1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, February 9, 2004 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 February 9, 2004 2 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 4 3 1.10 Presentation of Capital Improvements Program for 4 Kerrville/Kerr County Airport 6 5 1.4 Report from Danny Feller, President of KARFA, seeking assistance in process for reporting 6 controlled burns, dispatching methods/procedures 25 7 1.5 Request from Environmental Health Department Manager to provide funding to add staff 37 8 1.6 Authorize County Attorney to retain attorney(s) 9 on contingent fee basis to investigate/pursue claims against Employee Benefit Administrators 47 10 1.1 Approve annual accounts/status of investments 11 pursuant to Texas Probate Code 887(b) 123 12 1.2 Refer fence encroachment on right-of-way on Michon Drive to County Attorney 125 13 1.3 Revision of Floodplain budget 129 14 1.7 Consider adding names to War Memorial 139 15 1.8 Request for waiver of HCYEC rental fees for 16 Kerr County Federal Credit Union annual meeting 144 17 1.9 Approve Change Order #5 to compensate Compton Construction --- 18 1.11 Approve bill of sale/assignment of wastewater 19 improvements constructed in Phase I of Kerrville South Wastewater Project 147 20 1.12 Accept proposed Water Availability regulations, 21 set public hearing on same 149 22 4.1 Pay Bills 155 4.2 Budget Amendments 156 23 4.3 Late Bills 160 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 162 24 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaisons 163 25 --- Adjourned 190 3 1 On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 2 meeting 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 the meeting to 7 order. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'll call to 8 order the regular Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for 9 this date, Monday, February the 9th, at 9 a.m., pursuant to 10 notice that was posted. I believe the honors this morning 11 go to Precinct 4 Commissioner Nicholson. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Will you join me in 13 prayer, and then the pledge of allegiance? 14 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: If there is any member of the 16 public that wishes to address the Court about any matter 17 that is not listed on the agenda -- not listed on the 18 agenda -- they're privileged to come forward at this time, 19 and encouraged to do so. With respect to matters that are 20 listed on the agenda, if you wish to speak, we would ask 21 that you fill out a participation form in the back of the 22 room; they're available, and try and key to the agenda item 23 that you have an interest in, and get that up here to us. 24 It's not absolutely essential, but it helps us in trying to 25 be sure that we don't miss anybody that wants to speak to an 2-9-04 4 1 issue that we have on the agenda. But, at this time, if 2 there's any member of the public that wishes to come forward 3 and speak about a matter that is not listed on the agenda, 4 please come forward at this time. I see no one moving. All 5 right. Well move on to the next area of the agenda. 6 Mr. Nicholson, have you got anything for us this morning, 7 sir? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, sir, I do not. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Mr. Baldwin? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I do not. 11 Thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Williams? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not yet, sir. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Letz? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a couple of 16 comments, Judge. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: First, I just wanted to 19 let everyone know that, related to Hermann Sons Bridge 20 project, we have all five tracts with the title company, 21 with closings being scheduled. So, what that means is that 22 right-of-way acquisition is about complete on that project, 23 and is a -- should be progressing in an appropriate timeline 24 with TexDOT to get that new bridge built. So, it's been a 25 long process to get everyone in agreement on that 2-9-04 5 1 right-of-way acquisition, but that's the -- from the 2 conversation I had on the way in this morning, the final 3 person has agreed. 4 My other comment is, it's -- two things. To 5 start with, I'd like to, you know, recognize and thank 6 everyone in the Comfort school district that voted on 7 Saturday. There's was an election there; they had a strange 8 cap on school taxes. School Board wanted to remove that 9 cap, and it was overwhelmingly rejected; the cap will stay. 10 So, I'd like to -- kudos to everyone that voted; about 600 11 out of 4,000 eligible voters that voted, which is not bad 12 for a -- you know, a single item, off-day election. But I'd 13 also like to offer as severe criticism as I can to the 14 Comfort School Board for the wording they allowed on the 15 ballot. It was absolutely horrendous. You couldn't tell if 16 you were voting for it or against it if you weren't really 17 prepared on the language. And I was at the point that I had 18 to go to the election people and ask them -- tell them that 19 I wanted to vote against -- or to keep the cap in place, and 20 I had to ask them which way to vote, 'cause I couldn't 21 figure it out from the ballot, and that's really inexcusable 22 for any elected body to put something on the ballot that is 23 so confusing that the average person can't understand it. 24 And I'm saying that primarily for the press, 'cause I think 25 that it is just unacceptable for any elected body to do what 2-9-04 6 1 they did on Comfort School Board. Okay, that's it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That it? I would like to 3 recognize our County Clerk's office here in Kerr County. 4 They recently received, for the -- I don't know how many 5 times -- umpteenth time, fourth, fifth, sixth time, 6 recognition from the Department of Vital Statistics in the 7 state of Texas. They were one of a few local government 8 entities that received exemplary recognition for their work 9 in -- with respect to the tabulation and compiling and 10 keeping of vital statistics data; that's birth and death 11 records. And those records, of course, as we all know, are 12 very, very important, and this is a very -- a very nice 13 honor that they've received, and I'd like to thank them for 14 all their work. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That's all I have this 17 morning. Let's proceed on into the agenda. I've been 18 requested to take an item out of order, rather than its 19 place upon the agenda, that being Item 10. Do I hear any 20 objection from any member of the Court? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not I. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Hearing none, we will proceed 23 with Item 10, which is presentation and discussion of 24 Capital Improvements Program for the Kerrville/Kerr County 25 Airport, as recommended by the Airport Manager and the 2-9-04 7 1 Airport Advisory Board. Commissioner Williams, I believe 2 you have Mr. Pearce here, the Airport Manager, and 3 Dr. Davis; I believe he's chairman of the Airport Board; is 4 that correct? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct, 6 Judge. Both Dr. Davis and Mr. Pearce are present. They 7 have a little display, and they want to step us through the 8 capital projects plan for years '04 through '07. Dr. Davis? 9 DR. DAVIS: Morning. Thank you, Judge and 10 Commissioners. I think we know each other, but for the 11 record, I'm John Davis, chairman of the Airport Board. I'm 12 here today with Dave Pearce, our Airport Manager. We're 13 going to talk a little bit about the recent master plan that 14 was approved for our airport, and then some of the economic 15 development aspects that that has, and then get into the 16 specifics of the capital funding for the first few years of 17 that. After a several-year process, our airport recently 18 approved a master plan, and a master plan is basically an 19 infrastructure plan for the airport itself for the next 10 20 to 20 years. It's an F.A.A. -- Federal Aviation-approved 21 document, and it's really required to get them involved and 22 get them in the funding of our airport. 23 Most of the capital improvements at our 24 airport that apply to runway environment, runway structure, 25 landing systems, lighting for the airport, and runway 2-9-04 8 1 itself, those things generally are funded by the federal 2 government 90 percent, and the local government entities 3 10 percent, which, since we are co-owners, that would be 4 5 percent for the Court. The for that comes from an airport 5 trust fund, which comes from aviation fuel sales, taxes on 6 airplane parts; it comes from airline tickets. It does not 7 come from the general federal funds, so it's a dedicated 8 fund, and that's done with matching for capital 9 improvements. We've been quite fortunate at our airport to 10 be favorably blessed with a number of capital improvements, 11 and with this airport master plan being developed, we -- 12 we're in line to be in the next cycle of funding, provided 13 the funds are available. And, of course, one of our reasons 14 for being here today is to let you know about that for 15 planning purposes, and for you to be planning on your 16 percent for the next few years. 17 Most of the airport master plan for the next 18 10 to 15 years really is involved with moving our airport up 19 to the next level, and the next level would be an airport 20 with a precision approach and with a longer runway, which 21 will allow larger and larger business aircraft to use our 22 airport. There are two basic types of approaches, precision 23 and nonprecision. Our airport has nonprecision approaches, 24 and if you saw the weather this morning, it was actually -- 25 I checked the weather on the way in; it was actually 2-9-04 9 1 landable with a nonprecision approach. People flying jet 2 aircraft at 130 knots on final approach may not think it was 3 safe to do that, but it was actually landable. A 4 nonprecision approach gives you horizontal, or left-right 5 guidance. A precision approach adds vertical or up-and-down 6 guidance to that. And there are two types of precision 7 approaches; an I.L.S., which you'll hear a little bit about 8 in a moment, and then G.P.S. The I.L.S. and most landing 9 systems -- instrument approach systems have all the 10 electronics located on the field. Of course, the G.P.S. has 11 all the electronics located in the sky somewhere. That's 12 how you find fish and find your way when you're lost in the 13 rent car and all that kind of thing. 14 In moving up to a precision approach for 15 larger aircraft -- and I'll come back to that in a minute -- 16 and longer runway, lots of things have to be done. The -- 17 actually, the taxiway will have to be moved. Additional 18 lighting systems need to be moved. And then, if we go the 19 I.L.S. route, we'll need to add the actual electronics on 20 the field. This requires property acquisition. There's 21 also some clearing of some areas so that the trees and other 22 things don't infringe on the F.A.A.'s requirements. The 23 reason for this is not just for landing safely in marginal 24 weather, but it's because a lot of larger aircraft -- 25 corporate aviation departments require the precision 2-9-04 10 1 approach and the longer runways for their aircraft to 2 operate here. And, of course, they can operate here as a 3 refueling point on a cross-country flight. That helps us 4 with revenue from the fuel sales. That's one of our two 5 major sources of revenue. They can operate here to visit, 6 to come for summer camp, to come fishing, to come hunting. 7 That helps us with fuel sales and other county and city 8 services sold to them. 9 But the -- but the real thing, when you're 10 moving up into this league, is to look for -- for 11 corporations that may want to locate here because of our 12 airport or on our airport, and they're -- they're both 13 related. There are companies, and Dave will mention a 14 couple that he knows, that actually require an airport 15 within a certain distance and certain criteria before they 16 will locate their company in your area, and that's not 17 necessarily located on your airport; it's located in the 18 general area. Of course, those of us who love airports 19 would love for folks to locate their company here and base 20 their corporate airplanes at the airport. When they do 21 that, that helps all of us with additional tax base. So, 22 either way, whether they locate on the airport or they 23 locate in the area because of the airport, that helps all of 24 us by increased revenue. 25 I think that's kind of the introduction for 2-9-04 11 1 the airport master plan and how we see the airport working 2 for economic development for our area. As I said, it's a 3 10- to 20-year plan; it's a plan that's always in flux from 4 the moment that you produce it. And we've tried to outline 5 as an Airport Board the first five years of how we think the 6 priority of spending should be delegated, and this also has 7 to do with how we hope the F.A.A. will choose to fund some 8 of these projects. I'm going to let Dave now talk to you 9 about the specifics. And, of course, the first year coming 10 up is -- is the one that's perhaps the most concrete, but 11 things can be moved from year -- up, down, depending on the 12 needs. Dave? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dr. Davis, if I could ask 14 one question? 15 DR. DAVIS: Sure. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know; maybe Dave 17 Pearce has the answer. Do you have a number of the amount 18 of ad valorem taxes that come directly from businesses, 19 aircraft, you know, other private things that are located at 20 the airport? 21 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir. For property taxes, 22 $167,000 a year. Right now, from airplane taxes, I'm in the 23 process of trying to capture that and pull that out, but 24 right now, our businesses are generating $167,000 a year 25 that goes into the general funds and schools. 2-9-04 12 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 DR. DAVIS: Let me mention one more thing not 3 related directly to the Airport Master Plan, which is really 4 an F.A.A. infrastructure document, but there's been a lot of 5 improvements at our airport, the service facilities there; 6 wastewater improvements, water improvements, new hangars are 7 going up. We have a new private hangar going up right now 8 to house jets, you know. We hope they're based here, but 9 even if they're not, the hangar's being added to the tax 10 rolls right now. So, there's a lot things -- we have 11 several new businesses that have located at the airport. 12 And I'll let Dave go ahead with the specifics of the funding 13 for the capital improvements, and I'm happy to answer 14 questions anytime. So -- 15 MR. PEARCE: Judge and Commissioners, thank 16 you for taking the time this morning to talk about your 17 airport and some of the benefits it brings to the community. 18 I would like to start off, first of all, saying a lot of 19 questions that people ask is, Why do I have an airport? 20 What do I need to have an airport for, and what does it do 21 for me? I go down to San Antonio, I jump on a commercial 22 flight and I take -- go somewhere, and that's the only thing 23 I have to do with airplanes. Well, I'll equate this in one 24 simple number: $30 million a year of economic impact. That 25 wasn't generated locally, but the State of Texas did an 2-9-04 13 1 economic impact study a year and a half ago for all the 2 airports in Texas, and what did it do for generating for the 3 Kerrville airport? It was $30 million a year in economic 4 impact through the multipliers and direct labor, over 570 5 jobs, and a payroll -- and correct me, Dr. Davis -- the 6 payroll, I believe, was about $9 million in -- in total. 7 And that's not just the airport, but it's the businesses 8 that support the airport. When you take a look at our 9 community size and look at that number, I think that's quite 10 a bit. 11 As Dr. Davis alluded to, some of the 12 companies locate here not necessarily because they're going 13 to be on the airport, but because they have access to an 14 airport. Standard thing is Walmart; Walmart will not locate 15 a store unless they have access to an airport where they can 16 ferry folks in and out. Home Depot and Lowe's is the same 17 way, and I know we have those in our town, and I'm sure 18 that's quite an economic generator in itself. Those are 19 benefits that the airport brings to the community, not to 20 mention that when they come in, they land, they buy fuel and 21 some various other things. One of the things that Dr. Davis 22 had mentioned was some things that we're looking at on our 23 Airport Master Plan, and the Airport Master Plan is really a 24 direction of where do we think we're going to go in the next 25 10 to -- 10 to 20 years. 2-9-04 14 1 And, by that, the F.A.A. comes in, looks at 2 where the aviation fleet as a whole is going, what types of 3 aircraft are coming, they assess the inventory, they assess 4 the surrounding area, and they look at what your needs are 5 immediately in the future and help you go to the next level 6 with how you can prepare for your growth. And that's what 7 this plan is in front of you, and we've got a bigger diagram 8 right there to assist with that. The Board and myself sat 9 down last -- I believe it was April-May, and we worked very 10 diligently on the master plan to try to look at a 11 comprehensive document of, okay, if all of these events take 12 place, and if our owners wish to go this direction, what 13 kind of planning tool do they have for looking at funding 14 and funding matches? And that's the Capital Improvement 15 Program that you have in front of you. 16 We broke those down by year so we have a 17 planning document to say, Okay, this is what we would like 18 to do. These are things that will be coming up, as far as 19 funding. The F.A.A. will plan that in their master funding 20 document to look at projects here. So, if we're going to go 21 that direction, we got a planning tool to know what kind of 22 funds we would have to have for a match. And, again, all 23 these projects on here, with the exception of the I.L.S., is 24 a 90/10 match that we're looking at. That means 90 percent 25 comes from the federal government; 10 percent comes from 2-9-04 15 1 locally, which is 5 percent County, 5 percent City. Yes, 2 sir? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the I.L.S.? 4 MR. PEARCE: The I.L.S. right now is 5 something that the F.A.A. will not fund. It -- what they're 6 looking at in 2015 to 2020, they're going to have a -- what 7 they call a precision approach for global positioning 8 satellite. They have stopped funding for all of the 9 I.L.S.'s, and they're going to go to the G.P.S. system. 10 They will gradually take all their commercial airports 11 first, and then go to us. So, realistically we know we 12 would not be able to have a global positioning precision 13 approach until about 2020, 2025, and that's at best. With 14 that, however, we did some research to see if we could fill 15 that gap, if you will, to service our customers and our 16 corporate folks that want to relocate here, and there is the 17 ability to service that with a purchase locally of an 18 I.L.S., and then you'd, in turn, donate that to the F.A.A.; 19 the F.A.A. takes over all the maintenance on it and takes it 20 from there. With that, that is about $500,000. 21 The other things that would help support the 22 precision approach are FAA-funded, and that's the separation 23 of the taxiway and the runway, some of the clearing of those 24 areas. Regardless of whether we go to an I.L.S. or a global 25 positioning satellite approach, that's precision; we would 2-9-04 16 1 still need to do those things, so they will support that. 2 Now, any one of these things there's an opportunity also to 3 get private funding for, just like what happened for the 4 terminal; the E.I.C. gave the funding match for that. We 5 could find some other funding for the I.L.S. once we take 6 care of these other things. But I think it's important that 7 we identify all the projects on here, we look at them, we 8 decide whether we want to at least pursue those type of 9 things, so nothing's a surprise. I think everybody needs to 10 know -- and then it's your decision; you're the owners of 11 the airport. So, you may say, "I don't want to do that," 12 but at least we know ahead of time so we're not spinning our 13 wheels trying to capture funding, and we can contact the -- 14 you know, let the F.A.A. know these type of things too, 15 because they'll look at funding other airports for other 16 things. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dave, on that -- but the 18 plan, you will -- the, I guess, infrastructure improvements 19 will be necessary whether you had I.L.S. or not, based -- 20 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on trying to get -- 22 MR. PEARCE: Absolutely. To have any type of 23 precision approach, you have to have that space. And this 24 is quite common in an airport that starts off as a general 25 aviation small airport, and then gradually goes up to an 2-9-04 17 1 instrument approach. Which, what we have now, that gives us 2 our -- our horizontal guidance, and then the next step is to 3 go to vertical. This happens quite frequently. That's also 4 why, when you go out and you see the -- the lighting on the 5 runways, you don't see any lighting on the taxiways. And 6 the overlay was not accomplished on the taxiway because if 7 that taxiway gets moved, we did not want to put the money 8 there and then have to move the lights again and tear up a 9 freshly completed, renovated taxiway. 10 So, with that said, some of these things that 11 we have here, that we've forecasted that are potential 12 funding things, you see the first one and you may -- you 13 know, there's a host of acronyms on there, and you see the 14 -- the MALSR. What is a MALSR? It's a medium aircraft 15 lighting system that actually, if you go to a commercial 16 airport or some of your larger ones, you see those lights in 17 the movies that have the trees -- they look like a whole lot 18 of white lights where you follow down. That's what the 19 MALSR's are. If we install those today, we can enhance our 20 safety; we can also enhance the -- the approaches and reduce 21 our minimums of how far down an aircraft can -- can go 22 before they have to do a missed approach or leave 'cause 23 they don't have the runway in sight. And that can happen 24 regardless of whether we move the taxiway or anything; that 25 could happen today. Those are identified in the master 2-9-04 18 1 plan. Those are available for funding. The cost estimates 2 there, as you can see, they're on the right-hand side, and 3 we're looking at both ends, so that's about $25,000 total 4 from the County and the City to do both ends. 5 I think it's important that, in this process, 6 if we decide we're -- we're going on to the precision 7 approach, that we start looking at one small section of land 8 that we have to procure to do that. Now, you see that 9 little area where the road is identified; it goes through a 10 little corner about in the middle of the runway -- and I'm 11 sorry, I didn't bring my pointer, but it's a little area 12 right here. It's the last of any purchases of land that we 13 would need to complete that. The second phase would also 14 have to be a realignment of the second portion of the road. 15 The first portion's already been realigned to accommodate 16 that; there's now a second half that would have to go with 17 that. And then, also, the relocation of the road. That 18 really happens in two phases. You procure the land, you 19 start off with a design, your engineers complete the entire 20 design and cost estimates, they get ready to bid it, and 21 then the following year, you go into -- to an actual 22 construction phase, and that's what we have listed there. 23 The other area that you would see in this 24 year is called distance remaining markers, and that's 25 primarily for the larger aircraft, when they land on the 2-9-04 19 1 runway, there's a lighted number of how many feet are 2 remaining on the runway, and it goes down 5,000, 4,000, 3 3,000, so they can see that. Also, when taking off 4 heavily-loaded, they also have that as an indication so they 5 know what is their go/no go situation. That can happen also 6 today. With that said, the rest of them kind of flow out, 7 as you see, that go out into the year following and then 8 continue on. I think it's an excellent planning tool. 9 Certainly, we're not asking for any decisions or anything at 10 this point. I think there'll be more discussions as we go 11 through this, but it gives you an opportunity to kind of 12 look at some of these things and see if -- if this is the -- 13 the direction you may like to go. 14 Some of the things that we've actually 15 accomplished this year, and what we -- I don't want to tie 16 up too much time, but I think these are very important. As 17 Dr. Davis said, there was a two-year comprehensive time 18 spent on this master plan, and that was finished up, and 19 that's been accepted by the F.A.A., and that helps them for 20 planning on funding. Some of our revenue things, the County 21 and the City did develop some T-hangars. We increased our 22 rental -- I shouldn't say our rental rates, but our 23 occupancy rates. We were running about 62 percent. We're 24 up to 100 percent with a waiting list, so that generates 25 about $48,000 a year that goes into the airport and helps 2-9-04 20 1 pay for some of these -- these maintenance costs and 2 whatever. 3 We have renegotiated two leases on B.A. 4 Products, as you know; that's helped increase our rents, and 5 brought it up to about $12,000 a year increase, and puts 6 them a little bit closer to market rate. Kerrville Aviation 7 had signed a lease with a market rate on it, and that 8 increased our rents also for another -- I believe it's about 9 $8,000 a year. And we've got some other opportunities in 10 there for enhancing rent, if you will. We just completed a 11 runway overlay, which is the -- it strengthened the runway; 12 it also smoothed it out with 2 inches of asphalt, a 13 6,000-foot runway. The striping was completed last week. 14 The taxiway, we had what they call a seal to help hold the 15 asphalt right now. We didn't do an overlay, as I mentioned 16 earlier, but that was completed. The striping was completed 17 on that also last week, actually Friday. 18 We have a 300-by-300 concrete apron that was 19 included in this project. We still have three lines that 20 need to be poured on that for the concrete, and that will be 21 turned over for usage for us to help with the transient 22 aircraft. In addition, we were able to have incorporated 23 some erosion on the smaller runway, some additional striping 24 in that area. The entrance road that goes into the airport, 25 it actually will allow for not only precision approaches, 2-9-04 21 1 but if and when we extend the runway -- that portion was 2 completed, and I need to see if they finished the striping 3 on that. That was supposed to be completed this weekend, 4 and that should be ready to open up. 5 I will mention one thing with that entrance 6 road. They were supposed to the have the blinking light 7 moved, and actually, there was a decision by the State to 8 put in an LED light on there, which was not available. 9 There was some discussion about trying to open up that new 10 entrance road without the blinking light. I know I can't 11 control the State and what they do, but it was not very 12 favorable in my eyes to not have a blinking light at the 13 entrance road. You know, we've had a fatality there before. 14 That does concern me, and I'm trying to stop that if I can. 15 One thing I suggested -- it would be an increased cost, but 16 that would be at their nickel, if you will, and that is to 17 take the existing light and move it down until they get the 18 LED in, and then change over the LED light at that time. I 19 think that's a dangerous corner. 20 The other thing I'd like to point out here 21 is, originally, the plans called for a left -- or a 22 left-right turn lane -- left turn lane, if you will, going 23 to the east. And the State had sent somebody out there last 24 summer. They were out from about 2:00 to about 2:15, looked 25 at the -- the traffic count, and decided to eliminate the 2-9-04 22 1 left turn lane. I, for one, am not in favor of that. 2 That's a personal thing, but I think that there's enough 3 traffic there at other times. If there's anything we can do 4 to try to reinstate that left turn lane, I think it's a 5 safety issue, and I know it's a State call and it's very 6 difficult for us to change a state transportation, but it -- 7 I think it is a safety issue. With all that said, I think 8 I've taken up quite a bit of time here, but I think we've 9 had a lot of great accomplishments there. I still go back 10 and -- and look at the county of Kerr, and -- correct me -- 11 I believe it's about 47,000? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Close. 13 MR. PEARCE: And the City of Kerrville is 14 about 22. So, you take a look at those communities, and you 15 say, $30 million of economic impact, that's not bad. That 16 is really not bad. And I'm really proud to be part of this 17 team. I think this will help us in the future, whether it's 18 a company that locates down the street here or locates 19 somewhere within Kerr County. Just the fact that having the 20 airport will make -- help them make that decision to come 21 here; that's jobs, that's tax base, that's economic impact, 22 and I'm sure proud to be part of that. Any questions? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, one quick 24 question. Under calendar years '5 and '6, you have the 25 realignment of the airport loop road, and there is a 2-9-04 23 1 realignment going on now. Is that the same one, or is this 2 the anticipated -- 3 MR. PEARCE: No, sir, that's the anticipated 4 future one. That goes after -- to accommodate the remaining 5 portion of the taxiway. This new road actually comes here 6 and comes to this point, and -- and ties into the old road, 7 so it would take it from this point down, approximately -- I 8 think it's about 1,500 feet, if you will. And that would be 9 the second portion of that. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: David, the airport 11 is one of the functions that the County supports that is a 12 good candidate for being self-supporting. That is, the 13 revenues generated directly by the airport would cover the 14 costs of maintenance and operations. Is that going to 15 happen? 16 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, I think we're headed 17 in that direction. And -- and, to be quite honest, if we -- 18 and we're not asking for that money, but if you -- if you 19 give us credit for the fact that what we are directly 20 supporting is going into the General Fund through tax base 21 and everything else, we're more than self-supporting. And 22 we're certainly not asking to -- you know, for the tax base. 23 Just an acknowledgment that we have $167,000 that we 24 directly generate right there on the airport, plus the other 25 $134,000; you see that we're -- we're beyond that, if you 2-9-04 24 1 will. I think it's a good thing, though, to see things go 2 in the General Fund. We can help pay for police and fire 3 and schools and all the other stuff, 'cause that's a benefit 4 for everybody in the community. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dave, on that topic, can 6 you go over a little bit about, I guess, the cost of some of 7 these aircraft that are beginning to look at Kerrville to be 8 housed here, what their -- what the -- I guess the value of 9 those aircraft are from a tax base -- where they get taxed 10 at? 11 MR. PEARCE: Actually, the types of aircraft 12 we're looking at are things which -- we have one located 13 there right now, our Challenger; Bombardier builds it. It's 14 a 604, takes about eight to ten passengers. It's a business 15 jet nonstop to Europe, if you will. The range on that is 16 anywhere from 14 to 18 million dollars, and that's just one. 17 We also have had a Global Express land there a couple of 18 times, and a 737 that landed there. That Global Express is 19 a larger -- one of the biggest business-type aircraft, and 20 they run right now about 58 to 60 million dollars per 21 airplane. That doesn't include fuel, anything else, so it's 22 quite substantial. You would see anywhere from the smaller 23 Cessnas that run 3 to 4 million up to, realistically, 24 $16 million a copy. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The hangar that's 2-9-04 25 1 about -- about to be under construction anticipates housing 2 some aircraft of this nature; is that correct? 3 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir. They have a 4 Challenger 601. Two more jets have just signed leases or 5 tentative agreements when they -- when it's done. One of 6 them is a -- a Citation. The other one fails me now; I 7 think it's 3 million -- about 5 million a copy that have 8 both just relocated here, and I wish I could take credit for 9 that. I can't; that's our fixed-base operator who 10 negotiated those and brought those folks in here, so my 11 hat's off to him. 12 DR. DAVIS: But I think our airport owners 13 can take credit, because we have the airport here that 14 supported those. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. 16 Pearce, Dr. Davis. We appreciate you being here with us 17 today. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, doctor. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is 20 a timed item scheduled for 9:30, that being Item Number 4, 21 consideration and discussion of a report from Mr. Danny 22 Feller, president of Kerr Area Rural Firefighters 23 Association, seeking assistance from the Court to bring 24 about needed improvements in the process for reporting 25 controlled burns and in dispatching methods and procedures. 2-9-04 26 1 Mr. Nicholson, I believe this item was put on the agenda at 2 your request? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. We have at 4 least two people here who are in our community that are 5 involved in providing emergency services -- I mean, in 6 addition to the Sheriff. We got Tom Michaels back there -- 7 wave your hand, Tom -- who's a firefighter, and he's also a 8 member of the 9-1-1 Board of Directors. And we have 9 Mr. Danny Feller, who is the president of KARFA. He's also 10 a firefighter. I think all of you are familiar with the 11 Kerr Area Rural Firefighters Association; in fact, the Judge 12 had a hand in establishing that organization. So, I'll just 13 turn it over to Mr. Feller and -- and listen to him. 14 MR. FELLER: Okay. We're here to -- 15 actually, we had asked for this meeting to address some 16 concerns. I'm Danny Feller, president of KARFA. It's a 17 chartered organization that was chartered in -- in October 18 of 2002. We're here to facilitate or help to coordinate a 19 process for safety and prevention of fire and -- and 20 disasters. Our concerns when we -- we spoke were about some 21 of the communication problems we've been having, delayed 22 pages and -- and non-pages, and different protocols for some 23 of our First Responders, and -- and medical services that -- 24 that affect the welfare of our citizens, health of our 25 citizens. Last Wednesday, we had a meeting to address this 2-9-04 27 1 issue with Bill Price and Bill Amerine from 9-1-1, and we 2 may have started a procedure to find a solution for this 3 problem. So, at this time, we'd ask that the Court -- we're 4 not asking the Court to take any action today, but if we 5 don't get a solution worked out in -- in the very near 6 future, we feel that it's important that we be allowed to 7 return and have the Court revisit this issue for us. Upon 8 the announcement that we were coming to Commissioners Court, 9 there was some scurry of activity to get -- to get this 10 problem resolved, and we feel that if we don't get this 11 problem resolved soon, the Court can be of great assistance 12 to help us take care of the citizens. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Feller -- and I 14 mentioned this a few minutes ago to you. What you're 15 addressing, to me, is part of a bigger problem that we have 16 in Kerr County as to how we handle outdoor burning. And at 17 our last meeting, we started -- or, actually, the Judge, I 18 believe, sent a memo to the County Attorney requesting 19 pretty detailed information as to what the legal authority 20 is of this county or any county to get involved in burning, 21 and I guess my question is to the County Attorney. Is that 22 ready yet? 23 MR. MOTLEY: Well, it's not. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know when we will 25 have that? Because I really don't know how we can go too 2-9-04 28 1 far on trying to change -- I don't want to do a policy and 2 then have to redo a policy. I think -- 3 MR. MOTLEY: The County has authority. 4 The -- the only part of it, I guess you'd say, that's up in 5 the air, or not -- would be the part about requiring one of 6 the people seeking to burn to notify their area volunteer 7 fire department. The County certainly has authority to 8 enter into county burn orders or to -- to create those, to 9 create the office of the county fire marshal, to create 10 other power. The only part of it that we've not got an 11 answer for is the part about requiring somebody to ask the 12 -- you know, to advise the local fire department. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, so you're saying 14 that we have the authority to -- and if someone -- that we 15 can -- if they light a fire without notifying people, we can 16 cite them? 17 MR. MOTLEY: I believe so. I believe so. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we asked 19 specifically what the nature of the citation was and what 20 the penalty would be. 21 MR. MOTLEY: I'm saying I think it's a Class 22 C. I'm thinking it's a Class C, fine up to $500. But that 23 might be pinned down a little bit better, too, by next week. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- I think 25 we really need to address this. We're at a good time, in my 2-9-04 29 1 mind, to kind of revamp some of this. We're at a -- looks 2 like a wet period for a while, so I don't think we need a 3 burn ban. But I think that it's really important that we 4 find out exactly what the authority of the County is and 5 what -- you know, what we can do, what we can require 6 specifically, and then we can, you know, figure out whether 7 we need a committee format or whatever to meet with KARFA, 8 9-1-1, dispatch, Sheriff's Department, and figure out how we 9 can -- you know, what needs to be done, and then figure out 10 one way to get this out to the public. 11 I think one of the problems we've had 12 recently, we've kind of been changing and redoing things, 13 and I think we're just adding to the confusion. So, if we 14 can hold off on -- which I think we have the time right now 15 to really come out with a good set of rules, guidelines that 16 we can give the Sheriff and -- you know, 'cause he's -- his 17 deputies are the primary ones with the legal ability to go 18 out there and cite somebody when they don't do something 19 right, and so we need to have a, you know, clear authority, 20 from -- I guess under the Penal Code, 'cause that's what he 21 operates under, from prior conversations I've had with the 22 Sheriff. And that's what we need from the County Attorney's 23 office, really, is basically a draft, or be willing to draft 24 language and -- just to make sure we can do it right one 25 time. So, if you could -- you know, are you going to, at 2-9-04 30 1 our next meeting, give us more detailed information? I 2 mean, you said we can do anything we want, and I don't -- 3 MR. MOTLEY: I said we can draft -- we can 4 draft an order that regulates burning trash in the county. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about prescribed 6 burns? And what about burning brush piles and -- 7 MR. MOTLEY: Well, again, I really think 8 probably by the next meeting, we'll have a more definitive 9 answer for you. We were looking more at the issue -- not 10 specifically what types of rubbish and such could be burned, 11 but what the nature of the requirement that somebody could 12 be placed under to notify their -- you know, their area 13 volunteer fire department. That's part of what we were kind 14 of working on, but we don't have an answer for you yet. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, just -- 16 MR. MOTLEY: I apologize for that. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I would like, you 18 know, is to know exactly -- different types of fires, I 19 mean, just as specific as you can get, so that we can then 20 go to the next level and work with the Sheriff's Department 21 as to how we enforce it. Because the rules are meaningless 22 unless we can give the Sheriff the ability to enforce the 23 rules. Talking about citations and things of that nature. 24 MR. FELLER: David, I have a booklet here 25 that was put out in 2000 by the T.N.R.C.C., and in that 2-9-04 31 1 booklet, it -- it describes the general requirements for 2 burning and prescribed burns, and some of the liabilities 3 that -- that go along with -- with burning that gets out of 4 control and that sort of thing. 5 MR. MOTLEY: If I can get a copy of the 6 citation from you -- 7 MR. FELLER: Okay. 8 MR. MOTLEY: -- in a little bit here -- are 9 you leaving right after this? 10 MR. FELLER: No, I'll stay around for you. 11 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think there is one 13 issue that we should address today. In our last 14 Commissioners Court meeting, when we lifted the -- when we 15 reestablished the burn ban and then lifted it, either in the 16 court order or in -- in the comment from the Commissioners 17 Court, we said that people who plan on burning should 18 contact the Sheriff's Department. And subsequent to that 19 meeting and subsequent to my putting this on the agenda, I 20 received a copy of a document from Kerr 9-1-1 that outlines 21 procedures for burning, and this document says, "All burns 22 must be coordinated with the Sheriff's Office and Kerrville 23 Police Department, and should be coordinated with the 24 respective fire departments," and gives telephone numbers 25 for that. So, that would -- that would ask someone or 2-9-04 32 1 require someone to make three telephone calls, and I don't 2 think that's practical and probably not going to happen. 3 The suggestion of KARFA, and I support this, would be that 4 what is needed is one phone call to the -- to PSAP, the 5 9-1-1 dispatch office, and that that dispatch office would 6 notify, as they do on other emergency information, the 7 Sheriff's Department and the respective fire departments 8 that might be involved. 9 MR. FELLER: If I could add, also, this 10 morning, I understand you guys -- the Commissioners lifted 11 the burn ban, and the procedure for that would be to ask 12 that the PSAP or the paging service would notify the fire 13 departments of this change, and which would be done on our 14 paging system or on -- on radios. I think you called the 15 change in this morning? 16 MS. SOVIL: Mm-hmm. 17 MR. FELLER: At about 8:45, 8:50. It's 18 currently almost 9:45, and we've yet to receive a 19 notification of this. This is -- this is one of the 20 problems that -- that we're having, is some of these things 21 are not notified, are not sent out. And, occasionally, when 22 we have controlled burns, we'll arrive at a ranch after 23 being paged out to a brush fire to find that, yes, the 24 landowner has made a call in to what they assumed was the 25 proper authority, which they've called in to the Sheriff's 2-9-04 33 1 Office to report a controlled burn, and when we arrive on 2 the place, we've got an irate landowner, because here we are 3 with several fire trucks running around on the country that 4 he's trying to improve. And when we call back to find out, 5 you know, "Well, did the guy call in?" Yes, they called in, 6 and there is a controlled burn there. But, indeed, we got 7 the page through the system -- through the -- should be the 8 same system in which the call was reported. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I bet we can 10 get to the bottom of it, Danny. I wanted to bring up one 11 point, just kind of a sideline to this. It is education. 12 Somehow, we've fallen short of educating people. I believe 13 that the Texas Forestry Service has videos, fire -- fire 14 videos. And I have seen them somewhere, and I can't 15 remember if it's Soil Conservation or Forestry Service, but 16 they're excellent, and I would like to see KARFA or this 17 Court -- preferably you all -- to sponsor a meeting and show 18 these videos, and let's invite everybody in the county to 19 learn about proper burning techniques. And I just think 20 that that would be a huge plus for us all. And, hopefully, 21 that maybe we can end up -- each fire department can end up 22 with a copy of the videos, and then you can train as you see 23 fit. But I just -- I think that that would be a wise, wise, 24 wise thing for all of us to do. 25 MR. FELLER: Yes, sir, I agree with you. 2-9-04 34 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, as a 2 follow-up to that, I don't know if KARFA or Danny knows 3 this; NRCS is -- has been and is talking about setting up a 4 prescribed burning association for Kerr County to try to 5 help coordinate a lot of this. And you may work -- I don't 6 know if you have talked with Joe on this -- Franklin. 7 MR. FELLER: No, I haven't. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Joe Franklin is very much 9 -- very interested in getting exactly what Commissioner 10 Baldwin talked about working. And Joe's a soil -- NRCS 11 office of Kerr County, and they're looking at -- they're 12 aware of the same problem, 'cause we've pulled them into the 13 process of -- of approving prescribed burns. So, I think 14 that you might want to get with Joe Franklin, 'cause I know 15 he's working on some way to figure out an association to 16 help educate, and that would be a way. And I think they 17 have the -- probably the staff and some funding to assist 18 this public education idea. 19 MR. FELLER: We also work with a 20 representative from Fredericksburg that is in the Texas 21 Forestry Service, and last year we had a -- a one-day clinic 22 on -- on wildland and firefighting skills and management. 23 We were supposed to have another of those clinics Saturday, 24 but David, the guy in charge, had the flu, and so he 25 couldn't do the presentation, but we'll be rescheduling 2-9-04 35 1 that. And when we do that, we send out a -- we have a 2 newsletter that we send out to all of our citizens, and 3 advising them of the meeting, and invite them to come down. 4 And we also contact the other fire departments in the area 5 and -- and advise and invite them to come down as well, and 6 bring along anybody that -- that they feel could benefit 7 from it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. And thank you 9 for all KARFA does and all the fire chiefs and fire 10 departments. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 12 MR. FELLER: Thank you. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Feller. We 14 appreciate you being here this morning, passing that along 15 to us. The next item is a timed item also on the agenda 16 that was set for 9:45 this morning. That's Item Number 5, 17 discuss and consider request from Mr. Miguel Arreola, 18 Manager of the Kerr County Environmental Health Department, 19 to provide funding to add staff to the O.S.S.F. and Solid 20 Waste -- let me back up for just a moment, and I've just 21 been handed a participation form with respect to Item 1.4, 22 which was the item we just took up, that I did not have 23 until moments ago. Mr. Tom Michak? 24 MR. MICHAELS: Michaels. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Michaels? All right, sir. I 2-9-04 36 1 apologize for being unable to read your writing. 2 MR. MICHAELS: The way I scribble, I should 3 have been a doctor. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had one in here 6 earlier. 7 MR. MICHAELS: Yes. Good morning, Your Honor 8 and Commissioners. I just want to take a moment of your 9 time. We won't be very -- very long or very -- very drawn 10 out. But I represent the firefighters on the Board of 11 9-1-1, and at this particular time I'm working with Bill 12 Amerine, who unfortunately isn't able to be here at this 13 time, but he asked me to pass on to you Commissioners and 14 the Judge that he supports the program of the firefighters, 15 and that we will be working very closely, and myself, as a 16 firefighter and a representative of the Board, to work with 17 9-1-1. As you know, 9-1-1 basically is a conduit to go 18 ahead and make things happen. We are not -- we're not a 19 PSAP or where we dispatch; we are not dispatchers. We're a 20 conduit, so our information is -- we basically take a bushel 21 of information and we hand it to the PSAP, who then informs 22 the necessary authorities, such as the ambulance, fire, 23 police, and so forth. 24 So, at this time, -- all I want to say is -- 25 like I said, Bill Amerine is -- is in complete support. I'm 2-9-04 37 1 very sorry that he couldn't be here, but he had a medical 2 emergency that he had to attend to; his wife was -- is not 3 feeling well. But is there any questions that you may have 4 for me on behalf of 9-1-1? I'd be more than happy to 5 answer. Again, I just wanted to be here to show the support 6 towards the ultimate resolution of this concern regarding 7 the timely information, I guess you could say, in regard to 8 getting that information both out to the fire departments, 9 police department, emergency and so forth. So, that's all I 10 have. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. 12 MR. MICHAELS: Thank you very much. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Appreciate 14 you being here. 15 MR. MICHAELS: You bet. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get back to Item 5 set 17 for 9:45, a timed item. Discuss and consider request from 18 Mr. Miguel Arreola, the Manager of the Kerr County 19 Environmental Health Department, to provide funding to add 20 staff to the OSSF and solid waste functions. Commissioner 21 Nicholson, I believe that you asked that this matter be 22 placed upon the agenda. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, and I'd like to 24 give the microphone to Mr. Arreola to describe his proposal 25 and the need for additional staffing in the department. 2-9-04 38 1 MR. ARREOLA: Good morning, gentlemen. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning. 3 MR. ARREOLA: We have some good news from the 4 Environmental Health Department. We're growing. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure that's 6 good news. 7 MR. ARREOLA: That's good news. I have some 8 handouts to give you, just the charts of the latest numbers, 9 and they show basically how the first quarter of this fiscal 10 year behaved. So, we grow basically about 30 percent from 11 the year before, and also from 2002, so we grow pretty -- 12 pretty good. Also, this month, just the month of January, 13 it shows a growth from the prior two years. Now, that has 14 caused an awful lot of work for the staff, the current staff 15 of the O.S.S.F. Department, and we've been working long 16 hours, and we need some help. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One thing I'm going 18 to ask and suggest is that the -- that the County Auditor 19 provide a forecast of -- for the rest of this year and for 20 next year also, of the anticipated costs and revenues of the 21 O.S.S.F. -- or of the Environmental Health Department. It's 22 difficult to determine -- as you can see, we have a -- a 23 significant increase in the amount of activity and the 24 amount of fees charged and received, and I can't tell if 25 that's -- I don't think anybody else can either, if that's a 2-9-04 39 1 temporary situation or if -- if building activity and other 2 activity's going to continue, and that O.S.S.F. will bring 3 in more revenue than we'd anticipated. But we need that 4 information before we begin to make decisions about whether 5 or not we have the proper staffing level. My rough estimate 6 is that, this year, revenues will probably be on the order 7 of $30,000, $35,000 more than they were for the last fiscal 8 year. Could be more than that; I'm not sure. So, before we 9 make -- consider any decisions that -- that might include 10 increasing the cost of staffing there, I think we need more 11 information than we have in-hand today. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I agree that we 13 need to do that. My question is -- I visited with 14 Mr. Arreola a little bit about this as well -- is that -- 15 and I think two weeks, we can probably wait, but we're at a 16 point that if his staff -- he can't keep up, then we need to 17 start prioritizing or setting some guidelines as to what he 18 shouldn't do, 'cause I know he is spending a lot more time 19 on solid waste issues than I think was -- has been done in 20 the past, and what he anticipated and we anticipated. So, 21 you know, we're -- you know, my constituents, and I know 22 your constituents, because you've had them before us on the 23 agenda, want us more on solid waste, and I'm getting ready 24 to give him about three letters this afternoon he's not 25 aware of about other things I want him to look at in solid 2-9-04 40 1 waste areas. We need to be able pretty quickly to tell him 2 some priorities as to what to do, because I don't think it's 3 fair for us to -- you know, to delay this much. I think if 4 it's going to wait two weeks, I don't think that will be a 5 major change, but I think we need to be prepared at our next 6 meeting to either say cut back on solid waste, cut back on 7 O.S.S.F., or here's more staff. Those are the options that 8 we have. And, you know, I don't -- none of them are great 9 options, in my mind. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. It -- with the 11 increase in activity, it is true that we're trying to do 12 these programs with fewer people than we used before, and 13 they're under quite a bit of stress, and they're also doing 14 a -- a remarkably good job. I got -- received three rare 15 documents last week. They were letters from constituents to 16 Miguel, talking about what a terrific job he was doing. I 17 don't know about the rest of y'all, but I don't often get 18 letters like that. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is rare. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And he needs some 21 help. If this level of activity is going to continue, we -- 22 we're going to have to find a way to provide him with it. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One of my questions is 24 the status of the solid waste grant. Aren't we -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to tell 2-9-04 41 1 you. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You are pursuing that? 3 Wouldn't that affect our -- these questions? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it might and it 5 might not. If we are successful in our application being 6 funded -- and if I were a gambling man, right now I'd gamble 7 that we're probably not going to be successful our first 8 time out. But if we were successful, that grant anticipated 9 adding to the Solid Waste staff and adding to the programs 10 that Solid Waste would be empowered to enforce and make it 11 possible for Kerr County citizens to recycle a lot more 12 things than they're doing right now. So, we did make the 13 presentation. Mr. Arreola and I went to San Antonio last 14 Wednesday. We appeared jointly before the Solid Waste 15 Committee that reviews all applications, and we're sitting 16 back waiting to see how the roll of the dice comes out. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think another -- you 18 know, just for us to be thinking about over the next two 19 weeks while we're waiting for some additional data, is that 20 a lot of the area of growth is not revenue-generating. The 21 solid waste inspections, which take time and that -- I mean, 22 we don't get any -- it's -- there's no revenue generated by 23 solid waste, basically. And they're also inspections that 24 are not -- well, I guess they do generate revenues. 25 O.S.S.F. inspections do generate some revenue, but I think, 2-9-04 42 1 from what I'm hearing, a lot of growth is in areas that we 2 don't get much revenue from, so that needs to be weighed in 3 the decision. And, Miguel, I mean, two weeks is -- I know 4 you need help now, but that will work? 5 MR. ARREOLA: The request we have is -- we 6 got two requests. One is just for O.S.S.F., because it's 7 growing so much and we need extra help there. Plus Solid 8 Waste is also taking a lot of our time, and we need someone 9 else there, too. So, it's actually -- we're looking for two 10 new people. On Solid Waste, with my -- probably a part-time 11 person will be sufficient. On the O.S.S.F. we do need one 12 full-time employee. The growth has been steady on the 13 O.S.S.F. It is bringing revenue; it is bringing extra 14 income throughout the year, so it's been steady. I can't 15 say it's going to continue like that, but looks like it's 16 going to go that way. So, it is -- it's important for us to 17 have it as soon as possible, 'cause if not, we're going to 18 start seeing problems. Right now, we're in the pretty good 19 time; we can still manage everything as long as we -- we get 20 the resources. In the chart, we're probably going to -- 21 look back at the second one, where we're showing pretty good 22 against the last year and everything. Except on the last 23 one, which is licenses, that is the amount of paperwork we 24 need to do to finish all the -- the process, and that's what 25 we're hearing right now. If we continue to do that, then 2-9-04 43 1 we're going to have some problems with that. Those need to 2 get to the homeowners and all the -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Miguel, would part-time 4 -- as a short-term fix, would part-time employment help? 5 MR. ARREOLA: For O.S.S.F.? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah. 7 MR. ARREOLA: We'll take anything. 8 (Laughter.) But it's -- I think a full-time is -- is really 9 needed. We have enough work for a full-time employee. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm thinking 11 is, as an option, we may have part-time as -- if this is an 12 anomaly, through part-time, we're not adding a position. We 13 can kind of budget some part-time help for maybe the rest of 14 this budget year, or even in the budget process, and then if 15 this workload continues, look at increasing staff during the 16 budget process. And if this is an anomaly, that'll solve 17 itself. We haven't added a position, don't have to worry 18 about reducing staff. And if it isn't an anomaly, we've got 19 some time that we can -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I also want to point 21 out, in the memo from Number 4 to us, that there may be some 22 money laying around in his budget that was specifically 23 budgeted for that reason. So, I mean, you could -- you 24 could use that for -- for part-time employment through the 25 rest of the year, or till that money runs out or whatever. 2-9-04 44 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to just 2 throw a comment or two in here, please. I want to thank 3 Miguel for his efforts. He's working hard to make the 4 department work, and it's not an easy task. And I 5 appreciate these pretty color charts you presented to us, 6 but I would be a little happier if I saw on these charts 7 expenses plugged in against revenues and workload. How 8 much -- I need to know where the expenses are with relation 9 to the workload, and I'd like to see, if at all possible, it 10 track against last year or the year before. Even though the 11 County only had a small piece of -- of the financing of the 12 program, the program was there, and if we're tracking last 13 year's numbers in terms of inspections, et cetera, et 14 cetera, et cetera, I'd like to see how those numbers track 15 against the expenses. 16 MR. ARREOLA: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if you can get 18 with your programming guru and figure that out and add it to 19 the chart next time, I'd appreciate that. 20 MR. ARREOLA: Sure, we'll get you that 21 information. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good. That's 23 what we need, and I think you need to talk to the County 24 Auditor and get his help in -- 25 MR. ARREOLA: Sure. 2-9-04 45 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- doing the actual 2 and the forecast. 3 MR. ARREOLA: Okay. And the other part is, 4 the Solid Waste, we just got a -- received a letter from 5 Mr. Williams about more problems on solid waste in the 6 county that we need to investigate, so we're going to get to 7 it. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. The letter I 9 sent you? 10 MR. ARREOLA: Uh-huh. But, you know, that's 11 going to take time away from O.S.S.F. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I -- all the 13 Commissioners got topics, I'm pretty sure. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- excuse me, 16 Judge. I guess one thing -- I mean, what Miguel's final 17 comment was, it takes time away from O.S.S.F., I guess the 18 direction I think we probably could give him possibly now, 19 what's more important to us? You know, do you want him to 20 go -- 'cause I'm getting ready to send a bunch of solid 21 waste letters down there, too. Do we want him to put 22 O.S.S.F. on the back burner or solid waste on the back 23 burner? 24 MR. ARREOLA: I don't think none of them can 25 wait. 2-9-04 46 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. That's the 2 problem. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have an 4 obligation to do them both. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Do the best you 6 can for the next two weeks, and we'll try and help you. 7 MR. ARREOLA: All right, we'll do that. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner -- or 9 Mr. Holekamp has a comment. 10 MR. HOLEKAMP: Just a comment. If -- I know 11 Miguel took on the Solid Waste part of the environmental 12 budget, just kind of cold turkey when he moved over here. I 13 would -- I would offer my services to help them, if they 14 wish, to catch up. I'll be glad to help him any way I can, 15 and work with Mr. North to maybe -- maybe expedite some of 16 these issues and organize it a little bit. And I'll be glad 17 to help if I could, if that would help y'all in the short 18 term. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure that offer would be 21 greatly appreciated by Mr. Arreola. 22 MR. ARREOLA: Sure is. 23 MR. HOLEKAMP: But that's up to y'all, if 24 y'all wish for me to intervene. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is it Jentsch or Tench? 2-9-04 47 1 MS. JENTSCH: Jentsch. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Jentsch. Ms. Beth Jentsch has 3 filed a participation form. 4 MS. JENTSCH: Thank you. Judge and 5 Commissioners, I want to thank you again for all the help 6 that we've received, and what I've come to speak to, if I 7 can, is Mr. Arreola and what a fine job he's doing. He is a 8 people person. My neighbors that I've spoken with are just 9 delighted. The -- having an old car removed from your 10 neighborhood, the -- the relief felt is just 11 incomprehensible. If you've never had it, trust me, it's 12 something, and I thank you so much. And this man, he calls 13 when he says he will, he comes when he says he will, he 14 writes letters. He does everything, and he does it with 15 little fuss. He goes to the people that are the 16 perpetrators and he says, "Will you please do this," and in 17 short order, it's done. So, if there are any monies that 18 you have to help a man like this, a young, energetic -- a 19 man who truly has the -- the need of the people in his 20 heart, please give him the money. Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Jentsch. 22 Anything else on this particular agenda item? The next 23 agenda item is a timed item also set for 10 o'clock this 24 morning. Item Number 6, consideration and discussion of 25 authorizing the County Attorney to retain litigation 2-9-04 48 1 attorneys on a contingent fee basis to investigate and 2 pursue claims or other remedies against Employee Benefit 3 Administrators and/or others arising out of payment by Kerr 4 County of health care funds to Employee Benefit 5 Administrators. Mr. Motley. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, while you're on 7 the way up here, would you just clear my mind up, define for 8 me what "litigation attorney" is? Just that word, 9 "litigation." I think I know what an attorney is. 10 MR. MOTLEY: It's somebody who actively 11 engages in litigation of this type. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, say it 13 again? 14 MR. MOTLEY: It's a firm who is actively 15 engaging in litigation of this type, is what I would define 16 it as. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Litigation" meaning 18 lawsuit, suing someone? Or investigation? Or what does the 19 litigation mean? 20 MR. MOTLEY: Well, all of that. I mean, you 21 have to investigate something before you actually, you know, 22 get underway and pick a jury and all that. So, all of that. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I'd like to 25 lead the discussion, if you don't mind. 2-9-04 49 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would like to lead 3 off the discussion, if you don't mind. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley -- it's his agenda 5 item. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that, 7 but I also have the prerogative of leading off the 8 discussion. He can respond to what I'm about to ask him. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley? 10 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I had some comments I was 11 going to make. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So do I. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley, you may proceed; 14 it's your agenda item. 15 MR. MOTLEY: It's a very simple issue. The 16 issue is dating back to December the 9th of 2002. Was the 17 Commissioners Court advised of all options they had at that 18 point in time as to how to handle an insurance situation and 19 a shortfall that was determined to exist by our third-party 20 administrator? And when a bill was compromised down, there 21 was approximately $400,000 over and above a certain 22 sub-benefit that was yet to be paid to the medical 23 providers. The question is, was Kerr County at that time 24 advised that they had an option to pay no money to anybody? 25 We had two options clearly presented to us. One would have 2-9-04 50 1 been the $400,000 option, which was followed. The other one 2 would have been to purchase a 15/12 insurance policy for an 3 additional $270,000 premium. And I believe the third option 4 would have been to do nothing, to leave Methodist Hospital 5 and the medical care providers who provided the services to 6 the former Kerr County employee to seek their recovery from 7 this person's estate. This is something that happens every 8 day. That option, I believe, was not presented. And I 9 looked and again reviewed the notes from that meeting. I do 10 not see anywhere where that option was presented by the 11 Employee Benefit Administrators representative. 12 That is the sum total of what I'm concerned 13 about, and what I have spoken to the Court about before. 14 Moving ahead onto Texas Rangers and this and that and the 15 other, I think, is very premature at this time. I'm -- I'm 16 talking about the issue of, were we notified of this option? 17 And what moneys, if any, can be recovered as a result of our 18 not being notified of this option and not being able to take 19 advantage of it? Can we recover any moneys? And that's 20 what I'm urging the Court -- or for that reason, I'm urging 21 the Court to allow me to retain counsel, experienced 22 litigators in the insurance area, on a contingency fee basis 23 to investigate this and see if something was wrong and if 24 moneys can be returned to the taxpayers of the county, and 25 that's what I'm trying to do. As a legal advisor to the 2-9-04 51 1 County, I think that is the most proper option at this time. 2 And I don't really know anything else to say other than 3 that. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me lead in 5 the Court's discussion, if you don't mind, sir. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: You may. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Motley, when 8 initially this matter was discussed by Commissioners Court 9 in executive session several months ago, I recall your 10 office was instructed to continue investigating the matter 11 and prepare a written report of your findings for delivery 12 to the Court. To date, I have seen no written report of 13 your findings. Instead, what we have before us today as a 14 backup to this agenda item is your memorandum dated 15 February 3, 2004, which has no semblance of a report, and if 16 I were called upon to describe this memorandum, I would 17 characterize your broad-based allegations of wrongdoing on 18 the part of Kerr County elected and appointed officials as 19 political opportunism and being totally devoid of substance. 20 MR. MOTLEY: What does this have to do with 21 what I'm presenting today? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hold on. 23 MR. MOTLEY: What does this have to do with 24 what I'm recommending today? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to ask you 2-9-04 52 1 some -- 2 MR. MOTLEY: No, no, wait a minute. Wait a 3 minute, stop. I'm not going to sit here and listen to all 4 this -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, you wrote the 6 memo. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You wrote the memo 8 to -- 9 MR. MOTLEY: Wait a minute. I have told you 10 what I think, and I have told you before what I think is the 11 best course and policy for the County to follow. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we're going to 13 ask some questions about that, if you just hang on just a 14 second. 15 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I understand that, but you 16 are clearly outside the area of what we're here to discuss. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be that as it may, 18 I'll get right back into it if you'll just give me a second. 19 Therefore, to facilitate our ability to have enlightened 20 discussions and to determine -- will you pass this out, 21 please? -- our discussions to determine what, if any, civil 22 investigation will be authorized, Judge, I'm going to move 23 the following, and we'll have a discussion. I'm going to 24 move, Mr. Motley, that the County Attorney immediately 25 provide all members of Commissioners Court a complete and 2-9-04 53 1 comprehensive report in writing that includes the following: 2 1. Any and all substantial -- quote, your 3 language -- any and all substantial documentation, 4 transcripts and other material, unquote, in your possession 5 in connection with Commissioners Court -- 6 MR. MOTLEY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in connection with 8 the Commissioners Court December 9th, 2002 authorization -- 9 MR. MOTLEY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of payment of 11 $400,000 for health care services for a Kerr County 12 employee, deceased, which you have characterized as, quote, 13 unlawful in your memorandum dated February 3, 2004. 14 2. In addition to Employee Benefit 15 Administrators, identify all, quote, others, unquote, that 16 you seek to have authority to investigate. 17 3. Specify the details and identify the 18 persons involved in any, quote, unlawful authorization and 19 payment by Kerr County of health care funds to Employee 20 Benefit Administrators, unquote. 21 4. Identify by -- 22 MR. MOTLEY: Do you have a copy of that I 23 could have? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- name and position 25 any and all -- 2-9-04 54 1 MR. MOTLEY: Do you -- excuse me, do you have 2 a copy I could read from? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, we have a 4 copy. 5 MR. MOTLEY: I appreciate that. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I asked Mr. Baldwin 7 to hand them out. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Number 4, identify by 10 name and position any and all individuals interviewed to 11 date by the County Attorney and/or his staff in connection 12 with the above-referenced matter. 13 5. Provide all citations of law alleged to 14 have been violated, with the names of those who have 15 violated same, and the date the violation is alleged to have 16 occurred. 17 6. Provide the basis upon which you 18 conclude, quote, that Kerr County expended county funds for 19 the benefit -- personal benefit of a former employee and/or 20 his estate, with no legal obligation to do so, unquote. 21 Further, in this context, provide your interpretation of 22 Line 1 in the Schedule of Benefits for Kerr County employees 23 that guarantees a $1,000,000 lifetime maximum benefit, and 24 explain, please, why this guaranteed benefit for employees 25 should not apply in this instant case. 2-9-04 55 1 7. Provide any and all evidence in your 2 possession that leads you to conclude beyond a reasonable 3 doubt that all expenses of the Kerr -- that Kerr County 4 covered in December 2002 was part of the transplant 5 procedure performed on the Kerr County employee prior to his 6 death, thereby rendering these expenses to be not eligible 7 for recovery from Kerr County's reinsurance carrier. 8 This report -- Number 8 -- shall be in the 9 hands of each member of this Court not later than Thursday, 10 February 12th. That is a motion, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: You through, sir? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, thank you. Maybe 14 it would be good for those members of the public and the 15 media who are here today that don't have an understanding of 16 this particular matter to have some basic understanding of 17 the facts which gave rise to this entire transaction. To 18 that end, I think a fair reading of the documents and 19 records which have arisen in connection with this entire 20 matter would reveal the following. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can you -- is this 22 coming from an analysis that you did, or an analysis from 23 the County Attorney? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Does it make any difference? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir, because the 2-9-04 56 1 County Attorney represents the Court as our civil guidance; 2 you do not. So, if you are working with the County Attorney 3 on it, I need -- from a legal standpoint, I don't think 4 you're authorized to do so. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: You're saying I'm not 6 authorized to work with the County Attorney on matters that 7 affect county business? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On legal -- from a legal 9 standpoint, no, sir, I don't believe you are -- you're 10 authorized to represent this Court. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me ask the County 13 Attorney that. 14 MR. MOTLEY: I'm allowed to work with any 15 member of this Court on any matter that affects county 16 business. If you're saying that Judge Tinley may not file a 17 lawsuit on behalf of the Court, that would not be something 18 that -- that normally he would do as part of his duties as 19 the County Judge. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you relying on 21 communication with Judge Tinley as an attorney related to 22 your -- 23 MR. MOTLEY: I tell you what, I -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that's a question, 25 David. 2-9-04 57 1 MR. MOTLEY: Hold on. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes or no? 3 MR. MOTLEY: I've talked to Judge Tinley -- 4 don't give me that yes or no stuff. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I will. 6 MR. MOTLEY: No, you won't. No, you won't. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you have -- 8 MR. MOTLEY: Hold on just a minute. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 10 MR. MOTLEY: This is my issue. I have talked 11 to Judge Tinley about this. There's not one thing wrong 12 with me conferring with him or you or anybody else on this 13 Court about this issue. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, as long as it's 15 not using him as an attorney and using his legal opinion. 16 MR. MOTLEY: That's -- that's absolute 17 horseradish. I don't know where you come up with that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I -- 19 MR. MOTLEY: As long as he can't use his -- 20 he is what he is; he's an attorney with, you know, dozens of 21 years of experience. You want me to talk to him and him 22 somehow forget that he has, you know, 40 years of legal 23 experience when we discuss a matter? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying we had the 25 same discussion with the prior County Judge, that he does 2-9-04 58 1 not represent me, as a Commissioner, in legal matters. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's fine. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You -- 4 MR. MOTLEY: I don't believe he's taken on 5 that role. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I'm not 7 purporting to act as a legal representative of this county. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I just want to 9 make sure that you're not, you know, working from a legal 10 standpoint with the County Attorney on this, and on 11 something that affects me as a Commissioner. That's all I'm 12 asking. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we should all work 14 with our County Attorney on matters which affect taxpayers 15 of this county. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: And -- but I think the public 18 needs to understand what the facts are. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, and I have -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll permit me -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I won't. You 22 interrupted me. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir, you interrupted Mr. 24 Motley and myself, and you stand down, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're not going to 2-9-04 59 1 allow me to speak? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The reasonable -- the 3 reasonable review of the record in this case indicates that 4 Kerr County has an employee -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excuse me, point of 6 order. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- benefit system, and that 8 system is -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Point of order, 10 Judge. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A point of order. Are 12 you speaking -- you just made a statement that "a reasonable 13 interpretation." Is that your reasonable interpretation, or 14 the Court's? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir, it's my reasonable 16 interpretation. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just wanted to make 18 sure. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I can not read your mind, 20 Commissioner, to know what your interpretation is. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to make sure 22 that this is just your opinion. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll permit me the 24 courtesy. This employee health benefits system is a -- 25 basically, a self-insured one, with a stop loss insurance 2-9-04 60 1 benefit. What this means is that the first $40,000 of each 2 employee, each year, is covered by the County. For anything 3 in excess of $40,000, we have purchased what's known as stop 4 loss insurance, and additional benefits over $40,000 are 5 covered in accordance with the plan that all employees fall 6 under. Fourteen months ago, a previous Court had before it 7 our third-party administrator, in which the third-party 8 administrator sought the Court's assistance in a situation 9 involving a former employee who, by that time, was deceased. 10 What had occurred was that there were significant medical 11 services provided to that employee, and there was a total 12 hospital bill described as initially almost a million 13 dollars, which had been negotiated down to $650,000, and 14 based upon a specific benefit in the health insurance plan 15 of the county and the stop loss reinsurer, there was an 16 additional benefit of $250,000. This left, according to the 17 third-party administrator, a balance due to the hospital of 18 approximately $400,000. 19 The third-party administrator presented to 20 the Court, in December of 2002, two options. One was an 21 option whereby the County would purchase an additional three 22 months coverage. This additional three months would be a 23 period in which the third-party administrator could attempt 24 to resolve this outstanding balance with the stop loss 25 insurer. That $270,000, had that option been selected and 2-9-04 61 1 paid, would have been gone forever. The second option which 2 was presented to the Court was that Kerr County advance up 3 to $400,000 to pay the balance of the former employee's 4 hospital bill. As part and parcel of that option, the 5 third-party administrator made assurances to the Court that 6 he felt like, once that was paid, he could get nearly all, 7 if not all of that money back. I believe there was a 8 reference of 99.9 percent. 9 The Court, at that time -- the previous 10 Court, having had no consultation or other advice from the 11 County Attorney, opted to advance up to $400,000 of Kerr 12 County funds for the express purpose of paying that hospital 13 bill. Since I took office approximately 13 months ago, I 14 have brought this matter before the Court on a number of 15 occasions for a number of reasons. I have a number of 16 questions and concerns, and I trust that you will too once 17 you know all the facts. On a number of these occasions, I 18 asked the third-party administrator to give us an updated 19 report of where we were on this matter. During the course 20 of these updates, the third-party administrator acknowledged 21 that Kerr County had no legal obligation or responsibility 22 to pay the funds which the prior Court authorized. 23 Secondly, the third-party administrator acknowledged in 24 these subsequent discussions after the fact that there was a 25 third option available at that time, that third option being 2-9-04 62 1 to do nothing, because there was no legal obligation. But 2 he also acknowledged in those subsequent discussions that 3 that third option was not presented and, in fact, was not 4 discussed. 5 The third-party administrator also advised 6 that of the $400,000 which was authorized to be advanced and 7 was subsequently transferred to the County's insurance 8 reserve account, only $258,000 of that sum had, in fact, 9 been paid for the intended purpose, and that was in the form 10 of two checks written to the hospital. The third-party 11 administrator further advised that the balance of that 12 $400,000, which had been placed into the health benefits 13 reserve account, $142,000 had never left that reserve 14 account and had, in fact, been returned to Kerr County. In 15 fact, he brought it with him in the form of a check the 16 morning that he arrived here for the first update, I 17 believe, in April or May of last year. The third-party 18 administrator has indicated to us that that $142,000, plus 19 some other funds which he managed to obtain from the stop 20 loss insurer, aggregate approximately $200,000, and that we 21 have thus recovered approximately $200,000 of the $400,000 22 which was initially authorized. There was another occasion 23 last fall in which $162,500 was forwarded to this county 24 from the third-party administrator, which was indicated to 25 be in reimbursement of this matter. The members of this 2-9-04 63 1 Court knew, of course, that that was not the case. 2 At this point, according to the figures from 3 the third-party administrator, according to the last report 4 he gave to the Court, Kerr County is down about $200,000. 5 Only last month, the third-party administrator appeared 6 before this Court and stated then that all of the members of 7 this Court, at the time in December of 2002 when the 8 expenditure was authorized, and several county officials, at 9 a meeting approximately one week before that meeting in 10 December 2002 -- that it had been made very, very clear to 11 them that Kerr County had no legal liability to pay any of 12 those funds. In light of that background, we're here today. 13 There are an abundance of legal and factual questions that 14 we have before us. One, obviously, is what disclosures did 15 the third-party administrator make or fail to make when he 16 appeared before this Court in December 2002 and the funds 17 were authorized to be paid on the former employee's hospital 18 bill? Secondly, what duties did that third-party 19 administrator, in his capacity as handling our health 20 insurance claims -- what duties did he have to this Court 21 and the citizens and taxpayers of this county, and did he 22 breach any of those duties? 23 With respect to the expenditure of the funds, 24 I have not seen any documentation or evidence which clearly 25 indicates to me -- and I suspect other members of this Court 2-9-04 64 1 have not either, 'cause I'm not aware that they've requested 2 any such documentation, except possibly in this matter from 3 Commissioner Williams. Which clearly indicates that, in 4 fact, the $258,000 or any other funds which were reported to 5 have been expended or to be expended were, in fact, expended 6 at the time, in the amount, for the purpose, and to whom 7 they were stated to be expended. 8 With respect to reimbursements, we have the 9 last report from the third-party administrator that 10 indicated we've been reimbursed approximately $200,000 of 11 the $400,000. A newspaper report I saw this morning 12 indicated that he has reported we've been reimbursed 13 approximately $169,000. As indicated previously, there was 14 documentation presented to the Court indicating that an 15 additional sum had been paid in reimbursement, and I 16 question whether or not that, in fact, is reimbursement as 17 indicated. Bottom line is, nothing has been shown to me 18 which clearly indicates the amount of reimbursements that 19 Kerr County has received. We need answers to these 20 questions. The citizens and taxpayers are entitled to 21 answers to these questions. It is their money that has been 22 paid out. This controversy will not go away until all of 23 the relevant questions are answered. 24 What we are talking about is over 4 percent 25 of the entire General Fund expenditures of the '01-'02 2-9-04 65 1 budget. That's a pretty good chunk of dough, and I think we 2 need to know more about it. Even though the actions that 3 permitted these expenditures and authorized the payment of 4 that $400,000 was action taken by a previous court, I think 5 that this Court remains accountable to the taxpayers for 6 those funds. We should be accountable and provide them with 7 satisfactory answers to all of these questions, and if 8 there's any reasonable possibility that we can get any of 9 this money back for the benefit of our taxpayers and 10 citizens, I think we ought to do it. It's my opinion that 11 if we fail to do it, we would be derelict in our duty and 12 violative of our oath of office. 13 In September last, I requested that the 14 County Attorney be authorized to look into this matter and 15 to take any action that he thought might be appropriate to 16 recover these funds for the benefit of the taxpayers. When 17 the matter was presented to the Court, the Court declined to 18 authorize him to do so, but rather directed him to look into 19 the matter, and as the County's legal adviser under the law, 20 advise the Court of the best course or courses of action 21 available for the Court to pursue. Well, gentlemen, you 22 asked for it. You got it. He's here. He's told you what 23 he is requesting to be pursued. He is asking for your 24 authorization to proceed. And what he has proposed will, 25 number one, I think if they're obtainable, get answers to 2-9-04 66 1 these questions. Number two, if the citizens of Kerr County 2 are legally entitled to recover any of these funds, I 3 believe the course of action which he's outlined will permit 4 that to occur. But the best of all worlds is -- what he's 5 asking is that it be done on a basis that is of no 6 additional cost to the taxpayers of this county, a 7 contingent fee basis. That is -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many more pages 9 you got there? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that if the lawyers that 11 pursue this matter are able to recover something for the 12 benefit of the citizens, they will get paid. If they're not 13 able to, they will not get paid. To me, it's a no-brainer. 14 But it is important that this matter go forward very quickly 15 and very timely. There are statutes of limitations in civil 16 actions, and that statute or statutes are running as we 17 speak. Further delay can only jeopardize and compromise the 18 interests of the taxpayers and their ability to recover what 19 they are justly due. I -- as I say, I think it's a 20 no-brainer. It's a win-win situation. If there's nothing 21 to be gained, certainly, competent lawyers will come to that 22 conclusion and say it's not worth running with. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you -- time out. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Under the circumstances, I can 2-9-04 67 1 not imagine how anyone who has the interests of the citizens 2 and taxpayers of this county as his primary concern and who 3 desires to protect the integrity of this Court could vote 4 against what the County Attorney has presented here today. 5 If any member of this Court does not support the proposal as 6 presented by the County Attorney, I think that member should 7 be prepared to answer some very, very probing questions. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean by 9 that? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Probing questions. Such as, 11 Commissioner, if that was your own personal $400,000 that 12 you had entrusted to a third-party, and they had expended 13 it, and you had a reasonable opportunity under the 14 circumstances to recover that at no additional cost to you, 15 wouldn't you proceed to try and recover it? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Part of that money is 17 mine. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: It certainly is, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Secondly -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Secondly? You did 22 "secondly" an hour ago. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: -- whose interests were being 24 protected when there was a failure to support the effort by 25 the County Attorney to get answers to the questions and 2-9-04 68 1 attempt to get some of that taxpayer money back? If we fail 2 to make the effort, we have no right to blame others for 3 adverse consequences that may follow. We'll only have 4 ourselves to blame. As I say, I think it's a no-brainer; 5 it's a win-win deal, and the County Attorney should be 6 authorized to proceed on a civil basis to investigate this 7 matter and to pursue whatever efforts he legally has 8 available to him to secure collection of these funds. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, may I be 10 recognized now? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm next. I'm next. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I asked first. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you through? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Real quick, may I say 15 something that I don't think this Court's brought up? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. I would like to 18 say one thing. If y'all remember, this is one of my 19 employees. This employee that died's spouse still works for 20 me. I have watched this issue go from executive sessions, 21 where it belonged -- and I agree, all Judge Tinley's 22 questions need to be answered, but to watch it turn from 23 that into the political football that I believe personally 24 it has turned into, and the arguing in this court has done 25 nothing but bring all those issues back up for my employee 2-9-04 69 1 and has put her into being a basket case the last several 2 weeks. And I think this issue needs to be resolved; it 3 needs to be looked at strongly, but it needs to get out of 4 the political arena, and do it in a dignified manner for my 5 employee. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, and I agree 7 with you a hundred percent. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff. My 9 apologies if this has caused any distress to your employee. 10 Mr. Motley's proposal would turn this over to private 11 attorneys, and they would take it from there. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, may I be 13 recognized now, please? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I agree with 15 about 85 percent of what you said, and I don't think anybody 16 at this table would disagree with it. And I don't think 17 anybody in this room would disagree that we -- that if money 18 needs to come back to us, that we need it. We want it, and 19 it's our money; we want it back. There -- there's no 20 question of that whatsoever. But I've got a couple of 21 questions about the -- about the attorney. You say it -- in 22 the Judge's book he just wrote there, that it would be zero 23 expenses to the County, this attorney. What about his 24 expenses? Is that also included? Don't attorneys charge -- 25 MR. MOTLEY: There may be some minor expenses 2-9-04 70 1 that are along those lines. What we're talking about, 2 though, is the cost of recovering the -- the funds that 3 we're dealing -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand -- no, 5 no, no, no. We're talking about additional costs to the 6 taxpayers of the county. 7 MR. MOTLEY: No, I mean the Judge said a 8 contingency fee. It is based on what they recover. They 9 will receive the fee for what they recover out of that. 10 Yes, there may be some expenses; there surely may be. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, there may be 12 some expenses. I'd like to know what -- normally, what they 13 -- what they charge on that. 14 MR. MOTLEY: I can't tell you that. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know you can't, 16 David. Just -- I'm not -- you and I don't need to get in a 17 shouting match. 18 MR. MOTLEY: No, I'm not. I just can't tell 19 you that. I'm just telling you that the other -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. But I'd 21 appreciate it if you would at some point. 22 MR. MOTLEY: Would what? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me what attorneys 24 charge for expenses. 25 MR. MOTLEY: I'll try. 2-9-04 71 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The taxpayers would 2 like to know. 3 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, I'll try to do that for 4 you. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Now, it 6 appears in -- in your letter that -- that you're including 7 the Commissioners Court in the lawsuit; that, in other 8 words, you're going to sue the Commissioners Court. Does 9 our insurance -- 10 MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me, you didn't need to 11 ask the question -- it doesn't appear that way. It appears 12 that way if you read it that way. I didn't say that. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just got it from -- 14 MR. MOTLEY: I didn't say that, didn't imply 15 that, don't mean that. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't interrupt, 17 please. I just got that interpretation from probably -- 18 MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's an incorrect -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- from probably the 20 brightest legal mind in this town. So, I mean, I'm just 21 going on what -- what my legal advice is saying, that it 22 clearly says you're suing the Commissioners Court. But 23 let's say -- 24 MR. MOTLEY: Where does it say I'm suing the 25 Commissioners Court? 2-9-04 72 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "And others, arising 2 out of any unlawful authorization..." 3 MR. MOTLEY: So, any other person besides the 4 insurance company means you? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I finish a 6 sentence? 7 MR. MOTLEY: Any other person besides the 8 insurance company means you? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unlawful 10 authorization, yes, sir. 11 MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's not what that is -- 12 was intended to mean at all. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I ask a question? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it is. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who else -- I mean, who 16 else authorizes funds? Who authorized $400,000? The Court. 17 MR. MOTLEY: It wasn't just limited to 18 authorization of funds. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what you said. 20 No -- 21 MR. MOTLEY: It wasn't limited to 22 authorization of funds. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm -- let me just 24 say that, you know -- 25 MR. MOTLEY: It's going to get real boring 2-9-04 73 1 real fast. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know it's going to get 3 real boring real fast. But -- are you finished? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me just finish my 5 question here. Let me finish my question. I know what I'm 6 reading and I know what I'm understanding. My question 7 is -- is when -- when there's a lawsuit comes against the 8 Commissioners Court, does our liability insurance pick up 9 our legal fees? 10 MR. MOTLEY: When -- say that again? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When the lawsuit comes 12 against the Commissioners Court and I'm being sued as a 13 county commissioner, and I'm going to have to get legal 14 representation to defend me, does our liability insurance 15 pay for that? 16 MR. MOTLEY: When you say "the lawsuit," 17 you -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A lawsuit. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Any lawsuit? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, specifically, 21 this one, yeah. 22 MR. MOTLEY: Well, again, I -- this is not -- 23 a lawsuit against the Commissioners was not contemplated 24 when the memorandum was written. Was not contemplated at 25 all. 2-9-04 74 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what it says, 2 David. I'm just going by what I'm reading in your letter. 3 MR. MOTLEY: I'll be happy to read it, if you 4 want me to, out loud. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 6 MR. MOTLEY: "I'm requesting Commissioners 7 Court authorization to retain the services of an experienced 8 litigation attorney or firm of attorneys with experience in 9 insurance matters of this sort to investigate and pursue on 10 behalf of Kerr County any and all claims for reimbursement 11 and/or other remedies which Kerr County may have against 12 Employee Benefit Administrators and others arising out of 13 unlawful authorization and payment by Kerr County of health 14 care funds to Employee Benefit Administrators." Okay. "And 15 others" -- you, for some reason, think that means 16 Commissioners Court. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 18 MR. MOTLEY: "Unlawful authorization and 19 payment," you think that means the Commissioners Court. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unlawful 21 authorization. There's no one else that's authorized any 22 payments but this Court. 23 MR. MOTLEY: You think that's limited to 24 that, though, is what I'm saying. You think all of this is 25 limited -- we're seeking to go against any entity. You are 2-9-04 75 1 just putting this -- making this way too personal. This is 2 not about the Commissioners. This is not -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, "unlawful 4 authorization." We're the only ones that have -- 5 MR. MOTLEY: Look, I wrote the memo, Buster. 6 I didn't intend for anything -- for the Commissioners to -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why are you yelling at 8 me? 9 MR. MOTLEY: Because I'm -- I can't 10 understand why you keep on belaboring this point. I told 11 you -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because it looks like 13 I'm getting sued, that's why. I need to know how to protect 14 myself. 15 MR. MOTLEY: Well, let me ask you -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Counselor -- 17 MR. MOTLEY: That's fine. Do you want to do 18 that -- I'm pleased to do that right now, to flesh out how 19 you're going to protect yourself today. Is that what you 20 want to do in Commissioners Court? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I need to 22 know before I vote on this issue. I'm trying to -- 23 MR. MOTLEY: You may have representation by 24 the County -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Please don't -- 2-9-04 76 1 MR. MOTLEY: -- and you may have to hire an 2 attorney. That's what you're asking. If you were sued, it 3 could be either way. It depends on whether those activities 4 that you engaged in were within or without the scope of your 5 authority as a commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, uh-huh. 7 MR. MOTLEY: You know, that's the answer for 8 that. But that's not what's on the table today. And I 9 don't care what you say, that's not what we're looking at. 10 I'm trying to -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why are you being so 12 rude? 13 MR. MOTLEY: I'm not being rude, Buster. I'm 14 not. I'm just not quite as cute as you are. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we all know 16 that. But -- 17 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. My point is -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, the point is that 19 we're talking about some major things here, to me. 20 MR. MOTLEY: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I need to know -- 22 I need to know, if there's a lawsuit, does our liability 23 insurance cover us? 24 MR. MOTLEY: I believe I just answered that. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you answer it 2-9-04 77 1 again? 2 MR. MOTLEY: I believe I just answered. I 3 said it depends on -- if you were sued, at some point, it 4 would depend on whether we're talking criminal action, civil 5 action; it would depend on whether your actions as 6 commissioners were within or without the scope of your 7 proper duties as county commissioners, and that's the 8 answer. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now can I ask a question? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- after listening to 13 all this, actually, I'm glad I didn't get to speak for a 14 while, 'cause I got to listen to everybody else. What comes 15 to me is that we're pretty much all in agreement. I think 16 if you look at -- we have had, for some reason -- and I 17 will, just for the record, say last time we went into 18 executive session on this, I wanted this to be held in open 19 session. I don't know what's different about today's 20 discussion; it's basically identical to the one we had two 21 weeks ago, but that's neither here nor there. I have twice, 22 possibly more, in executive session asked that this be 23 further investigated and thoroughly investigated, and I have 24 been denied that. Now, no one's made a motion to pursue 25 that, other than this particular one. I have asked the 2-9-04 78 1 question before, is this criminal? Is this civil? And on 2 and on; I'm not going to go back through those transcripts, 3 but, clearly, I have wanted this investigated. 4 We've talked about the Texas Rangers in 5 executive session, whether they should be brought into it. 6 We've talked about the District Attorney's office; we have 7 either the 198th or 216th that could investigate it, and 8 I've never received a good answer as to why it shouldn't be 9 those avenues. If we're talking about the -- you know, what 10 I read in the memo, unlawful authorization of payment, to 11 me, that's probably -- you know, to me, that means criminal, 12 and criminal means -- basically, that amount is probably a 13 felony, and that probably means it's beyond the County 14 Attorney. And I'm, again, just reading what's here. So I, 15 again, would like to see this investigated by the Department 16 of Public Safety Special Crime Unit, by the Texas Rangers, 17 by either of the District Attorneys that we have. And the 18 reason I -- you know, I say that is because the County 19 Attorney has many times during executive session said that 20 the reason he wants to go this route is that he doesn't 21 understand this type of law. 22 MR. MOTLEY: I didn't say that. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said you are not 24 qualified to -- 25 MR. MOTLEY: I did not say that. 2-9-04 79 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- do this type of 2 investigation. You have said that. 3 MR. MOTLEY: I did not say that. I said it 4 would take experienced counsel in this area to provide the 5 kind of help that we need. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and you're not 7 experienced counsel in this area. 8 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I don't think I said, 9 well, you know, I just can't do this. That's not what I 10 said, Jonathan, so why don't you be accurate about what I 11 say, please. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that I am 13 accurate. But what the County Attorney has said just now, 14 that he is not experienced counsel in this type of law and 15 wants to refer it to someone else, I have no problem with 16 that if there needs to be an investigation -- I mean a 17 lawsuit, I should say. But the first step, to me, is a 18 thorough investigation. And I haven't seen any data written 19 that this Court has asked for to show what we're trying to 20 investigate. It's been very broad-brushed up to now. So, 21 you know, Commissioner Williams' motion that's still on the 22 table is the first -- I don't -- it's the second attempt to 23 get this reduced to writing. It's a little bit more 24 substantial -- it's a little bit -- the reason I haven't 25 seconded it, it's a little bit voluminous; I think it could 2-9-04 80 1 take a long, long time to get that, and I don't think that 2 serves anyone any purpose, 'cause this needs to be looked 3 into. The problem I have with the recommendation that the 4 -- you know, the County Attorney's going with is that if 5 there is a claim, we're giving the plaintiff's attorney -- 6 and the amount is $200,000, we're giving the plaintiff's 7 attorney about $90,000. Well, it seems -- that's 40 percent 8 of $200,000 -- $85,000, $90,000, plus expenses. To me, that 9 is not a prudent way to handle the taxpayers' money. If 10 there is a -- 11 MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, let me speak. Let 13 me -- 14 MR. MOTLEY: You think it would be better to 15 do nothing? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I don't think we 17 should do nothing. I am more willing -- and am willing to 18 refer it to either District Attorney's office, the Texas 19 Rangers or Special Crime Unit. If they decline to do it, 20 then I'd be willing to go in and hire an insurance 21 specialist that you say you are not, and I don't believe 22 Judge Tinley is -- he doesn't represent us, anyway -- to 23 give -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I've heard that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to give us some 2-9-04 81 1 advice. To give us advice. Now, that is what -- and I 2 really want to hammer this point home. I want it 3 investigated, but I don't want to give all the money to an 4 attorney if there's something done wrong. And it's -- and 5 when you talk about 40 percent contingency fee, I don't like 6 that approach. If there's money to get back, I want this 7 first thoroughly investigated. If Benefit Administrators or 8 anybody else deceived this Court, did anything wrong, I want 9 to know and I want to go after them. But until I can be 10 given some, you know, basis for that, you know, I can't vote 11 to hire an attorney on a contingency basis. I would be much 12 more -- and you have not presented to me or to this Court, 13 to my knowledge, any other options than this. I suspect 14 that there are investigators -- insurance investigators that 15 will do this on an hourly basis; there are attorneys that 16 will do this on an hourly basis, and my preference is to go 17 that route, so that if there are damages, the taxpayers of 18 this county get those funds, and not a plaintiff's attorney. 19 That's all I have to say. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it my turn now? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As a Commissioner, I 23 have to rely on the County Attorney's advice on legal 24 matters. Have to, and I need to, and I do. The County 25 Attorney has a lot of experience in law and in being County 2-9-04 82 1 Attorney and Assistant County Attorney and other things, and 2 I'm not going to look over his shoulder and look at the 3 evidence that he's developed that -- that led to these 4 conclusions, no more than I'm going to ask the County 5 Engineer to show me his formulas when he tells me rainwater 6 runoff rate is going to be something. That's not an area of 7 expertise I have. I don't have any expertise in law, 8 either. What I do know is that if we -- and I support this 9 approach that -- that David has brought to us. What I do 10 know is that a capable law firm, a good -- a capable 11 litigation attorney, he or she is not going to pursue this 12 case unless he or she thinks it's a good one. He or she is 13 not going to waste their time and resources pursuing 14 something that they're not going to recover on. And I think 15 that is the most cost-effective way to go about it. Let 16 them bear the expense of it, and let us reap the benefits of 17 their -- their efforts if there is a good case. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe the County 19 Attorney said we bear the expenses, though. See, we bear 20 the expense and give the money away, whereas if we hire an 21 independent investigator, then we pay the expenses and then 22 we can get the full amount back. And I just -- I don't 23 understand -- and really, you know, what I want is for 24 someone to present to me all of the options. Clearly, 25 there's nobody in the -- and I think, from a conflict of 2-9-04 83 1 interest standpoint also, there's no one in-house to do this 2 thorough investigation, in my mind. It needs to either go 3 through the -- through the criminal side through the 4 District Attorney's office -- and that would be my 5 preference, to give it to them first, let them look at it. 6 If there's something criminal that will -- that's been done, 7 let's get that out on the table and let's pursue that as 8 much as we can. If there isn't, then I think we look at the 9 civil side, but I think we need to bring in a knowledgeable 10 expert that we don't have in-house. And we're going to 11 spend the money on expenses either way, so why not at least, 12 you know, spend the money and then -- you know, I can't 13 imagine it's going to cost us $90,000, which is a maximum 14 contingency fee, to do some investigation. I just -- it 15 doesn't make sense to me to proceed this way. 16 But where we are in clear agreement is, I 17 think everyone on this Court has said let's investigate it, 18 and a lot of allegations have been made, and I think it -- 19 the taxpayers and this Court and everybody else involved 20 needs to get to the bottom of it. And I think hiring an 21 investigator or, you know, either -- one, I would like to 22 get something in writing as to what the allegations are and 23 what's been gone over. We've asked for it and, you know, 24 for several months have never received that. But the second 25 thing, I would really request the County Attorney would come 2-9-04 84 1 back to us, 'cause he is our civil counsel, as to what the 2 other options are. I mean, are there investigators out 3 there? Are there attorneys that will do this on an hourly 4 basis? What are the other options? And then, once we have 5 the options on the table, if he -- you know, and -- 6 MR. MOTLEY: I don't need to come back. I 7 don't need to come back. I can tell you now, your best 8 option is to do what I've told you to do. That's your best 9 option. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you presented other 11 options to this Court? 12 MR. MOTLEY: You are the only one that -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you -- 14 MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me, can I answer? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I asked you a question. 16 MR. MOTLEY: I'm trying to answer. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 MR. MOTLEY: You're the one that keeps 19 talking about the Texas Rangers and the D.A. and the 20 criminal thing. I didn't say anything about any criminal 21 anything. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No -- well, wait, you 23 did. In your memo, you said unlawful authorization of 24 payment of Kerr County funds. That is criminal. 25 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I guarantee you -- you 2-9-04 85 1 seem very sensitive to the word "criminal" or something, 2 because all I'm telling you is that I'm talking about a 3 civil -- somebody to look into this civilly, and that's the 4 way to get the money back. If we want to have an 5 investigator go look into it, they may tell us this one or 6 that one broke the law, but by that time, our statute of 7 limitations on our civil case is gone. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the statute? 9 MR. MOTLEY: Two years. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, we have until 11 when? 12 MR. MOTLEY: Well, it depends on when you 13 start counting. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm asking you, when do 15 we start counting? When is the statute of limitations up on 16 this case? 17 MR. MOTLEY: Well, is it up on the date we -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't ask me a question, 19 David. I'm asking -- 20 MR. MOTLEY: I'm going to tell you something; 21 that would actually require some research, whether it's 22 going to be the day we gave the money -- is it going to be 23 the day you voted to give the money? Is it going to be the 24 day the debt was incurred? I have no idea. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is exactly my point. 2-9-04 86 1 You're asking us to make a decision, and you don't have -- 2 you can't answer our basic questions. 3 MR. MOTLEY: I'm telling you that I think 4 that there are some options on that, depending on the facts. 5 Jonathan, this is a civil investigation. We're trying to 6 get -- I'm trying to get the money back for the County. 7 That's my -- what my goal is. And the fact -- I don't know 8 why you are jumping all over this word "unlawful payment," 9 saying that everybody here is fixing to be dragged out of 10 here in chains, 'cause that's not what I'm talking about. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said -- and you're 12 saying that now, but your memo -- and I showed it to some 13 very good legal minds in this county also, and they said 14 they think it is either a very poorly written memo, or 15 you're going after some criminal idea; you think something's 16 criminal. 17 MR. MOTLEY: Let me tell you, I don't really 18 care what they think. I am the legal officer for the Court. 19 I'm telling you the best course of action now is to do what 20 I've been asking y'all to do, to allow me to hire somebody. 21 And you're sitting here saying, "Well, gee whiz, we might 22 spend $80,000 or $90,000 to recover money that is due to the 23 County." If it, in fact, is due, if there's been something 24 done wrong, then we ought to get money back. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're saying that -- 2-9-04 87 1 MR. MOTLEY: And the fact that somebody 2 actually made some money -- or a law firm made money by 3 returning us money that's lawfully due us seems to really 4 upset you, and I don't understand that. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Giving $80,000 6 potentially to an attorney really upsets me. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Last time you referred to them 8 as "ambulance chasers," so -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. 10 MR. MOTLEY: And that's offensive. That's an 11 offensive term. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me try 14 again, and maybe Mr. Motley and I won't get into -- 15 MR. MOTLEY: I'm not going to go through the 16 thing again. I'm not going to listen to this again. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just -- may I make a 18 comment? 19 MR. MOTLEY: If you're going back through 20 the -- I'm not going through -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have provided you 22 with this, so you can take whatever amount of time you want 23 to read it. And if you want to throw it around, fine, you 24 can do that. That's your prerogative. I want to make a 25 comment. May I? 2-9-04 88 1 MR. MOTLEY: Sure. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Perhaps 3 the choice of words in your memorandum wasn't what you 4 intended it to be. Perhaps. But it doesn't read that way, 5 and it poses for us some questions. If there are dollars 6 out there to be recovered on behalf of Kerr County, then 7 let's recover them, period. 8 MR. MOTLEY: That's what I've been saying. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's not cast 10 aspersions all over the lot; let's just say what we mean. 11 And all I tried to do in this memorandum to you -- or this 12 motion, is to get the questions on the table that we've been 13 asking for answers to, and we don't have them. That's all 14 I'm saying. 15 MR. MOTLEY: I think you have all you need. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me? 17 MR. MOTLEY: I think you have everything you 18 need. I think you have everything you need. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Show me one document 20 you've provided me that shows me anything related to this. 21 MR. MOTLEY: Have you taken the time to look 22 at the transcripts of the various meetings where this has 23 been discussed? I mean, we have five meetings. Have you 24 looked at those? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, I have. 2-9-04 89 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've looked at some; I 2 haven't looked at all five. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I read them all. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you said -- 5 MR. MOTLEY: That's enough for what I'm 6 looking at. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, you said substantial 8 documentation, transcripts and other material. I have 9 access to the transcripts; that's public. I don't know what 10 you're referring to when you say substantial documentation 11 and other material. 12 MR. MOTLEY: I don't know that I owe you an 13 explanation of every piece of paper I've read. I don't 14 think that that's required. I'm telling you now that these 15 five transcripts alone support the issue that I'm requesting 16 you to allow me to hire counsel on, which is, were we 17 adequately informed of our third option to do nothing? And 18 I maintain that we were not informed. Now, if you can read 19 this and tell me where we were, why don't you show it to me? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, David, I have 21 offered to talk to you and you have declined to -- to talk 22 to me on this topic. You and I talk all the time; we talk 23 daily. I've asked you before, have you talked to any member 24 of that Court at the time? Have you talked to Tommy 25 Tomlinson? Have you talked to Barbara Nemec? Have you 2-9-04 90 1 talked to anybody? And you said, "No, I don't have to." 2 Well, I can't -- 3 MR. MOTLEY: It's not that -- it's not that I 4 don't have to. I'm telling you -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said -- 6 MR. MOTLEY: -- I know what I need to know by 7 reading these statements. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- but you're also 9 saying that you're not knowledgeable enough to pursue it 10 from an insurance standpoint. 11 MR. MOTLEY: I'm saying that I'm not the guy 12 that's going to be able to track the funds and do the 13 accounting and the auditing and the legal analytical work 14 that's going to talk about this sort of funds that we need 15 to ultimately do the job. No, I can't do that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you present options 17 to this Court of the way to proceed? You gave one. There 18 are other options. 19 MR. MOTLEY: The other option is to blow off 20 the civil and go criminal and just make this a criminal -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other option is -- 22 MR. MOTLEY: Which is what you're asking me 23 to do. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me try this 25 again. It's real simple to me. And I -- I think everybody 2-9-04 91 1 at the table believes that there's some expectation that we 2 can and should recover some money. It might be 10 percent 3 expectation, might be a 99 percent; I don't know. And -- 4 and David has said to us, "Here's the way to do that." It's 5 a risk management issue. Don't put your cash at risk in 6 hiring an attorney by the hour to do this. It's -- get a 7 competent law firm that specializes in civil litigation to 8 investigate this and come back to us and say, "Yes, you've 9 got a good case and we'll take it," and go forward with it, 10 or, "No, we don't like your case and we're not going to 11 spend any more of our time." 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good and 14 prudent and proper approach to it, and it's the approach 15 that everybody uses in something like this. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. David, I 17 have a question for -- now, just take a deep breath. 18 There's no yelling or any confrontation here. I just simply 19 want to know, how do you go about hiring an attorney like 20 this? Do you run ads in the paper? Do you call your 21 friends? How does that -- how does that happen? 22 MR. MOTLEY: That's for me to know and you to 23 find out. How about that? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want to bet? 25 MR. MOTLEY: Listen, I'll do it. I'll find a 2-9-04 92 1 way to get the right firm. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, how do you do 3 that? Am I going to be in on the hiring? 4 MR. MOTLEY: No. I'm asking for the 5 authority to -- for me to make the decision. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Authorize -- 7 MR. MOTLEY: Which has been very commonly 8 done throughout the counties in the state by the county 9 attorney, by the way. County Attorney is looked at as the 10 manager of legal affairs of the county in most counties. 11 And I'm saying that I'll find -- I'll find a qualified firm. 12 And I meant that as a joke; I wasn't trying to be smart with 13 you, Buster. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 15 MR. MOTLEY: But this is a civil inquiry on 16 my part at this time. And Jonathan's saying, "What are our 17 options?" Our options are to say, well, let's just take 18 this civil thing and put it in the back closet while the 19 statute of limitation's ticking, and then get some criminal 20 investigation -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, that is absolutely 22 wrong as to what I said. 23 MR. MOTLEY: Hold on a minute. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, you interrupted me. 25 I said -- 2-9-04 93 1 MR. MOTLEY: We're going to get the Texas 2 Rangers in. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not what I said. 4 I said -- you said that is not going to work. All I want -- 5 what are the other options from the civil approach? 6 MR. MOTLEY: I don't think we have any. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't think we have 8 any? We can't hire someone to look into this? 9 MR. MOTLEY: You can hire somebody hourly. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you were going to 11 speak about expenses. You can't tell us how much -- how do 12 I know these expenses aren't going to possibly exceed what 13 we're going to pay hourly? 14 MR. MOTLEY: I don't know. I guess maybe -- 15 probably the best thing to do, maybe just blow the whole 16 thing off. Really, just blow it off, and just don't get the 17 money back. I think maybe that's the thing to do. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not what I want to 19 do. 20 MR. MOTLEY: I think -- I think we -- what 21 else do y'all want to talk about? I'm up here; I'm telling 22 you I think the best option is to spend the money necessary 23 to have some incidental expenses, hire a firm -- outside 24 firm on a contingency fee basis to find out if there's a 25 problem. If there is a problem, where the money went, what 2-9-04 94 1 moneys may be recoverable on a contingency fee basis. I 2 don't begrudge them one penny for the work they do. They 3 will have earned their money. And I don't know what your 4 hangup is about lawyers making money -- or making some money 5 on a case. I don't -- and you may think that's funny, but 6 that's how they make their living, and that's fine that they 7 do that. They may be equipped to find money that's due this 8 county. As I perceived it, the other option you presented 9 is to go to the Texas Rangers, go to the D.A.; let's make it 10 criminal. I don't want to make it criminal. I think that's 11 a bad idea. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- my question is, 13 is it possible it's criminal? And you have never addressed 14 that. 15 MR. MOTLEY: It could be possibly criminal, 16 absolutely. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if it's criminal, 18 where do we go with it? 19 MR. MOTLEY: Well, where we go is we go after 20 the civil part first, before our statute of limitations runs 21 out. That's what we do. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we don't pursue it -- 23 the criminal at the same time? 24 MR. MOTLEY: I'm not saying we don't pursue 25 it at the same time; I'm not saying that. Right now, this 2-9-04 95 1 is what we need to do. This is what we need to do. We 2 needed to do it the last time I talked to y'all about it. 3 And I tell you what, the last thing I wanted to do is bring 4 it up in public. That's the last thing I wanted to do. But 5 last -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You did it your way. 7 MR. MOTLEY: And did I have any luck last 8 time? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did it in executive 10 session. 11 MR. MOTLEY: Did I have any luck whatsoever 12 getting this done? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're getting 14 information. 15 MR. MOTLEY: I don't know exactly how much 16 information, frankly, that you're entitled to on this; I'll 17 be honest with you. I don't mean to be ugly. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait. You're 19 representing me, and I don't have access to the information? 20 MR. MOTLEY: No, I said I don't know how much 21 you're entitled to. I mean, you're saying, you know, like, 22 you want to see what papers I've looked at and what I've 23 done and this and that and the other. I don't think -- I 24 don't think that's part of the deal. I don't think that's 25 part of the deal at all. I'm telling you I think this is 2-9-04 96 1 the best option we have at this time. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're not willing to 3 tell me what you've done? 4 MR. MOTLEY: I tell you, I just did. I just 5 did. I told you I read these five transcripts, and that's 6 enough for me to know -- to believe that we were not given 7 that third option on December the 9th of 2002. Now, what 8 else do you want to read? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, can you bring back 10 at our next court what the expenses are going to be to hire 11 an attorney under your plan, and what the hourly rate is and 12 what it would -- estimated cost to have it looked into? 13 MR. MOTLEY: What's going to happen then? 14 We're going to have to do this next time? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully resolve this, 16 'cause I'm really tired of talking about it, and I think we 17 need to get to the bottom of it. 18 MR. MOTLEY: Why don't we put a cap on the 19 expenses, then? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's an option. 21 MR. MOTLEY: Put a cap on the expenses. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not to exceed what? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: $2,500. 24 MR. MOTLEY: A dollar and a half. I mean, 25 what do y'all want? I know, that's what I -- that's the way 2-9-04 97 1 I feel, like y'all are -- y'all are just attacking these 2 guys for doing their job. I mean, that's -- you know, 3 40 percent contingency, that means 60 percent of something 4 is better than 100 percent of zip. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not arguing that. 6 You just said why not put a cap on it, the expenses. 7 MR. MOTLEY: $5,000? $10,000? I have no 8 idea. $5,000 or $10,000. I have no idea. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: $2,500. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for your 11 answer. 12 MR. MOTLEY: Pardon? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for your 14 answer. 15 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is serious. I 17 know -- I know, compared to the uproar up here, this is 18 small potatoes, but still, I represent the people. On this 19 expense -- and I'm kind of hung up on this expense thing, 20 David. Lawyers charge, like, $10 or $15 for a telephone 21 call, and $4 or $5 for -- okay. Charges for telephone calls 22 and copy machines and those kinds of things, about -- about 23 how much, so we can -- so the public can know how much money 24 they're spending? How much I will be voting on if we're 25 talking about a cap here? 2-9-04 98 1 MR. MOTLEY: I just said $5,000 or $10,000 2 would be a cap. I can't sit here and tell you how much any 3 given law firm is going to charge for a 15-minute phone 4 call, if they're going to have a 15-minute minimum. I don't 5 have any idea what you're going to find in any given case. 6 I'm saying a $5,000 or $10,000 maximum. We could probably 7 do something like that. But I think if -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm thinking more in 9 the lines of $500, maybe. 10 MR. MOTLEY: $500? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm talking to the 12 Judge now. We're -- we're trying to get a motion going 13 here, I think. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a motion on 15 the floor already. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm thinking, you 17 know, if you cap it -- I mean, I -- if you could tell me 18 what -- tell me what expenses are. I mean, don't you think 19 that the public -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: You're asking me? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you have things in the 23 nature of copy costs, long distance telephone toll charges. 24 You have -- occasionally, you'll have some filing fees, 25 obtaining certified copies of records. 2-9-04 99 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mileage. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, on travel, sometimes 3 there's mileage. But all of the things dealing with 4 investment of time, that's part of the contingency. That 5 goes in -- it's only the out-of-pocket, the actual 6 out-of-pocket. You know, $2,500, $5,000. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $2,500 would cover -- 8 probably cover that. And I just -- I'm just trying to get 9 to the point to where the taxpayers can see, I mean, how 10 many -- what this is going to cost, about. I mean, I don't 11 want to -- I don't want to put $10,000 on there if it's 12 really going to be $2,500. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, whatever's not expended 14 for actual out-of-pocket expenses would come back to you 15 under the customary contingent fee contract. If you 16 authorize 10 and they only spend $1,600, for example, on 17 out-of-pocket, the balance comes back to you. That's the 18 way it normally works, the way I've seen it work. 19 Mr. Clack's here; I'm sure he could probably verify that 20 that's generally the way it works. He works on that basis a 21 whole lot. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Clack. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hi, Mr. Clack. 25 MR. CLACK: Good morning. 2-9-04 100 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know 2 Mr. Clack. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Clack handles lawsuits on 4 a contingent-fee basis on a frequent basis, to my best 5 information. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, is there -- I'm 7 not trying to -- we're friends now. 8 MR. MOTLEY: I think we're friends all the 9 time. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- or has anyone 11 looked into, I guess, you know -- how would you say it? If 12 there's nothing wrong and we pursue it in the way that 13 you're doing it, through hiring outside counsel, is there -- 14 have you looked into the risk that may be putting the County 15 at towards getting future insurance contracts? 16 MR. MOTLEY: No. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we go into it and this 18 is a frivolous thing or something like that, -- 19 MR. MOTLEY: No. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- does that have any 21 impact? No, it won't? Or you haven't -- 22 MR. MOTLEY: I have not looked into it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause it's something 24 that I'm just -- I'm wondering. I don't want to -- and 25 anyone else on the Court, 'cause I don't know; this is 2-9-04 101 1 really a legal issue. It's a concern that I have, that if 2 we -- if we get a reputation for doing this and there's 3 nothing there -- and, you know, if there is, obviously, it 4 wouldn't make any difference. Obviously, we're going after 5 someone; I think that's good to have the insurance industry 6 as a whole know that we're going to watch our claims and 7 investigate them. But if it's -- if there is nothing there, 8 there is maybe some other negatives -- a negative point 9 there as well. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Nicholson 11 answered that. If this matter is laid in the hands of 12 competent, experienced, civil litigators, if they see that 13 there's not anything that's worth their time, what they will 14 be investing their time and their expertise in pursuing, 15 they're going to hand it back to us and say, "Thanks, but no 16 thanks," and you don't get there, is the way it works. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, Judge, I hope you 18 don't take offense to the fact -- when I am critical of you 19 practicing law. I mean, you're not representing the Court. 20 I know it's very difficult. I know you can't hardly -- it's 21 difficult to separate the two, but it's just -- you know, 22 it's -- I presume it's difficult to be an attorney and then 23 not try to represent us. As you're -- when you're talking, 24 you're representing just yourself; I understand that. But I 25 just bring it up to let the public know that, 'cause 2-9-04 102 1 everyone knows you are an attorney; that you, in your 2 capacity here, are not acting as an attorney. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not saying you were. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: -- representing the County in 6 a legal capacity here. The only way I do that is in a 7 judicial capacity on the three dockets that I handle. But 8 it -- Commissioner, as you know, it's extremely difficult 9 for me to disregard 35-plus years of -- of background and 10 practice of law, and the education and experience and 11 training that go with it. But there's our legal 12 representative. He's -- he's giving us his recommendation. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a comment. I 14 don't want to deal with this any more. That's -- I agree 15 with you; it's our money out there and we need to go get it. 16 And I think we've had the discussion and -- and all of it. 17 My questions have been put on the record here, in case 18 something pops up bad. I do not like your threat of suing 19 the Commissioners Court. And I don't like your threats of, 20 if we don't do something, there could be some bad 21 consequences. I detest that kind of language. However, if 22 you'll put a cap of $2,500 on any expenses, I'll vote with 23 you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Just -- we've got a 25 motion that has been hanging here for a good while, and I -- 2-9-04 103 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Point of order. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd like to wind this thing 3 up. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't making a 5 motion. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I moved all these 7 various items, which was an effort to get the information 8 that I think we have not been given. If we need to clear 9 the deck to figure out a way to attempt to get Kerr County 10 some money back, I'm willing to pull the motion. But all 11 this does is illustrates all the questions we have that 12 haven't been answered. With all due respect, I'll withdraw 13 my motion. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, motion's withdrawn. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can reinstitute 17 it if you want to. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is 19 the -- David, could you explain how we proceed if we do what 20 you want? Which I'm still -- I wish we would have some 21 other options, but you -- obviously, I'm not going to get 22 them. Can you walk through the -- I guess, the -- if we 23 were to give you authority to hire outside counsel, what 24 happens, and what happens when they reach their cap and what 25 monitor do we have and what information do we get? Because 2-9-04 104 1 at some point, I would really like to get some information 2 as to what the allegations are that I haven't gotten in 3 three years. And the other thing I would like to have, 4 which is related, have we -- has the County ever gone to 5 Employee Benefit Administrators and/or our -- I won't say 6 "ever." Have we gone through Employee Benefit 7 Administrators and/or our reinsurance carrier to try to 8 resolve this prior to litigation? 9 MR. MOTLEY: I don't know if the County has. 10 Are you asking me if I have? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, you 12 represent -- you're representing the County. That's -- I 13 mean, it seems to me if we're getting ready to hire an 14 attorney to go out after something, we ought to at least try 15 to work out a deal before we go spend any money. 16 MR. MOTLEY: I believe we've had a 17 representative of E.B.A. in this court at least four times 18 subsequent to the time that the moneys were provided. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, is it -- I guess 20 my thought is, if you hire somebody all of sudden, and we 21 get back $100,000, $200,000, whatever it is, 40 percent of 22 that's going to the attorney. Wouldn't it be better to at 23 least -- like, two weeks to let you try to talk to them, or 24 someone on your staff to try to talk to them to avoid the 25 taxpayers spending that much money? And I'll give you the 2-9-04 105 1 assurance that if we -- you know, if you would, you know, 2 visit with them, or if you feel you're qualified or 3 whatever -- I just hate to give the -- give away -- I won't 4 say "give away." I hate to spend that much of the 5 taxpayers' money if there's something to be got out there, 6 and I don't know why we can't have you, as our civil 7 attorney, meet with them and say, you know, "We feel you owe 8 us money," and at least have an answer. And, you know, to 9 me that's a reasonable step. And if you can't come to a 10 resolution, I'll go with -- I will do -- I may even do what 11 you want anyway, but I'll do what you want. I mean, I think 12 that that is a prudent first step for the taxpayers of this 13 county, to at least try to work out a deal before we hire 14 outside counsel. 15 MR. MOTLEY: I've not done that. But, as I 16 said, the E.B.A. administrator -- or the E.B.A. 17 representative has been here on four occasions subsequent to 18 December 12th -- or December 9th of 2002. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm aware they've been in 20 court. They haven't been in a sit-down meeting to say, hey, 21 we think there's something -- I've got -- you know, I'm 22 speaking as you -- "Here's some of our concerns," you know, 23 which you obviously have, and obviously the Court has. 24 MR. MOTLEY: There's been at least two 25 meetings between a representative of the County and 2-9-04 106 1 representative of E.B.A., representative of Finley. I 2 believe there were at least two meetings. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know there have been 4 meetings between County personnel. All I'm asking from a 5 legal standpoint from your office is, would you do that 6 before -- even if we give you authority to hire outside 7 counsel, would you meet with them to try to work it out, see 8 if there -- 9 MR. MOTLEY: I don't know that I will or 10 won't. I don't know that I will or won't. I don't know 11 that that's a terrible idea. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is a terrible idea? 13 MR. MOTLEY: No, I said I don't know that it 14 is a terrible idea. You asked other options. It's possible 15 maybe we could hire somebody hourly. That's possible. It 16 is possible that we don't proceed civilly and that we would 17 seek the assistance of some criminal investigator, some law 18 enforcement agency, and proceed criminally, which is what I 19 think the Court has urged previously, maybe even today. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I could just make a 21 comment there, and I -- you keep on referring back to me 22 wanting to bring in the Texas Rangers. I have, since making 23 that statement -- I was under the impression that they -- in 24 this situation, they would deal with some civil issues, and 25 I think it was even unclear whether -- how much they would 2-9-04 107 1 or wouldn't. I have since talked with Kyle Dean, and they 2 will not do the civil issue, so I agree that if we're going 3 civilly, you know, you clearly cannot go that route. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the comments 5 you're making, Commissioner, go to the underlying issue -- 6 one of the underlying issues, and that is whether or not 7 Kerr County has an action against the reinsurer of our 8 insurance plan, and those are medical questions in terms of, 9 where have these expenses gone? Are they attached to the 10 transplant procedure or are they separate? Those are 11 medical questions. Insurance-type medical questions. I 12 don't hear any answers. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I think -- I 14 mean, I think your point -- well, I mean, my understanding 15 is that we have been -- "we" being through, I guess, the 16 Employee Benefit Administrators and maybe the Auditor, maybe 17 the Treasurer; I'm not sure exactly who -- we have been 18 trying to get these funds back from our reinsurer for the 19 better part of a year. But I have not -- I was not 20 personally involved with that. I'm not really sure where we 21 are on all of that. And it just seems to me that the -- and 22 the part of the issue I don't want to rehash -- I mean, I'm 23 not going to argue with the Judge's interpretation about it, 24 and most of what he said, I think, is fairly accurate. But 25 I think that -- I mean, it's kind of like I would like one 2-9-04 108 1 last effort to try to resolve this without hiring outside 2 counsel, which I see as a -- as potentially very costly to 3 the taxpayers of this county, even on a contingency basis. 4 But it is costly, and to try to resolve it before you do 5 that. You know, I mean, I could probably go along with 6 giving you authority to do what you want to do, but I would 7 ask you, as our civil attorney, to also try to work this out 8 before you do that. And I don't think that step has been 9 done yet, and I just don't think that it is -- I mean, I 10 know other people have, and I know we've -- the Court's 11 dealing with them. But -- 12 MR. MOTLEY: I would like to answer both 13 questions. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 15 MR. MOTLEY: Number one, nobody seemed to be 16 very concerned about the cost involved of doing nothing 17 before today. So, nobody's been too worried about that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excuse me. Costs -- 19 MR. MOTLEY: Nobody has been too worried 20 about the cost to the County and the county taxpayers of 21 doing nothing before today. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've been talking -- 23 MR. MOTLEY: Now, all of a sudden, it's an 24 important thing that we have some kind of a last-minute 25 pow-wow and sit down, see if we can work it out. That may 2-9-04 109 1 be a good idea. But, as I said, prior to today, I didn't 2 hear anybody express any interest in the moneys that were 3 out there, possibly. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Judge -- excuse me, 5 David. We have been trying, I believe, since September -- 6 December of '02 to get this money back through various 7 representatives. I mean, the Judge has had this, clearly, 8 on the -- on the agenda several times. 9 MR. MOTLEY: I'm talking about after the last 10 meeting. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've tried to work it 12 out with the reinsurance company. There have been 13 communications -- I'm going based on other conversations 14 I've had with the Auditor and Treasurer. They've tried to 15 get the money back; I believe we have tried. So, I think 16 that we -- the County has clearly tried to get the money 17 back as -- you know, from the very beginning. 18 MR. MOTLEY: Right, but I'm talking about 19 after the third appeal was denied. I'm saying once that's 20 over with and they said this is pretty much it, then I think 21 that's what everybody said; this is pretty much it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I never received anything 23 about a third appeal. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't know 25 anything about the third appeal. 2-9-04 110 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nobody -- I don't know 2 anything about the third appeal. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley, if the Court would 4 authorize you to do as you have requested and place an 5 expense cap -- an out-of-pocket expense cap obligation of 6 $2,500 to Kerr County, you would still, before you finalize 7 that arrangement, under that authority, have the ability to 8 attempt to make some -- some recovery directly from E.B.A., 9 would you not? 10 MR. MOTLEY: I believe so. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And that would be an option 12 for you to -- to pursue before you acted on the authority 13 given to you by the Court? 14 MR. MOTLEY: I believe I -- I believe I 15 always have that option available before -- before retaining 16 counsel or having the funds expended or -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, will you tell 18 us -- will you exercise that option, is my question. I 19 mean, I know you have the option. And maybe you can't say; 20 I don't know. But, I mean, I would just feel a whole lot 21 better if you would at least try to resolve this before we 22 hired outside counsel. 23 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I -- you know, I -- I tell 24 you, right now I don't know that -- that that's something 25 that I definitely will pursue. I will take it under 2-9-04 111 1 consideration. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, the -- the 3 defendant will have an opportunity -- is aware of whatever 4 action we take, and will have an opportunity to -- to 5 contact the County Attorney and, if he so chooses, a law 6 firm to discuss a possible settlement prior to hiring an 7 outside firm. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But as soon as he 9 hires -- if he hires a firm today -- I mean, I'm not saying 10 you're going to, but if you hire someone today, from that 11 point on, as I understand the way those contracts generally 12 are, everything recovered after that gets split 40/60. And 13 I just would like -- I'm trying to save the taxpayers a 14 bunch of money. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would offer a 16 motion that -- that we authorize the County Attorney to 17 retain litigation attorneys on a contingent fee basis, with 18 a $2,500 expense cap, to pursue claims and other remedies 19 against Employee Benefit Administrators and/or others 20 arising out of payment by Kerr County of health care funds 21 to Employee Benefit Administrators. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to 23 second it, Judge? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to 2-9-04 112 1 second it? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you hear me say that? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm asking if you're 6 going to second it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you read that again? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd already put it 9 away, assuming it was going to pass. I make a motion that 10 we authorize the County Attorney to retain litigation 11 attorneys on a contingent fee basis, with a $2,500 expense 12 cap, to investigate, pursue claims or other remedies against 13 Employee Benefit Administrators and/or others arising out of 14 payment by Kerr County of health care funds to the Employee 15 Benefit Administrators. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could -- would -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to 18 second it, Judge? 19 MR. MOTLEY: Only thing he didn't say there 20 was a 40 percent cap on the recovery. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Contingency? 22 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir. That's the only thing 23 I heard that wasn't in there. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be the 25 case, 40 percent cap? Retainer cap? 2-9-04 113 1 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With a $2,500 expense 3 cap? 4 MR. MOTLEY: If we can get somebody to do it 5 that way, that'll be the case. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 4, try it again 8 and put the number 40 in there somewhere. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'll do that, 10 but if I'm going to do that, I'm going to have to ask 11 David -- my experience with this is there's often a two-tier 12 schedule; that if a matter is settled out of court, it's a 13 lower contingency fee, like 30 or 35 percent. If it -- if 14 they must go to court, they spend a whole lot more time in 15 preparation and -- and then in court itself, and it's a 16 higher number. But I -- again, I'm not going to substitute 17 my judgment for the County Attorney's. He's an expert in 18 these matters, and we ought to authorize him to hire -- hire 19 a good firm and make a -- a conventional agreement with 20 them. 21 MR. MOTLEY: I'd be willing to look into a 22 lower contingency rate for out-of-court, or some sort of 23 settlement like that. I'd be willing to inquire into that. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is also -- I 25 mean, I think we need to be very specific. I mean, 'cause 2-9-04 114 1 that -- and maybe we should do this -- the way you worded 2 that, it's basically -- I don't know; the Employee Benefit 3 Administrators have been our provider for, I don't know, 4 five or six years, and you're -- that's a huge -- I mean, 5 you're asking them to go into that whole period. You're not 6 being specific to any specific event. So, if you're just 7 talking about basically all of our payments over the last 8 five years, you're not -- I mean, you're not saying 9 anything. I wish you would be more specific. Or maybe it's 10 okay the way it is. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe being open 12 will give them the discretion to -- to follow anything that 13 comes up, would be the -- the better thing to do. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you accept an 15 amendment that qualifies the contingency as being up to a 16 maximum? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: 40? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To hire -- so we'll 20 amend that to say retain litigation on a contingent fee 21 basis up to 40 percent of the amount recovered. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the additional 23 cap on expense. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $2,500 cap on 25 expenses. 2-9-04 115 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to 2 second it, Bill? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now it's out there. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 7 Now, are we going to be able to wind this up, or do we need 8 to take a break and come back and act on the motion? Any 9 further questions or discussion? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only comment is 11 that I would like -- and I would never, ever try to tell the 12 County Commissioner how to run -- I mean the County Attorney 13 how to run his business, but I would like to have updates 14 occasionally in executive session, where someone would come 15 to this court and let us know where we are and what's going 16 on with it. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I agree with 18 that. But, I mean, I guess my -- my biggest problem still 19 is, I still really don't know what the allegation is. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Neither do I. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None of us do. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, which -- you 23 know, and I guess -- and we're not going to ever get there. 24 I don't understand. So -- or from what I am told. So, I 25 wish that somebody -- being in your office, David -- would 2-9-04 116 1 give us in writing specifically, just so I'm aware when 2 we're getting these updates, what we're -- where the problem 3 is, what the problem is specifically. Because, in my mind, 4 I'm still not clear. 5 MR. MOTLEY: You know what? I mean, I don't 6 mean to argue with you, but I think you know what the 7 problem is. I think you know what the problem is. I think 8 everybody on the Court knows; I've expressed it a half dozen 9 times. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're -- 11 MR. MOTLEY: I'm saying the guy did not tell 12 us what our third option was, and I'm saying what happened 13 after that with the money, I don't know, but I want somebody 14 to help me find out. That's pretty easy stuff right there, 15 and I -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That third option is 17 doing nothing? 18 MR. MOTLEY: Yes. That's -- that was never 19 informed -- that was never given as an option in the court 20 on December the 9th, 2002. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley, excuse me. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't have much -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Smith? You had filed a 24 participation form. Do you wish to be heard? I realize 25 it's a little late in the game, but you had filed a 2-9-04 117 1 participation form. We'd be happy to hear from you, sir. 2 MR. SMITH: If it's time, I would, Judge. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward, sir. 4 MR. SMITH: My name is Lamar Smith. 5 Obviously, I'm not your present congressman. I picked up 6 the paper this morning, San Antonio Express, and -- I'm sure 7 everybody did that takes it, and I was not familiar with 8 this issue in the court, other than the squib about the 9 Judge and I guess the third-party administrator had a little 10 bit of flap sometime in the local paper. That article 11 raised more questions than it answered. Assuming the quotes 12 were accurate -- and I assume anybody that was quoted can 13 correct that in this meeting if they want to. I want to 14 thank the Judge for giving a background, and hopefully the 15 Commissioners and the public know, if they agree with what 16 he said as to the facts, the factual background. And let me 17 say that I think all the facts need to come out for the 18 people of this county. And I realize it's election time, 19 but let me assure you, I have no dog in any political fight 20 in this courtroom. I am here strictly as a taxpayer of nine 21 or ten years in this county. 22 Now, unfortunately, Commissioner Letz raised 23 an issue that embarrassed me when he talked about D.A.'s, 24 and I happen to be a pro bono assistant D.A. for Bill -- for 25 Bruce Curry's 216th, so I'm not touching any legal issues 2-9-04 118 1 about criminal. I'm talking about civil remedies and 2 possible recoveries. And if -- if, in fact, it appears we 3 were not liable when the decision was made to pay the 4 $400,000, it was bad advice, either no legal advice or bad 5 advice or misinformation by the third-party administrator. 6 At least that's clear, I think, today, which in the 7 newspaper article was unclear. 8 Now, I don't know if we're still operating 9 under that policy or a new one, but it appears the 10 administrator was given some bad poop for the Commissioners 11 to act on. Now, we can talk today about trying to recover 12 $200,000. What's raised my hackles as a taxpayer is, 13 because of that advice, the County put up $400,000 -- and 14 his quote was "for compassionate relief," which is very 15 commendable. But has that prejudiced us for a precedent, 16 that any time in the future, if we have a similar situation, 17 we have now opened Pandora's box on unlimited liability 18 under a precedent and/or a discrimination. So, I don't know 19 whether the Court or the County can get additional insurance 20 coverage, and so the County's not liable for this third-tier 21 unlimited liability. But either we're liable down -- down 22 below for compassionate relief, or we get some -- can we get 23 more insurance? Because we may have -- this Court or a 24 prior Court may have made a decision based upon erroneous 25 recommendations and legal facts that may prejudice us in the 2-9-04 119 1 future. 2 And, Mr. Letz, I saw your quote. I don't 3 know whether it was accurately reported, but I read it as 4 being we have the money to make these type of compassionate 5 payments. And I don't know whether we have a cash reserve 6 set aside, self-insurance, but to me it sounds kind of 7 unlimited. So, my concern -- and if we hire an attorney, I 8 think this Court needs a legal opinion. Are we -- are we 9 already pregnant on this issue on future liability under a 10 precedent being set based upon bad information or 11 information that was not legally correct by your third-party 12 administrator? But, in any event, I would -- I think you 13 better look for some new third-party administrators if this 14 is the kind of relationship the County was in and got 15 ourself in a deep pit. And so the $200,000 is a lot of 16 money, but my concern is an unlimited future liability that 17 may have been created by bad advice from your third-party 18 administrator. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You raise an 20 interesting point, Lamar, and the Schedule of Benefits in 21 the Kerr County Employees Handbook provides that Kerr County 22 guarantees a $1 million lifetime maximum benefit. The 23 second part of your point is, are we covered at the moment 24 or are we uncovered? The truth of the matter is, we're 25 uncovered, because even though we approved renewal of the 2-9-04 120 1 insurance, the documents have never been signed. 2 MR. SMITH: So, we -- we are obligated, then? 3 We were obligated to pay the million -- the million dollars? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, we had a million 7 dollars at the time. And that is -- part of the heart of 8 the question is to -- whether or not we were actually 9 liable -- liable or not, and you get into a whole lot of 10 fact issues and other issues. And that's why we -- the 11 original -- when the original funds were spent, I mean, 12 depending on how they -- you know, and I guess I can look at 13 it as -- how I understand it is, when you go to a doctor, 14 your insurance pays based on the codes they turn in to the 15 insurance company. That's part of the issue here, is that 16 if it was -- if Box A, B, C were blackened, we may not have 17 been liable. If Blocks A, D, F were blackened, we were 18 liable, and that was part of the issue. And the other part 19 of your question, I'm not sure the quote you're referring 20 to. I think that -- 21 MR. SMITH: It was in San Antonio Express 22 this morning. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I haven't seen it, so I'm 24 not aware of what you said. I think that the other part of 25 that, though, is that we are partially self-insured, so we 2-9-04 121 1 fund our employees. I mean, ours are self-insured. So, I 2 think that we make our decision each year based on advice we 3 get from a number of different quotes we get from insurance 4 and analysis of the data, and primarily we get -- hire an 5 adviser that gives us some advice. That -- I don't know. I 6 think you have to look at what you're exactly talking about. 7 I think what this has raised is that I will be much more 8 cognizant in the future to make sure our insurance benefits 9 are at a level that provides the employees of this county 10 with adequate health coverage. And that's -- and I 11 question, you know, the cap that was in place, the $250,000 12 on transplants. I think we need look at that, because I 13 think that is an issue. I think we have an obligation to 14 insure the employees of this county adequately, and that's 15 something I take very seriously. And we -- and at the same 16 time, we also need to look at the -- the cost of that 17 insurance and spend the taxpayers' dollars and my dollars 18 very wisely. So, you know, I think that your -- your points 19 are well-taken. I'm not aware of any precedent, but that's 20 a good question, I guess. But I do think that, on the 21 compassion side, what I'm basically saying is that we need 22 to have insurance coverage that covers our employees. 23 MR. SMITH: I agree, but I'm confused now. I 24 didn't realize the County was obligated up to a million 25 dollars. And if we paid $400,000, out of the million, I 2-9-04 122 1 don't -- I'm missing an issue here somewhere. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So are we. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So are we. That's 4 exactly the -- why we are hoping this all gets further 5 investigated. And -- and we're just like -- we're going 6 down that road. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Isn't the County liable up to 8 $40,000, then we have a million dollar stop loss policy with 9 another insurance company? They are responsible up to a 10 million dollars, and 250 cap on a transplant sub-benefit. 11 Isn't that what it was? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 13 MR. MOTLEY: County was liable up to the 14 first $40,000; then our Union Labor Life or whatever the 15 name was, our stop loss carrier, was liable up to a million; 16 isn't that correct? 17 MR. SMITH: So, it's not the County's 18 obligation? 19 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 20 MR. SMITH: Above the 250? 21 MR. MOTLEY: That's right. 22 MR. SMITH: Okay. Well, that's ... 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Smith. We 24 appreciate you being here today. Is there any further 25 question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the 2-9-04 123 1 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Our 6 court reporter is probably frazzled. I'm surprised she 7 hasn't killed all of us, primarily me, because I'm the one 8 that has the authority to pull the string. Why don't we 9 come back at 12:30, and we'll see if we can wind up this 10 agenda. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 12:30? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess till 14 12:30. 15 (Recess taken from 11:39 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's -- it's a minute 18 or two past 12:30, so we'll come back to order and reconvene 19 the regular Commissioners Court meeting posted for this 20 date, which was in recess until 12:30. The next item on the 21 agenda is -- looks like we go back to Number 1, doesn't it? 22 Boy, that's disheartening, isn't it? First item on the 23 agenda, approve the annual accounts and status of the 24 investments pursuant to the provisions of Texas Probate 25 Code, Section 887(B). County Clerk's here with us, and had 2-9-04 124 1 this item placed on the agenda. 2 MS. PIEPER: This is just one of those items 3 that, once a year, I'm required to bring before the Court 4 for your approval. This will show the amount of 5 investments, where it was invested at, how much interest was 6 paid, and on which case number that it was placed into. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 10 approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 11 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 12 hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Thank you. 17 Ms. Pieper. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can I bring up 19 something right quick? I don't know this, but the Auditor 20 may want to get the bills paid so we can pay our bills in a 21 proper timing. You don't care? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't care. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, Tommy 24 doesn't care. Forgive me. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is too 2-9-04 125 1 entertaining for him to miss. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 3 MR. ODOM: Just blame it on him. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He just really doesn't 5 care about county government. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to the second item on 7 the agenda, consider referring to the County Attorney a 8 fence encroachment on right-of-way on Michon Drive for 9 removal. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: We were called by the Post 11 Office. When we first learned of this, they were putting up 12 fenceposts, and we had -- we called the land owner and sent 13 her a letter, and we thought we had an agreement. They were 14 going to move it back a little bit, but they went ahead and 15 put it up -- see in the picture, one was placed -- the post 16 is right almost at the edge of the asphalt. Just -- and so 17 we feel like we need some help from the County Attorney 18 probably to get it removed and relocated. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I want to make a 20 comment before we get -- I'm certainly in favor of it, but I 21 had seen the memo that the engineer sent to the County 22 Attorney, and -- about getting on the agenda, et cetera, et 23 cetera, and I wrote the County Attorney a note saying, Why 24 can't we just -- why can't you just go do it? Why -- you 25 know, there's an encroachment on a county right-of-way. We 2-9-04 126 1 have plenty of -- of rules and regulations, comments 2 everywhere, that says that he could do it, and because of 3 the fact that we have a -- one gentleman over there that 4 lives in a wheelchair, and his wife is not in much better 5 shape, that -- they can make it out to their little mailbox, 6 but now they have to go all the way to town. Why wouldn't 7 the County Attorney just go ahead and -- because this is 8 going to be a long-term deal. And long -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Long-term" as in -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, who knows how 11 long it's going to take to get to the bottom of it, get them 12 to take their fence? The Postal Service will continue to go 13 back now to delivering mail for these people. And the 14 County Attorney says no, he wants a court order. Now, that 15 goes over my head. I don't understand that. You know, is 16 there some kind of policy that the County Attorney doesn't 17 act without a court order from the Commissioners Court? 18 Or -- 19 MR. JOHNSTON: I think we've always had a 20 policy we'd come through the Court to go to him, 'cause it's 21 another department. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I understand 23 that, on normal situations. I happen to know my precinct 24 better than anybody else, and I -- I think that we need to 25 go full bore and get that fence moved so these people can 2-9-04 127 1 get their damn mail. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your point's 3 well-taken, and it's -- it's not the policy that it comes 4 here because they are -- all of the -- I won't say "all." 5 Many of the OSSF violations certainly don't come to us 6 before they get handled. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, if it's a 9 violation of county law, it's a violation of county law. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm frustrated with 12 the whole area of enforcement. It ought to be easier, when 13 it's clear that somebody's in the wrong, whether it's OSSF 14 or solid waste or encroachment or whatever; steps ought to 15 be taken to remedy the problem immediately. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Immediately. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If they can -- if 18 they can lawfully go out there with a bulldozer and knock a 19 fence down, I'd recommend that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I was about to 21 ask that question. At what point we do we just send the 22 bulldozer up there and take the damn fence gown? How many 23 more letters do we have to write? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I 25 think the answer is that -- the County Attorney's not 2-9-04 128 1 present, but the County Attorney needs to do his job in 2 these matters and enforce county -- our laws, which I -- 3 county laws are the ones that we basically -- or state laws, 4 if there are state laws. How we get that done, maybe we can 5 decide on Wednesday. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's right. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frank, has this woman 8 ever responded to you at all? Have you had any discussion? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: By phone. Not to our letters. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But by phone? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: And what was the response? 14 MR. JOHNSTON: She says it's her land. Road 15 easement's across her land, and she felt like she can do it. 16 It's her property. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that's about, 18 what, 10, 12 feet onto the right-of-way, something like 19 that? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it's a distance. I'm 21 not sure exactly how far, but it's definitely more than 22 2 feet away from the pavement. I'd say, you know, at least 23 6, 8 feet. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't make any 25 difference, 6 or 8 inches or 6 or 8 feet. 2-9-04 129 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I move that we 2 ask the County Attorney to do his job and contact these 3 people in regards to the fence encroachment on the 4 right-of-way on Michon Drive. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 7 further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 8 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 does carry. Next item, 13 Number 3, consider revision of Floodplain budget. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Back in November, when we 15 started the -- I started doing the floodplain, I think the 16 comments and the -- were that we'd try it for a while and 17 just see how much it actually cost, and you put some money 18 in the line item. We have three months experience now, and 19 I think you have the backup there that shows what the 20 average salary has been running for three months, and that's 21 about how much money you put in the budget for what we've 22 expended so far, not -- not including the -- you know, the 23 travel, the training and all that. It's just that one line 24 item of the salary. And I think you said come back in three 25 months and we'd look at it again, so that's what we're 2-9-04 130 1 doing. I tried to project it out, what it would be for the 2 rest of the budget year if it continued on with this average 3 salary, as it has been. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I notice one -- one of 5 your -- part of your note here, the very last line, the 6 week-long training course in March or April of this year was 7 a part of your built-up hours. I was assuming -- 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I haven't gone yet; 9 that's coming up in March, yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You did go to some -- 11 MR. JOHNSTON: Two-day course here in 12 Kerrville, and a one-day course in Austin so far. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, explain where are we 15 on the budget right now. Is it your handwritten notes -- I 16 can't read this page, the copy. So, is it the handwritten 17 notes on the side, is what we approved? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. I didn't include the -- 19 I think I have a print -- you have a printout with the -- of 20 what the -- from the Auditor. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this what you're 22 talking about? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. That's that -- that was 24 as of probably the end of -- that's in December, I think. 25 First of December for that. 2-9-04 131 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, what kinds of 2 documentation are you getting from the County Engineer for 3 the hours and the work that he's putting in? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: His log. I mean, as to 5 how -- how many hours he spent. 6 MR. JOHNSTON: I've been sending you a time 7 sheet every month. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I've got it 9 here. Is it the same thing -- he gets the same thing? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know that we had 12 talked about it -- if nobody else is going to talk, I will. 13 We had talked about -- I think back in the budget, when 14 there was some talk about cutting your position or 15 something -- I can't remember what it was all about, but we 16 had talked about -- or maybe when we put you in this 17 position, that we had talked about working specific days and 18 specific hours and those kinds of things. I can't remember 19 all those details. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: You asked me did I do that. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, is that what it 22 was? 23 MR. FELLER: Yeah, I think so. And -- so, in 24 lieu of that, you said to keep track of your time. That's 25 why -- 2-9-04 132 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since then, you've been 2 providing a log on a monthly basis of -- I don't know if 3 it's in here or not. So, you're asking that -- what are you 4 asking exactly? What do you think you need in salary items? 5 What I'm trying -- 6 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I guess it's -- it needs 7 more money to keep it -- keep it going like it -- 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that this $14,000 9 number? 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Right, for the rest of the 11 year. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that averages out 13 about $1,600 -- 16, 17 a month for the remaining eight 14 months? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: By the time you add all those 16 items in. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know what all 18 those items are. I just took the 14,367 -- 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, it's insurance and 20 withholding, all that stuff. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, it 22 extrapolates over eight months, right? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of it. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Rest of the budget year. 2-9-04 133 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What is it exactly 2 we need to do, Tommy? If we're going to authorize this 3 $14,000, what is the process? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, if the money's 5 available somewhere in the existing budget, then we do a 6 budget line item change to facilitate that. If -- if it's 7 not available, then we increase the budget. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a possibility 9 that -- 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't see that there's 11 any -- any room in the Road and Bridge budget to do that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's not a Road and 13 Bridge function. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Not a Road and Bridge 15 function. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing to do with Road 17 and Bridge. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Should come from Floodplain. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were to, for 20 example, Tommy, authorize transfer of funds from whichever 21 court we put $150,000 in for a trial that's not going to 22 take place, would that be one place to look at it -- look 23 for it? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, if we think the -- 25 we're not going to use that. 2-9-04 134 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I understand. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think that's 4 known yet. I mean, I think -- as I understand it -- I don't 5 want to rely on your legal advice, Judge. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Psychological 7 advice. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if Mr. Seard -- if 9 that individual is declared competent, then that trial will 10 proceed, so I don't know how you budget for something like 11 that. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we get into 13 a long discussion about how we do that? That's just an 14 aside. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just kidding. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to pay the 18 Floodplain Administrator. I think the question is where 19 we -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the right way 22 to put that money in. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where the money comes 24 from. Tommy's looking. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: We do have an item later on 2-9-04 135 1 for -- a late bill for Hermann Sons Bridge project to come 2 out of Flood Control. I think that's somewhat related. I 3 mean -- I mean, what -- what his duties are, in my mind, are 4 somewhat related to Flood Control. Is it -- is that an 5 option, to take moneys from that fund? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my preference is 7 going to be -- I'm not saying where the money should come 8 from, but to put enough money for three more months in 9 there, and during that time, we will review the workload, 10 job descriptions, all that stuff that we talked about during 11 the budget when it comes to reviewing the Road and Bridge 12 Department, if there's a more effective and better way to 13 structure that department, and this would give us three 14 months to get that done. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I agree with 16 that. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And then just 18 whatever the monthly amount is with a, you know, per-month 19 basis that we need. And that we -- we talk about three 20 months, three-eighths of 14,000. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 14,4 I'm seeing here. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Weren't we supposed 23 to have done that by now? Already? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, but we didn't do it, 25 so we're going to give us three more months to get that 2-9-04 136 1 done. I don't know. What's three-eighths of $14,367.57? 2 Whatever that amount is. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That's ascertainable. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever that amount is. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About $5,000. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess that money 7 could come from -- I don't know that I -- Flood Control, I 8 don't like taking it from there, 'cause to me that money is 9 for flood-related, not floodplain administration. So, do we 10 have anything -- any Contingency left? Do we have $5,000 11 available in Contingency? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I believe we do. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need about 5,400. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we take the 15 three-eighths amount of the amount requested out of 16 Contingency. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 19 transfer from -- I guess that's Commissioners Court 20 Contingency? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's 22 Nondepartmental. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental Contingency in 24 an amount equal to three-eighths of the amount over in the 25 Floodplain budget for salary-related items. 2-9-04 137 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hold on, Judge. Oh, 2 three-eighths of $14,367? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 7 discussion? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. 9 Do we know how many -- how much fees that all this has 10 generated? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: We've had four or five 12 permits, I guess, in that time frame. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much is it for a 14 permit? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Some of them are 50-something 16 dollars, some of them are 200. But as you talked about 17 first, like, a whole year, there was only 20-some permits, 18 but there's more -- there's more to do than just the 19 permits, as I found out. There's almost daily calls about 20 people inquiring about property, whether or not it's in the 21 floodplain and what level it would be. I think that's part 22 of our job, to research to answer those questions. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you handle that or 24 does the secretary handle it? 25 MR. JOHNSTON: I do it. 2-9-04 138 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That might be part of the 3 solution, where we need to do maybe some other -- that's why 4 we need to look at that whole department, I think, as to 5 where we're spending the money, because I don't know that 6 it's -- we need to pay an engineer to do basically clerical 7 research, you know, as to the ownership and things like 8 that. Maybe we ought to come up with a system that's more 9 efficient use of the engineer's time. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 11 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 12 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. Next item 17 on the agenda is Number 7, consideration and discussion -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frank, would you turn 19 down that fan a little bit back there? Excuse me, Judge. 20 It's getting cold. Air-conditioner. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Cut it off. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Turn it off; I'll turn 23 the fans down. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Sorry, 25 Judge. 2-9-04 139 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Item 7, consideration and 2 discussion of adding names to the War Memorial. 3 Commissioner Baldwin. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: You asked that this item be 6 placed on the agenda. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much. 8 It has been brought to my attention that we should add the 9 names of the recent servicemen that have given their lives 10 for our country to the memorial wall on the courthouse 11 square. Now, I got a call yesterday stating that -- that 12 the names that go on that memorial are supposed to be people 13 that were born in Kerr County. Now, I don't -- I just don't 14 know that. I wasn't here when the memorial was put up and 15 the deals were cut and all that; I just don't know. And I 16 apologize, I haven't had time to research it since 17 yesterday. And so, Thea, do you have any recollection of 18 how that worked? 19 MS. SOVIL: The only thing that I remember 20 is, the last time we did it, we presented a birth 21 certificate proving the man was born in Kerr County. So, 22 that apparently -- you know, I hate to use "assume," but 23 apparently that was the justification for putting on the one 24 name that we added. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I don't have 2-9-04 140 1 feelings one way or another about whether they should be 2 born in Kerr County or not, but what do y'all think? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: It would seem to me that if 4 there's some specific criteria that exists somewhere, we 5 probably need to know what that is before we make a decision 6 and go forward on that basis. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Does anybody 8 have any idea where I should go and look? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who -- who created the -- 10 who funded the memorial? 11 MS. SOVIL: The memorial was funded by a 12 group of ladies that got together and started the war 13 memorial, and the big fight was where it was put. Remember 14 that? And -- but they raised the money; they did it. The 15 only thing the Commissioners have done is added that one 16 name. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one that's in the 18 backup here? 19 MS. SOVIL: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 21 MS. SOVIL: We did not pay for it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. I understand 23 that. I don't think we should. But I -- if we are stewards 24 of it and it was given to us, it's our responsibility for 25 the upkeep of it, I think we -- you know, we are -- or have 2-9-04 141 1 done that. And, in the absence of criteria, I think we need 2 to develop one, because, to me, it is more -- in my mind, 3 more fitting, rather than whether you were born here, is 4 whether you were here at the time of your death -- if this 5 was your residence or you were buried in Kerr County. To 6 me, that is a -- certainly as important an item as the fact 7 that you were born here. It -- especially with the mobile 8 nature of society today. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we need to 11 see if there is a policy in place, and then -- 12 MS. SOVIL: I do know that the men from World 13 War II were the ones that enlisted in Kerr County. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Enlisted in Kerr 15 County? 16 MS. SOVIL: Enlisted in Kerr County. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That doesn't 18 necessarily mean they were born in Kerr County. They 19 enlisted. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: From Kerr County. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That almost makes 23 sense, 'cause all those names out there were not born in 24 Kerr County, I bet you. 25 MS. SOVIL: I do know that they were enlisted 2-9-04 142 1 from Kerr County. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was World War I, 3 you said? 4 MS. SOVIL: Two. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when -- whenever 7 that day was that the Commissioners Court said yes, we -- we 8 want you to build something out there and we'll maintain it 9 for history, was there -- do you think that there was any 10 talk in that, or in the court order, saying you have -- in 11 order to get your name on this thing, you have to be -- you 12 have to -- 13 MS. SOVIL: No, there was no criteria set 14 down. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Zero? 16 MS. SOVIL: Just donated to the citizens of 17 Kerr County, and -- and the County chose a spot, after much 18 deliberation. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What organizations 20 were responsible at the beginning to do that? Do you know? 21 MS. SOVIL: It was a group of women that 22 their husbands were in Iraq at that time -- Iran -- where 23 were they, Kuwait? Desert Storm. 24 MS. LAVENDER: Desert Storm, maybe. 25 MS. SOVIL: At that time. It was -- their 2-9-04 143 1 husbands were in the military. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Desert Storm? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was before that. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This was here long 5 before 1991. 6 MS. SOVIL: No, sir. 7 MS. LAVENDER: No, it's a recent -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's about right. 9 MS. SOVIL: It was put up after Desert Storm. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause Commissioner 12 Holekamp was, I believe, a Commissioner at the time. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if there's no 14 criteria -- 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we ask 16 Mr. Holekamp or Bruce Oehler or somebody who was here if 17 they recall that discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need one. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm like Commissioner 20 Letz. If there was a policy, let's find out about it. If 21 there wasn't, let's make one. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's make one. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I believe like he does. If -- 24 if Kerr County was their home of record -- that's the magic 25 term in military parlance -- at the time of of their demise, 2-9-04 144 1 I think they probably ought to be eligible. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we see if we 3 can find out what the criteria was, then? And if we don't 4 appreciate that criteria, then we -- we can set a new one. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to table 7 this, if I could, please. Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Very good. Thank you, Mr. 9 Baldwin. Next item, Number 8, consider and discuss request 10 for waiver of rental fees for Hill Country Youth Exhibition 11 Center for the annual meeting by Kerr County Federal Credit 12 Union. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you had fun 14 today? 15 MS. ALEXANDER: I've had a blast, thank you. 16 It's much more entertaining than work today. So -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: What kind of work do you do? 18 MS. ALEXANDER: I'm a teller. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. 20 MS. ALEXANDER: So I count money all day 21 long. Our annual meeting for the credit union is coming up 22 in March. We -- the only facility in Kerr County -- 23 Kerrville that's big enough to hold our -- the group that 24 we're expecting is the Ag Barn. At this time, we are 25 requesting that we be granted the nonprofit status, because 2-9-04 145 1 the credit union is a nonprofit organization, so that we may 2 do that. And after we -- after I spoke with Jamie at the Ag 3 Barn, she said that it was a difference of roughly $550, 4 give or take; that the regular rate was around $700, and the 5 nonprofit rate was 187, 190-something. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're requesting a 7 nonprofit rate? 8 MS. ALEXANDER: We're requesting the 9 nonprofit rate because we are a nonprofit organization. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we did this 11 same thing with the other credit union -- 12 MS. ALEXANDER: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- here in town just 14 recently. I move that we approve. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 17 approval of the agenda item as a nonprofit status, and the 18 rate. Any further question or discussion? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'll just make 20 my standard speech. I'm -- I'm more interested in 21 increasing revenues from facilities like this than I am 22 discounting them. Just -- quoting a famous poet, a bank is 23 a bank is a bank. And this is a bank. And -- 24 MS. ALEXANDER: But we're not a bank, sir; 25 we're a credit union. 2-9-04 146 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 2 MS. ALEXANDER: Sorry. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A bank is a bank is 4 a bank. And I -- I will vote to give them a discount. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 6 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 7 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: Motion does carry. Thank you, 12 ma'am. 13 MS. ALEXANDER: Thank you very much, 14 gentlemen. Have a nice day. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's Kristi 16 Alexander. Thank you, Kristi. 17 MS. ALEXANDER: Thank y'all. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is 19 consideration discussion and taking appropriate action to 20 approve Change Order Number 5, compensate Compton 21 Construction for extra rock excavation in the Oak Grove 22 Mobile Home Park, and additional stabilized base used to 23 cover 10-inch line in Riverhill Golf Course. This was on an 24 earlier agenda, and it's being brought back by Commissioner 25 Williams. 2-9-04 147 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I brought it back 2 basically to give Mr. Compton an opportunity to explain why 3 he needed the extra dollars. I did not see Mr. Compton in 4 court this morning, and I don't see him here this afternoon. 5 So, I understand that Commissioner Letz and others had some 6 questions about it, legitimately, so we'll try it again 7 another time. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Pass on the item for now, very 9 good. That takes us to Item 11, consider, discuss, and take 10 appropriate action to approve a bill of sale on assignment 11 of those certain wastewater improvements constructed in 12 Phase I of the Kerrville South Wastewater Project, as 13 provided in the intergovernmental agreement for the 2001 14 Texas Community Development Program award dated October 9, 15 2001, between Kerr County and the Upper Guadalupe River 16 Authority, and authorize the County Judge to sign the same. 17 Commissioner Williams. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. This is 19 in keeping with the interlocal. We are at that point in 20 which the sewer collection system is well into completion. 21 My understanding is that the City Council, tomorrow night, I 22 believe, will take up the interlocal agreement between the 23 City and U.G.R.A. for treatment rights and fees and so forth 24 for the treatment of the wastewater that comes out of this 25 system. It was never our plan to own and operate beyond 2-9-04 148 1 construction point, and this would be the first phase, Phase 2 I. We are asking -- asking that it be turned over to them, 3 "them" being U.G.R.A., and we will proceed to construct 4 Phase II. Engineering and so forth is underway now. That's 5 all. So, I move approval of the bill of sale. By the way, 6 I have had it reviewed by the County Attorney. He had no -- 7 nothing to add to it. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You got that verbally? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it verbally, 10 yes. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I knew there wasn't 12 anything in here. I second the motion. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and a second for 14 approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a very basic 16 question. Bill of sale is the -- that's the -- that's what 17 we're doing? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're turning over 19 the assets, yeah. At this point, we own them. We built 20 them. We funded it with grant money, so it was our project, 21 and we have -- we have to turn it over to them. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems -- "bill 23 of sale" seems like strange terminology. To me, it's an 24 assignment. But I don't know that -- if the County Attorney 25 approved it, I'm not going to argue with the County 2-9-04 149 1 Attorney. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Letz may 3 have the same question that I do, and that is, when you -- 4 we're dealing with something that's in the ground, and that 5 doesn't hardly seem like a bill of sale is the appropriate 6 documentation. But it's provided for in the contract, and 7 that's what they want, and -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll sell them those 9 pipes before they get soiled. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we get what in 12 them? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I said soiled. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 15 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 16 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 WILLIAMS: Thank you. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is consider and 23 discuss accepting the proposed amended Water Availability 24 Regulations and set a public hearing on the same. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda 2-9-04 150 1 based on our last meeting when we discussed Water 2 Availability Requirements. I have attempted to redraft 3 them, basically making them as non-onerous as possible, in 4 light of the fact that almost everything we're doing 5 previously to now has been done by Headwaters. But I think 6 it does give some basis for our lot size to keep the Water 7 Availability Requirements around. And our lot size 8 currently is based on that, and based on the acreage 9 requirements and gallons-per-day usage and such as that. On 10 the second part of this, setting the public hearing, I think 11 I really would prefer not to set a public hearing at this 12 time. I think it would be easier for the public if we did 13 Subdivision Rules, Manufactured Home Rental, and Water 14 Availability at the same time, maybe as three separate 15 public hearings, maybe one public hearing. But if we could 16 at least put this to bed, that will be one thing less that 17 we have to deal with at a future date. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you, what 19 changed? This looks like exactly the same thing we've 20 always been doing. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we used to require 22 a developer to drill test wells. We used to have all kinds 23 of requirements related to sewer systems, sign-offs, things 24 of that nature. All we're doing now is saying that we have 25 a lot size based on usage, and we are no longer requiring 2-9-04 151 1 developers to drill test wells, provide geologic and other 2 testing data. We're not requiring an engineer to certify 3 there's enough groundwater down there. We're not requiring 4 any of that. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it says that 6 if we stick to our 5-acre rule, the rest of that's not 7 necessary. That would be okay with the 5-acre rule. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I must have a 9 different -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the revised -- 11 this is the new one. This is the new form. The old form 12 was about four pages long. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it says that the 14 Commissioners Court has the authority to require any person 15 seeking plat approval to show compliance with requirements 16 that an adequate water supply and sufficient quantity and 17 quality is available, so that's still in there. I thought 18 that's the part that we were removing. Tell me where I'm 19 going wrong here. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: The next paragraph, 21 Commissioner, says any person who follows the criteria set 22 forth immediately below shall be deemed to have satisfied -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the requirement of 25 Commissioners Court. So, it's all incorporated into that. 2-9-04 152 1 Basically, a -- the subdivision requirement. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, there is a -- and 3 I wouldn't have any objection to it. There is -- an 4 argument could be made, and I could make it, to eliminate 5 these completely. And the reason I chose not to is that, 6 because of the priority groundwater nature of this county, 7 we have additional authority than many other counties in the 8 state do, and we also have a higher minimum lot size than 9 many counties do across the state, and that is based on 10 water, essentially. And this is just affirming that we are 11 in an area that has -- has been designated as Priority 12 Groundwater Management Area, and is kind of giving a little 13 bit of protection, for lack of another word, to the Court by 14 saying we're basing our lot size based on water, and we're 15 getting our data based on Headwaters and the State. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Headwaters has a 17 5-acre minimum; is that correct? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. So, really, 19 these don't -- all this basically, in my mind, says is that 20 we have a 5-acre lot size. That's the whole gist of these 21 Water Availability Requirements. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Jon, wouldn't 23 you take this -- this general statement here, 1.01, just 24 take that out? You may want to leave some of the language 25 that Kerr County's in a priority area, but you have that 1 2-9-04 153 1 and 2 sticking out there, that if boy-dummy here comes along 2 and reads that and doesn't read 1.02, then I'm thinking that 3 nothing's changed. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that you 5 lose anything by deleting the 1.02, possibly. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happens if 7 Headwaters changes its -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good 9 question. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- current rule? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes it less 13 stringent? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less stringent? I think 15 that the -- we are -- our authority comes under Chapter 35 16 of the Texas Water Code for us to do this, and I think 17 that's what's necessary to cite as to where our authority 18 is. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The compliance with the 21 water -- I mean, I think it's -- 1 is redundant, since we've 22 taken a lot of it out, and 2 -- you know, we're telling them 23 that that is the fact of the case under 1.02. So, I mean, I 24 think you can eliminate the 1 and the 2, and I think you 25 would probably -- 2-9-04 154 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To me, you're just 2 creating some confusion here by having 1 and 2 in there. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem 4 with that, deleting the -- I would delete "to show" in that 5 sentence above, and the 1 and the 2. The last two words of 6 the first paragraph, where it says "to show." 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. I agree with 8 you. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that sentence would 10 read, "Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 35, Section 35.019, 11 Texas Water Code, the Kerr County Commissioners Court has 12 the authority to require any person seeking plat 13 approval" -- well, that doesn't really -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: You got to add something to 15 it. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about "to meet these 17 Water Availability Requirements"? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since we're not ready to 20 set a public hearing, do you want me to redraft that, bring 21 it back next time? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We can't adopt it at 23 this point, anyway. You're going to want to roll this in as 24 part of something bigger anyway for a single public hearing, 25 aren't you? 2-9-04 155 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I may -- I 2 will bring it back at our next public -- at our next agenda 3 so we can at least get this document put to bed. I will 4 bring it back next time. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. Anything 6 further on that item? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have anything to 9 do in executive session? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hope not. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Pardon? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I said I hope not. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we took care 15 of that this morning. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move into the 17 approval agenda, then. Mr. Auditor? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the 19 bills. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 23 pay the bills. Any question or discussion? All in favor of 24 the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2-9-04 156 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Notion does carry. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait -- oh, nevermind. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no. I just had a 7 question. You mentioned bills and paying the bills, and I 8 had a question, but it's -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's have it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It brings up stuff from 11 this morning's conversation as to where the $2,500 comes 12 from. That's what just clicked in my brain. But we can 13 discuss that at a later time. We didn't -- 14 MR. TOMLINSON: We have -- 15 MS. SOVIL: We've got money in Professional 16 Services. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Professional Services. 18 There's a budget for that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just, at some point, 20 need to designate where that money comes from. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know if there's any 22 money in it, but there is a line item. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Budget amendments. 2-9-04 157 1 I've got one that I'm looking at, Budget Amendment Request 2 Number 1. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for -- I have a 4 bill payable to Fidelity Abstract and Title for $12,459. 5 It's for the right-of-way acquisition for the Hermann Sons 6 Bridge project. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Does that also include any 8 title and related expenses in order to close those out? Is 9 that turnkey? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This includes closing out 11 one tract, one of the five tracts. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is Mr. Tijerina's 14 tract. $12,000? Is that what you said? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: $12,459. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the one tract that 17 we're working on first. And Jimmy Peschel was trying to 18 come up with a bigger number -- well, we could do it at our 19 next time, but this is one. Obviously, we can't close any 20 of them until we get the money over to Fidelity's hands. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That's true. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: This is just for the one 24 transaction? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One, but it does include 2-9-04 158 1 all related expenses through Fidelity Abstract. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: This will handle the entire 3 Tijerina transaction? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, great. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is Fund 22, 7 Tommy? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: It's Flood Control fund. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 12 approval of Budget Amendment Number 1. Any further question 13 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 14 raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge -- nevermind, we're 20 not coming back today. I was under the impression we were 21 going to have a larger number today, of four tracts to 22 summarize. We don't have that? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: That's all we have. No. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since we're having a 25 workshop, could we, if we get that number before we leave 2-9-04 159 1 for the end of the day -- because I'd hate to hold up 2 closing three of the other tracts if we don't -- you know, 3 if we -- 'cause we can't get money over there, other than 4 today, for the next two weeks. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: We could stand in recess for 6 that purpose. And I -- I've got a number of juvenile cases, 7 but if we get that before us, why, we can -- we can do it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we just remember at 9 the end of day just to recess for the time being, we can -- 10 I'll call Fidelity Abstract to see if they have a larger 11 number that will include more of those tracts. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which prompts a 14 question. Judge, you've got a large agenda for juvenile 15 hearings? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: One or two. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: One or two. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This courtroom is 20 going to be available for a workshop? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. I've got a courtroom 22 available for -- you're going to be here. You'll have this 23 court available. I'm going to do my juvenile cases down the 24 hall in the other courtroom. I've already got those 25 arrangements made. 2-9-04 160 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right, sir. 2 Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Mr. Auditor? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I have a late bill -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: -- I need a hand check for, 7 and it's -- that's -- it's payable to J.I. Special Risks 8 Insurance Agency for $2,784, and it's for storage tank 9 pollution liability insurance. It's -- comes out of Road 10 and Bridge budget. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a budgeted item? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 16 approve a late bill and authorize a hand check to J.I. 17 Special Risks Insurance Agency in the amount of $2,784 for 18 storage tank pollution liability, Road and Bridge. Any 19 further questions or discussion? All in favor of the 20 motion, 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. Anything 25 else, sir? 2-9-04 161 1 MR. TOMLINSON: That's it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Thank you, sir. I 3 have before me -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, Tommy. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, we just did that. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We just did that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The dam one? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's Tijerina. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, this isn't Tijerina. 10 It says it is 2,000 -- oh, I see. Nevermind, you're right. 11 You're right. You're right. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it shouldn't be 14 "repairs to dams." That's all right. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we -- we set up another 16 category for that, so we're all right. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where are you going? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Hmm? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where are you going? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm going to go let the 21 Treasurer have this so she can hand out checks. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you come back? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have before me 2-9-04 162 1 reports from the Sheriff's Department, Constable -- 2 MS. SOVIL: Missed the minutes. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Precinct 4, and Constable 4 Precinct 1, the Kerr County Environmental Health Department, 5 Justice of the Peace Precinct 4, and the Library Advisory 6 Board. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? 8 MS. SOVIL: They were faxed. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? 10 MS. SOVIL: They were faxed, weren't they? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I had one in my box from the 12 Library Advisory Board. Do I hear a motion to approve these 13 reports as presented? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 17 approve the listed reports as presented. Any further 18 question or discussion? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd just like to 20 comment that, yes, we have a constable report out of 1 and 21 constable report out of Number 4, as well as a deputy 22 constable out of Number 4, so that's good reporting, in my 23 opinion. I appreciate that. Well, I do, anyway. So, 24 that's good reporting. That's -- they're doing what we 25 asked them to do, and we appreciate it. 2-9-04 163 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And there was another 2 report turned in, too, a racial profiling that was submitted 3 to the Judge. I don't know if that needs to come back as an 4 actual item on the next agenda, but that's Buster's favorite 5 one. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have to purchase a 7 new wheelbarrow to get it in. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, we hauled it in in 9 two or three wheelbarrows the other day, so it's sitting in 10 there for y'all to look at. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Have you -- have you picked it 12 up off of the ledge there? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've gone through 14 every bit of it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay. All right. Do 16 we have any other reports to consider here today? The 17 information agenda, reports from Commissioners and liaison 18 committee assignments, do we have any reports? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple, 20 Judge. Let me review first just information items out of 21 AACOG. I kind of have both good news and bad news there. 22 Good news is that Kids Advocacy Place, Hill Country CASA, 23 and Hill Country Crisis Council were ranked one, two, three 24 in their applications, and likely will be awarded funding in 25 the amount of 44,746 to the Advocacy Place, 37,682 to Hill 2-9-04 164 1 Country CASA, and 71,506 to Hill Country Crisis Council. 2 They scored well on their applications and were ranked real 3 high. The bad news -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that compare with 5 the numbers last year? Or -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's what they 7 asked for. They're going to be awarded what they asked for, 8 so I guess it does. Bad news is that the application put in 9 by Crimestoppers -- is that correct, Sheriff? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the School 12 Resource Officers was thrown out by the Governor's office 13 for being incomplete. If I can find my memo, I'll tell you 14 where they were incomplete. 15 MS. LAVENDER: It was one "X." One "X" was 16 eliminated, and we didn't have the data to back up one of 17 the answers that we put in it. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The note says they 19 did not provide statistics necessary to meet grant 20 application requirements, such as incidents of drug use, 21 alcohol abuse, violence, et cetera, did not complete the 22 determined eligibility form correctly, they omitted answers 23 to a series of questions, and the Governor's office ruled 24 their application ineligible. That's the bad news. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the -- which 2-9-04 165 1 one? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The three resource 3 officers, I believe. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is -- our grant for 5 the three resource officers ended last year. We're in the 6 one year of funding that right now. My intentions in budget 7 time is to -- since Tivy High School and Kerrville School 8 District is inside the city, to pull our School Resource 9 Officer out of there and pull him out of Ingram, because 10 that's also in the city limits of Ingram; let them start 11 doing that. So, Crimestoppers was going to try and assist 12 those agencies by applying for a new grant. One is, it's 13 not all Crimestoppers' fault that that grant didn't go 14 through. Sitting on the -- on one of the committees at 15 AACOG, part of the other reason was, I don't know if it 16 would have made it through AACOG voting, because they had 17 not had the required grant training to write the grants for 18 AACOG. You have to have the grant training, and the way the 19 Governor's office put out that memo on the grant, it was 20 kind of a last-minute memo saying that Crimestoppers are 21 eligible to apply for this grant, but they never put in 22 there anything about you need to have the grant training 23 first; you need to have this, 'cause they couldn't have made 24 the deadline if they would have. 25 So, this was the first-year attempt by 2-9-04 166 1 Crimestoppers, and I would expect them to -- I would 2 expect -- and I'm not speaking on their behalf -- that they 3 may want to try and apply for that grant again. But it is 4 going to -- either we have to reapply for the School 5 Resource Officers -- which I'm not so much in favor of 6 doing. I can do that if the Court wishes, but right now I 7 have three School Resource Officers, and, like I said, 8 during budget time, I anticipate that I will come back to 9 y'all and ask to keep one that will take care of the Center 10 Point, Hunt, Divide schools, and then move the other two 11 back onto very needed patrol positions that we have, which 12 wouldn't change our budget, but we had to commit this year 13 to funding them, unless City of Kerrville and City of Ingram 14 take care of those schools that are now in their 15 jurisdiction. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, do you have any 17 data on drug use or alcohol or crime statistics that -- 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We do keep records and 19 have records of all offenses that any of our School Resource 20 Officers -- monthly reports that they have been required to 21 fill out that would show any of the type of offenses, 22 whether it be violence, whether it be, you know, tobacco or 23 truancy or drugs or anything else. We can -- we can compile 24 those to where we'd show it county-wide. But right now the 25 officers are required to do a monthly report, and we do have 2-9-04 167 1 those. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was thinking more of a 3 broader -- I mean, what program was in the three years we've 4 done it. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Three years -- we did 6 three years funded; this is the fourth year that was 7 unfunded. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just wondering if 9 there's any data that would show that this was a good use of 10 tax dollars or a bad use of tax dollars. I mean, if you 11 look at the -- you know, county-wide juvenile crimes, you 12 know, before and during, there ought to be -- if it was 13 working, there should be some reflection. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can definitely put 15 together those statistics, 'cause we've kept them every 16 year. We've had to by the -- the requirements, what all we 17 have done at the schools. I will tell you Kerrville ISD, 18 you know, in my mind -- and after having one officer for the 19 entire school district, it's a definitely needed program in 20 Kerrville ISD. It's a program that should have more than 21 one officer at it. Ingram's grown; all the school districts 22 are growing. I think it's a very wise and good program. I 23 am telling you it's assisted our agency in solving crimes 24 that did not occur on school grounds, just because of the 25 relationship that those School Resource Officers develop 2-9-04 168 1 with the -- the students. We find out a lot of information 2 on other crimes that we're investigating that weren't even 3 on school grounds. But at this time I feel, since, you 4 know, Kerrville's in Kerrville, they ought to fund their 5 own, and Ingram should probably start looking at grants to 6 fund theirs. We did it for the first time ever of having 7 officers in the schools, and I can get you those stats if 8 y'all wish for me to bring them back. But we're at the 9 point Kerrville needs to take care of Kerrville, Ingram 10 needs to take care of Ingram. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty, in terms of 12 K.I.S.D. and the high school, does the city police 13 department also put a resource officer out there? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, Kerrville Police 15 Department only has a D.A.R.E. officer with the Kerrville 16 school district. He teaches a D.A.R.E. program. They have 17 -- and then they have an officer that's paid for by the 18 school, I think, to help direct traffic in the mornings, but 19 they do not have a full-time officer at the -- at the 20 schools. We're the only agency that puts full-time officers 21 at schools. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might -- and this is 23 just a suggestion -- between now and budget time, try to 24 meet with Dr. Troxel, possibly. I'm just thinking. I know 25 Reuben, who's the officer for -- 2-9-04 169 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- K.I.S.D., has done a 3 good job on knowing and, you know, getting into kind of 4 being around the students, you know, and I think has been 5 accepted by them. And you're saying that he's been somewhat 6 effective from the standpoint of getting information? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's been very 8 effective. Reuben's big problem is, he can't be in ten 9 places at one time, and that is a serious problem in 10 Kerrville, 'cause you have the high school wanting him at 11 the high school; the middle school needs him there, 'cause 12 the kids there we have problems with just as much, and the 13 elementaries need him at those. So, you know, Kerrville 14 Police Department -- what I would recommend, when they get a 15 new chief, is that they seriously look at putting several 16 officers in Kerrville schools. I just don't know if it's 17 the County's responsibility. You know, we've tried it to 18 see if it would help the schools, and it has. There's no 19 doubt in my mind it's a great program and it needs to be 20 continued, but I don't know if y'all are going to want the 21 County to continue it for the City. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, actually, I've 23 said this in hearings of this court before. The school 24 district needs to be paying for this. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There are some -- some 2-9-04 170 1 different requirements the school meets, because then they 2 fall under the education codes. And I know a lot of our -- 3 we tried to get the school to come in during budget time -- 4 the schools, to see if they would help kick in for funding 5 for this year. We didn't have much success in that. But 6 their -- under their requirements, if they're actual school 7 employees and under the Education Code, some of the things 8 they can do are -- are not -- are extremely limited compared 9 to what a peace officer can do that's hired by law 10 enforcement. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what Commissioner 12 Baldwin was referring to is basically an interlocal 13 agreement of some sort to have them fund, whether it be a 14 deputy or a police officer. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Partnership. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Partnership. And I think 17 that it's a -- you know, that should be pursued again, 18 because I think they certainly have it within their purview 19 to fund such a -- 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it may be between 21 the City and the County, you know, the Court or whoever 22 wants to get together. I will tell you it's an excellent 23 program; it needs to continue, but I don't know if it should 24 be run strictly out of the Sheriff's Office and the County 25 funds or not, or any of the City funds for city -- City of 2-9-04 171 1 Kerrville. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff. We 4 appreciate it. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one other, 6 Judge. It has to do with Mooney Aircraft. I participated 7 in the negotiations with Mr. Patterson and the Mooney 8 executives last week in which we presented -- what is that? 9 MS. PIEPER: Computer. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that you beeping? 11 MS. PIEPER: The computer is saving. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which we presented 13 the counterproposal to Mooney as detailed to the Court in 14 the executive session. I will say that the attitude and the 15 atmosphere of the meeting was good, very instructive, and 16 conducive to negotiations. My feedback from Ron Patterson 17 afterwards was that Mooney folks were pleased with our 18 presentation, and it appears that we'll find a basis of 19 reaching an understanding along the lines that we detailed 20 for the Court. In that connection also, we got into the 21 discussion about the environmental concerns. Mooney is -- 22 may even by now have hooked up its domestic waste stream to 23 the city sewer system. If not -- if not, they're very close 24 to it and they are, I believe, doing the required 25 engineering to determine what the pretreatment would be for 2-9-04 172 1 industrial waste stream. And we got into some discussion 2 about how to remediate the pond and so forth; that's all 3 part of the -- of the County proposal, and they didn't have 4 any particular issue. They know it has to be done and so 5 forth and so on. 6 I have done some investigation in one of my 7 meetings up at AACOG to find out if there's any funds 8 available out there that might be of assistance that this 9 Court could participate and -- and maybe file an 10 application -- a grant application to assist in that 11 remediation. There are two sources of funding that may be 12 available. One is probably not realistic, and that would be 13 the Superfund site, 'cause this doesn't qualify for 14 Superfund site. And the other would be what they call the 15 Brownfields cleanup moneys, and Mooney might be eligible for 16 that. The County would be eligible to assist and join in 17 the application, and the City had indicated, through Ron, 18 that that can be developed. The City could -- would be 19 willing to -- we believe, to join with us in a joint 20 application with Mooney to see if we can find some 21 Brownfields money for that purpose. 22 The other -- another aspect was, there is a 23 -- there is a -- there is a desire on the part of Mooney to 24 try again for Texas Capital Fund money, and again, that 25 window of opportunity -- I need some information about that 2-9-04 173 1 window of opportunity, and had indicated that if Mooney 2 wants to try to do that, instead of the City going on its 3 own, as it did last time trying to assist them, that perhaps 4 the application would be better received if both the County 5 and the City come to the assistance of Mooney, try to see if 6 we can get some Texas Capital Fund money. I think we're on 7 the right track in terms of accountability. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, what's 9 the next step on the issue of the management structure at 10 the airport? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Waiting on a document 12 that the City Manager's putting together, and it should be 13 ready for release to us, I would think, any day now. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my only comment on 15 that. I mean, I think I've been fairly involved with the 16 airport, and I think that -- I mean, despite all of the 17 hoopla that's gone on in the last 11 months or so regarding 18 management out there, I think that the City and the County 19 are about to -- you know, are very close to being in 20 agreement as to a good way to at least recommend to the two 21 bodies that own that facility -- and I think a lot of the -- 22 if there was any ill will, which I think there may have 23 been, it is behind us. And I'm -- I also want to really -- 24 I was very impressed with the Airport Board. I was at that 25 meeting. There was quite a bit of discussion, and I saw 2-9-04 174 1 commitment of five members of the community, five members 2 that were on that board, both County and City 3 representatives, of taking their position very seriously and 4 doing a very good job, and very mindful of it and very 5 willing and anxious to work with the City and the County to 6 come up with a way to better govern the airport, and they 7 were willing to do whatever is necessary from their 8 standpoint to help the City and the County. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- 10 Commissioner Letz, that is true. And our two appointees' 11 terms expire the 31st of March, and I'll have the 12 reappointment of those two gentlemen, Mr. MacDonald and 13 Mr. Miller, on a court agenda coming up, either the last one 14 this month or first one in March. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My sense of the 16 capability of the whole board, all five of them, was the 17 same as Commissioner Letz', and I also found that -- I think 18 they all have good business sense, that they approach -- 19 approach their duties in a very practical way. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other -- you're 21 absolutely right, Commissioner. One other example has to do 22 with a big document that the -- that the Airport Manager put 23 out in terms of rules and regulations and whatever, 24 whatever, whatever. Those five gentlemen did a pretty good 25 job of shooting that document down and suggesting that it go 2-9-04 175 1 back to the drawing board, and instead of trying to dress 2 documents down to fit Kerrville, why not take the existing 3 rules and regulations and standards and beef it up to meet 4 our needs today and going forward in the future? And that's 5 probably what will happen. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I've got a -- I 8 want to make a comment on that, and then I've got something 9 else. I don't know if your term -- I can't remember the 10 term you used about bad feelings between -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ill will. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ill will between the 13 City and County. I don't know if that's a good choice of 14 words or not. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably not. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because I think that, 17 you know, this -- this is brand-new ground that we're 18 plowing. And government grinds along real slow, and I just 19 think that anytime that you're going through something like 20 that, there's all kind of little bumps in the road, and I 21 think we have an excellent working relationship with the 22 City. I really and truly do. I feel good about that. One 23 more thing, Judge, please. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Surely. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to go back to 2-9-04 176 1 our insurance discussion this morning just for a moment, 2 just to kind of clear up something in my mind. Number 4, 3 you can retire to your office. I want to ask Tommy -- let's 4 say that Mr. Rothwell, for one reason or another, is getting 5 his feelings hurt, or he's fixing to get sued, or -- or 6 whatever it might be, coupled with this letter here to Judge 7 Tinley -- Tinsley (sic) about us not being covered, 8 insurance, and all those things come up, and he decides that 9 he doesn't want to be the County's representative any more, 10 or doesn't want to participate with the County -- Kerr 11 County's insurance program any more. What do we do in that 12 case? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know -- I don't 14 know what the -- I don't know what the contract really is. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think there's 16 an out for everybody, isn't there? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I think the -- I don't 18 think -- well, the issue that I -- what I'm hearing is with 19 our stop loss carrier, not -- not specifically Employee 20 Benefits. I mean, for the future. I mean, as far as having 21 a contract in place with our -- our third-party -- or our 22 stop loss carrier. That's what I'm -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Mr. Rothwell was 24 just handling that? He was the -- he's the broker for that? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Their -- their firm -- well, 2-9-04 177 1 all the bidders, for that matter, went out to get proposals 2 from stop loss carriers of their choice. Or maybe that's 3 not a good word, but they -- they asked for proposals from 4 different companies to -- to carry that part of the 5 coverage. And that contract, in my mind, is between the 6 County and -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The insurance. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: -- and these people, and not 9 Employee Benefits and those people. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, I'm just 11 referring to this letter from Mr. Rothwell to the County 12 Judge, and it seems to me that he's frustrated for one 13 reason or another, and I don't -- I don't understand all 14 that. But my -- my question is, let's pretend that he gets 15 real frustrated to where he doesn't want to have any 16 business to do with Kerr County. Do we replace him with 17 another company like him? Or what -- what do we do? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I mean, I 19 would -- I would think that -- that we -- you know, we've 20 already awarded the proposal or the contract, so we would 21 have to void that contract and -- in some way, whatever -- 22 whatever method is available, the contract we have now, and 23 enter into another one. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- I mean, 25 your -- part of your question -- the next part of it is, 2-9-04 178 1 what is the status? And we approved it, and I guess -- I 2 don't have it with me -- the letter said that the Judge 3 hadn't signed. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: My concern -- my concern for 5 not signing it was there was nothing in the -- in the award 6 that I'm aware of that authorized me to sign any documents 7 in connection with it, number one. Number two, the other 8 concern I have, I was presented with a sheet that had a 9 bunch of blanks filled in, and I know not whether or not 10 those figures are, in fact, the same ones that constituted 11 the award. Now, whether I need that certification from the 12 Treasurer or the -- or the Auditor or whomever, I'm not 13 sure, but I was brought a sheet of paper that had a bunch of 14 blanks filled in on it and a bunch of numbers filled in, and 15 I don't know -- number one, I don't know whether they're 16 correct. And even if I was comfortable that they were 17 correct, there's nothing in the award of that bid that 18 authorized me to sign any documentation on behalf of Kerr 19 County. And there -- you know, there have been a number of 20 instances where we've had that difficulty, had to go back, 21 because some action was taken, but nobody was authorized to 22 confirm it on behalf of the County. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand clearly 24 what you're saying, and -- and probably agree with most of 25 it. However, are we not covered at this moment? 2-9-04 179 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't guess -- we 2 don't have -- we don't have any stop loss coverage until 3 we -- that's -- to my way of thinking, until we have a 4 contract with -- with the firm. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. We're putting 6 the County at risk here, it appears to me. Does that sound 7 familiar? I mean, something needs to be done. Give me the 8 damn thing; I'll sign it. I mean, let's do -- we got to do 9 something. Who's responsible? I would just assume the 10 County Judge would be -- would be the guy to sign. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I look back 12 at the motion -- I believe I made it at the time. It did 13 not add that language. And I don't know -- you know, 14 through oversight, I presume, it was not -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the court order? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, in the court order. 17 And in my motion, I didn't specifically, based on the 18 minutes, authorize the County Judge to sign it, and I think 19 that's something that we frequently add at the last minute, 20 whatever. I -- it's just an oversight. But I am very 21 concerned that -- I mean, to me, this qualifies as an 22 emergency. If that's what's holding up the signature to 23 guarantee our employees' insurance, I think we need to call 24 an emergency meeting and I'll, you know, amend that motion 25 or make a new motion, authorize the County Judge to sign it. 2-9-04 180 1 Because I was not aware of this -- that this was not signed 2 until Friday, or I guess over the weekend; I came in and 3 that letter was in my box. But I think that it's of grave 4 concern, because, basically, we don't have stop loss 5 coverage right now, from what -- as I understand the letter. 6 And -- and this -- and it wasn't an agenda item, so we 7 couldn't really get into too much other information on them. 8 But, you know, if that is, in fact, the case, I think it 9 qualifies as a clear emergency for the County. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, if there's a question 11 about the form itself, I would suggest that we ask our -- 12 our consulting person, who -- who is very familiar with all 13 the proposals. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Gray? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Mr. Gray. To see if, in 16 fact, what he saw is -- or what he examined in the process 17 of his determination -- whether or not what's on the form 18 is -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Conforms to that? To the 20 award? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Does this mean there's 23 a -- 24 MR. TOMLINSON: He's the -- he -- in my 25 opinion, he would be the one to determine if it is -- I 2-9-04 181 1 mean, none -- I personally didn't -- don't know enough about 2 the RFP to determine whether it is or not, and I don't know 3 if any of us are. But I think we relied on his expertise to 4 determine the RFP. I think we can do the same to -- to get 5 his opinion on -- on whether or not -- on the accuracy of 6 what is on the form. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, does this mean 8 there's a question as to whether or not the County's 9 employees have health insurance at this time? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: No, they have insurance 11 because of the fact that we're self-insured, but we're -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have insurance, but 13 it's 100 percent paid for by the County right now. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No stop loss. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no -- nothing. I 16 mean, anything we -- anything over $40,000 would be the same 17 situation we had with the -- 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Without any kind of 19 contract being signed, is the percentage -- the benefits or 20 anything even really determined? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I don't -- 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We don't know what we 23 would have paid if we had hospital bills? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I would suspect that -- 25 that the record is going to show that, in fact, we've made 2-9-04 182 1 payments which includes those premiums, and those premiums 2 have, in fact, been paid to the stop loss carrier and 3 they've banked those premiums and accepted them. We have as 4 much stop loss coverage in place right now as we had the 5 date that this document was prepared and sent down here. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My concern -- and I'm 7 going to be blunt about it, because I have the most County 8 employees, probably, out there -- is I agree with Jonathan 9 100 percent. You know, if this has been known that our 10 contract hasn't been signed, I'm a little bit upset over it, 11 because I feel it does jeopardize all the employees, and it 12 should have been an emergency item before this Court a long 13 time ago to get it signed. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the Judge has a 15 good point, though, that if they accepted payment of the 16 premium -- I think there's still a risk. I think, you know, 17 whether it's an emergency item, I think we need to get this 18 resolved A.S.A.P. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: It needs to be clarified, no 20 question about it. But I think, under the circumstances, if 21 we were hauled in the courthouse, we'd be able to establish 22 that we, in fact, had coverage. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's not -- I'm not 24 comfortable where we are right now. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not either. 2-9-04 183 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't look at it in that 2 light, in that we'd already paid premiums to them, but we -- 3 we have, in fact, paid premiums to them. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm afraid we have -- 5 we'd have to go to a courtroom, though, for that to come 6 out, to say -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can hire an attorney. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Since that's the subject 9 right now, I -- just a request. Since last Thursday, I've 10 had five conversations with newspaper people; three of them 11 were in Bandera when I was in Bandera. And I -- I would 12 like to have a little insulation. I would -- if we have 13 pending litigation, I don't see any benefit in -- in County 14 employees making any comment about the issue. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: And I just -- you know, I'm 17 getting a little tired of it, especially when I'm not even 18 in my place of work. So I would -- I would like to be able 19 to just say, you know, "Refer your questions to someone 20 else." 21 JUDGE TINLEY: What's to prevent you from 22 doing that? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I -- it seems -- I 24 mean, it seems like that, you know -- that, you know, you're 25 the one they called, so they're expecting some kind of 2-9-04 184 1 information. So, you know, you feel a little bit 2 uncomfortable saying -- saying no, that -- that you can't 3 give anything. And so, I mean, that's the way -- that's 4 just the way I feel about it. But I would like something 5 definitive to say, you know, go see whoever, but not me. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your -- I mean, I 8 certainly get -- I'm sure everyone else up here gets a lot 9 of calls. It's almost impossible to say "no comment," 10 because if you say no comment, then you're hiding something. 11 And -- which isn't necessarily the case, but that's just the 12 nature of being a public official. But I sympathize with 13 you, 'cause you're not elected and you're not a -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, would you give 15 us some legal advice here? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, no, come on. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz doesn't want 19 me to give legal advice. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 112 years you've been 21 a trial lawyer, you know. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree with Tommy. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: You need to go consult that 24 brilliant legal mind. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The employee that this 2-9-04 185 1 affects has even gotten calls at her residence about this, 2 which has made this a whole lot worse, to me. You know, I 3 just -- I wish there would have been -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, in that 5 individual's case, she could have referred those calls to 6 you. In the case of the Auditor, he can refer them to the 7 County Attorney or the County Judge. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And she is doing that. 9 But the problem that I have is what I said earlier today, of 10 this started out as an executive session -- executive item. 11 I think it should have stayed that way. I think all the 12 questions should -- Judge Tinley had or anybody had -- 13 everybody agrees with the questions, but I hated it to be 14 seen to where, you know, it has affected a widow lady. 15 And -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We feel the same way. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've -- we've moved on 18 from that. Do you have anything else? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What would it take -- 20 what do we have to do to get you to sign the contract or the 21 agreement, whatever it is -- the application? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Two things. Number one, if -- 23 if the expert is willing to confirm that that is, in fact -- 24 that conforms to the award, and the Court gives me the 25 authority to sign documents on behalf of the County, 2-9-04 186 1 documents to confirm and to finalize that award, I will do 2 so. Short of the so-called "expert" doing it, I suppose 3 those of you that voted in favor of it can confirm that. 4 I'm not sure how comfortable you'd be that it conforms, but 5 I think the expert's probably the best -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the best source. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, can -- will someone 10 please call Mr. Gray and ask him that question? I don't 11 have -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy will. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a copy of 14 the -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The document that was 16 presented? It's downstairs. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, would you do 18 that? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Sure. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that not the 21 personnel officer's duty? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I would think so. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we -- 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Suggestion. 2-9-04 187 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to -- I 2 think we need to get this resolved, from the standpoint of 3 signing. I think if it takes an emergency meeting -- which 4 I think this, in my mind, would qualify, 'cause it's 5 pretty -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll ask the County 7 Treasurer to -- to call Mr. Gray -- huh? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- she's not here 9 today, I don't believe. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to ask 11 somebody to call Mr. Gray and see if he will confirm the 12 numbers, and then if he will, then we'll call a meeting. 13 How's that? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we -- I think we'll 15 -- we have a workshop scheduled. I mean, if we're going to 16 do an emergency meeting, it can be -- try to do it when 17 we're going to already be here. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We wouldn't get it 19 done today, would we? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe. I don't know. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know why not. We 22 have a workshop at 3 o'clock. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Don Gray's not 24 going to stop a fishing trip just to deal with us. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 2-9-04 188 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, gentlemen? If 2 not, we will stand in recess for -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: -- for a period not beyond 5 1:45 tomorrow afternoon, subject to the call of the Chair. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 (Commissioner's Court recessed at 1:47 p.m., and reconvened at 3:00 p.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. We're going to 10 reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting of February 9th, 11 '04. Is there other issues that need to come before this 12 Court? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a new budget 14 amendment -- revised budget amendment. Tommy? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The revision is that 16 the current expenditures are $26,140; that's three parcels 17 of land. The budget amendment needs to be $16,140, as 18 opposed to the first amendment of $2,459. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And as an explanation, 20 this -- I talked with Fidelity Abstract, and this covers the 21 acquisition and expenditures related to acquiring three of 22 the right-of-way parcels for the Hermann Sons Bridge 23 project. There are two other parcels still to -- that will 24 come in at our next meeting. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fund 22 still takes 2-9-04 189 1 care of that? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the budget 4 amendment. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion's been made and 7 seconded to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 -- 8 line item description is "repair to dams" -- at a cost of 9 $16,140. All in favor, please raise your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion passes. Is 12 there any other further issues to come before this Court? 13 Well, this Court will be recessed at this time, and now 14 we'll open up for the workshop. 15 (Commissioners Court recessed at 3:02 p.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2-9-04 190 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 17th day of February, 8 2004. 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 2-9-04