1
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, November 23, 2009
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4

~J
1
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
I N D E X
November 23, 2009
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
accept late bid from Windstream Communications
for telephone system proposal
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
declare certain personal property as surplus
and authorize disposing of same
1.6 Discussion regarding agriculture and natural
resources summary for 2009
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding acquiring "Taking Claims" insurance
coverage through TAC
1.4 Consider/discuss, approve Kerr County Community
Plan for 2009-2010; authorize submission of the
plan to the Alamo Area Council of Governments
1.5 Consider/discuss, approve which project(s) will
be listed on application for funds allocated to
Kerr County under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act through SECO (State Energy
Conservation Office)
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
open, read, and award the proposal for a used
66" single drum vibratory compactor
1.11 Presentation for an on-site shredding service
available to any department in the courthouse
and/or annex facility; consider/discuss, take
appropriate action, and authorize County Judge
to sign contract pending approval of County
Attorney
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
award new county courthouse telephone system
contract; authorize County Judge to sign same
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding employee health benefit issues and
adoption of 2010 Kerr County employee health
benefits plan and/or plan amendments
PAGE
5
14,
82
23
24
36
40
44
58,
136
59
81,
146
85
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
I N D E X (Continued)
November 23 2009
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for a
variance on an easement off of FM 480 in Center
Point, Precinct 2
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve private road name request of Jan Dowdy
Lane W., Precinct 4
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set
a public hearing for approving raising the speed
limit to 45 mph and also adding two warning signs
for curve on Skyline Dr. in Center Point, Pct. 2
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
Tax Assessor/Collector's Office to be open
March 2nd, 2010, a scheduled holiday, for the
2010 Primary Election
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
adjust 2009-2010 Kerr County Holiday Schedule
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve contract with Dietert Center and allow
County Judge to sign same
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize and/or approve preliminary planning,
evaluation, and other pre-construction activities
or procedures in connection with proposed Law
Enforcement Annex/Adult Probation Building
1.18 Discuss Court Compliance iPlow software project;
executive session as required
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads
--- Adjourned
PAGE
128
134
135
137
138,
188
145
159
168
176
177
179
190
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, November 23, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the
Kerr County Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this
date and time, Monday, November the 23rd, 2009, at 9a.m. It
is that time now. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you please rise and
join me in a moment of prayer, followed by the pledge of
allegiance to our flag.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Please be seated. At
this time, if there's any member of the public that wishes to
be heard with respect to any matter that is not a listed
agenda item, this is your opportunity to come forward and
tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to be heard on an
agenda item -- a posted agenda item, we have, or should have,
at the rear of the room some participation forms. We ask
that you fill those out so that we're aware that there are
parties from the audience that wish to be heard on those
items. If we get to those items or any one of those items
11-23-09
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you wish to be heard on and you haven't filled out a
participation form, get my attention in some manner and I'll
see that you do have the opportunity to be heard. But right
now, if there's any member of the audience or public that
wishes to be heard with respect to any item that is not a
listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time
and tell us what's on your mind. Seeing no one coming
forward, we'll move on. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge, the
members of the Court. It's a pleasure to bring a really fine
group of young people to your attention this morning, the
Center Point chapter of the Future Farmers of America. And
before I introduce them, I just want to say, as you look at
these young people, just keep in mind that it is in the hands
of these young people and others like them that are the
future of America, and it is great to note that these are the
~~ people that will someday take our nation and guide it and
direct it and work for it, and be good citizens in the
process. So, what I want to talk to you about this morning
and introduce is the Center Point chapter of the Future
Farmers of America. They went representing the state of
Texas to the national conclave in Indianapolis -- national
convention, and they were the Texas representative, and they
competed against 48 other states with their booth and their
great spirit, and all the things that make F.F.A. good for
11-23-09
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
young people. And I'm pleased to tell you that they finished
second out of 48 states, and they earned 298 out of a
possible 300 points for their booth and their display and
their enthusiasm and their presentation.
So, it's my pleasure to present to you these group
of young folks from Center Point. Great young people, and I
want to introduce them all to you, starting with their
adviser, Cortney Hopper. Please stand, Cortney. Stand up as
we call your name, and we'll hold our applause until we're
finished, please. Chaperone Dolly Coldwell. Is Dolly not
here this morning? Okay. Chaperone Julie Smith. I see
Julie back there. Good morning, Julie. The president of the
group, Cassie Coldwell. Vice president, Cammie Smith.
Secretary is Amanda Weaver. Advisory is Ty Salzman. Member,
Jeremy Bullis. Member, William Hart, Levi Mills, Kenzie
Smith, and Cody Smith. Would you give these young people a
round of applause?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for being here.
Mr. Hopper, would you like to say a word or two about your
group?
MR. HOPPER: You did good.
here as long as you want.
11-23-09
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
MS. COLDWELL: They have to go back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? Or, excuse me.
Do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'm finished. Thank
~ JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three things. One, I spent a
good part of last Wednesday in Austin working on the task
force on uniform county subdivision regulations. Interesting
group. Interesting first meeting. And it was interesting,
really, because -- and you may not be surprised, is that I
ended up on the side of the developers, rather than most
counties. It is quite amazing how some of our colleagues in
other counties -- what they think we should be doing, and we
got hung up early on on whether counties should be
responsible for affordable housing. And I was -- said that I
didn't think that that belonged anywhere in subdivision rules
and regulations; that I was very sympathetic to it, but I
didn't think it was a county function. However, probably the
majority of the group there, certainly the majority of the
county officials, thought that was a proper function for a
county. So, anyway, we have a long way to go on this
meeting.
Second, on our appeals -- DFC appeals that are
working through the system, Kerr County has been notified
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
Ellenberger and the Hickory formations, which we were the
only ones that appealed those two. The Water Development
Board passed -- gave some guidance to GMA-9 and suggested
that -- two issues. One, the aquifers were likely not
relevant to Kerr County, and also that they were not properly
posted for the agenda item that they took. And they
suggested that it would be very helpful if GMA-9 would call a
quick meeting and clarify their -- their motion and exclude
Kerr County and the rest of the GMA to only make it apply to
Blanco County. And I visited with the representatives over
at Blanco County, and they have agreed -- or they're going to
do that, I think, on the 30th, next Monday here, to clarify
that that -- their intent was only to include a DFC for
Blanco County, and they will explicitly say those aquifers
are not relevant for Kerr County. And I told them that if
they accomplished that, I will bring it to the Court in
December for us to withdraw that appeal, and then we'll
decide if we do it or not. But, anyway, that's good news.
It just shows that, at least on those two, we were on firm
ground, because the Water Development Board doesn't want that
to get to the full board; they want it handled ahead of time.
And the final item, a little bit on -- I know we
have several reporters here -- on the CCN issue. Really, I'm
a little concerned on the article, primarily in the Daily
11-23-09
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
that they had in the paper. And it was brought up, I know,
at the meeting that I was at -- Commissioner Oehler was
there, and I think Commissioner Baldwin was there as well --
that the -- Todd Parton, the City Manager, finally said,
after some questions by me, that the only thing that's going
-- that the City's going to be able to do after -- or if they
get the CCN is be able to provide fire protection with red
hydrants in high density developments. And in their whole
area, that's the only thing that they're going to be able to
do that they can't do right now under the current subdivision
rules that we're working on with the City. And I think it is
a -- a huge point, that if that's the only gain that's going
to be made -- 'cause they're not going to go back and
retrofit all the black fire hydrants in the ETJ, or in their
CCN boundary. It's only going to cover getting red hydrants
in new subdivisions. And if that's their only purpose, I
think they're being really misleading to the public of -- of
Kerr County by not so stating that very clearly. They're
jumping through lots of hoops, and it's really disappointing
that they're not being more forthright, and I'm a little bit
disappointed the paper didn't really cover that a little bit
more thoroughly. That's it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I -- I go along with
11-23-09
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
everything you said. And I think -- I don't think; I -- it
seems that the City is -- is misleading people in that very
-- that very way, and trying to get people in the proposed
new area to believe that they're going to provide better fire
protection. Well, I don't believe they're going to expend
one dime to do that. Residents of Kerrville are not
obligated to pay for fire protection outside the city limits,
I don't believe. And like Jon said, there are only going to
be a few areas that could be subject to the new regulation,
and most of those areas have opted out because they're
25 acres or more. So, anyway, that's -- I think we've all
heard just about enough about all that mess, but we'll see
what happens.
On the good side, last Wednesday, the Judge and I
went over to U.G.R.A., and they, for the first time that I
can remember -- I think it is the first time -- had an award
to present to our Environmental Health Department. And that
is -- that's quite something to have that cooperation, that
they feel like they're being included in the loop and that
we're being responsive to what they're wanting us to do, and
I just want to recognize Ray and his department for
everything they've done to make this possible. And I believe
he has the real nice framed -- framed plaque. And I asked
the whole office staff to be here, because it's the whole
group that does this; it's not just one person. And I tell
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
you what, we have -- we've got a real fine group of -- of
office staff down there, as well as Ray being the manager.
Just -- it's made a lot of difference in the feeling of our
public and the taxpayers toward our Environmental Health
Department, I believe. And to get U.G.R.A. on board, wow.
That's about as special as it gets, for them to recognize the
County as being a real participant in trying to keep Kerr
County clean and keep the river clean. Ray, would you like
to say something? But thanks to y'all, every one of you.
Y'all are a part of what goes on. You're part of the
success, and thank you for doing it. I mean, you -- I think
you have the support of this full court. I don't know of
anybody up here that doesn't support you. Ray?
MR. GARCIA: Yeah. I'd just like to say I'm really
proud of staff, and I think Kerr County and the Kerr County
residents are very fortunate to have a staff that's this
dedicated to protecting our environment, and always out there
doing their due diligence to make sure that the county is
taken care of. And also, this goes both ways. It goes along
with the Commissioners Court and the support of the Kerr
County residents. It goes with the County Attorney's office
helping us prosecute a lot of these environmental crimes that
come along. The acting County Attorney, when Rex was sitting
down there as County Attorney, she had really helped us on
the tip of the sword, tip of the spear. She was very
11-23-09
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
cooperative with us, her and Rex, and they helped us a lot.
Like I said, along with all the support across the board, and
really, really fortunate to have this type of a team for Kerr
County and its residents, and I applaud my staff for their
exceptional professionalism.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Hear, hear.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good job, guys.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take care.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's probably enough out of
i me .
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right, we'll go down here
I to Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's going to be
hard to follow. The -- Saturday night, I was here watching
the Christmas parade, and I understand there were 88 floats
in that thing. It looked like about 888, but there were --
it was huge parade, and it was neat, and everybody was -- it
was a fun thing. And then afterwards, this entire yard was
full of people for the ceremony out in the front door, and
Santa Claus is cool. That's all I know. That's all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one quickie, which I
11-23-09
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
And what troubles me so much about this whole issue is the
fact that not -- not all of the people who needed to be
notified were notified. Letters went out to something like
450 people, but there were probably four times that many who
did not receive notices who may have had parcels of land
under 25 acres, or have had several parcels cobbled together,
maybe 100 acres or whatever, and they didn't receive the
notification. And it's from a lot of these people that all
I of us have received phone calls about, "What is this all
about? What does it mean to me?" and so forth and so on.
So, we'll see how it all shakes out, but it's a troubling
issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- we'll put it on
the agenda to maybe discuss it more.
JUDGE TINLEY: Speaking of kudos, following up what
you mentioned, Commissioner Baldwin, the -- this entire
production for the courthouse lighting and kicking off of the
Christmas season that goes on here in Kerrville every year, I
think kudos need to go out to all of the folks in our
Maintenance Department, because they are an integral part of
making all of this happen, particularly here on the
courthouse grounds, and they also utilize some community
service workers. They -- they're pitching in and doing their
part, but all of this is done under the supervision of our
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
maintenance people here, so they're to be commended for their
fine job. Everything went off real well; everybody seemed to
have a great time, and we're into the Christmas season once
again just before Thanksgiving.
Let's get on with the agenda. The first item on
the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to accept late bid from Windstream Communications for
telephone system proposal. The item was put on the agenda at
that time request of Kimberly Dandurand. In setting this up,
I might note that -- I believe the bids were required to be
received by 10:30 at our last Commissioners Court meeting,
and, of course, immediately after that we took a break. I
was out in the hall; I believe Ms. Pieper was there also, and
it -- it was probably at most 10 minutes after that deadline
that Ms. Dandurand mentioned to us something about submitting
a bid. And that's when -- and we mentioned to her that that
deadline had passed. And subsequent to that, when she
inquired what she might do to receive consideration, I
mentioned that she -- the appropriate thing would be for her
to ask that -- request for late consideration, late filing be
permitted, and put it on the agenda before the Court and come
forward and explain whatever the extenuating circumstances
were. And, as a consequence, she's here today, and it
appears like she's got some more folks. And so I'm going to
turn it over to you at this time, Ms. Dandurand.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
MS. DANDURAND: Thank you, Judge. For the record,
my name is Kimberly Dandurand. I'm with Windstream
Communications; work at 812 Water Street. I appreciate the
Court's time this morning to see us. I do want to apologize
for our late entry. Just -- the time specifications just got
away, and about 10 minutes late to submit our bid. I was in
the hallway and asked if we would be considered today. So, I
appreciate your time today for that circumstance. Just
driving here from Boerne, sir. Again, I want to apologize
for delaying your process to be considered for this. I think
Windstream is an important member of the community here, both
in Kerrville and Kerr County. We are -- have been a partner
with Kerr County in telephones -- local telephone service and
internet for over 20 years. We are an active community
member, member of the chamber, participate in several
philanthropic activities here in the county, for the holidays
as well as throughout the rest of the year. Our technicians
all live and work here in Kerrville, Rusty Henderson's team.
They have more than 20 years experience, as well as in the
telephone and internet industry, so they bring a lot to
the -- to the table, as well as Windstream offering superior
products, Nortel Mitel Solutions for your telephone system.
We did an active inventory. We did two -- two inventory
compilations for the County to make sure we were thorough in
I our bid to you. So, I just want to ask the Court if they are
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
able to consider this bid, and try to earn your business. We
will work hard to do so, and appreciate your time again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Ms. Dandurand?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, no questions.
MS. DANDURAND: And I just have extra copies.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a question, if you don't
I mind.
MS. DANDURAND: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Was there a particular reason or
reasons for your late arrival on that date and inability to
meet the 10:30 deadline?
MS. DANDURAND: Just some car trouble, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. DANDURAND: Just some car trouble.
JUDGE TINLEY: Car trouble?
MS. DANDURAND: Yes, sir, from Boerne.
II JUDGE TINLEY: And you were coming from Boerne?
MS. DANDURAND: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions for
Ms. Dandurand?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The dog didn't eat the
homework?
MS. DANDURAND: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, the package is here. It
ultimately got filed with the County Clerk, I believe, but
11-23-09
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
the final time on it is actually somewhere around noon, so I
wanted to -- when I set up the agenda item, I wanted to
mention that. And I believe someone else was there other
than you and I, Ms. Pieper, when it was mentioned out in the
hall shortly after the break.
MS. DANDURAND: I believe it was the County Clerk,
Judge.
MS. PIEPER: I think Cheryl may have been with us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Just wanted to let the Court
know that we weren't talking about two hours; we were talking
about possibly 10 minutes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, you did exactly
the right thing, and I appreciate you doing that. And I
i appreciate you coming up and apologizing. That's kind of
~I
neat. How many -- how many bids do we have?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four, it seems.
MR. TROLINGER: Four.
JUDGE TINLEY: Four?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wonder what the other
companies think about somebody coming in late. You know,
would they approve of it, or would they have heartburn over
it? Or if we -- if we accepted her apology and allowed her
to come in, and --
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess one possibility,
Commissioner, would be to defer making a decision today and
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
inquire of them. That would certainly be one possibility
of -- for us to do today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my concern is really
more of a precedent issue than anything else. And if it's,
you know, 15 minutes, well, does that mean, then -- is an
hour okay? If an hour's okay, well, then, is two hours --
you know, you get down there. And I -- and the other part of
that precedent side -- let me go to the County Attorney. Can
we do this? Can we just decide to not follow our bid
MS. BAILEY: Well, the potential down side is that
if you were to decide that their bid was the best one, and
would select it, then the other proposers would have the
opportunity to object to it on the basis that it wasn't a
timely filed bid. So, you do run a certain amount of risk,
but I think you could accept it. But the concern about
setting a precedent I think is a real concern.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the thing that comes to mind
is, number one, we want the maximum competition in our bid
process, obviously. That's always healthy, and generally
produces better results for us. On the other hand, the.
precedential aspect is a consideration on the down side.
Certainly, I don't think there was even the remotest
possibility for there to be any -- any leg up, as it were, in
view of the short time frame and the fact that the other bids
11-23-09
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
had just been opened, with no disclosure as to what the
content of them was. So, we -- we don't have that issue
coming in. But you're right, Commissioner; you've got the
I~ precedential value, and it's a matter of discretion whether
we do or don't. And the -- the bid specs themselves -- do
they say absolutely no bids will be accepted after -- after
the filing date? I know they always say that we have the
right to accept or reject all bids. That's always in there.
MS. BAILEY: It just said -- but it was 10:15.
Bids were due by 10:15, and she came about 10:20 or 10:25, I
think. However, I don't know if it makes any difference to
you, but I was told prior to 10:15, that she had already
notified, I guess, Jannett that she was going to be late, so
I don't know if that makes any difference to you. Was it
you, Jannett? Someone told me that, --
MS. PIEPER: No, it wasn't me.
MS. BAILEY: -- that she was going to be late. And
so I don't know if that's what you want to hang your hat on
as far as creating a precedent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know, to me, you
know, the only way I would go along with it is if other
ones -- other bidders, you know, said in writing that they
had no problem with it, and they thought it should be
accepted.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think one way to do
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
it, too, would be to notify the other bidders and give them
the option to say, "Let my bid stand under the circumstances,
and it's fine that we go -- that you go forward with awarding
the best bid." As long -- if they say, "No, she was late,"
you know, "we're not going to go along with that; we want a
chance to rebid," if that's going to be the case, I think we
need to give them an option, 'cause they were here in a
timely manner. I mean, there were extenuating circumstances
I that didn't allow them to -- Windstream to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But if you get into -- let
me ask you something. If you get into the rebidding thing,
aren't those numbers tainted?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think we've disclosed
any of them yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, you're not
talking about actually opening them and -- and then seeing if
the other companies protest?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Hmm-mm, no. I'm saying that
we don't disclose any of the content --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have been opened, but
they just haven't been disclosed.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we don't know whether or
not those other bidders have been compromised by reason of
this bid. We don't know that.
11-23-09
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I know.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, I will tell that you I received
a phone call from one of the bidders last week, because they
thought we had accepted it. And I explained, no, we have
not. But that bidder was upset that -- because they thought
we had accepted it, because of the time limit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go Letz' route and get
it in writing that they are thrilled to death with us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can do it -- I mean, you
know, it needs to be clear that they're not going to be -- we
I have no issue one way other the other.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I'm saying. You
know, if they don't object to the process, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- and none of the
information has been disclosed, then I don't see a problem
with it. But if somebody objects, I don't think I can
support taking a late bid.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This could be handled by
e-mail for expeditious responses.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. And they need to be
aware that none of the information has been divulged. Or a
decision --
25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's important that
11-23-09
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
all bidders know that the Court is not aware of the contents
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Trolinger, you -- you have kept
all the information in those bids within your purview and
control, and that's not been disclosed to anybody except
people in your department?
MR. TROLINGER: Affirmative.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
THE CLERK: Judge, that information has all been
scanned into Laser Fiche in Commissioners Court records,
which are open to the public, so if anybody has come in to
search the records, they would be aware of that information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Over-efficient.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So much for nondisclosure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
THE CLERK: And I do know that one company has done
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: We should presume that they all
have. Our own efficiency has -- has us in a dilemma here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it has.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we go -- you know, I'll
make a motion that we accept the Windstream bid only if the
other bidders concur that it's acceptable to them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
indicated. 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 carries. We'll see where
it goes, folks.
MS. DANDURAND: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your interest in
trying to do business with us, and sorry this happened.
Let's go to Item 2; consider, discuss, take appropriate
action to declare certain personal property as surplus and
authorize disposing of the same. Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, we have some old
secretarial chairs and woods chairs and some metal typing
stands we don't use that we need to get rid of, so we'd like
the get them declared surplus. The chairs are unsafe. I
think the secretarial chairs have the four -- I don't know --
pedestals? I don't know what you call them, but they're the
unsafe ones. So, we've been -- we've replaced them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move that the property
identified by the County Clerk be declared surplus, and
authorize the disposing of the same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only comment that I have
is it would be nice if we had that list so that we're
approving a particular list. Not just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's on there, Page 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have Page 2, I'm
sorry to -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two secretarial chairs, two
wood chairs, and two metal typing stands.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's got the inventory tag
I numbers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Oh, it's right here.
It's after 18.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that where it is?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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 carried. We'll move to
', our 9:30 item, for a discussion regarding agriculture and
natural resources summary for 2009. Mr. Walston?
MR. WALSTON: Good morning, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Morning.
11-23-09
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning.
MR. WALSTON: I'd like to present y'all an outcome
summary that do I on an annual basis on one of my program
areas that my Ag Natural Resource Committee, along with
myself, select. For the last several years, we have been
working primarily with new landowners, small-acreage
landowners as -- as our major outcome area. And why we call
it an outcome area, it's an opportunity for us to evaluate
knowledge gained with this audience. Not to say that this is
the only particular area that we're working in. Of course,
there's numerous other projects that we're working on, and
I'll go over those in a little bit -- a little bit, a few of
those, later on. But this is our outcome area. We targeted
the wildlife audience and our small-acreage landowners.
And some of the programs that we did in response,
one of the things that we had an opportunity to do this year
was a presentation to our data gathering group here in Kerr
County that showed our overall statistics from 1946 to -- or
1949 to 2009, and what our acreage and landowners did. And
in 1949, our average acreage in Kerr County, we had right at
500 landowners, 580 ranchers, with 1,100 average acres, the
farm size being -- average size is 1,100 acres. And in 2009,
we have 1,226 operations, with an average farm size of
500 acres -- so we've completely swapped ends on that -- with
a mean size of 105 acres. So, we're working a lot with
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
small-acreage landowners, and that's why we're trying to
target this group as far as educational information.
Our primary program that we had this year was the
Hill Country Wildlife Management Symposium; had 50 producers
in attendance. And in this program, we talked everything
from condemnation of land for various uses, as well as
understanding landowner cooperatives. Also, resource
management under high fence. And this program was primarily
targeted on high fence, because Kerr County has more total
miles of high fence than any county in the state of Texas,
and so when we -- we wanted to tell these people that, you
know, when you do purchase this property and it is
high-fenced and you think it's exactly what you're wanting,
really what you're going to be getting in for, 'cause
management intensity is considerably greater.
On the second page, it'~l°1 show you the results of
each one of these evaluations, and the increase in knowledge
on the programs that we -- the information that we presented.
Another presentation that we had was a Farm Pond Management
field day at Camp Verde. We had Dr. Michael Masser, our
Extension wildlife biologist, presented a program on water
quality, stocking farm ponds, population management, and weed
identification and control. Had an excellent program, and he
did an excellent job for us, and we had really a good
information exchange with the landowners, with 108 percent
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
increase in knowledge and understanding the control measures
of aquatic weeds. 'Cause in Kerr County, with most of our
ponds being in stream beds that tend to be flooded
periodically, we continuously get an influx of weed
population in those ponds, and so trying to keep those clean
is nearly impossible. So, that's a continuing problem that
we always face.
Our next program that we had was in combination
with our master gardeners, and it was a rainwater harvesting
workshop. Which, actually, we had several; it was kind 'of an
ongoing deal. When we first started, our master gardeners
decided that they were going to make rain barrels, and we had
~, about 50 rain barrels to make, and we thought that would be
plenty. And before we had the workshop, the 50 were gone.
These are 55-gallon plastic drums that we -- the master
gardeners volunteer; we put together a program and basically
taught the public on how to make a rain barrel, collection
barrel off their downspout off their roof, or whatever
i
cachement source surface they may have. After we got through
with those 50 rain barrels, we made another 80 rain barrels,
and they were all gone. So, we put out 120 55-gallon rain
barrels, and they finally stopped. They said enough's
enough; said, "We've got the idea out. They understand how
to do it."
And, so, with 120 rain barrels out and sources,
11-23-09
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
that's 6,600 gallons of rainwater that they've had if that's
', just collected one time, and I'm sure that's overflowing.
So, the primary purpose of this was to provide homeowners an
opportunity to learn how to collect rainwater, even though
it's on a small scale. I know after this last year, we've
had a lot of interest in rainwater collection systems on a
lot of larger scales, and they're going in all over the
county. So, it was really a rewarding opportunity to work
with those individual -- individuals in actually building
their own rain barrels.
To change topics just a little bit, we're in the
midst of our 4-H livestock season. With our -- we'll be
finishing up our swine validation this afternoon. We've
completed our lamb and goat and steer validation numbers for
this year. To give you an idea how we're sitting as far as
4-H exhibitors and numbers are concerned, in comparison to
last year, in 2008, we -- we had 186 exhibitors, including
all four -- now, these are market animals. Our -- our
breeding animals, most of those kids also exhibit market
animals, so they're also included in this as well; however,
the breeding numbers are not included in my project numbers.
We had 186 exhibitors in 2008. This year we're up to 208
exhibitors, 4-H exhibitors. Out of those, we had -- this
year we have 36 of those exhibitors with 77 projects on
lambs, 25 exhibitors exhibiting 42 steers, 75 -- 75 4-H'ers
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
exhibiting 142 meat goat projects, 72 exhibitors exhibiting
146 swine projects. All of these are up, with the exception
of the market lamb project, which is down 10 head. So,
that's one that it's -- we're losing our large number of
exhibitors, or exhibitors that's feeding larger numbers. And
nearly every project, an average project size for most of
these kids is two animals, and that's kind of where it's
~ working out.
Our livestock project center, we have currently six
swine exhibitors in it, nine lamb exhibitors, and two goat
exhibitors, with 17 head of market hogs, 14 market lambs, and
two market goats. So, this year we also have 44 exhibitors.
There's nobody competing in major stock shows. So, that kind
of gives you an idea where we're at. And I'm glad to see our
numbers up in those areas. I was a little concerned last
year; we had some of them drop, and it seems like it's kind
of leveled off and starting to come back. And I had a
feeling that maybe the economy may have had something to do
with that. Seems like maybe it's going to hold on.
', JUDGE TINLEY: Roy, in the new barn out there that
we've configured for some of these youngsters to have animals
that don't otherwise have a place to do those projects, are
all of those pens spoken for and being utilized now?
MR. WALSTON: No, we've got one lamb and goat pen
that is available. I say "available." The projects have
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
already been validated, so we got one extra there. And we've
got about half the swine project pens that are being used.
So, we've got actually 24 swine pens, and we're using about
half of those, so we've still got about 12 pens left.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And one lamb?
MR. WALSTON: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: But other -- how many total pens do
MR. WALSTON: We've got 11 lamb and goat pens and
~~
~ 24 swine pens, so we're at 35 total pens.
I JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, we've got significant
', capacity available?
MR. WALSTON: You bet. You bet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. WALSTON: We've got a good -- if we fill it up,
we can hold, supposedly, two hogs to a pen, which is 48 head;
three to four lambs and goats. You know, we can hold 75 head
in that barn when it's maximum full.
JUDGE TINLEY: My point is, if there's any
youngsters that don't have a place to do their project that
want to do a project, we can certainly have some room.
MR. WALSTON: I think it will -- I think next year
we'll continue. We've got -- out of these exhibitors that we
have -- let's see, we've got four -- four of those lamb and
goat exhibitors that are brand-new, that this is their first
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
year, and one of the swine exhibitors that this is their
first year. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Roy, in the -- on your
small-acreage seminars, do you do any follow-up to see if
they're -- if they're doing -- I know they learn it, but do
they implement it?
MR. WALSTON: I did -- and I didn't include it in
this, but I did on the rainwater harvesting workshop, as to
what they were planning on doing. I did have that. I just
didn't get it included on this as to exactly what they were
doing or what they were planning on doing. As to what
they -- actually follow up to know for sure what they've
actually got done, I haven't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be interesting, on
the --	the range management	one,. to get	some follow-up	and
see.	I mean, it's easy to	go to the seminars and learn	the
stuff.	It's a lot of work	to implement,	especially if	you're
under deer-proof fence.
MR. WALSTON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, even just a
questionnaire. I'm sure you have the names and addresses,
and see how they put it into practice to see if they -- and
make it simple and get the feedback. And they're probably
going to exaggerate to make you happy, but -- but you might
get some idea as to --
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
MR. WALSTON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, some of the more
serious things that I think occur on 10 or 12 acres or 20,
people buy two or three horses and put them on there, and
then they have a cow and a few goats. You know, looks like
the dark side of the moon. They don't realize that you can't
carry so much stock and still be able to maintain cover.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even -- even pasture rotation
on 10 acres to 5 acres helps. I mean, just moving them back
and forth.
MR. WALSTON: We've focused more on resource --
range resource management in the years past, whereas we
didn't this year. This year we focused a little more on
wildlife management, because we worked more on rangeland
resource in the years past. But we can go back and see what
they've been implementing over the past --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It'd just be interesting to
see.
MR. WALSTON: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Roy, on your rainwater
harvesting, were your seminars devoted to just how to catch
water for local irrigation purposes, or did you get into
domestic use and so forth in larger systems?
MR. WALSTON: It was primarily on -- on just the
collection, and water as a resource and utilizing it, kind of
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
as a -- whether it be on landscape or wildlife. And then it
can be -- it can be extrapolated into a larger system. So,
this particular workshop was primarily focused on landscape,
on small collection for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's kind of an
interest, but the interest is really growing now.
MR. WALSTON: Interest has changed in the last
year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And people are inquiring
more and more about it, and people are making suggestions
about, "Why doesn't the Court do thus-and-so about rainwater
harvesting?" So, it's really gathering steam. I'm glad you
did it.
MR. WALSTON: I've had --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The answer to that is, we
can't afford it any more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's some new homes going in
that -- I know two in Kerr County that have no wells planned,
and 100 percent rainwater cachement, putting in 30,000-gallon
tanks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. WALSTON: I had one gentleman came in, and he
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
34
said -- he said, "It's going to cost me probably $20,000 to
put in a complete system," he said, "but we've got to do it.
We can't go through this again." And he sent me pictures
where he's put in a 30,000-gallon system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They've got them looking pretty
JUDGE TINLEY: There's a state association that I
believe last year met here in Kerrville.
MR. WALSTON: They're going to meet here again this
year.
22
23
24 control
25
MR. WALSTON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Roy, the aquatic weed
JUDGE TINLEY: They're scheduled to meet here again
in March. It's -- I can't recall the name; it's a rainwater
harvesting statewide organization, and they'll be here in
March. So, I think that's probably bringing a lot of
interest and knowledge, particularly to this area, more so
than in some of the other areas in the country. But --
MR. WALSTON: We do have -- some of it's simple and
some of it's pretty complicated. If you go to using it for
in-house use, by the time you go through all your filtering
systems, it gets somewhat complicated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And expensive.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Recently, I was a guest on a
ranch in my precinct, and this guy has these ponds, and it's
the cutest thing you've ever seen. And he had put together
an electric lawnmower that he lowered down in that thing, and
chik-a-chik-a-chik, just ran it across.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lawnmower?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it cut the weeds at
ground level, and they floated to the top and washed down to
the spillway, and you go out there and pick them up, haul
them off. But it was the cutest thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Electric lawnmower?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, little lawnmower
thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bet you didn't want to
stick your finger in that water, did you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's sealed up. He
also had some black bass in there about like this.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Once you got the weeds out,
you could see the bass.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. That was the reason I
was there; I'm a bass inspector. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Amongst other things.
MR. WALSTON: Of course, we usually get those calls
about June, you know, when people start seeing kind of weed
control -- weed problems that they have. And, of course,
11-23-09
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
June's, you know, 100 degrees, and not the time we really
need to be treating weeds. And so we try to recommend going
to the grass carp route, and that's -- in our situations, if
you can contain them, those are -- for the long term, that's
the most cost-effective way to go. And, of course, most of
the time, people want something immediately. You know, they
want something -- they want it out now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. That's why they wait until
June to call.
MR. WALSTON: Yeah. Yeah. They're not going to
worry about it, but when they want it, they want it now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Mr. Walston?
Thank you for your report. We appreciate it.
MR. WALSTON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on with Item 3 on our
agenda, to consider, discuss, take appropriate action
regarding acquiring taking claims insurance coverage through
TAC. Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: Good morning. Our insurance carrier,
the Texas Association of Counties, has offered new coverage
to us on what they call taking of claims. This coverage is
$500 a year, and it pertains to us taking -- if we took a
claim on land, and that homeowner wanted -- or property owner
didn't like what we did, and they came back and sued us, we
don't have insurance to cover that. And so they're offering
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
this coverage for $500 a year. So, it's up to the Court: if
you want to add this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, it's defense coverage
only?
MS. HARGIS: It's defense coverage.
JUDGE TINLEY: The liability coverage is --
MS. HARGIS: Is there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably -- there's probably --
MS. HARGIS: The liability coverage --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- a double immunity?
MS. HARGIS: It's covered in our general liability.
JUDGE TINLEY: But there is defense coverage?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: In the event there's claims asserted
or lawsuits filed under the taking doctrine. And that's what
we're talking about, essentially?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean, "taking"?
Are you talking about eminent domain issues?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there are a number of claims
of taking that can be made short of eminent domain. We take
some restrictive action with respect to someone's property,
and they say effectively it constitutes a taking, because
we've so restricted their use, for example, and they assert a
claim against us for a taking. Sometimes it's referred to as
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
inverse condemnation, where you .impact somebody's land by
virtue of some action that a governmental body takes. It
effectively constitutes a -- a taking or a condemnation. So,
that's what it's all about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I mean, I just can't
see that -- I mean, it's only $500, but I just can't see --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't get much out of it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that we -- I know in the --
as long as I've been a Commissioner, we've never had a
takings claim against us. So, I just -- and, you know, I
just don't think -- we just don't do that kind of stuff. I
mean, even on right-of-way, if they don't want to give it to
us, I mean, I just don't see how we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't we get into it
sometimes with subdivision plat situations where we restrict
a lot from certain -- from building on it for certain
reasons? Because we've done that. But we never had a claim;
I agree with that. We've never had a claim.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess you could get there if
someone was really that irritated with us, said that we're --
because of our rules, that we are taking their property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you have -- you have a
new -- as an example, I own a quarter acre with a house on it
with an aerobic septic system. I can't add a room. I can't
do anything. I can't add a garage. I can't add anything,
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
39
because this -- the sewer system takes up the -- my property.
So, in reality, you've taken my land. I can't make any
improvement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ray did it, I didn't.
(Laughter.) No, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Remember that nice fella that was in
here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did such a great job.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bruce did it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess we're getting more and
more people that sue you for no reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. But my whole thinking
on this thing is that -- you know how we -- we recently were
looking at all of our health insurance, and we basically look
at that every year. I think that we need to start looking at
everything that TAC does with us as well, as closely as we do
our health insurance. And I wouldn't -- I don't want to add
on something else when, in my mind, we need to be taking a
look at them, what they're doing with us anyway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to say no.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion to decline the
coverage?
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If there -- if a motion is
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
needed or required, certainly it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've got to respond that we
either accept it or decline it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I decline it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could I ask one question?
Is this a specific exclusion on our current liability
coverage?
MS. HARGIS: It will be, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It will be?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. We haven't accepted or declined
it yet. That's the reason I'm bringing it to you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we decline the nice
offer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to decline
the takings coverage. Question or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 4; consider, discuss, take appropriate action -- and
approve the Kerr County Community Plan for 2009-2010 and
authorize submission of the plan to Alamo Area Council of
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
Governments. Ms. Lavender.
MS. LAVENDER: Good morning, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Chief project person for the county.
MS. LAVENDER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. LAVENDER: Whatever title you'd like to give
me. Community plan, we've done this now many years. It
becomes a basis for grant applications through the Criminal
Justice funds through the governor's office in the -- right
after Christmastime. That's what is the basis for mine, and
Hill Country Crisis Council and Kids Advocacy Place and
Baptist Child and Family Services, and a number of grants
that are in existence are done through this program. But it
also gives us an opportunity to look at other community
issues that need to be included. And I think if you read
through the health and family issues, you saw the need the
health professionals identified for additional primary care
physicians in the community. And there may be, hopefully,
some funds through the Texas Health Department that maybe
they'll be able to apply for. And there's also some mental
health requests in there, the need for some additional
funding for our mental health issues in the county, which
seem to be growing. As the state cuts back on mental health
funding, our needs continue to increase in Kerr County, to
provide the kind of services that we need to for the
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
population that we've had here -- that we have here.
So, the only big issue I would point out to you in
this plan this year is under the law enforcement corrections
and courts deal. We're going to look at funding the
equipment and training for officers from each of the three
law enforcement agencies here to do our own forensic computer
diagnosis, because if you send cell phones or computers to
Austin, to D.P.S., sometimes it takes six months to do it, to
get the results back, and in the meantime, you've got the
people that have committed the crimes out there, sometimes
recommitting, reoffending. And so we're going to look at
applying for the equipment, and hopefully Rusty will find a
little closet somewhere that we can put it and train people
from each law enforcement agency to do their own forensics on
cell phones and computers, and hopefully speed up some
prosecution in the courts here on those kind of crimes. We
had over 80 situations last year where we could have used
that technology, and we only were able to get two back from
D.P.S. And so that's what we -- we're kind of hoping we'll
be able to do this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What three agencies?
MS. LAVENDER: Ingram, Kerrville Police, and
Sheriff's Office would each have an officer that could go
through the training, and then when they had a case that they
needed to use the equipment to do it, then they would just go
11-23-09
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
in to do it themselves. If they needed help from the other
agencies, they could ask, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have -- do you have a
dollar figure on this?
MS. LAVENDER: It's about 17,500, I think, for the
equipment and training; it's not real expensive. And, so, it
will be something we believe that -- that AACOG and CJAC
committee will be sympathetic to. And then if we want to
expand it and let other counties come in and -- and do it, we
can charge for doing it or whatever. That would be something
the law enforcement people would have to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the only major
change?
MS. LAVENDER: Really, that's probably the biggest
thing in the plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If my memory is correct, you
scored really high with AACOG on your plan.
MS. LAVENDER: Thank you. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. LAVENDER: Hopefully we'll continue to do that.
Anyway, it has to be submitted by the end of November, and so
this is our window day to approve it. I would ask that you
approve it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval of
the Kerr County Community Plan for 2009-10, and authorize the
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
submission of the plan to Alamo Area Council of Governments.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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. We'll move
to Item 5; consider, discuss, and approve which projects will
be listed on the application for funds allocated to Kerr
County under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
through the State Energy Conservation Office, which is part
of the Texas Comptroller's office. Kerr County has been
allotted $100,000. Projects must not have funds already
allocated in the county's budget for 2009-2010.
Ms. Lavender?
MS. LAVENDER: Well, I apologize for not having the
backup information. We were in the process of trying to get
bids late last week, and I was in Austin at a victims
conference, and so Tim's been busy trying to get all this
together. And, actually, we have one more to even add to
that list beyond what's on there. If you'll go -- you can
make it four and a half, if you'd like to, and add another
one on there. It's to replace the two basement air
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
conditioner units here in the courthouse with heat pumps, and
the total figure on it is $12,954. And that's through
Airtech. And if you'll let me kind of -- I'm going to speak
a little bit to it; then if you have any real serious
questions, Tim will have to answer the questions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the number you
just gave us?
MS. LAVENDER: 12,954.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 12,9. Thank you.
MS. LAVENDER: Yes. What -- we went -- I went --
well, I came to you in November and we talked about this, and
we -- the State has allotted $100,000 to us. It's not a
competitive grant. It's, "This is how much money you get."
At the time, I had only talked to them on the telephone. In
early November, I went to a workshop over at Johnson City
that the Comptroller's office, the SEGO people put on, and it
wasn't real informative, but I did learn some things that
made us have to take a little bit different direction with
this, which is not uncommon with grant applications. We
could not use that money for anything that we had already
allocated money in our budget for. So, the courthouse
windows had already been allocated, so we came back and Tim
and I talked about it. And they gave us some guidelines, and
I made a little bit of -- while I was over there, I went
through it with the woman that actually will be doing the
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
approval of it. I said, "What about this, this, this, and
this?" She said, "That's fine." So, I came back, and we --
The other thing is that it was allocated to all
counties and cities that didn't get funds through other
channels through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
for this type of thing. And they sent out letters, and a lot
of the counties -- not a lot, but a number of the counties
and cities said, "We don't want to do this. We don't have
the infrastructure set up to monitor a grant, and we don't
know that we need it anyway." The money that they were
allocated is going to be reallocated, so it may be that we
will get more than $100,000. I wouldn't think we'd get a
whole lot more than that, but, you know, I don't have any
idea. There was an e-mail I noticed this morning from --
related to it that you got, but I didn't have time to look it
up. So, we'll -- we'll just have to see how much it is.
But what we need is direction. The grant
applications supposedly were posted yesterday, and they're
due the 22nd of December, so we've got a pretty narrow window
here that we need to decide what we want to do with the
money. The first one is to replace the ballasts and bulbs
and the lights in the courtroom -- in the courthouse. All of
these are currently T-12 bulbs, and a T-8 bulb is a more
energy-efficient bulb. The estimate on this for the
11-23-09
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
materials is $11,438, and our maintenance people will be able
to do the work on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the entire courthouse?
MS. LAVENDER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are these the 8-watt
fluorescent bulbs?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
MS. LAVENDER: Okay. The second one is to replace
four air conditioner units on the jail. Currently, they have
in the budget this year to replace some, but this is the
additional ones that would complete the replacement of all of
those 1996 air conditioning units. Where's Rusty? Isn't
that right, 1996? Is that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: '5.
MS. LAVENDER: 1995? Okay. Which we assume will
be more energy efficient, obviously. And it's 33,500.
Replacing this west basement door that wasn't included in the
windows project -- they actually missed one -- is only
$1,000. $1,000 and -- $1,020. Upgrading and repairing the
exterior courthouse wall and ground lighting, the security
lights, and the lights outside, that would be the biggest
item in this bunch of $69,090. That bid came from Guadalupe
Electric, and when I typed this this morning, I forgot to put
that in there. And then the other one is the one I just had
you add, and that's replacing the two basement air
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
conditioning units with heat pumps here at the courthouse.
And I don't have any idea how old those units are. Do you?
MR. BOLLIER: I do not.
MS. LAVENDER: Anybody know?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They should be with the
renovation done down here in '96 or '97.
MS. LAVENDER: '96 --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably '97, I would guess
would be probably right.
MS. LAVENDER: Okay. Anyway, that's 12,954. That
totals all up to $128,002 for those four and a half, however
we want to word it, things, which I think is a reasonable
amount. I just probably need to know from you which ones of
these things -- if we got to knock something off. Or the big
one -- and this is the one, you know, when I came back, I
thought, "Well, this will be a good idea." We can insulate
and reroof the -- the exhibit center, covered arena, which
we've been looking for a way to spend some funds out there.
The problem is, the bid for doing that was 204,850, and so
we'd have to match that one, and I don't know that we've got
$104,000 laying around anywhere that we'd want to do that.
So, this is kind of your call. It's kind of like Christmas
early. We just need to decide what we want to do with this
money so that I can fill out the allocation paperwork.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you need an answer today?
11-23-09
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
Is there some kind of deadline?
MS. LAVENDER: Yeah, we kind of need to make a
decision today. We could -- you could think about it and I
can come back after a while or whatever, but we really do,
'cause the applications were posted yesterday, and they got
to be in by the 22nd of December.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My thought is --
MS. LAVENDER: I've got to be able to put that in
the grant application.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My thought is that you have
MS. LAVENDER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you figure out what --
MS. LAVENDER: Give or take.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- how far your 100,000 will
go. Otherwise, if we go 128,000, we're going to have to
scramble out there and dot the I's and cross the T's and spit
and whittle to find the other 28,000.
MS. LAVENDER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I don't know that you
want this Court to -- I don't want to be pushed into making
that kind of decision that quick.
MS. LAVENDER: What I'd like for you to approve is
up to whatever the allocation is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can do that.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
MS. LAVENDER: And no more. If it's 100 --
100,000, it's 100,000. If it's 120, then we'll take the 120,
but we won't allocate more than what we're getting from the
grant, I wouldn't think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be my route.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think -- I think the
variable that's going to come into play is the second-chance
group, those that did not send in the resolutions in a timely
manner to participate. That money goes back into a different
fund, and then it becomes reallocated for those that did
elect to participate, and the information that I saw, looking
through some materials yesterday, was that they think the
week of December the 9th, they would know what that number
was going to be, or sometime hopefully shortly thereafter,
whatever that meant.
MS. LAVENDER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But that's when we're going to take
a look at the second loan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which means there's a
possibility that the allocation of Kerr County might be a
little larger.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, it will be. I have no doubt
that it will be.
MS. LAVENDER: Whether it is 28,000 or not, or
whether it'll be 15,000 or whatever -- I mean, it's kind of a
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
gamble here. We don't know. What I'd like for you to do is
just approve -- you know, we can -- we can make the best
decision once we find out how much the allotment is. I would
think it would be easier for us to pay for a basement door
than it would be for any of these other things out of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just approve whatever the
number is that comes in, and then --
MS. LAVENDER: And approve these projects, is what
-- yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And have Tim prioritize the
projects.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, for example, would
replacement of the air conditioners with heat pumps serve us
better over the long-term in terms of energy reduction, as
opposed to replacing the ballasts, which could be ongoing
through the Maintenance Department?
MS. LAVENDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be a better
option, for example?
MS. LAVENDER: So, if we prioritize them and put
the ballasts at the bottom of the deal?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get it to where it's real.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do the capital items, not the
I maintenance items.
MS. LAVENDER: The ballasts and the door, I would
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
think, would be at the bottom of the list, and these other
things would be -- the larger amounts would be at the top of
the list.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tim, what is the -- the upgrade
of the exterior wall and the exterior lighting?
MR. BOLLIER: That's outside, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know what "exterior" means.
MR. BOLLIER: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said I know what "exterior"
MR. BOLLIER: Let me read it, Commissioner.
MS. HYDE: Rewind.
MR. BOLLIER: Rewind. (Laughter.)
MS. LAVENDER: It would actually replace the little
decorative lights that are around the courthouse.
MR. BOLLIER: Oh. You know, like our --
MS. LAVENDER: And the security lights that are on
the upside of the outside.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are more the ones on the
building, not the ones out in the trees?
MR. BOLLIER: They're included. The ones on the
outside, the green light posts, as I call them, I'd like to
replace those. And they'll go with the halogen bulbs, and
what we have in there is all run off of 110 or '20 -- I think
it's 110 or 160. And we can save money out there. And we'd
11-23-09
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
like -- the ones that are on the wall are the same thing.
But we can come back with a halogen bulb with a brighter
light that will be more secure; it will light up the area
around the courthouse better. We'll have a more secure area.
When -- you know, like when somebody comes up at night, where
they can see. And they're -- they can do this a million
ways. You know, like, the light posts they bring in, they
can match what's out there on the light post on the side of
the building with a fixture of some sort.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not talking about
replacing the light posts -- those green posts, are you?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You are?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, I am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what -- put what there?
MR. BOLLIER: Sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And replace it with what?
MR. BOLLIER: With another light post. Put new
light posts out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Have you checked that with
the City of Kerrville?
MR. BOLLIER: I have not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You do not -- what is it you
don't like about the green light posts?
MR. BOLLIER: It's nothing I don't like about them,
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
sir. I'm just trying to upgrade them. I mean, like, around
the bottom of them are rusted. They're deteriorating, in
other words, so I'm just trying -- and if you'll go out there
and look at some of them, there are some of them that are
leaning. I can't lean them back and put them in proper
position and get them level without jerking the wires loose
or digging up a whole lot of ditches to pull up the -- the
wire that's in the ditch.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just opened a can of worms.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're really hurting my
feelings. Okay.
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I didn't mean
to, believe me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you done any calculation,
or do you have any idea as to which one of these will save
the most dollars?
MR. BOLLIER: No, sir, I have not.
JUDGE TINLEY: That would seem to be the -- the
methodology for the priority, it would seem.
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be.
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. I would think that -- I
mean, the jail -- the air conditioners on top of the jail
would -- that's one of my number-one priorities right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
MR. BOLLIER: And then my two air conditioners here
at the courthouse, that's very high on my priority list. The
basement door down in the bottom, that's -- I'm putting that
up kind of high on my priority list, just because, you know,
it's just like the other old windows and stuff, like, here at
the courthouse that leaks air and stuff, and I think that
would -- that's up there. Like, the lights on the outside, I
mean, that's something we can go and replace the domes on top
of them out there, and replace the insides of those lights
and come up saving money. But I'm just scared that some of
those light posts that are out there, they're rusted at the
bottom. I just don't want them to fall on somebody, and then
it becomes -- then it becomes more than a priority; it's
something that has to be done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, okay.
MR. BOLLIER: I'm just --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Tim may want to look at doing
that boiler system at the jail.
MR. BOLLIER: The jail?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On all this, too. That's a
major system; that's mid-90's, rusting out. I'm sure energy
efficient would help with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably would.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, just those kind of things
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
MR. TROLINGER: And, Sheriff, hadn't you asked for
a generator out there to back up the computer room?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I haven't.
(Multiple people speaking.)
THE REPORTER: One at a time, please.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Whoa, it's Christmas.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Santa Claus is waiting.
MS. LAVENDER: I was going to say Santa Claus has
been here.
MR. BOLLIER: I mean, you want -- you know, there's
a lot of things that I could go and put on this list. I was
just trying to -- to prioritize and put the main things on
here that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rosa?
MR. BOLLIER: To help Ms. Lavender.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have to come in at
100,000, or can we put a wish list on it that may be a little
greater than 100,000?
MS. LAVENDER: I think the wish list a little :bit
greater than 100,000 is fine. I don't think that's a
problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think we're going to get
more than 100. I just don't know how much more.
MS. LAVENDER: And until I see the application, I'm
not sure how far into the application you've got to get
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
before you've got to list these. But I know that in most
applications, you're going to have to put a budget in and
what you're going to do and all that kind of stuff pretty
early in the deal, and I don't want to get down to December
the 21st and try to be doing this grant application.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. So, you want us to --
did you look at a boiler? I mean, a boiler seems like a
pretty good idea.
MR. BOLLIER: I can have that done pretty quick.
MS. LAVENDER: We'll check that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd go -- I'll make a motion to
include Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4.5, 4.5 being the basement, A,
C, and add the boiler at the jail.
MS. LAVENDER: We'll come back to you at the next
Commissioners' meeting and kind of give you a little bit of
update on where we are with this.
JUDGE TINLEY: And a prioritization, hopefully.
MS. LAVENDER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. LAVENDER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we're approving
authorizing you to accept whatever amount of money's coming
in?
MS. LAVENDER: We've already done that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, by resolution.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
MS. LAVENDER: We did that last month.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. LAVENDER: Notice of intent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Notice of participation in the SEGO
grant. We have a motion here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And a second. Question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carried. Thank you. We'l1
move to our first 10 o'clock item; consider, discuss, take
appropriate action to open, read, and award the proposal for
a used 66-inch single drum vibratory compactor. I assume
that the award will not be done immediately? We'll probably
have it come back.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As long as we don't have any
late bids today.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we don't have any late bids, far
as I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many do you have there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four -- five -- four.
(Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.)
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
JUDGE TINLEY: The first one is from Holt CAT.
Next one is from Closner Equipment Company out there in
Schertz. Next one is from Romco equipment; they're located
in San Antonio. And the fourth is from RDO Equipment in New
Braunfels, Texas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept all bids and
refer them to the Road and Bridge Administrator for
evaluation.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to accept
all the bids, refer them to Road and Bridge administration
for evaluation and recommendation. Question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are you saying they can come
back later in the morning?
JUDGE TINLEY: 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. They'll
bring that back shortly. We have a second 10 o'clock item
listed, Item 11. Presentation for an on-site shredding
service available to any department in the courthouse and/or
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
annex facility. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action and authorize County Judge to sign contract pending
approval of County Attorney, with funding to be from Records
Preservation. Boy, she knows how to make an agenda item come
out by putting the funding source there. Ms. Uecker?
MS. UECKER: This came from a discussion that the
County Clerk and the Tax Assessor and myself had regarding
the necessity to -- the need to shred certain documents that
are ready to be shredded, but are at some point confidential,
or were confidential.
(Commissioner Baldwin returned to the courtroom.)
MS. UECKER: What -- what we came up with was the
fact that we spend valuable staff time shredding documents by
running them through -- you know, we have some pretty good
shredders in the courthouse, but it still takes staff time.
And I am currently using a service out of San Antonio to
shred, which has, you know, saved that staff time, but you
still have to get it there. So, we discussed and looked for
a company that does the on-site shredding, and have come up
with one that I think would be amenable to everybody. And
this includes every court -- every office in the courthouse,
including the jail, JDC, everybody. And I think that we can
all save some valuable staff time and some money doing this.
So, I've asked Kent Bowers to come and do a presentation to
you from a company called Shred-It. And Mr. Bowers actually,
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
I think, lives here?
MR. BOWERS: That's correct.
MS. UECKER: Which makes it even better. And if
you look at him, those of you that remember Dr. Bowers will
know that this is Dr. Bowers' son. So, I will turn it over
to Kent.
MR. BOWERS: Good morning. I'm going to just bring
in a console out here to show you a little bit -- we'd like
to give a presentation.
MS. UECKER: Want me to get it?
MR. BOWERS: I can do that.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. BOWERS: Well, good morning. My name's Kent
Bowers. I'm with Shred-It out of San Antonio, Texas. We are
the world's largest on-site document shredding company. We
were founded in 1988, and have 140 locations throughout the
U.S. and world, and actually are in 14 different countries.
Real briefly, I was going to just discuss a little bit about
what these consoles are. They hold roughly three standard
banker's boxes of material, so if you can imagine a copy size
paper box, actually, they hold three and a quarter, but
roughly somewhere in the neighborhood of between 100 and
125 pounds of -- of paper. That can be manila folders with
staples, butterfly clips, any of that information. Instead
of going into the shredder, it's put in this receptacle, and
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
this receptacle is locked. And inside, you can see that:
there's a nylon bag. And when we service accounts, we would
come in and follow whatever procedures y'all would have. If
we need to have an officer or someone who's dedicated, you
know, to taking us through the different parts of the
courthouse.
We unload this, and then we take this out to our
truck. I have a little bit of the -- the pictures here, but,
unfortunately, I don't have a -- a slide show for it here.
But all of our material is done on-site. So, what we do is
we have our -- our truck here, and so we park where we
would -- you know, wherever we're allowed to park, and then
pull the bags or any of the confidential material that you
have where it is shredded here. On the truck itself, there's
a -- a glass or a wire cage, depending on what the weather
is, where we close that and shred all that material. Here is
a picture of some of that where you can leave your butterfly
clips, your staples, bradded material, any of that, that
would be used in the day-to-day operations here. The
material itself is, like I mentioned, shredded on-site. The
truck holds 9,000 pounds of material. We have numerous
accounts here throughout the hill country. Also, like, for
example, the -- the V.A. Hospital here is a client of ours
where we do all of the V.A. Hospital systems for Texas out of
our region. Our region here is -- I'm out of San Antonio,
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
but we cover the hill country, south Texas, and -- and the
Rio Grande Valley. Each time that we're here on-site when we
shred, we would leave a certificate of destruction, and that
is saying that we shred all material on site. And that would
be a legal document saying that this was done on this date
and this time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And is it -- the amount of
poundage, would that be included in that document?
MR. BOWERS: Well, what I -- what I proposed -- and
it depends on what your needs are here for the courthouse,
itself, but just to give you an idea of a figure, I'm not
sure which departments, you know, who all would have a need
for one in their specific department, but we have -- on there
it states 10 -- 10 consoles, which would be the equivalent of
30 standard banker boxes of material. And I went ahead and
put on there on a 4-week period. That typically seems to be
the most common period of time, you know, for that when we
look at other places. Now, some -- some police departments
in some larger cities require faster -- maybe a weekly type
service. But for Kerrville, we cover Kerrville every four
weeks. So, for example, I mentioned that the V.A. Hospital,
they're on a 4-week type service.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does the shredding take
place in that machine inside, or do you do it in your truck?
MR. BOWERS: This is strictly a locked container,
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
and so we take the material on a dolly out to the -- to
wherever our truck is parked here on the property, and all
that material is shredded here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Uecker, you and I have had a
discussion previously about some of the steps that you had
been going through. I think initially, we had the discussion
dealing -- dealing with micro-funding and so forth. And your
staff people had to go do it and remove all the paper clips,
all the staples, all of that sort of thing, and the same is
true if we're going to shred it here, like we've been doing
from various departments down in the lower level on-site. We
have to remove all of those fasteners of various types.
MS. UECKER: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or it jams up our machine.
MS. UECKER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your machine just chews all that up,
I huh?
MR. BOWERS: Yes, sir. We actually, on occasion,
are asked to do license plates for car dealerships, so we can
run 300, 400 plates at a time with that.
MS. UECKER: Wow.
MR. BOWERS: It's definitely not one of those where
you wear a tie to work.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't get close to it.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
MR. BOWERS: If you're shredding.
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't do this at home, right?
MR. BOWERS: That's correct.
MS. UECKER: Kent, you said something about 10
boxes, right? Can we have -- I mean, the Sheriff has
indicated he'd probably use 10 out at the jail. And can we
get more?
MR. BOWERS: Well, certainly. It's sort of a thing
-- I know y'all would need to know on the allocation of funds
and things like that, but what I proposed on one of those,
just as a basic idea, was 10 -- IO consoles at $150, with
each other console being an additional 10 for that. Also, I
know you'd mentioned that on occasion, y'all had some
shredding that -- or a truck that was coming to take your
shredded material, and in this case, they were transporting
it to another location. Ours would actually be shredded here
on-site, and so we can also address those issues of per-box
based on that size. A typical bag here holds three banker's
boxes, so we can either do that by the bag or -- or by a
specific box.
MS. UECKER: He and I also visited about the cost
that I was paying right now to shred a -- you know, one
banker's box full of documents packed that goes to San
Antonio. And, of course, the fear is, what if you have an
accident between here and San Antonio and that stuff flies
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
everywhere? So, here it's shredded before it leaves the
courthouse. And he told me that the cost would be about the
same as -- that I'm paying right now, which is like $5 a box.
And we are going to have some that are already boxed up that
are not going to be there. I know the Sheriff's going to
have some; I've already got some ready to go. So, we think
that the costs will be comparable, plus we don't have to get
them to San Antonio and do all the removing of all the stuff.
So --
JUDGE TINLEY: You mentioned the Sheriff needs 10
receptacles out there at your place?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At this -- real quick, what we
had done, if you recall, back in the -- the file room, we
have just the inmate files that we go back and forth. That's
a little over 100 file cabinets. In fact, to get -- and not
drawers, five-drawer file cabinets; it's over 100. And now
that Odyssey is where it is, we are going in and -- and
scanning all that information into the system, so we're
gradually emptying that out. All that has to be shredded.
I've got old offense reports in one room back there, back
from Paul Fields' days when he was Sheriff, that never needed
to be there. We have a full room of shredded documents, or
things that need to be, and then on the ongoing basis, just
the daily ongoing stuff, I have right now about five
shredding machines at the office that we use, okay? And so,
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
yeah, it's a -- it's a constant deal out there on paperwork.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I can understand where,
initially, with this overload that you've got with all those
old records, initially -- I guess my point is, I don't -- I
think we can work our way into this thing. I don't want to
commit to a huge number, even though we might, if we were to
gather everything up that had a need to be shredded within
the next two weeks, we may just, you know, put that truck on
a couple of runs a week.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On an ongoing, it just depends
on how often they come up with their truck that they're going
to empty it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what we need to look
at, plus to -- to phase --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you know, you work your back
records in, and we can work into this thing. If we need
more, well, they can provide more, and I think the contract
would be expandable, wouldn't it?
MR. BOWERS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOWERS: But I would say that the idea behind
this is to take care of your everyday type material, whether
it's issuing some of the passport information or certain
documents that come in that you would normally take to the
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
in-house -- to your in-house shredder. This alleviates the
time of doing that, just going -- and we try and place that
in the high-traffic areas. In regards to material from
Sheriff Paul Fields' day, we do shred retention of materials,
so that these boxes -- we don't necessarily have to have a
box there strictly for that. 'Cause we go in and we can --
we can go to storages, you know, where you do off-site
storage access where we shred. So, there's not -- you don't
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOWERS: And also, as you mentioned, whether it
be 10 or 5 or 15, we can always work into that, because it's
a -- it's always hard to come into a new situation and know
exactly how much paper you're producing. We can go around
and ask how many copy paper boxes are used or how much paper
is used, but a lot of that may be for other sources that are
nonconfidential, certain mail-outs and things like that.
MS. UECKER: As a matter of fact, most of my stuff
will probably be in banker's boxes. Like he says, we'll have
one of these in the office where, for the everyday
passport -- you know, that kind of stuff that's not already
boxed up and ready to go. And, you know, based on what I've
seen in the basement of the courthouse storage, I mean, we'll
-- we'll keep them pretty busy for a while. 'Cause I -- you
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
69
know, I've looked down there, and I think there's -- as the
maintenance -- Tim had sent out an e-mail one time saying,
you know, we need to reorganize and go through there and see
what needs to be kept and what doesn't, because it's to the
point of almost being a fire hazard down there if anything
should happen.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think the key is, how often
are they going to come? The key to how many boxes you need.
JUDGE TINLEY: The current schedule is every four
weeks.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, once a month?
MR. BOWERS: Currently, every four weeks.
Actually, two days out of the month, so usually -- currently,
it's on a Thursday and a Friday.
MS. UECKER: So, you'll be here two days?
MR. BOWERS: Yes. We have approximately about 50
-- 51 accounts that we service from.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of course, as that grows, your
frequency will be greater.
MR. BOWERS: Well, sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: If the need demands, you're going to
22 I be here .
23
24
25
MR. BOWERS: Absolutely, yes, sir. For example, we
service currently right now the San Antonio Police Department
twice a week. We have some locations that have 200 -- 200 to
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~o
250 of these that we service weekly. So, it really depends
on what the needs are. It seems like, typically, for
courthouses and entities like that, that a four-week period
once you're on a schedule would probably work, and then with
maybe twice a year where you have a shred of documents that
are in retention. And that can always be scheduled, or we
can always break that to come to do 300, 200 boxes, something
like that.
MS. UECKER: I don't think that we can count on
getting it -- you know, everything that we have done that's
been back there in the first trip. But I think we can work
toward that goal, and then get it to where, you know, once a
month would -- will probably be sufficient.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean -- make sure I
understand. So, you come once a month to take the daily
stuff, and all of the boxes that are put together, we just
put down in our storage, and you -- and we schedule a time
for you to come and do all that?
MR. BOWERS: Correct, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Routinely, the truck comes
to the courthouse for -- for the shredding of the material
that you've gathered here. Will it also go to the Sheriff's
Department, or will we be bringing that material here for
shredding?
25 I MR. BOWERS: Well, what we -- it would depend, but
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
typically, we have it based on a stop -- a minimum per stop.
So, for example, if we went to the Sheriff's Department, that
would have a little bit different pricing, depending on the
number of consoles where we have a minimum -- a minimum stop.
Or if you have an annex or another location, we would start
and go out to those if -- so each one would be a -- would be
a separate entity.
MS. UECKER: Would that require a different
contract?
MR. BOWERS: We would probably list that, but we
could certainly have a master copy, say Kerr County
Courthouse or however --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A master agreement with
Kerr County, which includes the Sheriff's Department?
MR. BOWERS: Correct, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's your minimum number of
consoles per location?
MR. BOWERS: Our minimum is typically -- I mean,
from one to two.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOWERS: But it just varies, you know,
JUDGE TINLEY: Just the number of these consoles is
slightly higher, the price is, until you --
MR. BOWERS: Sure.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
JUDGE TINLEY: -- get to that break point?
MR. BOWERS: I would say that between one and two
is typically around $50.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOWERS: And sometimes that depends on -- on
the usage. For example, if -- I think I noted something on
the annex, just to put something in there, was at $50. Well,
if a place doesn't go as often, we can do the service every
eight weeks. So, we service at one, two, four, and eight
weeks for the location.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our annex is the same as the
courthouse. You're talking about that, right? Same as the
courthouse. It's just --
MS. PIEPER: No, the annex in Ingram.
MR. BOWERS: I think I meant Ingram.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, the Ingram annex.
MR. BOWERS: I was thinking about the Ingram annex,
if they needed something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What would be -- wouldn't it
make sense to get a couple of extra boxes that the -- that
can be placed, like, at the Sheriff's office so that, you
know, he could -- rather than schedule a retention -- I mean,
put stuff in the retention and send a special truck up just
every week, the Sheriff fills up two consoles, or every -- I
mean, every month fills up two or three consoles. He has so
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
much paper out there, he's going to -- if you -- that way he
can slowly work it through, and then eliminate the cost of
having the truck come just for a special trip.
MS. UECKER: Well, and that would just be gradually
getting rid of as much as you can and just chipping away at
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But he's first going to have to
gauge how much he's going to have in the regular --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in the regular run period. If
he's filling up his consoles normally with just his
day-to-day activities, it's not going to do him much good to
try and chip away one file -- one file drawer, maybe two file
drawers every four weeks. He's going to be forever getting
there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If -- if they're talking about
once a month, you know, every four weeks, I would -- I would
say just on day-to-day stuff, we'd have to have a minimum
of -- starting out, to see where it would go, of four.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of four consoles?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Of four consoles for the
Sheriff's Office and the jail. That's just on day-to-day
stuff. That's coming once every four weeks.
MR. BOWERS: Something I didn't mention was that a
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
copy size paper box takes typically two minutes for us to
shred, so that we -- we're able, within an hour's time, to do
somewhere 30 to -- 35 to 40, depending on -- on the thickness
of paper and things like that. So, if needed, we could
certainly go out and count the number of boxes and give an
estimate and get those done first. So, in a -- so that you
don't always have the -- what happens whenever we place these
in a location, typically, everyone has their hidden box of
material somewhere, and so immediately, they fill up. So,
what we try and do a lot of times is maybe purge or have an
idea of what you'd be up against for the number of boxes, and
be able to give that price, and then also put in our system
I as we go along once that's shredded.
i
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only your people have keys
to open these consoles; is that correct?
MR. BOWERS: We would allow you -- we would issue
keys to anyone that is allowed to have that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I guess what I'm
leading up to, if you had one location or two location
consoles and they filled up quickly before your visit each
four weeks, can we put another blue bag in there and do --
MR. BOWERS: Yes, and that's another thing that we
have -- we could leave that. If someone's appointed -- or
whoever has the ability to do that, if there's a locked
storage area, you can move those bags to an area and put new
11-23-09
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bags in so that when -- we do that in a lot of locations,
certain law enforcement agencies where we have to go through,
or some of the prison systems we have. Sometimes they gather
the material, or the material is put in one location, where
you already have that. So, when we go and there's 20 bags in
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. That's what I was
I also.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like Mr. Tim's got a
JUDGE TINLEY: You were thinking the same thing I
was, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the present
contract with the group in San Antonio? Do you have a
contract with them?
MS. UECKER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
MS. UECKER: They will continue to do my imaging,
II but they were kind of just doing the shredding as a favor to
me, because I needed -- you know, I needed to get rid of that
stuff and I didn't want to pay somebody, you know, $9 an hour
to sit there shredding.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's where the savings is,
11-23-09
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is in the employees' time, where you don't have to feed a
shredder, that you have to get all of the fasteners out and
do that nonsense.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge -- do I understand
your agenda item correctly, Madam Clerk, that your Records
Preservation fund's going to pay for all of this, including
the Sheriff?
MS. UECKER: Well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's wonderful,
if the answer is yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Don't push the issue,
Commissioner. (Laughter.) Just let her do it.
MS. UECKER: Well, I feel like it will. I mean,
we'll work with the Auditor and see, you know, what's in
there currently. And, of course, what I'm paying right now
for that service is coming out of there to start with. So --
and I think probably -- you know, and if we take it out of
that -- the big fund, which is the county Records
Preservation fund, I think that's probably the one with the
most money in it, and I feel sure that that's probably --
probably a good way to spend that money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the plan.
MS. UECKER: Now --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are you going to make a
11-23-09
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I will make a motion
that we authorize the County Judge to sign a contract for
shredding services with the Shred-It company out of San
Antonio, and the funding to come from the District Clerk's
Records Preservation --
MS. UECKER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- fund. No?
MS. UECKER: It's the county-wide. The money comes
from the -- the money that goes into that fund comes from the
County Clerk's office and my office. But that particular
fund --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah?
MS. UECKER: There are now, I think, five records
preservation funds. That was the very first one. That one
is for use for the entire county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever fund's appropriate
for funds for this. (Laughter.)
MS. UECKER: Because I have my own.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I second. That's a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, Commissioner, your motion is
subject to the County Attorney's approval?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second as
11-23-09
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
indicated. Further question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Now, exactly which
-- what are we doing of the four -- or the three proposals
that are in here? What are we --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd say whatever's deemed
necessary by the department -- affected departments, and
through Ms. Uecker.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's going -- there's going to
necessarily have to be some sort of usage determination..
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the various departments are
going to work with Mr. Bowers to determine what their normal
usage is, what the flow of paperwork is through the office,
insofar as the specifics of the contract, the addendum or
whatever it may be as to the use and the break points.
But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it will be helpful to
have that done before we enter into the agreement, because it
may be -- you know, like on this here, it's talking about
going out to the annex. Is that much paper generated at the
annex that we're not already doing -- I mean, it may be more
economical to bring that paper here. I mean, I don't --
', MS. UECKER: Of course, the annex is J.P. 4.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
25 ~ MS. UECKER: And the Tax Assessor/Collector's
11-23-09
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
office. And I think probably -- Kent, you probably need to
visit with every department and just let each department know
that if they want to participate, that they need to get with
him and give them an estimate of how much paper we're talking
about here.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me out at the annex,
for example, we may put a receptacle out there, but then have
Tim's people maybe bring the bag up here for --
MR. BOWERS: Once a month.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for destruction purposes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm talking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Lots of variables.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to get an idea how
much we're going to spend just before we say go do all this,
and get an idea what it' going to cost.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where do these estimates of
cost come from that are in there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's talking about going
out to the annex. Like the Judge said, it may be more
economical for Maintenance, on their trips, whatever the
schedule is, to bring the bags back.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We just don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't know yet.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't allow that to happen.
Just instruct Tim to do that.
11-23-09
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MR. BOWERS: I think these estimates were just
based on 10 consoles at one location, four consoles at one
location, with each additional console being $10, two
consoles at one. So, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're kind of arbitrary.
MR. BOWERS: -- just sort of -- just an idea out
there, not -- not necessarily final.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's necessarily going to have to
put together some -- some mechanics here after talking to the
various departments and say, "Based on what I hear in each,
you need so many here, so many there. If we stop here, we
stop there every four weeks, here's what it's going to run."
And he's going to run up those numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wouldn't we want to know the
numbers before we approve the contract?
MS. BAILEY: My preference would be that we bring
back the contract for you all to look at and make a decision,
so that I'm not making a policy decision for you, or Linda's
not making a decision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the concept. I'd just
24
25
11-23-09
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to know how much we're going
like --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
MS. UECKER: Can do you that?
MR. BOWERS: Yes.
MS. UECKER: Can you visit? What the Court could
do is direct the departments -- or I can contact all of them
to find out who wants to participate. I can get that, make a
list, get it to Kent, and he can come back then and visit
with all of those departments and get an estimate of -- about
what we're looking at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me amend the motion --
or withdraw the original motion and substitute a motion that
we authorize the District Clerk to gather the information for
this project and work with the Shred-It company to prepare a
contract that reflects our volumes and bring it back to the
Court for approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. 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. Quickly, our
10:30 item, Number 15, to consider, discuss, take appropriate
action to award the new county courthouse telephone system
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
contract, authorize County Judge to sign same. Based upon
the action the Court took on Item Number 17 on the agenda, it
occurs to me that we're not in a position to take any formal
action with regard to Item 15; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I understand
MR. TROLINGER: Judge Tinley, I do have responses
from all the bidders.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, you do?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are they in writing?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Communications are
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you want?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glass of wine, at least.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go back to -- firstly
to Item Number 1; consider, discuss, take appropriate action
to accept late bid from Windstream Communications for a
telephone system proposal. The action the Court took was to
consider the Windstream bid if, and only if, the other
bidders who submitted timely bids make no objection, and
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
indicated that in writing, as I recall. What do we have,
Mr. Trolinger?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, Judge Tinley, I spoke with
the acting County Attorney at the break momentarily, and I do
have two responses in writing from two of the bidders. The
first is Hill Country Telephone, and in writing, they state
that "Hill Country Telecommunications objects to the
acceptance or consideration of any and all proposals that
were not received by the deadline required by the RFP for the
Kerr County telecommunications system."
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Takes care of that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Solved that problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did the other -- you said you
I have two?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes. The other was Computer Plus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're --
MR. TROLINGER: And there's a paragraph that, in
essence, to summarize, says it's not fair to accept a late
bid.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're still on Item Number 1
there. Do I hear a motion with respect to the Court's action
on Agenda Item Number 1 considering the late bid of
Windstream Communications?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we -- what, we
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
reject? -- reject the bid from Windstream Communications,
based on the -- is it "reject"? Is that the correct word?
Based on the other companies' --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Objection.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- objection.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. That brings us
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lunch?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Item 15, scheduled for 10:30. We
need to get our health -- our health benefits proposals in.
Mr. Malek is here, and he's running on a short schedule this
morning, so would it be possible to bring that back after the
break?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to take about a 10-,
15-minute break. We're going to go to the health, and then
we'll come back to you.
(Recess taken from 10:46 a.m. to 11:03 a.m.)
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
85
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might, from our mid-morning recess, and we will go to Item
7; consider, discuss, take appropriate action regarding
various employee health benefit issues and adoption of 2010
Kerr County employee health benefits plan and/or plan
amendments. Ms. Hyde?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. I sent y'all two things last
week, and Jody helped us out quite a bit, 'cause we were in
open enrollment. One was on the GASB and the ramifications
of GASB towards the future, but also regarding our Kerr
County health care plan. Talked to Commissioner Baldwin, and
I wanted to thank him for asking some good questions. Talked
to the Auditor, and the financial perspective audit review
will probably be February, before the GASB information is
completely finished. The suggestions on possible options to
address GASB 45, if you notice, there are five suggestions.
The fifth suggestion is my recommendation; Kerr County
continues with current retiree health insurance at the
current subsidized rate or nonsubsidized rate and continues
the current employees' access to retiree health insurance at
a subsidized rate or nonsubsidized rate. And my
recommendation for that is so that we don't box ourselves
into a corner, we can modify and change the plan as needed,
or at the Court's direction. But these other options are --
25 ~ are options for your consideration.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
86
If you look on the second page, possible action
plan, y'all are already doing the possible action plan.
These are not new. Slowly reducing or eliminating the
subsidy for retiree health insurance for employees beginning
January 1, 2010. It's been being done since 1996. You
started out with 105 for both retiree and spouse, and then in
2006 we started updating those plans little by little
increments. It reduces that GASB liability, it allows Kerr
County to continue to offer retiree health care insurance,
and it treats retirees and active employees both
consistently. So, we're already doing those things. I'm
going to cut it --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. So, your
recommendation is basically the -- one, two, three, four --
fifth bullet under H.R. suggestions?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. Takes care of the
22 bullet?
23
24
25 suggesti
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On the -- on your
attack on the old boogers.
MS. HYDE: And, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, let me ask you
something, now. So, you're -- you're recommending the fifth
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then over on the -- on
Page 2, possible action plan, to slowly reduce or eliminate
the subsidy for retired -- now, so you're recommending that
we freeze everything at where it is today?
MS. HYDE: That's not what that says, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm asking you a question.
MS. HYDE: No, I am not saying we freeze it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. What the hell are you
saying?
MS. HYDE: What I'm saying is we leave ourselves an
out with what our subsidy or nonsubsidy rates are. We have
continued to increase that subsidy. When I started here, it
was $105 for the retiree, 105 for their spouse, and 105 for
dependent or dependents. We've modified that each year based
on what the Court has decided.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Modified it down?
MS. HARGIS: Up.
MS. HYDE: Well, when you say "down," you mean down
as in increasing?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Slowly reduce.
MS. HYDE: Slowly reduce our liability.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Down.
MS. HARGIS: Well, we -- the premium that we ask
them to pay is a little higher, so it's reducing our
11-23-09
88
1 liability.
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 see. I'm just concerned
about what the County's paying.
MS. HARGIS: Right. Well, the -- the overall
liability that we're going to have is going to be huge, and I
really would like for y'all to take this into consideration
and wait to even make a firm decision. And, like she said,
keeping the door open to review this annually is what you're
going to need to do, because it may come to a point where you
can't fund it. And the problem with GASB-45 is, it's a
liability in the future, so they don't look at just what
you're paying today.
MS. HYDE: That's right.
MS. HARGIS: They're going to give you something
that says you're going to have to pay something out in the
next 30 years. It's going to be a huge number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mrs. Auditor, may I get my
question answered before you launch into all that?
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. So, we have been
slowly reducing our con -- the County's contribution to the
retirees?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And your --
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
MS. HYDE: I understand what he's asking. Yes,
sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And so your
suggestion is -- is to continue with the current retiree
health insurance at a current subsidized rate or non -- now,
how does that -- how does that deal with this one over here?
MS. HYDE: Because what we've done each year is
we've reduced the County's portion that they've paid.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you recommending that we
continue reducing --
MS. HYDE: As needed. That's why it leaves you the
option for the subsidized rate or nonsubsidized rate. It's
the direction of the Court. But I'm suggesting we leave
ourselves an out and not say, boom, this is it; this is the
line in the sand, until you know what the liability and the
risk is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And so -- and we'll
know the liability and risk when she presents us with the
GASB program?
MS. HARGIS: When the actuarial accountant that we
hired, our auditor, finishes that audit. Then they'll tell
us what our -- what they feel our liability's going to be
based on our population. Not just who's going to retire in
the next five years, but our total population of 250
employees will be looked at to show you what your liability
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
for the future may be. Now, what happens at that point is
that you're going to have to decide whether you want to fund
it on an annual basis, whether you want to fund it as you go
along. But it may be so large that we might be required to
fund some of it, and that's where the cost comes in. It's
like the city of Houston, for instance, because -- I only use
them as an example -- their retirement liability is higher
than it -- than it's going to take to run the city, and it
would put them into debt. So, some people have actually gone
out and purchased bonds -- and I am not recommending that to
you -- because the liability is so high. So, that -- by
doing what Eva is asking -- or recommending, it allows you
the opportunity to look at that liability on an annual basis.
And if we can't continue to fund it, then we have to stop at
some point. Because we want to give everyone the most that
we can, but at some point in time, we don't want to raise
taxes either to do these kind of things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could -- we could reduce
your personnel in your office some to help pay for it.
MS. HARGIS: That's right, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm serious, now.
There's other ways to do it other than just cutting the
retirees off.
MS. HARGIS: Well, if you have a hundred --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking dollars and
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
cents here, right?
MS. HARGIS: I don't even think that if you laid
off a lot of people -- this liability is going to be huge.
It's going to be in the millions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reality is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fear factor's got me going.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reality is, we've been
dealing with contingent liability for health care and for
pensions for decades.
MS. HARGIS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only thing that you're
coming to us with today is the potential that the GASB rules
are going to change how you handle that contingent liability.
That's all.
MS. HARGIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it is. I'm not
demeaning or minimizing it, but, you know, let's not be
scaring the bejabbers out of everybody here. We -- we have
been dealing with contingent liabilities over the decades.
MS. HARGIS: We have, but we have not shown it on
our books.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, okay. I understand
that.
MS. HARGIS:	And	by showing it	on our	books, it's
going to affect our --	our	ability again	in the	bond market,
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
so there are repercussions to this liability. So, it's
unfortunate, and we see it as -- as -- you know, as an
accountant, we have fought this for a long time, you know,
the Texas Society of CPA's, and even the American Institute,
but we didn't get there, because S.E.C. had a bigger hand
than we did. So, this is more affecting our bond rating, our
-- and our ability to get bonds because of this liability
we're showing on our books. So we're just saying that --
even the state of Texas took a stand and said they're not
doing GASB because they look at this on an annual basis.
This is a one-year contract, and every year they look at it.
And that's all we're asking you to do, is to look at it on an
annual basis and make that decision on an annual basis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine.
MS. HARGIS: Which is better for everyone.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly what we've been doing
for the last several years.
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And making whatever adjustments we
deemed were --
MS. HYDE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- appropriate, to go in whatever
direction we thought was appropriate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
JUDGE TINLEY: Knowing this sort of thing was
coming on, knowing what the liability was.
MS. HARGIS: That's correct.
MS. HYDE: Does that answer all your questions,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, sort of.
MS. HYDE: Are you going to hit the button or am I
MR. LOONEY: One thing, Commissioner, that any time
you have this flexibility in this process, that you always
have the ability to grandfather any retiree that's currently
under the program. You always have that ability, so you may
make changes in GASB in relationship to future retirees and
still retain everything that's current for current retirees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Sheriff wants to be
grandfathered here, I think.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: How many current -- how many
current retirees does the county have?
MS. HYDE: Fourteen.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So we're talking about all
this for benefits for 14 people?
MR. LOONEY: No.
MS. HYDE: No, not --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I know you're talking about
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
the future, but, I mean, if that's the total we've had after
all these years, I don't see Kerr County's retiree population
going up to 100, 200 any time.
MS. HYDE: Oh. I'd --
MR. LOONEY: With all respect, that's not a
question of who actually is going to retire. It's a federal
accounting process that makes an estimation on your
population.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: It has nothing to do with the actual
process of people selecting it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree, but where we're at
already is -- is what Eva told me is correct last week.
Like, now, for health benefits, the retiree doesn't get any
benefit from that until they're 60 years of age, okay?
Otherwise, up until 60 years of age, you're paying the full
amount yourself if you retire before then. So you've
already -- you know, and I'll use myself as an example.
Sixty years of age, I'm going to have 40 years of service
with this county before the County offers me anything in
health insurance as a retiree. And I think if we're looking
at limiting that more, that's -- that's really disgracing our
retirees, and that's not correct for the retirees.
MS. HYDE: That's not what we've said.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But that's where it -- to me,
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
95
that's where it's headed. It may be, because you and I have
had several conversations about where it should head in
regards to retirees, and I think that's the totally wrong
direction when you're talking about people that give that
many years of their life to this county.
AUDIENCE: That's right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's my comment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I told you to wear that gun.
MR. LOONEY: Hey.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just don't pull it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At least the handcuffs.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Linda's already there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've got some proposed
changes to the plan for the Court to consider. Is that where
15 I we are?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LOONEY: Just for clarification purposes,
Judge, Commissioners, the -- whenever we make a policy change
or a plan change and move to a new carrier, new administrator
or whatever, we go back and actually, on an annual basis,
review our contract for the delivery of the health care
insurance to the employee. This is the plan document itself
that governs how the plan pays the benefits to employees.
We've had a couple of federal regulations that have been
passed this last year that will take effect in this next
coming year which we are responsible for, regardless.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
Just -- it's federal regs that we have to put these benefits
into our plan. There's some other things that have come up
during this evaluation process that Mr. Malek and Eva and I
have discussed to some extent. They are some recommendations
to the Court, but they are a material modification to the
plan, and any time you have a material modification to the
plan, we have to have an amendment to the current plan. So,
the reason that we are bringing this information to you today
is because, based on your decision, some of these will make a
material modification, which the plan will change and the
delivery of benefits for the next plan year. So, with that,
I'm going to let Mr. Malek and Eva kind of walk you through
what the changes are.
MS. HYDE: The Mental Parity Act. During open
enrollment, anyone that went through open enrollment so far,
we talked about that. It's federally mandated. There's no
action needed, and everyone -- everyone understood it, at
least during open enrollment. The $2 million maximum
lifetime is inexclusive of both physical as well as mental
now, and that's -- that was federally mandated. Questions on
that? Your turn.
MR. MALEK: Oh, thanks a lot. I like the way this
JUDGE TINLEY: She gets to choose which ones she
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
MS. HYDE: Absolutely. Him first, then me.
MR. MALEK: The first thing I want you to know
about the spousal carve out as we start this is that it does
not affect current Kerr County employees. This will be
future employees hired after January lst. That's really the
most important thing I want you to know about this. Now,
with that said, what we're talking about here is spouses who
have jobs elsewhere, and who have access to health insurance
coverage, we want them to basically take that plan instead of
coming onto the Kerr County plan. What happens is, we get
selected again from a risk standpoint in the scenario that we
have now, and so we're trying to stop that from happening.
And so we're recommending that we have a surcharge on anybody
who has access to other health insurance coverage, and that
surcharge would be $200 a month, should they decide to then
still enroll in the Kerr County plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is as to spouses of future
employees of Kerr County who have other coverage available to
them through their employment, but who, notwithstanding that,
wish to come onto our plan?
MR. MALEK: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HYDE: We already have -- we talked about this
a couple of months ago, and we already have employees now who
were able to opt out of the insurance in the past, and are no
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
98
longer allowed to opt out. Their insurance has now told
them, "You will be part of whatever insurance that you have
available. We will not insure you if you don't."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is $200 sufficient to
encourage them to stay with their other employers? Or --
MS. HYDE: I don't know, but I know that the
Sheriff has a gun and he's behind me. So --
MR. MALEK: We think that $200 would be very much
of an encouragement. It's an additional $200, so there's
already a charge for the spousal charge. This would be a
surcharge, again, more -- more than what is being charged
12 I now.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Looney, as the County's
consultant in representing the best interests of the county,
is it your recommendation that we adopt this recommendation,
the surcharge?
MR. LOONEY: What has occurred in the county is
that the county's insurance program for their employees is
looked upon as probably the premier health care plan in the
county, or -- and because we have the relationship with our
HRA accounts, where we granted that HRA contribution to
spousal units, it has become the most selected contract. As
a result, we've got substantially more dependents on the plan
than we've had in the past, and that's increased our cost.
So, this is a methodology -- this is a method of having those
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
people select the plan that they have the employers
contributing toward.
JUDGE TINLEY: And in the county's best interest,
you recommend that we adopt this?
MR. LOONEY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. And
I agree, this is probably a good plan. Now, are we going to
vote on an overall program, the overall program here today?
MR. LOONEY: Well, we're going to have five
different items.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is number one?
MS. HYDE: This is one item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're going to expect
me to remember all five of those things, right?
MR. LOONEY: Well, sir --
JUDGE TINLEY: We can do them individually.
MR. MALEK: Yeah -- yes, you can do them
individually if you want.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval of
whatever all that's about.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
loo
JUDGE TINLEY: Spousal carve out surcharge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for the
approval of the spousal carve out surcharge, as recommended
by Mr. Looney and our H.R. Department. Question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let's put in the
motion those issues of new employees, spouses that have other
insurance, and they're choosing to go on ours, and that's
where the $200 comes in. What else was it? There was two or
three things there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's after -- after January 1,
2010.
MR. MALEK: It will be effective January 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can try and word it for you like I
did moments ago, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, just like you did
~ moments ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: The spousal carve out that's being
recommended would apply to employees of Kerr County who
become such employees after January 1st, 2010, and who wish
to have coverage available for their spouse, and that spouse
has coverage available through another employer, but
notwithstanding that, wishes to come under the Kerr County
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
plan, the recommendation being that we charge those spouses a
surcharge of $200 a month in addition to the normal charge
for those spouses.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. He should have
went to law school.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: And that will -- each one of these will
Each one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the first of them;
we're going to act on it.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the language of the motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my motion, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I seconded already.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. And we got a second now.
Question or discussion on that motion? All in favor of that
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion carries. We've adopted
the first one, okay.
MS. HYDE: My turn.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
MR. MALEK: You get all the easy ones.
MS. HYDE: We talked about this during open
as well. We talked about E.R. visits that are not
emergencies, and we went over it in some detail, because some
people -- this one got pretty heated pretty quickly. "Who
are you to say that it's not an emergency?" It's not what
we're saying. Tim was probably the greatest one, because he
said, "What happens if I go to the E.R." -- and he has no
HIPAA protection, because he -- where is he?
MR. BOLLIER: I'm right here.
MS. HYDE: Because he did it in open forum. So he
said, "What happens if I go to the E.R. thinking I'm having a
heart attack, and they tell me that I'm constipated or have
gas?" And that was a great one. That was a great one,
because that's very similar. I mean, anybody that's had it
knows it's real similar. The E.R. knows, and will do the
same appeal process that we've done before. If we had the
copay, a hundred -- it went down; my recommendation was 250
bucks, so I got outvoted. The recommendation is $125 copay
for non-emergency use. If -- if they get charged the 125 and
they feel like it was an emergency, they bring it to us; we
appeal it, and we get notes, the doctor's notes that tell us,
you know, did little Susie scrape her knee three weeks ago
and we're just now getting around to it, or is this a sincere
emergency?
11-23-09
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who levies the charge? We
do, or the hospital?
MS. HYDE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who levies the $125 charge,
we or the hospital?
MS. HYDE: Our insurance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our insurance?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who does the administrative
logistics of keeping up with all of this?
MS. HYDE: We do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ah, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is --
MS. HYDE: UMR, the insurance --
JUDGE TINLEY: Our T.P.A.
MR. MALEK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does an emergency room visit --
or if you go to a minor emergency clinic, is that an E.R. --
MS. HYDE: The urgent care copay?
MR. MALEK: That's what that is.
MS. HYDE: That's what that is. I learned
something new. They call it doc in the box, or -- I thought
that was pretty cool. But, yeah, if you go to urgent care,
like in Boerne, that's 35 bucks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, that's not an
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
emergency room visit.
MR. LOONEY: No.
MS. HYDE: It's urgent care. It's urgent care, but
it's not considered an emergency room.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HYDE: So it's a lot cheaper. So, the
emergency room visit is going to be 50 bucks copay; that's
what it's been forever. And then I will say this for the
Sheriff, 'cause he helped me out. I couldn't understand why
our E.R. visits were so high. We couldn't get them down.
And he said years ago, when y'all -- with y'all's insurance,
you were encouraged to go to the E.R., 'cause you got more
covered and it was cheaper. But that has changed in the
insurance industry now; it's flip-flopped. You go to the
E.R. and it costs you out the wazoo.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Eva?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry. Add $125?
MS. HYDE: Copay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Add that to what?
MS. HYDE: To their --
MR. LOONEY: Plan document.
MS. HYDE: The plan document.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there a number that is --
is there a copay number today?
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
MS. HYDE: There is for an emergency use of the
E.R. That's $50.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm talking about
nonemergency.
MS. HYDE: No, sir, there is not one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, this -- all we're doing
is adding $125?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Looney, as the Kerr County
consultant, in looking after the County's interests, what is
your recommendation with regard to this particular matter?
MR. LOONEY: I recommend that the Court adopt this
for addition to the plan document.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is 125 an appropriate number, or
should it be more or less, in your opinion?
MR. LOONEY: $125 is above what we see as an
average copayment today in the market. We normally see
copays of $75 to $100. We've seen some as high as 150, 175,
a few contracts that say we don't cover it at all. So 1'25, I
believe, is a reasonable number for this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the copay
for non-emergency use of emergency room, and adding the
urgent care copay of $35 as an alternative.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1.06
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion on that motion?
All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion carries. Now it's hot
potato time, so it must be your turn, Mr. Malek.
MR. MALEK: Oh, gosh. Okay. Can we switch the
order? All right. This is a conflict in our current plan
document, and it conflicts with our stop loss policy. And
the thing that I want you to really grasp upon at the
beginning of this is, we're talking about an insurance policy
issue, not a personnel policy issue, so we're not asking you
to change the personnel policy. We're really trying to get
our stop loss leave policy in sync with our plan document,
and that is not the case right now. Our current plan
document says that after 90 days of active employment, if
you're not active -- what they defined as an active employee,
then you are no longer covered under the policy, and so then
not covered under the stop loss policy. And so what is
normally standard is six months, and so right now, our stop
loss coverage would be in jeopardy. Also, the current Kerr
County personnel policy says that you can be off really
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10~
indefinitely without losing your insurance coverage, and so
what we're again talking about is insurance coverage here,
and there is a process in place that is a standard in the
industry that is adopted to deal with people going out on
leave of absence. And in this case, the general accepted
practice is a six-month leave of absence, and then you would
go out on COBRA, and then when that expired, you would then
be eligible for Medicare. So, there's a safety net all the
way down the line for you to still stay covered, so you
wouldn't have a gap necessarily in coverage. The -- also --
we also would want to run FMLA concurrently from the first
day of leave. And that's to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me stop you just a moment here.
The FMLA starting to run concurrently is already in the
personnel policy, is it not?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MR. MALEK: So, then they wouldn't change the
policy, but just a reminder that FMLA is going to run
concurrently with that leave. So, again, the recommendation
would be to use a six-month leave of absence policy -- leave
of absence for the insurance policy to then coincide with the
stop loss policy, because if you have a gap in coverage, our
stop loss policy will not cover that, and that's not a good
thing. That's a really bad thing, because generally that's
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
what's going to happen, is that's going to be a large claim,
and then we'll be uncovered, and so we want to stop that from
happening. So, we're recommending that we use a six-month
leave of absence policy in our plan document, and then that
person would take COBRA, and then after that, you would be
eligible for Medicare. Because, generally, the most COBRA
could run would be 27 months, and the reason they use 27
months is because that's going to be the waiting period for
you to become eligible for Medicare.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Medicare and/or Medicaid?
Or just Medicare?
MR. MALEK: It's really Medicare. You'd be
eligible for Medicare. Medicaid is based on income.
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, what your
recommendation encompasses is assuring that our stop loss
coverage remains in effect --
MS. HYDE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for as long as we can make it
remain in effect, so that in the cases where you've got these
extensive absences where there are more likely to be pretty
significant claims, we got stop loss coverage, and those
folks aren't let off the hook.
MS. HYDE: Right.
MR. MALEK: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:. And we're going from what to
this?
MR. MALEK: It was 90 days.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. MALEK: And that didn't coincide with the
current policy you had, the personnel policy that you had in
place.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it goes from 90 days to
MR. MALEK: It's a straight six months.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this COBRA and Medicare
and all of that, that's always been there?
MR. MALEK: Yes, it has.
MR. LOONEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. The Sheriff has -- stand up; we want to see you,
Rusty.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, thank you. Want me to
stand on the chair, as Buster would say? If you have an
employee that's got eight, nine months of sick leave, does
this take them off the county insurance after six months? So
they've already got built up sick leave for the county
insurance that's part of their benefits?
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
MS. HYDE: Put them onto COBRA.
MR. MALEK: That's right. That -- now, again, this
doesn't affect them getting paid. But it's after six months,
that person would then be going on COBRA. That's correct.
MR. LOONEY: Be on COBRA coverage.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Even though they're still
paying because of the -- paying for the premiums of this
health insurance?
JUDGE TINLEY: The difference is, I think, because
when we talk about -- it's not whether they're still paid or
not. It is active employment or actively at work or not is
what triggers under -- under the stop loss policy. That --
that is what gets us. Now, they can continue to be paid.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But, I mean, is -- because it
would have to be a pretty drastic illness if they're going to
be out that long, and they've got that much sick leave. In
the middle of being out that long -- it started, well, under
this insurance, okay? Now they're going to be out longer.
In the middle of that, is their insurance going to change, or
going to have to start paying all over again for the illness?
MS. HYDE: COBRA is the same insurance that we're
covered under. We're just paying -- it's a COBRA payment
versus the county payment.
MR. MALEK: Continuation.
MS. HYDE: And the County can determine that they
11-23-09
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
want to pay that COBRA payment if they'd like. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Under the circumstances where we had
that much sick leave accrued on grandfathered employees, I
suspect we would, because they're entitled to that benefit
because they're still on the payroll.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'd consider it case by
case.
JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely, yeah. Have to be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the Judge just
answered the question, Rusty.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He may have, and I missed part
of it .
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say it again, so -- he
wasn't listening.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we have somebody that's on the
payroll, because they've got this huge accumulation of sick
time, --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and they go past the six months,
so we're then into a COBRA situation, then it falls into the
Court's lap about whether or not the Court wants to absorb
that COBRA payment. And each case, as Commissioner Oehler
said, would be a case-by-case basis. But if we got a paid
employee that's got all this accumulated because of many,
many years of service, I feel very strongly that since
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
they're still on the payroll, we'd probably approve the
continuation of the County paying that COBRA cost. But the
maximum COBRA, as Mr. Malek said, is 27 months, I believe,
that we can --
MS. HYDE: For the employee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: And then the employee's pay would then
take care of the payments for the others, unless the Court
subsidized the COBRA.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Now, the second part of
my question, you have on the FMLA leave -- and Eva and I know
this directly because of what all it takes and the paperwork
that has to be filled out. It is extremely hard to put
somebody on FMLA leave the first day of occurrence. I've had
some people that they thought they were going to be out; four
days later, they were back. It didn't need to be. I
believe -- they're out today, and Eva's just pointing that
out. But then, like, if it -- especially if it's a back
injury or something, you've got to get the specialist and the
doctors to fill out all that paperwork. That's going to take
a week to get that back from them. You know, some of them
are charging them 20 bucks just to fill that out, and it just
goes on their pile. It's hard to know that that person,
because of all the dates on that paperwork, is going to be on
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
that FMLA leave day one. I would just -- to make it where
you can fit things in -- and I've had four employees in the
last week, trying to give them at least five days so that you
know whether they're really going to be out, you know, two
weeks, three weeks. If you don't give them any time -- I had
one that fell off a bicycle the other day and fractured an
elbow, and they said, "Oh, let's get him on FMLA." Well, by
the time they got through with the specialist appointment,
then they said, "There's nothing we can do for your elbow.
They can't set it anyhow. Go on back to work." We wouldn't
have even gotten all that paperwork filled out by then, but
yesterday I'd have been in violation, 'cause he wasn't on it
day one. I'd recommend giving us at least five days to get
them on that FMLA.
explained.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think all this --
MS. HYDE: Okay, you'll pass it to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- is made retroactively anyhow.
MS. HYDE: Right, it's going to be retro.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just retro back to day one.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That wasn't the way it's been
MS. HYDE: No. No, we're talking about -- this
isn't the personnel policy. This is for insurance.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's still FMLA. It's getting
the paperwork done.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
MR. MALEK: Well, that doesn't affect this issue
here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. This
is probably my boy-dummy question of the year. Six months,
and then goes on COBRA. Let's say at the end of eight
months, this person can come back into our system.
MS. HYDE: Great question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, thank you so much.
What about an answer?
MS. HYDE: Great question. There is nothing -- no
harm, no foul. The employee comes back to work full-time,
they're cured, everything is great, they go back on our
insurance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But in the meantime, we kept the
stop loss carrier on the hook.
MS. HYDE: Right.
MR. MALEK: That's the critical part.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is what we want to happen.
MS. HYDE: We don't want to lose the stop loss.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the important
factor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. HYDE: We don't want the employee to lose
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
insurance, either.
MR. MALEK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they're not, by
keeping the stop loss carrier on the hook.
MS. HYDE: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a motion and second, I
believe, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, do we have one?
THE CLERK: We have a motion and
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion and
question or discussion? All in favor of t
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same
a second.
second. Further
ze motion, signify
vote.)
sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll go to
the -- this is four? Is this four?
MS. HYDE: Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Retirees over
65. If a retiree is over 65, then retiree must enroll in
Medicare, Part A and B. County retiree policy would be
secondary to Medicare. Currently in our policy, in the way
that we do things, there is none -- there is nothing telling
the retiree they need to go for Social Security and Medicare,
and what we're requesting is that once they hit 65, the
retiree must enroll in Medicare, Part A and B, and our
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
insurance would then become secondary.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is for retirees, not
active employees?
MS. HYDE: Right. Retirees under 65 are not
affected.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? I assume your
recommendation is that we adopt this, Mr. Looney?
MR. LOONEY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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 carries.
MR. MALEK: That was easy. Finally, I get an
easier one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How come you took the good
I ones?
MR. MALEK: We currently have a stop smoking
coverage for over-the-counter stop smoking medications that
are covered currently. We did not, I assume, for whatever
reason, last year -- a lot of these drugs, Chantix, Zyban,
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
are fairly new on the market, and so there really wasn't a
lot of data out there on how effective they were. There is
more data out there. The success rates with using these
drugs are pretty decent for stop smoking, over 60 percent.
That's better than what a lot of them are at right now. So,
the recommendation is to add these two Rx drugs to our
current Rx policy so that we can, you know, cover them under
our wellness program, which encourages stop smoking.
MS. HYDE: And it's not just smoking; we should
have called it tobacco, but in our insurance policy it talks
about smoking.
MR. MALEK: Yeah.
those as well.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there an additional cost?
MR. LOONEY: The only additional cost,
Commissioner, is the fact that they would have this now
covered under the health care plan. It would be covered
under the plan as an item that's covered. And we've looked
at the cost of these in the past. That's one of the reasons
we haven't recommended it, 'cause it was -- it was high.
MS. HYDE: High.
MR. LOONEY: We're looking now at about maybe 25 or
30 percent of the cost that it was four or five years ago, so
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
it's come down significantly.
MS. HYDE: We do it one time. It's not that we do
it, like, every year, so you can -- you know, your New Year's
resolution, and you do it every single year. It's like --
MR. LOONEY: They're set up for one treatment
program. They go through that program, and then that's the
only one we'll pay for, is the one-shot program, the one
program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MS. HYDE: Crap.
MR. LOONEY: You get a good one.
MS. HYDE: Retiree dependents under 65. First
thing I notice is down at the bottom, Kerr County retirees
not affected; they're grandfathered. The current policy says
retiree dependents under 65 pay 50 percent of the premium.
Recommendation. Dependents -- dependents, not the spouse.
Dependents of the retiree would be full price effective 1-2
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
of 2010.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not talking about spouses.
MS. HYDE: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're talking about other
dependents.
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. Child, children,
grandchildren.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happens to that
individual at age 65?
MS. HYDE: We just passed at age 65, they go to
Medicare/Medicaid.
MR. LOONEY: And the plan becomes secondary.
MS. HYDE: The plan becomes secondary.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're talking about dependents.
MR. MALEK: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if I'm 65 and I -- let's say I
have minor dependents. Do I have coverage under Medicare for
dependents also?
MR. LOONEY: No, not for dependents. They would be
covered under the basic plan as they were previously.
They'll just be paying the premium for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're talking about the
dependents of a retiree --
MS. HYDE: Okay, I'm confused.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- under 65 at the time
this person is retired pays 50 percent. That's current.
What happens if you change it and the retiree's spouse
undoubtedly becomes 65? Does that person pay the full? Or
is there another element here?
MR. MALEK: This isn't the same thing. This is
just for the dependents, not spouse, so this isn't -- this
doesn't include that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't include spouse.
MR. MALEK: It's only for children -- dependent
children.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dependent children.
MR. MALEK: We're only talking about dependent
children.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should say that.
MR. MALEK: Yeah, it's kind of a -- we say
employee, spouse, dependent, so "dependent" means dependent
children. And so what we're talking about here is them
paying the same price as an active employee would pay for
their dependent children.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more word makes it
clear. Add "children" so people understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So --
JUDGE TINLEY: In the definition of the plan, is
"dependent" defined as children, and "spouse" as spouse?
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
MS. HYDE: Right.
MR. MALEK: That's in the plan document.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's in the definition section.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are there a lot?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Careful.
MS. HYDE: The numbers are increasing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A person 65 years old still
MS. HYDE: Because you have more and more
grandparents that are taking care of grandchildren because
the children do not have coverage. And the children --
MR. MALEK: That's generally what it is.
MS. HYDE: -- are -- are not -- they're not
insurable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we have a lot of that in
Kerr County?
MS. HYDE: We have more and more, yes, sir. You'd
be surprised.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would be surprised. I'd
be shocked. Of course, I'm shocked at daylight.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
approval. 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 carries. Do we have
more?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. It's his turn.
MR. MALEK: No, that's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought she said no.
MS. HYDE: I didn't say a word.
MR. MALEK: Kind of the same, 'cause we're dealing
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that all the damage you
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got a question in the back,
Judge.
MR. LOONEY: We've got another item that we'll --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: You don't have -- we don't have all
the final information on it yet, but I need to bring it back
to the Court in the future, talking about our prescription
drug program. I'm sorry that the data is just not solid yet,
and I want to make sure it's solid before we bring it to you,
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
but we will be talking about the possibility of making a
change in the prescription drug program right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is a higher percentage of our
program than it really ought to be.
MR. LOONEY: 37 to 38 percent of our entire cost of
the program is in prescription drugs right now, which is two
to three times what the national average is. So, I'm going
to have to get back to you, though, with the -- the specific
data on that, because I want to make sure that everybody is
very clear on what we're doing.
MS. HYDE: That's the hard -- That's the hardest
one, 'cause it's a lot to understand, and it has to do with
money and people and prescriptions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you think, at the same
time, that maybe -- I'm just so impressed with what Rusty's
doing with his department health-wise, that it needs to be
talked about, because I think that what's going on with them
is a savings to all the rest of us. I mean, he -- he's
getting -- he's not buying the medications any more. Simple
as that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know why he wants to think
about retiring, then, do you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, me either.
MR. LOONEY: Retiring? You're not retiring, are
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I'm not retiring yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But if that's -- you know,
I'd like to have that conversation.
MR. LOONEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At the same time when you
bring that back, he can encourage the rest of us to getout
off of our fat butts and get out there and do a health plan.
MR. LOONEY: I -- there are a number of programs
from the wellness side of it. A lot of it -- a lot of it,
though, is based on somebody taking charge and getting people
to actually do it. If you -- you can do all the health risk
assessments, you can do all of the online stuff, you can
present a lot of programs, but until you get somebody
actively involved in -- the person actively involved in the
process, it's -- you're just not accomplishing much. So, I'd
love to see what kind of whip and chair he's been using.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, what I'm curious -- I
think what Buster's saying, the Court took it on their own,
and through Eva and a lot of other people, to start offering
employees that did that -- go out and do that, they get a
reimbursement, so that people have a benefit of $20 a month
as long as they are attending. I don't know if there's some
type of benefit that the insurance program or the insurance
people could give employees that do aggressively go out and
set standards and do that kind of stuff. That would --
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
would, one, save the county on insurance costs, and encourage
more employee involvement in staying fit.
MR. LOONEY: There are a number of programs we can
present to the Court on --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just as an example, Rusty,
how much weight have y'all lost in -- what, four months?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Total since June, my
department has lost somewhere between 400 and 450 pounds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a bunch.
MR. LOONEY: That is a bunch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's healthy.
MS. HYDE: But the reduction -- the reduction in
prescriptions is another area that we have lost, because
we've had a reduction in the prescriptions, in the kind of
prescriptions. Of course, because of HIPAA, I can't say
anything.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, but I can directly. A
number of people have been able to get off their medication.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's exactly what I'm
saying here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've been on Lipitor for four
years at the highest amount they could give, and I am totally
off of it now, because -- totally because of the fitness and
the diet part of it. Those are the things that really can
save this county.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
MS. HYDE: I went from the high level of Synthroid,
which is for your thyroid, down to the minimum.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tim, did you have a comment that you
wanted to --
MR. BOLLIER: Just -- I just wanted to ask a
question. I want to go all the way back to the start, to
where y'all were talking about going to the emergency room
and what an emergency -- blab, blab, blab. I have -- I have
a question. Like, on the weekends, there's no doctors
available on the weekends that I know of. My doctor's office
is only open on Saturday, like, to lunchtime. So, if
something happens, you know, you're feeling bad or something,
what do we do if we -- you know, 'cause if it's not a
life-threatening situation --
MS. HYDE: Then it's not an emergency. If it's not
life-threatening, if it's not an emergency situation, then
you call and make an appointment to see your doctor. If it's
an emergency, you go to the emergency room, like we said in
class.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or go to the doc in the box.
MS. HYDE: Or go to the doc in the box up in
I Boerne.
JUDGE TINLEY: Franklin.
MS. HYDE: Franklin Clinic.
MR. BOLLIER: I forgot about those.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One just curiosity question,
Judge. Right after we, you know, open enrolled and starting
to go through this insurance, and we're making changes to
this insurance, would that in any way have affected any of
the prior bids that we got on this insurance?
MR. LOONEY: No, not on the bids.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or material, you know, changes
in it as far as limiting and copay and all that would have
been beneficial to all the other companies that bid, to have
this before?
MR. LOONEY: No.
MS. HYDE: Whoever would have wanted would have
MR. LOONEY: That cost -- the cost that we're
talking about here is more of a material change in the
contract than actual -- there are some cost savings that are
involved there, but it wouldn't affect it, no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We done with that one?
MR. LOONEY: Got it done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. I want to go to
Item 14; consider, discuss, take appropriate action for a
variance on an easement off of F.M. 480 in Center Point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead.
MR. ODOM: Go ahead? All right. I'm sorry, I was
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
waiting for the Judge. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't wait on him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nobody else does. Why should you?
Go ahead.
MR. ODOM: That's true. Rusty doesn't. It says --
basically, what we have is we have Chris Shuler owns two
pieces of property off Farm-Market 480, and he would like to
purchase 10.03 acres behind his property which doesn't have
access. He has been working with the Texas Veterans Board
for a variance on this, and that's what we're before the
Court on, to discuss the possibility of -- of having a
variance from -- of a 30-foot variance to this property.
And, basically, what I'd like do is defer that to Jonathan
for his --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Input?
MR. ODOM: -- input.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one quick -- quick
correction, Len. Chris Shuler owns the two pieces of
property that front 480. The 10.03 is currently owned by
Mr. Lackey, who wishes to sell it to --
MR. ODOM: Chris.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- James Shuler, who is
Chris' father. So, I just want to get that in the record.
That's the way it stands at the moment.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The person that owns the two
pieces trying to buy the one behind it has access.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The father is trying to buy
the two behind it to be financed by Texas Veterans Land
Board. And Chris,. the son, owns the two pieces that front
480, from which an easement will be required to access the
10 acres in the back.
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okav. Okav, here we an.
MR. ODOM: Here we go.
JUDGE TINLEY: The issue is really the width of the
easement, isn't it?
MR. ODOM: That -- well, there was a question --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was.
MR. ODOM: -- whether it was, but after talking
with Jonathan, maybe that is not an issue. May not even be
necessary to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That'll cloud it a little bit,
but probably still not -- I don't -- obviously, I don't like
variances. The purpose of this is to gain access for a
mortgage, basically, for the loan. It's nothing to do with
subdividing property. And this really is not any different
than -- I think every property/ranch owner in the -- probably
the county has a mortgage on their house. We have to survey
out -- I've had to do it myself. As an example, I've had to
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
survey a center line down our ranch road to my house, to my
3 acres that I own outright, and the rest of the ranch is
owned by our family business. My sister has a separate one.
Those are -- have not required platting. Those are just
access easements for a bank to require a mortgage
requirement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The lending institution
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I don't think that
is a -- that does not trigger platting, in my mind. If, at
some point, Mr. Shuler wants to sell a piece of that property
to another -- you know, to Bruce, sell 5 acres, 5.01 acres to
Bruce, then I think he has to come to the Court to get a
variance at that point, but I don't think anything's required
at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or build a road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, the easement of
30 feet can be granted, but -- without requiring an easement,
~ but we're deferring to some other date what the disposition
of the 10.3 -- 10.03 acres, if somebody has another plan for
that, or it's subsequently sold, another plan evolved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then the whole issue of the
easement has to come back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. As long as it's all
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
131
in one entity under the family as they're doing it, to me,
it's just a -- they need it for the convenience of the
mortgage, and that's not the intent of platting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question.
MR. CHRIS SHULER: If we sell it between family
members, we don't have to get -- give the 60 feet; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MR. CHRIS SHULER: If I sell 5 acres to another --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that would be correct.
MR. CHRIS SHULER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question?
MR. CHRIS SHULER: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: 1.03 goes and looks at that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a 30-foot -- the
30-foot easement there, so does that change one or both of
these two lot sizes?
MR. CHRIS SHULER: Just one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just an easement. Not
changing the size.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It doesn't?
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just an easement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not needed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what do we -- what's
the action required by us?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I say no action's required by
this Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then they can proceed to do
what they need. Well, wait a minute. Hold on a second.
What do they need to go to the Texas Veterans Land Board and
be able to satisfy their requirements?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the record of this
~ discussion.
MR. ODOM: The minutes for this agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't require --
MR. JAMES SHULER: We've already talked to the
Veterans Land Board. They normally require a 60-foot
easement, but will be amenable to a 30-foot easement if the
County approves it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you do need an
approval; is that correct?
MR. JAMES SHULER: We need some kind of document
from the County that says you're okay with this 30-foot
easement for them to lend the money to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine, but I think it's
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
just discussion that this does not require platting, and they
can do whatever they want with their property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. I'm
just trying to satisfy his needs for the Texas Veterans Land
Board.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He needs a letter. He needs
a letter from somebody from the Court, from County Attorney
or something, saying that this platting is not required.
MS. BAILEY: Do you want to authorize me to write a
letter saying that? That would probably suffice.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we do it that
way? Why don't we authorize the County Attorney to draft a
letter for Mr. Shuler so they can present it to Texas
Veterans Land Board indicating that the easement is
appropriate and in place.
MR. ODOM: The 30 foot?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For 30 feet, yes.
MR. JAMES SHULER: I think that would work for us,
yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We need formal Court action on that?
~ Or just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's a motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think so. Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to
that effect. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
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. I want to
quickly go ahead and take up the other two items for Mr. Odom
so we can get him on out of here and back to work.
(Commissioner Letz left the meeting.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 12, consider, discuss, take
appropriate action to approve private road name request of
Jan Dowdy Lane West in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is two individuals -- or
two families have applied through the 911 office to make a
private road, Jan Dowdy Lane West, and this private road
exists in Precinct 4 off -- and off of a private road, Dee
Trail, which is off of Dowling Road. 911 has approved this,
and at this time, we ask the Court for their approval of this
private road name, Jan Dowdy Lane West.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. 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.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
135
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. We'll go to
Item 13; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to set a
public hearing for approving raising the speed limit to
45 miles per hour, and also adding two warning signs to curve
on Skyline Drive in Center Point located in Precinct 2.
Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. We have run the -- our tubes
across there and found the range from 38 to 45 miles an hour
on this straightaway. We're asking the Court to set a public
hearing for December the 28th, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., for this
posting for a speed limit at 45 miles an hour.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the curve signs?
MR. ODOM: And curve signs.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval to set a public hearing on the matter December 28th,
2009, at 9:30 a.m. 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. Okay, let's
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
go into recess. Why don't we come back at a quarter till
2:00.
MR. ODOM: What about the equipment, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MR. ODOM: Would you like for me to make that --
for the equipment?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Let me withdraw that
declaration that we're in recess. Let's go back to Item 10;
reconsider -- consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
open, read, and award proposal for used 66-inch single drum
vibratory compactor. Mr. Odom, do you have a recommendation?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I do. We had four bids. We
had one from Holt, RDO, Romco, and Closner. We had two that
were out. They had bid '05 and '06; our specs were '08. The
two that were close was Holt and Closner, and the low -- that
range was from 63,720 to 48,950. We make a recommendation
that the Court accept the bid from Closner Equipment for
$48,950 for our steel wheel, which is a very good bid.
JUDGE TINLEY: Considerably below the other bid.
That was with specs?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, RDO bid
54,895. Romco bid 51,089. And we already have a Dynamac,
which Closner bid, and it is a good piece of equipment, so we
have no problems with it. There's almost $15,000 difference
between the two that were qualified on this bid. The hours
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
were exact in there. As a matter of fact, Closner had less
hours than -- than Holt did, so it's, I think, a very good
bid.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move approval, on the
recommendation of the county Road Administrator, to approve
the purchase of the 66-inch drum roller.
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that emotion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Further
question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Now we will
be in recess until 1:45.
(Recess taken from 12:01 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.)
(Commissioner Letz not present.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might. We were in recess for the lunch hour. Let's pick
up with our agenda and go to Item 8; consider, discuss, take
appropriate action for Tax Assessor/Collector's office to be
open March 2nd, 2010, also a scheduled holiday, for the 2010
11-23-09
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
primary election, per Section 12.004(c) and Section 83.00 --
excuse me, 83.011 of the 2010-11 Texas election laws.
Probably the easiest thing to do also would be to call Item
9; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to adjust the
2009-2010 Kerr County holiday schedule. This shows to be my
item, but I'm not sure why I put on it here.
MS. GRINSTEAD: At the last meeting, you talked
about because Texas Independence Day is the same day, that
you were going to switch and give a different holiday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's the reason I called
them both, then.
MS. BOLIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I learned after the fact.
MS. BOLIN: I know that Commissioner Letz was
concerned that it would be -- the election would affect other
offices. Since everything's pulled in my office, my office
would be the only one affected on election day. Except, of
course, Rusty.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Uh-huh.
MS. BOLIN: And security. But the courthouse would
have to be open. We'd be using this courtroom. I think we
are scheduled to use it; that's the polling place.
JUDGE TINLEY: Use it as a polling place, and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I.T.'s office, my office.
We'd have to have people here, plus we run ballots for them
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
139
all the time, so all those people would have to be called in.
JUDGE TINLEY: And do we not also use this as a --
this courtroom as a place after the polls close where we
announce the results to the media and interested parties?
MS. BOLIN: We have started using the Ag Barn. We
take all of the stuff over there and have it all calculated,
and it's worked out great. All the media and everything's
over there instead of here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I guess the question
before us is, do we have March the 2nd as a -- as a holiday
for most all folks, but not for some? Your people are
working 24/7 anyway, so --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, except the only
difference is, the ones that work here at the courthouse and
that are on the regular schedule that everybody else out at
the courthouse is. They're off on holidays and all that, so
those would be -- those holidays, I'd have to pay them the
I overtime.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember a time when we
didn't have security here.
MS. BOLIN: That's very true. There's a lot of
times --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Of course, there was also a
Sheriff's Office here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, that -- that's
11-23-09
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
true, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of course, they weren't here, but
their office was here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Door's locked, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have we covered the
overtime considerations on both for your people, Diane? On
both this day and -- and the December 31 date that you
brought before?
MS. BOLIN: We had agreed to give them a separate
day off .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A separate day off.
MS. BOLIN: An alternate day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that contemplate that
working on a holiday is double and a half time?
MS. BOLIN: Ms. Hyde brought that to my attention,
but I still have not figured out how it could be double time
and a half. Time and a half, yes, I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's time and a half plus a
holiday, which makes it double and a half time.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But they would get an extra
day off.
I, MS. BOLIN: Right. They'd just have the one day.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They wouldn't have any --
they wouldn't have any additional day. They'd be paid two
and a half times, and you would not get an additional day.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
141
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Am I correct, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Be paid time and a half and
not get an additional day, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's right. I said
two and a half; it's time and a half.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's time and a half. You
know, I mean, their normal --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Work the day, but they get
paid for their time, but they don't get an additional day on
top of that.
MS. BOLIN: So, they would get time and a half for
being here?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. That's the way I
understand the policy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think you ought to
be certain that -- of what you speak, okay? You and Eva get
together and make certain, and with payroll. Make certain
that you're not getting into a two and a half times day.
MS. BOLIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay? Just so -- you know,
'cause you can really create a budgetary issue for yourself.
MS. BOLIN: That's very true. But this day I don't
I have a choice on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You do not what?
25 ~ MS. BOLIN: I don't have a choice on this date.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
142
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: The real question is whether or not
we just delete that as a courthouse holiday and designate
some other day, such as a day in January. Correct, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yo no savvy English.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Also not speaking up very
quickly either.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. That's my holiday,
guys. But let's do whatever you want to do; I don't care.
Doesn't matter to me. I just don't want Letz to win. What
did he want to do?
JUDGE TINLEY: He's not here, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. What did he want to
do, though? Let's do something different.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do the opposite of what he
would have done?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, the opposite way.
MS. BOLIN: He wanted to make it a day open for
everybody, where the courthouse would be open for regular
business.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On that particular holiday,
and they were going to shift the holiday, which is Item 9,
shift that holiday to another time. Is that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Either that, or do away with it
altogether. We could do that.
11-23-09
143
1
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: Let's don't get crazy.
MS. BOLIN: For this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see where y'all are headed
with this thing.
MS. BOLIN: Just for this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to wait until Jon gets
back?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that's fine. That's
fine with me; I don't care. I couldn't care less. It makes
no difference. Let me read Number 8 again. So, we -- what
we'll do is basically delete that holiday?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that would be one solution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And that would
change --
JUDGE TINLEY: That would solve everything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That takes care of Number
8, if you do Number 9.
JUDGE TINLEY: You have to delete the holiday under
Number 9 in order to take care of Number 8 that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you call Number 9?
JUDGE TINLEY: I called them both.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we delete the
'~ holiday that's on March the 2nd, God bless Texas day.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion. Do I hear a
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But the motion is for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For this year only.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for this year only.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, we set the holidays
annually anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. That is true.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further 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: The motion carries. Solves the
problem.
MS. BOLIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two birds with one stone.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other adjustments to the
2009-2010 Kerr County holiday schedule?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Were there any other holidays
during that time that are state holidays that you would
substitute that one with? Or are you just going to totally
do away with one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Totally do -- we just
11-23-09
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
totally did away with one.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, with that motion, you
know, you can adjust it under Number 9, if you wanted to give
the employees back that holiday.
JUDGE TINLEY: We could.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And do another one that's a
state holiday where you got post office and banks closed
anyhow. You still have the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other business under agenda item
Number 9? Hearing none, we'll move on. We will go to Item
16; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve the
contract with Dietert Center; allow the County Judge to sign
the same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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. Item 17,
we'll pass on. Peter Lewis, the architect, said he had
nothing specific, other than he's continuing to work on the
site plan with the City and starting to get the final
11-23-09
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
construction plans pulled together. He hopes to have
something for us next month on a schedule on moving forward.
Let's go back to Item 15 that we called earlier; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to award the new county
courthouse telephone system contract and authorize County
Judge to sign the same. Mr. Trolinger.
MR. TROLINGER: Good afternoon, Judge. We have
four bidders, and since I did not put in the backup the --
the information or the numbers on the bidders, I think it's
appropriate to go ahead and -- and call that out now in the
record. We had four bidders. Hill Country Telephone
Cooperative came in at what we calculate as $97,648. The
option they had to save a little bit of money, save $10,000,
brought them down to 89,048. So, they -- each of the bidders
provided us with two options, but Hill Country Telephone had
one that saved a -- might have saved a little bit, so I
wanted to make sure that was clear. Another bidder, 4ip
company out of Fredericksburg --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 4 ID?
MR. TROLINGER: 4ip.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, 4ip.
MR. TROLINGER: The number 4 and the letter "i" and
the letter "p."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 4ip.
MR. TROLINGER: Came in at $357,864.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
147
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow. That must have been
gold-plated telephones.
MR. TROLINGER: Carousel Industries out of Exeter,
Rhode Island, but a national company, bid and came in at
86,233. The last bidder was Computer Plus, and they came in
at $44,665.13.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Forty-four what?
MR. TROLINGER: 44,665.13. I'd like to thank my
I.T. specialist, Bruce Motheral, for putting this together.
He spent quite a lot of time analyzing each of these bids,
actually putting it together to start with, and trying to
determine who had the best package and, line item for line
item, actually comparing this, even though the -- the price
disparity's there. We selected Computer Plus based on the
low price, obviously, but all of the requirements, everything
and more that we specified in the bid, is -- is available
from Computer Plus.
JUDGE TINLEY: And included within their bid?
MR. TROLINGER: Included within the bid.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the service in one of
the requirements?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And --
MR. TROLINGER: The annual cost for service from
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
Computer Plus -- two factors there. The annual renewal of
the contract, the licensing, the system that Computer Plus
proposed is an initial license at $4,500, with no annual
renewal, which is different from all the others. The others
had an annual renewal cost. And then the actual
maintenance -- I know we received a quote, and I don't recall
the number.
MR. MOTHERAL: I don't have it.
MR. TROLINGER: We don't have it in front of us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many units are we
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many?
MR. TROLINGER: 125.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In just the courthouse
setting, or throughout our system?
MR. TROLINGER: Courthouse -- courthouse only is
the base bid that this covers.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about add-ons for satellite
offices? We're talking about Road and Bridge, Animal
Control, annex --
MR. TROLINGER: 216th Adult Probation.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Detention.
JUDGE TINLEY: Detention.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, all those came into play --
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
149
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ag Barn.
MR. TROLINGER: -- in considering the system,
because we want to be able to easily expand, and the 3CX
system that Computer Plus proposed is easily expandable, and
has a similar cost structure, as in, you know, we're looking
at 44,000 versus 86,000, the nearest bidder. Well, to expand
the system, we continue on with that same ratio.
JUDGE TINLEY: Percentage-wise, it's comparable --
comparably priced, then?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What -- I'm sorry. Go
ahead, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mercy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about -- what about the
new law enforcement annex? Was it -- is it included?
MR. TROLINGER: It is not. But if need be, we can
expand and add that building onto this system.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What will they do? I
~ mean --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think right now we're going
to have to go with the -- an add-on to the current contract
we have, because if you're moving offices and office
personnel out there, you really still need the intercom
system; you need all that going back and forth, okay? So,
whatever we do -- and I don't remember when our contract is
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
150
up out there. The Judge may. You know, I think we need to
do it all at one time. If we change over, change it over
then. Not get two different systems operating out there.
MR. TROLINGER: The Sheriff's Office system was
recently expanded under another contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, this is strictly
courthouse only, no -- no satellite anything?
MR. TROLINGER: This bid only includes the
courthouse and base system, correct, with the capability to
expand. For instance, if we want to add the Ingram annex and
drop their phone system, we could probably do that. We'd
have to make some arrangements -- for instance, we need some
more bandwidth, but it would be possible to do that. Now, a
more likely scenario is that J.P. 2 that's over at the
Sheriff's Office is -- is on the Sheriff's phone switch, and
they pay a premium rate, business line rate. We could take
-- take those two or three phone lines and fax line, put this
-- put them on this system as it is today. We could add
those to this system with just the cost of the handsets only.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we do that with all of
the outliers that we have?
MR. TROLINGER: To some extent. It depends on the
existing lines and the bandwidth that we've got available
through the network, because this can be both a traditional
telephone system where we bring copper wire in and connect
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
151
telephones to it, connect the telephone system to it, or we
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the proposal?
MR. TROLINGER: The -- there is no specific
proposal to do that. The --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would be your
recommendation?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, it depends. Animal Control,
with two phones, we'd probably connect them directly through
the computer network. If their system goes down, we can pick
up -- they can pick up a cell phone as a backup.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we expanding the number
of lines that we have access to so that we have a -- a better
system balance here?
MR. TROLINGER: No. The incoming and outgoing
lines will stay the same as initially. The actual service
that we get from the -- from Windstream will not change.
We're still -- we'll still have lines coming in and lines
coming out from Windstream. We're just going to connect a
new telephone system to that. We have the option, once that
system's online, to get services from other companies or to
expand that service.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What kind of security is
there by putting this phone system into and across our
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
computer lines?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, that's a good question. And
one of the reasons we like this 3CX and the Computer Plus
proposal was that they're going to actually run wire to each
one of the telephone handsets. It's not going to be on the
same network as the computers are here in the courthouse.
It'll be a separate network, so it's pretty darned good as
far as the courthouse goes. Once we start -- if we wanted to
add -- for instance, if we wanted to add Animal Control, it's
a secured network connection, but it wouldn't on the computer
network. So, there --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's not a security
', problem?
MR. TROLINGER: I don't feel that there is.
Especially at the courthouse, there is none. It's the same
as today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis, you had a question?
MS. HARGIS: If we're not expanding our phone line
capabilities, why are we doing this? That's why I thought we
were doing this, is so -- we're out of phone lines.
MR. TROLINGER: Oh, the number. Okay. Two
different things. Number of -- number of handsets we have
are 125. To be able to add on, to be able to put another
telephone, say, here in the Commissioners Courtroom on the
existing system right now, we could not do that without
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
153
buying additional hardware, replacing the system, et cetera.
The number of outside lines is what I thought you had asked
about. Number of outside lines, we're not changing the
service that comes in and out.
MS. HARGIS: We only have two major lines coming in
MR. TROLINGER: Right. Well, the major -- we've
got seven in and out right now. But if we want to add
handsets, we can do that to our heart's content with the new
system. I believe the only thing to -- only limit that we
have are the actual number of simultaneous phone calls, which
are 65 -- is that right, Bruce? Sixty-five simultaneous
calls?
JUDGE TINLEY: John, with -- with the Sheriff's
Office being under a separate contract, tell me about the
compatibility with this proposal from Computer Plus, and that
equipment and that methodology relative to the Sheriff's
Office.
MR. TROLINGER: Same situation as the courthouse.
We'll have to replace the handsets. And there's really no
compatibility. It's a replacement system. In other words,
we could not go in and just connect up two modules and have
the Sheriff's Office system online. It would require
replacing the telephones and the telephone switch.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, there's not compatibility
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
between the two?
MR. TROLINGER: Correct. And -- is that right,
Bruce? There wouldn't be on any of the four bidders.
MR. MOTHERAL: That's correct.
MR. TROLINGER: And none of the bidders have that
capability.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it occurs to me, we need to be
looking at what the Sheriff's got out there and how quickly
we can make a change there, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because if we do the new building
out there, it's obviously got to be compatible with his
existing system.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that'll be a new contract or an
add-on to his contract, and that's going to further delay us
and further separate us at the same time communications-wise,
wouldn't it? Are you understanding what I'm --
MR. TROLINGER: Well, I understand. I understand
exactly where you're going with it. And the one option that
I explored was that the Adult Probation office could -- could
easily be added to the new system. But the Sheriff, in order
to maintain his -- his interoperability with his dispatchers
and the rest of his office, he'd have to just expand the
existing.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
155
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one thing I'm curious
about, how -- and this is just a question. How would it
change -- where we stay on Windstream and the County goes to
this one, since we're in separate locations anyhow, how would
it change anything that we have right now? I can't call an
intercom number and call over to here, okay? Never have been
able to. You have to dial a number just like I would from my
house calling here, and there's no difference in that, nor
would there necessarily be any difference. Is there? I
mean, what -- what are we really doing, is what I'm wondering
on that. True, later, 'cause we even experience it now at
times, on the real busy days, to where we don't have three
lines, you got 65 simultaneous calls. It can -- it can -- if
you add us to it, you're going to have to expand a lot,
because there are some -- a lot of phone calls coming and
going out at one time out of our office. I just don't know
where the advantage would be, whether Probation, us, or
whoever out at that location, being on what you have here is
going to really benefit. I don't think it's going to change
anything. You still have to dial a phone number to get here.
You're just changing equipment.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you're already
operating under a contract you just extended, right?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's going to be a while
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
before we can even get out of that contract.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't remember how long that
contract was for, if it was a 2- or a 5-year contract when
they did the expansion, but it's been a couple of years.
Probably not all that long, in reality.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's it with, Rusty?
I Windstream?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Windstream, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We have -- the problem was,
he had to get additional lines.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because I could not -- we were
-- people weren't even able to call in to dispatch at times,
because we didn't have enough lines coming in. They were
getting busy signals.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we ought to put
Rusty on the computer program, 'cause -- you know, give him
an opportunity to have a phone call drop off every once in a
while; give him something to whine about.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have that already.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, do you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If he's talking bandwidth, it
gets major when you're going from here to my office. We
already have that problem with the computer system.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I thought you said he already
had the problem of him having something to whine about. I
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
157
already knew that, Commissioner.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can always find something to
whine about. You gentlemen know that.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, without going into too much
detail, long-term, and even short-term wise, we've deployed
an instant messenger program that allows us to interface to
the new telephone system, and deploying that at the Sheriff's
Office at every workstation, I can load it on. So, we'll see
how it works. But the capability's there to connect to the
courthouse telephone system through that -- through the
computer, basically. And that's my short-term -- that's my
short-term interoperability unified communications plan.
We'll see how it works out. But the first expansion of this
base system that we're installing, I anticipate the 216th
Adult Probation would be the first candidate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TROLINGER: Followed by the -- or in
conjunction with the J.P. 2 office at the Sheriff's Office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who'll make a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm waiting for a
recommendation. You are recommending that the bid be awarded
to Computer Plus?
MR. TROLINGER: To Computer Plus for the 3CX
system, as proposed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we accept
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
158
the recommendation of the I.T. -- the Information Technology
Department and award the bid to Computer Plus.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further 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: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm just curious; what is
the disparity between the bid we just awarded and $357,000
worth of phones? Gold-plated or what?
MR. TROLINGER: It's -- the system had every bell
and whistle and the newest and fastest technology. For
instance, one of the things in the proposal was 10 gigabit
network connections for the equipment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's pretty big, huh?
MR. TROLINGER: And we need 100 -- we need
something that's a factor of 10,000 less.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just curious.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They were a little too close
ton. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the one that we just
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
i59
approved has some homing pigeons involved in it?
MR. TROLINGER: No, it's the latest technology, and
it -- the advantage of what they're doing is, they're putting
in a separate computer network in lieu of trying to operate
on our high-speed computer network. It lets them purchase
the state-of-art equipment, but it's just not as much as --
as the faster speed network.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not two tin cans and
wax string, right?
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. On Item 18, is that something
that we're going to be able to do in open, as opposed to
executive? I'm trying to figure out how the executive would
come into play on that, but maybe I'm -- I don't understand
everything I need to know about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not mine, Judge.
MR. TROLINGER: I'd like to use open session as
much as possible. If we have to start discussing
personnel, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call Item 18, to discuss the
Court Compliance iPlow software project.
MR. TROLINGER: I received a letter on
November 12th from Commissioner Baldwin, and I wanted to make
25 ~ sure that the Court was aware. And I responded, and it was a
11-23-09
~ tin
1
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 opportunity to update y'all on the iPlow, I'm calling it
now, versus Odyssey program. Now, I sent a formal response
in writing, but I wanted to make sure that I understood that
the Court had last ordered that we -- that the policy for the
Court Compliance office be completed before we carried on any
further with the -- with the software project. That was my
understanding.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, we just got -- I don't know,
latter part of last week, as I recall, a draft policy on
Court Compliance. Is that not correct?
MS. UECKER: Right, on the 19th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's a draft, a
proposal. Of course, the major players in it are going to be
the fee officers, you and Jannett, and the Court Compliance
Department that drafted the policy. And then, of course,
John gets involved in it by virtue of the software issues
involved. But my recollection of looking at that thing, it
was a pretty extensive document, and have y'all had an
opportunity to review that and comment on it?
MS. UECKER: I'm -- I've made lots of comments on
it, and Jannett and I are going to get together this
afternoon and look at it together, you know, and see what
recommendations we might want to make.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. UECKER: We haven't had that opportunity today.
11-23-09
1 H1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Almost needs to be a separate
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yeah, it is. But as
Mr. Trolinger said, I think the last time we had the issue of
some new software, or the issue of new software before us at
the Court Compliance, my recollection also was it was left
at that we address the -- the Court Compliance policy first,
get that nailed down, then move forward from there. And I
don't think I'm mistaken. Some of the others may --
MS. UECKER: That's the way I understood it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Others may have other recollection.
Anybody else think differently on that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, other than John's report to the
inquiry, what else do we need to do on the agenda item today?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not my agenda item.
It's John's agenda item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm just looking for anybody
to --
MR. TROLINGER: Well, I'm just -- I'm here to
answer any questions, if y'all have any questions about the
project. We're waiting for the policy, and that's where it
stood. Now, I had already started the process, and now it's
scheduled to -- to have the Tyler Technologies people on-site
to help us again with the Court Compliance, with the setup
11-23-09
~ F~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and configuration.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are they currently scheduled to
specifically be here again at any particular time?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, November 30th through
December 2nd.
MS. UECKER: When are they coming? I'm sorry.
MR. TROLINGER: November 30th.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Next Monday.
MR. TROLINGER: Probably through the 2nd of
December.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: From what I see in your
letter regarding the iPlow issue, it doesn't seem like that
iPlow is going to be an issue. It's going to need to be
addressed before we have --
MR. TROLINGER: I agree. The more I look at it,
the less sense it makes to try to have a separate program.
But, you know, it does in some respects depend on the policy.
You know, if the -- for instance, you know, if the payment
plans need to be done a certain way and we cannot do it with
Odyssey, then we may need to use this other program. But
right now, that's not what I'm seeing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why cannot it be done with
Odyssey, and what would be required to make it happen with
Odyssey?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, that's the question. I can't
11-23-09
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: The payment plans are being put into
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, wherein lies the
MS. PIEPER: I have no idea. Somewhere with the
Collections Department.
MS. UECKER: Based on what I've read of the policy,
I don't see any requirements in there that would -- that are
any different than what Odyssey is capable of. Based on what
I'm seeing -- and I've just got a preliminary reading of the
policy; I've made a few notes -- my question would be, you
know, what's our timeline? At what time do we have to get
the new recommendations, and are we supposed to get with the
Compliance Department and then bring it -- bring our separate
issues to the Court for approval, or how are we going to do
this?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think the Court will
ultimately have to adopt the policy, but I -- what I see as
the process is that, ultimately, the Compliance Department
will bring it to the Court for adoption, because it's their
policy, obviously. But to the extent that the two of y'all,
or anybody else, wants input, certainly get that input with
the Compliance Department now. Then when it comes before the
Court, if your concerns aren't addressed to the extent you
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
164
MS. UECKER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that make sense?
MS. UECKER: Yeah. I have requested an electronic
copy of the policy from Terry so that I can make my notes on
the policy, and the changes, and resubmit them back to her.
Or Jannett and I -- we're going to meet this afternoon.
I But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. UECKER: -- as long as I understand that's how
you want to do it. You want us to submit our changes to
Compliance?
JUDGE TINLEY: Does anybody else see it differently
up here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're exactly right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I mean, that's the Compliance
policy, and they --
MS. UECKER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Compliance is the one that
legitimately should bring it to the Court, as a department
under the Court, to -- to approve, and to get your input now,
and later if need be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let's get back to the
agenda item here. I think -- I remember it as well that we
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
165
were going to lay the iPlow thing down until the policy had
been dealt with. I agree with all that. But I think -- I
think that what they are thinking is that we're laying iPlow
down totally, completely; that we -- John says that Odyssey
can do everything that we want done, that this department
', needs to do all of their work, and so that's where we are.
So, we need to get Odyssey -- we need to get our people
trained to understand what Odyssey does, or get Odyssey fixed
so it'll work in there. I don't know what the problem is.
There's a problem there somewhere, and it's either the
training -- we haven't -- we didn't pay attention in
training, maybe; I'll take that side of it, or there is a
glitch in Odyssey that doesn't -- it doesn't work. John says
that Odyssey works, and it should work in there. And, so,
what I'm saying is, John, get it working.
MR. TROLINGER: And both clerks tell me that it's
working.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's fine. Get down
there and get the damn thing going. It's that simple. Isn't
it?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, my point here -- and that's
what -- how I responded in writing -- is this is our third
time we're going around with the Compliance office to -- to
get them to adopt and use Odyssey for -- for their function.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the only one -- that's the
11-23-09
166
1
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 one they got, isn't it?
~I! MR. TROLINGER: Yes -- well, they're using a
spreadsheet. They're using an Excel spreadsheet that they're
doing some manual work. They're bouncing back and forth.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you in a position to do training
down there, John, with the people in Compliance to show them
how Odyssey will do the things that they need to do in the
operation of their department?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, that's why -- that's why
Tyler Technologies is going to be here next week.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. They have training --
MR. TROLINGER: To make sure -- these are the
people that can see what all the other counties do, and
they've got the background knowledge of big -- they've got
the big picture. I've got kind of a macro view of what we
want to do here in Kerr County, and so does the Compliance
office. And, you know, maybe they can bring some things in
and say, "Hey, if you -- you know, if you do it this way,
this is how it's supposed to work." Now, I understand that,
you know, there are 254 counties and 258 different ways of
doing things, but we want to -- to some extent, you know, we
want to do the same that other counties do.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what your goal is, is that when
Tyler comes in here the last week of November, first part of
December, to do their training specifically as to the
11-23-09
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
collections issues, that after that module is complete,
there'll be a complete understanding of what Odyssey is
currently capable of doing in that sense, the collection
sense?
MR. TROLINGER: And configuring it to do exactly
what the policy dictates. You know, if we take payments and
need to apply them in a certain way, then the system just
needs to be configured. It's complex, the financial system,
the configuration. But we're going to have the expert that
'', can make those changes, and I expect once they leave, that
those changes will be made and they'll be up and running.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're kind of in a holding
pattern for two reasons; one is the policy, and two is the
training?
(Mr. Trolinger nodded.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If the training doesn't --
doesn't meet the satisfaction of the Compliance office, maybe
we have a different problem than --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- software.
JUDGE TINLEY: But we won't know that until after
the fact.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MR. TROLINGER: And that -- you know, that's really
11-23-09
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
embracing and implementing what -- what Software Group or
Tyler Technologies brings to us. It's very important to do
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that agenda
item? Any more questions? Okay, let's move on. Have we hit
all the agenda items?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any of them we missed? Okay. Let's
go to Section 4 of the agenda, payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a couple of
questions, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: I do too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On Page 1, Commissioners
Court. Frigerio? Is that your lawyer out at the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, he does that. Okay.
And then Page 3. I got this far, and I bogged down.
Three-quarters of the way down, 216th District Court, Kerr
County Treasurer. You know, first of all, I don't recall
ever seeing it laid out quite like this. Is this a district
court or is this the Treasurer's?
MS. HARGIS: This is the -- I believe this is the
district court. It -- a check's being made to the Treasurer.
What we're doing -- I had to think a minute, 'cause I was --
I was out with a medical test on Friday. We used to just
11-23-09
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
portion based on our county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MS. HARGIS: And we would -- we would just journal
that, you know, and -- but we've decided to give the auditors
a better trail. We're actually going to write a check on
ourselves to ourselves, basically. It's basically what we're
doing. But it gives us a clearer trail of the -- of our
portion coming in. In other words, we get a check from
Kendall County, we get a check from Bandera, and we get one
from Gillespie, and this is Kerr County's check to pay our
portion that you budgeted in -- in the general fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: That's all it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a little bit
different. I have no problem with that at all.
MS. HARGIS: It's just really a -- Mindy and I
I decided --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's really better to do it
that way.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Inside that, though, listen
-- take a look at those numbers. As an example, the court
reporter, $9,128.
11-23-09
170
1
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. HARGIS: It's a quarter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that for a year?
MS. HARGIS: It's three months.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three months.
MS. HARGIS: Those are all three months.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everything is three months?
MS. HARGIS: We pay the court --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What else have we changed?
MS. HARGIS: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three months, and we pay
MS. HARGIS: It's a quarterly check. It's going to
appear on a quarterly basis. The other counties pay us
quarterly; we're paying ourselves quarterly. She's the only
employee up there that we pay almost 100 percent of. The
rest of them we share, some of them four ways, some of
them -- Bruce can tell you that -- some of them five ways.
So, Becky's salary is actually eight -- eight different ways.
So, you know, the other salaries are less, because there's a
bigger proportionate share with the other counties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The court reporter, we pay
almost all of it?
(Ms. Hargis nodded.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's -- that includes
Gillespie County, Kendall County, and Bandera County? Why do
11-23-09
171
1
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. HARGIS: I don't know what she does, so you've
All I know is we pay the bigger share of
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The bigger share.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm confused. I want to
jump in just behind the commissioner and not interrupt him.
MS. HARGIS: Let me back up, because I may be
wrong. Her salary is the largest salary up there, and Bruce
can attest to this. So, it's probably -- I mean, if you take
90,000 and you divide it by four, and then you divide it
by -- you know, it's a pretty big chunk.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the salary line
item?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. She makes close to $90,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the bottom is 198th
District Court, and that court reporter's is 14,000. Is that
also three months?
MS. HARGIS: Well, you have to remember, we pay the
largest share of the 198th, because we're the biggest county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I understand that.
MS. HARGIS: So, that's -- $14,000 is a lot of
money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that three months?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, it's three months.
11-23-09
172
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God almighty.
MS. HARGIS: That's what we have budgeted in the
line item. That's what you've seen in the detail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I appreciate your
explanation. I just -- I haven't seen it laid out like this.
I wasn't sure what I was seeing.
MS. HARGIS: Well, and that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got that far and I choked
up on my steak last night.
MS. HARGIS: The reason that I'm doing this is so
that you can see, so that there's transparency for you to see
exactly what we're transferring. Because a lot of times when
we're doing the budget, you see lump figures, and this way
you're actually able to see what you're actually paying out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know if I
agree with that. I'm not going to argue with you. Fine.
That's great. Thank you for doing that. However, see, to
me -- to me, lumping in three months at a time confuses
things, to me.
MS. HARGIS: We can do it monthly; we can do it
however you want. It's just -- we just felt it was easier
for us to do it on a quarterly basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When I see 14,000, I'm
thinking -- you know, it makes me ask all these questions.
MS. HARGIS: Well, perhaps -- why don't you let me
11-23-09
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
send you the spreadsheet of their salaries and the breakdowns
to each one of you, and then you can allocate --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that would be helpful if we
had that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool and groovy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one question.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you done?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I am. At this time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 2, Jeannie.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Nondepartmental.
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
22
23
24
25 for our
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I do.
MS. HARGIS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what we have to pay
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: T.C.E.Q., and the
description is for county water rights. It's a lot of money.
I'm just curious what that is.
MS. HARGIS: We have -- you know, I'm -- because I
wasn't here on Friday, I'm going to stick my foot in my
mouth, so I'm going to wait. I think I know what it is, but
I'm not sure.
11-23-09
174
1
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: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have a certain amount of
water rights that we have, and I believe that's for Road and
MS. HARGIS: It is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
MS. HARGIS: That's what I thought it was.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For them to be able to pump
out of the river, creek, or wherever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cool. Thank you.
', JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, that's right, when they're out
I on various roads.
MS. HARGIS: It's an annual permit.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Without having to haul it all
the way from the plant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes sense.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? You got any
questions for her? Page 2, the first category, civil
attorney. Just a matter of information. On the same case,
if you'll accumulate those numbers just for this reporting
period, it's approximately $49,100. One case.
MS. HARGIS: That's that C.P.S. case.
JUDGE TINLEY: That doesn't include a lot that had
already been paid. One case.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you walk through that
11-23-09
175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
with me? What do you mean?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay. Okay. You'll see a
payment there to Pattillo, Richards, and Harpold, 10,900,
approximately.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Cause number's 08-539B. You come
down to Korkus, the first one, same case number, 1,300. Then
come on down again to that same individual, same case number,
539B, 12,5. Then you come on down, under Robert Earl
Henneke, same case number, 539B, 10,7. And then the last
line, Robert Falkenberg, same case number, 13,760. That
accumulates to be $49,100, approximately.
MS. HARGIS: That's that big C.P.S. case that --
that Rex made us aware of back about two months ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The one that lasted a few
weeks with Judge Sherrill and all that?
JUDGE TINLEY: That was one of three.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. This is not Judge
Sherrill's --
MS. HARGIS: I think Judge Sherrill did them all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, he did them all?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
MS. HARGIS: Yeah. There were three consecutive
cases.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Has he done the third one?
11-23-09
176
1
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. HARGIS: I don't think he's done the third one.
JUDGE TINLEY: One more to go. But the second two
are shorter than the first, you'll be happy to know. I
thought surely you would have caught that, Commissioner.
Payments to lawyers?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not seeing that. I love
this stuff; this is good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the bills.
Do we have already have a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second to pay
', the bills. Question or discussion? All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. No budget
amendments?
MS. HARGIS: No budget amendments.
JUDGE TINLEY: No late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No late bills.
11-23-09
1 '7 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
District Clerk, Justice of the Peace Precinct 1, Justice of
the Peace Precinct 2, and Road and Bridge. Do I hear a
motion that these reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that the
indicated reports be approved as presented. Question or
discussion? All in favor, 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. Okay, we
will go to any reports from Commissioners in connection with
their liaison or committee assignments. Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a second, Judge.
We're still having difficulties in working out the easements
to take care of those eight properties on Ranchero Road, on
the south side of the road. We've examined with the city
folk, and they were out there with us, and we've had some
interesting comments as to whether or not we could do a line
on the Ranchero Road side, and we've determined that's --
11-23-09
1 '7 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
while it is possible, it is not practical to do that. So,
I'm talking to Ms. Bailey about .how we might proceed on this,
and we're going to see if we can get back with the owner of
Oak Grove Mobile Home Park and -- and see if we can resolve
that with another modified proposal for acquiring lateral
easements that will take us from those homes to a pipe that
runs through Meadow Woods Drive. So, it's been a long
process, and we're not quite there yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Glad you got the patience to do
that, Commissioner. I'm not sure I would.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mine may be running out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only thing I mentioned the
other day, I think to Bill, was that this -- this CCN thing
with the City, how's that going to impact the proposed
wastewater system going to Center Point if that CCN were to
overlap? Which I think it does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it seemed to me that
the map, Commissioner, carved out the existing CCN holders in
Center Point, which it will have to have done. And there are
at least three systems owned by the IO -- whatever, IOW. And
so the water part of that equation seems to be in the hands
of the people who are serving the territory right now.
Secondly, unless I missed something in the application, it
11-23-09
1 '7 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
doesn't apply to sewer. They have not opted to do some
sewer, so as far as I can tell, we should be able to proceed.
Not to suggest that we're not going to have some water --
water-related issues later that we have to deal with, but I
don't think it's particularly related to the CCN application.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. Just a thought.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless I missed something.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't really anything have
anything else. I think we covered the positive part this
morning with Environmental Health.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure did.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Getting recognition.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any elected officials, department
heads have any reports? Yes, ma'am?
MS. HARGIS: Rusty said I can go first. With
regard to Ray this morning, I missed his award. They've done
a great job. But in connection with that, Ray came by and
visited with me. As y'all recall, we got $14,000 to repair
-- or to add on those folks that we weren't able to connect,
and we've done a great job and he's done a great job. And
the plumbing company -- I can't remember their name -- has
given us a really good deal on the taps. We still have one
remaining, and because it's a health hazard -- it will be
over the 14,000. It'll be an additional $1,000. And so I
would like to put on the agenda for the Court to consider
11-23-09
180
1
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 one, because it is a health hazard, just the one that we
have left. They got 14 of them done; they still have one
left -- one person left.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought I read that
memorandum; probably Commissioner Oehler did too, from Ray,
and I thought I understood that only about 10,5 of that 14
has been obligated so far. Is that correct?
MS. HARGIS: No, it's all -- he's got all of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the 14's been
obligated?
(Ms. Hargis nodded.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, to correct the
last of the environmental issues there, it's going to require
another $1,000?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would that be for,
tank mitigation or what?
MS. HARGIS: There's just one more person to add
on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more person to add on,
okay. So, have we done a budget amendment to accept the
14,000?
MS. HARGIS: Well, the budget was 14 because that's
what we received as a grant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
11-23-09
181
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: I haven't done a budget amendment on
the other thousand, 'cause I just wanted to inform you first,
before -- I mean, I feel like, since it's a health and safety
issue, that we probably wanted to go ahead with it. I just
want to make the Court aware of it so that when I bring you
the budget amendments, you'll know what it's for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: If that's all right with the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm cool with it.
MS. HARGIS: I don't think Ray would recommend it
and come to talk to me about it if --
25 okay? Thanks.
11-23-09
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some things need to be
cleaned up down there, so if it takes $1,000 --
MS. HARGIS: He's done an excellent job. They
originally -- $1,000 per tap is what he ended up with, which
is really about 400 shy of what it should have been. So, not
only did they do a great job of inspecting and getting them
done, but he got them to give us a price that was phenomenal.
So, they would -- they would like to do this last one,
because they feel like it's a health hazard.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. Needs to be done.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're going to get with Ray and
y'all are going to jointly bring that back to us?
MS. HARGIS: Yes. I just wanted to let y'all know,
182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other elected official?
Department --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He's been up here all day.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I think that because of
the jail situation and the dockets and all the rest of that,
that each -- at the end of each Commissioners Court, I'd just
like to, if y'all don't mind, give y'all an update.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, I think you should.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will if you want it.
Currently, as of 8:00 -- 9 o'clock this morning, we have
total custody -- custody of 162. In-house is 158. We have
32 waiting trial or court dispositions in the 216th, 24 in
the 198th, 26 in County Court at Law. Some of these have
overlapping cases, too. We have 15 sentenced to the jail to
serve time. I have 11 with immigration holds placed on them,
25 sentenced to T.D.C. waiting for transports, waiting for
hotel arrangements, I guess, or, you know, occupancy, as they
want to call them or whatever. Thirteen in there with parole
violations, which, to me, are the same thing as T.D.C.,
'cause we can't do anything with them; they've got to wait
for T.D.C. too. Eighteen Gillespie County inmates, and then
we currently have one inmate that's waiting extradition back
to the state of Indiana. And we have inmates with holds out
of the following Texas counties: Nueces, Travis, Montague,
Winkler, Kimble, Hidalgo, Ward, Bandera, Taylor, Fort Bend,
11-23-09
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
diversified across the state where we have people that come
from. The other thing that I do think you need to know, I
think this is the most the Kerr County jail has ever held at
one time. We have four people in there currently with murder
charges, and we have one additional one that's one of the
parole violations that is a murderer, an agg. assault on a
peace officer, taking weapons from a peace officer. Even
Parole has notified us that he's an extremely dangerous
person. So, the jail is on high security issues and
everything else with that type of inmates running in there,
and with our population running the way it is. Just an
update.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, the -- the murder guy
from Mexico, how -- I remember in years past, the
difficulties that you had getting them out of Mexico, back in
-- back into here. How long did it take to get this one?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the murder occurred in
'91. We had the federal warrant issued for him in 2005, and
we knew where he was at that time. Then started dealing
with -- not really the FBI so much as the Department of
Justice in Washington, Department of Justice and the
Department of International Affairs. Okay. And we dealt
with them until December the 2nd, 2008. Which a couple
months before that, Mexico went ahead and issued a warrant
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
184
for him in Mexico. December the 2nd, 2008, he was arrested
in Mexico, and he's been in Mexican prison ever since then,
not on any of their charges, just on ours. And at that
point, I had -- the Department paid for the transcription, if
you remember, all that where it had to all be transcribed,
sent to Mexico. Then Mexico had hearings on him to decide
whether they were going to try him there on our charges or
let him come back, or give him back to us. After those
hearings were done, they elected to give him back to us.
Then he had the right to appeal that decision in Mexico, and
he's appealed that, and it took from December the 2nd, 2008,
until the other day, and they just called out of the blue and
landed at Houston airport with him. Then we had to go
through a whole bunch of our stuff, 'cause now he's an
illegal alien coming into the United States without
paperwork. So, we didn't even expect all that, you know,
that we had to deal with on faxing warrants to the
immigration office at the Houston airport just to get him
through customs. And so it's been a -- it's been a very
interesting experience to go through trying to get one back
from Mexico. But, for the family's sake on this, by golly,
they gave him back. Now we can see what our justice system
can do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the death penalty is on
11-23-09
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, this case would not have
Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was never a capital murder
case. It was family violence, a murder case. So, that's the
only reason we got it back. The other one we have down there
that has been transcribed into Spanish and given to them down
there is a capital murder case. Actually, we have two; one
more we hope to get back. But the murder case down there is
a capital murder case. If they ever elect him -- or arrest
him and decide to, he will never be brought back to the
United States; he will be tried in Mexico. And that's
already been -- the former D.A., Ron Sutton, his
investigator, Todd, and Ms. Coleman at that time have all
flown to Mexico. They went to Mexico City, met with the
Attorney General, their Justice Department, and all that has
been set to have the prosecutor. That's where you are.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster, you don't have any
more questions for him, do you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not in any more --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When they flew to Mexico,
did they use the funds --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They didn't invite me. They
didn't invite me, so I didn't get to go on that one. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Did the spouses go?
11-23-09
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not answering that
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's really the question,
isn't it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. Any other elected
officials? Department heads?
~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see one.
JUDGE TINLEY: I just need to agenda these two; you
know, just put them on the agenda, the Sheriff and --
MS. HYDE: I apologize for coming back late. We
were here early, but we were late coming in here. Did I
understand correctly that we've done away with one of the 13
holidays for this year?
JUDGE TINLEY: You have a correct understanding of
what occurred earlier today.
MS. HYDE: Would there be any way to ask that
perhaps you look at doing like the State does and allow one
floating holiday for this year instead of doing away with a
holiday, if the holiday was taken somewhere between March 2nd
and August 2nd of 2010?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why would you want to do
MS. HYDE: Because the employees have already been
told that they get 13 days, and it was passed that way, and
we've already budgeted the money. So, I'm just asking if you
11-23-09
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
might consider that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I will.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Sheriff tried it earlier. He
didn't get a very good perception.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Maybe they like her better
I than me.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you should take note of
that, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Let's see what happens now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm certainly in favor of
I it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get a disguise, Rusty.
MS. HYDE: Is the Court, like, closed? Or are we
still open? Could you, like --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I thought about that earlier.
We really did promise them 13 days.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You could call that agenda
item back up, couldn't you?
JUDGE TINLEY: I can do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I can do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Call that son of a gun back
up. Let's get up in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's see if Rusty has any more
I comments.
11-23-09
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I don't say nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can we get that commitment for the
next five Commissioners Court meetings?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How far does this floating
thing work?
MS. HYDE: I've yanked it, so --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to call Item 9; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to adjust the 2009-2010 Kerr
County holiday schedule. Now, you had a question,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did. I'm trying to figure
out how to get my birthday in; we'll take a holiday.
MS. HYDE: When is your birthday?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's in May.
MS. HYDE: What day?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Confidential information,
lady.
MS. HYDE: I can go look it up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're talking about a
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just kidding, anyway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He can get his birthday?
MS. HYDE: Absolutely. That's what I'm saying. If
11-23-09
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's a floating holiday, if we allowed just the one time
between March 2nd --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You could call it a
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Between what date and what
I date?
MS. HYDE: March 2nd and August 2nd. That way
we're not, like, waiting till the end of the budget time for
everybody that wants to take it. We just have to make sure
that they take it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I kind of like that idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you? I move we have a
personal -- personal --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Personal day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- personal day for
employees any time between March the 2nd and August the 2nd.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For this one year only.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For this one year only.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second your motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor, indicate
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
190
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carried. Sheriff, I would
suggest that you take note of the reception.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, I see that every time I
come in here, Judge. It's just part of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't even upset you any
~ more, does it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more elected officials,
department heads have reports? Anybody else? We're
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 2:51 p.m.)
11-23-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
191
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
official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 30th day of November,
2009.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : 6s~-
Kathy anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
11-23-09
ORDER NO. 31532
WINDSTREAM COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE SYSTEM PROPOSAL
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept the Windstream Communications bid, only if the other bidders concur that it is
acceptable to them.
ORDER NO. 31533
COUNTY CLERK SURPLUS PROPERTY
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Declare certain personal property in the County Clerk's Office as surplus, and authorize
disposing of same:
Inventory Tag No. Description
1909 Secretarial Chair
1061 Secretarial Chair
1833 Wood Chair
434 Wood Chair
325 Metal Typing Stand
326 Metal Typing Stand
ORDER NO. 31534
ACQUIRE "TAKING CLAIMS" INSURANCE COVERAGE THROUGH TAC
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Decline the Taking Claims Insurance Coverage through Texas Association of Counties
(TAC).
ORDER NO. 31535
2009-2010 KERB COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Kerr County Community Plan for 2009-2010, and authorize the submission
of the plan to the Alamo Area Council of Governments.
ORDER NO. 31536
APPLICATION FOR FUNDS ALLOCATED UNDER THE AMERICAN RECOVERY
AND REINVESTMENT ACT
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the projects, as listed below, in the amount not to exceed the actual allocation
received in the approximate amount of $100,000.00, to be listed on the Application for
funds allocated to Kerr County under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) through the State Energy Conservation Office (SEGO), which is part of the
Texas Comptroller's Office:
1. Replace ballasts and bulbs in lights in the Courthouse (from T-12 to T-8)
to more energy efficient lighting (Dealers Electrical Supply), $11,438.00.
2. Replace 4 air conditioner units at the Kerr County Jail with energy
efficient units (Air Tech A/C Heating), $33,500.00.
3. Replace West Basement Door with energy efficient door unit, $1,020.00.
4. Upgrade/repair exterior Courthouse wall and ground lighting, $69,090.00.
4.5 Replace 2 basement air conditioning units in the Courthouse basement
with heat pumps through Air Tech, $12,954.00.
5. Replace the boiler unit at the Kerr County Jail.
ORDER NO. 31537
OPEN BIDS FOR 66" SINGLE DRUM VIBRATORY COMPACTOR
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-1 to:
Open the bids for a used 66" Single Drum Vibratory Compactor as follows:
1. Holt Cat
2. Closner Equipment Co. Inc.
3. Romco Equipment Co.
4. RDO Equipment
Accept all bids and refer to the Road & Bridge Administrator for evaluation and
recommendation.
ORDER NO. 31538
ONSITE SHREDDING SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the District Clerk to gather the information for this project and work with the
Shred-It Company to prepare a Contract that reflects our volumes and bring it back to the
Court for approval, with the costs to be funded from the County Records Preservation
Line Item 28-625-411.
ORDER NO. 31539
LATE BID FROM WINDSTREAM FOR COUNTY COURTHOUSE TELEPHONE
SYSTEM
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Reject the bid from Windstream Communications based on the other companies'
objection.
ORDER NO. 31540
2010 KERB COUNTY EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN AND/OR
AMENDMENTS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the changes to the 2010 Kerr County Employee Health Benefits Plan, as
presented by the HR Director, as follows:
1. Spousal Carve Out, would apply to employees of Kerr County who become
employed after January 1, 2010, and who wish to have coverage available for their
spouse, that the spouse has coverage available through another employer, but
notwithstanding that, wishes to come under the Kerr County Plan, we would charge those
spouses a surcharge of $200.00 a month in addition to the normal charge for those
spouses.
ORDER NO. 31541
2010 KERB COUNTY EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN AND/OR
AMENDMENTS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the changes to the 2010 Kerr County Employee Health Benefits Plan, as
presented by the HR Director, as follows:
1. Add that Emergency Room visits that are not emergencies, will have a $125.00
copay for non-emergency use of the Emergency Room, and add an urgent care copay of
$35.00 (for a visit to a minor care clinic).
ORDER NO. 31542
2010 KERB COUNTY EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN AND/OR
AMENDMENTS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the changes to the 2010 Kerr County Employee Health Benefits Plan, as
presented by the HR Director, as follows:
1. Stop Loss Leave Policy, Use a 6 months leave of absence for the insurance policy
to then coincide with the stop loss policy, and then that employee would go out on Cobra
for 27 months, and then that employee would be eligible for Medicare, and with FMLA
to run concurrently from day 1 of leave.
ORDER NO. 31543
2010 KERB COUNTY EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN AND/OR
AMENDMENTS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the changes to the 2010 Kerr County Employee Health Benefits Plan, as
presented by the HR Director, as follows:
1. Retirees over 65, A Retiree who is over 65, must enroll in Medicare Part A & B,
and the Kerr County plan would be secondary to Medicare.
ORDER NO. 31544
2010 KERB COUNTY EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN AND/OR
AMENDMENTS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the changes to the 2010 Kerr County Employee Health Benefits Plan, as
presented by the HR Director, as follows:
1. Stop Smoking RX Drugs, Add Chantix, and Bupropion (Zyban) as Nicotine
replacement therapies, and it would be a one-time treatment program.
ORDER NO. 31545
2010 KERB COUNTY EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN AND/OR
AMENDMENTS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the changes to the 2010 Kerr County Employee Health Benefits Plan, as
presented by the HR Director, as follows:
1. Retiree Dependents under 65, Dependents (children) of a Retiree would pay full
price of health insurance premium effective January 1, 2010.
ORDER NO. 31546
VARIANCE ON EASTMENT OFF OF FM 480 IN CENTER POINT
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize County Attorney to write a letter for Mr. Shuler to the Texas Veterans Land
Board indicating that the 30' easement is appropriate and in place.
ORDER NO. 31547
NAME A PRIVATE ROAD, JAN DOWDY LANE WEST
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-1 to:
Approve naming a private road, Jan Dowdy Lane West, located in Precinct 4
ORDER NO. 31548
PUBLIC HEARING TO RAISE SPEED LIMIT TO 45 MPH AND ADD 2 WARNING
SIGNS FOR CURVE ON SKYLINE DRIVE IN CENTER POINT
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-1 to:
Approve setting a Public Hearing for December 28, 2009 at 9:30 am for approving
raising the speed limit from 38 to 45 mph and also adding 2 warning signs for the curve
on Skyline drive in Center Point.
ORDER NO. 31549
AWARD BID FOR 66" SINGLE DRUM VIBRATORY COMPACTOR
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-1 to:
Approve recommendation of Road & Bridge Administrator to award bid to Closner
Equipment for $48,950.00 for the used 66" Single Drum Vibratory Compactor and
approve the purchase of same.
ORDER NO.31550
ADJUST 2009-2010 KERB COUNTY HOLIDAY SCHEDULE
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-1 to:
Approve deleting the holiday on March 2, 2010, for this year only.
ORDER NO. 31551
CONTRACT WITH DIETERT CENTER
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-1 to:
Approve Contract with Dietert Center, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 31552
AWARD BID FOR KERR COUNTY COURTHOUSE TELEPHONE SYSTEM
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-1 to:
Receive the 4 bids as follows:
Hill Country Telephone Coop at $97,648, and with the option they had to save $10,000,
would bring the bid down to $89,048
4 ip at $357,864
Carousel Industries at $86,233
Computer Plus at $44,665.13, with an initial license at $4,500, with no annual renewal
And award bid to Computer Plus for the 3CX System, as recommended by the
Information Technology Department.
ORDER NO. 31553
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, came to be considered by the
Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	502,530.61
14-Fire Protection	$	30,833.34
15-Road & Bridge	$	91,263.52
16-2008 Capital Projects	$	39,824.95
18-County Law Library	$	87.94
19-Public Library	$	25,000.00
21-Title IV-E	$	309.85
23-Juvenile State Aid Fund	$	5,238.74
27-Community Corrections	$	1,995.00
39-Grant H-Misdemeanor Div	$	14,801.75
50-Indigent Health Care	$	10,773.45
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	6,485.21
83-216t" District Attorney	$	523.19
86-216t" CSCD	$	1,923.27
87-Community Service - 003	$	60.83
93-SADDP - 009	$	313.25
TOTAL $ 731,964.90
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-1 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 31554
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-1 to:
Approve the Monthly Reports from:
JP #4
District Clerk
JP #1
JP #2
Road & Bridge
ORDER NO. 31555
2009-2010 KERB COUNTY HOLIDAY SCHEDULE
Came to be heard this the 23rd day of November, 2009, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-0-1 to:
Adjust the 2009-2010 Kerr County Holiday Schedule to allow for 1 personal day for
employees any time between March 2, 2010 and August 2, 2010, for this year only.