to be bumps when you
go with a new carrier, but we react very swiftly.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only question I have is, the
open enrollment's going to be online; is that correct?
MS. SMITH: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And going to be done out at
ours. I think you had asked for a 10-computer setup, and
this setup was six.
MS. HYDE: We'll be fine.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
MS. HYDE: We'll be fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gary, what is the reason for
going with FARA as opposed to Group and Pension
Administrators, Inc.?
MR. LOONEY: Group and Pension Administrators
included a laser for one individual. They would have
increased -- potentially increased their maximum cost by an
additional $150,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Fixed costs appears to be
considerably higher, too, by about $60,000.
MR. LOONEY: That had to do with the stop loss
insurance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
(Discussion off the record.)
12-3-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're -- whether you're
taking the lasering or not lasering into account, FARA has
the lowest price?
MR. LOONEY: Right. Well, they're pretty much the
lowest price anyway, even without the laser.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Boston Mutual is a little
bit lower, their max number and on their expected, but
anyway, if you add the lasering, that changes that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Considering the evaluation factors
as set forth in the Request for Proposals, it's your
recommendation that the Court accept the proposal from FARA?
MR. LOONEY: That's correct, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: As well as the implementation of the
matters that you set forth with regard to the effective --
MR. LOONEY: Changes in the benefit structure.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- change to 60 days from 30 days,
and remove dependent pregnancies, and the definition of
"dependent" requires attendance at some sort of qualified
school between 19 and 24, as well as the changes to the
retiree plan that you've recommended?
MR. LOONEY: And the -- we get very specific in our
definitions of age. You know, it's up to the age of 19,
which means it's through the end of their 18th year, so it's
up to the age of 19. And it's up to the age of 24, so it's
23 and 364 days plus. So, it's right up to those birthdays,
12-3-07
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rather than through the end of the age of 24 or the end of
the age of 19.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: The renewal for the life insurance was
also the -- Mutual of Omaha has renewed the life insurance at
the same premium rate that was in effect previously. There's
no change in the life insurance premium.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's -- I'm assuming that
when we vote, that we are going to vote for all of these
things at one time, accept the company as well as these
recommendation changes here. So, if we're doing that, I'd
like to -- I'd like to be really clear on this pregnancy
issue. Just -- I just want to make sure that we're all
riding the same boat. Right now -- what are we doing right
now? We're covering --
MR. LOONEY: Dependent children pregnancies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dependent children that live
in the home of their parents.
MR. LOONEY: Just has to be determined that they
are a dependent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: Which means you are under the I.R.S.
regulations. Typically, that means you're more than
50 percent of the support of that child during the previous
year. You provide housing, nurturing, food, shelter, and at
12-3-07
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
least 50 percent of the cost of that process for that
dependent. It's an I.R.S. definition -- federal I.R.S.
II definition for a dependent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the -- I've
I always --
'~, MR. LOONEY: Just as an example --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: Okay. If you have the dependent
classification up to the age of 19 -- up to the age of 24
that doesn't require attendance at school on a full-time
basis, then that individual -- young lady who becomes
pregnant at the age of 22 or 23, who is not attending school
on a full-time basis, could, during an open enrollment
period, were she pregnant, come back on your plan to receive
benefits for the pregnancy by moving back home with her
parents during that time frame.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so we're removing that
potential?
MR. LOONEY: We're removing that from the benefit
plan as -- as an option.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But if they lived at home the
whole time and are going to school and become pregnant,
they're still not --
MR. LOONEY: Still would not be covered for
pregnancy.
12-3-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've always understood that
my son had to be in college or he wasn't covered. That's
what I've always been told.
MR. LOONEY: Well, it's -- that was not the
definition in the previous plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So this is not a shock to
me.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the dependency definition
under I.R.S. rules for claiming the exemption has essentially
been what your understanding was. That's probably where you
got that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still think we ought to
call the Texas Rangers in on this deal, get it straight.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Probably.
MR. LOONEY: Are you comfortable with changing the
fees for the retirees? That's part of --
', COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm not comfortable with
that, but I'm willing to do it. I think it's a little bit
steep, in my own -- my own opinion. We're going to catch
hell over it, I can tell you that right now.
MR. LOONEY: I think that if you check and see,
you'll find that that fee is not out of range as far as some
of the large insurance companies' fees for Medicare
supplement plans and things of that sort. You're going to a
12-3-07
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
-- an independent insurance company to purchase the Medicare
supplement types of plans. And the Medicare supplement plans
typically do not cover prescription medications. And
prescription medications is primarily the reason that they're
continuing the contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not comfortable with it,
but I'm going to vote for it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Call Bruce.
MR. LOONEY: Are you nearing retirement?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If what the Court had
authorized back a year ago had gone into effect --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- it would only be a slight
increase. Now it's a 30 percent increase for one year.
Which that's not going to be too palatable for some of those.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it's kind of steep for
some of them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But --
MR. LOONEY: You gentlemen have the ability to set
that fee at any fee you want to set it at. That's just our
recommendation.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you go back to 1995 and put in a
COLA, you'd probably be beyond that, wouldn't you?
MR. LOONEY: Substantially.
12-3-07
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And this also includes --
what do you call the other things that employees can get?
MR. LOONEY: This has nothing to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This doesn't have anything to
do with any of that?
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is strictly --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Health.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's got the -- it does have the
life insurance feature attached to it, however, the $20,000
that we've had attached to the employee health benefits plan.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I didn't see that in here.
That's why I was asking the question.
MS. HYDE: It also has the cafeteria plan, so our
major medical is now going to be done cafeteria plan.
MR. LOONEY: Those fees are listed in there, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? What did I miss?
JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like FARA's proposal on that
was better than the others also. Okay. Any other questions?
Comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the health
insurance program, and issue the contract to FARA, with stop
loss to Monumental Life, as proposed by our consultant, Gary
Looney, in his letter to the Court dated December 3, 2007,
12-3-07
25
1
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 all of the other recommendations attached thereto.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I have a second?
I
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I'll second it.
', JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't hear. We
have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation of
the consultant to award to FARA on the proposal, and
incorporate all of the changes as set forth in the memorandum
by the consultant. Question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
Mr. Looney.
MR. LOONEY: Thank you, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate all your hard work.
MR. LOONEY: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mrs. Hyde?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got married again, huh?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Hyde?
12-3-07
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
MS. HYDE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you notify the
retirees -- when you --
MS. HYDE: I'm going to ask for, like, a steel -- a
steel thing to get into.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:. No, what do you is add the
County Judge's home phone number in there, just to the
retirees only. There's only 12.
JUDGE TINLEY: So I can put on my -- my recorded
announcement the respective Commissioners' phone numbers, in
case they reside in Precincts, 1, 2, 3 or 4.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to have my phone
disconnected.
MS. HYDE: Thank you, gentlemen, for your support.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 2; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on information and
alternative elections received from T.C.D.R.S. and retirement
funding and take appropriate action to finalize T.C.D.R.S.
plan and elections for Kerr County for 2008. Ms. Hyde and
the Auditor, I believe, were at a T.C.D.R.S. conference --
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in which various subjects were
discussed, and as a result of that, Ms. Hyde wanted to appear
before the Court and have us take a look before
12-3-07
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 15th, which is our final date for finalizing our
2008 elections under the T.C.D.R.S. plan.
MS. HYDE: There was -- there were a couple of
things, I think, that both the Auditor and myself were
surprised at. The first one was that we can have the
matching program up to 2.5 percent. Our understanding was
that we were at the max, and so we definitely perked up and
went into these meetings to make sure that we picked up every
bit of information. So, what you have there is plan rates.
If we decide we want to go to 210 percent matching rate, it
would be at 9 percent. Our current budget plan for
T.C.D.R.S. was 8.99 this year, so that would be a little bit
over our budget, but we could go to the 200 percent plan,
which is at 8.59, which means we would still be under --
under budget, but we could increase the matching rate. And
that would be only for future; it would not be retro. We
would not go backwards. It would only be from this day
forward, for futures. We could not -- we could not afford to
go backwards.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why does this say "No
buy-back" on it?
MS. HYDE: Where?
JUDGE TINLEY: Buy-back was a year at a time. You
do that a year at a time.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, okay.
12-3-07
28
1
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: And we did it for '07 only.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: It was in effect during '07.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. Thank goodness.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The required rate for '07
was 8.51, correct? That's what I see. And the proposed rate
that we budgeted for '08 is --
MS. HYDE: 8.99.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 8.99. That's what we
put in the budget?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir, because the budget -- we
budgeted prior to T.C.D.R.S. telling us what the rate was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HYDE: So we assumed that it would go up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Williams, what is the cost of
one-one-hundredth of a percent? For example, 8.99 to 9.00,
that's a one-hundredth of a percent. What is the budgetary
impact of that? Stated another way, what is our annual
payroll?
MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, lord. Right now our payroll is
running over --
JUDGE TINLEY: Gross.
MS. WILLIAMS: Gross?
12-3-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. WILLIAMS: I can tell you it's running over a
million dollars per month for our payroll for this current
calendar year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: $12,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: $1,200. That's one-ten-thousandth.
Yeah, 9 percent is 9 one-hundredths, and you take a hundredth
of that. Just move over four decimal places.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Talking about 12 million?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Times .O1 -- .001.
JUDGE TINLEY: .0001. 9 percent is .09.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's right. $1,200. $1,200,
$1,500.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Almost nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of go along with the
Judge's -- he didn't say anything, but he was going down the
road to say we ought to go up to Plan 2 that was proposed,
which gets us up to 210 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, say that again?
JUDGE TINLEY: Closest in line with what we've
budgeted, obviously.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plan 1?
12-3-07
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Plan 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would be about from $1,200 to
$1,500 more than what's in the budget, but would get us
closest to the maximum contribution rate, which is a pretty
good benefit for employees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Were you able to get a compilation
summary of -- from T.C.D.R.S. of what other counties have
done?
MS. HYDE: No. They used to publish that. You
know, it used to be in their annual report. It's no longer
in their annual report, and they don't have it for next year.
So, they said that there are 15 counties that are max.
JUDGE TINLEY: At --
MS. HYDE: But they wouldn't -- they didn't -- they
couldn't tell me who. They're maxed out. And what some of
them have had to do, they've had to take steps. So -- but I
thought this was pretty interesting, and this allowed us this
year to make a substantial jump, even if we could only go to
the 200, and then we could go -- go up.
JUDGE TINLEY: You -- you were of the understanding
prior to attending this conference that we were fixed at what
we were doing?
MS. HYDE: I -- yes, sir. I'd been told that
several times, internally.
12-3-07
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HYDE: But it has been -- it has been higher
than what we have for many years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no mechanism for
employees to put in additional amounts?
MS. HYDE: No. No, we can't allow them to put in
additional amounts, 'cause that's the way the law is. You
know, we -- that was the question that we all asked multiple
times, you know, because we were wanting it to be more like a
457 or a 401, but because --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because it's not.
MS. HYDE: It's not. So, I thought that this would
be good. I mean, we have several things that are good news
this year for them. No increase in their health insurance.
Can we bump up our matching rate for going into retirement?
Although we can't go back and -- but going forward, this will
help them, and if we can continue to take it up, based upon
our budget -- you know, our budget, that would be -- that
would be very good for retirees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we --
wrong one; where am I? -- make the election with T.C.D.R.S.
to go with 210 percent matching rate, as outlined on proposed
Plan 2 on the attachment that was handed out to the Court
today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second it.
12-3-07
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the funding part of that, I
think we'll just wait until later in the year, because as
employee numbers vary throughout the year, there may be
enough money in that budget. Right now, there may not. We
can figure that out towards the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, differences.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's such a small amount that,
you know -- but I don't see a reason to make a budget
amendment at this time.
MS. HYDE: It could be in other people's budgets,
we have a little bit left, and we can put it in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right. Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
~ Ms. Hyde.
MS. HYDE: We've got one question --
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 3; consider, discuss, take
appropriate action on request to use courthouse grounds and
parking area on early morning of December 11, 2007, for
12-3-07
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
Cowboy Breakfast in connection with local area and Hill
Country District Junior Livestock Show activities. I made a
faux pas. That should read January the 11th, 2008, which is
very near the time that those events occur, and Mr. Bondy and
the other folks that are working on this are going to come
back next Monday, and -- even though, I think, since it's
obviously a -- a faux pas, we could probably consider it
somewhat like the notice?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was using as my model the
appointment of someone on the board for a two-year term, as
opposed to a three-year term, if you'll recall that instance.
But they'll be back next Monday, so away we go. Next item;
consider, discuss --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hold on.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you telling me that we
are going to do this, and then we're going to do it again
next Monday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't do it today.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not going to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was the plan? We're
going to do it today, and then do it again Monday? Why do we
do that? Why do we do things --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not going to consider it
12-3-07
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Need to change the date.
MR. EMERSON: Because I'm a stick-in-the-mud,
Buster. The bottom line is that somebody may -- in the
scenario that the Judge is referring to, the public had
notice that you were going to appoint an individual, that
they were going specifically to that board, that it was two
years long, and it's a minor issue whether, you know, it's
two years or three years, because all the other facts are
common. In this particular instance, theoretically speaking,
since you have a specific date noted, somebody may not have a
problem with December 11th, and they may have a big problem
with January 11th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not my question.
MR. EMERSON: We're supposed to give notice to the
public -- okay, I'll shut up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate your
explanation, but I don't care about that stuff. What I care
about is, why do we deal with one issue two meetings in a
row? If we -- let's pretend that you didn't have a problem
with this. We were going to go ahead and do it, and then
turn around and do it again next Monday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we wouldn't have done it
Monday.
25 ~ MR. EMERSON: No.
12-3-07
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just would have done it
today.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Change the date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Bondy --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We would have changed the
date to the correct date, and it would have been over and
I done with.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank God. I thought -- I
really thought y'all were losing it there for a minute.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: So we're not doing it today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not doing it today,
Rex, and you're absolutely correct. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 4; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to confirm plan for issuance
of county cell phones to county officials, employees, and
termination of reimbursement by County for individual cell
phones and/or cell phone use. During the budget process and
prior, and probably since, there's been considerable
discussion on a master cell phone contract for the County,
other than for the Sheriff's Department and jail folks, in
essence, modeled after their arrangement, that we put all the
phones under one agreement in order to save -- save some
money. And pursuant to that direction by the Court, the I.T.
Director and I got together and we have worked out a deal
12-3-07
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with Five Star, and there's some rough notes on the
parameters of it. And what's been passed out to you --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Extremely rough notes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Five Star has agreed to -- well,
it's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Work in progress.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Looks like a doctor's
writing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hen-scratching.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can read this.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's hen-scratching
is awful.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is worse than my
This
handwriting.
JUDGE TINLEY: What we've done in addition, as part
and parcel of that, is for those that have an individual
personal cell phone contract with Five Star, for example,
Five Star has agreed to allow those individuals who were
using their own personal cell phone partially for personal,
partial for county use, to rework or cancel their individual
cell phone contracts to allow for this modification. But any
individual who needs a cell phone to conduct county business
will be issued a cell phone under this plan. We're probably
going to have some transition with some non-Five Star plans.
12-3-07
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We've got a few that are maybe Sprint, Verizon, Cingular, and
we may have to roll those on individually as those contracts
run out. And -- but Five Star is willing to work with us to
do that. That's where we are. And attached are also the
memos to employees asking them to identify the number of
phones they would need, and subsequently, that December I is
what we put into effect for -- in our discussions with Five
Star. The billing will be from the 20th to the 20th. And
that's essentially it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, you talked about Five
Star allowing other contracts to roll over on them. I
understand that there may be some cancellation fees from
those other companies. Contract cancel -- actual
cancellation fee. Do we have any idea what -- what that
impact --
JUDGE TINLEY: Those that are under contract and
for which there would be a cancellation fee, we're not
requiring those to be rolled over --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- until those contracts expire, and
then they'll just be rolled over onto the Five Star contract.
But on those that there are outstanding valid contracts,
we're not going to incur any cancellation. How many of those
do we have, John, that are outside with Sprint or Cingular or
Verizon or whoever in the world?
12-3-07
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TROLINGER: Five contracts that I have in-hand
today that we're changing from other service providers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many -- I guess what we
need to do, we need to -- probably in your memo, Judge, we
need to tell any elected official or department head that has
any in that department to give us what the cancellation date
is so we can --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think John's already got that.
Don't you?
MR. TROLINGER: Just the current -- just the
current bunch.
MS. PIEPER: It's kind of late now on mine, because
according to that memo, it said as of December lst they
wouldn't be paid, so mine's been paid and the cancellation
fee has been submitted for payment.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was a county contract. It
wasn't a personal, was it?
MS. PIEPER: I don't know -- I don't know how to
answer that. It was -- yes, it was.
JUDGE TINLEY: Whose contract was the name in?
MS. PIEPER: It was under County Clerk, Jannett
Pieper.
JUDGE TINLEY: It was --
MS. PIEPER: But it was authorized -- it was
authorized for payment through Commissioners Court order back
12-3-07
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
in 2001.
JUDGE TINLEY: How long was the contract to run
when it was authorized in 2001?
MS. PIEPER: I have no idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: 5-year contract? 6-year? 12-year?
MS. PIEPER: I didn't see a contract. I didn't
know that there was a cancellation fee thing until I went to
cancel it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's taken care of.
You're submitting that cancellation fee for payment.
JUDGE TINLEY: It was a county contract; it wasn't
a personal contract.
MS. PIEPER: I think it would probably be
considered -- well, it was a governmental business line, but
it was -- I had to put -- it was under County Clerk, Jannett
Pieper, and I had to give them my Social Security number back
when, so I don't know how it would be considered.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you -- you just canceled the
contract?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, turned the phone off.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much is the cancellation
fee?
MR. TROLINGER: $200.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you wasted $200, Ms. Pieper.
12-3-07
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
MS. PIEPER: I went by your memo, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that referred to personal
phones, and I don't think you had a personal phone. And I
don't know how you got your cell phone in an 8-year contract
to begin with.
MS. PIEPER: If it doesn't get paid, it goes
against my credit, because my Social Security number was on
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was a county contract,
Ms. Pieper. It's done.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing I'd -- comment
I'd make, when you do a large one for everybody, you're going
to have to have somebody that actually kind of reviews the
bills that come in because of your limit on minutes. You
will have -- you know, I've had the same thing. That's why I
scrutinize them pretty good on mine, so that you don't get
one or two employees that really go over and use a whole lot
of minutes, which would -- could very well cost everybody
else if you go over your minute allotment. But the drawback
to that is, whoever does that will get to see the total bill
and every phone number and every call that any employee ever
makes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We appreciate you stepping
up to the plate, Rusty.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Nope. That's why I have mine.
12-3-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me ask the
question kind of in reverse here a little bit. For any of us
who have personal contracts who have never asked for county
reimbursement, this has no effect?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, none whatsoever. You can
continue to use your own personal cell phone for county
business. You just won't get anything for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you want to conduct county
business on a cell phone, though, we will provide you with a
cell phone. I'm assuming, you know, if it's other than
elected officials, as long as the elected official or
department head says this employee needs it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the time involved
in the bookkeeping is worth leaving it alone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too. I think Rusty's
onto something, though, maybe for the first time in years.
But I think it is important that somebody oversees this
thing, and I'd like to know today who that person's going to
be, or what office that's going to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can tell you who it's not
going to be. You and me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Far as I know, the plan is to submit
it to the Auditor's office.
12-3-07
42
1
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: Is the Auditor in here?
JUDGE TINLEY: They're the ones that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, the Auditor's not here.
The Treasurer is.
MS. WILLIAMS: I have a question, though. Is it
going to be one county account, all cell phones on one
account? Or can it be split out and have separate billings
for separate departments? Five Star could possibly do that,
and then each department would get their own bill and they
would be responsible for going over it, like the Sheriff does
with his, and then submitting it to the Auditor's office for
payment.
JUDGE TINLEY: We had a discussion where they're
going to group those -- those numbers together. Is that not
correct, John?
MR. TROLINGER: That is correct. The entire
purpose is -- is to have one account to simplify the billing
and to reduce the cost. And the billing that we receive will
reflect one line item per phone number, with the number of
minutes. It will not be a detailed billing. So the Auditor
can red flag any phones that show up with a substantial
change in the number of minutes. That that's how I see it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can they be sorted by -- I
guess the question, as I heard the Treasurer say, can it be
sorted by department? Like, can all of the Maintenance
12-3-07
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
phones be in	one -- a subtotal	under	them?
MR.	TROLINGER: No.	This	will be in order by the
phone numbers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am?
JUDGE WRIGHT: Has Five Star increased their area?
At one time, I canceled mine because I couldn't use it in
Center Point.
MR. TROLINGER: Five Star added two towers in the
past year, and they're adding one new one --
JUDGE WRIGHT: So I'll be able to get it when I'm
out in the boonies out there?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can tell you as far as
inside Kerr County, Five Star will give you -- and I'm not
promoting them; it's just what we've found out through law
enforcement. Five Star will give you the best reception,
best service, as long as you're inside the county. Right
before you get into Center Point, on 27 right there by
Brown's Welding, that area is always going to be a dead area.
It's been dead forever, you know. It's just about a -- oh, a
tenth of a mile stretch there on 27 that's dead. But
otherwise --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's all electrical
interference over there between him and Frontier Gear.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Maybe, but there is a dead
area about there.
12-3-07
44
1
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 WRIGHT: And The Woods. Both dead areas,
too, I had before.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question of
Mr. Trolinger. For those of us who will -- who have a
personal contract, and intend to continue a personal contract
and seek no county reimbursement -- those are the three
prerequisites, okay? -- can we use the power of the County's
purchasing to upgrade our telephone instrument and so forth?
Is that a possibility?
MR. TROLINGER: There is a discount that's been
offered. Judge Tinley, do you have the details?
JUDGE TINLEY: I mentioned that in my memo, where
they had approved a new program for personal family cell
phone use for county employees. My recollection is -- I
don't have it in front of me. There was an e-mail. I think
it was a -- a $5 per phone, or $5 discount. It wasn't great,
but it was better, as they say, than a poke in the eye with a
sharp stick.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But they -- we asked them to provide
a little sweetener, and they didn't have one. They went --
went back and conjured something up, and sent us an e-mail on
it. Do you have that handy?
MS. GRINSTEAD: I probably have it in the computer.
I can get it for you.
12-3-07
45
1
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 think it was an e-mail, probably
in that file, but my recollection was it was a $5 discount.
MR. TROLINGER: That sounds approximately right.
And, yes, Five Star came up with this exclusively for Kerr
County as a result of the offer to consolidate the business
JUDGE TINLEY: Five Star's going to lose money on
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, substantial -- they're going
phone provider losing money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, based on what they're getting
now, and based on what they're going to get in the future,
it's going to be less in the future, because we're
consolidating.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But the billing and
everything will be so much simpler. They'll be doing --
sending out one bill, getting one check. And not having to
keep account of all those calls and document that to send out
as the bill will be a big savings.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. The -- so, the
oversight -- the answer to my question of 38 minutes ago, I'm
hearing that the Auditor is the person that's overseeing and
checking and doublechecking all the phone calls and make sure
12-3-07
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everybody's in line and not going out-of-bounds and all that.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, once again, the billing
changes from a detailed billing to one -- one phone number,
one line item, so we know how many minutes there are per
phone. And the Auditor, in the past, has overseen this and
red-flagged any departments that had a substantial change,
and that's what I expect to continue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, yes is the answer. The
Auditor is going to be this person?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is going to be a very
simplified version. It's only going to be if you have a flag
where you've gone way over your -- your amount that you're
contracted for, to red-flag those, but it's not going to be a
per phone call audit?
MR. TROLINGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not a per phone call, but it
will be per phone.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Per phone. But -- really,
per phone is the way I'm hearing it.
MR. TROLINGER: No, it will be per phone line, yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the Auditor sees it, and
what will the Treasurer see once it arrives at her desk?
12-3-07
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
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't see the bills usually. All
I get is the report from the Auditor's office for -- as the
Court approves it, and then we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you -- well, see, I think
i
the Constitution was set up for this check and balance issue.
That's kind of where my mind's going right now. Could you
peek at it occasionally?
MS. WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just --
MS. WILLIAMS: My concern is, how many minutes is
the County going to get on this new billing?
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to have an initial trial
period --
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that we're going to determine
that.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And some -- something between
probably 60 and 180 days, as mentioned in that very elaborate
and very readable memo which you have, we're going to --
we're going to find that level.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then we're going to fix it based
on that, with the proviso that in order to avoid this 45
cents a minute or whatever these outrageous overage charges
12-3-07
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are, the deal is that if we exceed it, they're just going to
bump us to the next increment, so that we don't get into that
trap. But we're trying to find that level in these first few
months.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. 'Cause my concern was you
have a set number of minutes, and you have however many phone
calls. As each call goes in, doesn't matter which
department, it starts taking off those minutes. When you get
-- when you bottom out, they're going to start hitting you
with charges, and how are we going to know which departments
have gone over and are being charged if we don't have the
detail and you just have -- are they going to give us a
one-line total for each phone number that has --
JUDGE TINLEY: Of minutes, yes. Each phone -- each
phone will have a total minutes for that billing period.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one -- in our billing that
I get each month, I get that copy of that page which gives me
a list of all the phone numbers the Sheriff's Office has, and
the number of minutes each one used. But also attached with
that, you do get a detailed billing, which normally, you
know, we get. I don't know if you can tell them not to send
that, but I get that, so somebody here is probably going to
get that.
JUDGE WRIGHT: You're paying extra for that.
12-3-07
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, but it gives me exactly
what calls each one of those phones made; it's separated out.
But what Mindy is saying, and it doesn't affect me, is if you
got a 6,000-minute plan and Bruce only uses, you know, a few
~ minutes of it, but somebody else uses 700 minutes of it,
which caused it to go over the 6,000, then you start billing
that department for the extra. How do you know his phone is
the one that made it go over, and not somebody else's phone?
You're going to have a hard time dividing it out by
department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Divide it out by phone.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's -- you know.
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, you may have an official who
doesn't use their phone for, say, the first two weeks or so
of the month. You've already met your match or your limit,
and the next time that individual uses that phone, he's going
to be charged because you have no more free minutes, but yet
you're penalizing them for being frugal when somebody else is
just going bonkers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and we'll get a report.
If we see someone using the phone a whole lot, that person
needs to be spoken to; say, "Why are you using your phone so
much?" And the Judge just said there's no additional charge
per minute.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hence my question. That's
12-3-07
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
why I'm going with my question, is who's going to oversee
that and decide that somebody -- that I've gone over my
limit, and -- and that I'm using it for county business?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, somebody needs to
determine that, I think. I mean, that's what we're doing
here, is -- is getting these phones for people to use for
county business only; that we're getting away from this
personal usage thing, is one of the things that we're doing
here. Somebody has to oversee that and be able to see it in
the billing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you use some -- I mean,
the way it's set up, and it's for costs, the only way you can
do that, the Auditor's going to look at it. If certain
employees are using a lot of minutes, whether it's 100
minutes or 200 minutes, I think that department head or
elected official needs to talk to that employee, figure out
why you have that many minutes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, does the Auditor call me
and say, "Buster, one of your secretaries is using too many
minutes"? Is that how it's going to work?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm trying to
get to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's how I see it. That's
12-3-07
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the person who has the report, is the Auditor.
JUDGE TINLEY: The department head or elected
official is the one that responded and said, "I've got so
many employees that need have access to cell phones for
county use, and the estimated number of minutes for each of
those employees..." That's what the memo required them to
submit, is as follows: Employee A, so many. Employee B, so
many per month. If the Auditor spots something out of the
norm, the Auditor's going to contact the elected official or
department head, and then the department head or elected
official sorts it out with the employee from that point on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's all I'm
looking for, is that right there. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the incentive plan for county, I
don't recall seeing this one before on the add-a-phone
feature, $3 discount on add-a-phone. It's normally $15 with
Five Star Wireless for county employees, individually. So, I
believe there's two incentives now, the $5 for the base, $3
for the add-a-phone discount.
MR. TROLINGER: Judge, I know we have that e-mail
that gives us the incentive for the add-a-phone; I do recall
that. I don't know --
JUDGE TINLEY: There was another one, I'm pretty
sure, that sticks in my mind that we had for $5 for the base.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got it in my
12-3-07
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I briefcase.
JUDGE TINLEY: Huh?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got it. You sent it
out; I've got it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what are we doing today?
Confirming the plan? What's the action item? I thought we'd
already done this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I guess I'm going to have to
sign a contract, I think, that I've not yet signed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Depending on how many phones
there are, Judge, you're going to have to sign a lot of
contracts.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I'm just going to sign one.
MS. LAVENDER: Let me ask --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Every phone number is a
separate --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our plan is different than
yours, Sheriff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Our plan --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our plan is better than the
Sheriff's, it says in the memo.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
MS. LAVENDER: Since my phone is paid for by grant
money, how is that going to affect how it's -- how it's -- is
it going to come in on the county phone bill just like
12-3-07
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everybody else's?
JUDGE TINLEY: Is this part of what we're
furnishing in-kind, or is this part of it being paid --
MS. LAVENDER: It's paid by grant money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Keep it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that a budgeted amount
within the grant -- framework of the grant?
(Ms. Lavender nodded.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't know why you
wouldn't just, whatever your minutes are, pay it the same
way.
MS. LAVENDER: But mine right now is just a flat
fee, is what's in the grant, "X" number of dollars a month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's going to be a flat fee
now, too. I mean --
MS. LAVENDER: It's never -- it's not -- it doesn't
change from month to month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It shouldn't change now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Shouldn't affect the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Once we get our minutes.
MS. LAVENDER: Is it going to come in with the big
bill like the rest of the county?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think, yeah. And I think what we
need to do is, when you apply to renew that grant, show that
12-3-07
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
as an in-kind contribution, and have something else covered
by the grant, maybe. As part of our in-kind contribution, as
a matching portion.
MS. LAVENDER: Okay.
~ JUDGE TINLEY: Okay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy, that was some
high-level executive decision right there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whew.
JUDGE TINLEY: I want to know how many years it's
been since the Sheriff had a good idea, when he finally came
forward with one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Eight that I know of.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're right, just a little
bit longer than eight.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Once the contract gets approved
by the County Attorney, we'll authorize you to sign it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'm not making any motion
today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I haven't seen a contract. Or
the County Attorney hasn't seen a contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Anything further?
12-3-07
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 WILLIAMS: Are we jumping to the tail
end?
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got nothing else on the
phones? Okay, we're at the tail end. First off, do we have
any bills? I don't see any auditor in here. No budget
amendments. Reports?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last Thursday, the Texas
Youth Commission visited Kerr County's Juvenile Detention
Facility, along with the Cornerstone people. And I guess
there's some seriousness about what's going on, because there
were six of them. Count them; six of them came down from
Austin in two cars, and they kicked the wheels on that
building until they almost fell off. But there was a very
interesting assessment of the facility. Kevin Stanton
assisted. I was there, Cornerstone people were there,
Maintenance -- Tim and one of his helpers was there. And I'm
sure that once the T.Y.C. people reduce whatever their
thoughts and comments were to writing, we'll probably know
about that in the very near future. It would appear, Judge,
that they're trying to get all these ducks lined up so they
can issue their contracts in -- toward the end of January.
And I would think that everything thereafter would be on a
pretty short leash. The Cornerstone people -- only one came
down; that was Gary Miller. The controller did not come
down, but he's been e-mailing back and forth to me about when
12-3-07
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it is that you and I can sit down and hack out the -- the
remaining terms of a lease agreement with him. And it would
seem to me that we would want to see the report from T.Y.C.
with respect to the building so that we are quite sure if
anything needs to be done, who does what in terms of
preparation and getting ready. So, that's kind of the
report. That's where it's at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did T.Y.C. indicate that they would
be issuing a report concerning any deficiencies in the
facility?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's kind of what
I'm suggesting, yes. They're probably going to do it, but it
will probably go directly to Cornerstone, because they're the
agent that's working with them. We're just the owner of the
building.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're just the owners.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, just the owner of the
building. But all that's going to come into focus, I would
think, when you and I and the representative of Cornerstone
sit down about making that building ready and so forth. But,
yeah, I expect some reports, and we'll see it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would hope you -- at least
you two guys are in that pipeline; that when that report
comes out and goes to Cornerstone, that same day it be mailed
12-3-07
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They may do that,
Commissioner. I'm not sure. But I -- I',m certain that we'll
get it. We'll get a look at it from Cornerstone at the very
least.
JUDGE TINLEY: Our current -- our current position
with Cornerstone with regard to that building and the
maintenance of the building is that, as it is now, we'll
provide everything as being operational. Beyond that, it's
all in their lap. That's our current base position with
them, so I think that's going to necessarily require us to be
in that loop. Unless they don't want us to even think about
sharing in the cost, in which case, that's fine with us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there will be some
things. I stayed with them for two hours plus in the
morning, and they took a lunch break and came back at 1:30
for the purpose of -- ostensibly the purpose of firing --
cutting off the power, see if the generators kicked in on
time and so forth and so on, and they were playing around
with the security system. There were some -- there may be
some small issues there in terms of electronic locks firing
or not firing. And I did overhear one conversation with
respect to sprinkler systems that required caps that -- and
covers on them; there are no coverings. So, there will be
some minor issues we have to address.
12-3-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about things like --
let's say a year down -- we do a contract with them, all this
works out, and a year and a half down the road, they decide
that they want to put a wall somewhere there. Is that at
their expense? Do they get our approval, or how does --
JUDGE TINLEY: Both. That will be part of the
lease agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They get our approval to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any additions or modifications would
have to be with our prior approval, and I would anticipate at
their expense, and maybe a provision at the end of the lease
term that they be required to remove it, possibly, depending
upon what it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Depending upon what it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, good. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That'll be part of the lease
agreement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it on T.Y.C. and
Cornerstone.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing I have is, based on
a conversation with Commissioner Williams, the City took no
action on appointing anybody, and as I mentioned to you the
12-3-07
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other day when we were in Boerne, you're turned loose to
write the letter to the City.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to have a
fuller-blown -- more full-blown discussion on this issue next
Monday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we talking septic tanks
or airports?
JUDGE TINLEY: Airports.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Airports. There may be
some --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Similarities.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- blurred lines between
them, but we're talking about the airport.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. I've gotten lost in
it. I brought my -- I brought my airport stuff just in case
y'all were going to bring it up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'll have it on
discussion -- for the discussion next week.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only thing I have is that,
now that Animal Control is -- is involved in a statewide
online adoption service, they are getting lots of out-of-town
people coming here and adopting animals. I talked to Janie
on -- I think it was Friday. She told me she hadn't had to
euthanize a dog in three and a half weeks.
12-3-07
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: That's good.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unbelievable. So, the
response to the online adoption statewide has just been
great.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's great.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Look forward to that
continuing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are y'all doing on the
I burn ban?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm taking mine off today --
I'm putting it on today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you raised that
question, because I think we all put it back on about
4 o'clock on Thursday to Friday, whatever.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I took mine off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's been --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Suspended. I meant
suspended. And I got a phone call that night from the Elm
Pass Volunteer Fire Department. We released it at 4 o'clock
in the afternoon, 'cause you indicated you wanted to do that;
everybody else went along. I got a phone call from Elm Pass
Volunteer Fire Department Chief at about 9 o'clock that
night, and he was really upset about two things. First of
all -- I'm glad the Sheriff's here. First of all, the
12-3-07
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
volunteer fire departments are not getting any notification.
They have to either call the hotline themselves, or they have
to wait till the next day to see the paper. No notification
out of dispatch that -- if that's possible, that the burn ban
has been put on, taken off, or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Half the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me finish, Sheriff.
And, secondly, as is the case, and we've had -- all of us
have had this happen, there's always one unthinking
individual -- that's the nicest way I can put it -- who will
fire it up late, or the minute he hears about it, and in this
particular case, we had a fire raging at 7 o'clock or 8
o'clock at night in the dark, and it got out of control. I
don't know. I just --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can you -- is that a good way
to -- I've been calling mine. I did not do it this time,
because it was very short, but I will do it today. But can
you do that with your dispatch?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, half the time our
dispatch finds out by calling the hotline. I don't, okay? I
mean, we find out the same way that anybody else can. It
will be -- a lot of times officers out on a scene will ask
the dispatcher, "Is the burn ban on or off?" And they will
either call, or if I've been to court, you know, and know
it's off, I'll go back and tell them that it's off or it's
12-3-07
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do we need to call your
department -- call dispatch and tell them that it's either on
or off?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In your -- since you can do it
individual precincts, that's what I'd rather see. If you
can't get hold of the volunteer fire departments, at least
call, you know, our dispatch and let them know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do it through Jody. We
make a change on or off with Jody here, and it goes on that
hotline. That's the best, you know, way, as long as that's
accurate, that we all find out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And John updates it too. Now,
I have done it on a Saturday, and if I do it over a weekend,
I call dispatch.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then we know -- yeah, you've
called us several times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I call one person; I always
call dispatch.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You call dispatch if you
make changes?
MS. GRINSTEAD: I call dispatch, I fax the
Sheriff's Office, I think, and update the burn ban hotline.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, then there's a
breakdown, Rusty, someplace. Because --
12-3-07
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I have not required --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- first it goes off on the
pager.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have not required our
dispatch to get ahold of the volunteer fire departments. I
just -- you know, I mean, if they -- if they've got something
going in that area and they're called out, fine, we'll let
them know. But I haven't -- we don't dispatch for the fire
departments anyhow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they all have pagers.
Can't you put out a page notice?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A page notice?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They all have pagers.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All you can do, we -- that's
all done through 911. All we do is, we can page them,
period, to have them call in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That brings up another issue.
I was visiting with Bill Price about it, and he said that
they probably receive more calls asking about it than anybody
else, and they're not on the notification list. I mean,
other than -- I mean, 'cause you -- I've never thought to
call Bill Price or K.P.D. dispatch. They're the ones that
are receiving the majority of the calls, and they don't know
the answer, yes or no, without calling the number. I think
I'm going to put it on the agenda for another reason next
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
time. I think we need to discuss it a little bit, and I
think tweak some language on our web site. And I also want
to talk about burning this winter for people with prescribed
burns. So, anyway, it's going to be on the agenda to maybe
think about it and go through a little bit different process.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If y'all want me to have a
policy that if Jody faxes us or -- or calls us personally,
and then I just adopt an internal policy that when my
dispatchers are notified, they attempt to get ahold of each
volunteer fire department and city of Kerrville, I can do
that. I mean, that's not anything difficult.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Most of them have pagers, or
most of them even have radios --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- that they're carrying.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why couldn't we -- Jody has
it set up in there to send agendas to a group of people. Why
couldn't you set up a separate group of people that are --
that deal with this volunteer fire issue? That would include
the Sheriff and me and fire chief of Ingram, and et cetera,
et cetera, and so forth and so forth. And just send out the
e-mail.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're getting off the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- I'll put it on
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Every time Buster talks, Rex
tries to shut you down.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster's the one that started
this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I started it. This
time I started it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Put it on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can't do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I lit the fire.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good idea,
I Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You'll set this up? Work
with Jody.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's putting it on the
agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it hasn't been eight years since
you've had a good idea?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is not. I had a thought
yesterday.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A thought.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just one.
JUDGE TINLEY: As Jon mentioned, we went to a
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
meeting of county officials down in Kendall County at Joshua
Springs Park, I believe is the name of the place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Park? Yeah, park, that's
right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know the purchase price.
Five.
JUDGE TINLEY: Five million?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 12,000 an acre for that piece
of property.
JUDGE TINLEY: A little over 400 acres Kendall
County bought. Nice park. Nice park.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nice home.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Sits up at the top of the
hill. Those of you that drive out 10 to San Antonio, just to
the west, the bottom of the hill, just before proceeding
east, you go over the next hill, and at the bottom you make
~, the Welfare exit, you see the creek coming through there.
That's it right there on the right. You look off high on a
hill, there's this huge stone structure. That is the -- park
headquarters? Meeting place?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Meeting place, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: All paved roads.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow.
JUDGE TINLEY: A couple of dams and creeks and
12-3-07
1
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
springs, and pretty nice park. I'm -- I wish Commissioner
Williams could have been there so he could incorporate that
into his thinking for our parks plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Gorgeous place. It really is a
gorgeous place.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is that on the right as you're
going towards San Antonio?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Kendall County owns it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, they bought it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kendall County purchased it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From who?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The seller.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seller.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who owned -- Letz, you
didn't own that, did you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds like they took a bunch
of property over on the tax rolls, to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I asked a Commissioner at the
meeting what they paid for the property, and he said they
have not disclosed it yet because they were still looking at
acquiring additional property and didn't want to get the
price out, and they would disclose the purchase price later.
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
Which I didn't argue with them. They -- but they said the
asking price was six million for it, which comes out to about
14,5 an acre. I happened to ask my father-in-law that
evening what the purchase price was, and he knew right what
it was. It was five million.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What is the real purpose?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just to have a park?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They put a bond issue up before
the voters three or four years ago, and it passed, to buy
park land. And it was -- they spent the majority of their
funds on this one piece of property, and it's a -- they're
going to put in some recreational areas, hiking trails.
JUDGE TINLEY: Going to put the ag and 4-H --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ag Barn.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- operations there on the northwest
portion of that property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But by the time all is said and
done, I suspect they're going to have invested in this
property probably close to 6, 7 million, 8 million dollars,
based on what they've said.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. Of
course, every time I ask one, I'm getting out of bounds, but
~, I'm going to ask it anyway. So, that was a three-county --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four.
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Five-county?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was Hi11 Country counties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hill Country counties. And
y'all were provided some food. Now, who paid for the food?
Was it taxpayers' money? How do they do that? We can't do
that here. But they do it down there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't buy parks, either.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't it sponsored by Hays
County?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Partner.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the Hays County Judge and Burnet
County Judge, and there was one other that -- that initiated
the meeting. It was -- the place was hosted by Kendall
County; apparently, it was their facility, and the -- the
luncheon was provided by a restaurant in Boerne that catered
it, notwithstanding the fact that there was a gorgeous
gourmet kitchen in this facility. It was quite nice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excellent. The food was very
good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had jambalaya or something,
and -- and clam chowder, and unbelievable cherry apple pie.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
12-3-07
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow, you missed it,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, now. Yeah, I
I missed it.
JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorneys were invited.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What a time to be hunting. I
screwed up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was an interesting meeting,
though. It was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was out kicking the tires
of the juvenile detention facility.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we a member of this
group?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a very loose group at this
point. I left after lunch. The Judge stayed. I'm not
sure -- I think the plan was for them to meet on a somewhat
regular basis.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Was there a sign-up fee to
attend this?
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was hosted by --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they expect Kerr County
to host the meeting at some point?
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe eventually, we'll probably be
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
faced with that. The next one's going to be held in January
in Burnet County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When it comes our turn, are
we going to, like, borrow Shelton's old place out here and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- play like it's ours?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to borrow something.
It was -- I thought it was a good meeting. It was a good
venue just to get around and meet and talk to other
commissioners and judges, you know. To me, they're a little
bit too control-oriented for me, but, you know, it's just my
personal feeling. That's how most of them were going; they
just want to -- it's -- my perception was that most of the
commissioners and judges said they wanted to increase --
great increase -- greatly increase authority from the
Legislature to act more like cities. That's what most of
them felt; that sums it up. And I think that probably the
Judge and I were probably the two least inclined to go down
that road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that sounds like Hays
and Kendall County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Comal, Kendall, Hays, Blanco.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gillespie.
JUDGE TINLEY: Burnet. You know, you got those
high growth, close to MSA counties. There wasn't much from
12-3-07
72
1
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 south, were there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You had --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bandera, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bandera, Gillespie, Kimble,
Real. But, no, there was kind of -- no one went south of
Bandera.
JUDGE TINLEY: Edwards was there, by golly, yeah.
Nick was there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Laws are different in the
south.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They already have all those
controls.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was an interesting meeting.
They had a falconry demonstration at lunch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I saw that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Real beneficial to county
government.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of course.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wonder who paid for that.
JUDGE TINLEY: They mentioned something about doing
some private fundraising, Buster. I'm not sure what the
particulars were. But --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They wanted you to be the
treasurer. (Laughter.)
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't they -- didn't I
read recently, Judge, where Kendall County put their economic
development guy on a tighter leash in terms of having to seek
Commissioners Court approvals for subdivisions that they
might be promoting and things of that nature? Didn't I read
that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I saw something in the newspaper
about some controls they were wanting to impose. I saw Dan
Rogers the following day on Friday, and didn't get an
opportunity to talk to him about that, 'cause I was running
late to make another meeting over in Medina County.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it, gentlemen? We'll be
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 10:35 a.m.)
12-3-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 5th day of December,
2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y . ~ _ __ _
Kathy anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
12-3-07
ORDER NO. 30637
2008 KERR COUNTY EMPLOYEES HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS
PLAN
Came to be heard this the 3rd day of December, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve of the health insurance program, and issue the Contract to FARA, with
stop loss to Monumental Life, as proposed by our consultant, Gary Looney, in his
letter to the Court dated December 3, 2007, with all other recommendations
attached thereto.
ORDER NO. 3 063 8
TCDRS RETIREMENT FUNDING
Came to be heard this the 3rd day of December, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0:
Make the election with TCDRS to go with 210% matching rate, as outlined on the
proposed Plan 2 on the attachment that was handed out to the Court today.