1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, April 28, 2003 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X April 28, 2003 2 PAGE 1.1 Introduce new Airport Manager to Court 4 3 --- Commissioners Comments 7 1.3 Final plat, Cedar Ridge Mobile Home Park 16 4 1.4 Variance request for The Reserve of Falling Water 18 5 1.2 Update on effects of State budget cuts on Texas Department of M.H.M.R. 31 6 1.7 Approve extension of annual bids, allow Road & Bridge to purchase paving oil as needed 37 7 1.13 Discuss allowing American Cancer Society to use HCYEC tables & chairs free of charge 41 8 1.5 PUBLIC HEARING - final revision of Tracts 15 & 16, Y.O. Ranchlands 48 9 1.6 Final revision of Tracts 15 & 16, Y.O. Ranchlands 50 10 1.8 Road name changes for county-maintained roads in various locations in Kerr County 52 11 1.9 Road name changes for privately maintained roads in various locations in Kerr County 58 12 1.10 Approve Kerr County Sheriff's Department to apply for COPS in Schools Grant Program for three years 59 13 1.11 Approve Kerr County Sheriff's Department to apply for Universal Hiring Program through COPS office 63 14 1.12 Conveyance of Indian Creek structure to City of Ingram 68 15 1.14 Resolution in support of HB 2191 71 1.15 Report from third-party administrator/insurance 16 representatives on pending reimbursement claim 74 1.16 Discuss Mandated Provider Agreement for indigent 17 health care service providers 104 1.17 Discuss compliance with HIPAA privacy rule by 18 adopting policies & procedures regarding PHI 112 1.21 Request to make application to LCRA for grant to 19 install underground wiring on courthouse grounds 126 1.18 Discuss adoption of State Travel Allowance Guide 20 for per diem allowance/reimbursement of expenses 130 1.19 Approve Earth Day Proclamation and ratify County 21 Judge's signature 153 1.20 Discuss seeking applicants for AACOG Economic 22 Development and Environmental Review Committee 155 23 4.1 Pay Bills 156 4.2 Budget Amendments 161 24 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 175 25 --- Adjourned 187 3 1 On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting 2 of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's a bit after 9 a.m. 7 local time. I will call to order the meeting of the special 8 Commissioners Court posted for this date, April 28th, and I 9 believe Commissioner Precinct 3, Mr. Letz, you have the 10 honors this morning. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stand and join me in a 12 moment of prayer, please. 13 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Any of you present this 15 morning that wish to address the Court on any matter that's 16 not on the agenda, we would welcome you to come forward at 17 this time. If there are matters on the agenda that any 18 member of the public or the audience would like to address 19 the Court on that's listed on the agenda, we would ask that 20 you fill out a public partition form there at the back of 21 the room. It's not absolutely necessary, but it helps us in 22 identifying you and making sure we don't overlook you when 23 it comes to that point on the agenda, so that everybody has 24 an opportunity to be heard. But, at this time, if there is 25 anybody in the audience that has anything they'd like to 4-28-03 4 1 give us an earful about, why -- that's a matter not on the 2 agenda, why, come forward and let us hear from you. We 3 welcome it. There being none, why, we will move right into 4 the consideration agenda. We've -- we're trying a little 5 experiment here. We've taken some of the mundane business 6 and threw it at the back of the agenda; we'll see how that 7 works. First item on the agenda is the introduction of 8 Mr. David Pearce, who is the new Kerrville/Kerr County 9 Airport Manager. And, Commissioner Williams, I think this 10 is your matter. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I 12 did invite Mr. Pearce, our new Airport Manager, to be here 13 today, but before we get to Mr. Pearce, we've got a whole 14 raft of City folks, and might as well start at the top and 15 work our way down. City Councilman Gene Smith is in the 16 back. City Manager, Ron Patterson. City Director of Public 17 Works, Paul Knippel. And now that I've gone through all of 18 those, we'll get to the main event. I'd like to introduce 19 to the Court Mr. David Pearce. David, if you'd come up to 20 the podium, please? And he has been selected to become 21 our -- or he is currently the new Kerrville/Kerr County 22 Airport Manager. It was my privilege to serve on the 23 interview committee that went through, I think, 50-some-odd 24 resumes to get to the point of making a selection for a new 25 airport manager, and Mr. Pearce managed to rise to the top 4-28-03 5 1 of the class, and so it's a pleasure to introduce David 2 Pearce to the Court. David, tell us a little bit about 3 yourself and how you come to Kerr County. 4 MR. PEARCE: Thank you. Thank for the kind 5 words. I'm very thrilled to be here and very honored to be 6 selected for this position to serve the community as the 7 Airport Manager. My background stems -- I had 20 years in 8 the Air Force, was what they called a maintenance officer/ 9 logistics officer; very familiar with airports, working with 10 facilities people, aircraft, support of aviation. From 11 there, we spent the last seven years up in McKinney, which 12 is north of Dallas, had a couple of different airports in my 13 career, civilian airports, and during that period of time 14 did a lot of development/expansion of airports. This, to 15 me, is a great opportunity. Once again, I'm very honored to 16 be here, to be able to serve the community. I think, as a 17 more important note, I've been married 27 years. I have two 18 children, two sons. One of them is an A & M grad, just 19 graduated, so he is brainwashed. And the other one is a 20 junior in high school, and he has desires to go to the Air 21 Force Academy, which we're really -- I think he's very 22 competitive, and we're really excited about that. But 23 anything I can do -- anything I can do to help the 24 community, I am very excited to be here, and thank you very 25 much. 4-28-03 6 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a comment on -- 3 or a question. Mr. Pearce, your son is -- do you live in 4 Kerrville? Or Ingram, or Center Point, or -- 5 MR. PEARCE: Right now I'm living at an 6 apartment over here in Riverhills. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In Kerrville. 8 MR. PEARCE: My family's not in Kerrville; my 9 family is still up in McKinney, and we're going to be 10 commuting for a little while until I get resituated here. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does he play football? 12 MR. PEARCE: No. Actually, he's a track -- 13 he's a runner. (Laughter.) What can I say? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Welcome. We are so 15 happy to see you. And I will meet with the City as soon as 16 possible to see about getting you some more money. 17 MR. PEARCE: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does he run hurdles, 19 by any chance? 20 MR. PEARCE: From me. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, welcome. 22 I'm -- I just want to say to you that I'm glad you're here, 23 and you're in excellent, excellent hands with the City of 24 Kerrville. Great organization, very professional, and you 25 made a wise choice by choosing them, so thank you very much 4-28-03 7 1 for your service. 2 MR. PEARCE: Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Mr. 4 Pearce? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Welcome. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Glad to have you here, sir. 7 MR. PEARCE: Thanks again, and thanks for 8 taking the time. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me confess this, if I 10 might, to my colleagues here on the Court. I completely 11 overlooked their opportunity to speak, and I know there's 12 probably at least one or two of them that are busting at the 13 buttons to offer their thoughts about something or another, 14 so let me go straight to that, too. Commissioner Letz, I'll 15 allow you to be first. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we moved all 17 that to the end, but that's -- I'll speak now. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: We didn't move that to the 19 end. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have two comments. 21 One, after a long and frustrating time waiting, the 22 contractor arrived at Hermann Sons, and the four piers have 23 been drilled and the abutments have been poured, and the 24 project's finally moving forward with the temporary bridge. 25 And the permanent bridge is also moving on schedule. And 4-28-03 8 1 the other comment I have is just a -- I guess an interesting 2 note. I doubt many people are aware of it, but Kerr County 3 was fortunate to have the ambassador from Mongolia; 4 Ambassador Bold was here for the weekend. I had an 5 opportunity to spend quite a bit of time with him. I just 6 want to let everyone know Kerr County's relationship with 7 the country of Mongolia is in fine shape. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was really worried 9 about that. Couple -- couple of good things to report from 10 the western part of the -- well, the first one involves the 11 whole county. I attended the Professional Republican 12 Women's annual -- or monthly meeting last week, and the 13 theme of their meeting was honoring those who serve us. And 14 they had about 30 law enforcement personnel, fire department 15 people, chiefs, EMS people there, and honored them and gave 16 them a proclamation and plaque thanking them for their 17 service to the community. And I am reminded that we -- we 18 do have good law enforcement, good fire protection. And we 19 get -- on the fire protection part of it, we get that at a 20 good price; we get a whole lot more than we pay for. The 21 other thing that occurred there was young Mr. Matt Crow, who 22 just recently finished a tour of duty with the U.S. Coast 23 Guard, was honored. He came upon an auto accident on F.M. 24 1340 one night about two weeks ago, where the auto, at a 25 high rate of speed, had gone through the guardrail and 4-28-03 9 1 entered the Guadalupe River and sank. And he got out there 2 and -- in the river; he's a medic, and using his skills and 3 his Coast Guard training, he was able to get them out of the 4 car and they were all safe. So -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's a Hunt 7 resident, and he needs a job if anybody knows of one. A job 8 for -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where did that 10 accident happen? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Right there -- right 12 there at -- right there at Waldemar. In fact, they replaced 13 that guardrail when they repaved the road a year or so ago, 14 and it's -- they've done it -- redone it three times since 15 then. There's been three cars go through that. That's all. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, being the 18 humble person I am, I was not going to talk about track 19 until it was brought up from the -- from the audience. And 20 I'm just here to meet your needs, is the only thing I am. 21 (Laughter.) But, as -- as y'all know, track season's 22 closing down. We're winding down, and we had the -- had the 23 regional meets last weekend. And I think there was one 24 young man from Comfort -- I may be wrong about these 25 numbers, but I think there's one young man from Comfort, one 4-28-03 10 1 from Center Point, maybe two from Ingram, and three from 2 Kerrville-Tivy that are going to the -- qualified and going 3 to the state meet in Austin. My little boy qualified in two 4 events, so he's going to represent Tivy High School; he's 5 the only boy up there who's going from Tivy High School. 6 That's all I know about that. I'm pretty nervous about it. 7 But I'll also remind you that I think Thursday is -- May 1st 8 is National Day of Prayer. There will be a mayor's 9 breakfast, I understand, at Trinity Baptist, and then in the 10 afternoon -- or late afternoon, there will be a ceremony on 11 the front lawn of the courthouse, and it's a -- it's really 12 something to participate in to see -- to see literally 13 hundreds of people gathering together and praying and being 14 of one mind, and it's just really a neat thing to 15 participate in. And everyone's certainly, definitely 16 invited to that. So, that's all. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When are we leaving 18 for Austin? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May 9, early in the 20 morning. He jumps -- he high jumps around noon, and runs 21 the hurdles at 7:35 in the evening. So -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good luck. Judge, I 23 was going to do this at the tail end of the next agenda 24 item, Linda Parker's report with regard to certain cuts that 25 are being proposed, budget cuts by the Texas Department of 4-28-03 11 1 Mental Health and Mental Retardation, but I decided to do it 2 now in advance of Linda's report, because it all ties. I 3 just want to take a moment of the Court's time to call to 4 your attention some other things -- here's a copy for the 5 press, if you'll come get it, please. Let me explain what 6 this is. At the most recent AACOG Board of Directors 7 meeting, this information was passed out to the board with 8 the hope that the board members would share with their 9 respective governmental bodies about certain legislative 10 cuts and the effect on local government, and this one has to 11 do with the legislative cuts to Medicaid. And the 12 recommendation came down from the Legislative Committee as a 13 result of a report from the Bexar Senior Advisory Committee, 14 and according to the Center for Public Policy Priorities, 15 proposed cuts to the cost -- will cost the Alamo region, 16 which includes Kerr County, a total of $272,622,106 in state 17 dollars and payments. It will reduce services to 30,296 18 elderly, disabled, children without health insurance, and 19 pregnant women, of which 270 of these categories reside in 20 Kerr County. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not 270. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, 720. 23 Dyslexic, older age. 720. The attached spreadsheet that I 24 provided to you gives you a look at how these cuts will 25 affect Kerr County. The potential loss in dollars to 4-28-03 12 1 various agencies that provide services to those in need in 2 Kerr County is estimated to be about 4.7, almost 3 $4.8 million. The net result of these cuts could likely be 4 a greater demand on our Indigent Health Care dollars, which 5 the County, as we all know, is mandated to provide. As a 6 reminder, by law, we are required to fund up to 8 percent of 7 our tax base for indigent care, and we, as County officials, 8 should be registering our opposition, if we so -- are so 9 inclined, to our local representatives. The spreadsheet 10 shows all the various categories of human services that can 11 be affected, but the bottom line is, 720 people in Kerr 12 County stand to lose a total of about $4.8 million. If that 13 happens, these folks are going to undoubtedly end up in the 14 Indigent Health Care safety met, and that means Kerr 15 County's going to pay. So, I wanted to share this with you. 16 If you are so inclined, contact a State Representative and 17 register your thoughts and complaints about that. Ron, for 18 the City's benefit, if you'd like to have a copy of that? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner 20 Williams, you say here by law we're required to fund up to 21 8 percent of our tax base for indigent care. Do you know, 22 are we up to 8 percent now? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have not funded up 24 to 8 percent, but if -- if we had a run on the bank, 25 so-to-speak, we would be required to fund up to 8 percent. 4-28-03 13 1 In the past, we've not done it. We've funded, I believe -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have gone over in 3 the past. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- somewhere in the 5 range of what we spent the previous year, I believe. And, 6 of course, there's another agenda item in here that deals 7 with that same issue in terms of some of those dollars. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We budget the full amount 9 each year, don't we? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we didn't budget 11 the full amount. We knew if we got in a bind, we'd have to 12 fund it. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't gone over 14 since I've been on the Court. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What this points out 16 is, if these services go away, those folks are going to fall 17 into that safety net; it's going to come back right here. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that's probably 19 not the only item that this Legislature's going to pass down 20 to counties to fund. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is one of many, 22 probably. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further, Commissioner 24 Williams? I'd like to mention to you for a moment -- you 25 know, oftentimes we hear about our young people, some of the 4-28-03 14 1 negative things that they do and some of the problems that 2 they cause for us, and -- and maybe we don't hear enough 3 about the positive things, but I'd like to give recognition 4 to and express my admiration to the students at Center 5 Point. Two weeks ago they showed their respect and honored 6 a citizen, resident of this area who gave his life for the 7 country over in southwest Asia. And I can tell you 8 personally that that was an overwhelming sight, going down 9 through Center Point as they waited, all with their flags at 10 the curbside on both sides of the street and the roadway, 11 all the way through Center Point and out to the cemetery, 12 and it was a very, very moving sight. And those people down 13 in Center Point have every right to be proud of those young 14 students, I can assure you. 15 Along that same vein, I would like to mention 16 to you, those of you who have not been over to the Kathleen 17 Cailloux Center, I urge you to do that. And the primary 18 reason I urge you to do that is when that original structure 19 was built, it was built pursuant to a charge in the donation 20 of the land for that facility that whatever structure be 21 built there would be in honor of the veterans of this area 22 who serve their country. And, for those of you that have 23 been here awhile, that are familiar with that structure over 24 there, there were some plaques and some other -- other 25 indications of recognition. But I want to personally thank 4-28-03 15 1 the Cailloux family and the Foundation for the extraordinary 2 memorial that they have created over there to the veterans 3 of Kerr County. It is a very, very overwhelming experience 4 when you look at that memorial. It is showcased there at 5 the landing of the stairway. There's a double stairway that 6 goes up to the balcony area, and it's showcased there, and I 7 urge you to take a look at it. They've done a wonderful job 8 of honoring the charge that was given them by the citizen 9 that donated that land for that structure, and -- and I 10 think we have every right to be proud of it. 11 You have an opportunity to take a look at it 12 by going to early vote. It goes on through tomorrow, and 13 that's where it's going on, at least for the Headwaters, 14 K.I.S.D., and City Council. There are other elections in 15 the county for school districts. I'm sorry, I cannot give 16 you the exact location of those, but it -- but the K.I.S.D., 17 the Headwaters, and the City Council early voting is taking 18 place there at the Cailloux Center. I urge you to vote. 19 The people who are honored at that memorial at the center 20 and Mr. Keogh, they gave the ultimate sacrifice so that you 21 have that right. So, vote; express your preference. And if 22 you can't early vote, turn out Saturday and do so. That's 23 all I have. Let's move on. Next item on the agenda, 24 Commissioner Williams -- thank you, gentlemen, for being 25 here. Update of the effects of the State-proposed budget 4-28-03 16 1 cuts. I assume that Ms. Parker was going to present that. 2 We'll probably need to come back to that. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She had something 4 else, Judge. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Did she ask you to present 6 that for her? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When she comes back, 10 we'll go -- when she comes, we'll go through it. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is in addition 12 to her -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll come back to that 14 item. Let's do the next item, consideration of the final 15 plat of Cedar Ridge Mobile Home Park. Commissioner Baldwin. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I see the 17 faithful Road and Bridge Department just walked in. 18 Leonard, are you here to present Cedar Park Mobile Home -- 19 MR. ODOM: No, but Franklin -- may I -- may I 20 go -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd appreciate if you 22 would ask him to -- well, nevermind. I want to be nice. 23 (Mr. Johnston entered the courtroom.) 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cedar Ridge Mobile 25 Home Park. I think this is the final plat, is it not? 4-28-03 17 1 MR. JOHNSTON: This is it. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the big one. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: It's actually called a 4 development plan. And this -- this is actually the first 5 mobile home rental community development plan that we've 6 completed. And they've, I think, done an excellent job. 7 They've built a detention pond, paved streets, approved 8 sewer and public water. Meets all the requirements. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's your 10 recommendation for approval? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: I signed the plat. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Judge, I move 13 that we -- 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Development plan. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oops. What was it? 16 Judge, I move that we approve the final plat of Cedar Ridge 17 Mobile Home Park in Precinct Number 1. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 20 seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Williams, 21 respectively, that we approve the final plat development 22 plan of Cedar Ridge Mobile Home Park located in Precinct 1, 23 Kerr County, Texas. Any further discussion? Being none, 24 all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4-28-03 18 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next 4 item that we have is a consideration of a variance request 5 for The Reserve of Falling Water, located in Precinct 3. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll turn it over to 7 Franklin to go over these -- there are several, I guess, 8 variance requests, mostly on frontage issues. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: I think these items are all 10 frontage issues. As you can see, there's a list of them 11 that I've pointed out. The -- the last couple sentences in 12 my memo there was -- I wrote that before I went out to see 13 the site. Then I went out with Dale and several of his 14 people late last week, and the site is a difficult one. 15 There's a lot of unusual conditions out there, most of which 16 being very steep hills. Several lot frontages are just a 17 little bit below the 200-foot frontage, I think from 188 18 to -- one of them's 199.94. There's about -- one, two, 19 three, four -- eight lots that are less than 200 foot in 20 that respect. There are four -- a total of four lots -- 21 three actually have frontage on a cul-de-sac of 33 feet 22 instead of 60, and one has a frontage of 41 foot instead of 23 60. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: I believe that's the issues 4-28-03 19 1 involved. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this 200-foot 3 frontage thing, is that a state law? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. No. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Just something we come up 6 with. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That came about when we 8 were -- really, before the Legislature corrected the rules 9 last time. Basically, to help eliminate flag lots is why 10 that originally was put in, and it was left during the last 11 revision. Overall, I mean, I think it's -- this is -- it's 12 an interesting -- this is an interesting project here. And 13 it's -- it shows a problem -- another problem with our 14 Subdivision Rules on that frontage requirement. If I can 15 kind of give a -- Mr. Crenwelge -- Dale's back in the back; 16 he can add more if he chooses, but this is a subdivision 17 where there's very steep hills, ridges, and the concept that 18 he's come up with is exactly what we have encouraged at the 19 county, which is to cluster the -- the homes and have open 20 space areas. Not -- you know, whereas we looked at one -- 21 whatever one was out there -- Stablewood Springs; similar 22 type basic concept. That gentleman used a condominium 23 concept. Dale is using a property ownership concept, but 24 they're basically doing the same type thing with these, and 25 that's the reason these lots are long and skinny. All of 4-28-03 20 1 the building sites are right next to the roads, so there'll 2 be basically clusters of homes near the road and then large 3 areas of open space that will be privately owned, as opposed 4 to a condominium setup. You know, the development is 5 putting in quite a few fewer lots than they could, based the 6 acreage requirements. I mean, I think they could put in 60 7 lots, about. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: 61. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 61 lots. And I don't 10 know how many are on here. There's -- 11 MR. CRENWELGE: 47. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Forty -- 13 MR. CRENWELGE: 47. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 49. 15 MR. CRENWELGE: I think we're combining some 16 of those. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dale said 47, so he's 18 putting in quite fewer lots than -- than they could. So, 19 basically, I think the developer is meeting the overall 20 intent of what the County's rules are, even though the -- to 21 do that, his frontage -- he's not able to meet the frontage 22 requirements. I don't really have a problem with it, any of 23 the variances. They've made quite a few -- I've looked at 24 them, and I think Franklin's looked at them several times. 25 They've tweaked them to quite a few -- you know, to a large 4-28-03 21 1 degree already. That's just kind of a general comment. Do 2 you have anything else, Franklin? 3 (Mr. Johnston shook his head.) 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only one that I 5 thought was strange when I really looked at it was the 6 square cul-de-sac. And I -- but, as I understand -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be kind of hard to get 8 a radius in a square. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I understand it from 10 talking to the developer, the cul-de-sac itself will 11 probably -- will be round. This is deeding a square area, 12 because they want to do some landscaping and planting and 13 parking around the cul-de-sac, so it's -- the pavement's not 14 going to be a square in there, I don't think. But, anyway, 15 that's why it's -- and if that's the case, I mean, I guess 16 they can -- you know, the right-of-way for the -- which is 17 what's actually shown on the map, can be square or triangle 18 or circle, anything you want, as long as the actual road 19 meets the requirements. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. I 21 don't have any problem with it either. I just -- you know, 22 it seems like that we have a lot of requests for variances 23 from this 200-foot frontage issue, and I'm wondering if -- 24 you know, if we lowered to it 180, would they still want a 25 variance down to 150? You know. Where -- how do you -- how 4-28-03 22 1 do you get to a point to where we quit giving variances, you 2 know? I agree that 200 feet may not be the real number. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, my 4 personal feeling is we probably could eliminate that 5 frontage requirement, you know, altogether. The problem 6 comes in that you can -- I mean, there's some safety aspects 7 that go into it. I mean, you clearly -- 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Separation of driveways. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, separation of 10 driveways. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Site distance. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Before we had them, we had 13 some very -- you know, we had flag lots, basically. 14 Everybody was having small frontages and then clustering 15 them in the rear. This eliminated that problem. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But a lot of that was 17 done away with -- you know, some of the state law revisions 18 to the flag lots, you can't really do any more, or not as 19 easily. But it's a -- you know, it's a good question. I 20 mean, you know, it's -- in my mind, when a developer is 21 basically following the intent of the county rules and 22 really going beyond the acreage requirements, some of the 23 other requirements we have, it's kind of -- why not give a 24 variance in these areas? But then the other side is, you 25 know, the -- I guess you need to probably have some 4-28-03 23 1 amendments. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, 3 too. Franklin, in your Number 3 in your letter, you talk 4 about the lots west and east divided by a road, technically 5 divided into separate lots. Do you want to speak to that 6 issue, make it a little more understandable? 7 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. I think the -- like, 8 8 -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7 and 8. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, 7, 8, and 9, that area. 11 I think on the one side of the road, it's actually 12 unbuildable. I think there's -- they're going to put a note 13 on the plan that says that that lot is unbuildable, and the 14 buildable part will be the part on top of the hill, on the 15 right-hand side of the cul-de-sac on the road. And the 16 other side will just be -- they own the property, but it's 17 in a big valley, like Jon was talking about earlier. Just 18 protects their view, but it doesn't -- 19 MR. CRENWELGE: What the intent is, that 20 basically is -- there's going to be a note on the plat; 21 like, for instance, 8E and 8W will be sold together. They 22 have to be sold together. And, we're going to make sure no 23 one builds on 8W. That will be -- their building will be on 24 8E, but that land's just basically a dropoff, okay? And 25 they can utilize that land, you know, to hike and bike on, 4-28-03 24 1 but no one will ever build on it. But we just -- it was 2 just land that we had there; we're just going to give it to 3 them. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about 7W? 5 MR. CRENWELGE: It was the same, all those 6 with -- 7E/7W, 9E/9W, those lots will be combined on the 7 plat. They'll have to be sold together, and they can't 8 build on one of them. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: You don't have the topographic 10 map. If you look at that, you can see the drastic dropoffs 11 on the -- on that side of the road. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dale, is there a reason 13 you -- and you and I talked about this a little bit, on 14 those 8E and W, as to why you just don't leave them, from 15 our standpoint, just a lot, and combine them through a deed 16 or through deed restrictions or, you know, some way that 17 doesn't involve the County? I mean, I don't know why they 18 have to be -- you know, why the County really needs to be 19 involved in how you -- why you can't just make those two 20 different lots, and then you just sell them together. You 21 can call them 8E and W if you want. 22 MR. CRENWELGE: It could be done that way 23 also. It could be done that way rather than -- we could 24 renumber it, okay? We could renumber, but it wouldn't -- it 25 would be the same purpose. You just -- it's still going to 4-28-03 25 1 be -- I think it would be better to be in the plat rather 2 than the deed restrictions. You know, it's going to be more 3 clear to people. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 MR. CRENWELGE: I think it's more clear. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 7 MR. CRENWELGE: Once you do the final plat, 8 you'll see a note on there, which lot is the building lot 9 and which two convey together. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Franklin, your -- your review 11 of the topography and so forth, all of these -- is it your 12 belief that all of these variances are generated by the 13 topography of the land itself? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I think most of them 15 are. Like I -- the 199.49-foot frontage, you know, they 16 could make it 200 and just not get a variance, but we're 17 talking about that much. That much. 18 MR. CRENWELGE: We had Voelkel out there 19 surveying. We're trying to put the lots where the building 20 sites are, you know. The land goes like this. We're 21 putting the lot where the building site is, as opposed to 22 just cutting it every 200 foot. Every area has a building 23 site. Every one has a building site on it. If we moved it 24 over 10 feet, it would hurt the building site, but we're 25 going to designate by the revisions where their building 4-28-03 26 1 envelope is on every one of these lots. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: I think they're working around 3 trees and stuff too, trying to keep what they have out 4 there. 5 MR. CRENWELGE: Yeah. We'll be keeping, you 6 know, square foot minimum. We're just trying to protect 7 where they're going to build, make sure nobody's going to be 8 looking at somebody else's rooftop. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Franklin, what's the 10 rationale behind the -- we're barring the square cul-de-sac? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think we have a rule. 12 I think it looked odd. I think they're going to use it for 13 parking, and I kind of had a -- you know, I don't think the 14 right-of-way, I mean, is used for general parking, but -- 15 unless it's -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not a 17 variance request? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: The square one? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't -- that was it. I 21 think I was pointing out where the 33-foot frontages were. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on the -- on the -- 24 where the square cul-de-sac is, I believe that's the one 25 that -- and my idea was, why they can't extend it a little 4-28-03 27 1 bit further so you don't have those low frontages? But I 2 understand, with the topography, you really can't do that; 3 you drop off, and you end up with a cul-de-sac up the side 4 of the mountain. You're kind of limited as to where you can 5 put that cul-de-sac. 6 MR. CRENWELGE: Exactly. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm okay with that 8 explanation. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Here, again, driven by 10 topography. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: I think if they move the road 13 out much further, it would eat up the building site. 14 MR. CRENWELGE: That's a heck of a point out 15 there. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Number 6, you probably could 17 do something with that one if you -- if the Court wishes. 18 That was not as critical. 19 MR. CRENWELGE: Yeah, it would be down to the 20 bottom. 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Going downhill, anyway. So 22 that one could be extended to 60 instead of 41, but -- on 23 Number 6. Or you could grant a variance. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the -- 25 MR. JOHNSTON: It's the driveway to get to 4-28-03 28 1 that lot. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That cul-de-sac could 4 get -- 5 MR. CRENWELGE: Could be widened if you want. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: How is that going to affect 7 7E, though? 8 MR. CRENWELGE: If we moved it over to the -- 9 where 7W -- 7W is a non-building lot. We could move that. 10 That way, it's just -- you make the cul-de-sac 60 feet, but 11 you're -- it's a dropoff anyway; never be used. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, I 13 think, based on the Judge's comment, and I agree with it, is 14 that, you know, if topography is the reason, a variance is 15 understandable. If you're doing this because you don't want 16 to build the road a little bit further, that's not a good 17 reason. And it sounds like, on 6, the topography is not 18 really the issue; it's just -- whereas on the rest of them, 19 topography is the primary driving force. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I don't know what it is 21 there on the -- on 7W, for example. 22 MR. CRENWELGE: Yeah. If you move that -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: If you -- 24 MR. CRENWELGE: If you moved it over 20 foot, 25 you could move it over 20 foot on paper, but it goes 4-28-03 29 1 straight down. Those are, I think, 10-foot -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, would that be a danger 3 to someone, being that close to the edge, if they're driving 4 on that road over there on -- on the west side? You know, 5 if that's a consideration. You understand my inquiry? 6 MR. CRENWELGE: Yeah. The access to 6 is 7 going to be a single lot off that drive. They'll probably 8 have a 10-foot drive off that lot. We can move it to 60 9 foot; it wouldn't hurt, but we'd never use it. That 20 feet 10 could never be used for utilities or anything like that 11 anyway, 'cause it's just straight off. But -- it would look 12 pretty on paper, but it would never be used. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Franklin, do you 14 have any other comments? I mean, I don't -- 15 MR. JOHNSTON: We had one more thing that 16 came up after this. I don't know if you want to talk about 17 it or -- 18 MR. CRENWELGE: I may wait on that. It's the 19 -- we'd be talking about a variance for the utilities inside 20 the road on some areas, like we had at Cypress Springs, but 21 I'm trying to get a single trench for all the utilities. 22 Right now I've got AquaSource to agree to it. I think I've 23 got Hill Country Telephone, Central Texas, because if you 24 have to do two trenches for both utilities, you know, it's 25 tough on some of these areas. 4-28-03 30 1 MR. JOHNSTON: If you do them single, you 2 won't have to go to the road. 3 MR. CRENWELGE: Maybe in one or two areas. 4 But I don't have enough to talk about that now; I'm still 5 working with utility companies. Sometimes they want to be 6 in one ditch, sometimes they want to be in two ditches. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I'll make a 8 motion that we grant the variances as outlined in the letter 9 from Franklin Johnston. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by 12 Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, that the 13 Court grant the requested variances to The Reserve at 14 Falling Water, as outlined in the communication from the 15 County Engineer. Is there any further discussion? If not, 16 all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, Franklin, in 22 case I forget when we get to doing our update on Subdivision 23 Rules, which will be pretty quick, we need to look at that 24 200-foot language and maybe add some language in the rules 25 related to topography, specifically, so these aren't 4-28-03 31 1 variances that way. They don't have to come to the Court 2 for a variance; they can be done between you and the 3 developer. 4 MR. CRENWELGE: Thank y'all very much. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be the call of the 6 engineer? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go back to the second 8 item on the consideration agenda now, and that item is 9 update on the effects of the State's proposed budget cuts on 10 Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. 11 Commissioner Baldwin and Ms. Parker. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you, 13 Judge. Linda Parker from M.H.M.R., the M.R. side of 14 M.H.M.R. I've asked her to come over, and the reason I did 15 is similar to what Commissioner Williams was referring to 16 earlier. And, as far as we're concerned, the possible 17 unfunded mandates is, of course, my concern, but I wanted to 18 give her the opportunity to just kind of give us an update 19 on what's going on with M.H.M.R. in our community that 20 affects every one of us, and particularly us financially. 21 So, Linda Parker. 22 MS. PARKER: Thank you. Thank you, Judge, 23 Commissioners, especially Commissioner Baldwin, for giving 24 me the opportunity to come here today and talk about some of 25 the concerns that we have within M.H.M.R. Just to give you 4-28-03 32 1 a very brief -- there's a five-minute limit, but I could 2 talk longer. The M.R. services, the House has cut M.R. 3 services 5.3 percent; the Senate, 4.2. On home and 4 community-based services, which are the services that have 5 the waiting list attached to it that you hear a lot about, 6 6.4 percent in the House, 6.6 in the Senate. The general 7 revenue M.R. services that go to people who do not live in 8 group homes or who are not receiving home/community-based 9 services are being cut 11 percent in the House and 13.8 in 10 the Senate. For children's mental health services, the 11 House is cutting them 3.3 percent, and the Senate is cutting 12 them 9.1 percent. The -- that was the topic of the last 13 week, and that was a great disappointment, because at the 14 beginning we thought the Senate was going to be kinder. The 15 adult mental health services, the House is cutting them 16 6.3 percent, and the Senate is cutting them 12.8. In group 17 homes -- in specific, the funding of group homes, the House 18 is cutting them 3.3 percent, and the Senate is cutting them 19 4.2 percent. 20 One of the ways that that will affect Kerr 21 County is, currently, if these -- if these funds are cut in 22 mental health services, we will be cut $461,000, which will 23 mean 125 clients per month that will be -- not be served. 24 This is across our 19 counties, but certainly a significant 25 portion of those would come from Kerr County. In M.R. 4-28-03 33 1 services, $604,000, because those are in many cases 24-hour 2 services, will be cut, which would mean 57 consumers would 3 be cut. A total cut of one point -- $1,065,188. You know, 4 in our 19 counties we have 10 mental health centers, nine 5 mental retardation centers, and nine early childhood 6 intervention centers. The Kerr County payroll annually is 7 $3 million. The total payroll -- this is our payroll. Our 8 budget is 25 million; the payroll is 15 million, 6. 9 Annually, the reduction would be three -- $312,000 just in 10 payroll a year. I want to also give you an idea of what 11 we're doing in terms of jails. Of the 75 -- 78 people that 12 were in jail in March, 42 of those were connected with our 13 mental health service system in some way. That's Kerr 14 County figures; that's not the 19-county figures. We 15 receive about 60 crisis calls a day that impact either your 16 police, deputies, or the E.R. room, and these are not 17 walk-ins to our community mental health centers. If -- if 18 funding is cut, you will be seeing an increase in those. 19 You will be seeing an increase in your jails. 20 The other thing that I wanted to point out is 21 that Dr. Perryman, who is a state economist, has put out a 22 report, and many of you may have seen it, but it may not 23 hurt to reiterate that if the cuts that are made -- that are 24 being proposed by House Bill 2292 -- and many of them will 25 be cut; we do recognize that -- the tax revenue drops by 47 4-28-03 34 1 percent. The local tax drops by 51 percent. Health 2 insurance would be -- go up by $1.34 per person. Health 3 care losses will be $2.81. Texas business activities will 4 decline by $19.14. These are all local numbers. And the 5 retail -- retail sales will drop by $1.77. So, this all 6 goes to say that the C.H.I.P. dollars, the Children's 7 Insurance Programs, and the Medicaid, our state general 8 revenue Medicaid dollars, are important to our economy, not 9 only throughout the state of Texas, but locally, and that it 10 will bring about -- instead of efficiencies in trying to cut 11 the budget without taxes, it's going to bring about a 12 reduction in the amount of money that comes in, and 13 inefficiency in business and inefficiency in government. 14 I will go on record as saying I understand 15 the consolidation at the state level from the -- the large 16 amount of state agencies into three. I don't have a problem 17 with that, because every dollar that's taken out of there 18 don't get into services. I will tell you that Hill Country 19 Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation leads the 20 state in accountable care, operating as a business, billable 21 hours. We've been recognized throughout the state as being 22 a leader in that. We've recently made a presentation to 23 Representative Davis, who was the liaison with M.H.M.R., on 24 our accountable care system, how we have productivity 25 standards. And we have achieved efficiencies in our 4-28-03 35 1 commitment to you, as even with these cuts, we will continue 2 to operate in an effective and efficient manner. But our 3 focus is on outcomes to our consumers, and their goals and 4 what they need to reenter into society to become effective 5 and efficient and productive members of our community. And 6 I think that's your goal for them as well. So, if I have 7 covered everything, Commissioner, that you wanted me to 8 cover, or if you have any questions, I'll welcome those at 9 this time. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have none. You've 11 done excellent; you did exactly what I asked you to do. I 12 wanted to point out, though, that she's talking about 13 possible cuts of $1.6 million in their cachement area, and 14 Commissioner Williams is talking about the potential loss in 15 Kerr County of $4.7 million dealing with -- Medicaid, I 16 think was the issue there, the Medicaid program; that these 17 cuts and losses are coming down the pike if the State does 18 what they say they're going to do, in their wonderful 19 mathematics up there. I don't think that it's going to 20 impact the County budget those full numbers, but it will 21 impact Kerr County's budget. I mean, this is -- and I'm 22 just trying to get us ready, 'cause there's some -- these 23 are two issues, and we're talking about almost $6 million 24 right here. And these are just two -- two issues that are 25 going to affect us. So it's kind of scary, in my opinion. 4-28-03 36 1 But, Linda, thank you so much. I have served on one of 2 their boards over at the -- at the Opportunity Center for a 3 number of years, and it's just one of my favorite places in 4 town. You need to go by there; just pull in there and go in 5 and meet those folks and -- and, yes, they produce for our 6 community, and very low budget, and just a neat, neat part 7 of our community. Neat place. 8 MS. PARKER: Thank you. I have with me our 9 Director of Mental Retardation Services, Paula Paddock, who 10 is also here today. And I want to apologize; my going back 11 to Austin -- back and forth to Austin two and three times a 12 week, trying to communicate the need to have proper funding 13 and the ability to manage not only to the Legislature, but 14 to our own central office without such onerous reporting 15 standards that they have, I -- I become somewhat 16 discombobulated, and I -- for some reason, I had 9:30 in my 17 mind. And, yes, I did get the agenda, but I still had 9:30 18 in my mind. So, thank y'all. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Parker, I'm given to 20 understand, from your comments a little bit ago, that your 21 community operation is now being looked at because of its -- 22 its efficiency and -- and delivery of service per tax dollar 23 expended as the business model -- 24 MS. PARKER: Yes, sir. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- for these types of -- of 4-28-03 37 1 agencies throughout the state? 2 MS. PARKER: Yes, sir. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're to be commended for 4 that. We thank you for your efforts. 5 MS. PARKER: As a matter of fact, central 6 office Texas Department of Mental Health staff will be here 7 on Thursday to look at how we do what we do, so -- and I 8 don't know that that will change anything, but they're going 9 to look, so that's a first. Thank you so much. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe they'll learn something. 11 MS. PARKER: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Linda. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Parker. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Paula. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 1.7, 16 consider approving the extensions of annual bids and 17 allowing Road and Bridge to purchase paving oil as needed. 18 Good morning, sir. 19 MR. ODOM: Good morning, gentlemen. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: How are you? 21 MR. ODOM: Well, what I'm here for this 22 morning is to talk to the Court about extending some bids on 23 annual contracts. In January, our primary -- my biggest 24 obstacle is the oil bid. In January, we had the supplier 25 and started calling around, and we had $40-a-barrel oil on 4-28-03 38 1 speculation, and which they said petroleum prices were going 2 up at least 9 cents. That was in January. My argument was 3 that this war is about a three-week war, and that the price 4 of petroleum should be coming down. This has happened -- in 5 1973 they tried it, et cetera. So, I was around then; I 6 knew that it would come down. I couldn't get the oil prices 7 down, and everybody was fearful that we were going to 8 $50-a-barrel oil, so I decided not to -- at that time, to 9 extend the contracts. We just -- we were in the wintertime, 10 we didn't do much; we weren't going to be shooting any oil. 11 Basically, what we see is the oil prices are 12 coming down. They're still at 9 cents above last year's 13 bid. I -- I speculate -- this is Odom talking, but I -- you 14 know, I anticipate $20, $22 a barrel, and I think by the 15 time we get into the summer, I think that it would reflect 16 that. I'm hoping that could be the case. So, what I'm 17 doing is asking that the Court would look at extending the 18 prices that -- we've talked to the people with equipment by 19 the hour and corrugated metal pipe, the cold mix, and also 20 the base material. We had this down. At the time, we 21 hadn't got hold of someone, but they said that that 22 stabilized; that they'd be -- be providing it May the 19th. 23 So, basically, I'm looking at the possibility 24 of taking emulsion as we go out to bid for certain projects, 25 and look at it in late May, possibly June, to put out a 4-28-03 39 1 formal bid for emulsion. I'd hate to get trapped with that 2 dollar cost high, and I think that if I bid -- if we had bid 3 this back in March, that that would have occurred and I'd 4 have been trapped right into the new budget, which starts in 5 October, and we still do some shooting in October. So, I 6 prefer to -- to address that emulsion later on, as I think 7 the president gets a handle on Iraq, production and all, and 8 I think we'll have some subsiding of prices and that will be 9 reflected. We were scared that all this fear would be 10 reflected in the prices of everything, but we've got some 11 stability and people feeling a little bit calmer, so I would 12 be addressing the Court in the future for petroleum and 13 possibly paving aggregate. 14 I haven't got a return from that supplier 15 yet, whether they would freeze that price at last year's 16 prices, but my recommendation to the Court is to allow -- 17 the statutes allow us to extend those prices, if they do not 18 increase, for up to a year, and I would ask the Court to 19 consider that. And for those items that -- like, 20 eliminating petroleum and paving aggregate at this point, 21 that the others be submitted from last year's bid to extend 22 that contract for one year to March 15th of '04. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Convinced me. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You answered my question 25 at the very end there. The statute allows for us to -- 4-28-03 40 1 MR. ODOM: The statute does allow for us to 2 do that. I believe that we could even extend that two years 3 past that, but I'm only looking at one year. I like 4 competition. I think the fear factor's there. If we had 5 done this early, we would have had prices going up. That's 6 uncalled for. And right now, we've stabilized prices on the 7 majority of everything, and I'm 9 cents higher now. We will 8 call and get comparable bidders from qualified suppliers as 9 we go out to bid, and I have some projects to -- to do, like 10 Y.O. Ranch out there, that mile that we're responsible for, 11 and I have Sheppard Rees. So, we'll get competitive bids. 12 I don't see it being any more than 9 cents, but I believe 13 that the price will come down, just given time. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate you being 15 a good steward of the County money. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we 17 approve the extension of annual bids, allow Road and Bridge 18 to purchase paving oil as needed. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Also, thank you for 21 being on top of this and making this effort to save County 22 money. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 25 seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Letz, respectively, 4-28-03 41 1 that the Road and Bridge Administrator -- that his request 2 for extension of annual bids and allowing him to purchase 3 paving oil as needed be approved. Mr. Odom, I appreciate 4 your frugality, and -- and I know you're -- you're just 5 trying to squeeze the maximum you can out of every single 6 dollar that you get hold of. 7 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: And I appreciate that. Is 9 there any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, 10 signify by raising your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? Motion does 13 carry. Thank you. We appreciate -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, before we get 15 to the 10 o'clock, could we take up 13? I think Mr. Tuschak 16 is here. That will take all of two minutes; that will get 17 us to 10 o'clock. That way he can go back to Schreiner and 18 take care of advancement. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, very good. We'll move 20 to Item 13 on the consideration agenda, consideration and 21 discussion and any appropriate action on allowing the 22 American Cancer Society to use 12 tables and 100 chairs from 23 the Youth Exhibit Center for the Relay of Life that's 24 scheduled to be held at the Antler Stadium on the 2nd and 25 3rd of May of this year, free of charge, with the 4-28-03 42 1 stipulation that the volunteers from that organization be 2 responsible for picking up and returning those tables and 3 chairs. 4 MR. TUSCHAK: Good morning, Commissioner 5 Williams. Thank you very much for considering this, Judge 6 Tinley, rest of the Commissioners. My name's mark Tuschak; 7 I'm Vice President for Advancement of Schreiner University, 8 but I'm here today as a volunteer for the American Cancer 9 Society. On Friday and Saturday of this week, we are having 10 the first ever Relay for Life in Kerr County. This is a 11 12-hour event, starting at 6 p.m. at Tivy Stadium and going 12 to 6 a.m. the next morning. The purpose of this event is 13 twofold. One is to celebrate survivorship and bring 14 publicity on what can be done to prevent cancer and -- and 15 promote early detection of cancer. The second is to raise 16 money for the American Cancer Society in support of cancer 17 research and local programs and services. 18 I'm here today to ask you if you would be 19 willing to donate 12 tables and 100 chairs, which our 20 volunteers will pick up and return. We'd like to pick them 21 up at noon or 1 o'clock on Friday, and we'll return them 22 about 9 a.m. on Saturday morning. This is -- we have about 23 30 volunteers working on this, and as of last Thursday, we 24 had about 40 teams that were signed up to participate in 25 this event. There's at least 10 members on each team, so we 4-28-03 43 1 expect somewhere between 400 and 500 people actually walking 2 12 hours. There's going to be many people who are actually 3 camping overnight on that at Tivy Stadium. Some team 4 members will come and go, but -- but a large majority will 5 be camping, and we anticipate having between 100 and 150 6 volunteers, so I just would like to request you donating 7 these tables and chairs for that. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mark, you said return 9 them Saturday morning. Did you mean Saturday morning, or 10 Monday morning? 11 MR. TUSCHAK: Whenever we can. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause the event is 13 Friday and Saturday, is it not? 14 MR. TUSCHAK: Event's Friday and Saturday; 15 it's over at 8 a.m. Saturday morning. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. 17 MR. TUSCHAK: So we can return them Saturday 18 morning by 9 a.m. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Make sure someone's 20 out there to receive them. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we'll have to 23 make certain that we have somebody at the Hill Country Youth 24 Exhibit Center to check them out. 25 MR. TUSCHAK: Or we can return them during 4-28-03 44 1 regular business hours. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That will be a matter you'll 3 need to coordinate with the maintenance people, and whatever 4 arrangements you might make with those folks that would seem 5 to be appropriate from a timing standpoint. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment. I mean, I -- I 7 don't mean to be a party-pooper on this, but -- and I think 8 it's a great project. I support what you're doing, but I 9 don't think it's appropriate for the County to donate our 10 property to a nonprofit organization without doing it for 11 all of them. And we clearly don't, right now, do that, so I 12 can't be in favor of this. I think it's a good idea, but I 13 just can't go along with it. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You took the words 15 out of my mouth. We ought to -- I don't know how we can 16 have the rule, but we ought to either donate this property 17 to all not-for-profits or to none of them. And I've been 18 involved before in paying for and picking up the chairs and 19 tables. And, also, we shouldn't be dealing on this 20 Commissioners Court and taking their time on a -- to waive a 21 rental fee that's less than $100. It's a -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the idea was it 23 had to come before this Court, so whether it comes before 24 this Court so that you can say no or that we waive the 25 rental or that we let everybody do it, it had to come before 4-28-03 45 1 this Court. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would be in favor 3 of either denying this request or changing the rule and 4 letting all not-for-profits have the property. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they going to walk 6 all night? 7 MR. TUSCHAK: They're going to walk all 8 night. There'll be at least -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Man, I'm in favor. 10 MR. TUSCHAK: One person from each team will 11 be on the track at all times. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, that's 13 incredible. 14 MR. TUSCHAK: Starting out with the 15 survivor's lap at 6 p.m. on Friday. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's see if I can 17 craft a motion to solve some of our problems, Judge. I 18 would move that the Commissioners Court grant approval for 19 the use of tables and chairs, beginning with the American 20 Cancer Society's Relay for Life, and any subsequent worthy 21 community projects that might come before us. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't do it by the agenda 23 item. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just do that one. 25 Second. 4-28-03 46 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, we'll do that 2 one. Second? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion has been made and 5 seconded by Commissioners Williams and -- and Commissioner 6 Baldwin, respectively, that the Court approve the request by 7 the American Cancer Society to use 12 tables and 100 chairs 8 without cost from the Youth Exhibit Center for the Relay of 9 Life program that they are planning to hold at Antler 10 Stadium the 2nd and 3rd day of May of this year. Is there 11 any further discussion on it? Being none, all in favor of 12 the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 13 (Commissioners Baldwin and Williams voted in favor of the motion.) 14 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, signify by 16 raising your right hand. 17 (Commissioners Letz and Nicholson voted against the motion.) 18 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion -- the vote is tied 20 2-2; it goes to the chair. The chair votes in the negative. 21 The motion is denied. Until we change the policy, as a 22 matter of course, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to 23 vote in the affirmative. And we appreciate your interest, 24 and maybe you've caused something to happen that needed to 25 happen. Unfortunately, you just didn't get the benefit of 4-28-03 47 1 it if it does happen. 2 MR. TUSCHAK: That's okay. Hopefully this 3 will be an annual event. I appreciate your consideration 4 for this. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'll just make a 6 comment on that. Whoever is going to be -- I presume 7 someone's going to be looking at the rule. I think another 8 option is to have a quid pro quo, per se, where someone -- 9 they do a service to the County, as opposed to -- they can 10 either pay or clean something up or, you know, assist 11 somewhere. I just don't think we can -- and I think that's 12 legal. I just don't think we can give property -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or a donation to the 14 Commissioner's son's college fund, something like that? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That could work. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd want the County 17 Attorney to look at that. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: It is now a few minutes after 19 10:00, so we will recess the Commissioners Court meeting 20 scheduled for this date, and I will call to order a public 21 hearing on the 10 o'clock timed item on the agenda, that 22 public hearing being in connection with the proposed final 23 revision of the plat of Tracts 15 and 16 of Y.O. Ranchlands 24 located in Precinct 4. 25 \ 4-28-03 48 1 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:04 a.m., and a public hearing 2 was held in open court, as follows:) 3 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the 5 public present here today that wishes to be heard on the 6 public hearing item of the final revision of plat of the -- 7 of the plat of Tracts 15 and 16 of Y.O. Ranchlands? 8 MR. VOELKEL: If I may speak? Lee Voelkel. 9 I'm here this morning actually as a messenger. This is not 10 my comment, but it's a comment that I've been asked to bring 11 to the Court. I have a letter from a man by the name of 12 Paul Bryant, who's the president of the Y.O. Property Owners 13 Association, and I'll just distribute these. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I pass them around 15 for you? 16 MR. VOELKEL: Sure, that'd be fine. As you 17 read the letter, I think you'll see Mr. Bryant's concern. 18 It's not really with the plat itself. He's -- you'll see in 19 here, he mentions they -- they have a minimum of a 50-acre 20 tract, which is satisfied by this plat. I think Mr. Bryant, 21 in my conversation with him on the phone -- and, by the way, 22 he could not be here this morning because of some prior 23 commitments, or he would be here himself -- was maybe just a 24 little confused about all the little squares that he's 25 seeing on the plat for possible drainfields, possible well 4-28-03 49 1 locations and things of that sort. And I think that he just 2 wants to make sure that once the plat's approved, that these 3 items will still have to be governed, so to speak, by the 4 Property Owners Association, by their C.C.R., which I told 5 him I thought that was for sure going to be the case. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Voelkel, to respond to 7 that, this Court, of course, as you're aware, has no 8 authority to modify, change, or negate any of the covenants, 9 conditions, and restrictions, and they are of record, I 10 assume, and any purchaser of the property that falls under 11 those covenants, conditions, and restrictions will be bound 12 by them. And we -- our action here today should not be 13 construed, in my thinking, in any manner affecting those 14 covenants, conditions, and restrictions. But we do 15 appreciate your acting on Mr. Bryant's behalf and -- and his 16 concerns. 17 MR. VOELKEL: And that's essentially what I 18 told him, what you've just said, Judge. I told him anything 19 different that came up this morning, I'd certainly relate to 20 him, but y'all don't govern that. If the plat meets the 21 regulations, which apparently it does, that it will be 22 approved. These things will be taken up later with the 23 Property Owners Association. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. Is there 25 anyone else that wishes to be heard on the public hearing 4-28-03 50 1 for the final revision of plat of Tracts 15 and 16 of Y.O. 2 Ranchlands? There being no one else to indicate they desire 3 to step forward, I would close the public hearing for final 4 revision of plat of Tracts 15 and 16, and I will call to 5 order again the Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for 6 this date. 7 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:07 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 8 meeting was reopened.) 9 - - - - - - - - - - 10 JUDGE TINLEY: And we will proceed to Item 11 1.6, the consideration of the variance and final revision of 12 plat of Tracts 15 and 16 of Y.O. Ranchlands, Precinct 4. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we 14 approve the variance of final revision of plat of Tracts 15 15 and 16 of Y.O. Ranchlands in Precinct 4. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion has been made and 18 seconded by Commissioners Nicholson and Baldwin, 19 respectively, that we approve the variance and final 20 revision of plat of Tracts 15 and 16 of Y.O. Ranchlands 21 located in Precinct 4. Any further discussion? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. I must have 23 had a -- a mental lapse. What's the variance for? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have a mental 25 lapse. 4-28-03 51 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cul-de-sac size. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't -- I'm 3 missing my plat, so I couldn't -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's cul-de-sac size, 5 okay. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did I not read that 7 right? 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The size of the 10 cul-de-sac. 11 MR. JOHNSTON: If you notice, the road's not 12 actually on the plat itself, it's on the existing easement. 13 And that -- this road actually extends down to Lot 15A, and 14 it's a private road, gated-lot subdivision. It's not like 15 anybody's just going to be traveling out there. If he built 16 a cul-de-sac of -- of 60-foot diameter -- 17 AUDIENCE: 67. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: -- instead of 100, he can turn 19 around. We turned around on it the other day. It's 20 actually just a drive into Lot 15A; no one else would have 21 reason to go down there. And if he extended it out, which 22 he could have, on -- onto the Lot 15A outside the 23 right-of-way, I think he calculated it'd be up in the air 24 8 feet, and you'd have to drive down into the lot. So it's 25 better to leave it the way it was and to have a reasonable 4-28-03 52 1 entrance. That's all they use it for anyway, is an 2 entrance. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 5 discussion? Being none, all in favor of the motion, signify 6 by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next 11 item on the agenda is consideration of road name changes for 12 county-maintained roads in various locations of Kerr County 13 in accordance with 911 guidelines and regulatory signs, and 14 the setting of a public hearing for same. Am I given to 15 understand that the -- the focus here is on establishing a 16 public hearing? Is that the primary focus of the agenda 17 item? 18 MS. HARDIN: Yes, approving the ad for the 19 paper. The second page would be the notice of public 20 hearing. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MS. HARDIN: We have four roads that are 23 county-maintained roads. The first one, Old Highway 16, has 24 two portions. We have just always called it old Highway 16. 25 911 wanted it to have a formal name. So, the second portion 4-28-03 53 1 of that road would be Lantana Road South. The first portion 2 would be Liggett Lane South. Then we have Beech Road, which 3 is sometimes spelled with two E's and sometimes with an E 4 and an A, and those folks are interested in changing that 5 road name to Byas Springs West. And then there's a small 6 road up in Mountain Home that's Estes Cottage Road. They 7 would like to change that to Bethel Way. We also have full 8 regulatory signs. We only have three on the list here. 9 I've added another one this morning that I think 10 Commissioner Baldwin looked at out on Rim Rock, no parking 11 on Rim Rock. We have a stop sign at Upper Turtle Creek at 12 Rocky Hill, a no parking sign at Rocky Hill, and a no 13 dumping on Scott. And the public hearing date that I've put 14 on there was June 9th at 10 o'clock. Will that work? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve to 16 have a public hearing June 9, 2003, 10 a.m., in this 17 courtroom on the -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- regulatory signs 20 and name changes. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 22 seconded by Commissioners Baldwin and Nicholson (sic), 23 respectively, that we approve for public hearing the road 24 name changes for privately maintained roads, as presented by 25 the Road and Bridge -- 4-28-03 54 1 MS. HARDIN: Those are county-maintained, 2 sir. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: County-maintained roads, 4 excuse me. 5 MS. HARDIN: That's okay. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: County-maintained roads, as 7 presented by the Road and Bridge administrative personnel, 8 the public hearing to be set for -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10 a.m. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the Commissioners 12 Courtroom. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: What date? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: June 9. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: 6/9. I note that we have a 16 public participation form here. Mr. Bernard Syfan wishes to 17 be heard, and before we move further, I'm going to give him 18 the opportunity to tell us what he has to say on this issue. 19 Mr. Syfan? 20 MR. SYFAN: I'm Bernard Syfan, and I don't 21 know where I live. When I first came to the county, I moved 22 onto Beech Road, B-e-e-c-h, and one day I had company 23 coming -- the reason I'm speaking to you today is 'cause I'm 24 not going to be here; I'm going to be out of the country on 25 business when your hearing is. I'd like you to hear me now, 4-28-03 55 1 excuse me. And they came in and they called me, and they 2 said, "We can't find your house. We don't have a number." 3 And I said, "Well, there are no numbers out here." And, in 4 fact, there still are no numbers out there. Come to find 5 out he was in the south end of Kerrville looking for my 6 place on Beach Road in Kerr County, and that's what brought 7 it to my mind. It has been B-e-e-c-h, and it is on County 8 records here both as B-e-e-c-h and B-e-a-c-h. It was 9 originally named for a Mr. B-e-e-c-h. But there is already 10 a B-e-a-c-h and there's a whole lot more people that live on 11 B-e-a-c-h in Kerrville than that live on B-e-e-c-h or 12 whatever in the west end. They changed the names three 13 times since I've been there; it's been changed to B-e-e-c-h 14 and then B-e-a-c-h again, and then back to B-e-e-c-h West. 15 And if you look on the two sides of the street, it's 16 different on both sides. Please change it. I talked to a 17 number of the people that live there. I don't think you're 18 going to have anybody objecting to it being calmed Byas 19 Springs Road. And that's a little different from what 20 you're saying right there, but Byas Springs Road is what 21 everybody seems to want. Byas Ranch goes up the canyon that 22 this road goes up. There is a -- the biggest subdivision 23 back there is called Byas Springs Ranch. And, so, you've 24 heard me. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm impressed with you 4-28-03 56 1 being able to say all those B-E-E's and B-E-A's. 2 MR. SYFAN: It's very confusing. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Syfan. We 4 appreciate that. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner 6 Baldwin, could we amend that motion to -- to have the public 7 hearing include Byas Springs Road, instead of just Byas 8 Springs? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says Byas Springs 10 Road West on here. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, it does? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On my list. I'm 13 looking at this. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Notice of public 15 hearing. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're right. 17 MR. SYFAN: There's really no west involved. 18 MS. HARDIN: In the geo-region, there is a 19 west. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one other 21 comment. I've had occasion to work with Ms. Hardin and the 22 folks over at 911 recently on road name changes, issues like 23 that. I've got more confidence now than I have in the past 24 that that's moving along. So -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 4-28-03 57 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And it might get all 2 done without too many late night phone calls. I don't know. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion on this 4 item? All in favor -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a minor question. 6 It's just I'm not sure who -- you had Buster making the 7 motion and Commissioner Nicholson making the second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: No. I -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reality is, I made 10 the second. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you said -- 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just said it wrong. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize. I misspoke, 14 apparently. I meant to recognize Commissioner Baldwin as 15 making the motion and Commissioner Williams as making the 16 second. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I stand corrected on the 19 record. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- just wanted to 21 clarify. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your apology is 23 correct. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glad you did that, 25 Judge, 'cause I wasn't going to accept an amendment. 4-28-03 58 1 JUDGE TINLEY: With that out of the way, do 2 we have any further discussion? Being none, all in favor of 3 the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll now 8 move to next item. This is privately maintained roads. 9 MS. HARDIN: Correct. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Consider and approve the road 11 name changes as requested for privately maintained roads in 12 accordance with 911 guidelines. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another one. 14 MS. HARDIN: I left one off on my query. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Substitute list? 16 MS. HARDIN: You have the backup for it; it's 17 just not on the list. I wanted to be sure that you got it 18 in order. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Another comment about 20 this issue. If you remember, maybe even as recent as a 21 month or so ago we were looking at over 900 of these, and 22 we're winding down. We're getting close to the -- to the 23 bottom of this thing, right? 24 MS. HARDIN: We hope. Unless they come up 25 with some more. These are all roads that 911 had as a 4-28-03 59 1 number, and they now have a name. And they're privately 2 maintained, and there's eight. The one that was left off 3 was Stahl, which is number four on that list. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by 7 Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, that we 8 approve the road name changes for privately maintained roads 9 in various locations in Kerr County in accordance with 911 10 guidelines, as presented by Road and Bridge administrative 11 staff. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, 12 signify by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll go 17 to the next item, consider and discuss the approval for the 18 Kerr County Sheriff's Department to apply for a COPS in 19 Schools Grant Program award for three years, starting with 20 '04/'05 school year. Mr. Graham? 21 MR. GRAHAM: Good morning. Basically, this 22 -- as you know, three years ago we applied for and was 23 granted a grant from the federal government to place three 24 officers in three different school districts in the county. 25 This is our last year of federal funding. The Court 4-28-03 60 1 graciously said that they would pick up next year, and after 2 that, it's over with. The response that we've gotten from 3 the school districts has been mainly positive. I think 4 we've done a lot of good with the schools and everything, 5 and I would like to -- or the Sheriff's Department would 6 like to ask permission to reapply for this grant to keep 7 this program in place. 8 We've instituted several different 9 educational programs within the schools, and most recently, 10 there was a lot of graffiti and things that was put at a 11 site on the interstate. One of our School Resource Officers 12 has had several meetings with the senior class in Ingram. 13 They have, in essence, decided that that class themselves 14 wants to approach D.O.T. and provide the cleanup themselves, 15 instead of the State or the County having to do that, which 16 I think is a direct result of our relationship with the 17 schools through our S.R.O.'s. It has been a very worthwhile 18 project. I think it helps our manpower situation. Instead 19 of having to call an officer in off the street or something 20 like that, the S.R.O.'s are right there. They have built a 21 good rapport with the students, the staff, the families and 22 everything else. I think it is a positive program, and it 23 is working well for the County. We would like permission to 24 reapply for the grant. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The first grant that 4-28-03 61 1 we applied for and received, we had an obligation to fund 2 that; is that correct? 3 MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The fourth year of 5 the project, and that becomes the '03/'04 budget year; is 6 that correct? 7 MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the same 9 requirement inherent to this application? 10 MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir, it will be. It's a -- 11 the way it worked out, it's basically about a 25 percent 12 match, depending on the salary structure and everything. 13 That's why it worked out that we could basically be 14 supported for three years from the federal government and 15 one year from the County, which the same -- allotment of 16 money is the same this time. It's $125,000 per officer 17 position, which, putting a pencil to it, I think we can fund 18 it through them for three more years if we pick up the 19 fourth year. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: So, essentially, it's not a 21 per se match, but we're matching effectively 25 percent? 22 MR. GRAHAM: Yes. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: On the end of which, the last 24 year being our obligation, just like it is in this one? 25 MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir, correct. 4-28-03 62 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, you answered both 2 questions that I had. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had also talked 5 about the school district participating in funding this 6 employee, and I -- obviously, by your comments and your 7 presence here today, shows that we're -- we're not 8 approaching the school district and them picking up the tab 9 for the service. So -- but I think we should. I think the 10 school district -- I mean, it's there for them. I mean, I 11 see some benefit to us as citizens out in the county; we 12 receive it in the future benefits, but it's really -- that's 13 really a school district employee-type person that -- it's a 14 function of the school district, and they should be paying 15 for it. 16 MR. GRAHAM: I can understand that, but I can 17 also see a conflict of interest in that -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, too. 19 MR. GRAHAM: -- if the school district 20 actually has the employee or the employee is governed by the 21 Sheriff's Department. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we could follow 24 Commissioner Baldwin's idea on that and start talking with 25 them now with -- through an interlocal agreement, and having 4-28-03 63 1 them provide the funds to the County for us to keep the 2 deputy there. I think it's a good idea, Commissioner. I 3 think that -- but I think, you know, that's something -- we 4 need to go forward with the grant now, but I think we need 5 to start the communications with the school districts. 6 MR. GRAHAM: And that has been done. I've 7 talked to several of the superintendents, basically seeding 8 at this time. But I just don't want to wait till the last 9 minute and see the program go -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 11 MR. GRAHAM: -- to the side. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 14 seconded by Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, 15 that we approve the Kerr County Sheriff's Department to 16 apply for a COPS in Schools grant program for a three-year 17 period, starting with the 2004/2005 school year. Any 18 further discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your 19 right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next 24 item is the consideration and discussion for approval of 25 Kerr County Sheriff's Department applying for Universal 4-28-03 64 1 Hiring Program through the COPS office, which would enable 2 the Department to supplement the current sworn force, noting 3 that a minimum of 25 percent match is required. 4 MR. GRAHAM: That is a -- it's similar to the 5 COPS grant, but it's a yearly match on the 25 percent. The 6 Sheriff -- of course, we're always wanting more personnel. 7 We've come a long way in the last three years and provided 8 good services to the County with what we've got. 9 Unfortunately, the more services we provide, in any county 10 that's growing, the more that is needed. Currently, our 11 investigative staff, we have six in there that are doing a 12 very -- extremely well, along with our patrol division and 13 all that. But, you know, it's -- it's out there. Our 14 concept of it is that we would be spending one dollar to 15 make four. If -- you know, depending on how the 16 Commissioners feel, trying to save as much taxpayer money as 17 we can, because the county is growing; eventually we're 18 going to have to add more personnel. This just seems like 19 an advantageous way to do it at this time. And the way the 20 federal funds are at this time -- this grant just opened up 21 recently, and the way the federal funding is going, who 22 knows how long we're going to be able to apply for grants or 23 how long those moneys are going to be there. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the timing of 25 this? 4-28-03 65 1 MR. GRAHAM: This is a yearly -- this one 2 would last three years, the same as the other one, and we 3 would have to either renew or drop it in that fourth year. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When would the -- would 5 it coincide with our budget? Hiring? 6 MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. The cutoff 7 date on this is for the -- applying is June 6th, and usually 8 you -- it's been my experience, within two to three months 9 you get the answer, yes or no, from the -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What would the personnel 11 -- would they be patrol deputies? Investigation? 12 MR. GRAHAM: Of course, the Sheriff and I 13 have a little bit different points of view. And I 14 apologize; he had to be out of town, and I was -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: He loses. 16 MR. GRAHAM: -- was notified this morning -- 17 sir? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: He loses. You win. 19 MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. I love him to death. 20 We have different points of view, but basically, I guess in 21 the long run, we see the same thing. We do need personnel 22 in the Investigations, depending on how many, you know, we 23 could apply for. I would think one to Investigations and 24 two to the streets, or to the Patrol Division. Patrol is 25 answering more calls. And, of course, Investigations is 4-28-03 66 1 handling more investigations. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a -- I guess if 3 we apply for the grant, I guess, what -- do we know what 4 we're going to get? I guess, is there a way to get out of 5 it if we've received it? 6 MR. GRAHAM: Once they award it, you do not 7 have to accept it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. 'Cause I 9 think it needs to be taken up with the overall scope of our 10 budget, but I think it's a good idea to go ahead and apply 11 for it. We'll also be -- we'll be into our budget process 12 by the time we find out. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We could decline if it appears 14 that it's going to be too onerous on our -- on our 15 budgeting. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not only look at the 17 impact -- or look what it does to our budget this year, but 18 in the long-term. And -- you know, and what is our -- you 19 know, if we're looking at adding on four employees -- did 20 you say four? 21 MR. GRAHAM: Three. I'll take four, though, 22 sir. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know you would. 24 We're talking about adding on three employees here. It may 25 be the long-term plan that we're really thinking about 4-28-03 67 1 adding on five. So, is this the proper way to go to reach 2 that goal? I guess we really need to sit down with the 3 Sheriff and have a long-term type plan and -- 4 MR. GRAHAM: Well, according to the 5 projections of the Long-Term Planning Committee, which is to 6 add more personnel -- of course, you know, I've got a pretty 7 simple mind for a simple country boy, but if somebody else 8 is going to pay for most of it, I can't see where we could 9 lose on it. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to add them 11 anyway. 12 MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would this pay the 14 salaries of officers you hired because of attrition? In 15 other words, could this be used even though you don't 16 increase the total planning level? 17 MR. GRAHAM: No, sir, you can't sub-plan 18 this. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You have to add? 20 MR. GRAHAM: You have to add. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we 22 approve the Sheriff's Department's plan for the Universal 23 Hiring Program. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by 4-28-03 68 1 Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, that we 2 approve the Kerr County Sheriff's Department applying for 3 Universal Hiring Program by a grant through the COPS office, 4 which would enable the Department to supplement the current 5 sworn force. Is there any further discussion? All in 6 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. It's 11 knocking on the door of 10:30. Why don't we take about, oh, 12 10 minutes and reconvene about 20 of, and we'll get through 13 the rest of this agenda. 14 MR. GRAHAM: Thank you. 15 (Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We will reconvene the 18 meeting of the Commissioners Court scheduled for this date. 19 Next item is consideration and discussion of conveyance of 20 Indian Creek structure to the City of Ingram. Mr. Motley? 21 MR. MOTLEY: There's not much to say on that, 22 except that last page that's paper-clipped to it is just 23 informational. That's not part of the quitclaim deed. 24 That's that thing that's been going on for quite some time, 25 and if you want to sign the original, I'll make sure it gets 4-28-03 69 1 to the City Attorney over there so they can get it on their 2 agenda for their next meeting, accept that or whatever they 3 do. Not a whole lot to say about it, I don't suppose. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, I have a 5 question. Does the county road now begin at the end of the 6 bridge where the asphalt begins? 7 MR. MOTLEY: It -- well, if you look, there's 8 actually a property description there. Go back one page. 9 There's a property description on that. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I saw that. 11 MR. MOTLEY: That's exactly -- all that we're 12 making no claim to any more, so anything that's outside of 13 that that adjoins that would be -- yeah, I think that's 14 exactly right. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, probably where the 16 asphalt begins would be the county -- actual county road? 17 MR. MOTLEY: I would assume that that would 18 be asphalt. It may be the structure underneath. Now, as I 19 understand it, the surveyor is describing the -- this is the 20 land underneath the river, along with all this thing, so it 21 could be some substructure that's on there, as opposed to 22 asphalt. I would assume that's -- but that is going to give 23 them the structure. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bridge abutments? Is 25 that what you're saying? 4-28-03 70 1 MR. MOTLEY: Yes. Any supporting structure 2 of the bridge that goes down, touches the bottom. Might be 3 wider or longer than the asphalt travels the surface. 4 But -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 6 MR. MOTLEY: Okay? That should take care of 7 that. I'm not -- anyway, that -- and this actually is not 8 part of the deed; that's just for information. I don't know 9 what else. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to 10 answer. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm glad we're able 12 to save Indian Creek. Appreciate your work, and -- 13 MR. MOTLEY: No big deal. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- County Attorney 15 Edwards' work. 16 MR. MOTLEY: Well, the holdup on the thing 17 was we were going to quitclaim the bridge, but really, you 18 know, to give them the bridge, you got to give them -- 19 quitclaim the dirt on which it lies. And -- and, you know, 20 so that was a holdup to get the survey on that, so that's 21 where we are. Anything else? Nope? Only five minutes. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does this take a 23 motion? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move we make the 4-28-03 71 1 conveyance of Indian Creek structure to the City of Ingram. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: By quitclaim deed? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's made and seconded by 6 Commissioners Nicholson and Baldwin, respectively, that Kerr 7 County convey by quitclaim deed the Indian Creek Bridge 8 structure to the City of Ingram. Any further discussion? 9 All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 14 on the agenda is consideration and discussion of the 15 resolution in support of House Bill 2191 before the current 16 Legislature. Commissioner Letz. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda 18 at the request of Linda Uecker. It's a bill that she has 19 been working on, and I support it; I think it's a good bill. 20 It basically -- the background -- this gives the details, 21 but it is legislation that enables counties to go after the 22 money convicted felons are -- I guess fees, court costs, 23 things of that nature, levied against them. It allows a 24 stronger mechanism for the court -- district courts or the 25 counties' collections departments to go after those funds 4-28-03 72 1 when they get released from incarceration. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: By way of background, the 3 current mechanism in place for fines and fees due to Kerr 4 County to be collected if they're misdemeanor cases, and our 5 Collections Department has been very, very active in doing 6 that and pursuing the collection of those funds. What we 7 don't have in place under state law is a procedure whereby 8 some of these fines and fees that are due from convicted 9 felons may be collected. This is -- this bill implements or 10 would implement a procedure whereby Kerr County, on a 11 case-by-case basis, would have the option of -- of going 12 after these -- these convicted felons that owe fines or fees 13 to Kerr County. The option being there so that in the event 14 it's a small amount, we wouldn't be out the expense of 15 putting a detainer on them at the -- at the Institutional 16 Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and 17 being out the expense of bringing them back to Kerr County. 18 But, rather, if there was a sufficient amount involved, that 19 we could make that option selective and go after a convicted 20 felon who's due to be released, and then -- and then pursue 21 our recommendation to collect those. So, essentially, 22 that's where we are. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Uecker, do you have 24 anything else to add? 25 MS. UECKER: Well, since I didn't hear the 4-28-03 73 1 first part, do you have any questions? Or -- 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could you guess how 3 much this -- if this law was passed and we implement it in 4 good fashion, how much we might expect to collect? 5 MS. UECKER: Well, that's going to be a tough 6 determination, depending on what type of procedures we set 7 up, of course, but I would guess the first year probably 8 would not be as great as those to follow. But, you know, 9 I'm thinking we could collect more than -- between 50 and 10 100 thousand the first year. The good news is, I was a 11 little bit worried it wasn't going to get a hearing, and it 12 still may not, but I did receive word last Thursday or 13 Friday from my secret source at the Capitol that the State 14 Comptroller is doing a statewide fiscal note on it for 15 judiciaries as part of the appropriations package. So, I 16 mean, they are taking a serious look at it. And Shyra Darg 17 in Terry Keel's office even said, you know, "Linda, this may 18 not -- this bill may not even require a hearing. They may 19 just take it to the House floor and vote on it." Which 20 would be a great compliment to us that -- I don't think I've 21 ever had a bill do that. So, I'm still keeping my fingers 22 crossed that we can -- we can get it done. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I make a motion to 24 support the resolution. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 4-28-03 74 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 2 seconded by Commissioner Letz and Williams, respectively, 3 that we support the resolution in support of House Bill 4 2191. Is there any further discussion? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. If I might, I'd 6 just like to thank our District Clerk, for one, for 7 following up on -- following through on this bill, but also 8 on this -- just keeping, you know, me and I presume the rest 9 of the Court informed on what's kind of going on in the 10 Legislature. It's difficult to track it, and she's done a 11 real good job really keeping, I think, the County aware of 12 what is pending and what the impact of those bills are going 13 to be to the County, so thank you for that. 14 MS. UECKER: Thank you, Jonathan. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Great. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? All 17 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 22 on the agenda, discuss and consider a review and report from 23 the third party administrator and insurance representatives 24 on Kerr County's pending reimbursement for a claim paid by 25 Kerr County on behalf of an employee. I put this on the 4-28-03 75 1 agenda so that we might be apprised of the current status. 2 Back last -- last calendar year, in December, I believe it 3 was, prior to my coming on the Court, the Court advanced 4 $400,000 on a claim on the condition that the third party 5 administrator or the insurance reps or both would pursue 6 reimbursement for those claims, because otherwise we were 7 going to be put in a position of having to either waive it 8 or pursue -- purchase additional coverage in order to keep 9 pursuing reimbursement. And the indication that was 10 received was that there was a belief by the third party 11 administrator that all, or certainly a considerable portion, 12 of that $400,000 would be reimbursed. And I guess the 13 question, Mr. Rothwell, is where's the money? 14 MR. ROTHWELL: Where's the money? We'll talk 15 about that. I'm Ray Rothwell with Employee Benefit 16 Administrators, and we are the third party administrator for 17 the County's partially self-funded plan. With your 18 permission, I'd like to take us back to last 19 November-December very briefly, and then I'll get us to 20 where we are today. We have an insurance plan in place that 21 is partially self-funded, has a $40,000 specific stop-loss 22 with an aggregate coverage behind that. We took over this 23 plan and we bid this plan several years ago now, and one of 24 the -- one of the benefit structures within the plan at that 25 time, and it's continued to be in the plan through a variety 4-28-03 76 1 of conversations about benefit changes going forward -- for 2 the most part, those benefit changes have been in the form 3 of increasing deductibles, increasing co-pays, not dealing 4 particularly with the structure of the -- of the benefits 5 themselves. And those -- some of those things have been 6 discussed to try to keep the premiums down. 7 The -- the claim in question, the benefit 8 related to it has a $250,000 plan benefit maximum for that 9 particular benefit, and when we started getting the bills in 10 for -- from the providers for this sequence of events that 11 happened in early September last year, it became clear to 12 us, and I started some conversations with -- with a number 13 of folks in the county that we worked with, and our agents, 14 and -- and a little later with the Court. We knew the -- 15 the claims were going to be substantially above $250,000. 16 We also felt very strongly, and still today feel very 17 strongly, that some of those dollars should not relate to 18 that specific benefit structure; that -- that we should be 19 able to file those as reinsurance claims. 20 When the benefit of $250,000 was paid by the 21 reinsurance company, it was paid 250, minus the 40 specific, 22 plus about $6,200 of some minor claims that happened leading 23 up to that hospital stay. This was kind of a unique 24 situation, in that this individual had had virtually no 25 medical bills prior to -- prior to -- to the problems he 4-28-03 77 1 subsequently had. Anyway, the 250 was paid right off -- 2 right on the front end, very quickly by the reinsurance 3 company. Again, minus the 40, plus $6,000 or so, they paid 4 $216,000. I visited with the Court, after visiting with 5 some County staff, that it would require a budget amendment 6 to advance some funds if we -- if we and the Commissioners 7 Court deemed that to be an appropriate action. It was 8 deemed that because we didn't really know the dollar 9 values -- I mean, we were getting claims in and that sort of 10 thing, so it was deemed to -- the County Commissioners Court 11 approved an advance of up to $400,000 to cover bills that we 12 felt should be covered -- we, as the administrators, felt 13 should be covered in that -- in that process. 14 So, we got -- we had a subsequent meeting 15 after the Commissioners Court to -- with the then County 16 Judge, with the Auditor, the Treasurer, and one of the 17 representatives from the insurance agency, and the County 18 did in fact give us a $400,000 check to be used for this 19 specific set of events. Part of the good news is, this 20 morning I gave the Treasurer $141,900 and change back out of 21 the 400. We've kept that isolated, so we have returned 22 141 -- almost $142,000 of that $400,000 back as of today. 23 We actually have paid out about $258,000 out of that 400. I 24 kept that isolated in a separate fund within our -- under 25 our fiduciary control, and we've paid out that 258. We have 4-28-03 78 1 appealed with the reinsurance carrier twice, and in both 2 cases they've deemed all of the bills to be related to that 3 specific benefit. We still disagree with that. We have the 4 Methodist Hospital in San Antonio that, about a month and a 5 half ago, agreed to join us in the appeal. We finally got, 6 last week on Wednesday, I believe -- it could have been 7 Tuesday, but I believe it was Wednesday -- the Methodist 8 outline of the sequence of events from September 3rd through 9 September 11th, and they are a little more ambitious 10 about -- about where the -- what categories those moneys 11 should be applied to than probably we are. We felt like 12 through about the 6th or potentially the 7th of September, 13 we could justify those moneys, those days, and the costs 14 related to those days as being not related to that specific 15 benefit, but to -- to a general set of benefits that would 16 be lifesaving, just hospital stay due to the conditions, and 17 that's why we paid 258 rather than 400 or some other number. 18 We -- we had -- I had the claim reviewed 19 twice after the fact internally in our shop by a senior 20 processor and by our claims manager, and we felt like the 21 258 was a -- was a sound number that we could justify 22 getting most of the money back from. The -- the reinsurance 23 carrier -- and I have other business with them; they're very 24 strong. They're -- it's Union Labor Life Insurance Company. 25 They're an extremely solvent, very, very healthy company. 4-28-03 79 1 They've taken the position, because of the facility that the 2 person was transferred into and the type of equipment and 3 procedures used, they were all related to that specific 4 benefit, and that's been their position on two occasions. 5 We, last week, received from Methodist Hospital kind of a 6 sequential listing of what they felt like they were doing, 7 and their feeling was all the way up to the 11th should not 8 be related to that benefit. To me, that's not realistic. 9 We -- I don't think that the outline and the opinion they've 10 put -- that they have expressed would -- would be a true and 11 accurate set of -- set of events that would be used to 12 determine the -- the procedures they did as non-related to 13 the benefits that we're specifically talking about. 14 I suspect that within the next 30 days, we 15 should hear back from this third appeal. I would hope that 16 we could get some portion or the majority of the $258,000 17 back. But at the meeting we had where we got the $400,000 18 released after the Commissioners Court meeting, I again 19 emphasized that while we've got a great track record on 20 recovering reinsurance dollars, there's no guarantees in 21 this, because it's a very specific sequence of events 22 related to a very specific benefit, not as general as many 23 of them are. And -- and I think, at that meeting, it was 24 again voiced from the Commissioners Court meeting that the 25 County had some responsibilities, had some -- had some 4-28-03 80 1 reasons to pay the money and hope to get it back and that 2 sort of thing. With that, I'm open to questions, if anyone 3 has anything more specific that they'd like to -- yes, sir? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ray, we appropriated 5 $400,000 -- 6 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- thus far. You 8 have spent 258 of the 400; is that correct? 9 MR. ROTHWELL: And returned the 141, 9 back 10 to the County, yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which leaves 142 12 unspent from the original 400; is that correct? 13 MR. ROTHWELL: That's true, and that's the 14 moneys returned today. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the 16 disposition of that 142? 17 MR. ROTHWELL: It's back in your County 18 treasury as of today. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus the 191? 20 MR. ROTHWELL: I'm not sure where the 191 is 21 coming from. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said you 23 reimbursed $191,000, sir. Isn't that what you said? 24 MR. ROTHWELL: No, sir. I said that -- that 25 the reinsurance company paid the $250,000 benefit, minus the 4-28-03 81 1 $40,000 specific, plus about $6,200 of earlier claims. So, 2 they've -- the reinsurance company has paid about -- paid 3 216 thousand -- 4 MS. NEMEC: 285. 5 MR. ROTHWELL: That $216,285, the reinsurance 6 company paid. We have, in addition to that, paid 7 $258,084.02. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 9 MR. ROTHWELL: And that's the money -- that 10 $258,000 is the money in question now that we are appealing 11 for a third time. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I -- 14 MR. ROTHWELL: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- if I understand this. 16 MR. ROTHWELL: Okay. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The Court authorized the 18 payment of $400,000 at -- at your suggestion. 19 MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Back in December, I believe it 21 was. Is that correct? 22 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 9th. 24 MR. ROTHWELL: That suggestion -- may I 25 comment on that? 4-28-03 82 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Surely. 2 MR. ROTHWELL: That suggestion was -- we -- I 3 presented two options. I said, one, if we wanted to buy a 4 -- an insurance contract that was approximately $270,000 5 lower, we could fund this money in advance and pay it prior 6 to January 1st. If we didn't want to fund the money, then 7 it was my recommendation for us to spend an extra $270,000 8 for this 12-month period to pick up that gap, that -- that 9 gap of coverage. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That would have purchased an 11 additional three months in which to attempt to negotiate 12 the -- 13 MR. ROTHWELL: No, it would have purchased 14 claims that were incurred during that time period. That 15 would roll forward into the current contract. It would be a 16 15/12 type contract -- we talked about that with 17 Commissioners Letz -- back then, rather than a 12/12 18 contract that the County has traditionally purchased. And 19 the County Judge runs -- typically runs 75 to 100 -- about 20 $150,000 reserve in their insurance account, so it's always 21 been deemed and approved by the Court to be -- to be the 22 best buy for the County, would be that 12/12 contract, and 23 that's the reason I -- you know, one way of looking at that 24 is we're about $20,000 better off than we would have been if 25 we'd have spent the 270. 4-28-03 83 1 JUDGE TINLEY: But, at the time it occurred 2 and the decision was made to expend the $400,000 with the 3 hopes of getting it back, you indicated at that time that 4 you thought that we will get the majority of that $400,000 5 back, if not all of it; that your track record said that 6 you'll get it all back, and that you believed that you 7 would. 8 MR. ROTHWELL: And I still believe we'll get 9 some of that money back. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: So, you paid the $400,000. 11 MR. ROTHWELL: No, sir, we paid $258,000. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: So, you never actually paid 13 the 400; you only paid 258? 14 MR. ROTHWELL: Right. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah. When we went through -- 17 when we -- when I said, "Okay, guys, this is the deal," back 18 in our shop, "I want to make sure that what we're paying is, 19 in our opinion, not specific benefits related to this 20 restricted benefit," and so when we did that, rather than 21 $400,000, we needed $258,000 and change. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: So, the 142 was never actually 23 paid out? 24 MR. ROTHWELL: It was never paid out; it's 25 been maintained in a -- in your account with us. 4-28-03 84 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. We transferred 2 it into the reserve account with you as third party 3 administrator? 4 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now, you mentioned 6 we're now on the third appeal, I believe? 7 MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 MR. ROTHWELL: And we've finally got the 10 hospital to join in with us and give us more substantive 11 data than they provide in medical records. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Explain to me the appeals 13 process and the levels of appeals and where those take 14 place, before whom they take place, and the time frames 15 under which they take place, if you would, please. 16 MR. ROTHWELL: Okay. There's really no time 17 frame for stopping it, as long as you keep it active. The 18 appeals are all done by letter, phone conversations and that 19 sort of thing. At this -- at this point, the first two 20 appeals have been at a management level within -- within 21 Union Labor Life below the vice president level. This third 22 appeal will be appealed with -- with that person involved in 23 it. When we sent our first appeal, they went out to their 24 medical peer review that would -- that are specialists in 25 this particular set of benefits, and their review came back 4-28-03 85 1 and said, "We think all those dollars, because of where they 2 put that person and the type equipment and providers they 3 were using, were related specifically to that benefit." We 4 had -- prior to us paying the 258, I sent that off to 5 another utilization company that we use a lot, and just 6 asked them for a cursory review; not an in-depth, we're 7 going to pay some money to do this review. Their opinion 8 was the guy was very definitely a candidate for that 9 procedure. That they felt like the procedure itself was 10 done appropriately, and that they weren't going to make a 11 comment on the costs related to the benefit -- restricted 12 benefit level, since they weren't being involved in that 13 kind of a review. Methodist Hospital has come back with an 14 independent peer review that says they believe the majority 15 of the dollars, at least those dollars we're asking for, 16 were not directly related to the benefit, even though the 17 person was in that specific unit and things were being done 18 for him that would normally be done in delivery of that 19 benefit. So -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: In anticipation of it? 21 MR. ROTHWELL: In anticipation of it. And 22 that's -- that's -- that's the down side of it. And that's 23 the part that -- that I was a little disappointed that the 24 hospital records came back trying to push it all the way up 25 to the day before the procedure happened. I felt like it 4-28-03 86 1 would be -- I felt like we would be in a much better 2 position to push for the -- through the 6th or maybe into 3 the 7th day of September, and try to get those dollars back. 4 That's what we've paid. We haven't paid anything past that. 5 We felt like that 250 picked up at that point and went 6 forward. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you finished, Judge? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Go ahead. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is -- 10 I think you've gone over this in December, but if you'd go 11 over it again? 12 MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Explain how the $250,000 14 stop-loss works. 15 MR. ROTHWELL: The $250,000 stop-loss -- it's 16 really a $1 million stop-loss, or it's a spec of 40 and 17 above in this one case; 40 with no cap on it, actually. The 18 plan document in the -- in the benefit plan documents that 19 Kerr County has for their employees has a specific 20 limitation of $250,000 total for the benefit related to this 21 set of -- this sequential set of events. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That limit -- that's the 23 limit that our -- 24 MR. ROTHWELL: That's not a stop-loss limit, 25 per se. That's the limit your plan -- your policy -- 4-28-03 87 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Contract limit. 2 MR. ROTHWELL: -- your contract with your 3 employees has. That's where that's arrived at. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ray, help me out one 6 more time. 7 MR. ROTHWELL: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We originally 9 appropriated $400,000. 10 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You paid out in 12 claims $258,000? 13 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you said you 15 delivered a check back to the Treasurer today for? 16 MR. ROTHWELL: $141,915.02, or something like 17 that. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 141, thank you. 19 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That represents the 21 un -- 22 MR. ROTHWELL: That's the $400,000. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- unspent portion? 24 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 4-28-03 88 1 JUDGE TINLEY: What -- had the -- had that 2 $400,000 not been placed into the reserve account back in 3 December, what would be the situation today? 4 MR. ROTHWELL: The situation today is, on 5 December the 31st at midnight, those funds would not have 6 been chargeable to the reinsurance carrier. The County 7 would not have paid them, so your employee's spouse would be 8 -- would have a debt of $258,000 or $400,000. That person 9 has a debt, in my opinion, whether they're being chased or 10 not. We've heard nothing from them. I don't believe the 11 County staff has heard from them. But that person 12 technically has a debt of $300,000 or $400,000 currently. 13 Again, I don't know if any medical folks are chasing them or 14 whatever. I'm not -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they've been -- the 16 employee would have had that debt? 17 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, the employee's spouse. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Why the employee's spouse? 19 MR. ROTHWELL: Well, the employee deceased. 20 The employee would have had the debt; I'll leave it there. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And/or his estate, if he 22 became deceased? 23 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's basically 4-28-03 89 1 the underlying reason that the -- that -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: There would have been no 3 residual liability to Kerr County? 4 MR. ROTHWELL: No. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who do we contract 7 with for this coverage? 8 MR. ROTHWELL: I'm sorry? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who do we contract 10 with for this coverage? 11 MR. ROTHWELL: It's a self-funded plan. We, 12 Employee Benefit Administrators, are the third-party 13 administrator to administer your health insurance plan. We 14 annually go out and shop the market for reinsurance coverage 15 to get the best price available for the reinsurance, and we 16 shop with eight or nine carriers. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have a 18 contractual relationship with that reinsurance carrier? 19 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes, you do. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 21 MR. ROTHWELL: Any other questions? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the contractual 23 relationship that we're under appeal on now to try and 24 recover from. 25 MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. 4-28-03 90 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The 258. 2 MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. Yeah, that -- 3 that reinsurance contract is -- is not with my company; it's 4 directly with the County. The County signs that contract 5 each year. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if we have a 7 quarrel about this $258,000 -- I guess that's what the issue 8 is -- it's the reinsurance company that we would look to, 9 to -- 10 MR. ROTHWELL: Well, I guess, yeah, there's 11 two options. That would be one of them. The other one 12 would be to ask the hospital for a refund of those 13 overpayments, and -- and see if we can get those 14 overpayments back. At that point, they're denied as 15 benefits by the reinsurance carrier. Then we might consider 16 going back -- and, again, that would be something we would 17 discuss with y'all, the various options available. But -- 18 but that would be one of the two options. The other would 19 be Kerr County's legal assault on Union Labor Life 20 Insurance. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what's your best 22 assessment now as to our ability to recover any part of the 23 258? 24 MR. ROTHWELL: I'm not sure I want to make a 25 best assessment. I believe that we have a strong position 4-28-03 91 1 to get some of those moneys back, now that the hospital has 2 joined us in -- joined with us. I wish the hospital hadn't 3 done it the way they did, but that's what they did and 4 that's what they wanted to do and that's all they would do, 5 would be to push it all the way through the 11th of 6 September, and I think that's a stretch. That may put us 7 into a negotiating place with Union Labor, so -- you know, 8 we have a great relationship with Union Labor. I mean, it's 9 unfortunate that we had this here, but we've got some other 10 groups with them, and we do have a -- a very open, candid 11 relationship with Union Labor Life. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions about 13 this matter of Mr. Rothwell? Mr. Finley, do you have any 14 comments that you wish to make with regard to this? I guess 15 technically you're the representative, as the agent for 16 the -- the reinsurance carrier; is that correct? 17 MR. FINLEY: We are the ones that brought 18 E.B.A. and the County together to serve as third-party 19 administrators. The only comment I have is that, having 20 worked with E.B.A. for, oh, 12 to 15 years now, I can say 21 that they've gone to bat for clients in every -- every 22 occasion where there's been any event where we needed a 23 negotiator. They've been very good at pushing the insurance 24 companies to the limit of the contract. We have complete 25 confidence in their ability. The policy has, obviously, a 4-28-03 92 1 limitation within it. It's this gray area of interpretation 2 about how much of that was actually related to the event and 3 how much of the expenses could have actually been covered 4 under other policy provisions. And this third appeal that 5 is being made at this time, I think, will be the -- possibly 6 the final resolution of that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have any questions for 8 Mr. Finley? Thank you. We appreciate you being here today. 9 Is there any further -- any further discussion or questions 10 concerning this? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just an observation, 12 Judge. This -- this seems irregular, I guess, is the right 13 term. As an employee, if I have an insurance claim and the 14 insurance company doesn't pay it, I can't look to my 15 employer to pay it. I have to look to the insurance company 16 to pay it. Why do we take on the -- the responsibility of 17 paying this claim? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have a response to 19 that question? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd like to 21 hear again from either Tommy or Mr. Rothwell, who made the 22 original presentation. It's a fair question. You need to 23 hear the answer. What were the compelling reasons why we 24 had to do it? 25 MR. ROTHWELL: I guess I'll do that, since 4-28-03 93 1 you didn't jump up and offer, Tommy. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't remember the details 3 of it. 4 MR. ROTHWELL: I'm kidding. I guess the 5 compelling reasons was probably two, and I'm going to say 6 "probably," because I can't answer that any more 7 definitively than that. Number one, we were looking at a 8 renewal insurance policy that gave us two options. One of 9 the options was about $270,000 less cost for the exact same 10 coverage with -- but a -- but not that three-month run-in 11 period. We felt comfortable because of the funds available 12 in that -- in the -- in the insurance account at that time, 13 that we didn't really need to worry about the three-month 14 run-in. We had money available in reserves, and that had 15 stayed in that account. And that account is a trust fund; 16 it's got employment mixed with employer money, and it's an 17 employee benefit account, so it's a trust fund. It can't be 18 used for dump trucks and things like that. So, one option 19 was to spend $270,000 to pick up some of that money, or to 20 advance up to $400,000, with the intent of getting the 21 majority of it back. And I think the County, on the other 22 hand, including the Commissioners, and -- and there's at 23 least three of you still here, and maybe y'all can remember 24 some of that. There was a feeling of County responsibility 25 for paying its employees' debts to the maximum extent 4-28-03 94 1 possible to the level of benefits. We then believed, and I 2 continue to believe, that all of those dollars that were 3 billed were not related to -- to that particular set of 4 benefits. Unfortunately, the reinsurer has taken the 5 position that they believe it's all related, and a case can 6 be made for that because of where the fellow was and the 7 type equipment and procedures used. A case can be made for 8 it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: In fact, they had -- they had 10 taken that position when the decision was made for the 11 advancement of the $400,000, I think, had they not? 12 MR. ROTHWELL: Not officially. They -- they 13 had not officially taken that position, but they had 14 indicated that they might. We didn't have an official 15 opinion from them until we provided all the records, which 16 were after the fact. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Of course, the third option at 18 the time it was presented, other than extending the coverage 19 or paying the claim -- 20 MR. ROTHWELL: Right. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- would have been to do 22 nothing. 23 MR. ROTHWELL: To do nothing. And that -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And then the employee and/or 25 his family and/or estate, as the case may be -- 4-28-03 95 1 MR. ROTHWELL: Right. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: -- would then be in the 3 position of being in a dispute with that -- as a covered 4 employee under that reinsurance contract. 5 MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah. And I really -- Judge, 6 I don't really believe that option was discussed much at 7 all. I mean, I don't have a -- a memory of that being 8 discussed as a third option. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It wasn't. 10 MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah, I don't think so. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: But it was an option. 12 MR. ROTHWELL: But it would have been an 13 option, yes, had it have been brought forward. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: In your experience, has it 15 been customary in -- in acting as third party administrator 16 for groups in which there is reinsurance such as this, with 17 claims-paid coverage, for the employer, in the event of a 18 disputed claim, to step forward and pay the claim on behalf 19 of the employee, as it were, and to then seek reimbursement? 20 Is that usual and customary, in your experience? 21 MR. ROTHWELL: It happens. One of the -- one 22 of the advantages of a self-funded plan versus a fully 23 insured plan is the employers -- employers have the ability 24 to make some decisions related to claims outside of that 25 contract arena, and it happens frequently. It -- it happens 4-28-03 96 1 very frequently that employer units will advance funds, 2 because in the reinsurance business, to file a specific 3 insurance claim -- and I think we covered this back 4 earlier -- the claim has to be prepaid. You can't not pay 5 the claim and then try to get reinsurance to pay it. You 6 have to prepay it, and that's the reason -- that's one of 7 the reasons we came forward and asked the County to consider 8 advancing the money. Compounded with that was, we were -- 9 we were in the -- in the late November, early December stage 10 where the contract was going to be ending December 31, and 11 if we didn't do anything, that third option would -- would 12 have automatically invoked itself. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: But it's your experience that 14 in -- in self-funded plans where there's reinsurance 15 contracts -- 16 MR. ROTHWELL: Mm-hmm. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that it is quite common for 18 the employer to pay the disputed portion on behalf of the 19 employee? 20 MR. ROTHWELL: No. In my memory of the last 21 several years, we've never -- we, my company, has never had 22 a disputed claim of this nature with a restricted benefit 23 that we would ask to be paid for, that we would ask for 24 consideration on it. So, that's not a common, everyday 25 occurrence. Advanced funding and filing for reinsurance on 4-28-03 97 1 benefit structures is a very common, everyday occurrence. 2 But, to use your words, disputed benefits of disputed 3 claims, that's not -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, maybe my terminology is 5 not correct. I think what I'm trying to get to is 6 Commissioner Nicholson's question -- 7 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- about the employer stepping 9 into the breach where, rather than the employee suffering 10 the loss if there is an ultimate determination that it is 11 not a covered expense, which means it's not covered under 12 the plan or under the contract in this case, the employer is 13 suffering that. 14 MR. ROTHWELL: Yes. And -- I'm sorry, go 15 ahead. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And, like Commissioner 17 Nicholson said, that doesn't seem like a normal thing. If 18 the plan covers it, fine. If it doesn't, you're on your 19 own. 20 MR. ROTHWELL: Well, that's what I've said. 21 In response to your direct question, that's not -- on a 22 disputed claims issue, that's not something you would 23 normally do. In our opinion at the time, and in our opinion 24 today, some of those dollars should not be disputed. Some 25 of them are. And I think I made that pretty reasonably 4-28-03 98 1 clear, that we've had a great track record on recovering 2 dollars. If we don't recover the majority of this, it will 3 be the first for us. We run into a 90 to 100 percent 4 bracket virtually always, but we also aren't into the kind 5 of gray area with the kinds of procedures that were done 6 during a very short period of time. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Does that answer your 8 question? Any further questions? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the 10 resolution? 11 MR. ROTHWELL: I suppose the resolution -- 12 we're waiting for the results of this third appeal. 13 Depending on that, and depending on where I can take that in 14 a short period of time afterwards, I guess the resolution 15 would be coming back to this body and saying, "Here's the 16 situation. What do you guys want to do?" 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ray, are we talking 18 about 2003? 2012? 19 MR. ROTHWELL: Well, you know, one of the 20 resolutions to this specific thing that we tried to do last 21 year was to buy a fully insured policy for that specific 22 benefit, but at that time we had someone on the same list, 23 and so there was not a policy purchasable for that, quote, 24 transplant benefit list. Now we're in a position of where, 25 at renewal time, we will be recommending to the County that 4-28-03 99 1 we package with this reinsurance umbrella a fully insured 2 transplant policy. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When is it renewable? 4 MR. ROTHWELL: January 1. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: January 1. Will we 6 know if we're going to get our money back before January 1? 7 MR. ROTHWELL: Oh, yes. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about 9 2003, possibly knowing what the resolution is going to be. 10 Talking about 30 days from now? Or -- 11 MR. ROTHWELL: I'm hoping we'll know 12 something, Commissioner, in 30 days. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In 30 days. 14 MR. ROTHWELL: I mean, I can't guarantee 30 15 days, but I will tell you that we're pushing it very, very 16 hard. And I've got a phone conference -- phone schedule to 17 talk to one of the upper management -- upper echelon 18 management folks with Union Labor hopefully today or 19 tomorrow. He was out last week and the week before. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, 21 Judge, question to the County Auditor. These moneys came 22 from the Indigent Health Care line? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: No, they didn't. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 4-28-03 100 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where'd they come 2 from? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: They -- the funds came from 4 surplus funds out of the -- out of the General Fund. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did you say General 6 Fund? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought they were going 9 to come -- were coming out of Indigent funds. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought so, too. 11 The minutes reflect that. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: At that time, we didn't have 13 the cash to pay $400,000, so we had no choice but to pay it 14 out of -- out of -- we actually -- we wrote the check from 15 the clearing account for -- for claims -- or for the 16 County's portion of our health insurance coverage. It shows 17 up in our balance sheet as receivable right now, is what it 18 amounts to. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this is kind of 20 confusing, because the motion that this Court adopted, made 21 by Commissioner Letz and seconded by Commissioner Baldwin 22 and approved by the Court, was the transfer not to exceed 23 $400,000 from Indigent Health Care budget for purposes of 24 paying the medical reimbursement. So -- 25 MR. TOMLINSON: The -- 4-28-03 101 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Indigent Health Care. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: The funds weren't there. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They weren't there? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: They weren't there. The -- 5 we did not -- we had not collected enough taxes at that 6 point to have the cash available to make a payment from 7 medical -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if that was the 9 case, I think -- and I think we still need to do this. This 10 needs to go back and be corrected, because there's no 11 authority to take the money out of any other fund. I mean, 12 'cause our motion was very -- my motion was very specific, 13 and I think that needs to be -- from an audit standpoint, we 14 need to go back, then, at our next meeting and, you know, 15 change where the money came from. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Why -- why would we have to do 17 that at the next meeting? Now that there -- now that the 18 resources are available, which I assume they are, should not 19 it be corrected and done in accordance with the court order 20 that was passed? I'm -- my question is, do we need to take 21 any further action on it? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there's a way to 23 correct that. We can transfer the -- we would have had to 24 transfer the funds from the General Fund to Indigent Health 25 Care anyway. I mean, that -- and, essentially, that's what 4-28-03 102 1 happened. We just -- we just didn't transfer the money. We 2 would have had to come back to court to get authority to 3 transfer the funds from the General Fund to the Indigent 4 Health Care. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see that. I just -- it 6 just seems to me that I -- one, the Court's order was very 7 -- very specific, so it's got to be corrected to fit what 8 was -- you know, what we were able to do. But the -- and 9 I'm going on memory, 'cause I really didn't read that 10 carefully this part of the minutes, but the reason we did 11 that was to keep from increasing the budget artificially. 12 It appears now we may need to -- it won't be artificially 13 increasing the budget; we will be increasing the budget, 14 possibly. But the reason we took it out of Indigent Health 15 Care was to keep from, in the future years, when we go back 16 and look at the budget, of having a $400,000 blip that 17 really was not a real expenditure item, and I think it -- in 18 my mind, it inflates the budget. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't see the need 20 to -- to change -- to inflate the budget until we know the 21 outcome. I mean, I look at this $400,000 as a -- as a 22 deposit -- as a -- and not as an expenditure until we know 23 the final outcome of the -- you know, the situation. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: However, in the 4-28-03 103 1 meantime, if Indigent Health Care line item is overextended, 2 does that create a problem? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: It would at the end of the 4 year. We'd have -- we'd have to -- we need to -- we either 5 need to have the money back, or increase the budget by the 6 end of the year. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if the money's not 8 coming out of Indigent Health Care, we need to get it on the 9 agenda to fix the court order that was passed. Or -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Either that, or the 11 appropriate -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or take the money out of 13 Indigent Health Care now. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are the only 16 options. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have a -- my balance 18 sheet with me, but I don't think the money's there now, 19 either. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: When this was first brought to 21 my attention, Commissioner, I -- I remembered the $400,000 22 from Indigent Health Care, and as I continued to see the 23 expenditures for Indigent Health Care, I thought we're bound 24 to be out of money, so I called and verified the balance, 25 and we were a long way from being out of money. That's what 4-28-03 104 1 ran up the red flag. That's how we got to where we are 2 today. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't have a 4 problem. I think, clearly, counting it as receivable makes 5 sense. My concern is that we make sure the court order 6 and -- and where the money -- you know, match what was done. 7 Otherwise -- 'cause I have a hard time remembering what 8 happened in December already, much less a year from now when 9 we're trying to figure out what was done. But I'll leave it 10 up -- I'll put it in the Judge's hands, if we need to do 11 anything at the next meeting to adjust the funds. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Guess we'll discuss that as an 13 agenda item, won't we? Any further questions on this 14 matter? Let's move on, then, to the next item, Number 16, 15 consider and discuss Mandated Provider Agreement for 16 physicians, pharmacies, and other agencies providing 17 services to the Indigent Health Care program, and authorize 18 County Judge to sign same. I put this on the agenda because 19 we had a contract come in for -- under the Indigent Health 20 Care program for provider care, and that prompted me to take 21 a look at what we had in the way of contracts in being, and 22 I did find a contract in being for the hospital, but it was 23 wide-open everywhere else. And I think -- and this is going 24 to tie in with the HIPAA thing a little bit later, and 25 probably real strongly in the future, but I -- I think what 4-28-03 105 1 we need is, we need to move forward to work with -- with all 2 of our health care providers under the Indigent Health Care 3 program, whether it be collectively under the hospital and 4 whoever is on staff over there as a provider under their 5 contract, or whether we have separate, individual provider 6 contracts with those persons providing health care services 7 to our Indigent Health Care program, and we need to have 8 those contracts in place. And I guess what I'm seeking is a 9 direction from the Court to work with the County Attorney, 10 as though he didn't have enough things to do already, to 11 work on developing those -- those contracts, and probably 12 ultimately bringing the contracts back to the Court for 13 approval once we -- once we got a stack of them. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I've always 15 seen this a little different. Obviously, I've been 16 mistaken, but I thought that we would simply have a contract 17 with the hospital, and then whatever they're required to 18 do -- I mean, they are the payee of all the -- 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Not always. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not always? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: We pay all kind of vendors in 22 Kerr County for indigent health care; pharmacies, doctors -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This list here in 24 the -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Laboratories. 4-28-03 106 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That we pay? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: There's all sorts of various 3 health care providers. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where do they get the 5 care? I mean, do they -- I'll pick on Dr. Speck; he's on 6 the list. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they go to his office 9 to get this, and it's just on their own? They just decide, 10 well, I'm injured; I don't have any money, and I want to get 11 something done, so I'm going to go see Dr. Speck? How does 12 it work? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: They have to get qualified 14 first. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: By the hospital, or -- 16 MR. TOMLINSON: By our employee. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our employee at the 18 hospital? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're not -- the 21 service they get has nothing to do with the hospital? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And once they get 24 qualified, they can go anywhere they want? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: As long as -- as long as 4-28-03 107 1 there's an agreement with that provider. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we don't have an 3 agreement with that provider right now, so how do they get 4 -- how'd they get the service done? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're operating under 7 custom and practice that's evolved over a period of years. 8 And that's the whole point. I think we need to get these 9 agreements in place. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I -- you know, 11 unless we want to go all the way -- if we have to go to 12 every one of these people and get an agreement, I think it's 13 a total waste of, I mean, their time, the County Attorney's 14 time, our time, clerk's time. And I can't imagine -- and 15 let's go pick on Harris County -- that Harris County 16 Commissioners Court has a contract with every doctor and 17 medical association in Harris County. I -- that isn't true. 18 I know that isn't true. Therefore, we need to find out -- 19 there's got to be a different way to do it other than going 20 to every health provider. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I went to Dr. Speck 22 and got my bill paid. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I went to Dr. Speck 24 and got by bill denied. So -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, just -- 4-28-03 108 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to Dr. 2 Speck. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm with you, Buster. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, I can't 5 imagine that this is how other counties do this. There's 6 got to be some way we can enter into -- some way. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, Commissioner, a lot 8 counties have county hospitals, and when you have a -- when 9 you have a public hospital, you don't have an indigent 10 health care program. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct, too. 12 That is true. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: This whole thing was prompted 14 by my office receiving in the mail from a pharmacy a 15 proposed health care provider contract. Now, what -- what 16 has happened in the past on a lot of -- of doctors is that 17 they've been piggybacked onto the -- the hospital contract, 18 because they are -- they have staff privileges at this 19 hospital, so they pick those up with them under the hospital 20 contract. But, still, as Tommy's indicated, there are a 21 number of other health care providers independent of that; 22 you know, physical therapy services, pharmacies, other 23 clinics -- especially the clinics, labs. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: A lot of them are -- I think 25 some are -- some of the recipients are referred to these 4-28-03 109 1 providers via the hospital, because of -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure they are. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: -- because a lot of them are 4 treated through the hospital's emergency room. A lot of 5 them are. And so, for that reason, they're -- those 6 providers are -- are piggybacking on the hospital's 7 contract. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: There's some -- I'm sorry, go 9 ahead. Ms. Sovil had something. 10 MS. SOVIL: In the early '90's, we had a 11 hospital agreement that had a physician's agreement attached 12 to it. It was two -- it was one contract, but that was 13 inclusive of two things. We had a contract with every 14 pharmacy that was a provider, and the physicians were the 15 ones that could practice at the hospital, unless they were 16 referred by one of those physicians for a specialty. That 17 was the only way they got paid. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the physicians had a 19 contract with the hospital, or physicians had a contract 20 with us? 21 MS. SOVIL: Well, it was a double contract. 22 It was a hospital contract, and then they -- they made their 23 agreement, and then they had what they called a physician's 24 agreement. And it -- those were the physicians that were 25 allowed to practice at this hospital. But I was talking to 4-28-03 110 1 Scott, and they don't do that any more. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Scott? 3 MS. SOVIL: Stehling. He's the attorney for 4 Sid Pete. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Judge, we can cut 6 this short, I think. I'm certainly in favor of you working 7 with the County Attorney and finding the answers to all of 8 these questions and move forward. That's what was asked 9 for. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think that's exactly 11 what I'm asking for. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I'm certainly in 13 favor of it. If you want a court order, I'd even make that 14 motion. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that I need a 16 court order. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that 18 either. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: It's just as much for 20 informational purposes, that we need to go that direction. 21 I think once we have the contracts in place, maybe we'll 22 come back and ask the Court to either approve the contract 23 format, or the specific contracts in a stack or in multiple 24 stacks. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It -- I mean, that's fine 4-28-03 111 1 to do all that, but I'm still going back to the contracts. 2 I mean, so your thinking -- or your plan is to go out and 3 create a contract and send it to every one of these doctors, 4 and then every other doctor that does any work in Kerr 5 County or with any of our patients? And every -- and all 6 that -- I mean, basically, the whole health care industry in 7 Kerr County, we're going to do an annual contract? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think you have to do 9 an annual contract. You can do a contract, put it in place, 10 and have it -- have it on automatic renewal unless canceled, 11 which is a -- like a number of agreements that we have now. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Commissioner, one reason you 13 need -- you need a contract with the individual providers is 14 that you need -- you want to make it clear that -- that the 15 provider agrees to accept the fee that's -- that's provided 16 by the State. In other words, the State Indigent Health 17 Care program allows specific amounts for specific drugs, 18 specific procedures that the health care industry provides. 19 They get no more or no less than that amount. And, so -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's not what they 21 bill. It's what the State says -- 22 MR. TOMLINSON: They can bill whatever they 23 want, but they only get that dollar amount. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Kind of like Medicare. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see a benefit to this 4-28-03 112 1 now. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: And so they -- you know, so 3 the provider needs to go into it knowing that that's the 4 case. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, could 7 we -- perhaps we should contact the Texas Association of 8 Counties and see if they've already raised an answer to the 9 question you've got. I'm thinking like you are; I don't 10 think Harris County does it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: May have been. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe TAC has got a 13 solution. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That certainly would be a 15 consideration of the County Attorney and I as we pursue this 16 question, I'm sure. You know, I don't think he or I, either 17 one, have a desire to reinvent the wheel if it's not 18 necessary. Anything further on that item? Next item, 19 consider and discuss compliance with HIPAA privacy rules by 20 adopting policies and procedures regarding protected health 21 information and authorizing the Judge to sign -- execute 22 agreements of compliance. HIPAA just came down the pike; it 23 was effective two weeks ago, I believe. It applies -- it's 24 a federal bugaboo that controls a lot of health information 25 dissemination, the means of it, and if we fall under any of 4-28-03 113 1 the categories that the act applies to, we are obliged to 2 adopt the policies and procedures to see that we comply with 3 the act. At this point, as extensive as the act is, and -- 4 and there's some of the literature in front of you, I think 5 one possibility will be that we -- we designate a HIPAA 6 committee to work on this subject, and in doing that, I 7 would like to have a resource as to whomever that committee 8 might consist of. I don't necessarily mean this 9 Commissioners -- all the Commissioners, but as resources, 10 our -- our third party administrator and -- and other 11 insurance representatives in connection with the health care 12 programs. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a great 14 idea, Judge. I just had this flash in my mind; I could hear 15 me telling my grandkids, "Hey, I'm on the HIPAA committee," 16 you know. And it's just -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a volunteer? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. But what -- are 19 we going to appoint a committee today? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That's an option. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do it. You 22 know, we're talking about the Treasurer. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's a logical 24 choice. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Treasurer would be 4-28-03 114 1 -- thank you for volunteering; you're a great servant to the 2 community. And who else was it? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Employee Benefit 6 Administrators. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I would definitely want, 8 at least as a resource to this committee, our third party 9 administrator and -- and an insurance representative to be 10 available. I assume they're probably -- they're a little 11 bit more up to speed on this stuff than we are. They've 12 been getting ready for a whole lot longer than we have. 13 MR. MOTLEY: This is something that TAC also 14 robably has some current information on with this amendment, 15 or this amended HIPAA deal. Isn't it -- this is kind of a 16 newer one or more stringent one than the old one. Or are 17 they expanding the coverage or something with this one? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: This is the new one that came 19 down the pike effective -- effective April 14th this year, 20 and there are some phase-in periods, depending upon which 21 manner it applies to you. It can apply to you two or three 22 different ways; health plan -- whether you're a health care 23 provider, all sorts of different ways they can run at you. 24 MR. MOTLEY: I'll check with TAC. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And that has some 4-28-03 115 1 determination as to when you've got to have everything in 2 place. There's also a suggestion that maybe anybody that 3 deals in any of this medical information, you might have to 4 have some training sessions to go on. It's a big 5 brother-bugger. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, we received a HIPAA 7 agreement from our Indigent Health Care third party 8 administrator. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Have we -- have we negotiated 11 that yet? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that certainly would 13 fall under what we got here. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's what brought 15 it all to light. That is what brought it all to light. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: One of the things. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: That contract is already 18 available to be approved. I just remembered receiving that 19 from -- from our administrator. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think that's -- that's 21 necessarily the end of what we got to do on that. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am? 24 MS. NEMEC: Judge, also, the HIPAA part that 25 concerns my office, we're pretty much in compliance with 4-28-03 116 1 everything already. I do have to send a privacy notice on 2 it to the employees that we're in the process of doing now, 3 and our third-party administrators are sending us an 4 agreement for you to sign. And our computer doesn't have 5 any codes that we would need to delete or modify for the 6 records to be private. We're already in compliance with 7 that. Now, the jail, the Sheriff's Department, I think 8 they're probably going to have to do something in regards to 9 this. But we're kind of -- we've kind of taken care of it 10 on our end already, and we'll just put it on the agenda for 11 you to sign the agreement next time around, if that's okay. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm tickled to death to know 13 that you -- you guys are much further along on this thing 14 than -- than I had any idea you were, and I -- I appreciate 15 that. You know, we got this stuff right after the last 16 meeting of the court, this alert from Texas Association of 17 Counties, and it was like the federal privacy police were 18 going to be down here banging our door down any minute. And 19 I appreciate your work. 20 MS. NEMEC: As far as health insurance for 21 employees, we're in compliance. But, you know, as far as 22 the providers for indigent and all that, I don't -- I don't 23 know where that is. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Rothwell? 25 MR. ROTHWELL: I'll make a comment that the 4-28-03 117 1 position we've taken -- and most TPA's, through the -- 2 through the various literatures, of course, that we get, 3 most TPA's have decided that we're going to contract with 4 all of our providers -- I'm sorry, all of our vendors, our 5 reinsurance carriers, our utilization review companies, all 6 of those kind of things, and our clients, but we're not 7 going to contract down to the -- excuse me, down to the 8 agent level. Some have made that decision, but most 9 haven't. Because all it says to us is, we don't give, in 10 this case, Finley and Associates any kind of medical 11 information that they don't have a release from that 12 individual for. And, so, once they get that release that 13 says we can tell them what's wrong with Ray Rothwell, then 14 we are then in compliance, and they are also. 15 As far as the County, we don't send any -- we 16 send sensitive information, but not confidential 17 information, per the HIPAA regs, to the Treasurer's office. 18 And, to date, we've not been asked for any sensitive and any 19 confidential information from the Treasurer's office. And 20 none of the reports we send -- nothing that we send to the 21 County violates HIPAA. She's got to be in compliance with 22 HIPAA from the privacy confidentiality with her -- within 23 her office and her filing system, and her computer system 24 most especially, as of the 16th of the month. But, 25 generally, unless you get really nosy and want too much 4-28-03 118 1 information, stuff you really shouldn't have anyway 2 regarding an individual, there's -- the HIPAA compliance is 3 pretty general. It's really a confidentiality statement, is 4 basically what it boils down to, dealing with medical 5 information. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I just want to insure -- 7 MR. ROTHWELL: Yeah. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that if there is any 9 application of HIPAA -- 10 MR. ROTHWELL: I agree with you. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to this county, that we're 12 in compliance, so we don't have our big-brother privacy 13 police come in. 14 MR. ROTHWELL: You might be more sensitive in 15 the -- in the issue y'all were talking about with Tommy a 16 few minutes ago in the provider community there. I don't 17 have a clue what kind of information comes from that 18 community back in here to pay a claim, or if that's done by 19 a third party administrator, and you don't get that 20 information from that source either. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the Indigent 22 Health Care you're speaking of. 23 MR. ROTHWELL: Right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And I think that comes from a 25 third party administrator also, doesn't it? 4-28-03 119 1 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. We have a 2 contract within this building somewhere, yeah. 3 MR. ROTHWELL: And then, if you had a 4 confidential HIPAA partnership agreement with them, I would 5 have a sense that you're probably covered from that. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have a need to know 8 that information. They -- they process that. 9 MR. ROTHWELL: That's right. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Let them worry about the 11 compliance. We never get the information, would be the way 12 to handle that one. 13 MR. ROTHWELL: That's true. And that would 14 be my -- I don't really understand how that works. It works 15 something similar to my system, I'm sure. So -- so, I would 16 -- but I think it's something that, certainly, as 17 Commissioner Letz says, y'all need to be totally aware of. 18 You need to make sure you're not, but once you get those 19 partnership agreements in place and with the administrator 20 of those areas, like our relationship with the Treasurer's 21 office, those relationships have never, ever once, to my 22 knowledge, crossed into a personal medical information-type 23 thing. And that's really what you want to avoid. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, you may want to -- 4-28-03 120 1 or is there a need to involve somebody from the Sheriff's 2 Department? Because of the responsibility that the County 3 has with inmate health care, especially on the indigent 4 side. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got the County 6 Attorney on this list. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't that close 9 enough? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's an area that we 11 probably have the most vulnerability or exposure to 12 people -- to the jail population for any kind of lawsuit, I 13 mean, for them to claim we don't do something right. I just 14 want to make sure that they're in the loop, because that's 15 probably the area that we would have our biggest problem 16 with. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Barbara made 18 reference to the Sheriff's Department being something that 19 is not up to the same speed as the rest of our compliance. 20 Is that what you were referring to? 21 MS. NEMEC: Well, I don't know if they have 22 done anything or not. I know Tommy had asked the question 23 if they did fall into the HIPAA regulations, and a couple of 24 weeks ago I went to school, and they said that definitely 25 they do, because they dispense medication. 4-28-03 121 1 JUDGE TINLEY: They're a provider. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway -- and the 3 County Attorney may be able to handle that part of it as to 4 what needs to be done out there. I just don't know. 5 MR. MOTLEY: I think probably -- I think 6 they're on it, and, you know, we do have a County, at least, 7 contract physician who goes out and treats individuals out 8 there in the jail, whether they be indigent health care or 9 not. You know, and I assume that they're probably looking 10 at some sort of deal where they provide these HIPAA warnings 11 or whatever, notification disclosures to them, you know. 12 This -- this jail, on behalf of that doctor, is going to 13 probably provide that, and the nurse -- I don't know what 14 the nurse does with the information that she -- you know, 15 she puts it in a file, but I think the nurse is probably 16 going to have to -- it may be just a joint disclosure for 17 the nurse and kind of the physician that needs to be given 18 to those persons who are incarcerated who need medical care. 19 I suspect that Rusty -- I wish James were still here; I bet 20 he could tell us where they are on that, but I'll bet you 21 that they're pretty far along on it. I'll be happy to check 22 and let Commissioner Letz know, or whatever y'all would 23 like. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the question was, 25 Commissioner Baldwin was -- was making his little list over 4-28-03 122 1 here. I think he was considering putting a Sheriff's 2 Department representative down there, and I think it's a 3 good point. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 6 on the list. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I assume you have a -- 6 you have a motion that you're getting all stirred up, ready 7 to go? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm pretty exited 9 about it. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I thought you were. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Before your motion, 12 just one more observation. This -- this document that you 13 provided us, Judge, from Texas Association of Counties -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- Page 4 and 5 have 16 17 points, and I've noted that most of them says the 17 County -- the County may wish to do things, and then three 18 of them -- four of them say the County must or County 19 should. And it occurs to me -- just three of them, three 20 points, we must do or should do something. It occurs to me 21 that between the Personnel officer, the County Treasurer, 22 and the Sheriff, these "must do" or "should do" things could 23 be taken care of pretty easily. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I hope you're right. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As I've gone around 4-28-03 123 1 the medical community the last two weeks, I -- well, with my 2 mother, I think she must have signed about five of those 3 privacy -- I've read and received the Privacy Act thing, so 4 that's going to be a -- some activity like that that we're 5 going to have to undertake. But -- 6 MR. MOTLEY: Judge, the Auditor mentioned to 7 me -- and I have not looked at the HIPAA regulation or the 8 definition of persons who would be entitled to these 9 disclosures, but Tommy says he believes there's something in 10 there that excludes prisoners; they may not be persons 11 entitled to these warnings. So, I mean, that may well be. 12 I have not looked at it, so it may be that that will cut 13 down the Sheriff's workload substantially. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we need the answer to 15 that question. 16 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. I haven't looked at it. 17 I don't know. You know, I'm sure it's a big, old, thick 18 thing that's too long to read. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now your motion, 20 Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. I move that we 22 appoint a HIPAA committee to deal with the HIPAA privacy 23 rule, and to provide -- I guess provide this Commissioners 24 Court with a set of policies and procedures regarding the 25 protected health information agreements, and execute the 4-28-03 124 1 agreements of compliance. And I have a small list of folks 2 here I'd like to just throw out. It would include the 3 County Treasurer and Mr. Rothwell, as our third-party, and 4 someone from Mr. Finley's office, the County Attorney, the 5 County Judge, and someone from the Sheriff's Office to be 6 that committee. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second the motion. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second 9 by Commissioners Baldwin and Letz -- and Williams, 10 respectively, that we appoint a HIPAA committee, with the 11 representatives as designated by Commissioner Baldwin to 12 review and -- and prepare policies and procedures for 13 presentation to this Court as may be required by the HIPAA 14 privacy rules. Does that fairly state the motion, 15 Commissioner Baldwin? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, it does. 17 Thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? If 19 not, all in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can go all over 25 town bragging that you're on the HIPAA committee. 4-28-03 125 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, you were wanting 2 to tell your grandchildren. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to tell them 4 that anyway. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I see, thank you. An 6 ex-officio member as having made the motion. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be "hippo" instead 8 of "HIPAA." 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, that did it. 10 Judge, are we going to work on through? If we are, let's 11 just take our time, 'cause a couple of these issues I want 12 to take our time with. I don't want to just -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to go eat. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd rather do General 15 Schellhase and then come back. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Me too. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You want to do the -- 18 the addendum item right quick and then come on back? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or we can make him 20 come back later. Doesn't bother me at all one way or the 21 other. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: May be one of the few times, 23 with the high rank that you obtained, that you're able to 24 have him at your beck and call, as opposed to vice-versa, 25 right? 4-28-03 126 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's bring him back 2 this afternoon. That feels good. No, I'm just joking. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we at least know the 4 feeling. That's right. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Know the way it feels. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Without objection, then, we 7 will move to the addendum item that's before us. Let me get 8 to that little rascal here. Yeah. Consider and discuss the 9 request that -- that the Court approve making application to 10 L.C.R.A. for a grant of $20,000 to install underground 11 wiring on the courthouse in accordance with the schematic 12 furnished with the item. General Schellhase. 13 MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water 14 Street, Kerrville. Thank you, Judge, for getting this on 15 the agenda at a late date. The group of community 16 participants is requesting the Court to allow us to make an 17 application to L.C.R.A. for a grant to do underground wiring 18 at the courthouse. This, of course, stemmed from -- 19 beginning with the Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation. 20 As you recall, maybe a few months back, our agenda called 21 for that and we presented you with a program which we would 22 like to do, which y'all signed off on. We've been unable to 23 raise those funds for that, so we got together with all the 24 other participants that are involved in the courthouse. As 25 you know, it's -- courthouse grounds are used extensively 4-28-03 127 1 now throughout the year. We have a Saturday market day 2 function now that requires electrical outlets. We have the 3 courthouse step auctions that could probably use more 4 electricity. We do the Memorial Day function. We do the -- 5 of course, the holiday lighting season. We have a patriotic 6 music program that's conducted, the observance of Veteran's 7 Day, Flag Day, and Memorial Day. All those activities take 8 place and, you know, require electricity at the courthouse. 9 What we would like to do for all these groups 10 is do the underground wiring once and for all that would 11 provide the needs for the courthouse lighting and any other 12 functions on the courthouse grounds. We would like to apply 13 for a $20,000 grant. We now have in our possession $5,000 14 as a matching amount for that program, and request the Court 15 to allow us to proceed with that application. We have made 16 a preliminary drawing for the electrical outlets needed to 17 be for all the services that we just discussed or just 18 presented. And the first step would to be do this by phases 19 as outlined in the application. Questions? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does this mean all the 21 lights and wires hanging from the trees will disappear? 22 MR. SCHELLHASE: Never. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the extension 24 cords will. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mean the lights 4-28-03 128 1 hanging; I mean the -- the plugs, I should say. 2 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes. Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the plugs will 4 disappear, not the lights. I know the lights won't 5 disappear. 6 MR. SCHELLHASE: All those that are out in 7 the yard, and you just wonder what they're doing there. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a great 9 deal. 10 MR. SCHELLHASE: The big issue always has 11 been safety with all of these that we have. The market day 12 that we do on Saturday, we have a lot of extension cords 13 running around. The Memorial Day and Veteran's Day service, 14 we always run a lot of extension cords. There was a lot of 15 people involved -- and, of course, the holiday lighting, we 16 have an extensive number of extension cords, and that would 17 be the primary purpose to create a more safe environment. 18 As you know, the -- the bank function at Christmastime 19 brings probably 1,500, 2,000 people to this courthouse 20 square, and you do not need all of the exposure that we have 21 now. So that's the primary purpose of it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea. 23 I make a motion to authorize -- who's doing the grant? 24 MR. SCHELLHASE: The Court. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The County would make 4-28-03 129 1 application. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll make a motion 3 to authorize the County to make grant application as 4 presented. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Do y'all want to flip a coin 8 or what? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll take it. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Break the tie. Motion's been 11 made and seconded by Commissioners Letz and Williams, 12 respectively, that -- that the Court make a grant 13 application to L.C.R.A. for courthouse exterior lighting in 14 accordance with the information provided on the agenda item. 15 All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 20 MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: General? Were you going to 24 redo this portion we talked about? 25 MR. SCHELLHASE: As we discussed, yes. 4-28-03 130 1 JUDGE TINLEY: And get it back to me so that 2 -- okay, yes. 3 MR. SCHELLHASE: Our deadline is April 31st 4 (sic), so it will be back tomorrow. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What's the pleasure of 6 the Court? Everybody wants to go to lunch? Is that it? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess until 10 1:30. 11 (Recess taken from 12:10 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I will call back to 14 order the Commissioners Court meeting for Monday, 15 April 28th. When we were here last before lunch, we had, I 16 think, left remaining, beginning at Item Number 18, consider 17 and discuss adoption of State Travel Allowance Guide, 18 published by the Comptroller of Public Accounts for per diem 19 allowances or reimbursement of expenses for Kerr County 20 elected officials and employees going out of county on 21 official business. I put this on the agenda as a means of 22 hopefully coming up with something that's, number one, 23 uniform; number two, recognized. Number three, for planning 24 and budgeting purposes, I think it makes things easier, more 25 predictable. And also, we had a -- we've had a problem in 4-28-03 131 1 past years where employees going on County business have 2 been put in a position of -- because of not having credit 3 cards, which may or may not be a good idea -- that's a whole 4 'nother issue, but they were put in a position, because 5 of -- of how they were reimbursed, that they were, in 6 essence, financing their own situation, and then relying 7 upon reimbursement when they got back from whatever their 8 official business was. And I'm not sure that was fair to 9 those employees. If there was a procedure whereby they 10 could -- if there were a definite per diem amount that they 11 could draw in advance, it might make things a little bit 12 easier on them, and I just thought -- thought it would be a 13 good, uniform way to handle it, rather than having each 14 department just kind of helter-skelter, scattered hither, 15 thither, and yon. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, do you or 17 anybody have an idea about whether or not we would spend 18 more for travel expenses under the per diem plan or less 19 than we -- than the way we do it? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: So far as having done a 21 statistical survey, no, I haven't. My sense is -- is that 22 we would probably end up spending less. The Auditor might 23 be able to give us, just off the top of his shoulder, an 24 idea. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if you cap -- 4-28-03 132 1 there's an incentive to be frugal if you cap it at a per 2 diem amount. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Unless you want to 5 spend your own money. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: And we're all -- you know, 7 we'll always have the option to do that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would be -- I would -- 9 I bet anything it isn't going to be very different. I mean, 10 'cause I look at those per diems, and what I think the -- 11 you know, hotel rates are pretty much set. Usually, going 12 to a convention or school, there's a discounted rate; it's 13 going to be within that amount. And the per diem they have 14 for meals, I just don't think most of our employees are 15 eating more than that. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do, too. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: $30 a day. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, $30 a day. I don't 19 think that we're spending $30 a day on average for 20 employees. I don't think I -- I have -- you know, I may eat 21 a -- you know, a meal, like, in -- a good example is in 22 Dallas, I ate one meal that was higher than the limit here, 23 but I didn't put more than -- I just, on my own, reduced how 24 much I billed for the County, 'cause I don't think it's 25 right to bill, you know, for me to go to a nicer restaurant. 4-28-03 133 1 That's my choice. I just don't think they're doing it. I 2 bet our County employees, on average, aren't spending more 3 than $15 a day on food. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like the idea. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, I don't mind 6 doing it, but I don't think it's going to save us any money. 7 I think it's a good rule, but it's not -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a sense of that, 9 Tommy? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: No, I really don't. 11 There's -- on the average, I mean, there's -- there's a lot 12 of people that -- you know, there's a lot of day trips; you 13 know, you only have one. And then there's cases where -- 14 where you go to a place and maybe one meal is furnished, 15 or -- so it's -- it's kind of hard to -- I would say that -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not certain how 17 this -- how this plan works to mitigate against the point 18 you made about the employees having to fund their County 19 business in advance, except that they could draw down a per 20 diem. That doesn't take -- and travel and hotel; both of 21 those are larger than the per diem. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Granted, they wouldn't get 23 reimbursed for the travel. Now, their -- their travel would 24 be based on state mileage tables, so, you know, there's 25 uniform -- uniformity to that. The -- the aspect of the 4-28-03 134 1 hotel, we still have that problem about securing 2 reservations because of no credit cards. Virtually all 3 these hotels either want prepayment or they want it to be 4 secured by credit card. Now, in a lot of cases where -- 5 where there is a conference or something that's scheduled 6 several months in advance, there will be checks sent in for 7 the lodging and the registration in advance. But, you're 8 right, it doesn't solve the entire problem. We still have 9 the problem in those cases where -- for example, the lodging 10 issue. But it -- it puts somebody -- it puts everybody 11 on -- on the same footing. There's no -- no favoritism 12 shown to the guy on the top or the guy on the bottom or 13 anybody in between. We're all in this thing together. And 14 I think -- I think, probably, the people at the State have 15 looked at these things enough over the years that they're 16 convinced it's the right way to do business. And for 17 planning purposes, I think it will help us, too. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wonder how the 19 employees would feel about it. Have you got any feel for 20 it, Paula? 21 MS. RECTOR: How we feel about -- 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we switch to this 23 per diem route, as opposed to actual expense reimbursement. 24 Would employees welcome that change, or -- 25 MS. RECTOR: I don't think, in my case, it 4-28-03 135 1 would be a problem, because, like you say, we don't eat $30 2 a day. But -- I've been here a lot of years, and I'm the 3 one with the credit card that has to give my personal credit 4 card to my employee to take, so that's -- we -- I have one 5 credit card I designate for just that. But I'm still 6 ultimately responsible for it, so they're good enough to 7 bring me all the receipts, turn it in, get the reimbursement 8 to pay my credit card back. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under this plan, I mean, 10 so you get the money even if you don't use it? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per diem. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: You just draw that per diem. 14 MS. RECTOR: As far as meals, I think if 15 they're going to get a per diem in advance, then they need 16 to submit some receipts afterwards and then give that money 17 back, 'cause that's coming out of our conference line items. 18 And it's not for them to put in their pocket if they don't 19 eat $30. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not the way the 21 State does it. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per diem is per day. 23 MS. RECTOR: Yeah, they keep it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We give you per diem, and 25 if -- you know, if you want to eat cheese and crackers, 4-28-03 136 1 that's up to you. If you -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sardines. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sardines and crackers. 5 MS. RECTOR: Sardines and crackers. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Sardines and sweet onion and 7 crackers. Like the oil patch, huh? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm getting excited. 9 I love it when you talk that way. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When I was in the 11 oil patch, we had a policy like this where some -- not all, 12 but some assignments, like short-term, temporary 13 assignments, were per diem, and the reason we did it was 14 it's simple and it saved money, so it encouraged us to stay 15 -- spend less on per diem. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the simplicity of 17 it. I like that Tommy's office doesn't have to go through 18 all these little receipts, and they just need to put -- 19 employees, too. I mean, if you -- if an employee forgets 20 to, you know, pick up a receipt or forgets to get the 21 receipt or something, all of sudden they lose money. This 22 way, they don't have to worry about it. They get -- I mean, 23 I think it's simpler for both the County and the employee. 24 I just don't think it's going to be a whole lot of net -- I 25 don't think it will be much change, dollar-wise. 4-28-03 137 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the key to the 2 thing is the actual -- the ability to plan a little bit 3 better and budget for it. I can see how that works. I 4 don't like the thought of you telling me that I can't rent a 5 car. You know, if I -- if we fly into Dallas and -- I mean, 6 how are you going to get around, get somewhere? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: You would be reimbursed for 8 your travel costs while you're there. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it sayeth 10 here -- "sayeth" is Old Testament talk. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Reimbursement for 13 rental cars is not authorized. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. It says that on 15 the reimbursement form? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The travel voucher. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. I'm -- I'm not 18 sure that the rule is that -- the rules that the State has 19 are not that hard and fast. I think what it's not saying 20 there is that if you catch the -- a taxi or an airport limo, 21 you're entitled to get reimbursed for that. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would hope so, yeah. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: And in some -- in some cases, 24 I suspect, under the rules, on close examination, there's 25 probably some cases where you can get a rental car, if your 4-28-03 138 1 activities there and -- and the amount of movement you're 2 going to have to make are such that the cost to get a rental 3 car would be considerably less than it would be for doing 4 all this taxiing and other public transportation around. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I never have rented a 6 car on one of our trips, but you definitely have to -- you 7 have to travel one way or another, taxicab or -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- otherwise. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You've got to at least get 11 from -- if you're flying in, from the airport to your 12 destination at the hotel or conference center or something 13 like that, yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One place this talks 15 about $70 a day for a hotel, and another place it talks 16 about $80. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Current rate is $80. Most of 18 your -- most of your conferences where there's any 19 involvement with government employees, believe me, they stay 20 up with these rates, and when they negotiate the -- the 21 block contract rate, they generally peg it at that. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $79.95. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what about the 24 tax aspect on top of the room rate? How is that handled? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the tax is -- you're 4-28-03 139 1 entitled to receive the tax in addition to -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be an 3 incidental expense, just like parking would be an 4 incidental? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think they're talking 6 about $80 is -- is the base rate, the room rate. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what do we need to 8 do? Do we want to adopt it for next budget year? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I would -- I would like to, I 10 would think beginning October 1, put it in place for the 11 next budget year. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But adopt it now, so that 13 during the budget process, this -- this format is used. 14 MS. SOVIL: Make it effective October 1 -- 15 adopt it effective October 1. 16 MS. RECTOR: But if we choose to go ahead and 17 pay for it on our credit card and be reimbursed, we can 18 still do that? We don't have to do the advance per diem? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: No, you don't have to do the 20 advance, but you'll be limited as to the -- the -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amount. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the same amount. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be a per diem 24 reimbursement either way. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ceiling amount could 4-28-03 140 1 be interpreted two ways. You'll get the per diem no matter 2 what you spend. Spend more, you need it; spend less, you 3 keep it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. You don't 5 submit any receipts for that. You don't have to keep up 6 with that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it would limit -- 8 under that system, it would limit the use of your credit 9 card. In other words, meals would no longer -- 10 MS. RECTOR: Sometimes we may have something 11 come up, like Plano had a school for some stuff in taxes. 12 It was, like, two weeks notice, so we got two of my people 13 in, sent them up there. There was no time, because -- to 14 get -- no time to get it in advance on that prior to them 15 going. 16 MS. SOVIL: That brings up the discussion you 17 and I had, Judge, about the Treasurer maybe keeping a $1,000 18 fund so that it could be drawn upon in cases just like that. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I was going to get to 20 that. What -- what I would see implementing in connection 21 with this, to handle this per diem thing, would be a -- some 22 segregated amount or account, probably, whereby if you were 23 going to go send your two girls, for example, on that and 24 you wanted to go ahead and draw down their per diem, you 25 would be in a position to do that out of this account. Then 4-28-03 141 1 they could charge back to your travel line item or whatever 2 and replenish that account, so we can keep that account 3 where it's available for use to do these per diem advances, 4 for example. 5 MS. RECTOR: I would like for some of the 6 other elected officials to be here to discuss this, too. 7 Not just me. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to say you 9 wanted it like this. 10 MS. RECTOR: No. No. You know, I think it's 11 fine just the way it is. I don't mind using my credit card. 12 I mean, it's -- I don't have a problem with it. And I know 13 it's come up in the past about that, because some of them 14 don't have -- some other elected officials don't use credit 15 cards, so when their people go, they have to get the actual 16 cash, give it to their employees for their meals and their 17 gas and that type thing. But -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, this doesn't solve 19 any of that problem. All this does -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't solve all of it. It 21 will solve some of it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It doesn't solve the 24 problem, either, that Commissioner Baldwin made reference to 25 a couple weeks ago, where, for example, we went to Fort 4-28-03 142 1 Worth to obtain what we thought would be the bulk of our 2 hours we're obligated to do. We ended up, the most we could 3 get was 12. Right, Buster? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That particular trip 6 was 12, still leaving us short, which means that we've got 7 to find another seminar someplace, go to that and do that 8 all over again. So, it doesn't deal with that at all. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just deals with what 11 you're going to get if you do it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we still have to 14 deal with, in budget time, how many conferences we're going 15 to go to. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So forth and so on. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- yeah, and 19 that point is, that's just really a budget item that we're 20 going to -- I think we made some mistakes last year in the 21 budget when we made some, basically, arbitrary cuts on 22 the -- on the conference line item. We just can't do that. 23 I mean, you've got to -- everyone's going to have to budget 24 what they -- looking at state law, what you're required to 25 get, and the County's got to fund that. You know, that's 4-28-03 143 1 just not -- that's just going to have to be the way it is. 2 I think, from a budget standpoint, this process makes it 3 easier, 'cause you figure, okay, you're going to be -- each 4 Commissioner's going to be gone for three days, four days to 5 get that many hours, and it's going to take this much money 6 for each day, plus the registration fees. And I think 7 that's relatively easy to do that for most of the schools. 8 I mean -- 9 MS. RECTOR: Well, if you have a place that 10 you're going -- you say that the State rate is $80 per 11 night, plus your tax and their local tax that they charge. 12 What if it happens to be more? You only get the $80. The 13 rest comes outs of your pocket? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That's right. That's exactly 15 right. 16 MS. RECTOR: I don't think that's fair. 17 Because if they block them in their -- they may be $90 a 18 night, and you're staying four nights, so the extra $10 a 19 night's going to come out of your pocket? I don't agree 20 with that. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're making 22 a good point. 23 MS. RECTOR: I don't agree with that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In Austin, Texas 25 right now is a good example. There's not a way in the 4-28-03 144 1 world -- that's okay for the State to do this, but if you 2 were going to go up there right now for any purpose of State 3 business or County business, I challenge to you find an 4 $80-a-night room. You won't find it. 5 MS. RECTOR: Unless it's blocked prior to a 6 convention or conference coming in, like they block it for 7 us. But sometimes when we go to things that -- where 8 they're not blocked, we have to pay the normal rate, and it 9 may be $110 a night. And you're only going to be gone one 10 or two nights, but if you're only saying I'm only allowed 11 $80, and I've got to go off-site and find a Motel 6 to stay 12 in so I don't pay the fees the hotels are charging, I don't 13 think that's fair. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Paula makes a 15 good point. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I said I think Paula 18 makes a good point. If we were to adopt this, there's no 19 reason why we can't adopt a basic plan and have some 20 exceptions of our own as part of the plan. That happens to 21 be one of them. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my thinking is that if 23 there's anybody that's going to be going to Austin, Texas, 24 that's State employees, and -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're already 4-28-03 145 1 there, Judge. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's a lot of them 3 that come from out there, and I can assure you, they've got 4 to live with this plan, and -- 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to hear 6 more input from other employees, elected officials, 7 department heads. 8 MS. RECTOR: I agree. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I kind of like the 10 idea. I do like it. But if it's going to cost people money 11 or it's going to upset people, then maybe it's not worth 12 doing. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could always adopt 14 the -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have more input. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could adopt the per 17 diem. The per diem part is the part that I really like, 18 because it is simpler for both the employees and for the 19 County. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, Tommy's nodding 22 his head, 'cause I know -- I mean, I think Mindy, the other 23 day I was down there, was saying it would simplify their 24 life if they didn't have to worry about all these little 25 meal tickets, trying to figure out what's what on them and, 4-28-03 146 1 you know -- 2 MS. RECTOR: Well, I agree with that. I 3 think that would simplify it. But it can't be as 4 cut-and-dried as, You're getting "X" amount of dollars for 5 all these things, and that's it. Anything above that -- you 6 know, meals, if you go over what you're allowed, then that's 7 out of your pocket; I agree with that, yes. But I think 8 hotel accommodations might be something that needs to be a 9 little more flexible, 'cause your mileage is all that's set. 10 You know, how many miles it is to and from and what the 11 state mileage pays. That's another set thing, just like 12 your meals, but -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only difference here 14 is they're talking about using the Comptroller's -- I guess, 15 the mileage book. You no longer have to keep track of your 16 mileage. If you go to Austin, you're getting -- from 17 Kerrville, you get paid whatever that book says that 18 distance is. 19 MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is -- we used to do 21 that. 22 MS. RECTOR: There's a mileage guide -- we 23 get on the internet and use the mileage guide. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: You can -- I mean, on the 25 hotel thing, if you -- I mean, if you search and find a 4-28-03 147 1 place that falls within that -- those dollars, your -- you 2 might eat up the difference in mileage. I mean, I know 3 I've -- I've had -- I found a place out close to -- to Ben 4 White Boulevard. My conference was at the University of 5 Texas. Well, the time -- you know, I made six trips from my 6 motel to the campus. My mileage almost -- well, probably 7 the difference between what I paid for the hotel and what I 8 would have paid if I'd stayed at the conference -- at the 9 conference -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point. 11 MS. RECTOR: I much prefer staying at the 12 host hotel and not having to get out and drive, for some of 13 us who don't like to drive in the city. Like, we're going 14 to Houston for our annual conference. I don't drive in 15 Houston, sorry. I'm staying in that hotel and I'm not 16 leaving it. But if I had to stay somewhere cheaper and 17 drive in, you can guarantee that I'm not going to go, 'cause 18 I just -- I don't do it. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're right. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we necessarily have 21 to adopt these documents? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like -- as an example, 24 like, on the lodging, it says up to $80 a day. Could we 25 change that $80 to $100, and -- or $81.50 or whatever the 4-28-03 148 1 number might be? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. You can do anything you 3 want. I -- I'm hoping to get some sort of a planning tool 4 and something that will help -- help the administrative 5 aspect of it, because that can be a problem. And also 6 something that can be utilized with some degree of 7 effectiveness in prefunding some of these employees so that 8 they're not financing what's our obligation out of their 9 pocket. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And if that means merely 12 adopting a per diem for meals, or if that means adopting per 13 diem for meals and whatever the actual -- per receipt on 14 hotels, or if that means adopting a per diem for meals 15 and an allowance for lodging of whatever amount you decide, 16 you know, it's wide-open. You can kind of roll your own any 17 way you want to. But I was looking to try and get -- I 18 think the meals part is probably the most difficult part of 19 it, because, administratively, it's a big hassle for the 20 Auditor's office. Employees tend to get penalized because 21 some of them fail to ask for receipts, or they're lost, 22 and -- and when it's on that kind of a reimbursement basis, 23 they're reluctant to go get a draw for their per diem. It's 24 mainly the per diem aspect that I have the most concern 25 about. 4-28-03 149 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per diem and mileage, 2 I don't have a problem with. I think we have to deal with 3 the hotels, and I think I agree with Commissioner Nicholson; 4 we need to hear from other department heads and elected 5 officials. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: If that's the sense of the 7 Court, that's -- you know, let's just kind of hang it on the 8 hook and -- and pass the word, and we'll get it on the 9 agenda again. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: With this receipt business, 11 some -- sometimes my people are -- are forced into making 12 calls about whether or not they -- they pay the bill or not, 13 and especially if there's -- you know, there's a spouse 14 involved or -- and the person doesn't take the -- take the 15 spouse out of the ticket. And, I mean, it's just -- it 16 would be very helpful not to have to worry about those 17 things. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: That's on the meals aspect, 19 you're talking about? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have that much of a 22 problem with the -- with the hotel? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause generally the 25 single/double rate's the same anyway, normally. 4-28-03 150 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hotels -- and even under 3 these guidelines, you need a receipt for the hotel, so it 4 would be pretty easy to adopt the mileage and per diem, and 5 leave the rest of it kind of the way it is. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 MS. SOVIL: Could you just word that, "as 8 receipted" on the hotel? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is right now. You 10 just put out the maximum -- you delete the maximum rate and 11 just say -- 12 MS. SOVIL: Right, as receipted. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A receipt's required, as 14 it's written. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about setting up 16 that separate fund, that $1,000 fund to draw from? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure that's the right 18 amount, but I -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not either, but I 20 think that's what was thrown out. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: We've got several 22 opportunities to work on that if we're trying to plan for 23 the ensuing fiscal year. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We -- we always -- 25 Paula threw out something there that I think is kind of 4-28-03 151 1 rare, though, that -- that they would notify you from Plano 2 and say there's a meeting coming up, and -- 3 MS. RECTOR: No, they don't notify me -- 4 well, we get a little brochure in the mail. I start 5 looking; I go, "Hmm, something's coming up next week in 6 Plano." And it's not going to cost us for the particular 7 day course, but it's going to cost them to get up there, 8 stay, and come back. No registration involved. I mean, it 9 could be a week or two before it actually takes place. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We know months ahead 11 of time, and we try to -- we try to get our hotel and 12 registration, everything paid prior to. You try -- you 13 know, we always try to get everything as much paid for ahead 14 of time as possible so we don't have to do all that stuff 15 when we get there, but -- and I think the majority of the 16 time, you can do that. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably most of the time. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably the 19 Sheriff's Department has things come up frequently where 20 they can't plan it. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They do. That's 22 right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, they're probably 24 the one that's most hit by the spur of the moment. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What Paula's talking 4-28-03 152 1 about has to do with the subject matter more than anything 2 else. We might get that brochure and it's a subject that 3 you'd really like your people to know about. 4 MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not the fact that the 6 meeting was there; you knew the meeting was going to be 7 there. 8 MS. RECTOR: Right. Right. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Next meeting 10 you're going to bring this back? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, or the one after that, 12 or whenever; we'll just put it back on. We'll start 13 circulating the word, I guess, that the Tax Assessor/ 14 Collector was -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In favor of this. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, or against it. 17 MS. RECTOR: No. I like the per diem for the 18 meals, I think, because I have to be sure I keep all those 19 little receipts and be sure I get them all turned in and 20 added up correctly to go to the Auditor's office. I think 21 that would save them a lot of time and save us a lot of time 22 too if we went to a per diem on that. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Bill and I will 24 go around and say that she was against it, and you two guys 25 go around and tell everybody she was for it. 4-28-03 153 1 MS. RECTOR: Conspiracy. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Motel 6 was fine, and 3 a $40 rate, tops. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. 5 And we'll hitchhike over to the capitol. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think 30 minutes is 7 long enough on that one. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, discuss and 11 consider approval of Earth Day Proclamation on April 26, 12 2003, ratifying County Judge's signature on same. I've gone 13 out on a hook, gentlemen. Gone out on a hook. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks like you 15 already signed it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If it winds up 19 two-to-two, are you going to break the tie? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: You betcha. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know how, too. 22 Let's see, now. What organization -- 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's made and seconded by 25 Commissioners -- 4-28-03 154 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See if he gets it 2 right this time. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Williams and Nicholson, 4 respectively, that the Court approve Earth Day Proclamation 5 which was executed by me previously, and to ratify my 6 signature on the same. Any further discussion? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll just make a comment. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not against Earth 10 Day; however, I am against part of what they talk here 11 about, the Environmental Protection Act and Clean Air Act 12 and Clean Water Act. The way the federal government has 13 used some of those acts to burden the counties, including 14 Storm Water Coalition, I certainly don't want anybody to 15 construe this as a vote in favor of the federal acts that 16 the Earth Day -- the reason this came into being originally. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it is asking you 18 to agree with that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but I'm saying 20 that I don't agree with EPA and some of these other acts and 21 some of their programs under those acts. Part of the 22 programs are good. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with 4-28-03 155 1 Commissioner Letz. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We may have to break 3 the tie yet. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, working on it. All in 5 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry, luckily for 10 me. Consider and discuss seeking applicants for appointment 11 as Kerr County representative to AACOG Economic Development 12 and Environmental Review Committee. Where is the media when 13 you need them? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is the what? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The media. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. 17 They're gone. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Working on deadline. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they took a hike on 21 this. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd just like to say 23 about this, Judge, that is an important committee and there 24 are things that are beneficial to Kerr County that are 25 reviewed by the committee, the most recent being the City's 4-28-03 156 1 application for 700-some-odd thousand dollars for this sewer 2 project and so forth, our own sewer project. It's important 3 that we have representation. At the last AACOG board 4 meeting, the staffer that heads up the environmental review 5 asked if we could mention to you -- I didn't have time to 6 get it on here, but you have it on your agenda -- that it'd 7 be good if you had somebody there. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Well, previously, the 9 media has been kind enough -- and we waved our arms and beat 10 them over the head and said, "Please put the word out on 11 this," of a recent appointment to the Senior Advisory 12 Committee, and we were sort of lucky enough to get that one 13 applicant who sent in a copy of the newspaper article, and 14 his resumé with it. Absolutely wonderful. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And maybe you can write 16 -- or call the paper up and just tell them. I think we're 17 all in favor of it. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just go that same 20 approach. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's obviously what 22 we're left with at this point. I assume there's no 23 objection to that. Now, let's go on to the approval agenda. 24 Payment of the bills. Mr. Auditor, you're here late in the 25 day. I'm sure it's different for you. 4-28-03 157 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'm close. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I said I'm close when you 4 need me. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 6 MS. SOVIL: You're interfering with his nap. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mine, too. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That was the intention of 9 doing it this way. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we pay the bills. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. 12 How do you want to do it? Do you want a second on the 13 motion and then me ask my question? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a motion right now. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second the motion. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 17 seconded that we pay the bills by Commissioner Letz and 18 Baldwin, respectively. Any questions or discussion? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question, 20 sir. On Page 6, Item Number 149442. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: From the Sheriff's 22 Department? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good one. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't my hog. 4-28-03 158 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I missed it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I did too. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 442? Oh, yeah, 4 there it is. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's for hog processing. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back when I was in 8 high school, I could figure this out, but -- do you want me 9 to look it up, or do you want to tell me about it? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I know what it's for. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: It's what it says it is. But 13 they -- the Sheriff's Office gets donations from individuals 14 for specific purposes, and rather than handle the cash, we 15 set up a separate revenue for those purposes, and then they 16 spend those revenues -- those revenues for that specific 17 purpose. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you say "specific 19 purpose" -- and I have a reason behind this question. When 20 you say "specific purpose," does it say "hog cleaning" or 21 "hog processing"? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Doesn't say specifically 23 that, but it's for those -- those things. Like, for 24 instance, we had a situation where somebody wanted to get -- 25 to give some money to the Sheriff's Office for -- to help 4-28-03 159 1 with -- it was back several years ago -- with this metal 2 detector out here. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: And, I mean, that's an 5 example of -- of a specific-purpose donation. And that's -- 6 at that time, they were -- they were -- the Sheriff's 7 Department was keeping those funds in a bank account of 8 their own. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I remember that. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: You remember that. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, they don't do that any 13 longer. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- 15 MR. TOMLINSON: And so, I mean, that -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those kinds -- those 17 kinds of things don't -- I think that's good, you know, to 18 purchase something like that or a radar unit or an 19 investigator, something pertaining to the law enforcement 20 thing. Commissioner 4 and I both have sent donations out 21 there recently, people that have come to us and said, you 22 know, "We'd like to do something." "Well, take it to the 23 Sheriff, 'cause, you know, they do good things with it." 24 And when I see they're out here processing damn hogs with 25 that money, I don't know that I'm going to send anybody out 4-28-03 160 1 there. I don't know if I agree with that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, what -- just as a 3 -- I don't know whether I'm trying to change your mind. I'm 4 figuring how this came about is probably from the stock 5 show. Or is this a separate -- I can see that this -- if 6 someone donated -- "Here, Sheriff, here's a hog. All you 7 have you to do is pay for the processing, and it will help 8 your food bill." 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But wouldn't that 11 be -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that what this is for? 13 I have no idea. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think, probably -- I 15 think they're having their annual Sheriff's party. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's what it is. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what it 18 is. And, of course, if I was invited, I wouldn't be so mad 19 about this. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Wouldn't be raising a ruckus, 21 right? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right, no 23 ruckus here. But I wasn't invited, so I'm a little bit 24 hurt. But -- but, you know, for them, I don't know -- I 25 don't think I'm going to send any more people out there to 4-28-03 161 1 donate, unless it's going -- I'm just letting y'all know 2 that -- I know you don't care one way or another what I do, 3 but it's a separate thing. I mean, it's not -- I mean, I'm 4 certainly not going to vote against it, because it's not tax 5 dollars involved in the thing. But it just bothers me a 6 little bit. When I ask people to go out there and make a 7 donation to the Sheriff, I'm thinking that it's helping the 8 law enforcement at protecting the public in some way. 9 Doesn't have anything to do with processing hogs. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not pork chops. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pork chaps in the 12 river. That bothers me a little bit. Unless we're invited. 13 Now, that changes the whole show. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you send Rusty a 16 copy of these minutes? Okay. That's all -- that's the only 17 question I have. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 19 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 20 signify by raising your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have 25 any budget amendments? 4-28-03 162 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we do. We have five. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Got five of them little 3 buggers. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: The first one is to Road and 5 Bridge, and it's for some property coverage on a leased 6 grade-all, $199. So, they're asking to move $199 today from 7 Contract Fees to Insurance. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved -- second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 11 seconded that Budget Amendment Request Number 1 be approved. 12 All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget 17 Amendment Request Number 2. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: It's for the 198th District 19 Court. We're transferring $1,953.47 from Court-Appointed 20 Attorneys; $700 goes to Special Court Reporter, and 21 $1,253.47 to Special District Judge. I have a late bill 22 from Judge Delaney for $2,369.87, and a bill from Paula 23 Richards Loetz for transcripts in that trial for $700. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: $700? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I do need a hand check 4-28-03 163 1 for the Delaney bill. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move we approve 4 it. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you make a 6 motion? Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 8 seconded by Commissioner Nicholson and Williams, 9 respectively, that the Court approve Budget Amendment 10 Request Number 2 and authorize hand check for $2,369.87 to 11 Judge Delaney. Any further discussion? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, did you get a 13 breakdown on -- I mean, how many hours is that, and -- 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it's -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that hotel too, 16 and -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the per diem 18 rate? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the per diem 20 rate for judges from Bryan, Texas? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: He claimed $25 per diem. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's way too much. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: And then fuel, and four -- 24 let's see. Hotel room, four weeks, is $957. I believe 25 that's what it is. 4-28-03 164 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, four weeks. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, four separate weeks. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Entire weeks? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some time in each of 7 four weeks. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: In a four-week period. He 9 has the -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do judges charge an 11 hourly rate, or how do they do that? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: This is just reimbursement. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, just expense 14 reimbursement? 15 MS. SOVIL: We don't pay salary. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: We don't pay salary. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: At least not this year. We 19 may. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: We may get that opportunity. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. This is where we need 22 some legislation in civil fees. Any further questions? I'm 23 sorry, did you have something further? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- yeah, I have three 25 more amendments. 4-28-03 165 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, okay. Nothing 2 more on this item? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions? 5 Discussion? All in favor of Budget Amendment Request 6 Number 2? 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 11 Amendment Request Number 3. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is for the County 13 Court at Law. We have a bill to -- I have a bill to Fred 14 Henneke for $736.65. We have $403 in that line item, so 15 we're asking for a budget amendment of $333.58 from Special 16 County Court at Law Judge line item to Court-Appointed 17 Attorneys. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is just for one 19 attorney? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by 24 Commissioners Letz and Nicholson, respectively, that the 25 Budget Amendment Request Number 3 be approved. Any further 4-28-03 166 1 question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising 2 your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: I would like to make a 8 comment about this -- not having anything really 9 specifically to do with this, but -- but the County Court at 10 Law is -- I mean, this early, is already out of money. And 11 we had -- you know, there's not much area to -- to come up 12 with any more in any additional money for court-appointed 13 attorneys in his budget. So, you know, I'm -- I'm looking 14 for direction as to -- as to where in the next, you know, 15 five months we need to look for money for that. Part of his 16 problem is that it's not his court, particularly -- I mean 17 his appointments. They're for C.P.S. cases that are heard 18 by the associate Judge Dubose, and alternately, some of 19 those cases are put in that court. So, I'm -- the 216th 20 court is almost at 50 percent, and the County Court is, 21 like, at 50 percent, so we do have some money in the 22 court -- in the Court-Appointed Attorneys in the 198th 23 court, but, you know, we're getting to a point that -- that 24 we need to decide where to look for money for -- for that 25 purpose. 4-28-03 167 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, did we reduce 2 his requested budget? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think we did. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't imagine that. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think so. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just had an unusually 7 heavy year, then, right? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't think it's 9 his -- particularly his appointments. I think it has mostly 10 to do with -- with those C.P.S. cases. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: State agency, I might 12 add. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I think those -- those 14 are anticipated to be handled through the district court 15 budgets, and because of the alternate filing, Judge Brown 16 ends up with some of those, and so they get charged to him, 17 I think is what Tommy's saying. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: So, I -- we -- you know, we 19 can ask, you know, Judge Prohl about his budget. 20 Historically, what has happened in those -- in that line 21 item is that some years one court has more than the other, 22 and then that's -- that role swaps the next year. So, what 23 we've done is -- is try to make the year with the 24 combination of both courts. And so if -- you know, if 25 that's, you know, the direction, you know, we want to go, I 4-28-03 168 1 can go to the Judge and see if he has a problem with 2 shifting some of his money to -- to the, you know, County 3 Court at Law. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's the 5 direction I'd want to go. I don't want to do a -- declare 6 an emergency or anything until -- 7 MR. TOMLINSON: But, offhand, I don't know of 8 a large amount of money anywhere else. I think we're going 9 to have some adjustments to make in some departments for 10 health care insurance, for group insurance. In the 11 departments where there are a lot of people and there's some 12 turnover, I don't think we're going to have a problem, 13 but -- but I've noticed this month that in some departments, 14 we're already more than 50 percent spent. We'll -- I'll get 15 a handle on what that is for -- for the rest of the year, 16 but I know it's -- we have a problem there. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a motion on this 18 one? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a motion? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, there is. There is. 22 MS. SOVIL: No, there's not. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: As a matter of fact, I think 24 you made it, I believe Commissioner Williams seconded it. 25 MS. SOVIL: It was voted on. 4-28-03 169 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? 2 MS. SOVIL: It was voted on. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 4 MS. SOVIL: It was voted on. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I waited until you voted 6 until I mentioned that. I just wanted to -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We actually did have a motion 8 and second, then. I wouldn't have called for a vote without 9 it, would I? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is for 12 the County Treasurer to transfer $250 from Employee Training 13 to their Conference line item, and it's for mileage and 14 lodging at A & M. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: And there is a late bill. I 17 need a hand check for that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's already done. 19 Is that -- is that the elected official? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That went there? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we budgeted 24 $1,000? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I believe that's right. 4-28-03 170 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what it shows 2 on here. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that's right. Those 4 were, like -- year before last were, like, at $1,500. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by 8 Commissioners Letz and Baldwin, respectively, that Budget 9 Amendment Request Number 4 be approved and a hand check 10 issued to -- 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Barbara Nemec. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Barbara Nemec for $222.15. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. That's 14 correct. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor, signify by 16 raising your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed? 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 21 Amendment Request Number 5. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: This amendment actually 23 increases the budget, but we received insurance proceeds of 24 $8,945 for the loss on a '98 Ford Crown Victoria. The 25 Sheriff asked me to put this on in order to purchase a used 4-28-03 171 1 replacement with the -- with the funds -- with these funds. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A 1998? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: '98. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one of the old 5 cars. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just about four years 8 old. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This was a patrol 11 vehicle? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Yes, it was. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was this -- it wasn't 14 a flood car? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know which one this 16 is. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Not the water car. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The water car -- 19 MR. TOMLINSON: That was a new one. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we've dealt 21 with the water car. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Off the top of my head, nine 23 grand looks like -- especially for four, five years' worth 24 of police work, looks like we've spent a good deal on it. 25 I'd like to sell them some more. 4-28-03 172 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think I'm so 2 concerned about taking the nine grand as expending it again. 3 Question is, what are you going to expend it for? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: He wants to -- he wants to 5 buy a used vehicle for -- I think -- I think he said to 6 replace an older car that he uses for in-town use. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's -- let's 8 take the money and we'll worry about expending it another 9 day, all right? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move we accept the 12 check and amend the budget. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've already got the 14 money, Commissioner. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're amending the 16 budget. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're not 19 authorizing buying another vehicle? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, not in this 21 motion. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's made and seconded to 24 accept the funds in the amount of $8,945 from insurance 25 proceeds received on the loss of Sheriff's Office patrol 4-28-03 173 1 vehicle. We'll stop right there. Any further discussion? 2 MS. SOVIL: You have to increase the budget. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Not if we're not going to 5 spend it, we don't. 6 MS. SOVIL: We don't? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: If we're not going to spend 8 it, then we don't need to increase the budget. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd just -- the motion was 10 merely to accept the funds. We're not granting any budget 11 amendment requests. At least that's my understanding of it. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Until we know what 13 it's all about. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Until the Sheriff comes 15 back to us when he decides what he wants to buy. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the reason for 17 it. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion? All 19 in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: I have one more. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Number 6. 4-28-03 174 1 MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this is also from the 2 Sheriff's Department. This is -- he's requesting a transfer 3 of $317.63 from Operating Expenses to Investigation 4 Expenses. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: And I do have a late bill -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: -- on this. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded by 10 Commissioners Letz and Nicholson that we approve Budget 11 Amendment Request Number 6 and issue a hand check to -- 12 MR. TOMLINSON: H.E.B. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: -- H.E.B. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: For $317.63. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: For $317.63. Any further 16 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 17 hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Is that 22 all the budget amendments? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: That's it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any late bills? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 4-28-03 175 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Monthly reports. Gentlemen, I 2 have before me a monthly report from J.P. 4. Do I hear a 3 motion that the same be accepted as presented? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 7 the J.P. 4 monthly report, as presented, be accepted. All 8 in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Anything 13 further, gentlemen? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'd like to 15 bring up a topic. The -- I've sent -- I'm the liaison with 16 the Sheriff's Department, and I sent him a memo last week in 17 regards to these vehicles, and I've asked him to -- in my 18 mind, it seemed like, to me, that for four years, we've 19 bought six cars. That's 24 cars. And I've asked him to 20 start putting together his thoughts of, you know, is that 21 true, 24 cars? And how many of them are still in service 22 and where are they, and how many old, yellow cars do they 23 still have in service and all that kind of thing? So, 24 it's -- you know, number one, so we can start thinking about 25 it, plugging in your budget numbers and what we're going to 4-28-03 176 1 do. But what really triggered my thinking was, when we 2 started the rotation system with him, with this present 3 Sheriff, we had talked about, at some point, some of his old 4 cars that he takes out of service, giving them to constables 5 or another office, but we had talked about constables. So, 6 I wanted -- I would ask him to kind of put together some 7 thoughts, or put together his thoughts of where he is in all 8 of that, and so -- and I wanted you all to be thinking about 9 that as well. I hope I'm not the only one here that 10 remembers talking about passing the cars along to other 11 people. But, if my memory serves me, we've really been in 12 this rotation thing a lot longer than any four years. How 13 long -- do you remember, Tommy or Thea, either one, that 14 we -- 15 MS. SOVIL: It's four. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's the fourth year 17 of the leasing program. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of actual leasing? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we've been buying 21 cars a long, long time. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: We're at a point -- unless 23 we -- unless we add another six, we ought to be at the point 24 that we don't have any additional cost. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 4-28-03 177 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Unless it's the amount of 2 difference between the price to lease from Year 1 to Year 4. 3 And there may be -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: -- some. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus 6 bucks to buy 7 out the end of the lease. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: What is the story with -- of 10 purchasing the cars at the end of the lease? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: We have the option to 12 purchase -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One buck a car. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A dollar a car at the 15 end of three years? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You ought to remember 18 what -- do you remember? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember that as well. 20 And I think what has happened now is that we have a 21 relatively young fleet of vehicles out there for the 22 Sheriff's Department, and I think that it's a good time to 23 look at rolling over some of the older ones to the 24 constables. And -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, we did talk 4-28-03 178 1 about it. We never did -- we never did say how we would do 2 it, but the thought was there that it would be a pretty good 3 idea to entertain. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Were you thinking 5 about transferring ownership to the constables? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We never did arrive 8 at a conclusion. We talked about the County continuing to 9 own them. We talked about maybe the constable buy it for 10 100, 200 bucks. We never came to a conclusion. Frankly, I 11 think this County should continue to own them. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Did -- in your request to the 13 Sheriff about the status of all these vehicles, did you ask 14 him as part of that report to give you a -- a report on the 15 condition, or what he believed to be the condition of those 16 various vehicles? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I did not. You 18 mean like physical condition? Are there dents and -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, and, you know, whether 20 they got transmission problems or mileage -- high miles. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I did not, did not 22 ask that question at all. But I thought -- I thought he 23 would get back with me pretty soon, and we did have a verbal 24 yesterday. But he and I could sit down and -- I want to 25 give him time to put some things together and go over it, 4-28-03 179 1 and then either bring him in here to talk about it, or just 2 wait until the budget process and let -- let you and him and 3 Tommy talk about it. It doesn't matter to me one way or 4 another, as long as we are all -- I think that we all need 5 to know what the plan is. And, actually, that's -- you 6 know, that's what we do, is set policy in here. That we 7 know what his needs are. I mean, does he -- does he need 8 six more years of this six car buying before he really gets 9 a full quota? Or, you know, at what point is he going to be 10 able to break off, and let's assign these cars to some other 11 department and that kind of thing? But I think we all need 12 to know those kinds of things, because we have constables in 13 each of our precincts, number one. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's the reason 15 why I wasn't in favor of automatically spending that $9,000, 16 'cause Commissioner -- I knew the Commissioner had written 17 that memo to get an inventory of what the Sheriff has, where 18 those cars are, et cetera. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to tell you, 20 his answer is not going to be what you think it is. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wouldn't be 22 surprised. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you wouldn't have 24 written the memo, you'd have probably got some of that 25 barbecue pork. 4-28-03 180 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. I know. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or you can turn the 4 tables on that deal. "How do you like those new cars, 5 Sheriff? What time did you want me to show up at the 6 party?" I'm sorry. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we in the report 8 section, or did he just start talking? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, we're in his 10 report section. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, I thought 12 that's where we were. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We were in your report 14 section. Commissioner 1's first. 15 MR. PEARCE: Well, Commissioner 2's next. Go 16 around the table. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm finished. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not. Two things. 19 One, four or six weeks ago, this Court appointed a committee 20 to work with U.G.R.A. Board on O.S.S.F. We're finally 21 getting out -- after a little bit of a shaky start, we're 22 finally about to our have our first meeting this Friday. 23 So, anyway, it's -- it's finally moving forward after a 24 long -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any barbecue pork at that 4-28-03 181 1 meeting? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, but we do have some 3 sandwiches being furnished by U.G.R.A., I understand. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There ain't no free 5 lunch. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. That's 7 right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other item is 9 just an informational item that has come out of some 10 community meetings that I've had at the Cypress Creek 11 Community regarding perceived lack of enough law enforcement 12 in that community. It appears that subdivision areas in my 13 area of the county can contract with either the Sheriff's 14 Department or constable's office to provide specific law 15 enforcement for that community. And it's just -- it's 16 something a little bit interesting, and it's a law that came 17 out, something that Harris County's doing. They got a copy 18 of the law, and I first thought it was only a couple 19 counties can do it -- larger counties can do it, but now it 20 appears that we can do it, and it also appears by the law 21 that it can be done through the Sheriff's Department, not 22 just the constable's office. So, anyway, just something 23 that's interesting, and we're pursuing it a little bit 24 further, trying to -- visiting with the County Attorney, 25 because there is some interest in that area to hire 4-28-03 182 1 additional law enforcement for that area only. And it will 2 be funded by them through donations. But, anyway, an 3 interesting concept, and I'm not sure of the -- all the 4 ramifications, good or bad, of doing that. I don't -- you 5 know, anyway, just leave it at that, but it's something that 6 I'm looking at. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Neighborhood I lived 8 in, the homeowner's association contracted with the 9 Sheriff's Department to keep officers in there. 10 Commissioner Letz, how do -- what's the impetus for those 11 meetings? How do they come about? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- well, you don't 13 want to have the impetus -- you don't want to -- what 14 actually -- what really happened was, it was a double murder 15 in Comfort that caused a big concern in the community out 16 there. Because of that concern and calls that I received 17 and the Sheriff received from members of the community, the 18 Sheriff has a -- a crime prevention training officer, Mike 19 Durning; he's been going to different parts of the county, 20 crime prevention meetings, public meetings, and he took the 21 opportunity of the interest in Cypress Creek area to 22 originally do one of those meetings. Because of the, you 23 know, I guess, unusually high interest at the present time 24 in that area, we've expanded those meetings a little bit 25 further for input from me, and Bill Amerine and I went out 4-28-03 183 1 there, some of the 911 Board members, just to overall talk 2 about law enforcement in general, beyond crime prevention. 3 That was kind of vehicle crime prevention, but it was the 4 members of the community expressing a lot of interest that 5 got Rusty to kind of -- and I to get together and tailor 6 these the way we have. We've had two of them so far, and 7 probably will have at least one more. And they've been very 8 well-attended. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Usually the impetus 10 is something happened in their back yard. You had one in 11 Center Point 18 months ago or 24 months ago, and it happened 12 to be a rash of vandalism and burglaries. People got upset. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One -- one thing 14 that's been going on in west Kerr that is of interest -- I'm 15 not sure it has any -- doesn't have any effect on the County 16 that I know of -- a group of residents, people out there, I 17 think 18 of them, have gotten together and put up $20,000 a 18 piece and purchased that lot there at 1340 and 39. It's 19 about a 4- or 5-acre lot; big, open field right there on the 20 corner. And the reason was -- for the purchase was to 21 prevent development, so it won't ever be in the hands of 22 anybody to use it for commercial purposes. I don't know 23 what to think about that, except somebody was willing to pay 24 about a half a million dollars to keep Hunt in pristine 25 condition as it is today, and stop development. That -- no 4-28-03 184 1 indication they want to give it to anybody in the county or 2 make a park out of it. They are still dealing with what use 3 they'll put it to. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have two things, 5 Judge, now that these two gentlemen triggered that. I'm 6 going to bring to the Court a revision of the Kerr County 7 Parks Master Plan, so you might want to talk to those folks 8 about giving it up for a park. And when I do that, we'll 9 set a date for a workshop to discuss the revisions and seek 10 more input for additional revisions or thoughts from members 11 of the Court. We haven't updated that plan in about two 12 years; I guess it needs to be updated. The original plan, I 13 believe the Court funded a consultant to do the plan. You 14 may remember how much the Court paid. I don't know. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $20,000? 16 MS. SOVIL: About $25,000. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I 18 thought, about $20,000, $25,000. What we're doing this time 19 is do it on the cheap, not have the Court pay $20,000, 20 $25,000. I think we're going to be successful -- Item 2 has 21 to do with the meetings at U.G.R.A. that the Court asked me 22 to work up numbers in terms of -- spreadsheet numbers in 23 terms of costs over there, and the last costs that we bore 24 ourselves. I have met with financial people. Scott 25 Loveland and Stuart Barron examined what they do over there. 4-28-03 185 1 There were some documents that I -- that they didn't have 2 that I wanted. I just got them a couple days ago, and they 3 researched for me and gave me some backing information on 4 what the County last -- County's last obligation was when we 5 had the program here. So, when it's time to have all that 6 done, we'll have it done. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you been able to, or 8 are you going to see if there's any comparable counties, 9 size-wise, that have their own program? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can do that. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: That's certainly something 12 that would be pertinent to what y'all got working right now, 13 I would think. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Something we need to 15 know. I guess T.C.E.Q. is the place to get that answer. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They would know what 17 counties administer their own program, I would think. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly, it's germane 20 to when we bring back to the Court to make some kind of 21 decision. I don't know that that's germane as to what the 22 rules actually should be. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to have 24 that information. In fact, I'd like to know what the 25 counties that are contiguous to Kerr County are doing, how 4-28-03 186 1 they got organized, how much it costs. Either we can do 2 that in this effort we're making with them, or we can get 3 some other -- I keep hearing stories about, well, over there 4 in that county they've only got a part-time person doing it, 5 and they got about the same -- you know, that's probably not 6 true. We need to know. We need to know whether or not it 7 is. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly need to know 9 what our neighboring counties -- I think we can find 10 comparable counties. Thea has, on many occasions, done 11 research on what's comparable to Kerr County for many 12 different projects, and there's about 10 counties statewide 13 that are -- you know, it'd be interesting to see how they're 14 handling it. Not many more than that. 15 MS. SOVIL: The same 10 counties. Do we use 16 Cherokee County again? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Use Cherokee. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Grayson. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brown. Grayson may be 20 getting too big. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe. None of them 22 have an interstate running through them and a major river, 23 retired community. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So they're really not 4-28-03 187 1 apples and apples. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, you're right. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Soil and environmental 4 considerations, probably two of the most important factors. 5 Any more reports, gentlemen? Being none, I will declare the 6 meeting adjourned. 7 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:39 p.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4-28-03 188 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 5th day of May, 2003. 8 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 11 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4-28-03