1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, December 15, 2003 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge 23 H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 24 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 ABSENT: DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X December 15, 2003 2 PAGE 3 1.1 Consider and discuss acceptance, rejection or other appropriate action on Employee Health 4 Insurance Bids 3 5 1.2 Consider and discuss implementing a Burn Ban for Kerr County 42 6 --- Adjourned 47 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Monday, December 15, 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: Let me call to order the 7 special Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date, 8 Monday, December 15, at 9 a.m. It's a few minutes after 9 9:00 now, and the item on the agenda first is consideration 10 and discussion of the acceptance, rejection, or other 11 appropriate action on employee health insurance bids. By 12 way of -- by way of introduction, we have available to us, 13 gentlemen, the provisions of Section 262.030 in connection 14 with bidding of these items, and though we've received the 15 official bids, we have the option to determine which of 16 those proposals are reasonably susceptible of being selected 17 for award, and then on that basis, allow the offerors to, on 18 a fair and equal basis -- give them an opportunity to 19 discuss and revise their proposals, to the end that each of 20 them as may be selected as being reasonably susceptible of 21 being selected for the purpose of their -- submitting their 22 best and final offer. And so, on that basis, you know, 23 if -- if there is a thought that the bids as submitted need 24 to be first pared down to the proposals which are reasonably 25 susceptible of being selected, that would appear to be the 12-15-03 4 1 first action to take. If -- if the thought of the Court is 2 that all of the bids as submitted are potentially 3 susceptible of being selected for award, then we may want to 4 permit these offerors to go to work on their best and final 5 offer. With that, I'll leave it in your able hands. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How might we compare 7 them to determine -- other than reading all of that, which I 8 don't think the members of the Court have all of that to 9 read, how would we determine whether Submitter A, B, C, D, 10 or E or whomever is -- has submitted something that is 11 determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected 12 for -- how would we make that determination, Judge? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, it can be 14 done from a review of the proposals themselves or from 15 counsel with persons who are knowledgeable in the industry 16 or trade. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ah. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever else that you may 19 want to do. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Therein lies the key. 21 Since we don't have a spreadsheet that depicts exactly what 22 we have -- I guess I'm only speaking for myself; I'm not 23 sure I'm speaking for my two colleagues, but since I don't 24 have a spreadsheet that currently depicts what we have and 25 are providing to our employees and the cost associated 12-15-03 5 1 therewith, I don't know how I'm going to make a 2 determination if A, B, C, D, or E provides the same, equal 3 to, less than the cost as comparable. I have no ability to 4 make that decision in front of me this morning. So, then, 5 it would seem to me we're either going to have that provided 6 to us -- if we can't get that generated in-house, I don't 7 know any alternative except we're going to have to go out of 8 house to get it done. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with almost 10 everything you said there. You have to have information in 11 order to make a decision like this, which we do not have, or 12 at least I don't have. I don't know that I'd understand it 13 if it was in front of me. I am a huge fan of going outside 14 and getting outside help. However, seems to me it's a 15 little bit late to do that on the issue that's before us 16 today. Personally, what I'd like to see happen today is 17 that we simply adopt what we have in place today, and then 18 move forward with finding an expert that will evaluate all 19 these issues and make sure that we're getting the best bang 20 for our buck for our employees. So, that's where I'm at. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought that someone 22 was reviewing these and was going to give us an analysis of 23 that. I thought it would be done in-house, I mean, through 24 either the Treasurer's office or the Auditor's office. I 25 mean, I thought we referred them to those departments for 12-15-03 6 1 review and recommendation. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we should ask, 3 do we have that? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that that was -- 5 MS. NEMEC: Ask and you may receive. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if that's the case, 7 I'd like to hear from one or both of those departments as to 8 what they, you know, have to say after the review. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec? 10 MS. NEMEC: I would like to share with you 11 what I have done. It's not a complete spreadsheet. I do 12 think that at the end, if you want to compare numbers and 13 benefits, I would feel more comfortable going out and 14 getting a consultant who does nothing but this to compare 15 those numbers. I want to share with you what we received, 16 just so that you are aware of what I'm looking at and what 17 someone else might be looking at. Cindy, if you'll pass 18 that out to each one of them, I'll go over it with you all 19 what I have done. I do have four extra copies, and so if 20 any of the brokers that submitted a proposal are here, y'all 21 may have a copy, and if I don't have enough for everyone 22 that is here, then I can make copies after the meeting if 23 y'all want to follow along with what I'm presenting. Is 24 there an extra copy here that Commissioner Nicholson would 25 have had? 12-15-03 7 1 MS. PIEPER: I have it. 2 MS. NEMEC: Okay. Is there another broker 3 that furnished a bid that did not get a copy? No? Okay. 4 First of all, just so that you can see what it is that we're 5 dealing with, I'm going to go -- if you -- if you don't 6 follow along, you'll get in trouble, so you have to go -- be 7 on the first page. I just want to show you these -- this is 8 everything that was submitted to the County Clerk's office 9 in the form of any type of proposals. These are letters 10 that were decline letters. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Decline letters? 12 MS. NEMEC: Decline letters. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Declining what? 14 MS. NEMEC: Declining to bid on our 15 insurance. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the entire 17 package? 18 MS. NEMEC: Yes. Okay? And the decline 19 letters are from Wallace and Associates. These were 20 third-party administrators or any other type of insurance 21 proposals that he went out to try to get, and these are the 22 letters that were sent back to him that were declined. Here 23 I have two dental proposals that were submitted by Wallace 24 and Associates. Actually, I think it's three, three 25 different dental proposals that were submitted by Wallace 12-15-03 8 1 and Associates. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. 3 MS. NEMEC: Yes? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If Wallace and 5 Associates declined everything -- 6 MS. NEMEC: No. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in Exhibit 1, how 8 then does Wallace and Associates -- 9 MS. NEMEC: Wallace and Associates did not 10 decline. Wallace and Associates is -- is the broker that 11 went out to get bids, and the decline letters are from those 12 insurance agencies that declined to give him a bid -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 MS. NEMEC: -- on our package. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 16 MS. NEMEC: Okay? So, these are the dental 17 plans that he submitted on behalf of other insurance 18 companies. And I -- I do this so that y'all can see how 19 much information is here that we're having to look at. The 20 next one that I have is an AFLAC proposal submitted by 21 Wallace and Associates. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would that 23 cover? 24 MS. NEMEC: This is -- we have AFLAC now; our 25 County employees have AFLAC. If they choose Plan B or C, 12-15-03 9 1 then the County -- the premium for that employee is less 2 than the -- than the maximum, and they're able to choose any 3 kind of, like, hospital policy, cancer policy. They just 4 have a lot of different supplemental insurances that they 5 can take advantage of. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cafeteria-type plan? 7 MS. NEMEC: Right. And we have that in place 8 right now with Bryan Finley and Associates. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 10 MS. NEMEC: Next, here is a proposal that was 11 turned -- submitted -- Wallace and Associates received this 12 proposal on our behalf, and it's from Benefit Planners. Due 13 to a letter that I received from Wallace and Associates, he 14 turned in three proposals. This was one that he felt would 15 not benefit as much as another proposal that he turned in, 16 so I scanned through it, but I did not do an evaluation on 17 it in order to save time, and taking the recommendation of 18 Wallace and Associates. The same with this one. This is 19 Group Administrators. This was the second one that he 20 submitted, and the rates are not as well as the one that I'm 21 going to show you next. If I -- if I'm presenting something 22 and it's incorrect and you're the broker, please correct me. 23 This next one is Mutual of Omaha. This was 24 presented by Wallace and Associates, and out of the three, 25 this was the best one to look at. I do have -- and I'm 12-15-03 10 1 going to -- as I -- as I show you these others that were 2 presented that I did do an evaluation on, I'm going to tell 3 you what my concerns are on it. My concern on here is the 4 efficiency of enrollment. The enrollment process would be 5 done electronically or by fax. Right now, the way we're set 6 up, our employees go down to our insurance rep's office and 7 they do all the enrollment. When -- if -- if we just had a 8 basic plan that this was the plan and this is what you 9 enroll for, we could do it in our office. We used to do it 10 before. But now, because we have these different plans and 11 you can supplement it with AFLAC insurance, we're not able 12 to do the enrollment any longer, and so our current rep is 13 the one that does it in his office. And that would be my 14 concern with this plan. Another thing -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Would it not be possible for 16 them to provide the personnel to do the enrollment here 17 locally? 18 MS. NEMEC: That is not what they submitted. 19 They said it would have to be done electronically or by fax 20 if it's something different than we -- 21 MR. MALEK: I'm with Mutual of Omaha. That's 22 only for subsequent, after you've already enrolled everyone. 23 You can use that as an option, but it's not -- we typically 24 go out and do it ourselves. 25 MS. NEMEC: Okay. But after you enroll -- 12-15-03 11 1 and new employees? 2 MR. MALEK: Right. 3 MS. NEMEC: How would you do -- 4 MR. MALEK: Well, you have an option to do it 5 a bunch of different ways. You can either have us come from 6 time to time and have us -- 7 MS. NEMEC: So you'd be willing to come -- 8 you'd be willing to come once a week to enroll new 9 employees? 10 MR. MALEK: Well, probably wouldn't be once a 11 week. If you don't hire -- if you don't hire anybody in 12 that week, there probably wouldn't be any reason to come 13 out. 14 MS. NEMEC: Well, obviously, but if we do -- 15 MR. MALEK: You just have to let us know when 16 you hire someone; we'll enroll them. 17 MS. NEMEC: This is a very big concern of 18 mine. We would have to have an agreement that they would 19 come enroll these employees, because of the different types 20 of insurances that they're able to select. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have an office 22 locally? 23 MS. NEMEC: No, they don't. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nearest office would 25 be San Antonio? 12-15-03 12 1 MR. WALLACE: I'm in Seguin. I'm Don 2 Wallace, Wallace and Associates. I have two service reps 3 that could come out once a week and enroll. 4 MS. NEMEC: The other thing that I needed 5 clarified in this is under Banking and Funding. It said 6 that checks would be -- or benefit payment referred to the 7 customer's name, that the benefit payment would be made 8 payable under the customer -- to the customer's name. 9 Everywhere else in here, when it refers to customer's name, 10 it refers -- "customer's name" is referring to Kerr County. 11 And so I need clarification, when you say customer's name, 12 are you meaning Kerr County or are you meaning the 13 individual? 14 MR. MALEK: Are you talking about the checks? 15 Where the checks go? The checks go to wherever the provider 16 -- the provider and/or the employees. 17 MS. NEMEC: We don't have to do it? You 18 don't send us -- okay, that's what I needed clarification on 19 that one. The other thing that I saw in there -- and you 20 can answer this, too -- is that it had where there were 21 several employees that were at select risk, and that they 22 would be need to be evaluated further to see if they would 23 even be covered under the stop loss. Has -- and I know that 24 we provided some information already on that. Was that put 25 in there before you received this information, or is there 12-15-03 13 1 still going to be further information that's going to be 2 needed on those employees? 3 MR. MALEK: We require a disclosure, but we 4 have all the information we need to accept the risk, so our 5 rates are firm. We're not going to change them. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a quick question, 7 just kind of on that point, just in general. How do -- how 8 are preexisting conditions treated when we change companies? 9 I mean, do the employees, you know, have to get reexamined, 10 basically? If they have, like, a heart ailment now, but 11 they didn't when they started with our current providers, is 12 that going to be a preexisting condition with the new 13 provider? Or -- 14 MS. NEMEC: It -- as far as I know, it would 15 not be a preexisting condition. However, those that are 16 preexisting conditions and that have high risk is what I'm 17 asking about there. 18 MR. MALEK: I think it has -- 19 MS. NEMEC: Some will exclude those, and we 20 need to make sure that that doesn't happen with any of our 21 employees, 'cause there's several that are high-risk. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the answer is? 23 MS. NEMEC: Excuse me? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the answer is? 25 MS. NEMEC: The answer is, on his policy, I 12-15-03 14 1 believe is that they're all covered with the rates that they 2 submitted. 3 MR. MALEK: Right. We haven't excluded 4 anybody. We haven't lasered anybody out. 5 MS. NEMEC: Okay. Okay. The next one that 6 we received was County Choice. On the County Choice one, I 7 believe that they gave a proposal to -- it's listed in here 8 that they gave a proposal to Bryan Finley and Associates, 9 and Rhonda Taylor, which is this one right here. That one 10 had several things listed on there that concerned me. It 11 said proposal rates are based on the following: Enrollment 12 to occur by 12/10/03, offer guaranteed until 12/1/03. And 13 then it says that the retirees would pay the same as active 14 employees, regardless of the age. Right now our retirees 15 pay a -- they have a substantial discount if they're on 16 Medicare, Medicaid; I get those wrong all the time, but they 17 only have to pay $105. And with -- from what I read on this 18 plan, is that they would have to pay the same as if they 19 were a regular employee, which would be $300, $400. That -- 20 that, to me, I just think the retirees would have a real 21 hard problem trying to do that. "Decisions made less than 22 30 days prior to your anniversary date may result in delay 23 of implementation of benefits." It just pointed that out in 24 their proposal, and I believe that this would probably be 25 the same for any other type of insurance. Being that we're 12-15-03 15 1 in this late date, trying to implement a new policy would 2 probably delay our benefits for our employees. The next one 3 is -- 4 MR. NORWOOD: Barbara, may I comment? I'm 5 Bill Norwood from the Texas Association of Counties, and our 6 proposal on County Choice does have the warning -- I agree 7 with what you said about if you go past 30 days on any 8 carrier, the chance of your drug cards being completely 9 perfect, all your ID cards being in the hands of the 10 employees, all the computers perfectly set up so that when 11 the doctor calls it in -- that's not very likely to happen. 12 And so we're perfectly willing to enroll up till the end of 13 the year, as long as the County doesn't mind the -- we have 14 doctors calling our office and that sort of thing to verify 15 benefits, because it's going to be -- with any carrier at 16 this late date, it's going to be very much a manual process 17 for a little while. 18 MS. NEMEC: And we've been through this 19 before, and is it a nightmare for employees as well as our 20 office. 21 MR. NORWOOD: It's a nightmare. The only 22 solution is, it has to happen earlier. 23 MS. NEMEC: Right. 24 MR. NORWOOD: The other thing is, on the 25 retirees, this is something that, really, we're talking 12-15-03 16 1 about. We use the same actuarial firm as the State of 2 Texas; I have access to the State of Texas claims 3 information, which uses the same Blue Cross/Blue Shield 4 network that we do, so when I look at their retirees, I'm 5 looking at our retirees. And a retiree costs exactly the 6 same as an active employee, and the reason for that is that 7 the retirees spend 50 cents out of every dollar on 8 prescription drugs, whereas your actives, on the average, 9 only spend about 20 to 22 cents. And so, in the big 10 picture, looking at the average age employee, in the mid -- 11 early to mid-40's, let's say, and average county, versus 12 your average retiree, if you're self-funded, you may only be 13 charging those retirees $105, but the County is picking up 14 the rest of the cost. And if you only have three or four 15 retirees, you could prove my statement right or wrong, 16 depending on what your luck has been, but if you look at a 17 large number, looking at the state as an example, they cost 18 the same right now. In the future, if prescription drugs 19 keep going up more than medical, they'll cost more. So, 20 that's why we say the County is welcome to subsidize that. 21 We don't have to charge it to the retirees, because you're 22 subsidizing it right now. 23 MS. NEMEC: Right. And -- you're right, and 24 that was a decision that the Court made. It was just a 25 benefit to our retirees for working as long as they have. 12-15-03 17 1 And, you know, once they get to that retiree age and the -- 2 they don't have all the income that a working employee might 3 have, and that was just a decision the Court made several 4 years ago, to have that benefit for them. 5 MR. NORWOOD: And many counties in the state 6 are doing exactly the same thing, and we're happy to 7 participate with that. 8 MS. NEMEC: Okay. The next one is Greentree. 9 This was submitted to us by Bryan Finley and Associates. 10 That one also -- it has five employees requiring claim 11 details, which means select risk employees, and I'm 12 concerned about that, if that's already been done, if the 13 figures are firm, or is that subject to change based on 14 further evaluation on our high risk employees? 15 MR. LINDSEY: Excuse me. That plan is 16 underwritten by Mutual of Omaha, and there are disclosure 17 statements. There will be a disclosure statement with 18 anyone you take that's going to look at these things. 19 There's no -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: You'll need to speak up so 21 that the reporter can hear you and we can hear you up here. 22 And would you identify yourself, please? 23 MR. LINDSEY: I'm Bill Lindsey of Greentree 24 Administrators. This is a disclosure statement in my 25 proposal you're looking at. That is going to be required, 12-15-03 18 1 and until the quote is firmed, if somebody runs into the 2 back of a truck between now and the end of the year, you got 3 a problem. Our -- 4 MR. NORWOOD: Mr. Lindsey, for what it's 5 worth, Texas Association of Counties does not have a 6 statement like that required, because we're a member of a 7 pool. Ours is fine as it is. 8 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. Okay. That was the 9 only question I had on that one. And, like I say, I'm sure 10 that if an insurance consultant who does nothing but this 11 reviews this, they'll have many more questions than what I 12 picked up from them. The next proposal is from Employee 13 Benefit Administrators. This was submitted to us by Bryan 14 Finley and Associates. This is our current plan that we are 15 with now. Because I'm familiar with it and I -- and I know 16 how it works, I have no questions on this one. The last 17 thing we have here, in our -- in the bid package that I sent 18 out, I asked for the brokers that were going to submit 19 proposals to us to fill out a questionnaire -- broker 20 questionnaire, so the last two items that I have here are 21 the ones that were turned in. One was turned in by Bryan 22 Finley and Associates, and the other one was by Wallace and 23 Associates, and those were the only two that I received, 24 other than the insurance agencies that filled theirs out. 25 Okay. If you move on to the next page, the next page is 12-15-03 19 1 just a table of contents on what's to follow, so you might 2 want to just turn over to the following page, and I'll let 3 you know what it is that you're looking at -- or the page 4 after that. The first stapled page is the proposal 5 submitted by Mutual of Omaha. Those are the rates there 6 that you see. On the last four pages, three pages from the 7 very last one, I am real concerned about the co-pay for the 8 prescription drug. That is a lot higher than what our 9 employees are paying now. Actually, it's on the -- the 10 mail-in that I'm concerned about. And that would just be 11 for the brand name. If anybody wanted brand name right now, 12 we pay $40; that one goes up to $70. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Show me again where you are 14 on -- 15 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the information. 17 MS. NEMEC: If you look at this page where it 18 says Plan Summary, Prescription Drugs. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 23. 20 MS. NEMEC: Under Brand Name, mail-in order. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Can you give me a page number? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Says 23 on the 23 bottom, Judge. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 MS. NEMEC: Page 4. And then, depending on 12-15-03 20 1 what plan you have, it also can go up to $90 for that 2 name-brand prescription that now we have a benefit of $30. 3 So, basically, what I'm trying to say is that the 4 prescription co-pay concerns me, if our employees will be 5 able to afford that. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the difference between 7 formulary and not formulary? 8 MS. NEMEC: I believe that drugs are rated at 9 a different -- I don't know how different -- level, and 10 there are some that fall into formulary and nonformulary. 11 Is that -- you want to explain it? 12 MR. MALEK: That term, "formulary" drugs are 13 basically a predetermined list that drug companies have 14 given us lower pricing on, and so you are -- you basically 15 get a lower co-pay if you use drugs on that list. 16 Brand-name drugs are just kind of the opposite; there's no 17 discounts on them, and they cost a lot more, and so the 18 co-pays on them are higher. So the idea is, you are -- are 19 steering people toward using formulary drugs. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: What would fall under 21 nonformulary drugs, and what percentage would fall under 22 that? 23 MR. MALEK: An example would be -- like, 24 Celebrex would be a nonformulary drug. It's -- I think the 25 prescription on Celebrex is about $90, and there are other 12-15-03 21 1 alternatives that are similar to Celebrex that you can get 2 on a formulary that would be significantly less, a lower 3 cost, that do basically the same thing. So, that's kind of 4 the -- the theory behind it. In terms of how many drugs are 5 formulary versus brand-name drugs, it varies a lot, but I 6 would say about half of your drugs are going to be formulary 7 drugs. The rest will be divided between generic and 8 brand-name. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would the insured 10 -- the insured's doctors or the insured's pharmacist know 11 what's on your formulary or your nonformulary drug list? 12 Sounds like a moving target to me. 13 MR. MALEK: They all know what it is. It's 14 all on -- it's all computerized, and they're pretty 15 standard. I mean, there are some variances between 16 different companies, but for the most part, most formulary 17 drugs are the same for just about most prescription drug 18 cards. They're very similar, so pretty much everyone knows 19 what they are. It is a little bit of a moving target, but 20 for the most part, they're the same. 21 MS. NEMEC: Okay. The next one -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara? 23 MS. NEMEC: Yes? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you, or maybe the 25 Mutual of Omaha representative, explain the last page, make 12-15-03 22 1 sure I understand what I'm looking at? This -- going over 2 the -- 3 MS. NEMEC: Rate summary, stop loss? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, just the summary, 5 the rate summary page. Basically, what it's costing the 6 County, what we get for that money. 7 MR. MALEK: Well, basically, it's a summary 8 of all your costs combined together on how much it's going 9 to cost, your worst-case scenario. And if you look at all 10 the different -- there's, like, three parts to what you 11 really pay for. One is what we call fixed costs, and that's 12 the cost to pay claims, the cost to pay for all the programs 13 you have. Let's say in our case we have disease management 14 in there; that's a program that we have that we help control 15 costs. That's a part of it. The second part of it is in 16 the stop loss or the reinsurance cost, and there's two parts 17 to that. The specific reinsurance, that means any claim 18 that goes over -- and I believe in this case, it's 19 $40,000 -- is reimbursed by Mutual of Omaha up to a million 20 dollars, okay? So any claim that goes over $40,000 is 21 reimbursed by the insurance company. And then, lastly -- or 22 that second part of that reinsurance is the aggregate. What 23 we do is we give you factors. In this case, you have three 24 different plans, so we've divided it into three different 25 factors. And you total those up, and if your dollar amount 12-15-03 23 1 goes above that -- in this case, about a million, three, 2 you're talking about -- if -- if your total dollars payout 3 goes over that million, three, then it's all Mutual of 4 Omaha's money. That's the most that you can be liable for. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How does that 6 compare, for example, against what we're currently liable 7 for? 8 MS. NEMEC: Well, in -- in reviewing all 9 these proposals, this is the part where I feel an insurance 10 consultant could do a spreadsheet to show you all just what 11 is being proposed and, you know, what is -- what falls under 12 the aggregate, what falls under the different things that 13 you're looking at there with one spreadsheet showing 14 everything. I mean, if it was me, just glancing at the 15 numbers and just looking at the numbers, to me, Employee 16 Benefit Administrators' numbers look better than the others. 17 And I'll elaborate more on that when we get to their plan. 18 Okay, the next proposal that's stapled there is County 19 Choice. Again, on that one, on the very last page, if 20 you'll see -- look at the very last page, the mail service 21 prescription drug card for the nonpreferred brand, that's 22 $70 co-pay, to where it's -- now the employees are paying 23 $25. 24 MR. NORWOOD: Barbara, may I make a comment 25 on that? 12-15-03 24 1 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 2 MR. NORWOOD: To help the -- the break-even 3 for mail-order is about a two times co-pay. In other words, 4 if you give the employees three months of drugs for one 5 month's worth of co-pay, the County's really buying another 6 month. And so we've structured ours to be break-even for 7 the County, and you still give the employee a one-third 8 discount, as opposed to if they went to the pharmacy. 9 Because y'all are a self-funded plan, if you want to have it 10 be structured the same as you have now, that's okay with us, 11 but our standard offering is one that's cost-mutual to the 12 county. As it stands now, every time somebody mail orders, 13 the County's picking up one month worth of drugs. So, it's 14 simply a county commissioners court decision, and we'll do 15 whichever you prefer. 16 MS. NEMEC: That is correct. And at one 17 time, I did an evaluation, a survey, whatever you want to 18 call it, on the amount of money that employees were spending 19 on prescriptions and the salary that they were receiving and 20 how much they would end up with at the end of their payday 21 with what they spent on their prescriptions and what they 22 received in salary, and it was really surprising to see that 23 if we raised those rates, how much take-home pay the 24 employees would receive. So, that is a court decision. 25 We've tried to keep it at the rate that we have it for that 12-15-03 25 1 reason. But, like the gentleman said, that can always be 2 changed, and that is something that the Court could decide 3 on what to do about that. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Do any of these plans that are 5 not fully insured have a maximum contribution that we've got 6 to make each month so that we've got a -- we've got more or 7 less a level cash flow basis? I think there's a term in the 8 industry; I'm not sure exactly what it is, but -- 9 MS. NEMEC: They all recommend an amount of 10 what needs to be funded for the plan to be successful. And, 11 again, that funding level is something the Court could 12 change also, as far as how much cost goes to the employee 13 and how much goes to the County. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I understand that they 15 all recommend, but if there's an inordinate amount of claims 16 in one month, and that's within the -- within the 17 specific -- there could be a horrendous amount required to 18 be paid in a single month. 19 MS. NEMEC: Right. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: A very short period of time, 21 without some sort of a -- a cap on that, and do any of these 22 plans -- and these gentlemen may have to tell us that. I 23 think there's a term in the industry that I'm not familiar 24 with what it is, but -- but it -- it caps under your -- 25 under your self-insured programs what you've got to pay in 12-15-03 26 1 each month. 2 MS. NEMEC: Right, that's correct. And that 3 -- again, this is where a knowledgeable consultant can look 4 at these plans, can look at these claims and -- and evaluate 5 if these numbers are going to be true numbers to be able to 6 fund our plan. 7 MR. ROTHWELL: Judge, what you're referring 8 to is a monthly accommodation cap. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that what we call it? 10 Okay. Which of these plans, if any, have a monthly 11 accommodation cap? Blue Cross -- 12 MS. NEMEC: I think they all do. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Blue Shield? Mutual, 14 under -- under the Wallace bid, and Employee Benefit 15 Administrators. Those three have a monthly accommodation 16 cap? Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. 18 MS. NEMEC: Yes? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The County Choice, 20 Page 1 states the various types of insurance choice -- 300, 21 1,100, 1,200 -- and rates employee, employee and child, so 22 forth and so on. Why do those -- are those rates higher 23 than -- than are shown on Page 2 for the same thing? 24 MR. NORWOOD: I should probably answer, since 25 it's our proposal. 12-15-03 27 1 MS. NEMEC: Please do. 2 MR. NORWOOD: We were requested to look at -- 3 MS. NEMEC: This is fully insured? 4 MR. NORWOOD: On the fully insured, we gave 5 two sets of rates; they're 2 percent different. One's for 6 the short year and one's for a full year. I think y'all 7 wanted to move the anniversary to 10/1, so we gave you the 8 choice. 9 MS. NEMEC: Right. Any other questions on 10 that proposal? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably about a 12 hundred or so, but I don't know them all yet. 13 MS. NEMEC: Save them. Okay. Now for 14 Greentree. This was -- okay. Again, just observation, the 15 prescription card cost doubles on there. The final page is 16 the final -- last four pages are from Employee Benefit 17 Administrators, which is our current plan. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that -- are you 19 going to the last stapled deal? 20 MS. NEMEC: Last four pages. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 22 MS. NEMEC: And I'm sorry that these are all 23 in different texts. I just took copies off their proposals, 24 and that's what I've turned in to you. This is what 25 Employee Benefit Administrators submitted to us. Sometime 12-15-03 28 1 last week -- Thursday, I believe -- I did get a call from 2 Mr. Rothwell asking -- he had done some more research, and 3 he was able to adjust the numbers a little bit, so he asked 4 me to change those numbers. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: What -- just -- just a moment. 6 Just a moment. We're looking at the last few pages where 7 there's a bunch of interlined numbers? 8 MS. NEMEC: Right. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And the numbers that 10 were interlined were not the ones that were submitted to the 11 original bid? 12 MS. NEMEC: No, they were not. That's what 13 I'm explaining. Mr. Rothwell called. He -- there were some 14 extra funding -- he may be able to explain it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. Excuse me, I -- I 16 don't think we can consider these numbers that have been 17 interlined since the bids were submitted and opened. 18 MS. NEMEC: Well, these are Requests for 19 Proposals, so these numbers can be changed. And so my 20 explanation to y'all, as I was saying, was that I got a call 21 to change these numbers. I do not change these numbers. 22 They're submitted by the insurance company or the broker. 23 So, he came down to the office, took his copy, and these are 24 the numbers that are reflected on here. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12-15-03 29 1 MS. NEMEC: I did not touch these numbers. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Your statement is that the 3 numbers were placed on here by -- 4 MS. NEMEC: Mr. Rothwell. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: -- by him, by Mr. Rothwell? 6 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: After the bids were opened -- 8 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- by this Court? 10 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. Would 13 the same -- would the same privilege be granted all the 14 others? 15 MS. NEMEC: Absolutely. If anyone wants to 16 change their numbers, this is the time to do it. That's why 17 we're here. These are requests for proposals. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think these other 19 offerors were given that opportunity, Ms. Nemec, and that's 20 my whole point here. 21 MS. NEMEC: Well, this is the process, Judge. 22 They can change the numbers at any time before we bid on 23 the -- before we award the -- the insurance. 24 MR. NORWOOD: 262.030 speaks to negotiating 25 in secret. If we're going to make any changes, we'd 12-15-03 30 1 probably rather do it there. 2 MR. WALLACE: We sent some revised numbers, 3 and I was told they wouldn't be considered. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there were some numbers 5 submitted to me, and I -- I advised Mr. Wallace that, as we 6 lay them before the Court here today, I -- it would be 7 impermissible for me to do that. 8 MS. NEMEC: That's -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: If we got to the point later 10 on where there were going to be -- once we determined that 11 we were going to negotiate and attempt to obtain best and 12 final offers, certainly that would be appropriate. But 13 insofar as what we're laying out here on the table this 14 morning, I -- I don't think this is appropriate at all. 15 MS. NEMEC: Well, look at whatever numbers 16 you want to look at. I did not change them; he asked to 17 change them. That's what I have submitted to you all. Take 18 the ones that have been changed or the ones that were typed 19 in as submitted. 20 MR. ROTHWELL: Judge, may I address that? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I would like for you to, 22 Mr. Rothwell. 23 MS. NEMEC: And that's all I have. Thank 24 you. 25 MR. ROTHWELL: I work with a lot of RFP's, 12-15-03 31 1 and my understanding of an RFP is, once the bids are opened, 2 any bidder can change their numbers at any time during that 3 period. Based on a review of the most current things I see 4 in your current plan, I felt like the change was justified 5 based on -- based on claims experience through November, and 6 that's the reason I called Barbara and asked if it would be 7 permissible for me to give her some numbers to replace mine 8 with. And she told me that I would have to come and 9 physically do that, so I came and physically changed the 10 numbers to my -- to my current quote. And if we go into a 11 negotiation, I may have some more changes on a, quote, 12 secret negotiation basis. These are just pure numbers that 13 I could make -- my underwriter agreed with them based on 14 claims experience through November. That's the reason they 15 were changed. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- I 17 mean, I don't know the details of the law. I don't know if 18 the County Attorney -- if Mike knows the details, but 19 clearly, if the Judge told some they couldn't change them 20 and some were changed, we have to give everyone the 21 opportunity to change them, without question. 22 MR. ROTHWELL: I would assume, Commissioner, 23 that if someone had called Barbara and said we would like to 24 change our numbers, she would have been very receptive to 25 that. 12-15-03 32 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not saying -- 2 MR. ROTHWELL: She was the contact person for 3 this RFP, and that's the reason I contacted her. She's 4 identified as the contact person. 5 MS. NEMEC: If they were sealed bids, then 6 no, I would have not said, "Come down to my office, make 7 your changes." But because it was a request for proposals, 8 anybody could have called me; I would have said the same 9 thing to them. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either way, I think that 11 if the Court or representative of the Court gave a different 12 answer to someone who asked, I think that we have to -- 13 MS. NEMEC: Well, there hasn't been very well 14 communication in all this, I can say that. 15 MR. MALEK: The problem with that is we don't 16 have access to the same information, since he's the current 17 carrier. If he gets updated claims -- well, we don't have 18 any of that. 19 MR. WALLACE: We have no way to be able to do 20 that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: You were having to rely upon 22 the information that was available to you. 23 MR. MALEK: Correct. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: On submission. 25 MR. MALEK: Based on the information they 12-15-03 33 1 were provided, I'm sure they would agree we provided the 2 best quote at that time. 3 MR. NORWOOD: I would agree with the 4 gentleman from Mutual of Omaha. As a matter of fact, there 5 are run-out claims from 2002 that are not shown in the 6 exhibits that were provided us, and we've been unable to 7 obtain those, and yet the T.P.A., I'm sure, is well aware of 8 what they are. 9 MR. ROTHWELL: The run-out claims were 10 included in the aggregate reports that were provided to 11 everyone. 12 MR. NORWOOD: They were not; they were on a 13 12/12 basis. And the claims didn't go to 450,000 this 14 December down to a tenth of that in one month. 15 MR. ROTHWELL: No, they didn't, but they 16 were -- 17 MR. NORWOOD: They weren't there. 18 MR. ROTHWELL: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A timely time for the 20 County Attorney to enter. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, David, what are 23 your thoughts about this? 24 MR. MOTLEY: I haven't got any. 25 MS. NEMEC: That's all I have, as far as -- I 12-15-03 34 1 had made a list of the proposals that were -- the insurance 2 agencies or the brokers that picked up proposals, and I've 3 listed them there, and then the ones that returned them, I 4 just put down the dates here, how everything occurred, just 5 to show you that there is just not enough time to look at 6 all this information. And -- and that's why I didn't even 7 look at the dental proposals. I mean, you don't even have 8 enough time to really evaluate the medical proposals 9 correctly, and so I did not even consider any of the dental 10 proposals that were submitted. You see a name down there, 11 Don Gray, with his phone number and address. He is an 12 insurance consultant who does nothing but review proposals 13 and makes recommendations on which is the best proposal to 14 do. I did talk to him Friday. He -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Who's he affiliated with? 16 MS. NEMEC: Tommy, do you know who Don Gray 17 is with? Is he just -- 18 MR. TOMLINSON: By himself. 19 MR. ROTHWELL: Don Gray works for himself. 20 MS. NEMEC: For himself. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't he serve this 22 Court on a previous occasion? 23 MS. NEMEC: Yes, he did. Yes, he did; he 24 evaluated some other insurance proposals that we had. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought so. 12-15-03 35 1 MS. NEMEC: And made recommendations to the 2 Court. I was concerned about the timing in all this. He 3 did assure me that if I would call him as soon as this 4 meeting would be over, that he would work us in and look at 5 the proposals this week and come to the court on Monday with 6 a recommendation. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I think it's -- I realize 9 we're short of time. We were short of time when we started 10 this process. And that's unfortunate, but we are where we 11 are. And I knew that we were short of time, and I 12 appreciate the cooperation of everyone that bid it. And -- 13 and I don't want to see that process and all the effort 14 that's gone into it just be thrown on the shelf because 15 we're short of time. I -- I would like to give everyone who 16 has submitted a proposal the opportunity to work diligently 17 at giving us their best and final offer or alternative 18 offer, and submit that to someone who's an unbiased 19 third-party, not affiliated with anyone else, to give us 20 something that we can truly rely upon as learned and 21 reliable in making a decision, because we're talking about 22 potentially spending $2 million of the Kerr County 23 taxpayers' dollars, and I think we need to give every 24 consideration that we can, and not be penny-wise and 25 pound-foolish. So, this -- this gentleman served the Court 12-15-03 36 1 previously? 2 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any of you recall the -- was 4 it a good experience? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent experience. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good experience. 7 MS. NEMEC: Very good experience. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: If that gentleman will -- will 9 make himself available to -- to analyze these proposals, as 10 well as allowing these other offerors to -- or all of the 11 offerors, as the case my be, and if there's additional 12 information they need because of there not being a level 13 playing field, as it were, we need to do what we can to get 14 them that information. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And -- and let's get this 17 thing done. That's my thinking. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have just an 19 observation here. I don't -- I don't know that we're 20 serving any useful purpose by putting Mr. Gray or any other 21 consultant under the gun to be ready by next Monday, when in 22 fact we have more time before the end of the year. If we're 23 going to do it, I'd like to see us do it right. I'd like to 24 see that, as you put it, the playing field being level, 25 giving any and all the other bidders the opportunity to 12-15-03 37 1 refresh their numbers based on any late information that 2 might be available to them. That's my sense of it. Whether 3 the Court wants to hold it up and get it out on the 22nd or 4 not is up to the Court to decide. I'm going to make a 5 motion that Mr. Gray be retained by Kerr County 6 Commissioners Court to evaluate all of the proposals and 7 accept late numbers, and that we fund this out of 8 Professional Services, with a top limit of $5,000. May not 9 expend all that, but put it out there. 10 MS. NEMEC: He said it would be approximately 11 $3,000. Of course, you know, that's not looking at what I 12 have. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Be money well spent. 14 MS. NEMEC: I think so too. And I would 15 like, once he is hired, to do -- to do this; I would like 16 anybody who is going to change their numbers to deal 17 directly with him. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we're still going 20 to ask him to come back on -- on this coming Monday, one 21 week from today? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have to 23 make that decision. And putting him under the gun, I'm not 24 in favor of doing. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, he's willing to 12-15-03 38 1 do that, though. He's the one that said he's willing to do 2 it. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: And these offerors -- they're 4 already past the time frame to do a normal enrollment, and 5 they're going to have to be really busting it if they're 6 awarded on the 22nd. And the sense I've gotten from them is 7 that they're willing to make that effort. And there's going 8 to be some kinks -- and there's going to be some kinks 9 anyway, probably, but they're willing to bust it. But let's 10 get on down the road, and I think that's what we need to do 11 at this point. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 14 employ Mr. Gray out of Professional Services at a cost not 15 to exceed $5,000, and have him report back to this Court 16 with his evaluation of the proposals and any recommendations 17 he may have, and that he be authorized to submit late 18 numbers from any or all of the offerors as to their best and 19 final offers. Is that it? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the motion. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any questions or 22 discussion? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I have a question. 24 Basically, it's to the -- on revising the numbers, does that 25 provide the other companies enough time to get the 12-15-03 39 1 information they need to possibly revise the numbers? 2 'Cause, I mean, they would have to have that information. 3 MR. NORWOOD: If the third-party 4 administrator will provide -- 5 MR. WALLACE: As long as he provides it to us 6 immediately. 7 MR. ROTHWELL: If I can get the e-mail 8 addresses that -- of those that want to get the numbers, 9 I'll have them sent to them this afternoon. 10 MS. NEMEC: And I will call Mr. Gray and see 11 if he wants me to overnight this to him, or if it's best 12 that I drive this down to Austin today. I will do that. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one question 14 to ask with respect to the product that Mr. Gray will put 15 together and return to the Court. I assume the assessment 16 or analysis of all these bidders will include the comparison 17 against the existing policy and -- 18 MS. NEMEC: Absolutely. Absolutely. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: We have another question back 20 here? 21 MR. LINDSEY: I -- if I could make a 22 suggestion, it's that all quotes should be developed off of 23 your current benefit structure. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I just said 25 that. 12-15-03 40 1 MR. LINDSEY: That's what you -- basically, 2 what you just said. On the current benefit structure, no 3 deviation is one. Number two, we got to have claim 4 information, not only in the aggregate, but we need the 5 claims information on -- there's about four or five large 6 claims, and we need the -- the progress -- diagnosis 7 prognosis on those claims in order for somebody to -- a 8 carrier to firm the quotes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I thought that -- that we had 10 previously directed that on the larger significant 11 claimants, that the diagnosis prognosis be furnished to all 12 potential offerors. 13 MS. NEMEC: And it was. And it was. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Thank you, sir. Any 15 further questions or discussion? 16 MR. NORWOOD: Unfortunately, if your 17 suggestions are followed, that cuts Blue Cross/Blue Shield 18 out entirely, because the three-tier benefit structure is 19 very unusual in county government, and they're not set up to 20 administer that under current parameters. And being an 21 independent T.P.A., of course, you can do any of that. But 22 I'm not sure what the point is. The three-tier doesn't 23 really serve the board. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think your point is, let the 25 consultant evaluate based on what's submitted, and I think, 12-15-03 41 1 you know, he can tell the difference between apples and 2 other varieties of apples, and oranges and apples. And I -- 3 I think that's the job for the -- for the -- 4 MR. NORWOOD: We're fine with that. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the consultant. Sure. Any 6 further questions or discussion? All in favor of the 7 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: That's where we are, then, 12 which is nowhere yet. 13 MR. WALLACE: Thank y'all. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me -- I assume 15 on your participation form, Mr. Wallace, we've covered what 16 you needed to do? 17 MR. WALLACE: Right. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't see you doing one of 19 these for me, so -- 20 MR. WALLACE: We're good to go. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I appreciate all of you 22 fine folks being here today and participating, and I realize 23 this -- this appears to be very late and disorganized, and 24 unfortunately, for the most part, it is, but we're going to 25 get there. We appreciate your patience and your efforts. 12-15-03 42 1 At this time, we have with the posting the ability to go 2 into executive session, and so let us do that. We'll need 3 the County Attorney and his assistant, and the reporter and 4 the members of the Court. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 (The open session was closed at 9:59 a.m., and an Executive Session was held, the 7 transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll go -- we'll go 10 back into -- into -- reconvene into open session again. 11 It's a couple minutes after 11:00. Does any member of the 12 Court wish to offer a motion on anything that was discussed 13 in executive session? Hearing none, we'll go back to the 14 regular agenda, and the next agenda item is consideration 15 and discussion of implementing burn ban for Kerr County. 16 Commissioner Letz, I believe you wanted something on that? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- something that 18 I was thinking about over the weekend, and I think I talked 19 to the papers about it a little bit. This time of year is 20 when agricultural burning takes place, and it's really -- 21 you know, it's very important for agriculture to take place, 22 but we're also in conditions of very bad fire danger, and I 23 don't know which -- you know, which way is heavier. If you 24 -- the longer -- at some point, a lot of the agricultural 25 burning almost has to be done or you create other problems 12-15-03 43 1 possibly next summer or down the road. In prior years, I 2 believe that -- I don't know if it was last year or the year 3 before, we had a burn ban in the winter, but we also put an 4 exclusion or an exemption that could be put in that any 5 agricultural burning done under a prescribed burn plan could 6 continue. And I just brought -- I'm bringing it up. I 7 don't know if we want to maybe revisit the burn ban at our 8 next meeting and put that in there, if we ought to do a 9 workshop or get some recommendations from the fire 10 departments and possibly the Parks and Wildlife or Soil 11 Conservation people, get their advice on it, or just leave 12 it the way it is. I just kind of bring it because I know -- 13 you know, I don't think much is going to happen probably in 14 the last two weeks of December, but come January and 15 February, these questions are going to come up quite a bit, 16 and I think we need to be able to -- you know, we'll have 17 thought about it and addressed them. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Are not these prescribed burns 19 performed under a plan that is prepared and submitted and 20 approved by -- what is it, farm service agency? Local farm 21 service agencies or similar federal agency? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't have -- 23 MS. SOVIL: Soil Conservation. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, you -- the way it 25 works, you know, people -- and it's mostly ranchers that do 12-15-03 44 1 prescribed burning. You have a burn plan, and the reason 2 for it is a liability issue to the person doing the burning. 3 You know, there's a form that you can get from either Parks 4 and Wildlife or Soil Conservation as to -- you know, you 5 fill in the blanks, and if you do those things that are not 6 negligent and the fire department's aware, you're not liable 7 for it. I think the time we did it, we may have had a 8 requirement that the plans had to be filed with the Soil 9 Conservation people. I can't remember. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if it had 11 to be approved, though. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or approved by Joe 13 Franklin. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Filed with them only, 15 I think. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But, anyway, it's 17 just -- I'm bringing it up. I don't remember exactly how we 18 worked it. It could be that -- you know, and you get into a 19 situation of people that do prescribed burns, there's not a 20 -- I mean, you kind of have -- you prepare your plan for a 21 set of conditions to exist. Once they exist, you've got to 22 burn. You can't decide in the morning you're going to run 23 to Kerrville and get permission, and then can't find Joe 24 Franklin, so you got to be able to be flexible enough that 25 the plan's on file so that -- and, I mean, I don't know of 12-15-03 45 1 any -- I mean, clearly -- well, I don't -- I won't say -- 2 occasionally, a fire can get away from anybody, you know. I 3 think Bill Armstrong with Parks and Wildlife would be the 4 first to say that conditions come in that are not predicted 5 by the weather service, and all bets are off as to what's 6 going to happen with a controlled burn. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't -- last time, 8 Jon, didn't we -- didn't we set it up so that if Rancher A 9 had a -- a plan which was filed with Soil Conservation and 10 represented that to the Commissioner, that they could waive 11 or they could suspend it on his behalf? Isn't that how we 12 did it? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall that the 14 Commissioners suspended it. I think that we gave it -- we 15 pushed the -- you know, if it was filed in an approved plan, 16 I think we put it off on the -- Joe Franklin's office, Soil 17 Conservation office, that you had to file a plan with them. 18 And if they approved the plan, then you could -- they 19 could -- the ranchers could do it whenever they wanted to 20 under that -- on the basis of that plan. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're suggesting is 22 maybe we need to put it on the agenda for next Monday to 23 consider exemptions for prescribed burns and -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, and a procedure. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And the rules and procedures 12-15-03 46 1 related. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll probably visit with 3 Joe Franklin between now and then and see what his 4 recollection is. And the other part of it is burning 5 coastal fields, which that's -- I guess that's a prescribed 6 burn as well, really, sort of dealing with the same -- but I 7 just think we need to address this, because if we do go into 8 a very long, dry winter and spring, at some point, some of 9 these things need to be done. That's all. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on this item? 11 Anything else to come before the Court at this time? 12 Hearing nothing further, I will declare the meeting 13 adjourned. Thank you. 14 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:07 a.m.) 15 - - - - - - - - - - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12-15-03 47 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 16th day of December, 8 2003. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12-15-03