1
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
and
Regular Session of November 13, 2007 (Reconvened)
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
11:30 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
1''
M
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I N D E X
November 14, 2007
1.1 Canvass the Official Election Results for the
2007 November General Constitutional Amendment
Election as per TEC §67
1.2 Open proposals received in response to Request
for proposals for 2008 Kerr County Employees
Health Benefits Plan and take appropriate action
to refer such proposals to Kerr County Health
benefits and insurance consultant for review and
evaluation and further negotiations with proposers
--- Special meeting adjourned
(Reconvened from Regular Meeting of Nov. 13, 2007)
1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
receive and approve bids for RFQ for planning
services at HCYEC; review recommendation from
review committee and award contract for planning
services
1.26 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve employee voluntary supplemental insurance
programs or plans with guaranteed issue and
County-approved electronic enrollment features,
and funded through employee payroll deduction;
authorize County Judge to sign agreement for same
--- Regular meeting adjourned
PAGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3
5
19
20
23
61
25
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at approximately
11:55 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 and scheduled for
this date and time, Wednesday, November the 14th, 2007, at
11:30 a.m. It's a bit past that now because of attendance at
a service for one of our colleagues who passed away. The
first item on the agenda is to canvass the official election
results for the 2007 November General Constitutional
Amendment Election, as per Texas Election Code Section 67.
Okay. Pursuant to the report furnished to me by the County
Clerk for the Constitutional Amendment Election held on
November the 6th, 2007, canvass of votes is as follows: The
total number of voters was 3,1.76. Proposition 1: For,
2,514 -- should I repeat the early and the --
MS. PIEPER: Just -- just in the total column.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. I'm giving totals for
both the early and -- and election day voting.
Proposition 1: For, 2,514; Against, 562.
Proposition 2: For, 1,968; Against, 1,151.
Proposition 3: For, 2,523; Against, 573.
11-14-07
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
Proposition 4: For, 1,816; Against, 1,269.
Proposition 5: For, 2,245; Against, 816.
Proposition 6: For, 2,363; Against, 763.
Proposition 7: For, 2,800; Against, 332.
Proposition 8: For, 2,400; Against, 649.
Proposition 9: For, 2,639; Against, 465.
Proposition 10: For, 2,649; Against, 390.
Proposition 11: For, 2,888; Against, 204.
Proposition 12: For, 1,521; Against, 1,566.
Proposition 13: For, 2,878; Against, 243.
Proposition 14: For, 2,425; Against, 697.
Proposition 15: For, 1,661; Against, 1,451.
Proposition 16: For, 1,835; Against, 1,262.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we do whatever we're
supposed to do. What is that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the law says that we're
supposed to approve the canvass and certify it as official.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what I was
going to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's your motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second.
11-14-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 2, and that is open proposals received in response to
Request for Proposals for 2008 Kerr County Employee Health
Benefits Plan and take appropriate action to refer such
proposals to Kerr County health benefits and insurance
consultant for review and evaluation and further
negotiation -- negotiations	with	proposers. The	proposals
that were submitted are all	here	on the table.	Those that
are there all were received prior to 11 o'clock this morning,
which is the deadline date, I think the last one of which
came in, I believe, at 10:56 and was deposited with the
Auditor's office in accordance with the notice posted on --
on the Commissioners Court and County Judge's front door.
The boxes were unsealed just a moment ago, but not opened;
the contents were not removed. So as to facilitate being
able to go forward and see who we got proposals from, just to
identify the proposers, want to start handing them up here
one by one?
MR. LOONEY: Do you want me to take it out of the
11-14-07
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever will let me identify them,
I suppose. Okay. The first proposal is from Insurance
Management Services. Agent identified as Patrick Sanders.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where are they located,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. Amarillo, Texas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Like you, that was not a familiar
name to me. Let me put that back in the box. The second
one --
MR. LOONEY: Are you going to keep the original?
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MR. LOONEY: You're going to keep the original?
THE CLERK: I get that.
JUDGE TINLEY: The second one was received in
letter form from Texas Association of Counties. The letter
of notification, in essence, that they are declining -- they
are declining to submit a proposal, but want us to be aware
of their availability, their pool that they have in the
future. The next one is from Bryan Finley and Associates;
that would be the agent. And I'm trying to see where the --
apparently, there are -- there's a declination letter from
Cigna, a declination from Aetna, declination from United
Health Care, a declination from Guardian, declination e-mail
with -- looks like Texas Association of Counties.
11-14-07
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Apparently, there is a proposal submitted by Met Life for the
life and AD&D coverage. No bid for the HRA health
reimbursement accounts. With regard to the cafeteria plan
administration --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You need to work with your
industry to make this simpler.
MR. LOONEY: Believe me. Actually, the no bid
makes it pretty simple.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I forgot what all they were
bidding on.
MR. LOONEY: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds like they're bidding on
supplemental stuff.
MR. LOONEY: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not having much luck figuring
out --
MR. LOONEY: I think under each tab probably is --
normally what they'll do is just, if there is a bid -- I
think I looked; I think there was a tab -- when I picked it
up, I think there was a Tab 6 or 7 that had a quote from
TASC.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's what it shows, Total
Administrative Services Corporation. Appears to be with the
cafeteria plan.
MR. LOONEY: Okay.
11-14-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: But then there's a whole bunch of
data behind it that's incomprehensible to me. If we go to
Tab 8, which is the prescription benefit management, it shows
no bid. Tab 9 is online services, proposing the InRoll --
I-n, capital R-o-1-1 -- online enrollment system. I'm not
familiar with that, except that that's the proposal. 10 is
Air Evac Life Team. I don't know how that got in the mix,
but that's what's there with that one. The next one is from
Group and Pension Administrators, Inc., out of -- looks like
Dallas. Agent is Wallace and Associates. That's a bid for
the third-party administrator, and not sure who they've got
included for stop loss.
MR. LOONEY: Very tightly bound.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next one is submitted by Entrust
out of Houston, Texas. Based upon prior activity, I can only
assume this deals with both the third-party administration,
and probably --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Based on what?
JUDGE TINLEY: Prior activity in the previous bids.
Third-party administrator, and also, I'm sure, had some stop
loss insurance included.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That one's big enough to use as
an anchor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. The next one is from Fara,
F-a-r-a, Benefit Services, Inc., out of Mandeville,
11-14-07
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LOONEY: Previously near where Rita hit.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
MR. LOONEY: They had an interesting experience
with Rita. It hit their primary office in Louisiana, and
within 48 hours, they were functioning in the backup offices.
JUDGE TINLEY: When Katrina hit?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rita.
JUDGE TINLEY: Rita, okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably good insurance.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm assuming this is third-party
administration as well as stop loss. Next one is from
Fiserv, F-i-s-e-r-v, Health. Broker appears to be Wallace
and Associates, third-party administration, and I assume
there's some quotes in there on stop loss.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, are those blue and
gold?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, blue and gold.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure appears that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might be a royal -- or, I mean,
it's not royal blue. It's like a navy blue, and that causes
lots of problems around here.
II COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it does. Yes, it does.
We may have to get him in here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next one is submitted by Wallace and
11-14-07
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
Associates, and there's a letter in here from Verity National
referring to a prior submission -- or it appears to be a
prior submission with some revised numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The County Attorney is saying
that may not be -- can't do that one.
MR. EMERSON: If they're referring to the prior
submission, you can't take it, because y'all rejected all
those bids and all that information that was attached to
them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oops.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- I may not be reading this
correctly. The paragraph reads, "The purpose of this
letter" -- and it's addressed to Don Wallace from Verity
National -- "is to confirm that Verity National Group's
revised figures of 10-7-2007, copy attached, will stand as
our final numbers for the second RFP round for Kerr County
due tomorrow in Gary Looney's office." And it looks like
they've got the -- the spreadsheet portion.
MR. LOONEY: There's a whole series of documents
that have to be signed by them to qualify as a bid process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we accept it, then you can
tell us.
MR. LOONEY: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And there's some miscellaneous
communications in here from Wallace, and then a proposal from
11-14-07
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
Colonial Supplemental, it appears.
MR. LOONEY: That's the only copy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hmm?
MR. LOONEY: That's the only copy, unless there's
multiple copies inside.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, just one copy.
THE CLERK: I can get it copied and get it to you
after court.
JUDGE TINLEY: In connection with the agenda
item --
MR. LOONEY: I think that's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- which speaks to appropriate
action to refer the proposals to Kerr County health benefit
and insurance consultant for review and evaluation and
further negotiation with proposers, the Local Government Code
Section 262.30 authorizes the county or its agent -- in this
case, Mr. Looney -- to conduct discussions with responsible
offerors who submitted proposals, if those are determined to
be reasonably susceptible to being ultimately selected for
award, with the caveat that each such offeror shall be
accorded equal opportunity for discussion and revision of
each of their proposals for the purpose of obtaining the best
and final offers, and the further requirement that each
offeror shall be treated fairly in respect to all other
11-14-07
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
qualified offerors, and that any and all such negotiations
with such offerors must be conducted in accordance with state
and federal guidelines. And with regard to any motion that's
made to refer these matters for further negotiations with the
offerors, I would strongly recommend, upon the advice of the
County Attorney, that that motion include those provisos that
I just outlined and -- and read into the record from the
County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why?
JUDGE TINLEY: Because that's essentially what
Section 262.30 of the Local Government Code provides in
connection with further negotiations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why wouldn't you just refer
it to Mr. Looney and let him do his job?
MR. EMERSON: 262.30 says that Mr. Looney cannot
negotiate further on behalf of the county unless the Court
adopts the rules for negotiations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. EMERSON: That's the guidelines provided in the
code.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. And that's cool; I
understand that. One of those letters that the Judge briefly
read a paragraph out of said this is our final offer for the
-- or our final numbers for the meeting with you tomorrow.
Was that the final number, or will they have another run at
11-14-07
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
it? I'm just curious about this whole system.
MR. LOONEY: Not having read it, you know, I'm not
sure, but if they said that this is our final offer, we have
to assume that that's what they're doing, is giving us their
final number in their bid.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you do have the door
open.
MR. LOONEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In case they say, "Oops, we
didn't mean that."
MR. LOONEY: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if you -- excuse me, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They can make another run at
it.
MR. LOONEY: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if you -- if you contact any one
of them to submit anything better than what they've
submitted, you will contact every one of them --
MR. LOONEY: In this situation --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that is being potentially capable
of receiving award?
MR. LOONEY: In this situation, we're going to, so
that it'll be perceived as a fair offering. Actually, I
think the regulation says that you're only required to pick
the top three. But -- you know, there's seven proposals. I
11-14-07
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
think probably one of them may or may not qualify, but of the
seven, we'll most likely give them all the opportunity for a
best and final offer, and we'll have to do it very quickly.
JUDGE TINLEY: But the rules -- proposed rules to
be adopted by the Court in conducting those negotiations that
I just read into the record, that's certainly not a problem,
and something that you're totally willing to comply with?
MR. LOONEY: It's our standard operating procedure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The last time there was the
that information was going to be available?
MR. LOONEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was that -- how long ago were
MR. LOONEY: Because of the information that is
general market. Now that we know who the players are going
to be, we'll get that information to them this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that will likely --
MR. LOONEY: That will give us a fixed number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But that new
information will likely necessitate the bids being modified
11-14-07
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
somewhat?
MR. LOONEY: I'm -- there will be some possible
modification in all of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because of that new
information?
MR. LOONEY: Yeah. Part of the reason we didn't,
too, Commissioner, is because of the -- you know, the fact
that we had a gentleman that was obviously in the hospital at
a high risk, and we tried to wait as long as we could to be
able to submit that information, 'cause it does impact the
underwriting significantly when you have a loss of that size.
Now that we'll make everyone aware of that unfortunate
incident, then they will probably most likely try to correct
it in some way, some of the numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The earlier -- I think it was a
memo from the County Attorney referencing some insurance --
some state law, something about the -- if you didn't accept
the low bid, you had to have reasons why you didn't accept
the lower bid? Am I remembering something correctly?
MR. EMERSON: Well, it has to be justified. But I
think the statute says that the low bidder has an opportunity
to respond or represent themselves, is the way it's worded.
MR. LOONEY: The -- the bids stat says also that
when I make the recommendation, I make it for what I think is
in the best interest of the county.
11-14-07
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. But it seems that the
other thing I read was that if that recommendation is not the
low bid, you have to explain why it's not the -- why you
accepted that, and why you're not going to the low bid.
MR. LOONEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, that's what it says.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Really, the way I read
it was that you had to accept the low bid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, unless --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unless, you know --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we were presented --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Did the extra mile on it.
MR. LOONEY: Actually, Commissioner, I don't think
-- I think it says what's best -- best interest.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: That you reserve the right to reject
or accept any bid that you feel is in the best interest of
the county. Is that essentially what it says?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What it says --
MR. EMERSON: Well, there's -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What it says is 262.027,
Subparagraph C. A contract may not be awarded to a bidder
who is not the lowest dollar bidder meeting specifications
unless, before the award, each lower bidder is given notice
of the proposed award and is given an opportunity to appear
11-14-07
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
before the Commissioners Court and present evidence
' concerning the lower bidder's responsibility. Is that the
section we're talking about?
MR. LOONEY: That -- I believe that section -- I
believe there's another section in that 262 code that applies
directly to insurance purchases, and I'm not -- I think that
section applies to other purchases.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't see anything
that applies directly to insurance in this.
MR. EMERSON: .030.
JUDGE TINLEY: After -- after that particular
section that deals more with insurance.
MR. EMERSON: .030 is in there, but .030 references
back to .027, okay? But it also refers to the fact that
there's two prongs to it under insurance. It's not just the
lowest price; it's the best interest of the county or the
local government. So, there's two prongs to it. But you
still have to -- if you don't go with the low bidder, you
still have to give them an opportunity to show --
JUDGE TINLEY: To make a pitch.
MR. EMERSON: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want this in the
record, too, in the motion? Is that what you want?
11-14-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what I'm suggesting is that
any motion that -- that refers them for further negotiations
do so under these rules that have already been read into the
record, and be those rules -- be the rules as adopted by the
Court for those negotiations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would offer a motion that
says Kerr County Commissioners Court refers all proposals
received this date for the 2008 Kerr County employees' health
benefits plan to Alamo --
MR. LOONEY: Personally, Gary Looney, or Alamo
Insurance Group.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Alamo Insurance Group, care
of Mr. Gary Looney, for review, evaluation and further
negotiations, so long as all of the rules regarding such
review, which have been read into the record, are adhered to.
JUDGE TINLEY: And those are the rules -- or are
deemed to be rules adopted by the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, which were rules
adopted by this Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I have a motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And a second. Question or
discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
11-14-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Okay, that's
got it. Any further business to come before the Court in
connection with the special Commissioners Court meeting which
was posted for Wednesday, November 14th, '07, at 11:30 a.m.?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to give a report.
Buzzie's is open.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll give a report on my
appearance before the Kerrville Independent School District
last night with respect to the Juvenile Detention Center, if
you wish to hear it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can hear it now, or I'm going to
-- I'm going to reconvene the meeting of yesterday, which we
recessed for today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we do it then.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Being no further business in
connection with the special Commissioners Court agenda posted
for today at 11:30, I will adjourn that meeting, and I will
reconvene the regular Commissioners Court meeting which was
originally convened Tuesday, November 13th, 2007, at 8 a.m.,
and adjourned sometime approximately 11:30 a.m. for further
action on items on that agenda that may be remaining. The
11-14-07
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
only item that -- that I recall not being resolved that we
might be able to -- actually, there were a couple of them.
One was dealing with the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 23.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the bids that we received in
response to an RFQ for planning services at the Hill Country
Youth Exhibit Center, and authorizing the review --
recommendation from the review committee and the awarding of
the contract. Since those bids were received, has there been
an opportunity to review and evaluate those bids?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Oehler and I met
and looked at them briefly -- not briefly; we looked at the
two bids, and our recommendation is that we go with Peter
Lewis Architects of Kerrville. And we'll meet with them --
full committee will meet with them and go over, make sure we
can come to an agreement on the services, which I think we
shall. And I think that's the process we have to do,
correct? 'Cause, I mean, we didn't really -- in the bid,
they had some numbers in there, but we didn't really talk
price at that point too much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, are you suggesting that
we don't want to make an award at this time until after
you've had a chance to have further discussions with them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have to -- don't we
have to rank them or say our first choice is Peter Lewis?
11-14-07
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
21
They didn't have anything in their package that shows
municipalities, things of that nature, but nothing with the
ag-related at all, and that was a bit of a concern to
Commissioner Oehler and myself. And also, their proposal was
they changed two or three sentences in their cover letter,
and it's the same booklet that goes out to anyone else that
they're interested in working with. So, I mean, I just --
they don't seem like they're really qualified for what we're
looking for. They're a very qualified firm; they do a lot of
work, evidently, but it's not our niche, it doesn't appear to
Commissioner Oehler and myself.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, is this -- is
this the first step in design and build services?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just design.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Design only.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Design only. Design only, and
prepare enough information so -- so that we can go forward
with grants or things of that nature.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Cost estimates.
11-14-07
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 LETZ: Cost estimates.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And locating the buildings on
the property and the sizes and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Site plan type work.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Site plan and evaluation,
~ basically.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all. There's no --
yeah. If we get to the next step, it would have to be rebid
for construction services.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. This is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And architect, probably, or
engineer at that time.
JUDGE TINLEY: So what is your motion, then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My motion is that we accept the
-- I guess accept -- award the proposal to Peter Lewis
Architects.
JUDGE TINLEY: Assuming that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Assuming we can negotiate final
terms with them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we will bring back the
contract to the Court prior to -- I mean, for final action.
11-19-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Further discussion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. The only other item
remaining, to my knowledge, is item 26. Consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action to approve Kerr County employee
voluntary supplemental insurance programs or plans with
guaranteed issue and County-approved electronic enrollment
features, and funded through employee payroll deduction, and
authorize County Judge to sign agreement for same.
Mr. Looney, we -- we got off in a -- in a storm on this, so
to speak, yesterday. And give us the short course of what
we've got here, please.
MR. LOONEY: Okay. I apologize for not having been
here yesterday. I got waylaid at the airport in San Antonio
by one of your fellow county authorities. But let me -- if I
may, let me go back and -- and start at the beginning so that
you'll understand how we got to where we are today. In the
-- in the beginning, there was dirt.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There was Looney.
MR. LOONEY: Yeah. In the beginning -- in the
beginning, a little over three years ago, y'all did an RFQ
for a consultant, and I responded to that RFQ. And when I
11-14-07
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
responded to it, I gave an agreement to the Court, or
presented it, to that bid specification, a very itemized list
of items that would be covered under my contract as far as
consulting was concerned, and there was a fee associated with
that. That contract then was not accepted. The contract
then was asked to be changed, and the contract was asked to
be changed to remove anything that had to do with voluntary
insurance programs for the county. My obligation to the
county as a consultant specifically identified the medical
plan and the organization. The reason, I believe, at that
time was -- was because your Treasurer essentially was
managing that process between voluntary programs and that
solicitation and that salary reduction or salary deduction
programs. And that's -- that's where we were at that ,point
in time.
Times changed. When Ms. Hyde came into the
process, she started evolving into a situation where her time
frame was spent -- a lot of hours -- on the management of
that process, of the verification of applications,
verification of all data that was being provided through the
various and sundry voluntary programs. So, she asked that I
come up and visit with her and go over the process to see
what might be able to help her as far as those time frames
were concerned. I said, well, first of all, you're going
through an application process, and it's a -- it's a
11-14-07
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
25
they're going through an application process, and they're
either accepted or rejected, and then they come back to you
with certification that they've either been accepted or
payment for that process through the payroll deduction
process.
The problems that we discussed had to do with
that had been issued, so this was generating as a
responsibility to the County; you were generating a
liability, because you were in some ways accepting
applications or paying premiums to insurance companies
without verification that contracts were in force and
contracts were in place. I said, well, the management
technique nowadays for that process is to use a web-based
Internet or Intranet system to be able to manage the data
properly, so it's always up-to-date and that it is always
current, and the policies that you generate out of there --
or that you offer out of there are voluntary insurance
products that have guaranteed issue type of restrictions, and
they can be enrolled online without having to go through a
11-14-07
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
wet signature application process. And that was the -- what
doing due diligence on the products that were out on the
market that potentially could offer those products on the
guaranteed issue through the Internet enrollment process.
Alamo Insurance Group, as such, is an insurance agency. I am
the senior vice president of the agency, but I have no
ownership in the agency. I'm a paid worker. I'm not paid on
a commission basis. However, there are commissions
associated with voluntary insurance products; there's no
question about that. So, the question that I think you asked
yesterday was that, as a consultant, you know, am I somehow
conflicting by making recommendations on the voluntary
insurance programs? And I talked to the State Board of
Insurance.
I've done this a number of times, been in similar
fact -- and I'm not sure -- I take that back. My -- my
perception is that there is a liability if, in fact, you
provide a salary reduction for an employee, that, in fact,
due diligence has been done on those products to be certain
11-14-07
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
that they're products that have good standing in the
that's how we got to where we are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it still -- I appreciate
the explanation, and that clears up how we got there. I've
never been a big fan of supplemental, period. I mean, I wish
we wouldn't do any of them, 'cause I think it's causing the
County and the taxpayers, as a whole -- it's costing them
money, because it takes time from our departments to benefit
certain people, and I just -- I don't know why we should
really be in that business. If people want some insurance,
let them go get supplemental insurance. That's my personal
feeling. We've decided as a Court to try to offer something.
I just think it is a perceived conflict if the policies are
coming through your company, whether you get the commission
directly or not. I mean, it's --
MR. LOONEY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- just a perceived conflict,
really thought about it in great depth as to how we were
going to do it. I knew, you know, we were doing something
11-14-07
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
thought we were, was that anyone that wrote that kind of
insurance, we would accept it as long as they met these two
criteria; I mean, the web-based and the guaranteed
having to work with who knows how many companies.
MR. LOONEY: Yeah, that would be a terrible
headache.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And so, you know -- and I don't
just	received included paying	the	supplemental	stuff.	I know
they	didn't include that they	had	to do it, but	could	-- can
they offer it? I mean, to me, whoever gets that business, it
makes a lot of sense to give them the exclusive for the
other, though I don't think we buy things that way, so we
probably can't do it this year. Maybe different companies.
MR. LOONEY: It's not included in that RFP process.
This -- the RFP is specific to the areas of coverage that
responds to that -- refers to that. I understand about
voluntary programs; I understand the circumstance that you
feel as far as that. As a simple illustration, there are a
number of your employees in this county that are not accessed
11-14-07
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
29
Having a guaranteed issue contract for life insurance --
simple life insurance up to $150,000, by simple signature,
there are a large number of your employees that potentially
would take advantage of that, plus including their spouses up
to guaranteed issue of 50,000. And I know for a fact by
looking at some of the medical histories that there are a
number of spouses that would need to be in that program.
So that, conceptually, I understand that -- the
employees in	the manner	in which	they should	serve them.
They don't -	- they don't	offer --	unless the	individual
requests it, they don't give them information about
short-term disability, long-term disability, things that are
critical, you know, as far as they're concerned, as far as
maintenance of an insurance program. The enrollments that
are done are done by individuals that Alamo Insurance Group
hires that are noncommissioned enrollees. They are not
commissioned. They are educated. They're educators, and so
11-14-07
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
also witnessing, and that was your new employees coming to
the office with a check-off list that was anywhere from 35 to
40 percent of their take-home pay. And, again, Ms. Hyde
shouldn't be put in the position of monitoring. And so, by
going through the process -- electronic process, you get
records, you get information, you get data very quickly. And
when the individual is working in that web, it tells them
what the impact is on their salary base, what happens as far
as making those selections and elections are concerned.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Generally, are these services
another company do something else?
MR. LOONEY: When we went through the process --
again, the due diligence process -- we contacted 25 companies
that then were required by us -- again, the due diligence
process -- required to have the guaranteed issue, required to
have the web-based. After that was filtered down, then there
was a selection made for the value as far as premium versus
policy is concerned. And then that value policy was the one
that ended up in the process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I understand.
MS. HYDE: It's a mixture.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mixture of different companies,
MR. LOONEY: There's four different -- five
11-14-07
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
', different companies involved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But all of the -- of those
policies will go through Alamo Insurance?
MR. LOONEY: That's correct.
MS. HYDE: One of the things that you asked
yesterday about -- about this, currently we're paying money,
county money, for employees that have some of these premiums.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't hear you, Ms. Hyde.
MS. HYDE: We're currently paying money on a
monthly basis for every employee that has a certain
supplemental insurance policy, and it's the County that pays
for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How's the County paying for it?
MS. HYDE: We pay for it every month, $4 per person
that's in that, and we have. I mean, that's why I had Mindy
come in, because, you know, we're trying to clean this up and
we're trying to make sure that we don't pay anything that we
shouldn't. But this has been paid for several years.
MS. WILLIAMS: I think the one that Eva's referring
to is the --
MS. HYDE: The flex plan.
MS. WILLIAMS: The flexible HRA reimbursement. You
can have money deferred out of your paycheck to cover dental
work, eyeglasses, things like that.
MS. HYDE: It's prepaid flex. It's prepaid.
11-14-07
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
MS. WILLIAMS: But there is a $4 administrative fee
for every individual who has that plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many employees have
that plan?
MS. HYDE: It's down from what it was.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right now, I think we've got about
10 or 12. At one time a couple of years ago, we had about 30
to 40.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To whom does the ~4
administrative fee go?
MS. HYDE: To the supplemental --
MS. WILLIAMS: AFLAC.
MS. HYDE: -- provider.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me?
MS. HYDE: I'm not sure what we can talk about
publicly or not; I'm trying to look at him and y'all.
MR. EMERSON: As long as you stay away from HIPAA
and specifics associated with it, you can talk freely.
MS. HYDE: I guess that was partly my point. And
then we also, of course, pay commissions to anyone else, but
it's the employees that are paying the commissions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HYDE: And so, unfortunately, because we don't
have what I call a convenient shop, a small one-stop shop --
I'm like you. Unfortunately, but I would have 275 of them,
11-14-07
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
you know, lynching me, because we don't have that ability
yet. We self-insure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HYDE: And as a self-insurer -- I can't see you
behind me, but as a self-insurer, what you were talking
about, we can't do. Most of -- you know, like your Mutuals
or your Aetnas or your Cignas, because we self-insure,
they're not going to give us those supplementals, because,
guess what? They're on the hook, and then they got to trust
that we're on the hook with them. If we were all in one,
like some of the bigger corporations or organizations, you
know, that had 500 or more employees, that met some of these
guidelines, then maybe we could get the all-in-one, where we
could do the supplementals through it. Here's -- here's our
cost; this is all we're going to pay, and then, employees, if
you want these, they're offered through our major medical.
We're getting there. It's just going to take us a few years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a convenience to our
employees, we offer other supplemental insurance --
MS. HYDE: And it also helps us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- products; is that
correct?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. I mean, it also helps us.
And it's not that the County is offering it. What we're
doing is allowing them a one-stop shop for guaranteed issue.
11-14-07
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
25
That's huge, and y'all know that. I mean, a lot of our
employees cannot get insurance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second part of my question
was, are we paying that administrative fee to any of these
others?
MS. HYDE: As far as I know, no, sir. It's the
employees that have gotten a larger payment for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. If -- if we don't have an
agent of record, Alamo or whomever, it effectively puts you
in the insurance business, for which you don't have a
license, and for which then the County becomes liable for the
proper performance of your handling those things.
MS. HYDE: Well, I think that Mindy can also attest
to the fact that, yes, sir, what you're saying is absolutely
correct, but also, the employees, and I think sometimes
department heads and elected officials, don't understand.
They think that H.R. should know this, and if they come in
and want to know about their VALIC or their AFLAC or their
Colonial or their Texas -- and we can keep going, 'cause
there's about 15 of them -- they get angry. I mean, I've
talked to several of y'all when some of the elected officials
have hosed -- you know, hosed me because I can't answer their
question. And I can't look; heck, I can't get nothing. But,
you know, with Mutual -- or with this system, then guess
11-14-07
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
what? We own it. It's not their information; it's our
information. They can't sell it and they can't use it. And,
again, I go back to guaranteed issue. And I'm not the
insurance agent; I'm the insurance facilitator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have an issue at all
with, I guess, the procedure. That makes sense. The issue
that I have is how we ended up with Alamo Insurance being the
chosen one without giving anybody else the opportunity. And
~ that's -- I just -- that's a -- it's almost the same
situation, though hopefully better --
MR. LOONEY: I hope.
II COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- than we had with our
previous supplemental relationship.
i
i
I', MS. HYDE: Well, when I went out and looked --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did I say that sort of nice?
MR. LOONEY: Thank you. I appreciate that.
MS. HYDE: There was no one here locally that can
do this. I did talk to local insurance, and guess what?
They laughed at me, number one, on the guaranteed issue. And
if they did have Internet, it's theirs, and we have to use
theirs, and then they charge us for it.
I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- and I say -- and maybe,
i
you know, within reason, maybe Alamo Insurance Group would
offer the best service, but I'm sure there are others that do
that. And I just think that that mechanism needs to be open
11-14-07
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
to other companies if we're going to stay in the supplemental
business, which it appears we are. So, you know, I just --
you know, I just think it's -- and then if it was an open
process, I'd have no problem, but if, you know, Alamo
Insurance provides the best service -- and they very well
would, I think, but I just think it's just the -- the --
MR. LOONEY: It's perception.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, it's the perception
issue.
MR. LOONEY: And I understand that. You know, I
understand that concept. In this arena, there's a -- there's
a lot of counties and a lot of school districts that do not
bid supplemental and voluntary insurance products; they
simply allow the deductions to take place for insurance
companies; they approve deductions. And, so, I've got a real
problem with that, and the fact that if they're not doing due
diligence on the insurance products that are being offered to
the employees, I assume that the organizational structure at
that point is accepting a liability for that deduction. So,
from our standpoint, from Alamo Insurance standpoint, what we
said was we're going to do due diligence, which we've done,
and that's where we ended up, as I said. It is not a
required bid process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. What is the -- and I
don't know if it -- if it requires bid. I mean, I guess we
11-14-07
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
can just go ahead and pick Alamo Insurance, but what's the
potential dollar value of premiums? Does that enter into it?
I'm looking at Rex here. I mean, if this -- even though it's
not coming through the County, I mean, does it make any
difference? Do we -- should we be -- or should I be
concerned about us picking Company A?
MR. LOONEY: How much commission would be flowing
through?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or, really, to Rex, is that a
relevant issue? I mean, this is not something the County
is -- is really involved with. We're facilitating it, but
it's coming through the County. Do we have to be concerned
from open bidding requirements or any other rules as to who
we let do that?
MR. EMERSON: As far as I know, no, because there's
no public funds going into it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the catch.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it seems to me that's a
huge potential problem. I mean, say -- you know, say
Buster's brother did this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leave me out of this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say Bill's brother did this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's better. More likely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Offered us insurance, and the
11-14-07
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
Court just said we're going to give it to Bill's brother.
And all of a sudden, they're making -- they have the
exclusive ability to do supplemental insurance for Kerr
County. It's not -- you know, that seems to me to be really
scary. Not that your brother would do anything -- or whoever
wouldn't do good insurance. And it seems to me that we're
figuring out a way to give exclusive -- or a way for a
company to make a lot of money, or potentially a lot of
money, and that is the exclusive right to make it, and that's
a big concern to me, that we can do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we can go to the
heart of the issue, Gary. How -- how do supplemental
providers -- how do they know that we are open for proposal
-- not that we're open for proposals, that proposals are --
they can make proposals to you to serve our employee group?
Given that there's no tax money involved.
MR. LOONEY: How are they notified?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do they know that?
MR. LOONEY: How do they know that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. LOONEY: If you want to sit down in Eva's
office sometime, about every fifth phone call is from an
insurance company or somebody else that would like to come
and visit with her and talk to her about how good their
product is to offer to the county.
11-14-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so her standard
response would be to defer that call to you?
MR. LOONEY: Not -- we don't get many calls from
Eva about it. I assume that she puts it on a rolodex
somewhere or files it away.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, how do you handle it,
~ Ms. Hyde?
MS. HYDE: It goes into the file. I think what
he's asking, and what they asked yesterday, was how did it
get out to -- 'cause I said it got out all over the place,
and that wasn't the right answer.
MR. LOONEY: Well, it goes -- it went out through
an Alamo Insurance Group process, which is a list of all of
the companies that offer these types of products to
employees. And the original mailing that went out, or the
original request that went out probably went out to -- it's
between 40 and 50 companies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it's not a selective
process. That's the point I'm driving at. It's not a
selective process that somebody, either in your organization
or in our organization, says, "We're going to let this one,
this one, this one, this one, this one..." No.
MR. LOONEY: No.
MS. HYDE: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not a selective
11-14-07
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
process.
MR. LOONEY: No. It was, "Okay, here are the
people that do it. Here are our parameters."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: "If you meet these parameters, then
provide us this information."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the other side of it, there
are probably, I'm guessing, companies that offer the services
that weren't notified, 'cause you just don't work with them.
Your firm doesn't.
MR. LOONEY: It's possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there's probably -- you
know, so it wasn't --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- open-open, but it was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It wasn't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it was open. Yeah, we know
these people do it, and that's who we're going to let do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It wasn't an exclusive
~ process.
MS. HYDE: But you didn't do it necessarily to
individual people; you did it to the companies, and I think
that's what I didn't get across yesterday.
MR. LOONEY: We went directly to the companies.
11-14-07
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
MS. HYDE: It went directly to the head honchos.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Again, I don't find any problem
with the process. My problem I have is that we're selecting
one -- how we go about selecting one insurance agent to
handle all the supplemental insurance.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even though there's no county
funds, we are then steering business to one company.
MS. HYDE: But isn't that what we already did? I
mean, I'm not trying to be facetious, but it appears that we
were already doing it. So, I'm sorry, I was trying to do
what I thought was best to try to get this away from the
perception of, "You're my buddy, and you get it." And,
unfortunately, that's -- that is the perception here. And
so, you know, I'm saying, okay, I go to an insurance company.
This is their job. This is something they're very good at.
And they were able to do it as a project; it didn't cost us
anything. They went out and broadcast it throughout the
state to the big ones, and they said, "okay. Can you guys do
two things? Guarantee it to all employees, and put it
online."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did it before. That's what
we're trying to change now. We're just doing it to a
11-14-07
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
42
I better.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It was an elected official
before. Now you're doing it with a company.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we were doing it with a
local agent.
MS. HYDE: That -- yeah, that the elected official
chose.
MS. HARGIS: I think --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We actually named Finley and
Associates as the company that was going to do it.
MS. HARGIS: The County did it, the City did it,
and the school did it. They all went with the same company.
Now, the City changed theirs, and I wasn't there when it
changed, but they took the supplementals away.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HARGIS: Because they had the same problem,
because they couldn't -- the people came to them for their
problems instead of the -- of the agent that was provided,
and they couldn't -- they weren't qualified to give them the
answers, and they were angry. So, they just took them away.
They said if you want to do supplements, you have to do them
on your own.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, that's the base issue.
Do we offer supplemental coverage? And the good news/bad
11-14-07
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
news is, if we don't offer it, then everybody's on their own
and we don't have that issue. Each employee selects the
agent and/or company of their choice, and -- and hopes they
can get coverage. The bad news is, they may not be
insurable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the other hand, that's the big
item, is the insurability. If we offer it, I certainly don't
want Ms. Hyde in the insurance business, 'cause I would deem
her a liability to the County at that point. So, we got to
have us an agent of record.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And somebody's got to be the agent,
so when they come in and say, "Ms. Hyde, I want to talk to
you about my long-term disability," she's going to say, "You
need to go to the agent that handles that."
MS. HYDE: And they get very angry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they may have to continue to
do that. But I would prefer her office not to have to be --
to look up a roster of six different folks, and which one is
doing this one? Which one is doing that one? Which one is
doing this one? If she's got one go-to individual, that's
certainly more efficient on her part. And the other bottom
line is, as the agent, I think you have assumed the Court's
liability by representing to us that you've done due
11-19-07
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
diligence on these insurance products; they represent fair
value to our employees based upon the premiums quoted, your
second tier of your -- of your process.
MR. LOONEY: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And these are voluntary. The
employee is aware, or can be made aware very easily, that
their -- part of the premium they're paying is being paid as
a commission to the servicing agent, the agent of record,
which there's going to have to be one of those somewhere. I
know I don't want you in the business, sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with an agent of
record, but I think we need a process that's open to the
public and all agents to be that agent of record, and that's
what -- where we missed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we didn't have that
-- we didn't have that same situation, Commissioner, when
Wallace and Associates was selected to be the agent of record
for our other insurance products.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They came -- they brought it to
us through the proposal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They all are now, yes, but
not the first time out.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, the dental was a -- dental, for
example, was a supplemental, and their Met Life was -- was
the only one -- that was the only one.
11-14-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean --
MS. HYDE: No, another one too. There's another
one.
JUDGE TINLEY: There is --
MS. HYDE: Texas Dental, Met Life Dental, and we
have AFLAC Dental.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, and I --
I JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but those were carry-overs.
MS. HYDE: From prior years.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another factor
which I think is important to this whole situation, in
addition to the ones the Judge mentioned, insurability and
agent of record, so that the H.R. Department does not receive
these questions on half a dozen different products, and that
is the convenience for our employees of payroll deduction.
For many, many, many employees, having that deducted from
their payroll, with the insurability, guarantees their
ability to maintain the insurance product for their families
and themselves, and that's important. To me it's very
important.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All I'm going to say is, I
cannot support a plan where we hand-pick -- this Court
hand-picks a company to write all that supplemental insurance
without making it available to any other agent. I can't
11-14-07
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
support that. That's just cherry-picking, from my
standpoint, brother-in-law deals, whatever you want to call
it. I won't do that. Everything you're saying can be done
by putting this out to the agents and let them, you know, do
the same criteria. And hopefully -- you know, it's not --
nothing against Alamo Insurance. Y'all have done a fantastic
job.
MR. LOONEY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's -- I can't steer
business to one company without doing it as a public, open
process. I just can't do it. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand your position.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He is making an excellent,
excellent point. Areal, live point --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Write this down, Kathy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in this issue.
MR. LOONEY: But that is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I want to hear the
rebuttal or the argument to what he's saying. What is that?
What is the argument today?
MR. LOONEY: From my standpoint, are you saying?
What's the rebuttal?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. There's -- either you
or the Judge, one of the two, is arguing with him over the
issue.
11-14-07
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
MR. LOONEY: Well, you know, I can --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whoever's arguing with him
MR. LOONEY: As I said originally, we were asked to
MR. LOONEY: And that's the way we approached it.
We approached it as a project. We approached it from the
standpoint of trying to provide the best protection we could
for the Court by doing the due diligence process, and also by
the best opportunities of selection for the employees for
their options that they make under the contract -- under the
different contracts. As such, the bids -- you're not
required as a Court to bid on an RFP basis, because there's
no funds involved with it. So, we approached it as a
project, and we were given a very specific list of things
that we'd like to be accomplished during this plan year, and
that's -- and so that's why -- that's where we are today.
', COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess the option is -- is
to cease and desist.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the response to that,
insurance product, and we do that, that then puts us in the
position as a Court of doing the due diligence on all of
11-14-07
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
those products that we receive proposals on, and we then
become responsible for the due diligence and the resulting
liability, if any, because of some fault in that process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or we could hire a company to
do due diligence for us, like we do with all our other
insurance.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is a professional
service that Mr. Looney's doing. In my opinion, this is just
like us approving an architect to do a project, and we're
paying him for his knowledge and his ability to do these
things for us, to come up with the best plan, is the way I
see it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we've never offered it to
anybody else.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that may be something
that needs to happen in the future. Unfortunately, at this
particular time in the world, we're -- you know, we're
needing to get these proposals looked at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That has nothing to do with
these -- nothing to do with any of this stuff.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know, but that's got to get
done, and we're taking up his time on this right now. And we
need to get the other things straightened out with the
supplementals, and maybe if we don't want to do that, if we
think we're doing something that's not right, maybe we ought
11-14-07
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
25
to just forget about supplementals, which I think is not in
the best interest of our employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Neither do I.
JUDGE TINLEY: That I agree with.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that is what we're doing.
We're giving them -- it's been offered to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Through one --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Through one deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Through one deal.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Through one company. And
that's -- you know, the thing is, though, he has gone and
done all the other work to get it down to where they're going
to get the most bang for their buck, something that we don't
have the ability to do. So, we either don't offer it, or we
hire a professional, and next year we go out for proposals
for another company, just like Mr. Looney has, to be our
consultant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't we just change our
contract with Mr. Looney and let him do it, when he's already
done it, and pay him for it? That's -- that solves the whole
problem, to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where are we here?
MS. HYDE: Can we do that?
MR. EMERSON: Well, two comments. One, if you go
about 30 minutes back in the discussion, you solve the issue
11-14-07
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
', of relationships that you were talking about through a
disclosure of family or business relationships affidavit that
you have the agent, or whoever submits it, sign. And that
should take care of any conflict of interest claims on behalf
of anybody, okay? Now, if you step forward and you're
talking about hiring Mr. Looney to be the consultant to
evaluate the same insurance that he's acting as agent and
broker for, then I think you've got a problem.
MR. LOONEY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that is a problem.
MR. LOONEY: We can't do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: But he's not -- he's not under
contract to do that for us.
MR. EMERSON: Correct. But the issue was thrown
out just a minute ago to have a consultant do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He could do it and then not --
and not let his company be the company that bids on it.
MR. LOONEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There are other companies that
do it, just like there are seven other companies that gave us
proposals right behind us.
MR. EMERSON: That's true.
MR. LOONEY: If you want to go out for an agent, it
takes approximately 15 days to do so, and if you want -- if
you want that, we've got blanket RFP's that we've done in the
11-14-07
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
past for voluntary products, and we can provide that for you.
You can go out and do it on a bid process, Commissioner, if
that's what you'd like to do.
MS. HYDE: We can put out an RFP.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I seem to be in the minority,
so...
', MS. HYDE: We can put it out on an RFP, but I would
i
I
ask that you gentlemen would need to be the ones that do it,
not me, 'cause I'm not an insurance agent. So, this RFP, we
can put it out, I mean, and I think that -- I mean, he's not
upset about it; I'm not upset about it. We're trying to do
the right thing for the employees, and you bring up a valid
point. But on the flip side, we are getting down towards the
end of the wire, and we need to do something. But we've
still got 15 more days of this year that we can do another
RFP, if that's what y'a11 want us to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or we could just go up here
next door to your law office and hire that gentleman to
manage it all for us. What would be wrong with that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, other than it wouldn't meet
the two criteria that we've put on the table, which is -- at
least one of them I don't think it will meet.
MS. HYDE: Guaranteed issue.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mr. County Attorney, are we
doing anything illegal by doing what Mr. Looney has done for
11-14-07
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
us? By him representing us and going out for those proposals
and getting them all set down into what he believes to be the
best offering for the -- the employees of Kerr County?
MR. EMERSON: Not that I'm aware of, no.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, that's all I want to
know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good enough for me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reality is, I think it's a
perception -- ethics and perception are pretty important.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know why that is.
i COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think ethics is pretty
important. I think trust and honesty to the public is very
important. And, one, I'm quite ticked off that I wasn't
aware of this a while back. So --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I haven't been here very
long; I'm still learning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this was still going on
when you were here, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This was?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. LOONEY: Believe me, I have no intention of
trying to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know; it's not you.
MR. LOONEY: I'm not trying to argue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've said enough. You know my
ii-i4-o~
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
MR. LOONEY: I'll offer -- we've done a lot of work
~! to this point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. LOONEY: We will resign as your agent effective
at the end of this year for the voluntary plans for next
year. We'll --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy, that makes me mad.
MR. LOONEY: We'll resign. You can then take it
out to a public bid. All the products will be in place. We
will have cleaned up the mess. And then whoever you pick at
that point can carry it forward from that point, or if you
choose us to continue, then we'll continue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where are we in the -- in
the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good option
from the standpoint that we can discuss it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the agenda item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you've done a really
good job. It's just a matter of -- of no one else was
available to do it, and I --
JUDGE TINLEY: 26.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do I need to make a motion
so we can get out of here, or what?
ii-i4-o~
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, you do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
MR. LOONEY: I'll make that commitment to you right
now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, this is probably a dumb
question. Are we under some kind of written agreement with
you to do the supplemental insurance programs?
MR. LOONEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just kind of a verbal --
nice thing that you're doing, or do we need to crank it up?
MR. LOONEY: We were asked to review it and do it
as a project.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: That's all we did, is a project.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're going to approve
his company of handling that program?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Recommendation.
JUDGE TINLEY: The recommendations that he has made
as supplemental carriers. That's -- that's the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that your motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I didn't make a motion. I'm
just telling -- trying to tell you what the -- what the
agenda item is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let's do that. What's
11-14-07
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
the problem with -- I move that we do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: That we
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
JUDGE TINLEY: We have
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
JUDGE TINLEY: And a s
approve the agenda item?
Yes.
Yeah.
a motion.
I'll second it.
econd. We have a motion and
a second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, if Commissioner Letz --
go ahead. I'm sorry, Judge. If Commissioner Letz wants to
bring this back at the end of the year, like Mr. Looney just
suggested, then we'll bring it up at that time.
MR. LOONEY: The end of the plan year, not the end
of the calendar year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever. Don't throw any
more wrenches in this thing. Let's move on down the road.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and a second
for approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Oehler voted
in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Letz voted against the motion.)
11-14-07
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
56
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Commissioners
(Court reporter interrupted to change paper.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioners' reports?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the request of K.I.S.D.
to be a cameo appearance at the K.I.S.D. Board of Trustees
meeting last night to lend support to the request for a
letter of recommendation of support for Cornerstone Programs
Corporation out of Denver, Colorado, and their efforts to
lease our facility and provide charter school services. It
turned out it was more than a cameo experience. It was about
35 or 40 minutes in the dock, if you will, Judge, explaining
to them what this was all about; that Kerr County had lived
up to its commitment to insure that any letter of intent or
agreement	that	we	negotiate or sign	contained	the	caveat that
K.I.S.D.	would	be	held unaccountable	-- would	not	be held
accountable for educational services or financially
accountable, et cetera, et cetera. It really was an
interesting experience. And I found myself defending T.Y.C.,
Cornerstone, Kerr County, and everybody else to get some
understanding over there that, first of all, what we're doing
makes some sense in terms of Kerr County and the lease of our
11-14-07
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
facility to a company that's responsible to do these things.
That we did not provide oversight for the programs. That was
a T.Y.C. function, not a Kerr County function. That we had
no -- no ability to choose what age group of people or youth
would be in that facility, but our understanding was it would
be 10 to 13 years old, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Went
on and on and on and on. Bottom line was, they approved the
recommendation five to two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which two voted against it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Graham and Dr. Sprouse.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because? Did they give any
reason?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Graham, I think, on
philosophical reasons. She just doesn't understand why there
was a need to do this, or that there might be a potential
long-term contingent liability for the district if -- and we
went through this -- if the charter school pulled out, if
Cornerstone folded, if whatever, whatever, whatever. Any
kind of contingencies you could think of were embedded in her
mind. Not sure why Dr. Sprouse, because he asked me a lot of
questions. I'm not sure why he ultimately voted against it,
but there were two other members of the board that were
turned around on the issue based on the give and take and the
Q and A, and it ended up five to two.
JUDGE TINLEY: We repeatedly assured those folks
11-14-07
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
that we were not going to cut any deal that was going to be
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Dr. Troxel, Judge -- I
commitment and we stuck by our commitment, and et cetera, et
cetera. So -- and when the issue was presented to them prior
to my getting up to respond to questions and make my
comments, the presenter made that same -- those two pitches
to the board, so they clearly understood the issue going in,
and that Kerr County lived up to its commitment in this
regard. So, anyhow, bottom line was they approved it five to
two. Dr. Troxel has the ability now to work with Cornerstone
and the John H. Wood Charter School in any way possible, and
whatever letter of support will be forthcoming in support of
the Cornerstone application. And in that context, I talked
to Gary Miller yesterday afternoon, which I told the Court I
would do, to find out two things; where they stand in terms
of their proposal with T.Y.C., and where is our signed letter
of intent. It was on the controller's desk; it had fallen
through the cracks. He said, "I will get it back to you
A.S.A.P," so that part's -- that's okay. They said in terms
of T.Y.C., it's in the final, final, final stage of review.
It's on the Executive Director's desk. They've jumped
11-14-07
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
through every hoop that had been put out. They scored
high -- their proposal scored high. They've met all the
qualifications and criteria, so they're -- they're waiting on
JUDGE TINLEY: I gather that, notwithstanding the
repeated mention of the assurances that we had given them,
that we'd stuck firmly by those, there was still some doubt
whether -- whether we were on the square with them?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know, Judge.
I don't think that -- I don't think the two dissenting votes
thought we were being disingenuous or dishonest about it,
because clearly we were not. Everything that was represented
there by Dr. Troxel and by me was that we had lived up to our
obligation. We had made a commitment, and we lived up to
that commitment. I think that there were some philosophical
things. There's still some heartburn over there over the --
over the last issue that they had to go work out with TEA in
terms of their accreditation. There was a little bit of
heartburn about the cost that had been incurred in the past,
and there might have been a little bit of angst, if you will,
over the potential that if there was an interim period where
John H. Wood, for whatever reasons, was not the educational
provider, what would happen if the kids were still here and
the educational provider was not here? Would they have to
step into the breach? And blab, blab, blab, blab, blab. So,
11-14-07
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
it might have been a little anxiety.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't that easily answered,
that question? No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, I think so.
', COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a good question
I to me .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a legitimate question.
But, you know, if -- if Cornerstone or John H. Wood folds up
their tent, TYC's going to move those kids.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're not going to be left
there unsupervised.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, because I assured
them we weren't going to take it over. I said we got out of
that business, and we got out of the business for the same
reason that you have concerns about, and that's spending
taxpayers' money to educate kids or to take care of kids from
all over the state of Texas coming into Kerr County. So --
that's why we got out of that business. So, we clearly -- we
understand your concern. Bottom line is, they voted in
favor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't they -- this is just
kind of a side question here. They're bringing in kids from
Dallas or Lubbock. Do they -- even if they're here one day,
do they count towards the ADA of the school district?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not if there's a charter
11-19-07
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
school in place.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, charter school. Yeah,
that may be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. They're -- they're
relieved of that responsibility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If there's no charter
school involved, the answer to your question is yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: One thing they never did complain
about, even previously, was -- was our effect on their
attendance rating.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: They did never did complain about
that, for some reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the end of my
report, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything else,
gentlemen? We'll be adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 1:22 p.m.)
11-14-07
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
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 21st day of November,
I 2007 .
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : ~~ i%~~ -- _
Kathy B nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
11-19-07
ORDER NO.3 0619
CANVASS OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTS FOR THE 2007 NOVEMBER
GENERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ELECTION
Came to be heard this the 14th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the canvass of the Official Election Results for the 2007 November
General Constitutional Amendment Election as per TEC §67, and certify it as
Official.
ORDER NO. 30620
2008 KERB COUNTY HEALTH BENEFITS BIDS
Came to be heard this the 14th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0:
That the Kerr County Commissioners' Court refer all proposals received this date
for the 2008 Kerr County Employees Health Benefits Plan to Alamo Insurance
Group in care of Mr. Gary Looney for review and evaluation and further
negotiations so long as all of the rules regarding such review, which have been
read into the record, are adhered to, which are the rules adopted by the Court:
1. INS Management Services, Agent-Patrick Sanders, Amarillo, TX
2. TAC, Letter of Notification that they are declining to submit a
proposal
3. Bryan Finley & Associates, the agent, Letters of Declination from
Cigna, Aetna, United Health Care, Guardian, and a Declination E-mail from TAC
for the proposal by Met Life for Life and AD&D Coverage, no bid for HRA
Accounts with regard to the cafeteria plan administration, Tab 8 - Prec
Management, no bid, Tab 9 - No service proposal for Inroll online enrollment
system, Tab 10 is Air Evac Life Team
4. Group & Pension Administrators, Inc., out of Dallas, Agent is
Wallace & Associates, bid for 3rd Party Administrator
5. Entrust, out of Houston, TX, for both 3rd Party Administrator and
Stop Loss
6. Fara Benefits Services, Inc., out of Mandoville, LA, 3rd Party and
Stop Loss
7. Fiserv Health, broker is Wallace & Associates, 3rd Party and Stop
Loss
8. Wallace & Associates, submitted by letter from Vanity National
referring to prior submission with some revised numbers and a proposal from
Colonial Supplemental
ORDER NO. 30621
AWARD CONTRACT FOR PLANNING SERVICES AT THE HILL COUNTRY
YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER
Came to be heard this the 14th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Accept and award the proposal to Peter Lewis Architects of Kerrville, Texas,
assuming we can negotiate the final terms with them and bring back the Contract
to the Court for final action.
ORDER NO. 30622
KERR COUNTY EMPLOYEE VOLUNTARY SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE
PROGRAMS
Came to be heard this the 14th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-1-0 to:
Approve Kerr County employee voluntary supplemental insurance programs or
plans with guaranteed issue and county-approved electronic enrollment features,
and funded through employee payroll deduction, and authorize County Judge to
sign Agreement for same.