1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, May 10, 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 May 10, 2004 2 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 4 3 1.1 Approve road names for privately-maintained roads 4 in accordance with 911 guidelines 8 1.2 Set Public Hearing date for alternate plat 5 process for Lot 13 of Riverside Park 9 1.3 Consider variance for slope exceeding 12% on 6 portion of road in Hermosa Subdivision 10 1.4 Final Plat for Hermosa, Pct.4 12 7 1.8 Consider transferring funds for purchase of ice machine, Road & Bridge Department 20 8 1.9 Advertise for bid on 5-year lease of backhoe 21 1.6 Presentation/discussion of Collections Department 9 performance review 24 1.5 First Responders report 57 10 1.7 911 Report 70 1.10 Review, discuss, & approve 2004 Employee Benefit 11 Administrative Service Agreement 85,147 1.11 Approval and acceptance of 2004 Excess Loss 12 (Stop Loss) Insurance Policy presented by E.B.A. 99 1.12 Report from Environmental Health Manager regarding 13 responses to concerns expressed by septic system installers, changes in policies/practices 122 14 1.13 Commissioner's Court resolution seeking assistance from TexDOT to improve safety of intersection at 15 Rachel Lane and Texas Highway 27 west of Ingram 126 1.14 Authorize hiring outside attorney or others to 16 finalize acquisition of right-of-way for Hermann Sons Bridge project 130 17 4.1 Pay Bills 131 18 4.2 Budget Amendments 134 4.3 Late Bills 141 19 --- Accept Racial Profiling Report 143 4.4 Read and Approve Minutes 144 20 4.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 145 21 3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed in Executive Session 147 22 5.1 Reports from Commissioners 151 23 --- Adjourned 154 24 25 3 1 On Monday, May 10, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting 2 of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the 7 regular Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date, 8 Monday, May the 10th, at 9 a.m. It's a minute or two after 9 that now. I would first like to call on the Reverend 10 Stockton Williams, who is the Lector at the St. Peter's 11 Episcopal Church here locally. If you would please stand 12 and join ... 13 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. At this 15 time, if there is any member of the public that wishes to 16 come forward and address the Court on any matter that is not 17 listed on the agenda, they're privileged to do so at this 18 time. If you want to be heard on a matter that is listed on 19 the agenda, we would ask that you please fill out a 20 participation form. Those are at the back of the room. 21 It's not absolutely essential, but it helps keep me straight 22 up here so that I don't forget you when that item comes up, 23 and so that I will recognize you. But, at this time, if 24 there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard 25 about any matter that is not listed on the agenda, please 5-10-04 4 1 feel free to come forward right now and tell us what's on 2 your mind. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I see nobody making the move, 5 so we'll move into the next area of inquiry. Commissioner 6 Baldwin, what do you have for us this morning? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, I have a special 8 guest with me today; my grandson, Taylor Robertson's in the 9 back. Most of you have met him, but some of you have not. 10 Taylor and I spent three days over the weekend in beautiful 11 Kingsville, Texas, where they measure mosquitoes by the 12 wingspan, and we -- we've -- we saw a couple of them kind of 13 like that. And we went to the Lone Star Conference track 14 championship down there over the weekend, and -- and my boy 15 didn't do as good as we thought he was going to, but that's 16 okay. He -- he's just a freshman; he'll be back. He won 17 fifth in the hurdles and sixth in the high jump, so he did 18 fine, and as -- for a freshman, that's pretty doggone good. 19 We saw a couple records being broken; just a good time. But 20 we also saw -- Saturday afternoon at the track meet, we saw 21 it rain right at 5 inches in two hours. It was wonderful. 22 It was wonderful. And then the sun came out, and it got 23 probably 180 degrees, with those mosquitoes. It was a great 24 time; just want to let y'all know how much fun I've had over 25 the weekend. That's all. 5-10-04 5 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 2 Williams? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple things, 4 Judge. There's date coming up in Kerr County which is 5 significant to us, and has to do with our sesquicentennial, 6 which I believe is 2006, so I passed a little brochure out, 7 because I came across these -- this kind of depicts what 8 Karnes County did in celebration of its sesquicentennial, 9 listing how they arrived at funding their events and all the 10 events that took place to celebrate their 150th anniversary 11 I took the liberty of passing these on to our Historical 12 Commission as well, so that they could have a look and see 13 what other counties have done. This particular county, 14 there were no county funds expended for the celebration, but 15 they said they had a pretty good time despite that. 16 The only other thing was, every now and then 17 we hear -- I think each of us have heard from time to time 18 about the comparison of what we do in Kerr County by 19 comparison to what takes place in Gillespie County. Well, 20 the third quarter gross sales report seems to indicate that 21 we must be doing something correctly, because in the third 22 quarter of 2003, gross sales were reported, upon which sales 23 tax was collected in Kerr County, of about $267 million, and 24 Gillespie County topped out at about $115 million. And I 25 realize we're bigger, but we must be doing something right. 5-10-04 6 1 That's all I got. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have -- to 4 piggy-back with what Commissioner Williams was saying about 5 the sales tax and the comparison between the two counties, 6 it's interesting that the -- during the slow-down of the 7 early 2000's, Gillespie County showed a drop in their 8 revenue off sales tax, whereas Kerr County had continued -- 9 there's been a growth. It hasn't been a great growth, but 10 there has been a growth. So, it's an interesting point. 11 Also, just a -- to mention again about Trooper Knapp lost 12 his life near Comfort. Our thoughts and prayers go out to 13 his family. And I wish there was a TexDOT representative 14 present. Something is amiss on the interstate system right 15 there, it appears, because there have been six fatalities at 16 that exact location in the past year. Different -- all 17 different incidents. All -- you know, not a common thing 18 happened on all of them, but something needs to be looked at 19 by TexDOT, and I'm sure they are. I know they spent a great 20 deal of time over the weekend in that location trying to 21 figure out exactly what happened in that accident. On the 22 sesquicentennial, it's Comfort's as well this year; they're 23 having their celebration, I believe, primarily in September, 24 so I hope to see everyone down there. That's it. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson? 5-10-04 7 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We had our 2 hardworking 911 representatives out at the Hunt Volunteer 3 Fire Department Saturday working overtime selling address 4 plates to -- looked like a steady stream of traffic through 5 there. So, thank you for doing that, and I think that was 6 pretty successful. That's all. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: On the sesquicentennial, I 8 don't know how many of you have had inquiry made of you 9 previously, but Ms. Snodgrass, who, as most of you know, is 10 quite, quite active in matters historical about this county, 11 she began approaching me actually the year before last, as 12 I -- as I recall, and I think virtually every time I see 13 her, she mentions the fact that we need to be thinking about 14 this and kind of getting our thoughts and ideas together. 15 So, if it's up to Clarabelle Snodgrass, we're definitely 16 going to have some sort of sesquicentennial observance here 17 in Kerr County. The other thing I'd like to mention is the 18 good folks over at U.G.R.A. have been kind enough to be 19 benefactors to us of a number of bald cypress trees. 20 They're in the process of what they call a river 21 reforestation project, and they had some extra bald cypress 22 that they had ordered for the purpose of that project, and 23 contacted us about us possibly putting some of these in in 24 our park system; Flat Rock Lake, out at Center Point, and 25 some of the areas where we abut the rivers and streams. 5-10-04 8 1 They're very good at improving the quality of the river 2 stream course water, and they also help to retain the banks 3 when they're right there at the bank. So, we're grateful to 4 U.G.R.A. for giving those to us so that we can participate 5 in that program with them. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, just one other 7 footnote on this Karnes County sesquicentennial. That the 8 Commissioners Court did form a nonprofit corporation for the 9 purpose of being arm's length away from it, but for the 10 purpose of raising funds, and that corporation of interested 11 citizens went out and raised the necessary funding for their 12 project. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure, when that word gets 14 back to Clarabelle Snodgrass, we may be thinking about that. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's on its way back 16 to her right now. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect so. If no one has 18 anything further in that light, we'll move forward with the 19 agenda. First item on the agenda is consider approving road 20 names for privately maintained roads in accordance with 911 21 guidelines. Ms. Hardin? 22 MS. HARDIN: We have four privately 23 maintained roads, two of them in Baldwin's and two in 24 Nicholson's. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve. 5-10-04 9 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 3 approval of the agenda item. Any questions or discussion on 4 the item? If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by 5 raising your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. The 10 next item on the agenda is to set a public hearing date for 11 alternate plat process for Lot 13 of Riverside Park, 12 Precinct 4. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: We have that plat pending. I 14 think probably a good date would be the June 14th meeting. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we set a 16 public hearing for June the 14th at 10 a.m. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 19 set a public hearing for the alternate plat process for Lot 20 13 of Riverside Park in Precinct 4 for June 14th of this 21 year at 10 a.m. Any question or discussion on the motion? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Franklin, 23 what's the situation on this one? I don't recall -- 24 MR. JOHNSTON: They're dividing a large 25 acreage -- not real large. It's, what, 20 acres or so into 5-10-04 10 1 a 15- and a 5-acre tract. Has frontage on -- everything on 2 road, just a matter of having a public hearing. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thanks. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 5 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 6 your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next 11 item is consider a variance for a slope exceeding 12 percent 12 on a portion of a road in Hermosa Subdivision in Precinct 4. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Both -- go ahead. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: No, go ahead. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, both Franklin 16 and I have both driven this road, and we're asking for a 17 variance on one portion that's about 100 feet, and another 18 portion that's less than 400 feet. And, frankly, driving 19 it, it doesn't seem like much of a slope at all to me 20 compared to a lot of slopes on our other county roads and 21 even on our state highways. I don't think there's any risk 22 here of endangering the public or residents of that 23 subdivision by granting a waiver on this slope. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, I believe this 25 is allowed under the Subdivision Rules. Don't we go 5-10-04 11 1 15 percent? 2 MR. JOHNSTON: We go 12, I think. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought -- 4 MR. JOHNSTON: But we can -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought there was a -- 6 I thought there was some discretion. But, actually, one of 7 them's over 15 anyway, so we'll need a variance, but I don't 8 see any problem. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, I move we grant 10 a variance to exceed the 12 percent slope on a portion of 11 road in Hermosa Subdivision. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 14 approve the variance for slope exceeding 12 percent on the 15 indicated portions of the road in Hermosa Subdivision. Any 16 further questions or discussion? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment as to why 18 this is required or why the Subdivision Rules is like this. 19 We did it like this originally, or whenever that originally 20 was done -- '97, I think -- to require -- to make sure that 21 special attention is noted when we have these slopes, and 22 that we're aware of it. It's not really as a -- not to go 23 above it; just so that we're aware of it, because it does 24 require a few different safety issues. So -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 5-10-04 12 1 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 2 your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next 7 item is consider the final plat for Hermosa Subdivision in 8 Precinct 4. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This was kind of a 10 rush, and that was my fault. I advised the contractor if he 11 got his material in last Monday, that we'd be able to have 12 this on the agenda, and that put Franklin in a bind to get 13 the review done. Are you satisfied with the review, 14 Franklin? 15 MR. JOHNSTON: I have two questions that I 16 haven't had a chance to resolve yet. One is the form of the 17 letter of credit. Normally, the procedure when a 18 subdivision is not finished and we have a letter of credit 19 to guarantee the completion, the -- the bank will follow 20 basically the form we have in our Subdivision Rules, and 21 then we still -- we have the County Attorney review it. And 22 the letter of credit that -- that we received was not 23 exactly the same form as the -- the one in our book, and 24 I've not had a chance to have the County Attorney review it 25 for content. And even the amount, we haven't really had a 5-10-04 13 1 chance to analyze that yet. Seems probably adequate, but I 2 haven't thoroughly looked at that. The other item was, we 3 have a letter -- it's in your packet -- that the engineer on 4 the job that the developer has on his payroll designed the 5 drainage structures, and he designed them for two-year 6 frequency. I think our rules call for five-year frequency. 7 And I haven't had a chance to contact him and let him check 8 his -- maybe it was just a typo, or see if his sizes are 9 adequate for a five-year. He was planning on doing a 10 letter -- a letter of certification upon completion of all 11 of the roads, but doing -- with the letter of credit, I 12 guess the letter of credit will guarantee that he'll also do 13 the letter of certification when the job's complete. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think those are two 15 very good questions, very important questions in this 16 process. They need to be resolved. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I would agree. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Johnston, would you 19 indicate to me where the two-year frequency is -- 20 MR. JOHNSTON: On that letter? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- is indicated? I see it 22 now. 23 MR. JOHNSTON: I believe it's on there 24 several times. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 5-10-04 14 1 MR. JOHNSTON: I think, under each 2 calculation -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I see it now. Bottom of 4 that first paragraph. 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Each structure has a -- gives 6 a list of things. That is culvert design; then he has 7 two-year frequency on each calculation. I think you only 8 got one -- one letter; you didn't get the second page, if 9 you'd like to see it also, on the design. For some reason, 10 that was left out. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- are you 13 finished, Judge? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I'm sorry, go ahead. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a -- and this is 16 -- I only bring it up because it's in the covenants, which 17 we really have no say on, but there's a thing on here I 18 believe that the Court -- I think we need to address it 19 sometime. There's a wildlife management provision in here, 20 which I would presume the subdivision is going to for a 21 wildlife -- or for an agricultural exemption on the 22 property, which is fine, as in other subdivisions in the 23 county. However, there was a -- Kendall County did not like 24 this and took two places, Falling Waters and Cordillera 25 Ranch, to court over this issue, and they won. Those 5-10-04 15 1 subdivisions do not qualify as wildlife management. Now, I 2 don't know how that's going to handle it as a -- you know, 3 because it -- one of the -- there's always differences in 4 one situation to another. But I think it's something that 5 the Court needs to think about and visit with the Appraisal 6 District, 'cause they're the ones that make the decision, 7 not us. But it does have an impact, certainly, on tax 8 revenue and -- and, in this case, on these covenants. But, 9 like I say, it's something we really don't need to make a 10 decision on today. I just brought it up 'cause I know that 11 it's -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they have an ag 13 exemption now? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that they do 15 or don't, but I would imagine that they -- it's a ranch 16 being divided, so it currently does. And if you have a 17 current exemption -- 18 MR. JOHNSTON: Here's the man that can tell 19 you more about it. 20 MR. VLASEK: Yes, sir. As far as the 21 wildlife management, I -- my attorney's not here, 22 Mr. Jackson. That's put up only to control any wild hogs, 23 excessive deer population, et cetera. There's no 24 hunting-type place. We're not going to try to raise or 25 maintain them as livestock. 5-10-04 16 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand that. 2 I was just -- it's more the -- it's the property tax issue, 3 whether the -- the property retains its ag exemption or 4 whether it loses it once it becomes a subdivision, and 5 that's the issue that was litigated in Kendall County, and 6 the Appraisal District won that. You cannot have both. I 7 personally disagree with that; I think you can. But, 8 anyway, that's neither here nor there. I think it's 9 something that, county-wide, we need to look at down the 10 road. It really doesn't affect this subdivision. 11 MR. VLASEK: Also, on the drainage, it's got 12 to be a typical -- I don't think I've ever heard of a two -- 13 two-year flood frequency. As a matter of fact, when the 14 engineer was working on it, he engineered it at 25, and I 15 went, "Oh my god." And then I said, "It only has to be a 16 five-year flood frequency," and he reduced it down. He had 17 to find the calculations for a five-year flood frequency. 18 Is there such a thing as a two-year flood frequency? 19 MR. JOHNSTON: I think there is, but we just 20 need to clarify that point, whether those are designed for a 21 two-year cross-road drainage or five-year. 22 MR. VLASEK: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the letter of 24 credit's really the major -- 25 MR. VLASEK: The letter of credit as well, 5-10-04 17 1 is -- it came to my attention that the one that County uses 2 is not legal by the -- according to the State of Texas. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, y'all just 4 basically drew your own up, huh? 5 MR. VLASEK: No, sir, my bank talked with the 6 County Road and Bridge, and Mr. Johnston returned the phone 7 call and said that they would accept this letter of credit. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: I told him to go ahead and 9 submit it, but we haven't had a chance to have it reviewed 10 yet. That's that point. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going to get 12 it done here today; I can see that. We won't get it done 13 here today. I don't -- I can see that. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know how long it takes 15 for you, David -- 16 MR. VLASEK: Before leave today, could I have 17 a list of specifically what I need to -- we need to take 18 care of so that we don't spend any more -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, did you just 20 ask David if he would look it over today and try to get it 21 back? 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I just asked him how long it 23 would take. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I was just trying 25 to figure out -- maybe we can get to it today, if you got 5-10-04 18 1 that resolved. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it can be resolved, we 3 can do it today, but I think the -- the final notice -- I 4 don't think it's proper -- proper to put pressure on the 5 County Engineer to review it, you know, under a short time 6 period. I mean, if he can get it done and he's comfortable 7 with it, County Attorney can review it, we can bring it back 8 later -- later in the day. 9 MR. VLASEK: I'm willing to do whatever it 10 takes to have this resolved today. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aren't the stormwater 12 runoff coefficients -- aren't they in question, too? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Has to be -- that 14 would probably be a matter of a phone call and a fax to 15 clarify that. And -- but it's more the County Engineer, 16 whether he's had sufficient time to look at it and he's 17 comfortable with it, 'cause it's his recommendation. We can 18 pass on it right now and bring it back if they can get it 19 ready. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the question is what 21 the Subdivision Rules require in the way of the frequency 22 interval. If they require a five-year, that's what it needs 23 to be submitted as. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But what he was 25 saying, that may be a mistake, and if it's a typo and it is 5-10-04 19 1 calculated on a five-year -- if they weren't, I don't see 2 any way of getting it done today. I mean, if they have to 3 recalculate and resubmit it. 4 MR. VLASEK: Right. I -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just whether it's a typo. 6 MR. VLASEK: I'm certain it was done on a 7 five-year frequency. I got the notes they give me on pipe 8 sizes and where they go. It's just a matter of contacting 9 him and getting him to fax something over here. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How long will we be 12 here? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All day. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Got a 1:30 item. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to be here 16 in the afternoon. 17 MR. VLASEK: Okay. So, I'll just -- I'll -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To keep the County 19 Engineer from having to come back down, he could probably 20 fax his approval. I mean, just so you don't have to -- you 21 can work from your office, fax something down once it's 22 ready. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anything further by 24 any member of the Court in connection with the final plat 25 for Hermosa at this time? Thank you very much. Is -- is 5-10-04 20 1 Mr. Young here? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see him 3 anywhere, Judge. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we go on down and 5 pick up Item 8, to consider transferring funds from Account 6 15-611-575 to 15-611-570 for a capital acquisition; ice 7 machine, looks like. 8 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom? 10 MR. ODOM: Morning, Judge. Recently -- I say 11 recently. In the last year -- last several years, we've had 12 problems with the ice vendor. And we particularly have been 13 having a problem lately with getting enough ice for the men, 14 and summer's coming up. We have found out that the only 15 vendor that serves around here is one vendor. We called the 16 City of Kerrville to see how they were resolving the 17 problem. They said they were having the same problems we 18 were having, and they were concerned also. So, we have -- 19 in the past, we have participated with the Ag building over 20 there, but it's -- we -- when we get in a bind, it's getting 21 this ice, because these vendors never bring it when they're 22 supposed to, and they do it when they want to. And the Ag 23 Barn has reservations about us taking it on a continual 24 basis, so we would like to transfer some money from 25 Facilities that I have; I have $993.39 in Capital Outlay, 5-10-04 21 1 and transfer the remaining $947.44 from Facilities to the 2 Capital Outlay, and ask the Court's permission to use 3 capital outlays to buy this machine for $1940.83. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1904. 5 MR. ODOM: Well, my note says 1940, but -- 6 I'm sorry, it says 1904.83. Typo on my part. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 8 MR. ODOM: This takes care of our problem. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and approval -- 12 and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any further 13 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 14 by raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next 19 item on the agenda is consideration of advertising for bids 20 on a five-year lease of a backhoe. 21 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The -- our lease is 22 coming up in June, and we've had it five years. We've had 23 an outstanding lease of about $800 a month to lease that for 24 five years. We hope that -- we certainly won't be at 800, 25 but we think we'll be in that -- we've calculated it to the 5-10-04 22 1 point we think we have enough money to resolve that problem 2 last year when we put it in the budget. So, we're asking 3 permission to go back out again for a -- a backhoe that is 4 similar to what we have by specs and all, and allow 5 different vendors to bid on that program. That's been 6 successful for us for several years. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What does a backhoe cost? 8 MR. ODOM: Four-wheel drive, maybe 80,000. 9 Maybe 80, 85. The reason we're doing just a four-wheel 10 drive vehicle -- backhoe is because it has the power to be a 11 loader, where a two-wheel has -- you know, it moves you 12 around, but this way we don't need a loader. You can take a 13 loader off. We can still load with that four-wheel drive. 14 It turns out very well for us if you can be able to load in 15 the yard or to move rock. It also -- that type of machine 16 that we wish to have, we'll have the hammer that is 17 associated. We bought that five years ago to break up rock. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is budgeted? 19 MR. ODOM: This is budgeted. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 23 approval of the agenda item. You say you have a hammer? 24 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. It's -- it breaks up 25 rock. It is a hydraulic hammer. 5-10-04 23 1 JUDGE TINLEY: It's an attachment that goes 2 on -- 3 MR. ODOM: Attachment that goes on the 4 backhoe, yes, sir. You take the bucket off, you put the 5 rock-breaker in there. It's a hydraulic bit; it'll bust up 6 rock. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And you already have 8 that piece of equipment on-hand? 9 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, we bought that. That is 10 paid for. That is not part of this lease. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions 12 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 13 raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 18 MR. ODOM: Thank you. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Odom. Let's 20 get back to the timed 9:30 item. We have a report on the 21 First Responders from -- I assume that's Mr. Kyle Young. Is 22 that correct, Mr. Baldwin? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. He 24 is not in the room. And this is not the first time. Of 25 course, it's not -- yeah, it is, too. It's not the first 5-10-04 24 1 time. We'll have a come-to-Jesus meeting with him about 2 this. I don't like this. But Item Number 6 is ready to 3 rock and roll. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. They're here 5 early, is what you're telling me? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm 7 saying. They're here on time. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me pass on Item 9 5 and we'll go to Item 6, presentation and discussion of 10 Collections Department performance review with comparable 11 statistics from prior budget year, require future 12 performance reviews on quarterly basis with year-ending 13 summaries of all activities. Care to bring us into this 14 item, Commissioner Baldwin? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. I put it on the 16 agenda as just a simple report, and -- and Commissioner 17 Williams had the -- had some thoughts on it, so we put our 18 heads together and -- and put together some questions for 19 the department head, and we asked him to come and just give 20 us a report on these things, just so that we can see where 21 we are and what we're doing, where we're going. And -- and 22 my goal here is to enhance or to assist that department, 23 because it is a money-making department for this county. 24 And I thought -- and I'll give it to Mr. Williams -- I 25 thought we would just have a conversation here and see -- 5-10-04 25 1 see where this goes -- plays out. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, we need a 3 conversation, and it's important that the Court knows of the 4 activities of the Collections Department, particularly with 5 respect to fines outstanding. And there's always fines 6 outstanding; we keep adding to that. So, I put together a 7 series of questions which I thought would shed some light on 8 this. We discussed it with Mr. Alford, and I think he's 9 prepared to respond to those questions, which are part of 10 the backup. 11 MR. ALFORD: Okay. Question Number 1 talks 12 about -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excuse me. Would 14 you first tell me how to read this? I like the -- 15 MR. ALFORD: Yes. Well, you're right. Thank 16 you. As we go through it, this chart will make sense to 17 you. It is kind of confusing. Half of it's right-to-left; 18 other half is left-to-right. Does that help you out any? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 20 MR. ALFORD: I didn't think so. Okay. As we 21 go through the questionnaire, I hope it will help you some. 22 Regarding Question Number 1 in your backup, comparison 23 amount, where it exceeds 21 percent collection in our County 24 Court at Law for the same times, for October 1 through 25 May 4th. Now, then, before we go into the felony money, if 5-10-04 26 1 we can talk about that for a minute, we have no teeth in our 2 felony laws that allows us to collect felony money at the 3 rate that we do our county money, County Court at Law. So, 4 as you'll notice, our 216th, 198th collection rates are 5 considerably lower. We're in constant contact with Judge 6 Ables, Judge Prohl, and also the Office of Court 7 Administration in Austin. I talked to them this morning, 8 and they assured me they are reviewing the two laws that are 9 in question and hope that in this next session, they also, 10 along with the district clerks, will present new legislation 11 again. They tried it last time; it didn't fly, but they are 12 hoping to make it fly this year. Our assessed money is down 13 this year. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait just a second. 15 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what you're saying 17 is that there is no authority to collect those fines? That 18 is county money. A District Judge has assessed a fine to 19 someone. 20 MR. ALFORD: Mm-hmm. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you don't feel 22 like -- or powers that be doesn't feel like that we have the 23 authority to go get our money? 24 MR. ALFORD: Correct. That's the very short 25 story of it, yes, sir. 5-10-04 27 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm sure that we 2 could fluff it up and say all kinds of words, but that's 3 about the bottom line? 4 MR. ALFORD: Well, yes, sir, it is. There's 5 a -- a point of law; the County Judge and I have talked 6 about this on numerous occasions, I believe, and it comes 7 down to interpretation. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Interpretation of the 9 law? 10 MR. ALFORD: Of the law outstanding -- or the 11 current law. That's the way it reads. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has anyone -- to your 13 knowledge, any county ever tried to collect their own money? 14 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And have they 16 collected it? 17 MR. ALFORD: I don't know. It -- there are 18 rumors to the effect that -- that numerous counties are now 19 looking at this, and are in the same boat that we are right 20 now and trying to push forward with it. I believe it's 21 going to boil down to the individuals involved. I really 22 can't give an answer on that one. I know that's something 23 that Austin is looking at. I have a hard time with it, too. 24 I just can't understand why the State of Texas would allow 25 this type of loophole to go on. 5-10-04 28 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my opinion is 2 that there's not a loophole there. We simply need to go get 3 our money. 4 MR. ALFORD: I agree, but we have to have -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very simple to me. 6 MR. ALFORD: We have to have a master to help 7 us on that. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, 9 Brad. 10 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You've got a 12 percentage number, like in Column 3, 61 percent. 13 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then it goes on 15 across, 53, 84, 58, 93. 16 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are those -- is that 18 -- does that represent the percentage of the assessed fines 19 that has been collected, or is that a discounted percentage? 20 Which? 21 MR. ALFORD: No, sir. This is the amount -- 22 if you notice the assessed, what the assessed is, is what -- 23 for example, we used Judge Brown. This is what, from the 24 bench, he has said the defendant will pay in fines and court 25 costs. 5-10-04 29 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, a total of 2 349,393 was assessed? 3 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the time frame 5 that you've listed, from -- 6 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 5-10-03 through 8 5-4-04. And the 217 represents -- 9 MR. ALFORD: What has physically been 10 collected. That is money. That's not -- that's not a 11 credit; that's not layout. That is on the reports as money. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. So, 13 61 percent of what Judge Brown levied has been collected? 14 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In this particular 16 time frame? 17 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, that is correct. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 19 That goes across the same way? 20 MR. ALFORD: Yeah. And -- it does. And 21 that's what -- if you'll notice, I guess, the fifth column, 22 2003 -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 24 MR. ALFORD: -- it's at 53 percent. So, 25 right now, we're getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie, is 5-10-04 30 1 what it amounts to. Last year at this time, they collected 2 431,000. It -- this year, he's collected -- or he assessed 3 431 last year. Same time frame this year, he's assessed 4 349. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But last year you 6 collected 231; this year, 217? 7 MR. ALFORD: Right. So, you're actually 8 getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie. And the reason the 9 percentage rates are going up as you go further down, it's 10 very simple. We still have a lot of these cases. Some of 11 these figures for this -- May 4th was two weeks ago. You 12 know, we haven't started collecting that money yet. It -- 13 so as you go down the line, that's why your percentage goes 14 up, if that make sense. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 16 MR. ALFORD: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I want to know 18 is, why is the pie smaller? Is crime going down in Kerr 19 County? That's what it appears to me. Why else would the 20 pie be smaller? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Sheriff is 22 smiling; it must mean it is. 23 MR. ALFORD: We still talk. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's going to talk 25 about the gang activity. 5-10-04 31 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, crime is not going 2 down in Kerr County; it's just taking longer to get them 3 through the court system now, 'cause the courts are bogged 4 up. 5 MR. ALFORD: That sounds like a very 6 politically correct way of putting that. I don't know. And 7 I haven't asked that. It -- we can only go after what's in 8 front of us, so -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. No, I'm 10 not throwing a rock at you. I just wondered why the pie's 11 smaller all of a sudden. Sounds like, to me, crime's gone 12 down. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gives us less 14 deputies at budget time, right? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wait. 16 MR. ALFORD: Now you see why I referred that 17 back to you for. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The cars are not the 19 right color or something. I mean, there's something up 20 here. Thank you. Go ahead. 21 MR. ALFORD: And I -- that pretty much -- on 22 number -- yes, Number 2 talks about case load. It varies. 23 As you can see, as of this year, we're at 761 cases in 24 County Court at Law. 66, 216th; and 26, 198th, and it goes 25 on across. As you can see, it varies. 2003, we're at 2034, 5-10-04 32 1 and 2002, we're 1976. Last year, we're back up -- or, I'm 2 sorry, 2001 was 2235. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a pretty 4 precipitous drop -- 5 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in County Court at 7 Law, from 2034 cases to 761. 8 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the same time 10 frame from one year till the next. 11 MR. ALFORD: No, sir, it's not the same time 12 frame. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Different time. 14 MR. ALFORD: It's the full year. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I see it. I'm 16 sorry. 17 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, even so, 19 it's still a pretty precipitous drop. 20 MR. ALFORD: You talk about -- if you double 21 it, you're talking about 1400, 1500. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1500. 23 MR. ALFORD: So, on the -- Number 3, on the 24 current, this is going to boil down to something that is 25 just going to be interpretation. What the Commissioners 5-10-04 33 1 Court may consider current and what I consider current are 2 different things. Same thing as delinquency. We have no 3 way of putting a number on what is current and what is not, 4 because as far as we're concerned, the defendant today has a 5 job; he's paying us. He loses his job tomorrow, some people 6 may put that into a delinquent file 'cause he's not paying 7 us. We kick a different style of program in place. Six 8 weeks from now, if the defendant has a job, he becomes 9 current. So, it fluctuates a whole lot with the type of 10 citizens I'm talking about, so we can't really put a 11 "current" versus "delinquent" on that. Yes, sir? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm curious 13 about -- about that. You're assessing a current versus 14 delinquent status based on an individual's job status? 15 MR. ALFORD: The -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He may or may not -- 17 she may or may not have a job, but the fact of the matter 18 is, the account is either current or it's delinquent, and it 19 doesn't make any difference in -- I'm wondering why, in my 20 mind. 21 MR. ALFORD: Well, again -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is that 23 distinction? 24 MR. ALFORD: The distinction is whether or 25 not he's paying. 5-10-04 34 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I miss a payment 2 on my automobile at the bank, whether I'm working or not, 3 I'm delinquent. 4 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. And I reiterate the 5 fact that we kick in a different type of program as to how 6 we handle these people. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you -- do you have the 8 ability and the discretion, based upon circumstances, to do 9 deferrals because of -- do you work out terms with these 10 people who are paying, who have reasonably good records of 11 payment over time? 12 MR. ALFORD: I believe we do. I'm not very 13 sure I know where you're going at. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what I'm suggesting is 15 maybe if someone's been real prompt and regular in their 16 payments for a number of months, and say they lose their job 17 or they have some adverse health problems or something, and 18 they come in, sit down across the table from you and say, 19 "Mr. Alford, you know, under normal circumstances I'd be 20 here bringing my monthly payment, but right now, you know, I 21 lost my job last week," fell ill, whatever. Is it customary 22 for you, in appropriate cases, to work out deferrals with 23 these people based upon the communication between you? 24 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, it is. It -- and 25 it -- depending on the hardship, we may request a magistrate 5-10-04 35 1 to assign them to community service around the courthouse to 2 work some of it out, whether it's cutting the grass or 3 sweeping the floors. It just -- we take each one on an 4 individual basis. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And does that play into the 6 account, whether you consider it as current or delinquent? 7 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, it does. And, again, 8 that would not be considered in money. That would be 9 considered in credit, so that's where you would go from 10 money to credit. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you account 12 for that? How do you reconcile your accounting of that? 13 MR. ALFORD: That's Tommy's deal. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 MR. ALFORD: Computer does that. And the 16 reason I say that, I believe that the clerk would go in and 17 give them more or less "time served" type of status, 18 versus -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At so many dollars 20 per hour? 21 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, it's all laid out by 22 law. They get $100 credit per 8 hours work. And the 23 Question Number 4 regarding delinquency, we do not feel like 24 it's delinquent -- or everything's delinquent. If it's over 25 30 days, we feel like it's delinquent. Very simply, 5-10-04 36 1 whenever the defendant walks into our room, the first thing 2 we ask him is, "Can you pay in full in 30 days?" Just a 3 simple yes or no question. And if they say, "No, we can 4 not," we put them on a payment plan. At that time, we feel 5 like it's delinquent, because we want the money now. The 6 Court orders the defendant to pay it immediately, and so 7 that's what we strive for. As of last Friday, we currently 8 have 80 outstanding case fines or commitments that we 9 have -- we had. When I say "we," it's the current 10 department, the current administration, the Collections 11 Department. I'm not sure how many commitments are out right 12 now out of County Court at Law. I don't know if we can come 13 up with that exact detail, but over the last -- since 14 September of '02 to today, I know for sure we have 80 15 delinquent cases. What I'm saying is 80 cases we -- 16 delinquent; we can't find them. And, probably in the 17 majority of those 80 cases, there's also violation of 18 probation warrants out for them, where they've absconded. 19 So, that's what I would consider delinquent. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- we need to 21 -- I mean, I think it's a good way to track, and I think we 22 need to settle on what you're going to track. To me, it's, 23 you know, current or accounted for, whatever -- whatever 24 term you want to use. You're either working with the people 25 or you're not. If you're working with them, then you -- 5-10-04 37 1 MR. ALFORD: That's current. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're current. 3 MR. ALFORD: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we're not working with 5 them, then we're delinquent. And, I mean, whether or not 6 they miss a payment or not is somewhat irrelevant to me. I 7 mean, I think if we're in contact with them, I -- you know, 8 if they miss 10 payments, then I think there's some -- then 9 they go into a different category. 10 MR. ALFORD: We kick in at 30 days. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that, you 12 know, that's how I would like to see it done. And that way, 13 there's -- we're all speaking the same, you know, 14 terminology when it comes to all this. 15 MR. ALFORD: And that's kind of way I looked 16 at it, because the only thing I can sit here and tell you is 17 I know we have 80 cases since September 2002 that are 18 delinquent. Now, we've had others that have -- 19 either warrants have been served, they've paid it out, 20 something has happened. But right now, today, I can tell 21 you we have 80 delinquent cases. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At what point do you 23 ask for a warrant? 24 MR. ALFORD: After -- probably after about 60 25 to 90 days, depending on the letters. We make phone calls; 5-10-04 38 1 we send out letters. Depending on responses from those, we 2 have show cause hearings where the defendant has to come in 3 and visit with us. If we can not reach an agreement, he 4 goes back before the magistrate and some type of action is 5 taken. That may continue an additional 30 days. So, again, 6 it's on a one-on-one basis; it could be as recent as 60 7 days. After delinquency, as long as 90, 120 days after 8 delinquency. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we look at the J.P.'s? 10 I mean, it looks like Questions 6, 7, and 8 are part of your 11 chart. 12 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, it is. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6, 7, 8 -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 6 and 7. 15 MR. ALFORD: On the new measurements, I 16 believe that's talking about. I'm sorry, on -- I got with 17 Tommy about this, and he's working on the figures. As they 18 come available, I'd be more than happy to get with each 19 Commissioner or come back whenever they come available. 20 It's my understanding that those numbers are in the working, 21 and Tommy's trying to get them and see what we can do with 22 the J.P.'s. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, currently, you do not 24 do any collection for J.P.'s? 25 MR. ALFORD: No, sir, we started this 5-10-04 39 1 whenever -- last Commissioners Court. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Last meeting. 3 MR. ALFORD: This is the first time we've 4 really -- what we've done before is assist them in locating 5 people on a one-on-one basis, but we've already started on 6 J.P. 1's; we've already mailed some letters. We've already 7 made personal contacts with some of the defendants, and 8 we're, you know, going forward with the J.P.'s. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you visited with the 10 company that we're going to -- you know, that is our 11 alternative to the State? 12 MR. ALFORD: No, sir, I have not. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean, I think 14 it would be a good idea for you or for J.P.'s, because the 15 reports I hear from Kendall County is they're very happy 16 with the way it works, and they're collecting a lot of 17 revenue through that private -- 18 MR. ALFORD: And that's why we basically set 19 up the J.P.'s to give us 30 days. That's what we kind of 20 asked the J.P.'s, 'cause some of these we're seeing are 21 years -- I believe there's some '99, some 2000's, so what's 22 another 30 days? Some of our programs that we've run, 23 it's -- we're able to locate some of these. J.P. 3 and 4 24 are trying to rework their warrant list after the D.P.S. 25 runs, and they're -- they're coming. I've talked to both of 5-10-04 40 1 the clerks last week. They're on their way. They're being 2 worked on. J.P. 2 and J.P. 1, we have them in our office 3 now working on them. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's 5 appropriate that we try to collect it in-house for 30 days. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then, if not, as I 8 understand it, offer it to whoever they are -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or maybe longer. I mean, 10 we -- 11 MR. ALFORD: And that's fine with us, if 12 you'll give us longer. And we have longer. We have 13 forever. It's just that after they send it to the official 14 payment corporation, they get their money. That's the only 15 reason we asked for 30 days, is just to try to give us at 16 least a 30-day window. We have -- we've already kind of 17 worked out schematics on how we're going to handle these for 18 budget expenses. Commissioner Williams and I talked about 19 this; we're going to do, like, A, B, and C when we first get 20 them. If they come back, then we'll kick in some other 21 programs. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brad, I have a question 23 on the chart. 24 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I go to the far right 5-10-04 41 1 column -- 2 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it says 2004. First 4 number down is 93 percent. 5 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What that means is that 7 of the '01-'02 year, as of now, you've collected 93 percent 8 of that? 9 MR. ALFORD: That is correct. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 MR. ALFORD: That does not -- and I feel 12 certain that if you'd go in and credit the time served, the 13 layouts, the dismissals, the waivers, it should be at 100 14 percent. We have noticed it takes about 18 months to 24 15 months to complete a cycle. And that's why I feel like, on 16 the 2003 right now, we're -- or for the '02-'03 year, we're 17 84 percent. I feel like we'll be well into the 90's by this 18 time next year. I hate to go out on a limb and say that, 19 but traditionally, we should be there. Some of these cases 20 are still being paid for. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other quick 22 question I have, Brad. 23 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The independent 25 auditor, Pressler Thompson, listed in our -- in our audit 5-10-04 42 1 assets of 654,654 at the end of September '03. That is 2 court fines and fees outstanding. My notation is, 3 "outstanding and potentially collectible." Does that number 4 which was in the audit comport with the total -- totals that 5 you might have for the same time frame of these various fees 6 and so forth? 7 MR. ALFORD: No, sir, it does not. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would you explain 9 the difference? 10 MR. ALFORD: It -- I met with the Auditor, 11 again, and it's my understanding that this figure is over a 12 12-year period. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 12-year period? 14 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you mean? 16 MR. ALFORD: That Tommy ran a report, 17 whatever report he runs -- don't make me lie with him 18 sitting here -- and this came over whatever report he ran. 19 I guess it showed the outstanding balance due of fines and 20 court costs for 1998 to present. Or did you have -- what's 21 your cutoff? September? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: It was '92 to present. 23 MR. ALFORD: '92 to present was the report 24 that he ran. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you don't think that 5-10-04 43 1 was an accurate number? 2 MR. ALFORD: No, I -- no, the -- my 3 understanding, Commissioner Williams asked me if mine lines 4 up with his, and no, this doesn't equal -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think anybody 6 was aware that that 654,654 was outstanding compounded since 7 1992. I don't think I had that awareness. Which was a long 8 time. 9 MR. ALFORD: I don't know. Commissioner 10 Baldwin came to me, and it kind of floored both of us, so I 11 immediately ran to Tommy asking, "Where did you get these 12 numbers?" I wasn't under the impression that we missed over 13 half a million dollars this year. So -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the number is -- it's 15 a correct number if you go back -- 16 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that period? 18 MR. ALFORD: I have a full trust and 19 confidence in Tommy, and if he says this is since 1992 -- if 20 he says this is since 1892, I have a very -- we've discussed 21 this, and as you can see from the collection rates in our 22 district courts, I'm willing to bet a very large amount of 23 this money is going to be district court money. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would appear that 25 way. 5-10-04 44 1 MR. ALFORD: Yes. And I met with Linda, and 2 Linda -- and I think it may be higher than you think. 3 654,000? 4 MS. UECKER: Well, Brad, I think the -- to 5 clarify the 1992 thing, I think if you went back to 1960 and 6 ran the report to present, it would give you the same 7 figure. I mean, he entered in 1992, but I think those 8 figures don't go back that far, as far as the report is 9 concerned. 10 MR. ALFORD: I don't know. 11 MS. UECKER: After, you know, I looked at it 12 a little bit. 'Cause that's -- you can put any date in 13 there you want to, so long as you go, you know, pretty far 14 back. It's probably going to give you the same amount. 15 MR. ALFORD: And that may be due to the fact 16 of data input by the County until a certain date, I guess, 17 is what you're thinking? Again, I -- I don't know. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: I can explain that somewhat, 20 if you want me to. Well, the reason I went -- I went back 21 to '92 is -- is for -- for accounting purposes, with 22 GASB-34, we -- I had to arrive at what I considered a 23 reasonable amount for reserve for bad debts, so I went back 24 to -- to '92 and -- and looked at that year by itself. 25 And -- and this report I did gave me the amount of 5-10-04 45 1 collections -- monetary collections, and the amount of time 2 served and community service, anything that reduced the 3 amount that was assessed for that year. So, I went forward 4 and I looked at the activities that were assessed in 1992 5 for every year thereafter until -- until I got to current 6 year, which was 2002-2003. What I -- what I discovered was 7 that, on fines and fees that were collected in 1992, the 8 collection rate on those -- on those fees were zero when you 9 got to 2002, because after that length of time, the 10 likelihood of collecting any of that money is almost zero. 11 So, for that reason, I didn't go -- I didn't go back further 12 than '02. So, for -- for each court, I did the same thing. 13 I did it for district courts, County Court at Law, and for 14 all the J.P.'s. 15 So, I -- I built a matrix that shows the -- 16 all the fines and fees that were assessed for each court, 17 and then I -- I went forward and I arrived at the 18 collections for each year for -- for the year of assessment 19 forward. So then, based on that, I came up with what I -- 20 what I considered a collection -- or a reasonable collection 21 rate for each court, and then I applied that rate to -- to 22 the -- to the assessments for the current year to come up 23 with a reserve for loan offices -- not loan offices, but for 24 bad debts. So, the 650,000 that you're talking about is -- 25 is the outstanding amount net of -- of bad debts for all 5-10-04 46 1 courts back to 1992. I found out that my -- my research 2 showed that -- that for J.P.'s, their collection rate falls 3 off to almost zero after -- after three years. I mean, it 4 goes down to under 2 -- 1 percent. So, the courts are 5 different. And you also have to remember that -- that part 6 of the 650,000 is not Kerr County money. You know, part of 7 it is State money. 8 But, from -- from a receivable standpoint, 9 from an accounting viewpoint, we -- we recorded that amount, 10 because it is receivable. Actually, there is some 11 controversy and -- among financial people and auditors 12 whether or not a fine is -- is really a receivable or not, 13 for the simple fact that that is not payment for an activity 14 that -- that the County has done, or it's not a fee for 15 something. It's a penalty. So -- so, there is some 16 discussion about whether or not, you know, a fine is really 17 an asset or not. So, I mean, we chose -- we chose to record 18 it, in conversation with the auditors and -- and, you know, 19 people at the Comptroller's office. That was our decision, 20 to go ahead and -- and book those -- those fines as -- as 21 receivables. And there -- I mean, it's not rocket science; 22 I mean, my approach to this, but it was the only logical way 23 I could -- I could determine to come up with a reasonable 24 amount to -- to report. I think maybe that -- well, I 25 approached it very conservatively. So I think, in my 5-10-04 47 1 opinion, the $650,000 is a, you know, very conservative 2 amount. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was your 4 percentage allowance discount? What's your allowance 5 discount percentage? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it differs for each 7 court. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I think, over a 12-year 10 period, the collection rate for -- for the district 11 courts -- or the net is around 52 percent, and that -- that 12 includes the fines and fees. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know -- probably 14 Brad can do it easier, or work with Tommy or whoever. I 15 think it would be helpful to me just kind of to take the 16 current report you have, Brad -- you know, not all the 17 detail, but just look at the -- going back to -- if you're 18 using '92 from the Auditor's standpoint, go back that far 19 and let us look at how much out of the '92-'93 year is left 20 uncollected. I presume you'd be close to 90 percent in 21 every year, so until we get pretty close, kind of an aging 22 report for that 15-year period, because that's really what's 23 critical. I mean, if the -- 24 MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly what I've 25 done. I've already done that. 5-10-04 48 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Then if we 2 can see a copy, that would be helpful, because if there's -- 3 and even if -- you may not think we're going to collect it. 4 I mean, if the possibility of collecting it is, you know, 5 virtually zero, we'd like -- still like to know what is 6 there at what point, or when you wrote it off. So, to me, I 7 think that's kind of the condition. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Essentially, we wrote 9 everything off prior to 19 -- actually be 1993-94. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: '93-'94. Because I think 11 that that's -- that report is what I'd like to kind of see, 12 to see how much we wrote off and see if it's worth going 13 back, you know, to -- for Brad to try to collect some of it. 14 MR. ALFORD: I think it will be if we get 15 this law. If Linda and her organization help get this new 16 legislation passed, I think it's worth looking at. I think 17 it's worth going back after, but it's going to depend on how 18 this law, if it ever happens, will be worded as to how we 19 can go back and how far we go back. If they put limitations 20 on it -- if they say, "Okay, from this day forward you can 21 do this, this, and this," well, that's what we have to look 22 at. But if they just retroactivate it, I think it's worth 23 looking at. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brad, I don't want to 25 belabor this, but why can't you get the money that's owed? 5-10-04 49 1 What's the -- the law that says we can't go after the money 2 that's been assessed by district courts? 3 MR. ALFORD: 43.09 of the codes and 4 procedures is where our main hangup is, where it talks about 5 if you can -- if you are convicted of a misdemeanor, you can 6 do this, this, and this, but if you're convicted of a felony 7 after you've been in jail, at that time the Court can do 8 different things. It just gets real cloudy as to what you 9 can and can not do. That's our hangup. And the Judge is -- 10 both of our judges here have looked at it and have reviewed 11 it, and they're like, "We don't see when we can use this." 12 Because I have proposed several different questions as to, 13 "Give me an example of when I can use this," and they're -- 14 they've had Austin research it. They've had Office of Court 15 Administration's attorneys look at it. Judge Ables told me 16 last week that they are -- quote, they are concerned about 17 the laws as they stand. So, I mean, that's all I can tell 18 you, 'cause it -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I still don't understand 20 it, but I probably never will. 21 MR. ALFORD: If you read it, you won't 22 understand it either, because I don't. But, again, we have 23 to rely on our County Judge, his expertise and his past 24 criminal prosecution, to help us with that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know if I rely on 5-10-04 50 1 the County Judge on that, but anyway -- I mean, if we did -- 2 I mean, if there's a fine, then -- if the money's owed, it's 3 owed. 4 MR. ALFORD: It's pretty simple, yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to go and get it. 6 But I guess it's more complicated than I can see. Thank 7 you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all we have for 9 Mr. Alford? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- while we're on this 12 subject, I know there's some concern about the collection 13 rate in the felony cases in district court. Ms. Uecker, our 14 District Clerk, is here with us, and she has done a 15 considerable amount of work in this great big gray area, the 16 iffy aspects of whether or not the law provides, and while 17 we're on this subject, if she would come explain to us kind 18 of the nuts and bolts of what that problem is, I'd 19 appreciate it. 20 MS. UECKER: If I could, I'd like to make a 21 comment on the 1992 report. And the explanation by the 22 Auditor -- and I don't -- I think what you have to remember, 23 on felony cases, you have to consider the time that these 24 people are in T.D.C. That amount is uncollectible during 25 that time. It's not until they get out that you can 5-10-04 51 1 actually start considering that delinquent, because the 2 Parole Board's supposed to have them come report, and, "You 3 need to go to Kerr County and pay that fine." If they don't 4 do that, then it becomes delinquent. And I don't -- I'm not 5 sure that that was considered in -- in the report or not. 6 There's a couple of issues that I might just want to 7 clarify. Mr. Alford said that O.C.A. is going to work on 8 some legislation. We will do that with their advice, but 9 O.C.A. cannot legally submit requests for legislation. And, 10 yes, the statutes are -- are gray, but I think where the 11 difference is, is whether or not they're current or they're 12 delinquent. The statute is not gray on collecting fines and 13 costs on felonies after judgment. It is gray, however, once 14 they become delinquent. It's gray on those felony cases 15 that are delinquent where there is T.D.C. time assessed. It 16 is not gray on felonies that are delinquent where there is a 17 fine only assessed. So, I think the -- what I'm trying to 18 say is, the bottom line is, on felonies, until we get some 19 changes made, the key is to keep everybody current. You 20 know, once they become delinquent is where we have a 21 problem, especially on those cases where they're in T.D.C. 22 or they're coming out of T.D.C.. Or even -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, are you saying 24 that when someone appears before the Judge and he says, 25 "Okay, you're fined $1,000," can we require them that very 5-10-04 52 1 moment to go in front of the Collections Department just 2 like everybody else? 3 MS. UECKER: They do. That's what the 4 judgment says. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when they become 6 delinquent, then the law gets goofy -- or cloudy, excuse me. 7 MS. UECKER: On felonies where there is 8 T.D.C. time. It's not -- it's not cloudy if there's no jail 9 time or T.D.C. time assessed. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, what 11 you're saying is that if there is no time to be served -- is 12 that what you're saying? -- T.D.C. time served or time to be 13 served, we are at liberty and have an obligation to go after 14 them immediately if we determine -- 15 MS. UECKER: Depending on -- depending on the 16 Collections Department. Now, when the Judge assesses a fine 17 and a cost, he doesn't tell the inmate, you know, when 18 you're going to pay it. He just says, "You need to report 19 to Collections now." So, Collections, based on their 20 investigations and a credit record, whatever you call it, 21 you know, they make that decision. So, I think once they 22 become delinquent, if there's no T.D.C. time assessed, then, 23 you know, we -- we can go after them. And, just for the 24 record -- and Judge Tinley probably knows this, too -- is 25 there is no felony offense where there is, upon conviction, 5-10-04 53 1 that no T.D.C. time can be assessed. I mean, that is the 2 allowable on every conviction on a felony. However, some 3 district courts, some judges, depending on the 4 circumstances, will not assess T.D.C. time, and those are 5 the ones I'm talking about. Isn't that right, Rusty? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Pretty close. 7 MS. UECKER: I've been working with Jo 8 Carter, a District Clerk in Randall County. They have 9 actually come up with a program, and I've gotten some forms 10 from her where they are doing just that. I mean, they're -- 11 it doesn't matter what kind of a case it is. It doesn't 12 matter whether there's T.D.C. time or not; they're going 13 after them based on -- based on what their interpretation of 14 the law is, and I'm not sure that it's correct. However, 15 their judges -- her District Judges are saying, "We're going 16 after them. If they want to challenge us, they can get a 17 lawyer and come back and challenge us." 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's where I'm at. 19 That's the way it should be. 20 MS. UECKER: Well, the problem is -- is, 21 right now, we need to get our District Judges to sign those 22 orders. We -- Brad can't issue a warrant. I can't issue a 23 warrant without the Judge saying, you know, we need to go 24 after them. We can make a -- I think -- I think the key to 25 this collections is -- is keeping everybody current, keeping 5-10-04 54 1 them from going delinquent. Now, I'm going to try -- I'm 2 going to talk to the judges again, and -- and Brad and I 3 have talked about this, and we want to do some test cases. 4 And I have not had a chance to talk to Judge Ables about the 5 Randall County -- what they're doing. Of course, that's a 6 much larger county than we are. I talked to Jo last week. 7 I said, "Has anybody complained?" I mean, has anybody said, 8 "Randall County, you can't do this; you cannot issue that 9 warrant for me"? Nobody's said a word, so nothing's been 10 challenged there. So, if I can get somebody to sign some 11 orders so we can go after it, we'll try it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any idea of how 13 long they've been issuing those warrants and how many 14 warrants have actually been issued under that scenario? 15 MS. UECKER: I don't know how long -- I mean 16 how many warrants have been issued. I do know that this has 17 been going on about a year, because -- and they did this 18 based on some presentations that Russ has done at different 19 conferences and seminars. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, what about the 21 effort of actually getting legislation to change and 22 clarify? 23 MS. UECKER: We're still working on that. 24 The reason -- I have had a lengthy conversation with 25 Representative Keel, who filed the bill for us last time. 5-10-04 55 1 He did not even request a hearing for it, but -- and I've 2 talked to him since then, and I think he understands the 3 problem now. I sat down with him one-on-one, and he 4 actually did not understand, I don't think, what we were 5 trying to do. Plus the fact that that was not high on their 6 priority list. Redistricting was. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. He's a former 8 sheriff? 9 MS. UECKER: He's a former sheriff, and he's 10 also a former prosecuting attorney, I think. So, maybe my 11 choice of sponsors was wrong, and we're going to look at 12 that too. However, he did say that, you know, he would 13 probably be willing to carry it again, and I said, "Well, 14 you know, are we going to be able to get some hearings on 15 it, at least?" And he just wasn't interested in it last 16 year. But, yeah, we're -- Brad's going to help me; we're 17 going to get some other collections agencies -- Chad Graff 18 out of Lubbock has been real helpful. They're having the 19 same problems, so he and have I been working -- I think Brad 20 knows him, too. 21 MR. ALFORD: Yes, we've talked. 22 MS. UECKER: Yeah. So, we're still working 23 on trying to get something with a little more teeth. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I've got a 5-10-04 56 1 question for either Brad or Tommy. One of you said that the 2 J.P. collection rate falls to essentially zero after three 3 years. What's -- what causes that? 4 MR. ALFORD: From what we've seen, it's 5 driver's license information. Where the trooper or deputy 6 writes a citation, the information they're using is off that 7 driver's license. Well, that could be as long as 3.9 years 8 old, and they have moved four times since then; may have 9 been remarried, different names. I mean, there's a lot of 10 different workable solution -- problems. But what we're 11 seeing -- that's why we've asked for this 30-day window for 12 some of our programs. By the time the time frame rolls in 13 to us, these people have moved four times. I talked to one 14 gentleman the other day and he asked me how I -- how I found 15 him. Well, it's -- you know, that's not important. The 16 important part is, I did find you. So that's where we're 17 coming in at. We've noticed it in our past history. That's 18 pretty good. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: A lot of our citations are 21 also on people that don't live in Texas. 22 MR. ALFORD: And military. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Military people. 24 MR. ALFORD: A lot of military people. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: They're generally more minor 5-10-04 57 1 offenses and for lesser amounts, and so it takes some sort 2 of time to pay them out. I think that probably factors into 3 that, wouldn't it, Mr. Alford? 4 MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further of Mr. Alford 6 or anyone else in connection with this particular subject? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. -- Commissioner Baldwin, 11 are you ready to -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. We'll return 14 to the fifth item on the agenda, report on First Responders. 15 Commissioner Baldwin. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I've asked 17 Kyle Young from City of Kerrville to come by and give us a 18 report, and he -- you gentlemen remember the First 19 Responders is a program that we support and we drive, and -- 20 and as well as pay for. Kyle, the reason we put times on 21 these deals -- 22 MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir, I apologize. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, not -- don't 24 apologize yet. I may get on you here. 25 MR. YOUNG: Uh-oh. 5-10-04 58 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is for your 2 convenience, not for our convenience in any way. It's 3 for -- mostly for the professional people that we deal with 4 that are -- the emergency folks that we've asked -- asked to 5 come in; it's for your convenience, so you can get in and 6 get out and get back to work. And when you don't show up on 7 time, it throws us off, and it makes me mad. So, I would 8 appreciate it -- if you've had an emergency, I understand 9 that, but I'd appreciate it, from now on, when we set a 10 time, that you come in and be here on time. Thank you. 11 MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much. 13 MR. YOUNG: The First Responder program, I 14 haven't had an opportunity to come speak with y'all since 15 the last E.M.T. class. Out of the last E.M.T. class, we 16 gained seven First Responders after the last E.M.T. class. 17 That was 100 percent of the First Responders that were 18 sponsored by Kerr County in the program. So, all seven 19 passed their E.M.T.'s now, and they're working out in the 20 zones. This equates to one First Responder in Zone 1, which 21 is south Kerr County; two First Responders in Zone 2, which 22 is the Center Point area; two First Responders in Zone 4, 23 which is Ingram; and two First Responders in Zone 5, and 24 that is in the Hunt area. That gives us a total of three in 25 Zone 1, eight in Zone 2, two in Zone 3, five in Zone 4, and 5-10-04 59 1 eight in Zone 5. That is very good coverage. There's two 2 zones in there that we would like to get a few more First 3 Responders in, but overall, I believe our county is very 4 well covered now with First Responders. 5 All of our First Responders, we're working on 6 trying to get them AED's. Several of them have them now. 7 We're a lot better covered since KPUB gave us some AED's; 8 that's working wonderful with us. As far as training, the 9 First Responders have been offered training. We, with 10 Kerrville Fire Department, provide C.E. training every 11 Wednesday, Thursday, and -- every second Wednesday, 12 Thursday, Friday of every month at 1:30. They are invited 13 to any of those. We are also holding another E.M.T. class 14 at this time, which they are allowed to come to any of 15 those. We run those two nights a week. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that part again, 17 about the night? 18 MR. YOUNG: We're having an E.M.T. class 19 right now that they can come on Tuesday and Thursday nights 20 from 6:00 to 10:00 and attend any of those classes as they 21 see fit for continuing education. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's at no cost to them? 24 MR. YOUNG: At no cost to them at all. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, a refresher. They 5-10-04 60 1 audit the course, as it were, but they still get credit on a 2 continuing education basis? 3 MR. YOUNG: Right. They can come one night 4 and get four hours of continuing education credit in 5 whatever subject area that we're teaching that night. We 6 purchased some equipment for the First Responders out of 7 your budget this year. 90 percent of that has been handed 8 out now. The majority, if not all, of the First Responders 9 have appropriate equipment now. We are running a little 10 short on pagers and radios, but they have been able to, 11 through some of the local volunteer fire departments -- 12 those members who are members of those fire departments have 13 been able to use their radios to gain this -- gain 14 information when we have a call. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kyle, could you give 16 us an idea of what kind of equipment that this court is 17 providing? 18 MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. What we're providing 19 is First Responder bags, regulators, suction kits, 20 C-collars, things like that, the major items that are -- are 21 to be used during this. We've also -- due to a shortage in 22 the Kerrville Fire Department, we've had to go with Hill 23 Country Medical and set up a separate account for the First 24 Responders. Those bottles are kept -- the O2 bottles are 25 kept separate from the Kerrville Fire Department bottles, so 5-10-04 61 1 they're able to get those without having to go to actual 2 central station. They can get those at my office. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool. Thank you. 4 MR. YOUNG: Do you have any questions on the 5 First Responder program? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do. Kyle, take me 7 through the steps that it takes to become a First Responder. 8 If somebody indicates an interest today at being a First 9 Responder, what happens between today and the time that 10 they're first eligible to answer a call? 11 MR. YOUNG: They have to attend an E.M.T. 12 class, which is over 500 hours, and a full class that 13 contains classroom and clinical time, which consists of 14 emergency room rotations and also rides on the ambulance 15 with sponsoring agencies. Sid Peterson Hospital is who we 16 had an agreement with during the class that you sponsored, 17 and Kerrville Fire Department is where they responded on the 18 ambulance time. That is all part of the classroom and the 19 E.M.T. class itself. After the E.M.T. class is completed, 20 then they have to apply with Texas Department of Health and 21 take a national registry test at that time. Once they pass 22 that test, then they are eligible to be First Responders. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How long does that 24 take? 25 MR. YOUNG: The testing process depends on 5-10-04 62 1 when they actually are finished with all their clinicals, 2 when they get their application in, and when a test site is 3 available for them to go and test. With the new national 4 registry testing, it sometimes pushes them back a month or 5 two before they can actually test, due to the test load. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, these seven that 7 just became E.M.T.'s within the last year, how long were 8 they in training before they could answer a call? 9 MR. YOUNG: The class started in June and was 10 over in November. And then, at that time, they started 11 getting into Texas Department of Health and taking their 12 test. It ranged from one month after the class to several 13 months before they could get in and get tested. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you sign off on it 15 because of the hours that they take? 16 MR. YOUNG: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And does the medical 18 director here in Kerrville sign off on it as well? 19 MR. YOUNG: No. He -- he's one of the course 20 personnel. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 22 MR. YOUNG: He sponsors the course, 23 basically. We have to have a medical director overseeing 24 each one of the courses. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 5-10-04 63 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kyle, on the numbers for 2 eastern Kerr County, does that include those that are in 3 Comfort or living in Kendall County? 4 MR. YOUNG: No. We have Zone 6, which 5 basically runs from Roane Road on into Comfort. If we have 6 something in that area; we can call and request that the 7 Comfort Volunteer Fire Department assist us in those areas. 8 I know a lot of our Center Point people will respond over 9 past that, anyway, so that's covered both ways, depending on 10 the severity of the incident. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a concern 12 about emergency services in the far west part of the county, 13 Mountain Home, Divide, Y.O. Ranchlands. You were saying we 14 have five E.M.T.'s in Area 4, which is Ingram, and eight in 15 Area 5, which is Hunt. Are any of these people physically 16 located in the far west part of the county? 17 MR. YOUNG: No, sir, I -- there's two that 18 cover the Mountain Home area that are not really active, per 19 se. They're on the rolls, but they're not real active. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And nobody in Y.O. 21 Ranch Estates? 22 MR. YOUNG: No, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Kyle, you mentioned that a 25 number of these E.M. -- these First Responders are also 5-10-04 64 1 members of the volunteer fire departments. What -- what are 2 the percentages of those? Do you have that? 3 MR. YOUNG: Well, we have a lot of them that 4 are also members of the Kerrville Fire Department. In Zone 5 1, we have two members of the fire department -- the 6 Kerrville Fire Department, one member of Turtle Creek. Zone 7 2, we have -- one, two, three -- four that are members of 8 the Kerrville Fire Department, two that are members of the 9 Center Point Volunteer Fire Department. In Zone 3, we have 10 three members that are members of the Kerrville Fire 11 Department. That is all of Zone 3, consists of Kerrville 12 Fire Department employees. In Zone 4, we have two, maybe 13 three that are members of the Ingram Volunteer Fire 14 Department. I'm not sure on the status on the other one. 15 He was associated with the Ingram Volunteer Fire Department, 16 but I've heard lately, within the last couple of weeks, 17 that -- I'm not sure of his status. In Zone 5, three 18 members are members of the Kerrville Fire Department, and I 19 believe five are members of the Hunt Volunteer Fire 20 Department. And, out of those, two members are on the 21 Kerrville Fire Department. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A county of our 23 size, in terms of geographics and population, how do we 24 stack up in terms of total number of First Responders? 25 Should we have more? 5-10-04 65 1 MR. YOUNG: We should have more in some of 2 the zones; Zones 1 and 3 are pretty slim. As far as Zone 2, 3 five is very well covered. Zone 4 could probably use one or 4 two more, but pretty much the ones that are in those zones 5 respond quite frequently. In the E.M.T. class that we have 6 now, we have one Zone 1 First Responder that is going 7 through that class right now, so he should be able to help 8 in Zone 1. Zone 3 is actually the one that we're really 9 most concerned about, and that's 16 North. And, in that 10 area, that -- three of those people, they're all on the fire 11 department, so that coverage is -- is fairly slim. So, a 12 lot of the firemen that live in the city, if they hear that, 13 they respond out to help. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kyle, can you provide 15 us -- not right now, but at your convenience -- a map as to 16 where the zones -- what the zones cover? 17 MR. YOUNG: Yes, we can. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way, we can -- when 19 we talk the about zones, it will be easier, to me, to 20 understand which one's which. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And notation as to coverage in 22 each of the zones. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and number of -- 24 number of -- you know. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Possibly with a break-out of 5-10-04 66 1 how many are members of -- paid firemen with Kerrville Fire 2 Department, other volunteer firefighters, and those in other 3 status. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be helpful. 5 MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir, sure can. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Are there any critical needs 7 right now for our county First Responders? 8 MR. YOUNG: The -- the thing right now that's 9 -- that's the most critical -- and we did purchase some 10 radios a while back -- is coming up with a better 11 communications system for the First Responders, be it an 12 alphanumeric paging system, where they can get a page and it 13 can -- they can just look at it. Because the way it is now, 14 they hear the First Responder page and they have to wait 15 until the dispatcher gives the information out to know which 16 zone it is in. So, you've got people in five or six zones 17 getting up, waiting to find out what zone it's in. By the 18 time they hear it, then they -- if it's not their zone, then 19 they have to go back to sleep, where if they had basically 20 an alphanumeric pager, they could pick up their pager, look 21 at it, and if it's not their zone, they could go on back to 22 bed. And that's probably the biggest thing that they have 23 come to me about, because just doing the radio 24 communications in the pagers, sometimes, you know, that type 25 of communication is fair at best. So, I think that's 5-10-04 67 1 probably the most critical thing right now. The 2 communication between the First Responders on scene and the 3 ambulance with the radios has -- has helped in that aspect, 4 but actually, the notification process is -- is a little 5 weak, because they're not going to keep their radios on all 6 night and listening to all the traffic on that channel. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can sit down later 8 and work through that; you can kind of brief me on that, how 9 that works and what -- what it would take to remedy that 10 problem, and -- 11 MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we'll go from 13 there. 14 MR. YOUNG: One last item that I would like 15 to visit with you about the First Responder program. As of 16 Friday, I have tendered my resignation with the Kerrville 17 Fire Department. I'm in my last two weeks with them, so I'm 18 not sure right now exactly what they're going to be doing in 19 the interim. That is yet to be decided here within the next 20 two weeks. So -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where are you going? 22 MR. YOUNG: Temple, to Scott and White 23 Hospital. I'll be a shift commander on their -- their EMS 24 program. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic. Good for 5-10-04 68 1 you. 2 MR. YOUNG: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a loss for us, 4 but good for you. 5 MR. YOUNG: I'm really looking forward to it. 6 It's a big step up for me. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, my butt-chewing 8 was all for nothing. 9 MR. YOUNG: All for naught. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dad-gummit. 11 (Laughter.) 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just rolled off his 13 back. 14 MR. YOUNG: I just wanted -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, with that, then, 16 I'd like to thank you, 'cause I think you have taken First 17 Responders further than it has since I've been a 18 commissioner, the whole time, than any other person in your 19 position. I appreciate you -- 20 MR. YOUNG: I appreciate that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- getting it through, 22 and what you've done. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much, 25 Kyle. Appreciate it. 5-10-04 69 1 MR. YOUNG: I'll get these reports to you 2 before I leave. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate this report and 4 your service. Thank you very much. 5 MR. YOUNG: You bet. Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good luck in central 7 Texas. 8 MR. YOUNG: Thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Now that Commissioner Baldwin 10 feels better, at least -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, that made me 12 feel bad. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Kathy? 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've had occasion to 16 be on the scene of accidents three times out in Kerr County 17 where the First Responders -- with the First Responders, and 18 we get a lot of value for what they do. I think our money is 19 well-spent on this program. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, absolutely. 21 Absolutely. It's just -- you know, it seems like I've been 22 communicating a little bit with the folks out at Tierra 23 Linda, which are in another county, of course, but we 24 participate with them the in some ways, and they get so -- 25 their little community out there gets so active and involved 5-10-04 70 1 in everything, it would be kind of neat to see if we could 2 get the Y.O. people to kind of get involved and maybe get a 3 First Responder or two out there. You know, get them 4 trained, certified, and I think that would be neat. That 5 may be some answers to our -- to your questions. Thank you. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything 7 further on that particular agenda item? Let's see if we can 8 go ahead before our break and take care of Item 7, the 9 report of 911 activities. Commissioner Baldwin? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, thank you. 11 Mr. Amerine, I have a time on here of 9:50, and its only 12 10:30. What are you doing here so early? 13 MR. AMERINE: I know. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill has assured me 15 that it'll be short and sweet and to the point, so you have 16 to listen real quick. 17 MR. AMERINE: Commissioners, Judge Tinley, 18 thank you for having me back. I'd like to start off by 19 saying that the address project in 2003 is complete, and we 20 can say that officially now that all the procedures and 21 plans have been executed. The results weren't 100 percent, 22 but we didn't anticipate that they would be. You can see in 23 these first numbers on this status list that out of 50,822 24 phone lines that we cover in the 911 system, that there's 25 only 4,500 remaining that we still don't have addresses for. 5-10-04 71 1 So, the addressing project is complete. Addressing is not, 2 and we're officially in a maintenance mode. And I know 3 that's a term that Commissioner Baldwin likes a lot, 4 "maintenance," but that's officially where we're at right 5 now, is in a maintenance mode. But when you look at it in 6 context of where we were a year ago, we had about 49,000 7 phone lines in our 911 system, but only 32,000 had 8 addresses, so we've made a significant leap in the number of 9 addressable phone numbers that are in the 911 system. They 10 give us something to respond to when folks call 911, so I 11 think, in that context, the addressing project of 2003 was a 12 good success. 13 So, what are we doing in post-address project 14 days? What are we doing today to continue this process? 15 There's an acronym I'm going to give you here called MSAG, 16 which is something the phone companies use to assure 17 standardization of addressing as folks come in and establish 18 phone service. We've provided the initial copy of the -- 19 the MSAG, which stands for Master of Standardized Address 20 Guide, we've put -- provided the initial copy of that to 21 both Hill Country Telephone and Kerrville Telephone Company. 22 Essentially, what the MSAG is, it contains all the 23 approved -- and this is something that we worked with Road 24 and Bridge, the City of Kerrville, City of Ingram -- all the 25 approved road names that's private and publicly maintained. 5-10-04 72 1 The second part of that, which we haven't 2 completed yet, is we'll provide a list of all the legitimate 3 house number ranges on each of those streets, so someone 4 can't come in and say, "I'm at 3500 Upper Turtle Creek," 5 when there is no such number on that street. The final 6 thing is something called emergency service number, and 7 that's part of our 911 system, so that when someone dials 8 9-1-1 and their phone number and address displays, it also 9 provides a list of all their responding services, which 10 volunteer fire department, which First Responders, what law 11 enforcement agency responds. Now, Kerrville Police 12 Department has already put that cross-reference list 13 together. We simply have to add it to the MSAG and assign 14 it an ESN number so that when someone dials 9-1-1, this 15 information will automatically display. Right now, the 16 dispatchers have to look that information up based on the 17 address, so it's somewhat of a labor-intensive process. The 18 whole MSAG process should be complete by the end of this 19 year. 20 Mobile home parks. I think I told the Court 21 when I was here a couple of visits ago that, because of the 22 complexity of addressing mobile homes, the fact that a lot 23 of them are not truly incorporated mobile homes or managed; 24 truly, they're just a, you know, 50-by 50-foot lot with five 25 homes on it, that that was a challenging effort, and that we 5-10-04 73 1 have completed addressing those in this year, 'cause we 2 forestalled doing them last year. We've completed 22 of 32. 3 The ones that remain are quite small, but we can complete 4 all 32 of those in the county before the end of this year. 5 How are we going to respond to these 6 remaining 4,500 phone numbers we have in our 911 system with 7 that address? We've set up a plan -- this is the 8 maintenance plan -- to directly call these folks from our 9 office and have them come into our office, make them 10 understand that their public safety depends on them getting 11 a physical address so that we can respond to them in an 12 emergency. The plan has been laid out, and we're going to 13 actually start executing that today, as soon as we have a 14 script approved on what we're going to say to these folks 15 when we call them. 16 Sign sales. As Commissioner Nicholson said, 17 one of the things that we're doing to try to be proactive at 18 911 is, we're going out to the community volunteer fire 19 departments on weekends, making ourselves and our machines 20 and materials available to folks so they don't have to drive 21 to Kerrville during the work day, when it's difficult for 22 some folks, because of their professions, to get these 23 signs. I also have heard good feedback from the various 24 First Responders, volunteer fire departments, law 25 enforcement, that they're giving a ration to folks that they 5-10-04 74 1 respond to that they had difficulty finding when they don't 2 see a sign on their property, and I appreciate that. 3 There's nothing they can do to fine them or cite them on 4 that, but they are letting them know that they're putting 5 themselves at risk when they don't see a sign. Sign sales 6 is brisk. It's not as -- as -- to give you some idea, we 7 probably should have something on the order in the county of 8 14,000 signs. We probably have about 4,000 at this point, 9 so we have a long ways to go. We'll continue to sell signs 10 as long as we need to. 11 So, with that being all the address update, 12 very briefly, I'd like to tell you what we're doing, what's 13 the big initiative for 2004. We have seven-year-old 14 equipment at the PSAP. That's two years beyond 15 obsolescence. I mean, I'm over there kicking, you know, 16 caressing, doing whatever I have to do with that equipment 17 practically two to three times a week to keep it running. 18 We're currently in negotiation or prenegotiation with 19 several vendors to replace the equipment. We had a vendor 20 presentation from three of those vendors last week. We hope 21 to have Request for Proposals responded to before the end of 22 the third quarter and have a contract before the end of the 23 year to replace that. One of the things that we're going to 24 do for the County specifically is, right now at the 25 Sheriff's Office, all they have is a modem and a printer for 5-10-04 75 1 a 911 call transfer, and in my talks with Rusty and his 2 dispatch supervisor, that's wholly inadequate. There's no 3 way they can keep a history of calls that come to the 4 Sheriff's Office. They can't keep a history of the kind of 5 medical conditions that that person may have so that when 6 they call back, it comes up and you don't have to keep 7 asking the same questions. So, we're going to buy for the 8 Sheriff's Office a full-up 911 workstation, so when there's 9 a data transfer, not only will you get a call transfer and a 10 modem printout of what the addressing information is, but 11 you'll have the ability to do two-way communications with 12 the 911 PSAP to be able to update information that's vital 13 to future calls. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back on the PSAP 15 equipment that you have some bids in, how far are you -- are 16 you going -- I mean, how much -- like, I've always wondered 17 about this. You know, how much -- when a call comes in, how 18 much information pops up on the screen? 19 MR. AMERINE: Today? You want to know today? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, today's, and 21 then what will you go to? I know there's room to grow. 22 MR. AMERINE: Yeah, there's a lot of room to 23 grow. Right now, we have the ability to store a phone 24 number, a physical address, and a name. That's essentially 25 it. With the equipment that we are proposing to buy, we'll 5-10-04 76 1 be able to do the same -- there's ALI information, the 2 address location information. We'll be able to store Phase 3 II wireless latitudes and longitudes, the location of where 4 a cell call is coming from. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super. 6 MR. AMERINE: We'll be able to store call 7 history, which does not currently -- we store today, but 8 does not currently display for the dispatcher. And we'll 9 also be sable to store what they call a sub-ALI subject, 10 maybe some specific directions other than a physical address 11 that would assist a responder in locating that person. 12 Maybe there's medical history; for instance, diabetic or on 13 a respirator, all these kind of things that would be 14 beneficial to a First Responder. There's also -- one of the 15 things we're looking at, if we can afford it in this year, 16 is something called mapped ALI, where, when the 911 call 17 comes in, besides getting a textural screen display of 18 address and all this other information, you also have one of 19 the maps that we can produce from all the GIS layers that 20 are available right now, road file, the aerial overheads and 21 the survey property data; actually be able to put an icon -- 22 flashing icon on where the call came from, so you have a 23 visual indication of where the call's coming from as well. 24 And this is -- most of the other large counties, like Harris 25 County, which is filthy rich compared to Kerr County, 5-10-04 77 1 they've had that for some time. It's a great help to 2 dispatch. So, those are the sorts of things, Commissioner 3 Baldwin, we hope to go to. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. 5 MR. AMERINE: Estimated cost could be 6 anywhere from $50,000 to $125,000, which we're funded for at 7 911. We've had money set aside for a couple years to do 8 that. As soon as we spend that money, depending on how much 9 we spend, we'll be in a -- a passbook savings mode again for 10 the next five years, when this equipment's obsolete; we'll 11 have to buy it again. So, we'll know better when the 12 proposals come back on what the cost will be. And, as it 13 states here, three positions at Kerrville Police Department, 14 one full station at the S.O., and we estimate the completion 15 of that installation, like I said, the end of this year, 16 first part of next year. Any questions? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's generated the 18 need for four more positions? 19 MR. AMERINE: Excuse me? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What has generated 21 the need for four more positions? 22 MR. AMERINE: These aren't four more. These 23 are replacing equipment at the three positions that already 24 exist at Kerrville Police Department, and adding one new one 25 at the S.O., 'cause there really isn't a responder position 5-10-04 78 1 at the Sheriff's Office, like I said. It's just a modem and 2 a printer. Yes, sir? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill -- how did you know 4 I had a question? 5 MR. AMERINE: 'Cause you ... (Laughter.) 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two questions. One, I've 7 had several people tell me recently that they're unsure what 8 their address is. They have it in their subdivision, but 9 they don't have a number. Do I just tell them to call you? 10 Is that the best way for them to verify -- 11 MR. AMERINE: They should not dial 9-1-1 to 12 find out what address is being displayed. We actually have 13 had people do that. The dispatchers explain that that's 911 14 abuse. Actually, calling our administrative line, we have 15 the ability to tell them what the address is in the PSAP for 16 them. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the other part 18 of the question, you just think, over time, you're going to 19 get people to start putting more signs up? 20 MR. AMERINE: I think the issue -- as you see 21 more signs out, people will go, "Gee, I need one too." 22 We've actually had people say that. You know, they said the 23 neighbor on either side of them had a sign up; maybe I ought 24 to get in and get one. So, I think it will actually 25 accelerate the process as we see more and more signs. 5-10-04 79 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you got thoughts of 2 doing any -- talking to the phone company about having them 3 do some sort of an insert, you know, basically at no cost to 4 us, other than printing costs, of just, you know -- 5 MR. AMERINE: I've talked to them about that 6 several times. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Several times? Okay. 8 MR. AMERINE: Yeah. It's -- it's -- I have 9 not been successful in getting any kind of -- anything, even 10 when we were back in the formal addressing project, getting 11 them to -- hey, gee, you know, you've received at least one 12 or two notices from the County. You've received a couple 13 from the Post Office. You've seen several articles in the 14 paper. Just wanted something in the bills from the two 15 phone companies to say, "If you haven't responded, you need 16 to." And neither phone company -- and I understand why; 17 there are legal and liability reasons why they wouldn't put 18 anything in there. Their responsibility, when it comes to 19 911, is collecting an address and pushing it to me, and 20 that's the extent of their legal liability. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that, but it 22 seems like they put other advertisements and stuff in phone 23 bulls. I don't know why they couldn't do this, too. But, 24 okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill, under 4a -- 5-10-04 80 1 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- which it talks 3 about the City of Kerrville's addressing. 4 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're not directly 6 involved in it, but do they have someone on their staff 7 committed to -- to working on that and coordinating with you 8 or what? 9 MR. AMERINE: They're supposed to, yes, sir. 10 They still have several addressing issues that need to be 11 addressed. Main, Broadway, Memorial are -- still have 12 distinct names. That has not been addressed yet. That 13 should all be Main, all the way out to what the County and 14 the City decided upon where the point of demarcation should 15 be. But, for whatever reason, there hasn't been any 16 activity in addressing in the city that I'm aware of. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you don't -- 18 there's not going to be a problem? The numbers running out 19 Harper Road and then, when it gets to the county line -- 20 city limit line, the number picking up and -- 21 MR. AMERINE: No. When they get around to 22 it -- and I do believe, in speaking to the City Manager, 23 that they will -- there won't be any issues with the 24 continuity of addressing from the city to the county. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Bill, your new PSAP equipment 5-10-04 81 1 will be Phase II compatible in all respects? 2 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Long/lat and so forth? Any 4 update on any funding assistance on any of that? I know 5 that has been kicked around for some time from federal 6 sources, for example, I know. 7 MR. AMERINE: Well, we've already committed 8 -- already spent just under $10,000 getting -- getting what 9 they call the final leg tandem, which will collect all the 10 wireless information and bring it down through the long/lat 11 tandem in San Antonio to us. We've already paid for that in 12 a five-year contract. The City of Kerrville -- I'm sorry, 13 Kerrville Telephone, you might have noticed in recent 14 papers, has already started contract negotiations, if they 15 already haven't been set, with the intermediate provider of 16 that information. Intrado is the service agency that will 17 collect and database the wireless information, so, in turn, 18 will have to contract with Kerrville to do that. The only 19 thing that remains is for us to ask the two major providers, 20 through the F.C.C., to actually start pushing Phase II data 21 to us. We haven't done that yet. We won't till we get our 22 new equipment, so really, it's just a formality at this 23 point to file the F.C.C. paperwork to request Phase II data 24 once we have our equipment in place. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you see any financial 5-10-04 82 1 obligation in that regard? 2 MR. AMERINE: There'll be service charges 3 we'll have to pay, either indirectly or through Kerrville 4 Telephone, to pay for the Intrado databasing service. 5 There's also cost recovery. Interestingly enough, the 6 State, through CSEC, has basically thumbed their nose at the 7 wireless carriers and said, "Take it from your customers; 8 were not giving you a cent for cost recovery." That's to 9 pay for all the switches and routers that are required to 10 download that information to the PSAP's. The districts -- 11 independent districts of the state of Texas have, under the 12 leadership of Laverne Hogan -- some of you may have known 13 her; she passed just in the last two weeks. She was the 14 first and the only Executive Director for Harris County. 15 Under her leadership in cost recovery, we've been 16 negotiating what that cost would be to pay the wireless 17 companies in five-year contracts. But, to answer your 18 question, we haven't started any grant process to pay for 19 that, because it's a reoccurring cost. I mean, I'd have to 20 be going after a grant every five years, essentially. We're 21 a small district. We -- we have under 50 -- 50,000-plus 22 phone lines, and the cost to us will be affordable, even 23 within the service charges we currently collect from our 24 customers. I think that actually answers your question in 25 kind of a roundabout way. I'm sorry. 5-10-04 83 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're used to it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for Mr. Amerine? 3 Yes, Sheriff? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing I'd like to 5 mention. During this time, as Bill stated also, it's 6 becoming a very serious problem for us to find locations. 7 Because now we're kind of in the interim where some people 8 have their new sign out; there are other people who don't 9 have a sign at all. The block numbers are totally 10 different, and it hasn't been unusual at all to pass up a 11 residence by over 3 miles trying to find it on one road. 12 You know, Upper Turtle Creek is extremely serious. And what 13 I'd like to encourage is people seriously need to get out 14 and buy the signs and post the signs, 'cause that's causing 15 us some major problems right now locating people. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that point, I think on 17 some of the longer roads, you know, those that are 5, 6, 18 7 miles, it may be helpful if members of the Court or 19 Commissioners, you know, contact a few people. If you have 20 a few reference points, anyway, it helps a lot. I mean, you 21 know, to get -- 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it does, but you 23 have a reference point with the new address which is, you 24 know, as many as 10 blocks different than the address this 25 person is still wanting to use, or still says they have, and 5-10-04 84 1 their place isn't marked, and it really causes us some 2 problems. We just need to do anything we can to get people 3 to go ahead and get the signs and post them, because 4 that's -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Once the Post Office 6 quits delivering mail, they'll probably change their 7 address. 8 MR. AMERINE: Well, when we -- when we 9 receive the 911 call -- and, by the way, all these new 10 addresses are in the PSAP, whether people are using them or 11 posting them or not. When they dial 9-1-1, their new 12 physical address is displayed. Now, as a matter of 13 procedure, the dispatcher always asks, "What address do you 14 have displayed?" so that the Sheriff's Office and others 15 will be able to find them. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We do that, but a lot of 17 them are ones that aren't dialing 9-1-1; they're dialing the 18 agencies directly or something, and they're giving them 19 their old address, and it takes forever to find it when 20 you're -- 21 MR. AMERINE: When that occasion occurs, when 22 there is a discrepancy between the PSAP and our -- what's 23 displayed, we are working those case-by-case to try to get 24 those resolved. Anything else? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to make 5-10-04 85 1 one point, that you had mentioned earlier not to call 911 to 2 find out what your address is, but call your office. It's 3 792-5911. 4 MR. AMERINE: That's correct. 8:00 to 5:00, 5 Monday through Friday. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, this is exciting. 7 MR. AMERINE: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Government at work. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We'll stand in 10 recess until 11:00. 11 (Recess taken from 10:50 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, it's a bit after 11 a.m. 14 Let's come back to order. The next item on the agenda is 15 Item Number 10, review, discuss, and consider approval of 16 2004 Employee Benefit Administrative Service Agreement. I 17 placed this on the agenda. If the Court will recall, I 18 believe it was the first meeting in April, I mentioned that 19 the agreement had been presented and that I had some 20 concerns about it. The request of the Court at that time 21 was that we put it back on the agenda, and for me to pass 22 along my concern to the County Attorney, which I did. And 23 my -- when I originally got that document, I requested our 24 personnel benefits officer to confirm that, in fact, the -- 25 the administrative services agreement conformed to the bid 5-10-04 86 1 and the award that was made back in December. The only 2 confirmation that I received was with respect to the 3 monetary items. But, in order that the Court might be 4 aware, or possibly be reminded what the concerns that I had 5 and that I confirmed to the County Attorney were, I'm not 6 able to verify that the annual plan document fee that's 7 called for in the administrative services agreement was, in 8 fact, part of the bid or the award. There's some other 9 monetary obligations. 10 Now, in the whole scheme of things of the 11 over one and a half million dollars that we budget for 12 employee health care benefits, it's not that much money, but 13 it's about $3,000, and $3,000 is $3,000. The other concern 14 that I had was that the term of the agreement, on its face, 15 says that it is a three-year agreement. The bid and the 16 award, as far as I'm able to determine, is for one year. 17 Actually, for us to be able -- I don't -- I don't think this 18 Court has the ability to enter into a three-year financial 19 obligation, save and except there be some sort of 20 certificate of obligation, bonded indebtedness, or some 21 other approved long-term approval of debt. So, I think 22 we're prohibited in that respect. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that, 24 Judge. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The other thing is, I -- 5-10-04 87 1 the -- the bid did provide for a three-year guarantee on 2 third-party administrative fees, and those being locked in, 3 so in that context, we should have a one-year agreement. 4 And -- but with the option in the county to elect to extend 5 that agreement for an additional two years, with those 6 third-party administrative fees that were properly bid and 7 properly accepted locked in at the existing rate. The other 8 concern I had was the -- the termination clause of that 9 agreement provided that -- here, again, it referenced it as 10 to a three-year agreement and said that we could only 11 terminate within a 30-day window immediately prior to the 12 anniversary date. I believe that we should have the option 13 to terminate virtually any agreement, if we feel like 14 there's just cause, upon 30 days notice at any time. There 15 was at least one other provision that was in the agreement, 16 as tendered, that was not in a -- the tabulation of what the 17 bids and the awards were, so far as I've been able to 18 determine. There was a mandatory mediation provision. 19 Certainly, as a -- as an alternative, we like to keep 20 mediation available, and it is. Mediation is always 21 available. But to have that required as to any dispute, I 22 think, of course, maybe precludes us having some options 23 that we would otherwise have. 24 I would have hoped that someone from E.B.A. 25 would have been here today to respond to these questions and 5-10-04 88 1 concerns. I don't see anybody from E.B.A., and no one has 2 indicated to me that there is anybody here from E.B.A. I 3 did note that there was delivered to each of us this morning 4 an e-mail, which came to the personnel benefits officer, our 5 Treasurer, indicating that -- that at least Mr. Rothwell 6 would not be here today. I wasn't certain about -- 7 certainly, they have other principals in that outfit down 8 there, or other representatives that could have been here 9 today, and I'm a little disappointed that they're not. 10 Mr. Motley, do you have any other items that you're 11 concerned about in connection with this agreement? 12 MR. MOTLEY: You're talking about just on the 13 application for the administrative service agreement? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, the administrative 15 services agreement of the third-party administrator. That's 16 the only one I'm talking about now. 17 MR. MOTLEY: No, I don't have anything listed 18 out to me. I've never actually received a copy of the -- the 19 bid documents and the matrix that was worked out by Mr. Gray 20 and such that is to compare this to. I've not -- I don't 21 have anything to compare the bid to -- I mean the agreement 22 or the contract with to see how -- how well it complies with 23 what was bid and what was recommended. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aren't those at the 25 County Attorney's -- the County Treasurer's office? 5-10-04 89 1 MR. MOTLEY: They are. I think they are. I 2 believe we've -- I'm not sure. I've requested several 3 documents and haven't gotten them, but I'm not sure if that 4 was one of them or not. 5 MS. NEMEC: Are you talking about the bid 6 package itself? Okay. After the last meeting where this 7 was on the agenda, I was asked to provide the County 8 Attorney's office with the bid package. I went down there 9 and I left that with Wayne -- I'm not sure what his last 10 name is -- and I came back up here and I let the Judge know 11 that that had been delivered to the County Attorney's 12 office. 13 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I haven't looked at it. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You haven't received it? 15 MR. MOTLEY: I haven't looked at it, if I've 16 received it. I'm not aware that I've received it. 17 MS. NEMEC: So I don't have it; that's in 18 their office. 19 MR. MOTLEY: That's fine. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the history 21 of our service agreement relationship in terms of terms in 22 the past? One year, two year, three years in the past, 23 every time it was renewed? 24 MS. NEMEC: Always been a one-year. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 5-10-04 90 1 MS. NEMEC: It's always been a one-year, that 2 I'm aware of. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why, then, was it 4 three in Don Gray's recommendation? According to this memo, 5 Mr. Gray recommended to the Court -- and I'm told it's in 6 the minutes -- recommended that the E.B.A. contract be 7 renewed for three years, with fees fixed for the three-year 8 term. That would have been a departure, then, from our 9 previous terms for service agreements. 10 MS. NEMEC: Normally, we just go with a 11 one-year. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I mean, and I 13 haven't read the minutes, but my memory is, I mean, I don't 14 think it was for a three-year term. I think it's a one-year 15 term. I agree with the Judge -- with what Commissioner 16 Baldwin said; I don't think we can do a three-year term. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm okay with one 18 with an option to renew it at the current rates. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, maybe E.B.A. 20 misunderstood, but I don't think I misunderstood it. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I agree with the 22 Judge; I agree with you. I don't -- we can't do three 23 years. I'm sure we cannot do three years. And -- and I 24 recall Mr. Gray recommending a company; I don't recall him 25 adding three years or anything. But my question is, where 5-10-04 91 1 is the document that corrects all that? Let's put together 2 something that -- that meets our needs, the clause in there 3 that we can get in and get out and all the -- all those 4 things that you listed. Let's draw one up and adopt it and 5 go on with life. We're dragging this thing out again, and 6 we should not be doing that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioner, the 8 problem is, that's a bilateral agreement, and we -- we 9 cannot unilaterally adopt an agreement which binds two 10 sides. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, they don't have 12 to sign it if they don't want to, but I think that instead 13 of us presenting problems, we need to present a solution to 14 this thing. I mean, this -- this has drug on way too long. 15 Way too long. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: My solution would be that -- 17 that the administrative services agreement, with the 18 deletion of the mediation paragraph, with the termination 19 provision providing for Kerr County have the right to 20 terminate that agreement at any time on 30 days prior 21 written notice, that -- that the agreement be for a term of 22 one year, with the option -- and Kerr County to have the 23 option to extend that for two successive one-year periods, 24 independently of each other, and that the -- the third-party 25 administrator fees be frozen at the rates as specified in 5-10-04 92 1 that agreement; and lastly, that any requirement of an 2 annual plan document fee be deleted and eliminated. That, 3 subject to those changes being made, I think it would 4 conform to essentially what we've done in the past with -- 5 with this same third-party administrator. Would it not, 6 Mr. Motley? 7 MR. MOTLEY: I believe it would, Your Honor. 8 It would be similar to what's been done in the past. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question 10 in that right there. Asking them or asking anyone to freeze 11 the fees on subsequent years, is that -- I mean, is that a 12 legal, proper way to do things? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I think they bid it that way. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That's how the three years got 16 in there. They bid it on a freezing of their third-party 17 administrative fees for a period of three years. That's how 18 the three years got in there. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's your 20 understanding, then, that they can do a one with an option 21 to renew at -- at Kerr County's option, to renew at the 22 rates as quoted? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Third party administrative fee 24 rates as quoted, yes. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other question, 5-10-04 93 1 Judge. What problem do you have with the mediation clause? 2 It says, "The parties shall mediate any dispute prior to any 3 litigation being commenced." What problems do you have with 4 that? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The problem I have is, it -- 6 it precludes our options unnecessarily. Certainly, it's not 7 to say that mediation isn't appropriate in -- in whatever 8 context it may arise, but it was not in the prior agreement, 9 as I've been able to determine, the one that -- that we had 10 previously with E.B.A. It was not contained in that 11 agreement. Incidentally, the termination clause as phrased 12 in this agreement was not in the prior agreement, and the 13 annual plan document -- document fee as specified in one of 14 the two options in the presently tendered agreement was not 15 present in the old agreement, either. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of agree with 17 Commissioner Baldwin. I think it's incumbent on us, if we 18 have problems with this agreement, to delineate the problems 19 with E.B.A. in a letter outlining the changes we'd like to 20 see made, and indicate that we're willing to go ahead with 21 those changes agreed to. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- these comments 23 that the Judge is making I think should be made on this 24 document by hand, initial them and send them off. And if 25 they initial them and send them back, they accept them, and 5-10-04 94 1 if they don't, they don't. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay, too. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's quicker, rather than 4 trying to create a new agreement. I mean, I don't know why 5 we wouldn't do it that way. Just line through the pages -- 6 you know, the mediation, the only question -- comment I have 7 as to mediation, you know, I think that we need to be 8 consistent with all our contracts. I don't know if we are 9 or aren't. I think that we need to look at that in all our 10 contracts and delete mediation from all of them if we do, 11 because I know it's my personal experience that it exists in 12 a lot of contracts. And I think that it -- you know, I 13 don't think we should pick and choose the ones that we 14 delete and not delete. I think it's probably a good 15 practice to delete it in all of them. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that -- but 17 there's also value in the mediation clause, and if this 18 particular one were modified to read, "by mutual agreement, 19 shall mediate any dispute prior to any litigation being 20 commenced," to me, that's acceptable. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think I agree. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Got no problem with that. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we -- I agree 24 with Commissioner Baldwin; I think we need to move on. I 25 think that our -- I mean, it's a potential risk to the 5-10-04 95 1 employees by leaving this hanging any longer. And I think 2 that, I mean, from what I'm hearing, there's pretty much 3 agreement on the Court. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got three items 5 here -- maybe I missed one -- that sounded like we're 6 thinking we'd like to change. One is the provision that we 7 can -- either party can terminate the -- the agreement with 8 30 days notice at any time. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that the 11 agreement's for one year, with Kerr County having the right 12 to extend up to two years at the current rates. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Two one-year options to -- to 14 extend the agreement, yes. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And to delete the 16 document fee. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Delete what? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The document fee. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Plan document fee. And either 20 delete or modify the mediation -- or the mediation 21 paragraph. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Annual plan document fee 23 is not -- that's not in our prior years or wasn't in the 24 bid? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The prior contract had a 5-10-04 96 1 clause in there with respect to that; it said printing fees 2 only. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my preference would 4 be to -- we'll be here, I know, this afternoon -- is let our 5 Administrative Assistant make these corrections, and we can 6 vote on an actual document, rather than have it floating out 7 there where there'll be more confusion. I think these are 8 all pretty easy to make. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right by me. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then come back and 11 approve it and move on. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that where we're going, 13 gentlemen? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good to me. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, are you 17 comfortable with those issues? 18 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think the Judge brought 19 up a point that we need to consider, is that, in essence, 20 it's just another offer back to E.B.A. to do business this 21 way. If they choose to sign that, then it will probably -- 22 the ball will be back in their court again. I don't see 23 those -- I don't recall those being in the previous 24 agreement, the previous one, and I -- I don't think -- you 25 know, I mean, if y'all want to do the mediation, I don't see 5-10-04 97 1 anything wrong with that, but the others -- the three-year 2 we can't do, and I think that was an error. I feel like I 3 went back and looked in the minutes, but I'm not -- I don't 4 recall; I've looked at a lot of stuff on this. We can check 5 those minutes while the Administrative Assistant is typing 6 that over the lunch hour, if you check and see what was 7 actually said in that meeting, 'cause I wasn't present. But 8 I think -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean Mr. Gray's 10 recommendation? 11 MR. MOTLEY: Right, three years in duration, 12 or was it just a three-year lock-in on the administrative 13 fees? I think that's what it was. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It might have been 15 the latter. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, it was the latter. 17 MR. MOTLEY: I don't have any problem with it 18 as modified. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's, in my opinion, 20 a good direction to go to. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are you -- anything 22 further on that item, pending returning to it? 23 MR. ELLER: Judge? I submitted a request. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You certainly did, Mr. Eller. 25 I apologize; I was about to overlook you. My apologies, 5-10-04 98 1 sir. Mr. Charlie Eller has submitted a request to speak on 2 this item. And my apologies, again, sir. 3 MR. ELLER: I'm Charlie Eller; I live in 4 Greenwood Forest. This Court continues to amaze me. I'm -- 5 didn't fall off the potato wagon last week. I put in a long 6 career in business, contracts, law and otherwise. But, to 7 me, it is beyond belief that this Court, who authorized the 8 hiring of a litigation attorney who was certain to file a 9 lawsuit to recover taxpayers' funds from a company, and now 10 propose to sign another contract with the same company to 11 perform the same service that the lawsuit alleges was 12 improperly performed. In fact, the lawsuit says breach of 13 contract, negligence, and making false representations. If 14 you hired someone to put a roof on your house and it started 15 leaking while you were talking to them about putting a roof 16 on a house down the street, and filed a lawsuit against 17 them, would you go ahead with the other roof? I don't think 18 so. I urge you to stop this proposed approval, nevermind 19 sending a new one in, and find some way to protect our 20 employees until this matter is resolved. I would love to be 21 the other party's lawyer, who would be able to walk into a 22 courtroom and say, "They must have been happy with me, 23 Judge, because they just renewed my contract." I think it's 24 terrible. And I further urge you not to use executive 25 sessions to hide this and related matters from the public. 5-10-04 99 1 Thank you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Eller. Again, 3 my apologies, sir. Is there anyone else that wanted to be 4 heard on this item? We'll move on, then, to the next item; 5 review, discuss, and consider approval and acceptance of 6 2004 excess loss insurance policy as presented with Employee 7 Benefit Administrators. Here, again, I wish there was 8 somebody from E.B.A. to -- to act as the agent in this. I 9 received the copy of the policy from an E.B.A. 10 representative -- I don't recall whether it was April the 11 29th or April the 30th, but it was one of those days. And, 12 previously, if the Court will recall, I was directed in 13 February -- February the 12th, I believe -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 11th. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to sign an emergency 16 application -- sign an application for stop loss insurance. 17 At that time and previous to that, I had requested from our 18 employee benefit administrator to confirm that the 19 application for stop loss was, in fact, in conformance with 20 the bid and the award, and at that meeting in February, when 21 I was directed to sign the application, it was confirmed 22 twice, as I recall, by the employee benefits officer of -- 23 of Kerr County that it did, in fact, conform. A review of 24 that application and this policy now reveals that apparently 25 it was not in conformity with the bid and award, at least in 5-10-04 100 1 my review. 2 I've got a couple of areas of concern. 3 One -- one of them relate from the -- relates from the 4 insurance regulation standpoint; the other one relates, 5 coming back from our end, on the bidding laws and procedures 6 that are required to be followed by this Court in committing 7 substantial amounts of county money. Essentially, what has 8 happened is -- and discovered after-the-fact, is that the -- 9 the company that -- that the application was made to, and 10 which I was directed to sign at that meeting in February, is 11 a company which is different from the company that was 12 specified in the bid and the award made last December. 13 Secondly, the -- the exposure that the County has on the 14 minimum annual aggregate deductible is greater in the 15 application than it was in the bid, and now the policy has 16 it being greater in the policy than it was in the 17 application, so it's been stepped up twice by a total of 18 about $28,500, round figures; I think it's a little bit more 19 than that. 20 But, that being the case, I've got a number 21 of concerns. Number one, is it proper for a bidder to bid 22 one company, and then obtain the coverage from another 23 company without obtaining some sort of consent or approval 24 from the entity to which the bid was made? I know in the -- 25 in the civil arena, that might be called bait and switch. 5-10-04 101 1 Is it permitted by State Board of Insurance rules? Is it 2 standard practice in the insurance industry, absent a prior 3 explanation and consent of the proposed insured? Is it 4 ethical? On the bidding side, does it comply with the 5 bidding laws and procedures that we're required to follow 6 when that type of activity occurs? Even if it is lawful, is 7 it ethical for this Court to permit this type of activity to 8 occur where there's been specific bids and specific awards? 9 And is it not possible that we're open to exposure from 10 other bidders who bid on this matter, and may have been very 11 close on the mark, of coming in and -- and putting this 12 whole process open to question? There's some things about 13 the policy itself that I have some concerns about. One of 14 them, of course, is, as I've mentioned, the exposure of Kerr 15 County on the minimum aggregate annual deductible is stepped 16 up from the bid to the application, and then again from the 17 application to the policy. I'm aware in the industry that 18 it's possible that that may be, at least in some measure, 19 due to increased participants in the program, but I think we 20 need an explanation of that. 21 And the last question I have, if you'll look 22 in the policy, I believe it's on -- looks like it's 23 Prefac-1, which is about the fourth or fifth page of the 24 policy, maybe. At the bottom, it's noted as Prefac, 25 P-r-e-f-a-c, dash one. There's a -- there's a paragraph 5-10-04 102 1 there titled "Premium Rate and Aggregate Deductible Factor 2 Change." What that says is that the company reserves the 3 right to recalculate the premium rates under the plan for 4 the last two months of the prior policy period -- premium 5 rates and the monthly aggregate factors retroactively for 6 the policy period if there is more than a 10 percent 7 variance between, first, the average monthly paid claim cost 8 per covered employee under the plan for the last two months 9 of the prior policy period, and the average monthly paid 10 claim cost per covered employee under the plan for the first 11 10 months of the prior policy period. 12 What that says to me is that if we experience 13 a catastrophic loss or a spike in -- in claims, that the 14 company has the right to go back and recalculate, number 15 one, our premium retroactively, and we will -- that premium 16 under the policy. Secondly, that they can increase our 17 minimum annual aggregate deductible. I submit that that's a 18 rather significant advantage on their part, and actually, 19 that's why you buy this insurance, is to protect yourself 20 against these catastrophic losses and claim spikes. And 21 what they've done now, by virtue of that clause, they have 22 shifted that loss back to the good citizens of this county. 23 I don't -- I don't know whether that is even a permitted 24 clause under state rules. Certainly, I don't think it was a 25 part of our previous coverage. I'd like someone from E.B.A. 5-10-04 103 1 to explain that. I think it's a significant addition. It 2 wasn't noted by me in the bid submitted by E.B.A. If it was 3 there, I certainly missed it. I don't think we're being 4 offered what we agreed to and what we accepted as part of 5 the bid and the award process. 6 Commissioner Baldwin wants solutions rather 7 than problems. I think a solution to the problem would be 8 that we notify the carrier, number one, if they can supply 9 what they originally bid and was accepted, we can certainly 10 accept that, because that's what we bargained for and that's 11 what we're entitled to. Assuming that this activity is not 12 in violation of State Board of Insurance rules or otherwise 13 not in violation of bidding laws or other laws, I don't 14 think we ought to accept it without certain changes being 15 made, one of them being, certainly, the elimination of that 16 premium adjustment clause. The other would be to lower the 17 minimum annual aggregate deductible to the lowest figure 18 that was submitted in the E.B.A. bid. And I would suggest 19 that an appropriate solution would be for E.B.A., if they're 20 receiving any sort of compensation other than as third-party 21 administrator in placing this bid, be it placement, finder's 22 fee, placement, permission, whatever it may be -- rebate, 23 that that be waived by them and not allowed. Here, again, I 24 would hope that E.B.A. would have somebody here if they were 25 interested in this. 5-10-04 104 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Were they invited 2 here? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that they were. 4 They obviously knew it was here; they sent the e-mail that 5 says I'm not going to be here. I would point out that the 6 e-mail mentions that, gee, I won't be here, and what we've 7 done for you is great. I notice there's no mention in the 8 e-mail of -- of this premium adjustment clause. There is 9 the -- the howling that, gee, if you don't take what we're 10 willing to offer, you may not have coverage. Gee, let me 11 suggest to you that we got coverage. If they give us what 12 we bid -- what they bid and we accepted, that's fine. Until 13 they do that, I suggest we have coverage under their E & O 14 coverage, because they're the ones that are not playing by 15 the rules of the game. Now, if you want us to come to the 16 business about, "Take what we offer; it's our way or the 17 highway," that's up to you. I can't subscribe to it. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have no 19 problem -- I agree with everything you're saying. My 20 problem is, I can't respond or really discuss this, 'cause 21 this is the first time I've seen this. You have had it for 22 a while, have looked at it. I haven't, so I really can't 23 respond to that. If it's not what was bid, they either give 24 us what was bid or we move on. I mean, I -- I agree 25 totally. But, I mean, I think that the -- and I guess my 5-10-04 105 1 concern is that it has taken five months to get to a point 2 that I'm being informed for the first time that the 3 documents don't work, or are not what were bid. And I don't 4 understand where the breakdown is; in our system, I guess, 5 or their system, where the problem is, because I think that 6 this -- I should have been aware of this, or -- you know, 7 sooner. I think the other thing is that the -- we're 8 talking about a -- you know, insurance contracts, and my 9 main experience with those have been with my personal ones, 10 and there are lots of provisions there a lot of times. And 11 I'm not -- in business, those things are recalculated all 12 the time, so I don't know if these are -- are or are not 13 proper. I think you have to look at what's customary in the 14 business to a degree, and to do that, I would -- you know, 15 if they can't justify it to this Court's satisfaction, the 16 other option would be possibly to get an insurance expert to 17 explain the contract to us. Because I don't think I'm -- I 18 just -- I'm not an expert in that. That's why we have 19 Professional Services; that's why we contract with people, 20 to give us that expertise. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: As I indicated, Commissioner, 22 I think this thing initially showed up at the very tail end 23 of week before last, and, of course, it went into the -- to 24 the court packages -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5-10-04 106 1 JUDGE TINLEY: -- last week. And, so, there 2 hasn't been a whole lot of time for us to -- any of us to 3 look at this thing. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't being critical 5 of you. My question is as to why we're getting the contract 6 five months into the term of the year. And, you know, it 7 just seems odd to me -- seems that this would be something 8 we would receive sooner during the course of the year. 9 That's my question. What's the -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I asked for it, I know, over a 11 month ago, and have made considerable inquiry about it. 12 Like I say, it's just finally showed up on my doorstep at 13 the very tail end of week before last. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are two or 15 three things, Judge, that I find curious. Somebody can 16 enlighten us, perhaps. If -- if the underwriter's 17 agreement -- and that's what this is, right? Underwriter's 18 insurance policy, or the -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- policy to insure 21 our stop loss. If that -- the terms and conditions of that 22 and the rates are -- and the rate change paragraph that 23 concerns you are in violation of the bidding laws, the 24 County Attorney should be able to advise us on that. Point 25 number one. Secondly, somebody needs to tell us whether 5-10-04 107 1 these things that are contained in this insurance document 2 are permitted by Texas insurance law and are standard in -- 3 I don't know by law, but many contracts which Texas 4 Insurance Commission allows to take place. And, thirdly, 5 this memo from Mr. Rothwell talks about, "I did not change 6 MGU's." What is MGU's, Barbara? 7 MS. NEMEC: It's managing general 8 underwriters. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. "I did not 10 change that," Cobalt in parentheses, which is -- I believe 11 the rates that were quoted originally were from Cobalt as 12 the underwriter. "I did not change that between the 13 proposal and the final premiums. He" -- I don't know who he 14 is -- "was able to get better rates from Monumental." 15 MS. NEMEC: Cobalt was able to get better 16 rates from Monumental. Cobalt -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Monumental is 18 rated A-plus superior, so forth and so on. So, I guess I 19 need a little enlightenment on that, too. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems that -- 21 you know, to me, we need an insurance expert if we're going 22 -- if we have these concerns on this. And I don't know if 23 Mr. Gray provides that type of service, or if there's others 24 around that, you know, could provide that service. I mean, 25 I don't have the answer. I don't know whether these are 5-10-04 108 1 customary items or not; if that's a customary change that's 2 permitted and should be permitted or not. And I think 3 that -- I think the one point -- the only point that I have 4 information on -- I believe it came from the Auditor -- was 5 on the -- the amount difference, and that was, as I 6 understand it, a higher enrollment than was bid. And that 7 came, I believe, through the Auditor; possibly through 8 Barbara. More employees enrolled, and that increased the 9 cost. And that seems -- you know, that would make sense, 10 obviously. The -- it's going to change from month to month 11 as our number of employees changes, so I think that's 12 understandable and makes sense, and it's appropriate. But I 13 think -- on the other point, I think that, you know, we need 14 to look at someone who's an expert on insurance contracts -- 15 and maybe we've already hired one that we can visit with and 16 see if these are customary or not. I think that's the gist 17 of the -- of the question. 18 MS. NEMEC: And the Auditor and I have been 19 asked repeatedly to look at these contracts and to advise 20 the Court if they conform to the bid. I have repeatedly 21 told the Judge that I do not feel comfortable doing that. I 22 am not a professional in this; I am not an attorney, and I 23 don't like doing it. I have never had to do that before for 24 any other court, and I don't know why, all of a sudden, 25 we're getting put with this burden. And I think, next time, 5-10-04 109 1 that these bid packages should stay with the person that we 2 have contracted to look over them, so that when we do get 3 contracts in like this, we can send them to him and let him 4 look to make sure that everything is in order. I don't 5 think that should be our responsibility. We're -- we're not 6 in that profession. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. That's why I 8 said I think that -- I don't think we have the -- the 9 expertise in-house to do that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought Mr. Gray 11 was commissioned by the Court to do just that. 12 MS. NEMEC: He was, but then he turned all 13 those bids back -- he gave them back to me, and I had them 14 in my office. So, then, when he was being called and asked, 15 does -- is -- does this conform to what the bid was? He's 16 saying, well, I don't have the bids any more; I can't tell 17 you. Now, what we should have done right there is send the 18 bids right back to him until all contracts were signed, but 19 that wasn't done. We were just kind of looking at them and 20 trying to figure it out ourselves, and then that's when the 21 Auditor wrote the Court a letter with these statements on 22 it, and that's when this was signed. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 24 MS. NEMEC: So, it's already been signed. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know that. 5-10-04 110 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my view is we 2 need to find -- you know, use Professional Services. If 3 Mr. Gray feels that this is, you know, not within the scope 4 of what he was hired to do originally -- which I would think 5 it would be, but if it isn't, I think we need to, you know, 6 cross that bridge first. And if he's not, find somebody 7 who -- someone else who's able to look at the contract 8 versus the bids, versus the state law. I think it's pretty 9 simple. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is Monumental Life 11 the current underwriter, stop loss? 12 MS. NEMEC: Yes. At this -- yes, it is. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are the current 14 one? 15 MS. NEMEC: They are the current one. It's 16 my understanding that Cobalt has three underwriters that 17 they represent. Monumental is one, Fidelity Life is another 18 one, and thence there's a third one. And it's my 19 understanding, from talking to Mr. Rothwell, that what 20 happened here is -- and this is coming from him -- that once 21 the bid was awarded, there had been some more time that had 22 lapsed through that time, so, therefore, he had another 23 month's claims experience that he submitted to Cobalt. So, 24 what Cobalt did with that was, he went back to his three 25 insurance companies and resubmitted and was able to get a 5-10-04 111 1 lower rate from Monumental, and that's why the contract is 2 with Monumental. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He got a different 4 contract based on three months of experience of 30,000 stop 5 loss -- 6 MS. NEMEC: Based on another months' claims 7 experience at that time. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was -- which was 9 lower than the average upon which it was bid? 10 MS. NEMEC: That's what he told me. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess, to move 13 forward, we should appoint someone to call Mr. Gray and ask 14 him the very questions that we posed a minute ago. I mean, 15 is this part of his contract? Because we feel it is. And, 16 you know, let's get some expertise where we can move 17 forward, 'cause I don't think -- I mean, I don't see how 18 we're going to move forward otherwise. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Mr. Motley and I could 20 engage Mr. Gray. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, I -- 22 that's fine. I mean, I just think that -- I mean, we don't 23 have the expertise in-house, and we need to move forward on 24 this for the benefit of our employees. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand your 5-10-04 112 1 comments, Judge, about your belief that we are legal -- we 2 still legally have stop loss insurance coverage in place. 3 I'm not a lawyer; you may be 150 percent correct, but I am 4 concerned, because we have exposure, and I'd like to have 5 that settled. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Mrs. Nemec, we have been 7 forwarding the regular amounts to the third-party 8 administrator, E.B.A., monthly since December, when the 9 award was made? The routine amounts that we -- 10 MS. NEMEC: What do you mean by "the regular 11 amounts"? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you forward amounts down 13 there for them to, number one, pay claims; number two, pay 14 stop loss premiums; number three, pay third-party 15 administrator fees and expenses. You've been making those 16 payments on a monthly basis, just like you did all through 17 last year? 18 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 MS. NEMEC: When they send me their monthly 21 billing, it's all on there, and we send it. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 MS. NEMEC: We pay off the monthly billing, 24 yes. So they have been accepting premiums, even though the 25 contract hasn't been signed. 5-10-04 113 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the question, I 2 think. 3 MS. NEMEC: Yes, that was the question. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: That was the question. 5 MS. NEMEC: My husband's an attorney, so I 6 kind of can read under your -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And they're not sending you 8 the check back, as has been alleged in another case several 9 months later, with "void" written on it, and the check comes 10 back? 11 MS. NEMEC: Hmm-mm. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: No. Okay, that's good. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can we ask that 14 you give a memo to the Court when you talk to Mr. Gray to 15 let us know what he said, so that if we need to do a special 16 meeting or something, that we can -- I mean, at least keep 17 us up -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- as to what's going on. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Be happy to. We can certainly 21 do that. Be happy to. 22 MR. ELLER: Judge? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Eller, you wanted to 24 weigh-in on this? 25 MR. ELLER: Just a couple of items. 5-10-04 114 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, certainly. 2 MR. ELLER: I bought a lot of insurance in my 3 life, but I never bought it until I read the policy. I 4 guess, why wasn't the policy a part of the bid process? How 5 did you vote on something not even knowing what you were 6 voting on? The other one is, I'd like to compliment our 7 litigation attorney, who's not present, but I think he was 8 very on-the-mark with breach of contract, negligence, and 9 making false representations. I think this is loaded with 10 them. Thank you. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Eller. 12 Sheriff? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just for clarification 14 purposes, Judge, 'cause I know once -- you know, of the 15 200-something employees that the County has, 94 of them work 16 at the Sheriff's Office and jail, and I know the questions 17 that I'm going to get. Real quick, our previous insurance 18 policy technically expired, what, January? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: December 31st of last year, 20 yes. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Are -- is it 22 positive, since a new contract has not been signed, that our 23 employees are totally covered, with at least the same health 24 care benefits that they had last year, that they have now? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Even if -- 5-10-04 115 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because our -- are our 2 employees exposed to where the County would have to pick up 3 the tab if, say, the same thing that started a lot of this 4 litigation part were to happen? That happens with them -- 5 the last one happened within a week, and if we have that 6 kind of loss -- I pray we don't, but are my employees' 7 families or is the County going to pick that up if the 8 E.B.A. comes back and says, "You didn't have a signed 9 contract; we're not honoring anything"? I'm just concerned 10 how I explain to the employees to reassure them that they 11 definitely have health insurance right now. Because if it 12 was expired, does that even do away with the 30-day notice 13 or whatever was written in the prior contract that they have 14 to do? 'Cause there is no contract. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: In response to your question, 16 Sheriff, the only thing certain in this life are death and 17 taxes. So, insofar as being able to tell your employees -- 18 maybe you're planning on scheduling a meeting and having 19 them all in; I don't know -- that you definitely have health 20 insurance, I don't think you can do that. I don't think I 21 can do that. I don't think anybody can do that in any 22 scenario. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One of the benefits this 24 county offers employees is -- is a health insurance package, 25 okay? And I think that the employees have a right to know 5-10-04 116 1 that they definitely do or do not have health insurance 2 right now. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, in response to that 4 question, again, Sheriff, I can not give you absolute 5 assurance. My position is -- is that as long as we have 6 submitted the premiums and they've accepted them, and they 7 bid it and we're willing to accept what they bid and we 8 awarded, if they don't have the policy in place, they have 9 an E & O policy in place that should cover that. I'm not 10 going to play "my way or the highway" with them. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't blame you there, 12 and I'm not -- I don't have any problem with the -- with all 13 the litigation and contract negotiation. Sounds like there 14 were some very valid comments on what the contract has 15 compared to what the bid has. I'm just very concerned at 16 this point, and I know that the employees are probably very 17 concerned at this point, as to whether them, their families, 18 if they have it on their kids or whatever, actually have 19 insurance right now. And that is a major thing for us -- 20 for me, personally. 21 MS. NEMEC: They have insurance. Claims are 22 being paid. I've been getting E.B.A.'s claims that I've 23 submitted, and they're paying them. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have 25 insurance. 5-10-04 117 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All right. I hope so. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through with 4 that one? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know. 6 Does the County Attorney have any -- any comments to make on 7 any of it? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley? 9 MR. MOTLEY: I'll be happy to talk to 10 Mr. Gray, with or without Judge Tinley's participation, and 11 see whether compliance is there between the bid -- the award 12 and the agreement submitted. It may be that Mr. Rothwell 13 would be willing to accept the application with those 14 changes made, and be able to sign off on that in short 15 order. I don't know. But I expect we can get the -- all 16 the bid documents related at least to this bidder from 17 Ms. Nemec and send those with the contract; probably 18 overnight those to Mr. Gray and let him take a look at 19 those, give us a pretty quick opinion on the compliance part 20 of it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they're in your 22 office, from what you said, all the documents. I mean, 23 didn't you -- 24 MS. NEMEC: Yes, they are in the County 25 Attorney's office. 5-10-04 118 1 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm -- I'm trying to say 2 that I think we ought to send them part of what was bid -- 3 you know, the bid package. 4 MS. NEMEC: The bid package is in your 5 office. 6 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 7 MS. NEMEC: I gave it to Wayne. 8 MR. MOTLEY: I'll look for that. It may have 9 been given to Mike instead of me. I think it's incumbent 10 upon us to treat all bidders fairly in this process, and 11 if -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That's another concern. 13 MR. MOTLEY: -- we selected this bidder, then 14 we need to hold this bidder accountable for what they bid. 15 That would be fair. But if we let this bidder do things 16 that change after the fact and the other bidders are not 17 allowed to do that, I think we could be looking at some 18 trouble from other bidders. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does -- my question is, 20 going back to something Commissioner Williams said, if the 21 change in stop loss carrier was to lower it, your 22 recommendation is that we ignore the savings to the 23 taxpayers and pay the higher amount, because it was what was 24 bid? 25 MR. MOTLEY: I don't know that that was my 5-10-04 119 1 recommendation at all. I -- and I'm not sure that the lower 2 amount of the premium was reflected in the amount that the 3 County would pay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't know. I 5 was just -- 6 MR. MOTLEY: You said there was savings. It 7 may be a savings to them. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 MR. MOTLEY: Maybe they're going to pocket 10 the savings. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- I'm serious. 12 The question, I'm saying, is if the change is to the 13 County's benefit, do we not accept it? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have to 15 examine that question. If we're told that -- that the 16 MGU -- between the proposal and filed premium, he was able 17 to get better rates from Monumental, you know, it's either a 18 true statement or not a true statement. If it is a true 19 statement represented by Mr. Rothwell, then Mr. Letz' 20 question prevails. Is that not in the County's best 21 interests? 22 MR. MOTLEY: I think if the net savings is 23 passed along to the County, that's great. 24 MS. NEMEC: 'Cause the bid had already been 25 awarded at that point. 5-10-04 120 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say again? 2 MS. NEMEC: The bid had already been awarded 3 at that point. At that point that he got the -- the savings 4 from Mutual Life -- he's saying that that's why he went with 5 Mutual Life; that's why Cobalt contracted with Mutual Life 6 instead of Fidelity. The bid had already been awarded to 7 E.B.A. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said Mutual; you 9 mean Monumental? 10 MS. NEMEC: I mean Monumental, yes. Excuse 11 me. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question? 13 MR. PRENDERGAST: This Mr. Gray, I 14 understand -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: You need to identify yourself 16 for the reporter, please. 17 MR. PRENDERGAST: I'm sorry. I'm George 18 Prendergast, just a citizen. This Mr. Gray, I don't know 19 what his background is. I looked at his web page when you 20 guys hired him the last time. I can't determine that he has 21 any special, unique qualifications to make him an insurance 22 adviser, other than he claims so, because he doesn't list 23 any more in his resumé than possibly what I could list in my 24 resumé. He's certainly not an attorney. And the questions, 25 I think, that have been raised are legal issues more than -- 5-10-04 121 1 than just what the coverage is also. I would suggest 2 possibly you hire an attorney who can address the legal 3 issue on the bid and award, and also whether or not the bait 4 and switch is legal or illegal. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you make -- just 6 to answer that question, I think it's a good point. I think 7 the reason I said refer to it Mr. Gray is 'cause we have 8 paid him a sum, and if he's qualified, I -- certainly, if 9 he's not qualified, I would -- I think he's, I mean, an 10 ethical person. He'd say that's not -- that's not what I'm 11 doing for the County. So -- you know, but I think it's a 12 good point. And the comment I made earlier was that, you 13 know, we've just had him so far on this, and we haven't -- 14 in other years, as well. I think it's -- it is his 15 expertise, at least what he says his expertise is. I 16 presume it is. If there's someone -- if he's not qualified, 17 then I think we should hire -- find someone that is 18 qualified. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To get the answer. 20 Find a person that can give us the answers. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're still where we 22 were? Okay. Anything further on -- wait a minute. Come 23 forward, please. You'll have to give us your name and -- 24 MS. JETTON: I'm Margie Jetton, and I have 25 been in insurance for about almost 20 years. But what I was 5-10-04 122 1 thinking, I think this should be addressed to Texas 2 Department of Insurance. That is something that they can 3 answer, and I think that's who you need to bring in and ask 4 some questions or do some research with. Not just -- 5 because different companies underwrite in different ways, 6 and what may be okay with one company may be completely 7 different with another. But the Texas Department of 8 Insurance is the one that -- that these accusations need to 9 be addressed. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: That is. Thank you, 12 Ms. Jetton. I appreciate that. Are we -- are we through 13 with this one? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Guess so. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on. Next item on 16 the agenda, consider and discuss a report from the manager 17 of Environmental Health containing responses to concerns 18 expressed by those engaged in the business of septic system 19 construction and repair, and outlining responses to those 20 concerns, as well as proposed changes in policies and 21 practices. 22 MR. ARREOLA: Morning. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning, Miguel. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go ahead, Miguel. 5-10-04 123 1 MR. ARREOLA: Morning, sir. You have in your 2 package there the response that we got together for the 3 professionals in the industry. This is in response of a 4 meeting that we had, I think, April 20th at 10 a.m. There's 5 a few questions that they had. It's about three of them. A 6 few has already been worked on, and I'm going to just give 7 you copies of Items 1 and 2 that we're already working on. 8 Those are copies of letters that we sent last week in 9 response to their concerns. A few highlights. It's -- 10 like, Item Number 9, it's already done; it's already 11 finalized. We already took care of that one. Item Number 12 27 is something that we addressed on the budget for next 13 year. And Item 31, it's also being done. I don't know if 14 you have specific questions, you want me to go through each 15 request that they had. Basically, what they're requesting 16 is to improve the way we administer this program, and we're 17 willing to do that. We're willing to change in any way we 18 possibly can, as long as we meet the state rules and protect 19 the environment. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we don't need to 21 go through these, Miguel. I think you did a great job of 22 having a mechanism to get the comments from the installers, 23 and then responding. And you've mailed this out or have it 24 available for them -- 25 MR. ARREOLA: No, it's still -- still in the 5-10-04 124 1 probation area. We're going to make sure that that's what 2 we, as a department, and you, as the Court, is happy with, 3 and we'll send it to them. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm -- you know, 5 I'm very happy with the -- you know, the report. I mean, 6 I'm -- I think you're probably a bit nicer than I am a 7 couple times through the report. The one that caught my eye 8 was about trusting installers. I trust them with 9 verification. But I think that -- I mean, I think you're on 10 the right step. I think this is the feedback, and going 11 back and forth with installers, I think, will go a long 12 ways. I think you're -- you know, we have to verify the 13 systems are in properly, and we have to be consistent and we 14 have to follow state law. I think it's very -- it's very 15 simple. I think you show a great deal of willingness to -- 16 to work with procedure and timing and all that, that you can 17 within the budget that we've given you to work with. I 18 mean, if we threw a bunch of money down your way, you can 19 make some of these things -- make them a lot happier, but 20 that's not going to happen, I don't think, so there's going 21 to be some scheduling difficulties and things of that 22 nature. So, I think it's -- I commend you for it. 23 MR. ARREOLA: Overall, the response at the 24 beginning were, they're happy with the way we're running it 25 there. They have a few concerns, but overall, they're 5-10-04 125 1 pretty happy with the way we're doing things -- the work. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the key that's 3 demonstrated here is, number one, the willingness to 4 communicate, and number two, the communication. 5 MR. ARREOLA: Correct. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Because that's the only way 7 you're going to find solutions to these concerns that they 8 have. And -- and I -- I want to commend you -- and I know 9 Commissioner Nicholson had a hand in it, his efforts -- 10 for -- for getting this whole communications process going 11 and -- and brainstorming and addressing these areas of 12 concern. I think it's a good thing, and just keep on 13 keeping on, far as I'm concerned. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were all the major 15 installers present? 16 MR. ARREOLA: The majors, yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of them were? 18 MR. ARREOLA: The main or top, yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I commend you 20 for your great restraint, and your ability to respond in a 21 manner that is super. I think you did a great job. 22 MR. ARREOLA: Great. Thank you, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And your courage 24 also. You're going to send this to the installers? 25 MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. 5-10-04 126 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Talking about his 2 courage, we just went from insurance and lawyers to septic 3 tanks. We're the ones with courage. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Direction is right. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a message 6 there? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He just did it. He 8 said the direction is right. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you, Miguel. 10 MR. ARREOLA: Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move on to the 13 next item. I assume no formal action is needed there. 14 Consider and discuss a Commissioners Court resolution 15 seeking assistance from the Texas Department of 16 Transportation to improve the safety of the intersection of 17 Rachel Lane and Texas Highway 27 located 3.8 miles west of 18 the Ingram city limits. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Rachel Lane and 27 20 is the intersection where a woman who lived on Rachel Lane 21 was killed in an automobile accident less than a year ago; I 22 don't remember exactly when. And then I think that we -- I 23 think this was spoken in this court. Another woman who's a 24 resident out there told us that twice she has been stopped 25 for a school bus there and has been rear-ended, one time 5-10-04 127 1 destroying her car, and the other time just an accident with 2 no injuries. It's a very dangerous place. The Road and 3 Bridge Administrator himself has been out there several 4 times. We've been talking with Mr. Coward at TexDOT. There 5 are at least three possible solutions to it. Two of them 6 are quite expensive. It would be to relocate the 7 intersection either to the east or the west, and would mean 8 condemning or acquiring that right-of-way to do that. And 9 then the third one is less expensive and could be 10 accomplished more quickly, and that is to cut down the berm 11 going back about 15 more feet, 'cause there's a rather steep 12 berm there, and the -- cutting it back 15 feet into the berm 13 for something like 400 feet, to give the vehicles -- both 14 vehicles, the one coming from the -- from the east to the 15 west, as well as the one turning onto Highway 27, a few more 16 seconds of line-of-sight capability. The -- it's amazing to 17 me these kind of costs, but the -- the TexDOT engineer says 18 he thinks it'll probably cost about $250,000. I believe 19 he's convinced it needs to be done and he's prepared to do 20 that, and he asked for some indication from this Court that 21 we supported that and that was a priority item for us. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make a motion. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The berm is county 24 right-of-way? 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a state highway 5-10-04 128 1 right-of-way. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I meant 3 state highway. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At the intersection 5 of a county road and state highway. So, I make a motion 6 that we approve the proposed resolution. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 9 approval of the resolution. Any further question or 10 discussion? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question. For the 12 berm being cut, is it the road -- you got to cut the road 13 down? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, it's a -- as you 15 sit there in your vehicle on Rachel Lane, if you want to 16 make a left turn to the east, there's a curve, oh, maybe 100 17 yards from the intersection, and the berm prevents you from 18 seeing through that curve and seeing the vehicle coming. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's the -- it's in 20 the right-of-way, but not on the road itself? 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who would do that 23 work, Commissioner? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: TexDOT. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We or TexDOT, or both 5-10-04 129 1 of us? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now, Mr. Odom 3 indicated a willingness to -- to help him with equipment or 4 something like that, but I'm not sure that's the way TexDOT 5 works. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might visit with 7 Mr. Odom a little bit, and I don't know what equipment -- I 8 mean, it may be one of those things we could do in-kind, 9 some of that for, versus other projects that we're working 10 on with TexDOT around the county. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's made that 12 offer. Yes, I think he could take a berm down pretty 13 quickly. The expensive part would be building the -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Retaining wall. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- retaining wall, 16 and Mr. Odom had some ideas about how costs on that could be 17 reduced. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't happen to have 19 the turn slots at the airport in mind, did you? 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's close. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's possible. Possible. 22 Lots of area that we can try to spend TexDOT dollars. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's for sure. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 25 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 5-10-04 130 1 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. Next 6 item -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next item I put on the 8 agenda, consider and discuss authorizing hiring outside 9 attorney or otherwise to finalize acquisition of 10 right-of-way for Hermann Sons bridge project. I put this on 11 the agenda, and the -- if you want to go into depth about 12 it, I want to do it in executive session, for acquisition of 13 real estate. But the bottom line is that it is taking 14 longer than I had hoped to get this right-of-way acquired. 15 I think we're getting there now, but because of some time 16 issues, I would like authority that, if needed, at my 17 discretion, to spend up to $1,000 out of Flood Control to 18 expedite any or all of the remaining acquisition. 19 (Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.) 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 23 approval of the expenditure of up to $1,000 out of Flood 24 Control budget item for Commissioner Letz to have 25 discretionary authority for expenditure to do what's 5-10-04 131 1 necessary to finalize the acquisition of that right-of-way. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. And I'll be 3 glad, during -- I think we're going to go into executive 4 session later; I can give an update as to what comes of 5 that. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 7 discussion on the item? 8 (Commissioner Baldwin returned to courtroom.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, 10 signify by raising your right hand. 11 (Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.) 12 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was the motion? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: To authorize Commissioner Letz 15 to have discretion to spend up to $1,000. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I vote aye. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. All opposed, same 18 sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Why don't we 21 -- why don't we move -- well, we've still got the Auditor 22 with us. Let's go on over to Section 4 and talk about 23 paying the bills here. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the 25 bills. 5-10-04 132 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 3 payment of the bills. I got a couple questions right quick, 4 Mr. Tomlinson. Or maybe the Sheriff can help me. The -- 5 the Prisoner Medical expense, pharmaceuticals, $4,000? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you feeding 8 those guys? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Lots of dope. It's -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't say that. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't help what the 12 jail physician prescribes, and we get more and more medical 13 conditions in the jail, so, unfortunately, our medical 14 expenses are going up. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe, before you say the 16 magic words, "You're under arrest," you ought to make some 17 medical inquiries. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Are you on any 19 drugs, legal or otherwise?" 20 JUDGE TINLEY: The other question I've got is 21 on Page 7, T.C.E.Q. up at the top, on-site council fees. 22 What's that? Page 7. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Under Environmental Health? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. T.C.E.Q., 25 on-site council fees. Do you happen to recall what that is? 5-10-04 133 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm trying to find it. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to guess. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, okay, I got it. Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: All right. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it's fees 7 that we're required to pay, as reflected by line item on 8 this report. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I can look it up. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Do you have it? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a flow-through fee that 13 we collect? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a budgeted 15 item. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, that's all the 17 questions I got. Anybody else have any other questions or 18 concerns? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I hope that's right. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, 21 signify by raising your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 5-10-04 134 1 amendments. Request Number 1. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for County Court 3 at Law. Judge Brown has requested a transfer of $500 from 4 the Master Court Appointments to Special Court Reporter 5 line. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 9 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any 10 questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 11 signify by raising your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 16 Amendment Request Number 2. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for the jail, as 18 requested by the Sheriff, to transfer $15,946 out of 19 Operating Supplies; $10,000 to Capital Outlay, and $2,946 to 20 Operating Equipment, and $3,000 to training. This is to 21 purchase an inmate tracking module from Software Group. The 22 Sheriff's here if you want to ask any questions about what 23 -- you know, what this does. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: My information is it allows 25 him to have immediate data entry, rather than spend a lot of 5-10-04 135 1 time and personnel expense of manually making those entries. 2 I mean, that's the bottom line, isn't it, Sheriff, for that? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is correct. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Automatic entry. It's a bar 5 code type of entry. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is, why is 9 there so much excess money in Operating Supplies? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because we have been 11 trying -- and, seriously, we've tried very diligently this 12 year to cut down a lot of our operating expenses in the 13 jail. A lot more of the inmate items are coming out of the 14 commissary fund than are usually eligible to, and we're 15 keeping that down. Now, next year's budget proposal, I will 16 be honest, does reflect this decrease in operating, okay, 17 because we -- I don't feel we need it next year, unless 18 something gets exorbitant. What this does is, right now, 19 all welfare checks, any time an inmate goes to -- to 20 recreation yard or we have a lot of them that have welfare 21 charts on their door and all that. We have to manually 22 write all those down and keep a record of it, written record 23 forever. That's part of -- you know, doctor appointments, 24 welfare checks, recreation, commissary, anything -- any 25 inmate movement. What this allows us to do, we are using 5-10-04 136 1 bar cards already and ID bracelets on all the inmates to 2 help us control medication, and this allows us to scan that 3 bar code that's on that ID bracelet, and it automatically 4 puts that information in the computer, and there's no more 5 hand-writing it to document it, which saves us a lot of man 6 hours on the floor, since we don't have those four employees 7 that we worked out last budget year. It just saves us time. 8 Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the first 10 time in a year and a half I've heard those magic words, 11 reducing costs. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- if he hadn't mentioned it 13 himself, I was going to throw it out there, because when he 14 first came to me with this idea and I -- I mentioned the 15 term that I used to him occasionally -- what's that term, 16 Sheriff? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: "Hat in my hand," or 18 what? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: "Hidey-hole." He said, no, he 20 was going to come back with a reduced budget in that area. 21 Because -- 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And it does -- now, 23 you'll see in the budget proposal, it is reduced by even 24 more than that. It's reduced greatly, but the new federal 25 stuff on the Prison Rape Prevention Act has upped it to get 5-10-04 137 1 the digital cameras. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I knew there was a 3 catch. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is a -- what's 5 the increase in training? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, that's a decrease. 7 We're taking that out. We're doing a lot more in-house 8 training. I did a whole 'nother deal. That should be -- 9 part of that fund is coming out of the training budget, 10 swapping those. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks like you're 12 adding $3,000 to the training line here. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, part of the price of 14 software is -- is in-house training. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, this is training 16 toward running this system? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm just classifying the -- 20 the expenditures. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. I appreciate 22 that. I didn't -- I thought training was training jailers 23 to be jailers. I didn't understand that it was related to 24 this new software. That's a good thing, Tommy. Thank you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion? 5-10-04 138 1 MS. PIEPER: No, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move it. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 5 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any further 6 question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising 7 your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 12 Amendment Request 3. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Just a minute, we're having a 14 conference here. 15 (Discussion off the record.) 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There was another 17 portion that was going to be a separate budget amendment 18 coming out of the Sheriff's Office part that evidently is 19 also, the way it's set out here, coming out of the jail 20 part, and what that is, is $4,500 for the crime scene 21 digital imaging part of Software Group, which allows us -- 22 one is -- one of the District Attorneys has been, I guess 23 you'd say, kind enough or progressive enough with our 24 department that we have just been able to order 13 digital 25 cameras for crime scene photographs and things that the 5-10-04 139 1 investigators need and patrol needs. This will save us 2 thousands on 35-millimeter film. In our major crime scenes, 3 we use both, but all our normal ones, you can use digital. 4 And what this $4,500 out of that does is purchase that 5 package and software where those digital images are 6 downloaded directly into the case file of the offense that 7 you're investigating, and not have to be downloaded 8 separately and kept on separate disks. They're actually in 9 the computer under the case file. And, evidently, that's -- 10 MR. TOMLINSON: That's part of this 11 amendment. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Of this 10,000? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's part of that. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I thought you 15 were ordering another one. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: More bang for the buck. Okay? 17 Well, it's approved. Budget Amendment Request 3. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: 3 is for Nondepartmental. My 19 request is to transfer $450 from the Address Coordinator's 20 salary line item to the Independent Audit line item for 21 $450. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any further 5-10-04 140 1 question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising 2 your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any more budget 7 amendments? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: It's coming right there, for 9 the County Clerk's office. County Clerk has requested a 10 transfer of $2,880 from Part-Time Salary to the Deputy 11 Salary line item. Jannett, do you have -- 12 MS. PIEPER: Judge, I have three deputies 13 out, one on vacation and two out on medical leave that will 14 be out for at least six weeks, if not a little more. So, 15 this puts my office in a bad crunch, so I am requesting to 16 move money from the Deputy line item into the Part-Time, and 17 I have a gentleman that has agreed to come in and work 18 part-time for at least six weeks. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you tell the 20 Court who that gentleman is? 21 MS. PIEPER: Jim Bullock. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval of the County Clerk's budget amendment request, 5-10-04 141 1 which I denominated Number 4. Any further question or 2 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 3 hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any 8 more budget amendments? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: No. I have -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: We have any late bills? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: I have one. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: It's payable to Texas 14 RSA-15-B-2 Limited Partnership, and it's for a total of 15 $8,000 for the annual licensing permit for tower sites. We 16 approved the budget amendment last court, and these are the 17 bills. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Give me the name again. Texas 19 RSA -- 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Texas RSA-15-B-2 Limited 21 Partnership. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's it for again? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: For the -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Tower site rental. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: For the annual payment for 5-10-04 142 1 the tower sites for the radio -- for the communications 2 system. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 6 approve payment and authorize issuance of a hand check to 7 Texas RSA-15-B-2 Limited Partnership in the sum of $8,000 in 8 connection with tower site rental. Any further question or 9 discussion? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Current year, or 11 current and past? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Current and past. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Current and past? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Two years involved in this. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 16 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 17 your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any 22 further late bills? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would like to make one 5-10-04 143 1 other comment on the savings, Jonathan, that we had. And I 2 -- what I want to do is -- is thank the Court, because a lot 3 of our savings this year came due to the salary increases 4 and that that the jail staff got. Our turnover rate went 5 pretty well to zero, and which saved us a lot of training 6 expenses, uniforms, all the operating stuff, and I think the 7 Court needs to be thanked for working with us on the 8 salaries last year. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I have before me the Racial 12 Profiling Report from the Sheriff. I don't know that we 13 have accepted this previously. I think, under the law, 14 we're just supposed to accept it. We may have previously 15 accepted it, but I'm not absolutely sure of that. So, I 16 will accept a motion to accept the Sheriff's Racial 17 Profiling Report. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: This is for the year ending 20 12-31-03. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 24 acceptance of the racial profiling report. Any further 25 question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising 5-10-04 144 1 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. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm opposed to the 7 report. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that what we have to do, is 9 propose -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I just said I'm 11 opposed to the report -- to having to do the reports. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I am too. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much did it cost 14 us? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, scads. I've also been 16 presented with the transcripts from the Commissioners Court 17 special session on Monday, October -- or April 5, 2004; 18 special session Wednesday, April 7, 2004; regular session 19 Monday, April 12th, 2004; and special session Monday, 20 April 26th, 2004. Do I hear a motion that those transcripts 21 are approved as submitted? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval. All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 5-10-04 145 1 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. I also 6 have before me the reports submitted by the Sheriff's Office 7 and Constable, Precinct Number 4, and the District Clerk. 8 Do I hear a motion -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 12 approval of those reports as submitted. All in favor, 13 signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We 18 want to defer on the reports from Commissioners until after 19 lunch? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll stand in recess 22 until 1:30. 23 (Recess taken from 12:23 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 24 - - - - - - - - - - 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll come back to 5-10-04 146 1 order. We went into recess some time after noon, subject to 2 coming back to order at 1:30. It's a couple minutes after 3 that now. Very quickly, after a motion was made to accept 4 the reports, the elected officials were handed a report from 5 Constable, Precinct 3, for the month of April '04, and I 6 assume everybody got a copy of that, did they not? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept and 8 approve it. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made for acceptance and 11 approval of the report as submitted. Any question or 12 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 13 your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda 18 appears to be executive session items, so at this time we 19 will close the open meeting -- and it's 1:34, it appears. 20 So, we will close the open meeting and proceed to go into 21 executive or closed session. Looks like we're going to need 22 the members of the Court, the reporter and County Attorney 23 and the litigation attorney. Where's Mr. Motley? There he 24 is, okay. Do you want to change that, David? 25 (Discussion off the record.) 5-10-04 147 1 (The open session was closed at 1:34 p.m., and an Executive Session was held, the 2 transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 JUDGE TINLEY: It is now 2:58, it appears, 5 and we will come back into open session. Is there anything 6 to be offered as a result of the executive or closed 7 session? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I'd like to make a 9 motion -- I'll make a motion that the Commissioners Court 10 has full authority over the E.B.A. litigation, including all 11 decisions and expenditures, and that the point of contact 12 for communication with Mr. Walraven will be the County 13 Attorney. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 16 further questions or discussion? All in favor of the 17 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. If we 22 could, let us go back up to Item 10 on the agenda, the 2004 23 Employee Benefit administrative service agreement, pursuant 24 to the Court's request. I have made some interlineations, 25 alterations, modifications to that agreement, as indicated 5-10-04 148 1 when we were in session earlier. Mr. Motley, do you have 2 any comments you'd like to make with regard to the changes 3 or modifications which I've made? 4 MR. MOTLEY: No, sir, I really don't. I 5 think those are the four areas I believe that you found a 6 difference between what was bid -- awarded, and what's in 7 this document. And I agree that they should be removed, and 8 certain other things should be substituted or added. And 9 it's indicated clearly by the handwritten notes in my copy. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to move 11 that we approve the changes to the administrative service 12 agreement between Kerr County and Employee Benefits -- 13 Employee Benefit Administrators, Inc., authorize the County 14 Judge to sign the same and return it to E.B.A. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 17 question or discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a comment and a 19 question. Looking at Page 6, the section related to 20 mediation was stricken in its entirety. I thought that 21 Commissioner Williams had some alternative language for 22 mediation as opposed to striking it. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did. I had leaving 24 that in and modifying it to say, "The parties, by mutual 25 agreement, shall mediate any dispute prior to any litigation 5-10-04 149 1 being commenced." 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You know, either way. I 3 suppose that it was after your comment, I think, that 4 Commissioner Letz mentioned we need to -- we need to be 5 uniform on our agreements, either in or out, and -- 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Commissioner 7 Williams' suggestion is a good one. If there's not mutual 8 agreement, there's no sense mediating anything. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly right. 10 MR. MOTLEY: May I make a suggestion on the 11 wording on that? After mutual agreement, the parties "may." 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 13 MR. MOTLEY: Rather than "shall." 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, sure. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I amend my motion to 16 include that suggestion on the mediation. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that 18 amendment. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: After mutual agreement -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By mutual agreement, 21 may. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- parties may mediate any 23 dispute prior to any litigation being commenced. Okay. 24 With those changes -- I assume those were acceptable in the 25 motion and second? All right. Any further questions or 5-10-04 150 1 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 2 your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We 7 had another item that was left open with regard to Hermosa, 8 I believe. Is that something we're going to need to maybe 9 take a look at -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody's looking at 11 everybody else. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Tomorrow, Commissioner 13 Nicholson? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to 15 suggest, Judge, that you consider adjourning until 9 o'clock 16 in the morning, and that we take up the -- the agenda item 17 dealing with Mr. Frank Vlasek's subdivision at that time. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Item 4? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Final plat for Hermosa? 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I'm expecting, 22 by that time, that -- that the County Attorney will have an 23 opinion on the letter of credit, and that the issue over the 24 two-year versus five-year -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Will be resolved. 5-10-04 151 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You mean recess? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Recessed. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will not be here 4 tomorrow morning. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I won't either. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Commissioner 7 Baldwin said he would be, and I -- I'll be here, and I think 8 the Judge -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got mental health 10 hearings beginning at 9:00 and a special probate at 11:15. 11 If we could -- or 11:00 -- 11:15. If we can set it about 12 11:30, it would probably work real good for me. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that interfere 14 with your lunch plans, Commissioner? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. We won't be here 16 very long; I don't think. So, 11:30? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I may be able to make it 21 back by 11:30, so if I'm here, I'm here. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that brings us down to 23 information, does it not, gentlemen? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I told y'all 25 about the 240-pound mosquitoes this morning. That's all 5-10-04 152 1 I've got to say. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one modification 3 came out of the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee. 4 Kerr County will be receiving an additional $15,000 for some 5 new communications trailer upgrades. We're getting the 6 trailer. It was 85; they're going to add some upgrades, 7 undefined, for another 15. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all you got? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For now, that's all I 10 got. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Three? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe I have 13 any additional comments or reports, other than the airport 14 this morning. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No comments. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing I have to bring 17 forward is that U.G.R.A. is starting the river cleanup 18 program, and they're wanting us to designate a 19 representative or representatives to represent the county at 20 that meeting. They wanted it to be a collaborative effort. 21 I've had some preliminary discussions with -- with General 22 Manager Greg Etter of the U.G.R.A., and actually, I think we 23 might have managed to get some of our community service 24 workers squeezed into that program to do the actual 25 on-the-ground work, and I think that's going to be a 5-10-04 153 1 material benefit. But that's kind of the direction that -- 2 that I started the county resources going, and -- but he's 3 going to have this meeting, and he wants to have a 4 representative or representatives from the county. So, you 5 gentlemen may want to be thinking about that as to who -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Nicholson will be 7 happy to do that. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I'm the 9 wrong person for that. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're just 11 exactly the right person for it. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Bill's got years of 13 experience. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's corollary to 15 O.S.S.F. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We can leave that as an open 18 item for right now. But I would -- I would mention that 19 they're having a -- having an organizational that they want 20 somebody there on, looks like, the 20th of May, and if 21 someone else doesn't commit to go, I guess that's what I get 22 to do at that time. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Normally, I would agree 25 to commit, but my schedule's going to be a little bit busy 5-10-04 154 1 that -- right around that week. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm awful busy that 3 day. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What date? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: 20th. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm out of town. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got to roll my 9 socks. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: What a deal. What a deal. 11 Okay. Do we have anything else? Hearing nothing else, we 12 will stand in recess until 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, morning, 13 the 11th of May of this year. 14 (Commissioners Court recessed at 3:07 p.m.) 15 - - - - - - - - - - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5-10-04 155 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 14th day of May, 2004. 8 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 11 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5-10-04