1
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, October 29, 2007
9:30 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
ABSENT: WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
r
O
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
October 29, 2007
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
proposals for 2008 Kerr County Employee Health
Benefits plan
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize issuance of new Request for Proposals
for 2008 Kerr County Employee Health Benefits
Plan and notice and publication of same, and
establishing deadline(s) for responding to same
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
appoint Evaluation Committee for responses to
RFQ's for planning and design services for
Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center; present Court
with recommendation
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
award contract to Neal and Neal Concrete for
horse barn at Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center
1.3 Review and discussion on draft revisions of Kerr
County Subdivision Rules and Regulations
PAGE
3
13
18
19
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adopt a resolution, as requested by Dietert Center,
for their Texas Department of Agriculture Home-
Delivered Meal Grant Application 22
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
consider responses to Request For Qualifications
and engage outside audit firm to conduct FY 06/07
Kerr County audit 29
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
appoint/engage outside firm to conduct FY 06/07
Kerr County audit 29
--- Adjourned 47
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, October 29, 2007, at 9:30 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's come to order for a
special Commissioners Court meeting posted and scheduled for
this date and time, Monday, October the 29th, 2007, at
9:30 a.m. It is just a bit past that time now. First off,
because it is on the posted agenda, if there's any member of
the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not
a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time.
If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we'd ask that you
wait till that agenda item is called, but if you wish to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, please
come forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind.
Seeing no one coming forward, we will move on. Commissioner
Baldwin, do you have any preliminary comments before we start
the meeting?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let's move quickly to
Item 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
10-29-07
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
proposals for the 2008 Kerr County employee health benefits
plan. As the Court recalls, there were a number of proposals
submitted to us that appeared to be competitive. An issue
was raised as to the propriety or not of the -- of the notice
for those proposals that was issued by virtue of a reference
to the Government Code -- Local Government Code that referred
to municipalities rather than -- rather than county
governments. I believe that's correct, isn't it, Mr. County
Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE TINLEY: And because of that, there was a
concern about the -- the propriety and legality of that
particular notice. But before us today are those proposals
that have been submitted for the 2008 Kerr County Employee
Health Benefits Plan. What action does the Court desire to
take at this time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have a -- I guess a
question, and then I'll be glad to make a motion. Based on
the County Attorney's letter we received on the 24th, the
other issues -- well, first, Rex, is that the only reason
that you found in your research, was the municipal code/
county code discrepancy?
MR. EMERSON: No, there's actually a couple of
problems with this -- this issuance of RFP. The first one
would relate to statute 262.025, which is notice. The
10-29-07
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
5
with the first publication to occur before the 14th day
before date of bid opening. I don't have my notes in front
of me on that, but I know the first publication was on or
about August 5th. I don't think the bids were set to close
till September 4th or 5th, somewhere around there. And, in
fact, what happened was the notice was published one time on
', August 5th, and that was it. It was never published again
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: The second problem, as you've already
the proper procedures. The third problem that 1 ~ouna was
that the RFP, pursuant to -- let me get the right statute
here -- pursuant to 262.030, has certain requirements that
are supposed to be in the RFP, and nowhere in there did I
find that the evaluation criteria that would be used for
evaluating the RFP was actually posted. There was one
sentence in there that said, "Call me if you want to know
what I'm evaluating on." I'm not sure that fits the
statutory requirements, and I couldn't find any A.G. opinions
that clarified it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: Mr. Looney may be able to clarify
10-29-07
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
that, but it's really a notice issue. In addition to that,
there was some allegation, I think, that the -- the original
seven-party chart that was provided by Mr. Looney to y'all in
the workshop that was not marked with specific providers was
distributed to at least one or more insurance companies in
total, instead of being isolated. I can't really comment on
that, except that I -- I've done a rather extensive
I
investigation at the courthouse and talked to everybody that
had access to that chart, and if it was distributed to all
the parties, it did not come from here, to the best of my
knowledge. So, I'm not sure where the breakdown in
communication occurred there, but the confidentiality was not
breached at our end. I know Entrust was concerned that that
chart was presented in a public forum and was subject to Open
Records, but I don't think that's an issue, because the
Public Information Act specifically provides for the County
to withhold information that could affect competitive -- fair
and competitive bidding. So, if somebody would have asked us
for that, we could have withheld it based on that exception
~ anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the --
MR. EMERSON: But that's all the problems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if it got out, was -- is
that a problem?
MR. EMERSON: I think it could be interpreted by
10-29-07

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
one party or another as to affecting, you know, fair and
competitive bidding processes, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I'm pretty certain it
got out. I don't know how it got out, but I know it got out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rex, what about this -- this
letter that I was just handed from the Legislative Council?
I see that you have a carbon copy -- or -- yeah.
MR. EMERSON: I did get a copy of it, and it
basically reflects what I just told you, is that those
statutes have to be adhered to in the interest of fair and
competitive bidding.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask my boy-dummy
question of the year. Does that mean that insurance should
be treated in the bidding process exactly the same as a
tractor?
MR. EMERSON: No, insurance has its own exceptions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, very good. Thank you.
MR. EMERSON: For that matter, if you want to get
down to it, tractors and road equipment have their own
exceptions, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, of course they do.
Leonard's in the audience, and I just -- you know, we have to
give him fair play, too.
MR. EMERSON: May I comment on one more thing, too?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly.
10-29-07
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
MR. EMERSON: There was some concern at the last
meeting about Mr. Looney talking -- going back and talking to
the bidders prior to acceptance of a bid, and the Code does
specifically allow for Mr. Looney to do that in the interest
of obtaining the -- the best and final offer from each --
each bidder. And then, after that point, when Commissioners
Court accepts one or the other of the bids, there are
allowances in the Code for Mr. Looney to go back and
negotiate a final deal, so long as it doesn't substantially
change the whole offer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you know what, though? I
mean, I know that's a common practice and the law provides
for that and all that, but how -- how damn dumb can we be to
allow that kind of stuff to happen?
MR. EMERSON: I don't know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give us your first -- your
best bid first, right out of the chute, and let's get on down
the road and take care of business of the taxpayers, instead
of all this pattycake and hand-holding and the ability to
cheat, you know, and all those things. I mean, I think
that's just nuts. Welcome to government.
MR. EMERSON: I can't disagree with you, but in
theory, from what I was able to find out, it's done because
of various terminology and wording adaptations in insurance
contracts, and it's done so that whoever the consultant is
10-29-07
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
can clarify the offers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- let me read the
agenda item, see if I can ask my next question. I guess I
can. I think -- of course, Rex, I'm sure, will tell me if I
can't. One of the concerns that I had early on, and I think
I've asked this way before these issues came up, was the
issue of all of the bids, I think, even the one that raised
the issues, came in through Don Wallace, and I don't
understand how that -- was that the nature of the market?
Does that -- or do we require that?
MR. EMERSON: I think you need to ask Mr. Looney
that, because I'm not an insurance expert.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because it seems weird to me
that that would be the case, that -- that eight companies
would find a company in Seguin and decide to submit their
bids through the company in Seguin.
MR. LOONEY: It's public offering information.
That's why it's advertised in the public. I was surprised we
only got one agent bidding on it also, but it's -- it's a
public offering. It's advertised in the paper. It's posted.
Any agent that has the qualifications and license to do so
can bid on the contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I guess to move us
on down the road so we can get on with it, I'll make a
motion, based on the County Attorney's recommendation, that
10-29-07
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
we reject all bids and reissue the RFP, with the appropriate
notice requirements and other requirements as stated by the
County Attorney.
JUDGE TINLEY: The reissue --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: By state law.
JUDGE TINLEY: The reissuance is, I believe, a
separate agenda item, or at least that's the way it's
couched.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this is just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, just the action on the
existing bids.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: -- to reject all bids.
	MR. LOONEY:	May I ask for clarification?
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Just a moment, let's see where that
goes. I	have a motion.	Do I have a second?
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: What was the motion?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: To reject all bids.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	To reject all bids -- present bids
on propo	sals on the 200	8 employee health benefits plan.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: I'm going to second that,
just to	get us down the road.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	All right. We have a motion and
second.	Any question or discussion?
	MR. LOONEY:	The assumption is that we're going to
take all	of the current bids that we have and destroy those
10-29-07
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
so that there's not any -- any information available to those
previous bids?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- I guess.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that would necessarily
follow, wouldn't it?
MR. LOONEY: I think it's a rebid. We're assuming
that the bid is officially closed in that circumstance, and
those bids would not be open to public inspection.
MS. HYDE: I've got two sets --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's an issue of public
information and public records.
MR. EMERSON: That's Public Information Act, and
I'm not sure you can take old bids and destroy them. Must
retain all records.
MR. LOONEY: So we need to retain one copy of those
previous quotations?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All records?
MR. EMERSON: All documents, period, associated
with that. Evaluation documents and everything.
MR. LOONEY: Just making sure.
MS. HYDE: But they can box them up and just put
reject -- "rejected bids," correct?
MR. EMERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussion on
10-29-07
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
the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that if I were doing
this thing, I would tell them I want your best -- best shot
right up front. Give us your best shot. What's your best
deal you're going to do?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, for brevity's sake, I would
hope that's what they do, but statutory procedure and process
prescribes otherwise, Commissioner. That's just the way it
is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I'm hearing you say is
that a lawyer has been ahold of this thing somewhere.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The Legislature has been ahold of
this thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which are 95 percent
lawyers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't know about 95 percent,
but there's a number of those guys over there, Commissioner.
MR. LOONEY: Commissioner, remember, it's in the
best interest of the taxpayers to get the very lowest number
that we can generate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion
on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
10-29-07
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
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll now go
to the next agenda item; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to authorize issuance of new Request for
Proposals for 2008 Kerr County employee health benefits plan,
and notice and publication of same, and establish deadline
for responding to the same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that, based on
some of the -- two comments I have. On the comments that the
County Attorney made, I think we need to make -- I'd like to
know, and I think it needs to be real clear in the notice
what your -- what their evaluation criteria are. That's one
of the issues that I think has come up, is exactly how you
are going to evaluate them. I'm like Buster; I'm a little --
I know the law allows you to talk to them, but, boy, that
seems peculiar to me. I mean, to me, the process should be
you look -- you know, you or whoever is hired to look at them
looks at the proposals, comes back with -- tells us what you
think the best deal is, and then at that point, you talk to
them, to that one that you think is the best person. I mean,
it seems -- it just seems kind of convoluted to me for you to
be negotiating with everyone that puts in a bid, so what's
the point of putting in a bid?
10-29-07
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
MR. LOONEY: Could I comment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please.
MR. LOONEY: Well, the process, unfortunately, is
that every -- every one of the bidders has a different
definition for the services that they render under kind of a
general category.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. LOONEY: So, in discussion with them, the
primary reason is to make sure that they're clear on what the
services are that are going to be rendered under that
specific category. So, to use a generic term like
"administration," well, what's included in administration?
So, part of the discussion is to be sure that whatever this
definition is, is something that I've got clear, so that --
trying to do as equivalent a comparison as possible in that
process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, your discussions don't
include negotiating price based on -- you're talking about --
MR. LOONEY: Well, some of it -- some of it has to
do with price, because price identifies the service. So,
what's included in that price?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but not just to say,
"Well, you need to lower your price."
MR. LOONEY: I never tell anybody where they are as
far as the process is concerned, as far as, okay, you need to
10-29-07
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
do this or you need to do that. I get calls all the time
saying, "What do we need to do to write this business?" And
the answer is, "You need to offer your best price." You
know, that's the standard answer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: But the regulation does say that once
you've selected a carrier, that we still have the ability to
go back and change some of those numbers in relationship, as
long as it doesn't, you know, greatly impact the cost of the
price of the -- of the contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. My other question goes
back -- and this is something that you brought up, I think,
at our -- probably every time you've been up here this year,
is that we're doing this process earlier than usual, which
means that we have -- or the people submitting bids have less
information, and that we also have some potentially large
claims that are in the mill process. When we get the
proposals back, they're going to be -- is it going to be the
proposal, or is it going to be still, "We're waiting to see
still on claims"?
MR. LOONEY: No, part of the -- you're right. Part
of the problem by going out early is the fact that many of
them retain the right to have information based on the claims
up until a certain point in time. We do have to -- now that
we're getting later in the year, we're going to have the
10-29-07
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
process hopefully to have enough information to them so that
all the bids now are the final bid number, so that there
won't be any potential for adjustment. But when they were 90
days to 120 days out, then we've got that time frame between
then and the end of the year that the underwriters all like
to have their Kentucky windage, you know, so we don't know
where we're going to be at this point. But -- so we renew,
and in the bid request and -- all the bid requests, there was
a request for tentative position statements on certain
employees. There's three employees that there's a need for
additional information, and we're in the process of obtaining
that information. But most of the bids say that they needed
it 60 days out to firm up their final numbers, so now we're
going to be at that time frame.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll be within that 60 days,
so they should be firm?
MR. LOONEY: We should have the final numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll make a motion that
we authorize the issuance of a new RFP for 2008 Kerr County
employee health benefits plan, and notice and publication of
same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second.
Commissioner, there are certain time requirements that are
required; a minimum of 14 days, which would put us in a
10-29-07
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
position of putting a deadline on these proposals at 11 a.m.
local time on November the 13th of this year. Do you wish to
include that deadline in your motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The County Attorney
has sign-languaged that that deadline's 15 days.
MR. EMERSON: Needs to be at least 15, because the
notice says the first one has to be published no less than
14.
JUDGE TINLEY: 15-day intervening time, so a 14-day
intervening time would cover that, and the 13th would make
that permissible.
MR. LOONEY: Judge, you may want to make -- the
public notice, the earliest they can go out is tomorrow, the
public notice in the newspaper, so it will have to be 15 days
past that date, which I think it would be November the 16th,
or 15th. Judge, work with Rex to make sure we got that
timing correct as far as the public notice is concerned.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My motion includes that the --
the timing be as soon as possible, but following state law
bidding requirements.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: As soon as possible.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did I hear a second from you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I seconded it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any
10-29-07
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
further discussion or questions 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. Let's now
go to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Luckenbach.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good plan. Good plan. Let's go
back to Item 1. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to appoint an evaluation committee for responses to
the RFQ's for planning and design services for the Hill
Country Youth Exhibit Center, and presentation to the Court
with a recommendation. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda, and I
discussed this with Bruce prior to him leaving town. The
RFQ's that we submitted referred -- said the proposals would
be evaluated by an evaluation committee that would be
appointed by the Commissioners Court, so that we can have --
Bruce and I can come to the Court, hopefully at our next
meeting, with a recommendation. That's why I put it on the
agenda now. Bruce and my feeling is that we agree that the
-- he, myself, and Roy Walston should be the actual committee
members, and then we would -- we'll solicit input from
i
Maintenance, you know, possibly the Auditor, you know, other
10-29-07
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
entities, other departments in the county, but the three of
us would be on the committee. I make a motion to that
effect.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'l1 second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you have Number 3,
Number 4, and Roy Walston is the primary committee, and you
will add those other folks as needed?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Definitely Maintenance will be
involved in that because of their -- and the Auditor and some
of the others.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
I hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
award a contract to Neal and Neal Concrete for the horse barn
at Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. The bid for that
particular work was opened at a prior meeting. It was the
only bid received. As I recall, it was 25 thousand,
10-29-07
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
2 hundred and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sixty.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- 60 dollars. That was the only
lawful bid submitted for that work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we award the bid to Neal
and Neal Concrete.
~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second, but I've got a
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In this note from Cheryl to
Jody, it has a different figure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was 25,360. Is
that the figure?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the figure that's in
this note. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He said 260, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: I did say 260. Was it 360?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 360.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says 360 here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm speaking from
recollection, so that's probably right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I will second the motion
', with the figure of $25,360.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. I have a motion and
10-29-07
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
second. Further question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 3; review and discussion on the draft revisions of
the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think I'm going to
pass on that. I -- when I put it on the agenda, I thought we
'~
may want to talk about it, but I really think we really need
the full Court here for that discussion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it'll be on our next
agenda, either as a workshop item or as an agenda item.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll go to Item 4,
which was consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
appoint/engage outside firm to conduct FY '06-'07 Kerr County
audit. That is a companion item that we have to Item 1.8 at
10:05. What's the Court's pleasure insofar as --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do both at one time.
I don't understand why they have two different ones.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd rather go to Buzzie's.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll go to Buzzie's for about
10-29-07
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
5 minutes, and we'll come back at 10 o'clock. We'll be in
recess till 10 o'clock.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay,-we're ready to go. We've got
action to adopt a resolution as requested by Dietert Center
for their Texas Department of Agriculture Home Delivery Meal
received copies of these.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MS. WOODS: Thank y'all so much for helping me with
this grant application. We learned earlier this year that
the Department of Agriculture was putting together a grant
program to help different home-delivered meal providers pay
for some of the meals that they provide that are unfunded.
Basically, we receive our money through the Alamo Area Agency
on Aging, but that doesn't fund our complete meals that we
provide on the home-delivery basis. So, Department of
Agriculture has decided that they would assist agencies like
ours to offset some of the expense of providing these meals.
One of the points on the grant application was that it
requires a resolution from the county where the agency
provides those meals certifying, number one, that you do
10-29-07
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
provide these meals. Number two, an agency has to already
receive a grant from their county supporting the effort that
they're doing, which y'all have been very gracious to support
this effort for many, many years. And the third part of the
resolution is that the county has to approve of the agency's
with the county is that we provide a copy of our audited
financials annually when we apply for our grant funds or our
contract funds, but I didn't know if y'all realized what we
Department of Agriculture's grant coordinator, that's what
they mean by that section of the resolution, that y'all are
comfortable that not only are we providing the meals, but
there's an oversight body that verifies that we are
delivering "X" number of meals, and they're going to eligible
clients. For a client to be eligible for home-delivered
meals, there's an eight-page form that we fill out. We go to
their home and do an in-home assessment of their meals, and
then that's checked by AACOG. And this is the monthly
invoice that we provide to AACOG, and the documentation with
rosters and information and sign-in sheets, et cetera. So,
they also do an on-site monitoring of us on an annual basis
to make sure that we're following all the Texas
Administrative Code rules to receive our funding. So, I am
10-29-07
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
essentially here today to ask you if you would approve this
resolution. This could mean essentially a grant as high as
$14,777 for our agency, because those are the number of meals
we provided last year that we didn't receive any sort of
government funding. So, I think the Department of
Agriculture is going to see who all applies, and then they'll
prorate the amounts, but that could be a significant bit of
income for us to help with our meals program.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the number of meals you
provided last year?
MS. WOODS: Those were the unfunded meals we
provided.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. WOODS: 51,070-something meals. Some agencies
will stop; they will only provide the meals that they receive
funding for and create a waiting list. We've never done that
at Dietert. We really don't feel that's appropriate. And
we've been blessed with other donations, and worked very hard
to raise the difference that we need to be able to provide
those meals. But there are some agencies that strictly will
cut off folks when they've reached their max that they
receive government funding for. We do request donations for
the meals we provide. That's part of our requirement for us
to receive the funding. Our average donation for a
home-delivered meal last year was about a dollar and 41
10-29-07
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
cents. Our actual cost is over $5 to produce that meal, so
there's still quite a chunk that we need to make up annually.
So, this grant would help us tremendously.
JUDGE TINLEY: How many years have you had that
program going now?
MS. WOODS: Well, I've been at the center five
years, and I've heard that we had even a modest Meals on
Wheels program when the center was founded in 1969. I know
they were prepared by volunteers, and they're still delivered
by volunteers. We're at over 200 meals a day now, Monday
through Friday, so I would think easily since probably the
early '70's, the Meals on Wheels program has been in Kerr
County because of the Dietert Center. Which is very
impressive, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fantastic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fantastic service.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this the resolution?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I have the resolution here.
MS. WOODS: I think it's the same thing, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. It's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it has Kerr?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the same as --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It has Kerr County in it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it really does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This one didn't.
10-29-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second for
approval of the resolution. Further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize County Judge to
sign same as part of that, I presume, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Is that -- it just
has one signature?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you,
Ms. Woods. We appreciate you.
MS. WOODS: Thank y'all very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tina, I have been trying to
get the Court to have lunch at the Dietert Center for years.
MS. WOODS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I can't get them to
agree whether the sun is shining or not. But how do -- what
10-29-07
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
MS. WOODS: Just call me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: Show up.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Quit talking about Buzzie's.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Quit talking about Buzzie's.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's got to be a way to
do this thing. I mean, seriously.
MS. WOODS: Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've pulled guns in here.
MS. WOODS: Oh, my.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Better not have.
MS. WOODS: We would love to have y'all, together
or separately, to come. And, certainly --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've been there. Not the new
center; we've been to the other center when you were over
across the creek.
JUDGE TINLEY: Neat, neat place, the new one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jody, they're inviting us,
the Commissioners Court, to have lunch over at the Dietert
Center. Would you help me get these guys over there?
MS. GRINSTEAD: Pick a date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioners Court meeting
day. Break for lunch and go over there --
10-29-07
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: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and eat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about November --
MS. WOODS: I'll bring you our menu so you can pick
the menu day that you like.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, there it is. There's
the answer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: November 8th? 12th?
November 12th would be a good day.
MS. GRINSTEAD: 13th.
THE CLERK: 12th is the holiday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: November the 13th would be a
good day, sayeth Number 3.
MS. WOODS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's Old Testament talk,
"sayeth." Okay, November 13th? Are we kind of moving in
that direction? November 13th.
MS. WOODS: I can't believe this week is November.
Thank you all so much, and thank you for your support of the
center and what we're doing. It means more than you can
possibly imagine. It really does. And we'll see you on
November 13th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you get a memo out to
the Commissioners Court that we're having lunch at the
10-29-07
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
I
Dietert Center?
you.
MS. GRINSTEAD: I will. I won't be here to remind
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By order of Mr. Dietert.
MS. WOODS: His birthday is tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See? We could have done it
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. If you'd been on top of it,
we'd have known that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, there you go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've got two very similar
agenda items; let me call them together. Consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action to appoint or engage outside firm
to conduct FY '06-'07 Kerr County audit. Second is consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to consider responses to
Request for Qualifications and engage outside audit firm to
conduct FY '06-'07 Kerr County audit, the latter agenda item
being posted for 10:05 a.m. today. And, of course, it's
after that time now. I think initially we have some of
Requests for Qualifications that Ms. Hargis has furnished to
us. I will open those now. She brought me a pair of
scissors; I hope I don't hurt myself. There was your
opportunity, Commissioner.
10-29-07
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 BALDWIN: I know it.
MS. HARGIS: That's what I brought the scissors
for, is that one. Did you get it?
JUDGE TINLEY: I ought to give that to Jon. He's
always done a good job of tearing into this stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The first proposal appears to
be from Neffendorf, Knopp, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see, where could they
I be f rom?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Horry and Doss in Fredericksburg.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: No Crenwelges or Kleins.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For once. Or Hierholzers.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's multiple copies. The --
MS. HARGIS: I think. it's in that little black one
that you had.
JUDGE TINLEY: Say again?
MS. HARGIS: Maybe it's in that little black --
didn't have you a little black folder that came in there?
JUDGE TINLEY: Haven't yet.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. Maybe I just --
I
', COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's the other one. What
are you looking for, the original?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we got them here.
10-29-07
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
MS. HARGIS: You got them, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a proposal that is round,
', another showing the estimated cost of audit, maximum --
all-inclusive maximum price of $30,000. I've not looked to
see if that includes some of the single audits that we're
required to do.
MS. HARGIS: It was in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect it probably does. Didn't
the RFP request that?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The second proposal is from
Null-Lairson, CPAs in Houston, with the estimated fees
section providing that the cost for this year -- estimated
fees would be $48,500.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move we accept both
proposals and refer them to the Auditor for review and
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. How long will the
evaluation take of these? I mean, should we recess today and
come back after lunch? 'Cause I --
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, 'cause we really need to award
25 I it.
10-29-07
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
32
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good question, Commissioner.
MS. HARGIS: I just need to see if they both cover
what I need for this year, and if they do, then it's kind of
obvious which one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Or I can go do it with Tommy right
now, if y'all can wait a few minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on
that 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. Looking at
the agendas that are posted, there are no other items to be
considered. Do we have any reports from the Commissioners in
connection with their liaison or committee assignments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've had a -- I don't hear any
from Number 1 down there. The -- for everyone's information,
Bill and I had lunch the other day with the current president
of the Airport Board. Just kind of -- and I believe he
actually met with the Judge recently as well, just really
trying to find what the -- where the County wants them to go
10-29-07
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
in the interim period more than anything else. And I took
the opportunity to -- I think Bill did too, to give our
opinion on that, and also give our opinion on a few other
things related to the management of the airport in recent
periods. One of the -- it was -- it's just a matter of -- I
think that the City has not done the bang-up job that they
report to have -- or keep saying they have done, and I
pointed quite a few specific details out to Mr. Bobertz, and
~I I think he concurred. But -- and I'm looking forward to, you
know, getting the report from the consultant and moving on
down the road and how we're going to do that. Also, I saw
ii Rex sent in the request to the Attorney General, so I
!, think -- you know, I don't -- I have no idea; I presume that
will take a month or so at a minimum?
',, JUDGE TINLEY: Six months, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Six months?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you expedite this? Don't
we have some connections?
', MR. EMERSON: By statute, they have six months to
answer the response, and they've been running from five to
six months.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's good to know.
Anyway, but I think that we need to -- well, we will know in
the coming months; I think we'll be revisiting this whole
issue with the City as to what we're going to do. I know the
10-29-07
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
Airport Board is very uncomfortable with the current setup of
having only three board members, because it prohibits them
from communicating at all on airport matters without
violating Open Meetings, and that's -- which makes it very
difficult for them to operate, you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the discussion I had with
Mr. Bobertz. They're not uncomfortable about conducting the
business; they're just uncomfortable with the situation
they're in. It really makes it impossible for them to really
have a meaningful discussion about --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anything.
ii JUDGE TINLEY: -- any of the business at hand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For example, they wanted to --
they -- one of the board members wanted to go visit with
TexDOT about some Highway 27 issues, and only one board
member could go. They really wanted to have more, just to
get -- you know, to hear it, and they couldn't do it. Just
because of the -- it required two separate trips to Austin to
talk about the same topic, which, obviously, TexDOT wasn't
real keen on doing. So, anyway, it's just -- it's caused
some difficulty from a management standpoint out there. And
it's also -- the interim period has made it difficult with
the Airport Manager and that situation, 'cause that's also an
interim position, so it's a -- the whole situation is not
good the way it is, though it is continuing to function in a
10-29-07
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
good manner, I think. That's the only comment I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any reports from elected officials?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: While we're waiting for her,
just one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's not a requirement that
you fill this time, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, this is something I've
~, been thinking about for a long time that we need to start
looking at seriously, and I had mentioned it to Commissioner
Letz a while back. It may very well be time that we
seriously start looking at a committee on long-range plans
for your jail building and facilities out there, because of
crowding situations, housing of females, where we're going to
go, so it doesn't kind of hit us in the face all at once.
We're over our recommended population. We have been pretty
well all year. We're down to really being over on the female
population, and if you went by the jail analysis that the
Jail Commission did for us in 2005, in 2007 they even
recommended we have 240 beds, which we haven't taken any
action on that. And we -- we've slacked off some during, you
know, different times of the month, so I haven't pushed it.
But I think if you really want to look long-range, we need to
seriously put together a committee and start looking at that
facility and start doing some research on exactly where we
have been, where we are today, and where the Court may start
10-29-07
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
making future plans of where we need to go, because I don't
see it getting any better. I just see it constantly getting
more and more, and it's going to hit us in the face one time
where we do like we had to do back in the '80's or '90's
before the place was built, and house inmates out of county.
And that, to me, is just way too expensive to look at doing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, I have two questions
about that. Just on face value, what you're saying, I agree
'I with you, but I have two questions before I can make any
~, decision. Are the District Courts doing everything they can
', to alleviate the problem? And don't answer that. I don't
~ think it would be smart to answer that right now.
'~I SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll answer it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But those are things -- those
are all the issues. That's a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a very good issue that
whatever committee is appointed, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- I think that is a point
that seriously needs to be looked at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. And in a much
broader sense than you and I can cover here today.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. I don't think we ought
10-29-07
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
to just be looking at adding more building and adding more --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me get to question two.
The next question would be -- and, seriously -- seriously,
sit down and have a visit about tent city. I know that's a
funny -- I know it's a ha-ha, but I still want to have that
visit. And I know -- you know, we haven't heard from the new
director, Adan, about that. But the former jail -- what do
you call those guys?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Commission.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commission.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Directors. Executive
Director.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Director guy. His -- his
comments -- I had several visits with him about it, and his
comment was that the drawback is -- is that you have state
rules that say you have to climate control -- temperature
control. And it's hard to do in a tent. That's the issue.
But we haven't heard that from the new guy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, they actually have, and
that can be talked about. I think the committee, if this
Court wants to appoint one, needs to look at every single
aspect of inmate housing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Including tent city?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Including tent city. Because
there are written rules about what you can and can't do with
10-29-07
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
tents, and the Legislature this year changed some of those,
but I think by the time you build what would legally pass and
be accepted by the Jail Commission, you -- you wouldn't
build --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you probably need to
put this on as a workshop item or an agenda item so we can
discuss it. I mean, I think we're going more into a
discussion period, which I don't think Rex --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. I don't want to --
it's more of a report, but it needs to do something. Rex
always likes to get up and hit me. But she's back, so I ...
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm with you on the tent city issue.
I've been there a long time, as you well know. The other
issue that I think needs to be looked at in connection with
it is they got space to grow a pretty nice garden out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: And make that operation more
self-sufficient, and I think from a diet standpoint, be much
superior than what they can get outside the four walls there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We were actually trying to go
there when we were promised some fencing from the airport,
and it disappeared on us.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. I'd recommend that
be -- I think we really need to look at being more
10-29-07
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
self-sufficient, more thinking outside the box, creative ways
of handling our inmate population, and -- and, of course, we
do have residential areas right around there; you have to be
really concerned with security, and new ones fixing to break
down and be built right across the street. But I think
there's -- we need to open it up and look at everything that
we can do to keep from having to build, but see where we're
at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, all those topics.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go back to the two
RFQ's on the -- on the FY '06-'07 Kerr County outside audit.
Ms. Hargis, what do you have for us?
MS. HARGIS: In analyzing the cost estimates on
both firms, I would recommend the Neffendorf, Knopp, Horry
and Doss. They basically bid 350 hours, as opposed to
Null-Lairson bid 425 hours. Hourly fee amounts to about 110
collectively. The other firm is 114. There's also, like,
$4,000 worth of travel time and lodging, where they have
$600. So, I think for this year -- I'm familiar with
Null-Lairson; I've worked with them for years, but I'm not
familiar with this other firm, and the cost differential is
too great for me not to recommend that you take this one.
And rather than give him a three-year, I would just like to
give him a one-year, and let's see how they do, and then
rebid in the spring. Because I think we'll have more
10-29-07
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
opportunity to get -- this firm did it as a favor, and
they're already booked up, so I figured the cost might go a
little high, but it's just too high.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, your recommendation is the
Neffendorf firm?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we accept
the recommendation of the Auditor and approve -- what are we
doing? Selecting? Selecting and approving the Neffendorf
firm for a one-year contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: '06-'07 outside audit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second.
Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
Ms. Hargis. Anything further?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are those other little
things that we were talking about auditing?
JUDGE TINLEY: There are requirements that the
Adult Probation Department be audited, that the Juvenile
10-29-07
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
Probation Department be audited, as a result of receiving
various types of federal funds. It's called single audits, I
think is what they're called.
MS. HARGIS: No, those are actually required
separate audits.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: The -- we have to actually audit them
separately for the state. They're required to have an
independent audit of their own, and always have been. A
single audit, if we get grant funds from the federal
government in excess of $500,000 -- used to be $250,000, but
its $500,000 -- we have to perform what they call a single
audit. And a single audit is a -- basically conforming with
the rules and regulations of the -- of the grant that you
receive. In other words, it's not necessarily dealing so
much with the figures that -- and the cost, as much as, "Did
you follow the procedures, the policy that was let out of the
grant? Did you do what the grant asked you to do?" And
that's what's a single audit is. It's -- it's really more
time-intensive than the regular financial audit, because you
have to look at a lot of small., detailed things. We don't
have a single audit this year. We don't -- we're at
$426,000, so we don't have one this year, but we keep track
of that in my office to make sure that we either do or don't.
And right now, we don't have one.
10-29-07
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 LETZ: That's an aggregate total?
MS. HARGIS: That's the aggregate total. Has to be
the aggregate total. Now, they can still decide if they feel
that our internal controls on a particular grant is not
sufficient, or that we've not complied with those, they can
still pull a single audit, but it's left up to the audit firm
at that particular time. It's called a -- you pick a major
fund, and they can audit one or all, but if you go over
$500,000 aggregate, then they have to choose one or the
other.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And at the -- related to the
City, because they're the management. So, they -- they're
required to have the single audit because of the grants that
they receive there. They also were required because they had
received some FEMA money which fell off, but they also get
some ORCA money, so they're well in excess of the $500,000.
And a single audit is actually a second report. Pressler
included it in your document, but most audit firms will give
you two separate booklets, one for the single audit. Those
are required for the agencies. We have to send one to ORCA.
In fact, we sent out 12 copies of our audit last year, and 10
of those were basically for the Single Audit Act. And you
10-29-07
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
were over $500,000 last year. However, because of the other
grants, we have to make sure that -- that we don't have
additional agencies that are asked for, and then we go over
it every year. So, we have to keep track of it every year,
but it's really a -- to make sure that you follow the
procedures. And the federal government has what they call
the Single Audit Act, and they keep changing it on a regular
basis for compliance. It's a compliance audit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hopefully, when -- as we get close
to $500,000, they'll move the threshold to 750?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: Well, I don't know. They just changed
that 500,000 because of, I think, cost-of-living and
economics, but they were at the 250 from -- I want to say
'92, '93 to now. So, you know, it takes them a long time.
We don't want anything else to come out of G.A.S.B. right
now -- or the single audit. They just finished writing the
single audit manual again. It's hot off the press. The
federal government is a little bit more aggressive, and so I
doubt that it will change for at least four more years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back to these probation
departments, have we been auditing them?
MS. HARGIS: Separately. It's my understanding
from -- from Mr. Williams that we have been auditing that
separately from the beginning.
10-29-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From Mr. Williams?
MS. HARGIS: I mean Tommy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, Tommy. Okay.
MS. HARGIS: It's just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what else -- what else
was in this bid package? Those two, and then what else
that's separate from --
MS. HARGIS: There's really nothing separate here
except the single audit, and single audits can run as much
as -- depending upon the facility and the compliance, see, we
have several of them, so 5,000 is the cheapest you get by
with a single audit. Most of the time single audits are
going to be around 10,000, so that's the biggest portion --
some of the portion of it now. I will say that, you know, if
you notice, their bids did escalate for the following years.
I think -- actually, he didn't give a -- Null-Lairson's did
go up. This one only gave us a bid for one year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARGIS: So, I assume when we go out again for
next year, that he may -- and he knows he has to include at
that point the other two. The -- reason we -- we allowed
Pressler to do the other two is, number one, they can choose
who they want, and number two, their year-end is 8/31, and we
had to get those done. We couldn't wait. And they have to
get them in to the state within 60 days after the end of
10-29-07
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
their fiscal year, so we had to go with Pressler on those.
And they could elect on their own to pay for those. Now,
they both budget in each one of those departments for the
cost of their audits.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MS. HARGIS: So the Adult Probation would pay for
theirs. But the juvenile, because we participate in a large
portion of theirs, we would be paying for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they should pay for
their own. The -- now, we're going to do a deal with them
for one year?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that begins when?
MS. HARGIS: They'll really --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said something about
spring?
MS. HARGIS: In the spring, I would like to go out
for bid for 2007-2008.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: So that we get that early enough in so
that the firms can possibly give us a better bid and get more
bids. We only got two bids. I had three firms to turn me
down because of time constraints. Remember when I asked you
to keep Pressler? I said I was very concerned that their
budgets for time are already completed by August the 1st for
10-29-07
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
9/30's. There's so many governmental entities now,
especially in the Dallas and the Houston and Austin area,
with all these water districts, that the -- that there's not
that many firms that are qualified to do governmental audits.
Pressler was the only one here in town. I think we're lucky
Fredericksburg has one. Austin didn't want to drive this
far. I mean, there's a firm in Abilene, there's a firm in
Austin. There's not -- there's maybe six in Houston. And
the big firms have a limit of $150,000, so we didn't even
qualify for those. So, there's one out of Waco, and I spoke
with them when I was up there. They were too busy; they
couldn't -- they couldn't give us a bid. So, I think when we
go out in the spring, we can get a better bid. Then they can
budget the time. I think that's one reason why -- the
Fredericksburg firm is close. It's a good -- you know, it's
a good client for them, so let's see how they do. I have no
clue. I have never worked with them. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I haven't either, but I'm
willing to bet you that they're going to be great.
MS. HARGIS: I'm -- I'm assuming so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, sure.
MS. HARGIS: And he's been very knowledgeable when
I've spoken with him, and very willing to do the audit.
So -- and he does -- he does tell me he's going to have his
field work done by the end of January when I spoke to him
10-29-07
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
before. So, that's one good thing. We'll be finished on
time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Is there anything else?
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? We'll be adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 10:34 a.m.)
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 30th day of October,
2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : ------
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
10-29-07
ORDER NO.30590
2008 KERR COUNTY EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN PROPOSALS
Came to be heard this the 29th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to:
Reject all present bids on proposals on the 2008 employee health benefits plan,
based on the County Attorney's recommendation.
ORDER NO.30591
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR 2008 KERR COUNTY EMPLOYEE
HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN
Came to be heard this the 29th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to:
Authorize the issuance of a new RFP for the 2008 Kerr County Employee Health
Benefits Plan, and Notice and Publication of same, and set the deadline to be as
soon as possible, according to the State Law Bidding Requirements.
ORDER NO. 30592
EVALUATION COMMITTEE FOR HILL COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIBIT
CENTER RFQ'S
Came to be heard this the 29th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin. The Court approved
by vote of 2-0-0 to:
Appoint Commissioners Oehler and Letz and Roy Walston as the Primary
Committee members, and solicit input from Maintenance, and possibly the Auditor
or other entities, as needed.
ORDER NO.30593
AWARD NEAL AND NEAL CONCRETE CONTRACT FOR HORSE BARN
Came to be heard this the 29th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to:
Award the bid to Neal and Neal Concrete, in the amount of $25,360.00 for the
Horse Barn at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center.
ORDER NO. 30594
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
HOME DELIVERED MEAL GRANT APPLICATION
Came to be heard this the 29th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to:
Adopt the Resolution, as requested by the Dietert Center, for their Texas
Department of Agriculture Home Delivered Meal Grant Application, and authorize
County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 30595
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS TO ENGAGE OUTSIDE
AUDIT FIRM FOR 2006/07 KERB COUNTY AUDIT
Came to be heard this the 29th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to:
Receive responses to RFQ's for outside audit from:
1. Neffendorf, Knopp, Horry & Doss, P.C. in Fredericksburg, estimated
cost of audit, all-inclusive maximum price of $30,000.
2. Null-Lairson, CPAs in Houston, estimated fee section providing that
the cost for this year be $48,500.
and accept both proposals and refer them to the Auditor for review and
recommendation.
ORDER NO. 30596
ENGAGE AUDIT FIRM TO CONDUCT FY 2006/07 KERB COUNTY AUDIT
Came to be heard this the 29th day of October, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-0 to:
Accept the recommendation of the Auditor and approve selecting the firm of
Neffendorf, Knopp, Horry & Doss, P.C. for a one year contract for the 2006/07
outside audit.