1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, July 11, 2005 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 July 11, 2005 2 PAGE --- Visitors' Input 5 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 14 4 1.6 Approval of City of Kerrville EIC's project to provide funding to Hill Country Shooting Center 23 5 1.1 Consider easement across property of Juvenile 6 Detention Facility -- 7 1.2 Discuss soliciting bids for long distance telephone service 29 8 1.3 Seek approval to contract with Public Data.Com 9 for data search capability, hot check collections 40 10 1.7 Consider/discuss granting employee an exception to insurance policy due to late enrollment 42 11 1.8 Discussion and update on Professional Partners 12 in Pooling Workshop 48 13 1.9 Discussion and update on AFLAC billing 55 14 1.10 Consider declaring July 11, 2005 "Sergeant John Stafford Day" in Kerr County 78 15 1.11 Consider $538.38 payment to TCDRS for late reporting 79 16 1.12 Clarify Court Order 29075, take appropriate action 99 17 1.13 Consider/discuss Budget Amendment Request 6 dated 18 September 27, 2004 111 19 1.20 Employee Benefits update by insurance consultant 136 20 1.14 Consider/discuss awarding construction contract(s) to Lupe Rubio Construction, Inc., to provide first- 21 time sewer service for Kerrville South 157 22 1.15 Consider waiving plat review fees for replat of Lots 36, 37 and 38, Southern Hills, Phase Two 160 23 1.16 Consider Preliminary Plat of Heavenly Acres 24 (Revision of unrecorded plat of Harper Valley Ranch) 163 25 3 1 I N D E X (Continued) July 11, 2005 2 PAGE 3 1.17 Consider Revision of Replat of Tract 56, Wood Trails Ranch, Pct. 4 167 4 1.18 Consider Preliminary Plat of Ledge Stone 5 Subdivision, Pct. 2 169 6 1.19 Consider authorizing Sheriff to prepare RFQ to be sent to architects for study on addition to 7 existing county jail 178 8 1.21 Consider/discuss directing Floodplain Administrator to deny permits when there is a violation of Kerr 9 County Subdivision Rules and Regulations 192 10 1.22 Consider/discuss schedule for Budget Workshops 193 11 1.23 Consider/discuss plan for a one-day celebration to commemorate 150th Anniversary of Kerr County in 12 April 2006 204 13 1.4 Approve the appointment of election judges and alternates for the term of one (1) year 209 14 1.5 Consider approval to enter into negotiation 15 contract with Hart Intercivic and/or another vendor for HAVA-certified voting system 210 16 1.24 Reports from the following Departments: 17 Road and Bridge 214 Information Technology 229 18 Facilities and Maintenance 249 Collections 258 19 20 4.1 Pay Bills 260 4.2 Budget Amendments 265 21 4.3 Late Bills 272 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 273 22 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee 23 Assignments 274 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 275 24 --- Adjourned 282 25 --- Reporter's Certificate 283 7-11-05 4 1 On Monday, July 11, 2005, 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: Good morning, ladies and 7 gentlemen. Let me call to order this regularly scheduled 8 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for 9 this date and time, Monday, July the 11th, 2005, at 9 a.m. 10 Commissioner 2, I believe you have the honors this morning. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you please rise 12 and join me for an opening prayer, and stay standing for the 13 pledge of allegiance. 14 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's 9 o'clock. 17 (Laughter.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, if there's any 19 member of the public that wishes to be heard on a matter 20 that is not listed on the agenda, this is the time for you 21 to come forward and tell us what your thoughts are. If you 22 wish to be heard with respect to an agenda item -- if you 23 wish to participate, we would ask that you fill out a 24 participation form. They're at the back of the room. It's 25 not absolutely essential, but it assists me in hopefully not 7-11-05 5 1 missing you when we come to that item. That's the main 2 reason that I need it. We try and be -- have open and free 3 discussion here, and -- but if you would, if you'd fill out 4 a participation form, if you want to participate in any 5 listed agenda item, we'd ask that you do that. But at this 6 time, if there is any member of the public that wishes to be 7 heard on a matter that is not a listed agenda item, please 8 feel free to come forward to the podium at this time and 9 give your name and address and tell us what's on your mind. 10 Mr. Eller? Thank you, sir. 11 MR. ELLER: Judge, Commissioners, morning. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning. 13 MR. ELLER: I first want to apologize to the 14 Court for not being here when this item was on the agenda. 15 I would have had my input then. With your indulgence, I'll 16 have it now. The Ag Barn costs the taxpayers of this county 17 about $300,000 a year. This Court supports that expense. 18 The library costs the taxpayers of the county about $300,000 19 in county revenues, and this Court appears to resent that 20 expense. The U.S. Census Bureau shows that less than 21 one-half of one percent of the people of Kerr County declare 22 their living from all forms of agriculture, including 23 farming, animal husbandry, fishing, forestry, and hunting 24 combined. That's about 200 people. I grant that 4-H kids 25 who use that Ag Barn do not appear in front of the juvenile 7-11-05 6 1 judge. 2 The statistics also show that there are over 3 30,000 outstanding library cards in the Butt-Holdsworth 4 Library. Now, some of those may be long gone, dead or 5 whatever, but there's 30,000 of them outstanding. There are 6 between 300 and 500 people who visit that library every 7 single day. That translates to about 12,000 uses per month, 8 or 144,000 uses per year. I suggest that is the most used 9 facility in Kerr County, by far. And I would state that 10 young readers who are at that library studying and reading 11 do not appear in front of the juvenile judge either, and 12 there are far more of them. I believe the educational 13 benefits of the library are far more important than the Ag 14 Barn. If there's a need to make a choice, it seems clear we 15 should close the Ag Barn and keep the library open. 16 I suggest there may be more efficient ways to 17 operate the library. Maybe an appeal to the public to 18 donate recently purchased books and have the library staff 19 put them on the shelf, reducing the cost of new books. I 20 think we should make more use of the inter-library lending 21 program, with the user paying the postage. That would 22 reduce the cost of buying more books. An appeal for books, 23 rather than flower memorials for the deceased, could further 24 reduce the cost of new books, and you could have an annual 25 Support the Library drive to raise funds. Now, I applaud 7-11-05 7 1 the Court for trying to reduce the tax burden. I just think 2 you have your priorities in totally the opposite place -- 3 wrong place. I thank you. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 5 MR. ELLER: Oh, one more sentence. Took me 6 an hour to think this one up; can't waste it. Do the 7 greater good for the greater number. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any 9 other member of the public that wishes to be heard on a 10 matter that's not listed on the agenda? I see Mr. Benham 11 asking for attention. Come forward, please, sir, and give 12 your name and address and tell us what's on your mind. 13 MR. BENHAM: Do I give this form to somebody? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That's okay. We've got you 15 recognized, sir. 16 MR. BENHAM: Thank you. I have had the 17 pleasure of meeting all of you gentlemen at one time or 18 another, but for the record, my name is Joseph Benham. I 19 live at 522 Rolling Green in Kerr County. I am a taxpayer. 20 I am here on behalf of the Friends of the Butt-Holdsworth 21 Library. I'm the immediate past president of that 22 organization, and they have kindly asked me to represent 23 them before the various governmental entities in this area. 24 I will try to avoid repeating what the gentleman ahead of me 25 covered. I do, with all due respect to him, have to correct 7-11-05 8 1 a couple of things. The library already has access to any 2 and all books that are donated to the Friends; the library 3 gets first crack at them, and if it's something they can 4 use, they put it on the shelf. If it's not, they send it 5 down to the basement, and our volunteers process it for our 6 book sales. And I'll say more about that in a moment, with 7 your kind permission. 8 He's already covered the number of library 9 cards, but I'd like to concentrate on the usage of the 10 library in terms of people. That library, in the most 11 recent fiscal year, 2003/2004, was used in person by 12 something over 120,000 people. As you know, that's way in 13 excess of the population of Kerr County, and certainly of 14 Kerrville. It is a very intensively used facility. That 15 does not count the number of people who called and got 16 information over the phone from our reference people, who I 17 want to say, incidentally, are extremely efficient, and 18 we're very fortunate to have them. I like to use the 19 analogy that if the city of Houston library -- downtown 20 library were used as intensively as this one is in relation 21 to the population of the community, they'd have 12 million 22 people a year using that library. So that tells you, I 23 think, how intensively our library is used by the public. 24 We, the Friends of the Library, believe that 25 we can make a very strong case for the fact that the library 7-11-05 9 1 is not only used extensively, it is supported extensively by 2 the community. We routinely donate $20,000 a year to the 3 library to cover things which you good folks and the City 4 Council do not feel that they're -- you're able to fund each 5 year. One of the -- a good example of that is the large 6 print -- purchase of large print books. That's a 7 tremendously important item in this community, given its 8 demographics. We also -- that money -- we -- let me say 9 this; we don't try to micromanage the library. They -- 10 Antonio and his people use that -- those funds where they 11 think the biggest need is. I'm sure you're familiar with 12 the old saying, you put the medicine where the hurt is. But 13 we do know what he does with it. 14 And another area which, again, given the 15 demographics of Kerrville, is very -- of Kerr County is very 16 important are the purchase of books on tape. We have a lot 17 of people in this community, as you know, who don't see very 18 well, and the books on tape are a godsend to them. In 19 addition to the $20,000 we routinely donate, we make 20 special -- special donations. We funded -- a couple of 21 years ago, we authorized up to $9,000 to pay what we were 22 assured was the preeminent library information systems 23 consultant, and brought him in from Cincinnati, I think -- 24 anyway, somewhere in Ohio -- to assess the library's 25 computer system, which is antiquated, to say the least, and 7-11-05 10 1 make recommendations for a new one. That didn't cost the 2 taxpayers a penny. The Friends of the Library paid every 3 cent of it. Right now, we are funding a work by a 4 consulting firm and which, in turn, is operating focus 5 groups to -- to see what the community feels the strongest 6 -- the greatest needs are. We are now funding the work of 7 a consulting firm which will make recommendations about 8 future library facilities and services. I'm not serving on 9 that because of health reasons, but I understand that they 10 hope to have their study finished by the end of the year. 11 Let me make one more point on that. I 12 mentioned our volunteers, and those good people deserve the 13 thanks of the community, and if I may say so, the 14 community's representatives. An awful lot of the books that 15 are donated are in pretty sad shape. They've been out in 16 grandma's garage, and when we get them they are full of 17 silverfish and mouse leavings and whatever, spider webs, and 18 sometimes spiders, and they have to be cleaned up. And 19 our -- our volunteers put in many, many thousands of hours a 20 year between book sales cleaning those books up and getting 21 them ready to sell to the public. And we're -- we're happy 22 and proud to do that, but I do feel that it's another 23 example of how this community supports the library. 24 So, I hope that this will be of some help to 25 you gentlemen. I've served on the school board. I was 7-11-05 11 1 president of a property owners' association for 13 years 2 before moving here. I was vice chairman of one of the 3 largest volunteer fire departments in the state. I know 4 what you face in trying to allocate the tax revenues. 5 There's always more demand than there is money. More -- 6 more month than there is money, as the song goes, and I 7 appreciate that. I appreciate the services that you good 8 people perform for the community. But I hope that as you 9 proceed with your budget and with your deliberations about 10 where the County fits in -- I'm sorry, where the library 11 fits in in terms of county services, I hope you will -- you 12 will be able to use some of what I've given you this morning 13 and what you're getting from other sources to -- I hope it 14 will remind you that, as I say, this is not only a very 15 intensively used facility; it is an intensively supported 16 facility for the community. I'm grateful for your time on 17 this. 18 I do want to say one other thing, and I'll 19 put on a different hat, figuratively. As a member of the 20 Hill Country Veterans Council Board, I would like to thank 21 you for the support that we get and the other veterans group 22 gets from the county, particularly from Judge Tinley, 23 although I know the rest of you are involved, for our 24 ceremonies out here at the war memorial on the courthouse 25 grounds to honor those who have served, and in a tragic 7-11-05 12 1 number of cases, died in the service of this country. We'd 2 find it very difficult to do these things on Memorial Day 3 and Veterans Day if we didn't have the full and generous 4 support of the County, and we do appreciate them. We 5 commend you for it. I won't take more of your time with my 6 remarks, but if I could answer any questions about what the 7 Friends of the Library do, I'm at your service. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate 9 you being here with us today. 10 MR. BENHAM: Thank you. I appreciate your 11 time. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any other member of 13 the public that wishes to be heard with respect to matters 14 not listed on the agenda? Yes, sir? If you'll come forward 15 and give us your name and address, tell us what's on your 16 mind. 17 MR. HOOD: My name is Tex Hood. I live at 18 Aqua Vista, and I want to give each one of you a copy of 19 this if you'd like it. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't get one. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have another 22 one? I'll share with you. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: It's okay. 24 MR. HOOD: Okay. With reference to this 25 money that was paid to Mr. Ray Rothwell in December of 2002, 7-11-05 13 1 I want to know if we got any of the money back, and how much 2 did we get back, and we'd like to see some documents that 3 prove that what we got and when we got it. And that's the 4 reason for me being here. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't enter into a 6 dialogue in this segment. 7 MR. HOOD: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I mean, that's why 9 you hear silence up here. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I presume this is a -- a 11 request that -- 12 MR. HOOD: That's right. It's a letter to -- 13 to the County Treasurer. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Have you provided that 15 document to the Treasurer? 16 MR. HOOD: Yes. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 MR. HOOD: It's in the mail. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can give a copy of 21 this to the County Attorney. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure wouldn't hurt, I don't 23 suppose. Thank you, sir. Is there any other member of the 24 public that wishes to be heard with respect to any matters 25 which are not listed on the agenda? Any member of the 7-11-05 14 1 public wishing to be heard on matters not listed on the 2 agenda? All right. We'll move on, then. And, Commissioner 3 Williams, what do you have for us today? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's always 5 good, Judge, to get away for a few days, but it's equally 6 good to be back home to familiar surroundings, even knowing 7 that when you return, there's a firestorm of public outcry 8 awaiting you on an issue that you didn't listen to the 9 previous week 'cause you were gone. So, in getting caught 10 up on my newspaper reading, I expected to find some letters 11 to the editor expressing points of view contrary to what had 12 been reported in the June 27th Commissioners Court meeting 13 about the library, but what I didn't expect to read was a 14 local columnist suggesting that Kerr County government had 15 outlived its usefulness. So, over the course of the past 16 week, countless folk have asked my position on the library 17 issue. So there can be no misunderstanding, I support Kerr 18 County's participation in providing library services to its 19 citizens. That said, however, I would be remiss if I failed 20 to point out that there are some underlying issues regarding 21 future county participation that must be addressed. They 22 fall into two categories; delineating exactly what county 23 funding is to be used for, or in the alternative, what it is 24 not to be used for, and governance. 25 Having served six years as Kerr County's 7-11-05 15 1 liaison to the Library Advisory Board, it is my opinion that 2 the information concerning the library's daily operations -- 3 that which is provided to the Library Advisory Board at 4 least 12 times a year -- is, for the most part, devoid of 5 substance, and frankly, if you're a governmental official 6 listening and sitting there, it is somewhat insulting to 7 your intelligence or to the folks who you represent who are 8 putting up the money. So, having -- we put up about 9 50 percent of that operational budget, and I think, for the 10 most part, we deserve a good bit more oversight than has 11 been the case in the past for the dollars that we send over 12 there. I believe that the City and the County should begin 13 working on a new interlocal agreement that will change the 14 status of the Library Advisory Board to one that has 15 oversight authority. That will change the status of -- 16 change it to one that has oversight authority for library 17 operations, and in the process, determine that county funds 18 will be used for personnel and library materials and not, 19 for example, for building maintenance or major capital 20 equipment. Agreement on these matters could become the 21 precursor to the City and the County agreeing to establish a 22 library district in Kerr County and ultimately eliminating 23 this line item from our respective budgets. So, that's my 24 position on the library, for all those who need to know or 25 wanted to know and couldn't find me to ask. 7-11-05 16 1 Having said all that, Judge, I want to just 2 comment about a good time was had by all at Center Point, as 3 is usually the case, on -- on the Saturday following the 4th 4 of July, which the good folks over there put -- put on the 5 Down Home Parade and -- and the firemen's barbecue/dance and 6 reunion for the Center Point High School and so forth. I 7 was privileged and honored to be the parade marshal this 8 year, had a good time doing it, and my thanks and 9 appreciation to all of those good folks who worked so hard 10 and so diligently in support of their community. It's 11 always a pleasure to be there. That's it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Number 3? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't have any 14 comments, but now I do have a few. First, in response to 15 Mr. Hood's letter that was just handed to us, as a brief 16 update. That is in litigation right now, and it's more -- 17 some of that money, there's an attempt by outside counsel to 18 recover that. And I have no problem with putting that on 19 the agenda, either next time or the time after that, to give 20 the public a full update as to where we are on that. Most 21 of the time recently when we have been meeting on that 22 topic, it's been in executive session because of the fact 23 that it's -- we're dealing with outside counsel and the 24 County Attorney's office. But we certainly can, you know, 25 refresh everyone as to what the status of that, 'cause it 7-11-05 17 1 has been kind of, you know -- well, it's been in executive 2 session for the past year. So -- so I'll note your letter, 3 and we can certainly make that -- have an open session 4 discussion as to where we are on that, as much as can be 5 discussed in open session. 6 MR. HOOD: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Related to the library, I 8 think -- you know, and I wish Mr. Benham was still here so 9 he could take this back to the -- I don't see him in here -- 10 take this back to the Friends of the Library. I wish that 11 people would talk to us individually or come to court before 12 they develop an opinion as to what this Court is or is not 13 about to do. There was no discussion really from the Court 14 as a whole to make any major change with the library. The 15 article in the paper -- I think there was no quotes in there 16 that were not accurate, but some of them, I think, were a 17 little bit taken out of context. I know there's one 18 Commissioner that was quoted other than myself that 19 basically, by the quote, I would have interpreted that 20 Commissioner to be against the library, but by the rest of 21 what was said, I think he was in favor of the funding the 22 library. So, I think the people need to be very careful 23 just not to believe everything they read in the paper is 24 exactly what the Court's about to do. 'Cause this has 25 happened many times, and it surprises me that this community 7-11-05 18 1 still believes that what the paper says is what this Court's 2 about to do. 3 There was -- there was one Commissioner who 4 had an opinion, and it was stated. Two of the other 5 Commissioners, Mr. Baldwin and myself, made our comments. I 6 can't remember if the Judge made a comment or not. 7 Mr. Williams wasn't present. Certainly, there was no action 8 item, and the bottom line of the discussion, I think, comes 9 to that, somewhat, there's been some frustration in the 10 operation from the City of the library. We have an 11 interlocal agreement with the City, and the City has not 12 lived up to their agreement. That's been very frustrating 13 to Commissioner Williams when he was on the board, and now 14 Commissioner Nicholson, so I think that, you know, that's 15 part of it. And the other part of it, I think that it is -- 16 we are not looking after the taxpayers' funds in any regard 17 if we don't continually analyze if we can be more efficient. 18 The comments I made were that there is seven 19 or eight libraries in this county. Maybe there's a more 20 efficient way to operate them. Maybe we need to change 21 the -- the focus a little bit, because the internet has 22 changed how we do get information. But I clearly said in 23 court that, you know, I'm in favor of the library. And I 24 think the Court, as a whole, is certainly in favor of it, so 25 I think there's -- there was a great deal of misconception 7-11-05 19 1 came out of that discussion we had on the library. And I 2 think what we talked about was very healthy. And I would be 3 -- I think we should be admonished if we didn't have such a 4 discussion. I think Mr. Eller and people that are -- I 5 would say watch the tax dollars very carefully, I think they 6 would -- you know, should be in favor of us really looking 7 at every county operation and seeing if it's being run in 8 the most efficient manner. So, that's the only two comments 9 I have for this morning. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to talk 12 about rain, and then I'll talk about the library. The burn 13 ban is still on. I think it was Thursday or Friday, we had 14 some sporadic rain in the western part of the county, in 15 some places a lot of rain. I think out on 41, it rained as 16 much as two and a half inches; other places didn't get any. 17 So, there's still a need for the burn ban, and conditions 18 are very dry, and everybody needs to be very careful. I 19 appreciate Charlie Eller and Joseph Benham being here. I 20 listened to them. Both of them care about good government 21 and the work of good government, and their -- their input is 22 always welcome and needed. In our last meeting, while 23 introducing a discussion about our contract with the City 24 for paying the costs of the library, I raised the issue of 25 utility of the library in the information age. I hoped that 7-11-05 20 1 that discussion would result in some intelligent dialogue 2 about how taxpayer dollars should be spent on an institution 3 that was being overrun by technology. 4 What was reported that I said was that the 5 Butt-Holdsworth Library was obsolete. That's wrong; that's 6 not what I said. It's not obsolete, but it may become 7 obsolete. What I did say was that brick-and-mortar 8 libraries were being made obsolete by the advent of the 9 information age. A -- a source for the United Kingdom 10 that's a library expert has predicted that the United 11 Kingdom's brick-and-mortar libraries will be obsolete in 15 12 years. The University of Texas at Austin this month removed 13 almost all the library's 90,000 volumes to be dispersed to 14 other university collections to clear space for a 24-hour 15 electronic information center. Here's an online library 16 named Questia. It features over 449,000 titles; 56,000 17 complete books available for -- from cover to cover, 145,000 18 journal articles, 173,000 magazine articles, 668,000 19 newspaper articles. The information age is overrunning 20 brick-and-mortar libraries. 21 What is certain is that it's timely for those 22 of us who are responsible for looking after the best 23 interests of the citizens and taxpayers to carefully 24 consider how we plan for the future of the library. To 25 address the issue, I outlined a proposal to create a board 7-11-05 21 1 to address those key issues and to manage the library. That 2 seems like an intelligent and prudent approach. The 3 inaccurate report that I had said that the library was 4 obsolete has not prompted the reasoned, thoughtful approach 5 I'd hoped for. Instead, it's caused a small amount of 6 knee-jerk reaction. A columnist for the local daily 7 newspaper wrote an ill-informed article that served to harm 8 the intelligent and productive discussion that's needed. 9 The writer alleges that in 1969, Commissioners Court and 10 City Council, treated to a trip to Corpus Christi and a, 11 quote, elegant dinner agreed to fund the library equally in 12 perpetuity. Aside from the fact that such an agreement is 13 unlawful, there's no record of it. 14 He also alleges that the library had been 15 funded on a 50/50 basis by the City and County ever since 16 that mythical meeting. I've not -- I've not checked the 17 budget for the last 36 years, but I do know the County did 18 not fund 50 percent of the library cost in this fiscal year. 19 The writer didn't do his research. The writer could have 20 known what was said in Commissioners Court by accessing the 21 minutes of the meeting; they're available in the courthouse 22 or online, but he obviously did not do that. If you want to 23 know what was said in the last Commissioners Court meeting, 24 you can check with Ms. Mitchell, and she'll provide you 25 minutes of the meeting. Now I'm ready to move on to work 7-11-05 22 1 with City Council to find an approach that's good for the 2 library and for the taxpayers. That's all I've got to say 3 at this time. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner 5 1? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, thank you. 7 I just wanted to let you know -- remind everyone that the 8 Cowboy Camp Meeting will be starting the first week in 9 August. And if -- you know, if you're not interested in 10 cowboy meetings and cowboy preaching, they sure got some 11 good barbecue out there, so I want to remind everyone of 12 that. And also, I understand, by reading the papers and my 13 phone calls, that we may have a problem with the library. 14 (Laughter.) 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This Court and any 17 other government body has debates and visits about issues, 18 and that is all that happened here at the last meeting. 19 There wasn't anything ugly said, but there was some ugly 20 things said from the public back to this Commissioners 21 Court. You know, talking about -- I got one phone call; 22 this lady wanted to know what in the world was I doing 23 closing the library, and that language was never used in 24 this room. I'm -- I agree with everything that's been said 25 here today. We're all library fans. We're fans of the 7-11-05 23 1 Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library. And by having this 2 conversation, that's exactly what we're doing, is having the 3 conversation, like a good government body should. And 4 hopefully that we can engage the City and take care of the 5 people's business because of it, and that's the only thing 6 going on here. That's what we do. So, God bless America. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Speaking of good 8 barbecue, I want to thank the folks of Center Point Alliance 9 for Progress for their hospitality this past weekend. They 10 put on a wonderful event, and it was enjoyed by most 11 everyone, as far as I could tell looking around, and had 12 some mighty good barbecue. Any of you folks that didn't 13 make it, why, you missed a good event. Let's move on now 14 with the agenda, if we might. We've got a timed item at 15 9:30. It's a bit past that now, so we will get to that. 16 Consider, discuss -- or consideration and approval of the 17 City of Kerrville Economic Improvement Corporation's project 18 to provide funding to the Hill Country Shooting Center 19 located adjacent to Cypress Creek Road (F.M. 1341) in Kerr 20 County. I put this on the agenda at the request of the City 21 Manager and Ms. Mindy Wendele, who's Director of Business 22 Development for the City of Kerrville, and I welcome them 23 here today. The floor is yours. 24 MS. WENDELE: Good morning, Judge and 25 Commissioners. Thank you for having us today. You will 7-11-05 24 1 note on your agenda about the agenda item that we asked to 2 be put on the agenda for today, as it is pertaining to our 3 half-cent sales tax, Economic Improvement Corporation, and 4 the rules therefor. With us today, of course, is our City 5 Manager, Don Davis. To my right, the owner of -- co-owner, 6 I should say, of the Hill Country Shooting Sports Center, 7 Dr. -- doctor. I made you a doctor. 8 MR. BURCH: Thank you. 9 MS. WENDELE: Certainly. Mr. Jack Burch, 10 our -- our community partners in this development. Our 11 economic development partners, represented by Brian Bondy 12 from the Chamber of Commerce; Guy Overby, Kerr Economic 13 Development Foundation; and Sudie Burditt, Executive 14 Director of the Convention and Visitors Bureau. The 15 shooting center has made a request to our Economic 16 Improvement Corporation for funding out of those funds of 17 our half-cent sales tax revenues to help with their project 18 out on Cypress Creek, 1886 Cypress Creek Road, and we know 19 that is outside our city limits. And, according to the law, 20 we can't spend the money, according to the state statute, 21 but we have to have the governing body's permission to do 22 so, and that's why we're here. We had -- Mr. Davis and I 23 had given Judge Tinley some backup information last Friday 24 when we met with him. I have that available if you would 25 like to see it, but basically, we're here today to say to 7-11-05 25 1 you we would like to have your permission and grant approval 2 of the expenditure of the $200,000, $100,000 in this fiscal 3 year and $100,000 in the next fiscal year, for improvements 4 to help Mr. Burch and his family -- and his business as it 5 relates to their growth pattern at the shooting center. Can 6 any of us answer any questions before we make the formal 7 motion? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we need a 9 resolution, as such, or just a motion, in your opinion? 10 MS. WENDELE: Commissioner, according to our 11 legal counsel, we do not need a resolution, but I do have 12 some wording for -- I think Judge Tinley has it also, but 13 let's read it real quick. And what will happen is, for our 14 files and your files, the minutes of this meeting will serve 15 as our proof and approval to satisfy the State. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have that in the -- in 17 the information that I've been provided. 18 MS. WENDELE: Okay. If you will indulge me 19 just a moment to cite it, and then you can repeat it if that 20 would be the wishes of the Court. This is from Section 21 5190.6. It is Section 23(a), as it relates to our half-cent 22 sales tax, 4B sales tax information. The motion should 23 read, "Motion to approve the City of Kerrville Economic 24 Improvement Corporation's project to provide funding to the 25 Hill Country Shooting Sports Center." Very simple. 7-11-05 26 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 4 approval of the -- of the motion as specified by 5 Ms. Wendele. Any further question or discussion? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd just like 7 to make a comment, Judge. I want to thank Mr. Burch, and I 8 want to thank Sudie Burditt and Guy Overby and Brian and 9 anybody else who's been involved in this project from the 10 very beginning. If you're unfamiliar with it, you've got to 11 know that this has great potential for Kerr County as a 12 whole, and the City of Kerrville, its hotels, its 13 restaurants, and its shops in particular. When up and 14 finally running, it will draw thousands of visitors to 15 Jack's complex out there. And I believe you're on the 16 threshold of being declared an Olympic site; is that 17 correct, Jack? 18 MR. BURCH: It's my understanding, yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's 20 tremendous, and you and all those who've been involved 21 deserve a big round of applause for your participation and 22 making it come to this point. I wholeheartedly support it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just echo Commissioner 24 Williams' comments. Thanks to everyone. This is one of 25 those great things that have come to Kerr County that we 7-11-05 27 1 never thought about. It's, I think, the forethought of some 2 individuals, mainly being Jack Burch and his family; they've 3 really done a phenomenal thing, and with the help of others 4 in the community, are making kind of a dream come true, so 5 we appreciate it. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have a comment. 7 Now that we know that they can move E.I.C. money out into 8 the county, we can -- (Laughter.) -- we will have a small 9 list for you all. 10 MS. WENDELE: Properly presented to you? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By next week. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're working on it, 13 aren't we? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I wanted to mention that this 15 marks the first time that I'm aware of that there's 16 consideration -- serious consideration being given for the 17 expenditure of E.I.C. money out into the county, and I think 18 it establishes a wonderful precedent. You know, we've got a 19 partnership here with City and County in a lot of respects, 20 and it's a collaborative effort and we need to look at it 21 that way and continue it that way, just like this effort to 22 bring Shooting U.S.A. and -- and the Olympic training 23 facility here. It was a collaborative effort of Mr. Burch 24 and his family and all his hard work out there, and, of 25 course, we've had the Economic Development Foundation and 7-11-05 28 1 Mr. Overby and the Chamber people, and it's just been a 2 total collaborative effort in order to get this here, and 3 this is just an extension of that collaborative effort. And 4 I'm -- I'm really proud to see it happen, and it holds great 5 potential for the future, and I certainly think it's going 6 to be a wonderful thing. 7 MS. WENDELE: In closing, Judge Tinley, just 8 so you'll be aware of the time frame, this is, of course, 9 our permission from you today. Next week, at our regular 10 scheduled Economic Improvement Corporation meeting, there 11 will be a public hearing, as -- as required by law, and the 12 funding agreement considered. If this funding agreement is 13 -- is approved, it will go to our City Council at the next 14 City Council meeting on July 26th. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions, 16 comments, or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 17 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: The motion does carry. Thank 22 you very much for being here this morning. 23 MS. WENDELE: Thank you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go back to the front of 25 the agenda. The first item on the agenda, I'm given to 7-11-05 29 1 understand that Mr. Davis, who requested that this item be 2 on there, has asked that it be passed at this time. If 3 Mr. Davis is here and desires something different, he's free 4 to -- it's a different Mr. Davis; this is Bill Davis. 5 MR. (DON) DAVIS: Thank you. We'll see y'all 6 Wednesday, I guess. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: You thought we were going to 8 spring something? 9 MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. Thanks. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He may have some more 11 money. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: If Mr. Bill Davis is here and 13 wants to present something, he's free to come forward at 14 this time. Not seeing an indication that he desires to do 15 so, we'll move on to the next item, Item 2, consider and 16 discuss soliciting bids for long distance telephone service. 17 Commissioner, Precinct 1. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much. 19 As you know, we went out for bids, and somehow things got a 20 little goofy, but we only got one bid in. And just a short 21 time ago, the County Auditor and I sat down with Kerrville 22 Telephone Company and had a -- had a pretty extensive visit, 23 and they had expressed great interest in participating in 24 this and continuing to participate in it, and moved some 25 numbers around that are very, very attractive. And then why 7-11-05 30 1 a bid did not arrive here, I'm not sure. He thought -- in 2 the subsequent telephone conversation, the KTC Director 3 thought that he handed us a bid, and neither the Auditor or 4 I, either one, had it. So -- but we do now. And it arrived 5 at the end of last week, we hear. And I understand that, as 6 well, Southwestern Bell has shown some interest, and I just 7 think that we need to go back out and get a true picture of 8 what's out there and who wants to participate, and let's do 9 some comparisons, just for -- to just see if we can get a 10 good service and -- and do the best. That's the best thing 11 for the taxpayers, in my opinion. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, can you 13 refresh my memory, what we did? Did we accept the bids 14 previously, the one bid that we received? Did we just -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have done nothing. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've done nothing on it? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've done nothing. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, are you making a 19 motion? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am making -- well -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To reject all previous 22 bids and re -- rebid this project? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Were the bids due in 24 today, Tommy? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: No, last -- last -- 27th of 7-11-05 31 1 June. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Last meeting. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we had them at 4 that time, last meeting. I thought we referred them to 5 Mr. Trolinger. 6 MS. PIEPER: There's the ad that went out. 7 Here are the two bids. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Two bids? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had two bids in? Is 10 this on today's agenda? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were due in by 14 June 27th, which this would be the first meeting after 15 June 27th. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think probably what we 18 need to do is put this on the next agenda, and then if we 19 choose to reject all the bids at that -- at that meeting, we 20 can accept or reject them. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. No big 22 deal. I just -- I just -- my thinking is -- is that we need 23 to make sure that all the providers have an opportunity, and 24 I don't think that they had that opportunity. There was 25 just a -- some confusion between Kerrville Telephone Company 7-11-05 32 1 and -- and us. And -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- I mean, 3 if we -- whenever -- if we don't like the bids, don't think 4 we get enough bids, we always have the option to reject all 5 bids. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not familiar 7 with the process, so help me out on this. We have an 8 obligation to post and advertise the bids, and we certainly 9 did that, and then they come in. What kind of reasons can 10 we have for not accepting those bids? Is it -- what I'm 11 getting at, is it fair to the two bidders to not accept 12 their bids? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One bid. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two -- the Kerrville 16 Telephone Company did not -- that bid right there did not 17 arrive here in the time frame. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just got it Friday. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It is okay to reject 21 the one bid that was submitted timely? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We do that 23 occasionally. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And give people a 25 second shot at it? 7-11-05 33 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We do that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we don't like the 3 numbers, if we don't like the quantity or the amount of the 4 bids -- 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we have authority to 7 reject bids. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, you mentioned a 9 meeting that you had with the KTC people along with the 10 Auditor. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Was that after the Court 13 authorized going out for bids in -- I believe it was the 14 second meeting in May, the 23rd of May? Is that -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't recall. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That meeting occurred after 17 that time? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't recall. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why do you ask? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I assume they were 22 probably aware -- aware -- my recollection, we had a 23 conversation subsequent to that meeting, and that was 24 after -- after we'd authorized going out for bids. So, it 25 occurs to me that they were aware that we had advertised or 7-11-05 34 1 were going to advertise for bids. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that 3 that's true. You're saying that. I don't know that. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. I understand. 5 Certainly, they had constructive notice if -- if the -- if 6 there was publication. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it makes -- 8 I don't see what difference it makes. Next meeting, we're 9 going to open the one bid we received, and we can accept it 10 or reject it. And if we reject it, we'll go out for bids 11 again. I mean, I don't even know why we're having a 12 discussion today until we look at the bid that we got. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm concerned that we're 14 talking about -- before we know what any bids are, I don't 15 know who many or -- who or how many bid until the 16 Commissioner put this on the agenda, because they had not 17 been opened. But I'm concerned that we're talking about 18 rejecting bids that we haven't even looked at. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: It just seems to -- to poison 21 the process. We've got a process that's in place. We go 22 out for bids, because it's a level playing field and there's 23 notice given to the world. Those that want to bid, bid. 24 They submit bids on a timely basis prior to the deadline, 25 and that's the process. And -- 7-11-05 35 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What you're saying is 2 you want to go ahead and open that one bid, then? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we have an obligation 4 to consider -- seriously consider that bid before we do 5 anything. Because we advertised, and -- and the bid was 6 submitted timely, in good faith. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, that's exactly 8 what we're doing. Next meeting -- it's not an agenda item. 9 We can't open that bid today. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Next meeting it'll be 12 an agenda item where we'll open that bid, and then we will 13 make the decision whether it's a good bid or not. We'll 14 reject it, go out for bids again, or we'll accept it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what bothers me, 16 Commissioner. We're talking about rejecting the bid we 17 haven't even looked at. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I said we might or 19 might not. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Listen. What do -- 22 you have an interest in this thing, and I want to know what 23 it is. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I have an interest in -- in us 25 following the process that the law prescribes that we 7-11-05 36 1 follow. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be happy to do that, 3 but you have another interest in it. I want to know what it 4 is. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I do? Tell me what it is, 6 Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You tell me. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I have no other interest. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, you do. I can 10 tell. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Well, you'd best be 12 telling me, then, 'cause I don't know. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, you do. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? Come forward to the 15 podium if you wish to be heard on this matter. 16 MR. PRENDERGAST: My name's George 17 Prendergast. I have a little concern here, because it's 18 Buster Baldwin who, as I understand, put this on the agenda. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 20 MR. PRENDERGAST: That's correct. And yet 21 you're not willing to allow one bid to be opened under the 22 due process. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not an agenda 24 item. 25 MR. PRENDERGAST: I don't mean today. I'm 7-11-05 37 1 talking about two weeks from now. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, but I'll be happy 3 to. 4 MR. PRENDERGAST: If you open that bid come 5 two weeks from now, then at that point the opposition or the 6 competition has the ability to underbid or overbid, so 7 you've not leveled the playing field; you've skewed the 8 playing field. What is your general interest in this? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's none of your 10 business. 11 MR. PRENDERGAST: Really? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We frequently do this. 13 MR. PRENDERGAST: It's illegal, is the 14 problem I'm saying. You've done it before when you've 15 published for insurance. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We -- 17 MR. PRENDERGAST: And you've given -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have done this. 19 MR. PRENDERGAST: When you -- 20 (Several people were speaking at once.) 21 COURT REPORTER: One at a time, please. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Listen, we have -- we 23 reject bids. When we go out -- the example that comes to 24 mind is HVAC, electrical, plumbing, all these. We have, 25 numerous times, rejected the bids we received because we got 7-11-05 38 1 one bid and it was too high, we felt. We've rebid it. 2 Sometimes -- sometimes we've said, well, we'll let 3 Maintenance go ahead and do it. If we receive one bid on 4 anything, we have the option to reject it. What I said, and 5 I think Mr. Baldwin agrees, is I don't understand why 6 there's even any controversy. Next meeting it will be on 7 the agenda to open the bid. We'll either accept it or 8 reject it at that time. Whenever we get one bid in, I have 9 a concern. 10 MR. PRENDERGAST: I do too. But I also have 11 a concern that if you open that bid and you reject it, 12 you've leveled the playing field such that other people can 13 come in and lower the bid. Now, that's to your advantage, I 14 agree. What's wrong with that? I don't think it follows 15 the letter of the law. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you think that if we 17 get in a telephone bid which says we're going to pay them 18 $5 million flat fee, were going to go ahead and we have to 19 accept it? 20 MR. PRENDERGAST: That's kind of asking, 21 like, have you stopped beating your dog? That's not what 22 we're asking. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying -- 24 MR. PRENDERGAST: What we're asking you is, 25 follow the law. You published. You followed the law by 7-11-05 39 1 publishing for bid. You only got one bid because somebody 2 did not take care of their business and put in a bid in a 3 timely manner. I'm saying put on it the agenda. Open the 4 bid if you wish. But I think, if that's the case, you have 5 given others an opportunity that you should haven't done. I 6 saw you do it with the insurance, where you allowed somebody 7 to change their bid in this courtroom. You cannot do that 8 by law. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe that was 10 done, but anyway -- 11 MR. PRENDERGAST: Two years ago; I'll pull 12 the minutes and prove it. But that's my concern. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I -- 14 MR. PRENDERGAST: My other concern is that, 15 obviously, there's a problem here. And by you attacking 16 somebody else, I'd like an answer from you. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the question? 18 MR. PRENDERGAST: The question you didn't 19 answer earlier. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What my general 21 interest is? 22 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the -- the 24 taxpayers of this county get the best deal we can get them. 25 MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay. As long as we follow 7-11-05 40 1 the law. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, absolutely. 3 Absolutely. We have a County Attorney right there, and 4 we'll -- I'll visit with him about it. 5 MR. PRENDERGAST: No, I think he probably 6 very well understands what I'm talking about. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He probably does, 8 George. Don't come up here and attack me about anything. 9 I'm trying to do my job here that the people hired me to do. 10 MR. PRENDERGAST: Really? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 12 MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, really. 14 MR. PRENDERGAST: Well, I'm trying to say 15 let's do it right if we're going to do it. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. I agree 17 with you 100 percent. 18 MR. PRENDERGAST: All right. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you for your 20 time. 21 MR. PRENDERGAST: Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused as to how we 23 ever got off on that topic, but anyway -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any motion to be offered on 25 this item? Hearing none, we'll move on. Item 3, seeking 7-11-05 41 1 approval to contract with PublicData.com for data search 2 capability used with hot check collections. County 3 Attorney. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Watch out, Rex, we're 5 obviously in a feisty mood up here today. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see the former 7 Commissioner Bruce Oehler is there. Mr. Oehler, would you 8 like to sit in this chair for the rest of the day? 9 (Laughter.) 10 MR. EMERSON: My presentation is somewhat 11 straightforward. Previously, in the past, this office and 12 the Hot Check Department had had public data research 13 capability. That capability does exist in some other 14 departments through different means. What it's used for is 15 many hot check writers will not be at the address stated on 16 their checks by the time the check is brought to us for 17 collection, and PublicData.com is one of our research tools 18 used to locate them. Unfortunately, it's a pay service; 19 it's not free to us. In the prior administration, it was 20 placed on Mr. Motley's credit card, and then Mr. Motley 21 turned around and billed the County and the County paid 22 Mr. Motley back, and we did a whole lot of paperwork. 23 There's a much easier way to do it through -- they have a 24 commercial contract that's available to the County. It's a 25 flat rate, $500 per year fee for the number of searches that 7-11-05 42 1 we need to do historically, and we can sign a contract, cut 2 a county check, and do it once a year instead of every 3 month. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 7 approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one question, 9 Mr. Attorney. I -- I assume that -- that the increased 10 revenues or decreased costs will exceed the cost of this 11 program? 12 MR. EMERSON: Significantly. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I need to 14 know. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 16 comment? 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. 22 MR. EMERSON: Thank you. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is -- we have some 24 items here that are timed items. Why don't we move on to 25 them? I apologize. Item Number 7, consider and discuss 7-11-05 43 1 granting an employee an exception to our insurance policy 2 due to late enrollment. Ms. Nemec? 3 MS. NEMEC: Good morning, gentlemen. This 4 item was put on the agenda due to one of our employees had a 5 baby, and that dependent was covered under the employee's 6 wife's insurance, and they did not realize that they only 7 had 30 days after the birth of the child to cover them under 8 our insurance if that's what they wished to do. And since 9 they -- I'm not sure what the circumstances were, if -- if 10 they just felt our plan was better than the wife's or 11 whatever, but since they've decided that they want to put 12 that child under the County's insurance, the 30-day 13 enrollment passed and they were unable to do so. However, 14 the insurance company did call me and say that they would 15 put him on there if we granted an exemption to the 30-day 16 period, and so I'm here to ask if the Court would like to 17 grant that exception, and if they do, then I will send the 18 letter in to do so. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Is the 30-day 20 enrollment requirement after birth set forth in the 21 handbook? 22 MS. NEMEC: Yes, it is. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: When is the next open 24 enrollment? 25 MS. NEMEC: January. 7-11-05 44 1 JUDGE TINLEY: So, if we did not grant the 2 exception today, the child could be added in January during 3 the open enrollment period? Is that what I'm hearing? 4 MS. NEMEC: That's correct. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a cost to the 6 County? 7 MS. NEMEC: No, the dependent pays for the 8 child's insurance. The -- I'm sorry, the employee pays for 9 the dependent's insurance. There is no cost to the County. 10 The only cost would be claims that would be submitted for 11 that dependent. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Has the child had 13 any medical expenses that would have been paid had they 14 enrolled? 15 MS. NEMEC: That I know of -- I asked that 16 question, and that I know of, the child is perfectly 17 healthy. Now, you know, that's just the information that I 18 have received. I don't know that for a fact, or what might 19 happen later, but at this point, that's my information that 20 I've received. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a -- a bit of an 22 issue for me, I mean, the health of the child, or a 23 statement -- I really don't have a problem with doing this; 24 however, I'd hate to do it -- and I hate to sound really 25 cold, but, you know, if the child had a heart problem or 7-11-05 45 1 something, it could really affect us. We are a small pool, 2 and one significant problem can cause a major problem. And 3 I don't know if we can -- you know, I would think that we 4 could ask for the kind of preexisting condition language and 5 stuff that we do in our normal -- when someone's added, and 6 it would have to be subject to that stipulation, in my mind. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, the -- 8 the precedent that would -- it would set troubles me. The 9 -- if we grant this one, do we grant the next one that comes 10 along? Why do we have a 30-day enrollment period if we 11 enroll any time? It seems highly irregular to me that, 12 under any circumstances, we'd waive the requirements for -- 13 for 30-day enrollment. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's kind of 15 what troubles me, is we're setting a precedent here. In 16 this instance, we may be okay in terms of the coverage, 17 because the infant is not ill, but what -- that opens the 18 door for future exceptions or exemptions -- exceptions, and 19 I'm wondering how that would be treated in the future. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if the parent is 21 required to wait until the open enrollment period and the 22 child is enrolled at that time, would there not be a 23 preexisting condition stipulation on the enrollment with a 24 -- I don't know, six-month or 90-day elimination period for 25 preexisting conditions? Would that not occur at that time, 7-11-05 46 1 at the open enrollment period in January? 2 MS. NEMEC: I believe the way the plan is set 3 up is that if you do it during open enrollment, then there 4 is no preexisting clause. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you do it during 6 open enrollment? 7 MS. NEMEC: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the January date? 9 Or -- 10 MS. NEMEC: The January date. Our renewal 11 date. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The pre -- your 13 understanding is if you do it in the open enrollment period, 14 the preexisting clause conditions do not -- do not apply? 15 MS. NEMEC: Right. Now, I believe that the 16 preexisting clause applies if there is an employee, let's 17 say, that has their spouse enrolled on the insurance, and 18 their spouse was covered under another insurance plan, and 19 for whatever reason they lost their job or, you know, other 20 circumstances, and then they enrolled their spouse. Then at 21 that time, they may -- they may put a clause in there of a 22 preexisting illness up to a certain amount of days or 23 months, whatever. But in open enrollment, I don't think 24 that there -- and I may be wrong on that. In open 25 enrollment -- I think that is the reason for open 7-11-05 47 1 enrollment, that they don't put those limitations on there. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question is, and my 3 concern is that -- does the kid have insurance coverage 4 today? 5 MS. NEMEC: Judy, do you know that? Does he 6 have insurance, or has he been dropped? 7 MS. CARR: Under his mother's. 8 MS. NEMEC: He does at this point. He does 9 at this point under his mother's insurance. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Continuing -- 11 continuing or -- or COBRA -- a COBRA application for his 12 mother's policy? Does he continue to be covered by the 13 mother's plan? 14 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then what's the 16 issue? Why would we be here at this time? 17 MS. CARR: The mother's plan would only cover 18 31 days. Then they had an additional 30 days to stay with 19 that plan or go with a different plan, and they want to go 20 with Mutual of Omaha. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they have the option 22 of staying with the plan that child's on now, as far as 23 you're aware? 24 MS. CARR: As far as I'm aware. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My sense of it is if 7-11-05 48 1 the child's covered and continues to be covered, when the 2 open enrollment period comes, then they can be enrolled. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any motion to be 4 offered on this agenda item? Hearing none, we will move on 5 to Item Number 8, which is a timed item for 9:45. 6 Discussion and update on Professional Partners in Pooling 7 Workshop. 8 MS. NEMEC: Okay. My chief deputy, Judy, 9 attended the second part of the Professional Partners in 10 Pooling Workshop, and she is here to update the Court on 11 some new laws that are going to be taking effect in 12 September and just update you on how our program is doing. 13 Judy? 14 MS. CARR: Judge, Commissioners, good 15 morning. I'm very nervous. This is the first time I've 16 spoken in public in years, so y'all will have to bear with 17 me. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pull the microphone 19 down a little closer, Judy, so I can hear you. 20 MS. CARR: Is that better? Okay. Well, if 21 you make me angry, I can shout, but I don't get angry very 22 often. I went to Austin June 20th and 21st to attend the 23 Partners in Pooling Workshop. It was basically a workmen's 24 comp workshop, and I'm here today to talk about some of the 25 goals set forth in that. And there will be some changes 7-11-05 49 1 made in September. There's two Senate bills for approval 2 pertaining to the Texas Workmen's Compensation Committee. 3 They will be doing away with that, and all of Texas 4 workmen's comp will fall under the department -- Texas 5 Department of Insurance. I'm sure there will be some 6 changes in September. They don't know what they are. At 7 this point, we are to continue on with our workmen's comp 8 program the way we are handling the paperwork, filing and 9 following the claims the way we're presently doing them. 10 And this gets to our safety program. The 11 Treasurer's office implemented a safety program in 2003, 12 with the goal that the County would receive a 10 percent 13 discount on the worker's compensation premium. Because the 14 safety program was followed with success in 2004, the County 15 was given a discount of $17,343 off the premium. The 16 Treasurer's office goal is to continue this program. We all 17 have to work together as a team in order to continue in the 18 County's success. I'm sure we all want to work in the ideal 19 safety culture, and this will be discussed in a moment. The 20 Treasurer's office will continue to work with the employees 21 in order to save the County money on the workmen's comp 22 premium, and help insure that we all have a safe work 23 environment. These are some of the topics that were 24 discussed during the workshop: Safety is everybody's job. 25 Safety is people work. The employees are the County's 7-11-05 50 1 greatest assets. Studies indicate that 95 -- 95 percent of 2 the workplace injuries are due to attitude and behavior, not 3 conditions. Texas employers pay the highest worker's 4 compensation medical cost in the United States. 5 The objectives of the workshop were to 6 produce overall reduction in worker's compensation costs 7 through better safety performance, improved professional 8 development of key people within members that deal with 9 worker's compensation claims and safety programs, develop 10 better tools for member use. Some of the tools: Modified 11 duty programs, witness statements, accident reporting, 12 hiring practices, fitness for duty requests. And one of 13 their main goals was to cut workplace fatalities in Texas 14 counties by 50 percent. In the year 2004, they had five 15 fatalities. This year since January, there have been two 16 fatalities. We don't really think about that, but due to 17 some of the accidents and things that have gone on 18 throughout the counties in Texas, there have been deaths. 19 The workshop focused on return to work policy. This may be 20 required with some of the changes in September. Another -- 21 I can't think -- another situation that they're thinking 22 about that might be required is workplace observations. 23 We're not doing that now. It's not required now. That may 24 be required. Of course, there's the injury investigations, 25 behavior modifications. Communication fraud was discussed. 7-11-05 51 1 Okay. Now, when I mention the ideal safety 2 culture, that's the goal of the Commission, and to get that, 3 these things need to be included: Team attitude, management 4 support, shared trust, good communication, pride in your job 5 and your workplace, take time or having time to do it right, 6 appropriate tools and equipment, proper maintenance of the 7 tools and equipment, behavior modification, appropriate 8 feedback. Whether it's positive or negative, we need 9 feedback. And, of course, positive consequences, which 10 could be an incentive program. To have this ideal safety 11 culture, we must be consistent with observing and enforcing 12 the safety policies through the elected officials, 13 department heads, and all the employees. 14 And the Kerr County claim adjuster, J.I. 15 Specialty Services, our workmen's comp claim adjusters 16 company, was there. Letty Navarro is Kerr County's claim 17 adjuster. I had lunch with her, had the opportunity to talk 18 with her about some of the programs and requests that they 19 have. She had nothing but praise for Kerr County and the 20 way that we are handling the claims, getting the 21 paperwork -- getting the accident reports, witness 22 statements, if needed, to them in a timely manner so they 23 can process our claims. She had praise for us, and we have 24 a very good, positive working relationship, so I'm really 25 happy about that, with me being new and getting involved in 7-11-05 52 1 this, and she's helped me tremendously, but it's turned out 2 to be a very positive thing for the county. 3 Since January, we've had 27 claims, of which 4 nine were accident -- incident only. Of the 18 that 5 received medical treatment, one claim was denied, and only 6 one employee remains off work. We have a success story. A 7 deputy was hospitalized due to a cracked pelvis and returned 8 to work on light duty within a week from this accident. 9 This is what the Workmen's Comp Commission is talking about, 10 return to work policy; light duty, modified work duty, maybe 11 putting an employee in another department if they cannot do 12 light duty within their own department. This deputy went to 13 dispatch and was on light duty, worked eight hours a day, 14 but was able to return to work within a week of that 15 accident. I met with our field safety specialist from TAC 16 last week, Larry Boccaccio. He's very interested in our 17 progress and our program. He asked that he be invited to 18 our next safety committee meeting, which will be at the end 19 of the month. We've not set a date. As the Treasurer's 20 office continues to promote the safety program, and as long 21 as the safety committee continues to look for people-based 22 solutions, and as long as employees continue to make 23 commitments toward behavioral change, Kerr County will 24 continue to nourish our ideal safety culture. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Ms. Carr? 7-11-05 53 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The -- I guess 2 the -- the worker's comp system has changed who's going to 3 have the administration and all that. Is it going to affect 4 rates? 5 MS. CARR: He did not discuss that. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They just discussed more 7 about the safety side of it? 8 MS. CARR: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was my only 10 question. Thank you. 11 MS. CARR: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Judy. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mrs. Carr? 14 MS. CARR: Yes? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: You mention that in the safety 16 program, there was no requirement for observations; that may 17 be coming. Do we not have a required observation for each 18 department to make monthly to review and look over the 19 workplace and -- and do an updated -- 20 MS. CARR: Right. We -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- review of that workplace in 22 order to determine if there are any matters that needed 23 correction or modification, so that we can -- 24 MS. CARR: Yes, we do have that, and those 25 are being turned in by most departments. This observation 7-11-05 54 1 is actually watching the employee, observing the employee. 2 And there's forms and detailed information that has to be 3 filled out. It's to be done at random, but not secretively. 4 There's a checklist the observer will follow. This is 5 something new that they are implementing. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Follow-up question on 8 that. The -- is that a County employee that would be the 9 observer? Or is the -- 10 MS. CARR: They suggested possibly people on 11 the safety committee could do the observations. Or it could 12 be a department head could observe an employee. It could 13 be, like, a chief deputy or assistant observe. It could 14 even be another employee observing another employee. But 15 these employees that do the observations will be trained on 16 how to do them. And, like I said, you have to -- the 17 employee that's being observed, they're well aware of it, 18 but you don't plan ahead. It's done randomly. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they -- 20 MS. CARR: It's not to try to catch anybody 21 or point fingers, but just so that the County employees will 22 be aware that there will be observations, and so every day, 23 you know, they follow the safety rules. Rather than 24 knowing, well, Friday somebody's coming by, so I better do 25 thus-and-so. 7-11-05 55 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- and this may 2 become a requirement? Or -- 3 MS. CARR: It may become a requirement. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate your efforts and 5 those of your department, Ms. Carr, in the safety program 6 that we initiated here in 2003, and I think we've made a lot 7 of progress. We had a couple of designations of hazardous 8 workplace. We've resolved those. We're beyond that. And, 9 as you say, we got a 10 percent worker's comp premium credit 10 last year amounting to almost $18,000. We have excellent 11 cooperation from Texas Association of Counties and their 12 representative, Mr. Larry Boccaccio, and he's been very, 13 very helpful -- 14 MS. CARR: He has. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- in everything that we've 16 done, and I appreciate his efforts too. Thank you. The 17 next item is a timed item for 9:50. Item 9, discussion and 18 update on AFLAC billing. Ms. Nemec? 19 MS. NEMEC: I'm here to explain the -- the 20 process of the first few months on our insurance billing. 21 Back in December and January, I came to the Court and I 22 explained that I was not able to deduct any premiums due to 23 that I had not received premiums from Mutual of Omaha in 24 order to do this. And I sent out a letter to the employees, 25 which you have a copy of, stating that I was going to have 7-11-05 56 1 to double-deduct at the end of December because I hadn't 2 received the premiums yet. We deduct premiums a month in 3 advance to be able to pay for the premiums that are due on 4 the 1st. Well, come the end of December, I still had not 5 received those amounts from Mutual of Omaha, and I have 6 court minutes here which reflect that I had brought that to 7 the Court, and also employees that were upset because we 8 were going to have to deduct at the end of December. Well, 9 unfortunately, I did not receive those premiums by the end 10 of December; I was unable to deduct again at the end of 11 December payroll, and so I received them from Mutual of 12 Omaha on January the 12th. 13 So, what we did is, by that time, I would 14 have had to deduct December 15th, the end of December, and 15 January's premiums. There would have -- I would have 16 deducted three premiums in one paycheck. Our employees 17 cannot afford for us to do that. So, what I did was I 18 deducted two premiums, which was the December 15th and the 19 December 30th premium, on the January 15th payroll. Then 20 the end of December -- the end of the January payroll, then 21 I deducted the January 15th premium at the end of the 22 January -- the January 30th payroll. So, come February, 23 then I go back and I adjust everybody's deduction and just 24 deducted the one -- for the one pay period, and then I did 25 that at the end of February also. So, now we're into March. 7-11-05 57 1 We got the reconciliation from AFLAC the beginning of March, 2 and we reconciled that invoice going back, knowing that we 3 had to double-deduct on these pay periods. 4 On March 17th, I was at a conference, and my 5 chief deputy overnighted those premiums on March 17th. 6 However, because of the way the accounting system worked and 7 everything, we not only had to send the payroll escrow 8 checks to AFLAC, I needed to type out a treasurer's check to 9 make up for the difference. And, so, when my employee sent 10 this off, being that she's new -- and we've discussed it -- 11 she failed to include the treasurer's check, because at that 12 time that didn't mean anything to her. So, AFLAC calls -- 13 and they're in communication this whole time -- and says 14 they're missing $4,000; that they could not reconcile the 15 billings for those because they're missing $4,000. So, what 16 they did was, with the first four checks that they received, 17 they applied it to the first people that were on the 18 invoice, leaving 38 people not knowing -- not having the 19 funds to do that. So, that's when my employee called me at 20 my conference, and I said, "You need to send that fifth 21 check from the Treasurer's office," and so -- which she did. 22 And I have attached to the agenda item where they received 23 those premiums or that last check on March the 28th. 24 On March the 29th, there was a letter sent to 25 employees stating that they had not received the premiums 7-11-05 58 1 yet, and that they had 15 days to either send the premium in 2 or let them know what their intentions were. So, we called 3 AFLAC. They said, "Just tell your employees to ignore that 4 letter. We received your premiums on the 28th," which I 5 have documentation that I attached to the agenda stating 6 that they had received those premiums. Somehow, there's -- 7 there was word that 38 employees -- their insurance was 8 terminated and that they needed to be reinstated. That was 9 not the case. That was -- that has never been the case, and 10 I'd like to give you a letter from Bryan Finley stating that 11 fact. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 13 MS. NEMEC: You're welcome. And I would like 14 to read that to you, please. It says, "Dear Barbara: This 15 is to confirm that the notice mailed to 38 employees on 16 March 29th was not a cancellation notice, but a notice 17 informing them that a premium was due. The employee had 15 18 days in which to respond before any cancellation would be 19 effective. Our office was notified by AFLAC that the 20 missing premiums were received and applied to these 21 policies, therefore continuing the coverage without 22 interruption. No reinstatement was necessary under the 23 circumstances." Any questions? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So everything is working 25 now? 7-11-05 59 1 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Everyone's paid up and 3 it's being done? 4 MS. NEMEC: We finally were able to reconcile 5 -- and that's what I tried to explain back when, is it was 6 going to be hard to have one representative with AFLAC and 7 another representative with our health insurance, because 8 those two benefits are coordinated. Because the County -- 9 if they choose Plan B, then the employee has the option to 10 go and buy AFLAC products to sub -- because the County 11 subsidizes for the premium from Plan B to Plan A, which 12 several employees have done. And so in order to reconcile 13 those billings, you need all the premiums in to be able to 14 reconcile. So, that was -- that was the delay, and we were 15 in communication with AFLAC. We knew exactly when they 16 needed the premiums. They were sent, and this letter 17 notifying the employees on March 29th was just sent in 18 error, because they did receive them on the 28th. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Nemec? 20 MS. NEMEC: Yes? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So what you're saying 22 is, then, that all the premiums that are due have been paid 23 and you're saying that no employees suffered any lapse of 24 coverage; is that correct? 25 MS. NEMEC: Correct. 7-11-05 60 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Following that, then, 2 would the -- to your knowledge, were any employees' claims 3 denied because of this action or inaction? 4 MS. NEMEC: None at all. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None that you know 6 of, or none at all? 7 MS. NEMEC: None at all. I've checked with 8 AFLAC, and there was never any interruption of service. All 9 claims have been paid as received. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what is the direct 12 correlation between Mutual of Omaha and AFLAC? 13 MS. NEMEC: Because of an employee -- with 14 Mutual of Omaha, if an employee chooses Plan B, then the 15 County -- the County takes the difference between Plan A and 16 Plan B premiums that are going towards that employee's 17 insurance, and the County allows the employee that chose 18 Plan B to use the difference in those premiums to buy AFLAC 19 products. And, so, until I was able -- I had the AFLAC 20 billing and what to deduct for all employees, but I did not 21 have the Mutual of Omaha billing to know what employee -- 22 what -- if I should deduct all the amount out of the 23 employee's contribution or deductions, or was the County 24 going to subsidize some of that for those that were on Plan 25 B. And that's why I could not deduct those premiums until I 7-11-05 61 1 received the Mutual of Omaha billing. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: And this was in January? 3 MS. NEMEC: I received it January the 12th, 4 but by that time we were three -- three pay periods behind, 5 because we deduct a month in advance. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: There's -- there's no 7 contingency on the premium, one or the other, is there? 8 Between Mutual of Omaha and AFLAC, is there? 9 MS. NEMEC: No. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And in order for the 11 AFLAC coverage to continue, the premium must be paid in a 12 timely manner, must it not? 13 MS. NEMEC: Correct. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm looking at the 15 documentation you furnished, and the -- apparently, the 16 January -- or, excuse me, December '04 premiums which had 17 been deducted in December '04 were due in by January 15th; 18 is that correct? 19 MS. NEMEC: That is correct. But I did not 20 deduct anything in December, any type of insurance, AFLAC or 21 Mutual of Omaha, because I did not have those premiums. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Premium amounts? Is 23 that -- 24 MS. NEMEC: I did not have those amounts to 25 deduct. And that's what the employees were complaining 7-11-05 62 1 about, that I was going to have to double-deduct in 2 December, which I sent them a letter stating that. Well, 3 come the end of December, I still had not received the 4 premiums from -- the invoices from Mutual of Omaha, and I 5 was unable to deduct at that time. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're telling me is 7 the premiums which were payable in December of '04, which 8 should have been deducted from the employees' paychecks for 9 that coverage, you did not deduct? 10 MS. NEMEC: They were not deducted till 11 January 15th payroll, and then again at the end of the 12 January payroll. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's when you 14 caught up? 15 MS. NEMEC: Let me think here. January, 16 February -- I double-deducted in January, and then I 17 double-deducted in February -- at the end of January, and 18 that took care of the January billing for December's 19 premiums that weren't deducted. Now, in February -- I get a 20 statement in February, and that's for the January 21 deductions. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 MS. NEMEC: And then, after we deducted all 24 that, then there was a matter of having to reconcile 25 everything, and so now we're into March, and we're back and 7-11-05 63 1 forth with AFLAC. And, of course, they -- and up to this 2 date, we're still communicating with them, because we were 3 given some wrong amounts. And -- and so we're trying to 4 reconcile, and I think we finally got it to where now it's 5 reconciled, but there were some wrong amounts given to us, 6 and we were deducting -- either overdeducting or 7 underdeducting based on what Bryan Finley's office sent us. 8 And we talked to AFLAC, and they said, well, they have the 9 correct premiums. But in re -- and in researching 10 everything with Mr. Finley's office, there were some 11 discrepancies on their part, and now they have given me the 12 correct amounts. So, it's -- it's been a challenge to 13 reconcile, but it's all taken care of now. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: But if I'm hearing you 15 correctly, we caught up on the deductions by the end of 16 January. 17 MS. NEMEC: Well, we should have caught up on 18 -- we did catch up on the deductions by the end of January, 19 but then there was those discrepancies in February and March 20 premiums that we could not figure out which were the correct 21 amount, and we finally got those taken care of with all 22 three offices working together. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we deduct from the 24 employee's wages, and then the burden is on Kerr County, 25 your office in particular, to send those premiums in for 7-11-05 64 1 those employees to have that coverage for which you've 2 already deducted premiums; is that correct? 3 MS. NEMEC: Correct. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Now, the remittance 5 that was due for January -- by January 15th of this year, 6 which would have been for December '04, according to the 7 information you furnished me, was not paid until March the 8 28th, '05; is that correct? 9 MS. NEMEC: Actually, it was paid -- it was 10 paid March the 17th, after we reconciled everything. But 11 there was -- like I said earlier, there were four escrow 12 checks that were made payable to AFLAC that were sent in. 13 After I reconciled everything, I did a fifth check out of 14 the Treasurer's account. And when my deputy sent those 15 premiums in, the Treasurer's account check meant nothing to 16 her, and she did not send that in. So then that was 17 overnighted, and they received it on the 28th. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the total monthly 19 premium to AFLAC, about? I mean, just generally. I mean -- 20 MS. NEMEC: $4,000, $3,000, just depending on 21 what -- you know, employees coming and going. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I'm asking 23 that is 'cause I'm -- by what you've presented -- or what 24 AFLAC said and you presented, what you've attached, it shows 25 that January, February, and March were all paid in 7-11-05 65 1 January -- on March 28th. 2 MS. NEMEC: Actually, they were paid on -- 3 that's what it shows here, but actually, we overnighted it 4 on March the 17th. There was just one check that they were 5 -- and you know why it says that on here, March the 28th? 6 Because when they received those four checks, they were 7 missing that fifth check from the Treasurer's account, and 8 they didn't know how to apply them, and it took them a while 9 to reconcile their invoice when they received our checks, 10 and it was posted on the 28th. It was not received on the 11 28th by them. We overnighted it on the 17th. It was posted 12 on the 28th, 'cause it took them some time to reconcile -- 13 and conversations back and forth with my office before they 14 were able to reconcile their billing. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When was that last 16 check sent? 17 MS. NEMEC: That last check was then 18 overnighted on the 27th, which they received on the 28th. 19 And then that's when they were able to reconcile everything. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: So everything was reconciled 21 by that time? 22 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Now, the 24 documentation which you furnished us from AFLAC dated 25 May 23rd of this year shows lapse pending notice. That's 7-11-05 66 1 May the 23rd, and AFLAC states that as of that date, 2 apparently, they have not received remittances that were due 3 April 15 and May 15. 4 MS. NEMEC: Okay. And that's what I was 5 explaining earlier, that there -- we had received wrong 6 amounts from -- you know, whose mistake it was, I don't 7 know, but the amounts that we received, some of them were 8 incorrect. And so this whole time that these premiums are 9 due, my chief deputy and AFLAC are communicating and trying 10 to get the right amounts to be able to reconcile that 11 account, and so on this letter, it states that to prevent 12 any interruption, the payment must be received by June the 13 12th. Well, attached I have where that was overnighted on 14 June the 9th. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: In response to the June 23rd 16 letter? I mean May 23rd. 17 MS. NEMEC: May 23rd letter. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 MS. NEMEC: Not really in response to that 20 letter, but, you know, just in communicating and my chief 21 deputy knowing when that needed to be done. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: So, the June 9th mailer 23 included the amounts that are shown on the May 23rd letter? 24 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: For April and May? 7-11-05 67 1 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. And it looks like now, 2 with the three offices getting together -- my office, Bryan 3 Finley's office, and AFLAC -- that all the premium -- that 4 all the amounts are now -- we've received the correct 5 amount, and there shouldn't be any type of having to 6 reconcile any more, other than new hires or terminations. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I guess the question 8 that arises now, Ms. Nemec, is if, on June 9th, you sent the 9 remittances that were due April 15 and May 15, what about 10 the remittance that was due June 15 for the May premium? 11 Has that been forwarded? 12 MS. NEMEC: The June -- the one that was due 13 -- yes, that's been done. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: When -- do you know when that 15 was forwarded? 16 MS. NEMEC: And, you know -- no, I don't. 17 There was never a question on that one, so I don't -- well, 18 actually, you know what? That was sent in -- you know, 19 that -- I remember, that was sent in when we sent in these 20 other two invoices. Because we were able -- by reconciling 21 these two invoices, we were able to know what the 22 reconciliation would have been for June, so those were sent 23 in all at the same time. And now we have a premium due July 24 the 15th, and we have not received the billing for that, 25 which we should have. But Judy called AFLAC and they 7-11-05 68 1 e-mailed it to her, and she's in the process of reconciling 2 that. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From what source is 4 this misinformation coming? Is it coming from Mutual of 5 Omaha or from AFLAC or from Bryan Finley and Associates? 6 Where is this misinformation that creates the problem? 7 MS. NEMEC: Well, when an employee signs up, 8 they go to Mr. Finley's office to sign up for the AFLAC 9 product. At this point -- at this point, as far as getting 10 the wrong amounts for AFLAC to deduct, at this point, that 11 has nothing to do with Mutual of Omaha any more. It's 12 AFLAC. When an employee -- a new employee gets hired -- or 13 right at the beginning when all this happened, they go to 14 Bryan Finley's office and they sign up for -- for different 15 products that they -- that are available to them. A lot of 16 it has to do with -- we -- and then what happens is 17 Mr. Finley's office sends us the premiums to deduct, and 18 those are the amounts we deduct. We only deduct premiums 19 that Mr. Finley sends for us to deduct. When we get the 20 invoice, sometimes those premiums are not the same. There's 21 discrepancies. 22 Now, whether we got the wrong amount from 23 Mr. Finley or from -- or if the AFLAC is wrong, it turns 24 out -- when we've been reconciling these accounts, it turns 25 out that there's been errors done on both parts. Also, what 7-11-05 69 1 happens is an employee might sign up for a cancer policy, 2 let's say, and so Mr. Finley sends us that information; we 3 deduct for the cancer policy. Well, going through 4 underwriting and stuff, that employee might not qualify to 5 be able to have a cancer policy. So, therefore, when we get 6 the premium -- when we get the invoice, it's less that 7 amount, and so then we have to stop and we have to figure 8 out why AFLAC has this amount and Mr. Finley's office has 9 that amount. And so then we called and we found out, well, 10 they signed up for this policy, and under the qualifications 11 and stuff, they were not -- they were not able to be insured 12 under that, so then we have to make those adjustments. 13 There's adjustments made all the time because of things like 14 that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A general comment that 16 I'd make -- and, you know, I'm -- is that it looks like 17 everything's straightened out, at least for the moment, but 18 I'm not sure it's going to stay that way. I think we really 19 need to look at the whole system, as to how it works, 20 because it seems that -- I'm very uncomfortable about us not 21 making the payments for employees. I mean, and it seems -- 22 but it seems -- but I understand the way, in your system, 23 that it's -- you can't spend forward money until you know 24 where it needs to be applied. So, I mean, I'm not sure how 25 you fix the problem, but there needs to be a way. It seems 7-11-05 70 1 to me that we make at least estimated premium payments to 2 the -- to AFLAC, and that the adjustments be made after -- 3 down the road, as opposed to not sending the premium at all. 4 And I don't -- but that may not be possible, and I 5 understand. You know, I have learned a lot about how that 6 process with AFLAC works, and I almost wish we didn't offer 7 that. 8 MS. NEMEC: You and me both. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that is a good 10 service to employees. 11 MS. NEMEC: I figured out a solution to that. 12 I think that what we're going to do -- and I've been talking 13 to the girls in the office about that. I think what we're 14 going to do is set it up like we have Mutual of Omaha set 15 up. It doesn't matter when we deduct for the employee. We 16 have an account that, when a billing comes in -- an invoice 17 comes in, we pay that amount out of our insurance account, 18 and then the adjustments are made in the following month, so 19 they either give us a credit or send us a letter stating we 20 owe a little bit more. And I'm thinking that the best way 21 to handle AFLAC is set it up that way. Not have escrow 22 checks from our payroll account being made payable to AFLAC, 23 but rather to the County Treasurer and deposit it in an 24 insurance account. That way, when these billings do come 25 in, we've got the money right there, whether it balances or 7-11-05 71 1 not, to send it in and then make the adjustments at a later 2 date when we reconcile everything with them, and that should 3 alleviate this problem. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really what 5 Commissioner Letz is suggesting. 6 MS. NEMEC: Right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess my concern is that if 8 we're deducting from employees' wages for insurance 9 purposes, and for whatever reason, those funds are not paid 10 to the carrier -- they're not paid; they're transmitted, but 11 they're lost in transit in some way, shape, form, or 12 fashion, if there's a loss that's covered under the policy, 13 I think we're swinging in the breeze. 14 MS. NEMEC: Well, that hasn't been the case. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I understand it hasn't 16 happened yet, but what I'm looking at here indicates that it 17 very well could have happened in this course of events with 18 all of this difficulty in -- in these things being paid in 19 an untimely manner. 20 MS. NEMEC: Well, like I said, we've been 21 communicating with AFLAC. We knew the date that they had to 22 have those premiums in-hand, and they had them, so that has 23 not been the case. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: What obligation do we have to 25 do payroll deductions for insurance for our employees? 7-11-05 72 1 MS. NEMEC: Well, the Court decides what -- 2 what deductions we're going to do for the employees. I 3 don't do any of the deductions unless it's court-ordered to 4 do so. And, so, when we have that, then I do the deductions 5 and pay them at the end of the -- or when we get the 6 billing. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that -- 8 MS. NEMEC: I don't like -- I don't like 9 running on a deadline at the very last minute, and that's 10 what we've been having to do because of the discrepancies 11 and everything. So, that's why I was saying I've talked to 12 my employees, and we're going to change that procedure by 13 handling it the way we do Mutual of Omaha so that we're not 14 running on these deadlines, and so, in error, a letter is 15 not sent the day after they receive the premiums. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I think my question is more 17 one that may go to the County Attorney as to what legal 18 obligation, if any, do we have -- the Court -- to permit 19 payroll deductions for insurance or any other purpose for 20 the employees? And, secondly, if we do authorize it, 21 whether we're obligated or not. What is our exposure if, 22 for some reason, there's a loss that's a covered loss that, 23 for some reason, we fail to remit payment on something that 24 we've deducted? I -- I think that's a question we need -- 25 questions we need an answer -- we need answers for. 7-11-05 73 1 MS. NEMEC: I'm sure we'd be liable. It's 2 our obligation. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly my concern, 4 Ms. Nemec. Exactly my concern. 5 MS. NEMEC: And that's why we're in constant 6 communication with them, and they've received them in a 7 timely manner as we were told to do. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think there's 10 someone in the audience -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we've got two 12 participation forms that -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that have been filed with 15 regard to this particular matter. Mr. Pearson, you've 16 signed a participation form -- submitted one. Do you wish 17 to be heard on this matter? 18 MR. PEARSON: Judge, I can defer my remarks 19 until Item 13. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. 21 Mr. Prendergast? You had also done a participation form. 22 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yeah. Sorry if I'm taking 23 up your time. And I'm concerned about this, because I put 24 in a request for Open Records back on June 17th in relation 25 to this very issue. I did not receive anything back in 7-11-05 74 1 response other than a letter that I would receive it on 2 about -- excuse me, I'll do it that way -- July 27th. And 3 yet it's being discussed here in the open courtroom, which 4 is fine; it's answering my question, but I didn't get any 5 backup to my request for Open Records, which would be the 6 last letter there. You kind of have to work from the back 7 and come forward. And I think I understand this. It's that 8 AFLAC is sending us a bill. We have pre-enrollment, so we 9 know that each employee is going to have a certain amount 10 deducted from their account for their supplemental insurance 11 under Plan B. AFLAC sends a bill via Bryan or directly to 12 the Treasurer; I don't know. 13 But my concern was -- and I was given, in a 14 letter which was presented to me by one of the County 15 employees, that these payments weren't being timely 16 received. And I think the background information which was 17 given to the press certainly reflects that we were three 18 months in arrears at one point, and came back, and the same 19 letter, we were still two months in arrears at that point. 20 So, my concern was exactly what you guys have stated. What 21 is our liability here? In the press stuff, I'm still 22 confused about how the whole situation works, whether it's 23 Bryan Finley that's sending us the bill or whether it's 24 AFLAC. Or do we send a separate check to Bryan Finley for 25 his commission, and then send the -- remit the remaining 7-11-05 75 1 portion to AFLAC? Or is it one bill that then AFLAC sends 2 the commission back to Bryan Finley? I don't know. 3 Irregardless of how that's done, it seems to 4 me like if you deducted the money on January 15th, that 5 money would certainly have been available for the 6 February 15th payment, but we didn't make a February 15th 7 payment, best I can tell here. And that's the reason I'd 8 asked for an Open Records request, so we'd have a better 9 explanation. I'm still confused, frankly. And I think it's 10 probably positioning this Court such that you have some 11 contingent liability that you haven't -- that you haven't 12 put a sinking fund into it. So, that was my concern. An 13 employee came to me, handed me the letter showing -- saying 14 they'd received nonpayment notices. This letter which I was 15 given, which I sent to Barbara for explanation, was attached 16 to this employee's next statement so that they would know 17 that it had been taken care of. But every time you read one 18 of these things, you have to ask more questions; i.e., why 19 is a memorandum from Kerr County Environmental Health 20 Department being sent out under Barbara Nemec's name? I 21 mean, this was in the press release, and I keep -- every 22 time I look at this, 10 more questions come up. 23 So, I'd like to ask the Court, if they would, 24 to come back and continue to watchdog this to see if this is 25 something we want to continue to do in the future. So, 7-11-05 76 1 that's all I have. But I am curious why I'm not getting 2 Open Records requests back in 10 days, 'cause that was over 3 two months. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And the Open Records request 5 was dated when? 6 MR. PRENDERGAST: June 17th, and 7 acknowledged. And then the follow-up letter says I don't 8 get it until July 21st. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Prendergast, 10 just a -- 11 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- minor procedural 13 issue. 14 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm surprised to see 16 there that you were charged $90 for research. 17 MR. PRENDERGAST: That -- well, that was a 18 bit excessive, I admit. If you go back and look at the 19 law -- 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The Attorney 21 General, I believe, has ruled that as a matter of general 22 public interest, which this is, then there's no cost to you. 23 So the County Attorney can probably -- 24 MR. PRENDERGAST: Well, actually, I think 25 there were less than 50 copies. Actually, there were 27 7-11-05 77 1 copies, if you'll look on that. Yeah, and I was delayed for 2 over a month in getting those 27 copies. Yeah, that's some 3 concern to me too, but there's -- there's resolution to 4 that. Under the -- under the law, as I read it, as of last 5 Thursday -- Friday, I can seek treble damages, so I can 6 present the Court with a $270 bill. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't do that. 8 MR. PRENDERGAST: Don't do that. Thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 10 MS. NEMEC: I'd just like to make a comment, 11 that on the $90, I did confer with the County Attorney, and 12 that's what we came up with. That is provided under the law 13 of the Open Records Act. Also, the 10 days was to respond 14 to the person asking for the Open Records Act, as to when 15 they will be getting that information. The solution to the 16 AFLAC is that this Court approved for us to go on the AFLAC 17 program, and if at any time you wish to do away with it, I'd 18 be glad to do that also. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have 20 anything further on this particular agenda item? Is there 21 any member of the audience that wishes to be heard on this 22 particular agenda item? Any motion to be offered? Why 23 don't we stand in recess for about 15 minutes. 24 (Recess taken from 10:45 a.m. to 11 a.m.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 7-11-05 78 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to 2 order, if we might, after our mid-morning recess. The next 3 item on the agenda is a timed item for 9:54. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 54. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Discuss and consider declaring 6 July 11th, 2005 Sergeant John Stafford day here in Kerr 7 County. Commissioner 1? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. I've 9 always been taught that if you put a strange number on 10 there, that everybody focuses on it and you -- and you land 11 on time. 9:54. It is now 11:01, so that didn't work. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's close. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As everyone knows -- 14 or you may not know; I don't know -- Highway Patrolman 15 Sergeant John Stafford is leaving our community, and I know 16 John's been a great servant to all of us for several years, 17 and a friend of this Court and a friend of our community, 18 and he's -- he goes above and beyond the call of duty, in my 19 opinion, for all of us. And I wanted to declare today, July 20 the 11th, 2005, Sergeant John Stafford Day in Kerr County. 21 We have a resolution in here that states that. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, would 23 you consider changing that to the 18th day of July? To give 24 a little more time for recognition of him? Today's the 25 11th. 7-11-05 79 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, and today is 2 his going away party. He's gone. I wanted to do this 3 before noon so I could hand it to him at lunchtime and -- 4 and get him out of town. I mean, he's literally through 5 already. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I just -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate your -- 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- was looking for a 9 little more recognition, but we'll get some after the fact. 10 Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was that a motion? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was a motion. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 15 adoption of the resolution. Any question or discussion? 16 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 17 hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's 22 move to Item Number 11, if we might. Discuss and consider 23 $538.38 payment to Texas County and District Retirement 24 System for late reporting. Reporting due date was April the 25 16th at 5 p.m. The report was faxed on April 17th at 1 p.m. 7-11-05 80 1 Ms. Nemec? 2 MS. NEMEC: Yes. I put this on the agenda. 3 We received a letter from Texas Retirement System about our 4 report being late, which we knew that it was late. I don't 5 really like to bring my -- my medical problems to the 6 public, but I guess it's -- as an elected official, I must 7 do that, considering this agenda item. I was having 8 procedures done during this time, some medical procedures 9 done. Just to let everyone know, those reports came out 10 negative on everything that they were checking for, and I'm 11 under medication and on the road to good health now. 12 However, this did happen, and right around this time also 13 was -- and I've discussed all this with my staff; I'm not 14 here saying anything that they don't know that I'm saying. 15 But, again, in January I hired someone new. And, from what 16 I understand, this happened back in 2002 also. At that 17 time, I had just hired someone new also, and I guess maybe 18 deadlines aren't being explained as much as they should. 19 But we've remedied that by putting into the computer all our 20 deadlines, and they will pop up days in advance to where 21 this will not happen again. 22 And, just like I said, the report was due 23 April 16th at 5 o'clock. When I got back on Tuesday after 24 the procedures had been done, I was notified that this had 25 not been done, so we faxed it right away. A letter was 7-11-05 81 1 sent. My chief deputy sent a letter explaining that I had 2 been ill, and if they would grant an exception to the fine, 3 and they sent back a statement saying that that was not in 4 their provisions to do so. I did call my doctor at that 5 time, asked him to send a letter, hoping that that letter 6 might work, but I really don't know if it will. If it's not 7 in their provisions, it's not in their provisions, but I 8 felt that I would try that route. In the meantime, I'm 9 asking for payment of the $538.38 to avoid any interest that 10 might be imposed on us if we don't get this sent in. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further, Ms. Nemec? 12 MS. NEMEC: No, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I had participation forms 14 filed with respect to this particular item also. On Item 15 11, Mr. Pearson, do you wish to be heard on this? 16 MR. PEARSON: I want to defer to Item 13. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 18 MR. PEARSON: Defer to Item 13. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: 13? All right, sir. 20 Mr. Prendergast? You wish to be heard, sir? 21 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir. This was another 22 Open Records request that I had. Sorry to take up your 23 time, but I need to kind of go slow here for a second. I 24 made an Open Records request concerning this back in June, 25 and the Open Records request that I made concerning this was 7-11-05 82 1 to the Texas Retirement Center -- System, asking if, in 2 fact, there had been late payments in the past to the Texas 3 Retirement Center -- System by Kerr County. Their response 4 to me was, yes, it had happened three times in 2002, which 5 the backup is there and the copy of the Texas Retirement 6 System letter, along with the amount of money, which was a 7 little over $2,000. That was all prior to this Court's 8 being on board. But my understanding is, after having 9 received the Texas Retirement System letter stating that 10 there were past payments that were late, late penalties were 11 assessed, that, in fact, under the previous Court, those 12 late penalty assessments were never paid, and I will have a 13 letter to that effect probably within the next two to three 14 days. 15 I do have conversations -- a conversation and 16 that on my mobile telephone on a message from the same 17 gentleman who wrote the letter from the Texas Retirement 18 System, Mr. Patrick -- whatever his name is, one of the 19 attorneys. When I talked to him on Friday morning, he had 20 the auditor with the Texas Retirement System there with him, 21 confirming the fact that $2,000 had been deducted from Kerr 22 County systems retirement fund. Now, that's not a direct -- 23 my understanding is that that's not a direct deduction from 24 the employees' retirement. What it requires is -- is if the 25 internal auditors of the Texas Retirement System determine 7-11-05 83 1 that because that money was taken out, Kerr County would 2 then have to make up the difference in matching funds. So, 3 what you have is a scenario where this issue was not 4 addressed in 2002. I'm not sure that anyone was aware of it 5 in 2002, other than possibly Barbara. But, in any event, 6 that's what, to my understanding, has happened to the money. 7 I have some real concerns about some of these issues, 8 obviously. But I'll be glad to furnish the Court with a 9 copy of my letter from the Texas Retirement System as soon 10 as it gets here. Or you can put me under oath, if you'd 11 like, Judge, and I will tell you what I have to say, because 12 that's the truth as I know it. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: George, would you tell 14 me again, what -- how did that -- just kind of run through 15 it again. What happened to the money? 16 MR. PRENDERGAST: My understanding, 17 Commissioner, is that the money -- once the money is not 18 paid -- for instance, this past payment, the $538, it hasn't 19 been paid. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about 21 the penalty? 22 MR. PRENDERGAST: The penalty. Yes, I'm 23 sorry. The penalty -- hang on; dry mouth syndrome -- the 24 penalty stops as soon as payment's received. You have a 25 $500 assessment for late payment, plus interest. So, in 7-11-05 84 1 this instance that we have before us right now, the payment 2 was made one day late, so there was $500 assessed against 3 Kerr County Retirement System, plus the additional $38 and 4 some-odd cents for interest, okay? But since they had, in 5 fact, received payment, interest has not continued to 6 accrue. It's just that one-time penalty. If you do not pay 7 that penalty within a three-month span, then it is deducted 8 from the retirement system in Austin from your money. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 10 MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay? So if you don't pay 11 this bill that we're being asked to look at today, then they 12 will deduct that from your system by, I think, sometime in 13 August. But in 2002, it happened three times. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we didn't pay the 15 -- the interest? 16 MR. PRENDERGAST: Or the penalty. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or the penalty. And 18 it was deducted from the system? 19 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir. There's letters 20 there. Now, the final letter stating that, in effect, is 21 what happened I've not received, but I should have it -- 22 well, they said they would do it this morning, 'cause I was 23 talking to them Friday, both the auditor with the Texas 24 Retirement System and one of the internal attorneys. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 7-11-05 85 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Maybe -- I 3 don't know if you can answer it or not, George. The -- can 4 you go over where the money comes from? I mean, what money 5 is in the retirement system that's not basically employee 6 money? 7 MR. PRENDERGAST: My understanding, I 8 believe, Commissioner, is that you deduct a certain 9 percentage from each employee as to their election as to up 10 to a certain percentage. Is that correct? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 12 MR. PRENDERGAST: They can deduct, for 13 instance, up to 6 percent of their -- their paycheck 14 towards -- to apply towards their retirement; is that 15 correct? Or is that number different? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's a standard number 17 for every employee, if I'm not mistaken. 18 MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay. So, it's an either 19 you're in or you're out type thing. If you elect to go in, 20 then it's the 6 percent or whatever it is. Then the County, 21 I believe, then does a matching fund as to that percentage, 22 do they not? For a one-to-one? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's actually a bit 24 more than that; I think it's 7.9, I believe, match from the 25 County. 7-11-05 86 1 MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay. So, simplistically, 2 I think if an employee says I want to put my 6 percent in, 3 50 bucks a day -- or 50 bucks a month, then the County has 4 to come back and match that to that fact, or whatever it is. 5 At 7.9 percent, that would be -- what, another 40 bucks, 6 right? So, that -- roughly. So, at that point, if the 7 auditor with the Texas Retirement System says you have not 8 contributed enough because of the deduction -- because of 9 the late penalty assessment, then you would have to make up 10 that difference, plus the interest that that money would 11 have been accruing during that time. So, if they're getting 12 a 6 percent return on their money over a three-year span, 13 another 2,000 may become 3,000. But that sits there and 14 accrues against that account, my understanding, in 15 perpetuity until somebody comes back in and says, "Let's 16 make this up now so we can stop the bleeding." Now, that 17 I'm not completely sure about. But, I mean, just in 18 actuarial ways, that's the way it would begin to play itself 19 out. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was wondering if there 21 might may be a way to tell -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- 23 MR. PRENDERGAST: Well, we need to look into 24 it, I think, more than anything, Jonathan, to see if we need 25 to send them another check for whatever. 7-11-05 87 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, simply stated, 2 there's a Kerr County pool within the greater pool. 3 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if there's a 5 penalty or interest accruing, for whatever reason, whatever 6 it happens to be, they're going to -- they're going to take 7 it at some point in time and it probably -- it probably 8 washes against earnings. 9 MR. PRENDERGAST: Only as to Kerr County. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the Kerr County 11 pool. 12 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir, it does. That's 13 my understanding. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm still following 15 up on Commissioner Letz' question. The $2,000, who pays it? 16 Employees or taxpayers? 17 MR. PRENDERGAST: Taxpayers, would be my 18 assumption. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I was going to 20 say -- 21 MR. PRENDERGAST: I don't think the employees 22 are at risk, is what I'm trying to say, Commissioner. I 23 think the taxpayers have to make that difference up. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question -- my other 25 question, and I decided not to ask it, really, because this 7-11-05 88 1 question needs to be directed to the retirement system, as 2 to whether it could be built in -- recovering that money 3 could be built in out of what we're submitting to them under 4 the administrative side. And, I mean, in which case, it is 5 still -- the taxpayers are still paying the money, but maybe 6 it's being spread out in next year or something. I don't 7 know that, but there may be a way to work it. 8 MR. PRENDERGAST: My gut reaction is that the 9 Texas Retirement System would be more than happy to talk to 10 us about it. When I did my Open Records request to them, 11 they were responsive within three days. So -- and in my 12 initial conversation, when I asked them in my first letter 13 for copies of the actual checks, they said we don't retain 14 that. Possibly, you know, you can apply and see how the 15 County took care of it. So I just went back to the Texas 16 Retirement System and asked in another Open Records request 17 how, in fact, they're getting paid and who paid it, and the 18 verbal conversation was, it wasn't paid. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: And your Open Records request, 20 what's the status of that? 21 MR. PRENDERGAST: They, on Friday, said they 22 were on it like a duck on a june bug, I believe was the 23 comment, Buster. Right? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't understand 25 that kind of talk. (Laughter.) 7-11-05 89 1 MR. PRENDERGAST: You don't understand that? 2 They said they would have that letter to me by today, was 3 their indication. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 MR. PRENDERGAST: They were going to fax it 6 to me. I'll be glad to furnish the Court with a copy of it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 8 MR. PRENDERGAST: If you adjourn for lunch, 9 then I'll check the house and see if I've got it and bring 10 it back. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think -- my 12 preference on this would probably be to defer action till 13 the next meeting and have a representative from Texas 14 Retirement System come down and explain to us the situation, 15 where the money is and what is owed, and if something is 16 owed by the County, I think it needs to be cleared up. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what the down 18 side of that is, if any. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And what is -- yeah. 20 But, I mean, I don't think there's anyone here today that 21 can answer those questions. 22 MR. PRENDERGAST: No. It's just something 23 that I was concerned about. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 2002, you 25 Commissioners weren't aware of these? 7-11-05 90 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't recall it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall it. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it akin to being 4 -- of course, you don't budget for penalties, but is it akin 5 to being an unbudgeted, unauthorized expense? If you didn't 6 hear about it, you didn't authorize the payment of it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, apparently it 8 wasn't paid, and so T.C.D.R.S. took its alternative action, 9 which was to satisfy the debt out of the pool. That's your 10 understanding? 11 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir. And I'm not sure 12 it's directly out of the pool, Commissioner. That's where I 13 was a bit hazy on the explanation. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or something like 15 that. 16 MR. PRENDERGAST: Right. And I think that 17 the County then becomes liable, and it will probably have to 18 increase their -- their con -- their ratable contribution 19 back to the Texas Retirement System in order to make up that 20 deficiency. And we may have already been doing that. I 21 mean, the -- with -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're in speculation at 23 this point. That's why I think we're better off -- 24 MR. PRENDERGAST: We're not in speculation as 25 to what happened. We're in speculation as to what happened 7-11-05 91 1 to the money. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The letter dated May 24th of 3 this year said, "If payment is not received by T.C.D.R.S. 4 within three months after date of notice, the retirement 5 system shall deduct the penalty from the subdivision's" -- 6 read Kerr County -- "account in the subdivision accumulation 7 fund." 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. That's kind 9 of what I was saying; they take it out of the big pool. 10 They're going to make it whole for their purposes. 11 MR. PRENDERGAST: First. 12 MR. PEARSON: You bet. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When this occurs, is 14 there a mechanism for the County Auditor knowing about it? 15 Mr. Auditor? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When something like 18 this occurs, is there a mechanism for you being informed of 19 it happening? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Not unless I get a letter 21 directly from the retirement system. 22 MS. NEMEC: The Court gets a letter. The 23 Court gets a copy of the letter that is sent to me. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I got a copy of the -- I 25 believe it was May 24th, the letter I just read from. 7-11-05 92 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. There was a copy of 3 that letter sent to me, and I copied all the members of the 4 Court on that, as I'm sure the members of the Court will 5 recall. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So that's how it 7 surfaced this time? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But the issue didn't 10 surface when it occurred three times in 2002? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have no 13 recollection of it. 14 MR. PRENDERGAST: Just look at this letter 15 that was remitted February 27th, 2002. It was sent to 16 Barbara Nemec, and from Bill Wendlandt, Manager, Subdivision 17 Accounts and Business Services. The letter of March 27th 18 was the same cc, and then the letter October 23rd, 2002, was 19 cc'd to the head of the governing board. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It isn't me. 21 MR. PRENDERGAST: Sir? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said it's not me. 23 MR. PRENDERGAST: Don't throw me in the briar 24 patch. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the May 24th letter 7-11-05 93 1 shows, "cc: Head of Governing Board," and that was the one 2 that was sent to me. 3 MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The May 24, '05 letter. And 5 that was the one I circulated -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to the Commissioners. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kathy, do you have that 9 on the agenda for next time? 10 (Ms. Mitchell nodded.) 11 MS. NEMEC: I'd like to explain why they did 12 not have a record of the payment being made by the County. 13 It was because I did not -- in 2002, I did not put this on 14 the agenda like I did today. I went back to our storage 15 room to try to find the retirement system's 2002 records on 16 Friday, and I was unable to locate them. It's very dark in 17 there, and I'll keep working on that. But, as I explained 18 earlier, that I knew about the 2002 because they sent me a 19 copy of George Prendergast's Open Records request, and in 20 there it stated that it had happened in 2002. And in 2002, 21 I had hired a new chief deputy. She is out of the state, 22 but I did track her down and called her and asked her if she 23 remembered receiving any type of letters to that effect, and 24 she did not, so that's what I am researching now. I 25 think -- for auditing reasons, I don't think that we should 7-11-05 94 1 allow this 538 to be taken out of the pool that is in the 2 Texas Retirement System, but rather approve a check to be 3 paid to them so we can have an audit trail. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree that the 5 check should be paid, but I think I'd rather wait until next 6 week -- I mean next meeting, when we'll hear from a 7 representative from the Texas Retirement System. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, you have furnished, 10 in the materials with your agenda item, a copy of the report 11 form that goes to T.C.D.R.S.? 12 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: It appears that the -- the 14 single figure that's really needed to go forward to complete 15 that report is the amount of the employees' contributions 16 each month; is that correct? 17 MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry, I don't understand 18 your question. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: In filling out that report, 20 you really only need one figure, and that's the total amount 21 of the employee contributions each month. 22 MS. NEMEC: It's the employee contributions 23 and then the employer contribution. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: But that -- that's figured off 25 the employee contribution, is it not? 7-11-05 95 1 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: So, really, the only figure 3 you need is the total amount of the employee contributions 4 to the retirement system that were deducted in the previous 5 month's payroll. 6 MS. NEMEC: Right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kind of a follow-up 9 question, Barbara. The document, Retirement Contributions 10 Certification, a copy of which is in our packet -- I'm 11 trying to find a date -- oh, April of '05 -- shows a balance 12 still due of $119.67. 13 MS. NEMEC: That is due to a -- that is 14 due -- those amounts there, you're not always going to 15 balance. If have you a voided check in the middle of the 16 month, then that amount is going to be off, and then you 17 have to adjust it on your next report. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is 19 reconcilable in the following month without penalty? 20 MS. NEMEC: Right, that is correct. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I just have a -- I 22 guess a related question. I recall visiting with you about 23 this shortly after when you received the letter, and I guess 24 my question is -- and I don't have any problem with it -- is 25 how did Mr. Prendergast get involved asking the questions, 7-11-05 96 1 as opposed to us handling it internally? Not that I'm -- I 2 mean, it still would have been public. I'm not asking that 3 question. I'm just curious as to why we didn't do it. And 4 you -- I recall you telling me that, you know, you were 5 looking into it, something to that effect, and I just -- you 6 know, I was just curious as to why -- is that what you 7 were -- I guess Mr. Prendergast was looking into what you 8 were referring to, which I have no problem. I'm just 9 curious as to why we didn't have Ms. Mitchell doing it 10 instead of someone else. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: We didn't make inquiry. The 12 inquiry was -- I mean, the notice that we got was -- was 13 fairly simple and specific. I furnished a copy to the 14 members of the Court on it. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no, I'm referring 16 more to our conversation, which I remember. 'Cause in that 17 conversation, you had looked into it enough at that point, 18 'cause you had told me at that time that this has happened 19 previously and you were looking into it. And I was just 20 wondering as to why -- and I had assumed at that point that 21 you and Ms. Mitchell were looking into it, and I'm just 22 wondering if there's a reason you had another person -- or I 23 presume that's where Mr. Prendergast got his information. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection is that 25 Mr. Prendergast said that he had made a request of the 7-11-05 97 1 T.C.D.R.S., and they had given him the information that this 2 had occurred on at least three prior occasions. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- okay. It 4 doesn't make any difference. I don't understand -- you must 5 have just mentioned it to Mr. Prendergast in the past, then. 6 I mean, it wasn't -- I don't know how Mr. Prendergast would 7 have known what this was to ask the question. I guess it 8 doesn't make any difference. I was just curious as to why 9 we didn't handle it through our -- through the Commissioners 10 Court office. 11 MS. NEMEC: And that's why I put it on the 12 agenda, Commissioner, because I was hearing some courthouse 13 hallway gossip, and I did not understand why, if there is -- 14 if there was an issue in my office, you know, as several 15 things on the agenda are, why I hadn't been asked about it 16 first, or why things don't -- aren't put on the agenda so 17 that we can discuss them. So, I took the liberty of putting 18 all this on the agenda to get it out in the open and discuss 19 it. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on this particular 21 one, I appreciate you copying me on it and pursuing it, 22 'cause I think it is a -- this is a pretty big deal. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: There was another issue 24 previous to this that Ms. Nemec indicated that she did have 25 the information on a -- on another agenda item that's coming 7-11-05 98 1 up here in a little bit, and I asked her to give me the 2 information, and she declined to provide it to me. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 4 MS. NEMEC: You said it was for a 5 constituent, Judge. That is -- and that's an Open Records 6 Act; that needs to be provided in writing to my office. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, I think I made my 8 position real clear on Open Records. Every bit of the 9 public information in this courthouse is open to the public, 10 and it doesn't make any difference who requests it, from 11 whom. They're entitled to it. 12 MS. NEMEC: Absolutely. And I conferred -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I was requested to give that 14 information. I was asked for it. I asked you for the 15 information. 16 MS. NEMEC: And what was my response? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You indicated -- I said, "You 18 provide it to me, and I'll give it to the constituent." 19 Your response was, "If the constituent wants that 20 information, you have them file an Open Records request for 21 me." 22 MS. NEMEC: That's correct. That's how I do 23 all Open Records -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You give -- 25 MS. NEMEC: I confer with the County Attorney 7-11-05 99 1 any time I have an Open Records request. Yes, sir, that's 2 my procedure. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: You declined to give the 4 information to me. 5 MS. NEMEC: Once you told me it was for a 6 constituent, yes, sir. If you had told me it was for you, 7 that would have been treated different, but any time a 8 constituent requests, then that goes to the County Attorney 9 so that I can make sure that it is all being done in the 10 legal, proper way. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I disagree with your 12 philosophy about open government, Ms. Nemec. 13 MS. NEMEC: We disagree on several issues, 14 Judge, but we -- we're entitled to disagree. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on this 16 particular item? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 12, a 19 timed item for 10 o'clock. Clarify Court Order Number 29075 20 and take appropriate action as may be necessary. 21 MS. NEMEC: Okay. This was another 22 courthouse hallway gossip item. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another what? 24 MS. NEMEC: Courthouse hallway gossip item. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. 7-11-05 100 1 MS. NEMEC: It seems that the motion that was 2 made in this agenda item back in March was not the actual 3 order that was submitted -- written up, and so I'm here to 4 ask for clarification on that. The order stated the new 5 policy for transfers keeping their merit and their 6 longevity, but the -- the motion was made to go back 7 retroactive to employees who did not have their merits 8 transferred back to the budget year and to correct those and 9 do so, which is what I did, but now I understand that there 10 is some problem with that. I did receive a letter from the 11 County Clerk stating that she had made a clerical error in 12 the court order, and I think you all have a copy of that. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the question would 14 be, is it necessary for a revised court order, or are we 15 just correcting the old one? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: How did this issue arise, 17 Ms. Nemec? 18 MS. NEMEC: The issue came to my attention by 19 employees being upset, stating that they were told -- if you 20 want to know the truth, that they were told by you that I 21 had gone and given my deputy a raise without authorization. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Gee, who did I tell that to? 23 MS. NEMEC: Well, there were three people. 24 But, anyway -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, obviously, that's 7-11-05 101 1 what I believed if I told them that. 2 MS. NEMEC: I don't know. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what is the current 4 classification of the employees in your office, Ms. Nemec? 5 MS. NEMEC: 19/6. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's your chief 7 deputy? 8 MS. NEMEC: That's correct. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. What about the 10 other employee? You have two employees, do you not? 11 MS. NEMEC: The other employee is a part-time 12 person. That's just an hourly rate; it's not a 13 classification. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Was your chief deputy 15 not brought on board at a 19/3? 16 MS. NEMEC: She was brought on board at a 17 19/3. And when we came to court and discussed the policy on 18 transfers with merit and longevity, in the courts -- in the 19 minutes that you have attached to there, it's stated on 20 there when we discussed there being employees that were not 21 transferred with their merit increases, and one was in 22 Ms. Rector's office. And then it was discussed -- on Pages 23 7, 8 and 9, the questions were asked, and it was discussed 24 that we go back retroactive and bring all the employees that 25 had been transferred within this budget year that did not 7-11-05 102 1 transfer with all their merit increases, to transfer them. 2 And Commissioner Baldwin asked if there were any others, and 3 I said, well, if that's the case, then I do have an employee 4 in my office who was a 15/6 in her prior position, and I 5 only brought her in at a 19/3. And so he states -- 6 Mr. Baldwin stated in this -- in the minutes that there was 7 -- that that was two employees there, and seconded the 8 motion, and it was passed. But that's not what the court 9 order reflected. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall that 11 exactly being in the minutes. I -- what I'm saying is, the 12 question was that it was a -- that your employee had been at 13 a 15/6. But -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: You're claiming this is a 15 merit increase carryover? Is that what you're saying? 16 That -- 17 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The way I read that 19 motion when it was finally voted on was the merit increases 20 had been deleted. Longevity only was -- was carried 21 forward; was made portable. 22 MS. NEMEC: From that day forward. But then 23 also in the minutes, it states that there were some 24 employees during this budget year that had brought their 25 merits with them and some had not, and that we weren't being 7-11-05 103 1 consistent with those employees that had not brought their 2 merits. And that's when the question came up, is there 3 anyone other than in Ms. Rector's office that that had been 4 done with? And I said yes, my employee. She was a 15/6. I 5 brought her in at a 19/3, and so we needed to go and correct 6 hers also, which is what I did. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, I 8 was involved with a lot of -- I think I made the motion 9 originally, and I believe it was -- I believe it was 10 Mr. Nicholson who brought up the issue that we didn't want 11 to have anybody taking a pay cut. And I made the motion 12 originally, which I said -- which I think should be the 13 policy, and I think is the policy. But if we stuck with 14 that policy or made that motion, one employee -- one 15 employee, I think, was -- in Ms. Rector's office, or maybe 16 Linda's office; I can't remember which one -- was going to 17 take a pay cut. And it was discussed that we didn't want 18 anyone to take a pay cut 'cause we didn't do our -- you 19 know, weren't clear enough in our policy. And then 20 Ms. Nemec said she had an employee as well, and I believe we 21 then decided to make everyone -- you know, treat everyone 22 the same up to that point in the year when that was done, I 23 guess in May. 24 The problem -- this thing -- I don't recall 25 the discussion about your employee, what she was at 7-11-05 104 1 previously. And you get into -- in my mind at the time -- 2 I'm hesitating, 'cause I'm trying to make sure I don't go 3 into things we talked about in executive session in 4 personnel. I don't think, I mean, it was -- the issue was 5 the prior salary of your employee, since we're talking 6 about -- her salary was -- it wasn't merit increases that 7 got her to that point. It was basically to bring in the 8 employee from U.G.R.A. into a different department at the 9 proper step, and get the grade adjusted to make the salary 10 consistent with where it had been. And those were not merit 11 -- in my mind, merit increases. So, it was to the merit 12 side, and that's, you know, I guess how I recall that whole 13 conversation going. And I did not recall at the time that 14 it was as big of an adjustment as it turned out to be for 15 that employee. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 10 kind of 17 spells it out, Commissioner, in which we talked about not 18 taking away from employees. That this -- before the new 19 court order, you talk about receiving both the merit and the 20 longevity. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the issue is -- and 22 if that -- the level that employee was at was a merit 23 increase, that's the issue, you know, I guess. And I think 24 the decision at the time was pretty much that no one should 25 take a pay cut. 7-11-05 105 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the -- what 3 happened is that, rather than giving a pay cut, the employee 4 was given a pay increase, and I'm not sure that was the 5 spirit of what I was trying to do at the time, anyway. I'm 6 not sure what the rest of the Court was trying to do. 7 MS. NEMEC: I'd like to read from these 8 minutes so that you can understand where I got this 9 information to go and -- and correct these salaries. On 10 Page 10, second paragraph, Commissioner Letz says, "I'll 11 make a motion that we adopt a new personnel policy as 12 presented, and all employees that have had increases up to 13 this date, this budget year, will receive both a merit and 14 longevity increase." And then Commissioner Baldwin says, 15 "And that last statement, you're just dealing with one 16 employee?" And then down at the bottom is when I say, "I 17 believe when I submitted for my employee, I did not give her 18 her merit increases that she had; I brought her in at a 19 lower step. So, if we're going to go back, then I need to 20 adjust hers also." And then Commissioner Baldwin asked, 21 "When was that?" I say, "A couple of months ago. In 22 January," 'cause that's when I hired her. And Commissioner 23 Baldwin says, "Well, then there's two." 24 So, right there, that told me we were talking 25 about my employee, and that was two. And then, further on 7-11-05 106 1 down, then the motion was -- and so then he seconds the 2 motion at that time, when he says, "Well, then there's two." 3 And he seconds that right away, and then it was voted on 4 unanimously -- or, I'm sorry, Commissioner Williams, I 5 believe, was not comfortable with the language on the -- on 6 the new policy for transfers, and voted against it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. I -- 8 my position had nothing to do with -- 9 MS. NEMEC: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the prior 11 employees. It had to do with how we treated employees in 12 the future. 13 MS. NEMEC: Exactly. So, the motion was made 14 and seconded, and it was when we were talking about my 15 employee. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And, as a result of that, you 17 increased your employee three steps; is that correct? 18 MS. NEMEC: From a 19/3 to a 19/6, because 19 she was a 15/6 in her prior position. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Going back to your 21 language -- 22 MS. NEMEC: And I also did that on 23 Ms. Rector's employee. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go back to your 25 language, if I might, that you just quoted. When you 7-11-05 107 1 referenced Commissioner Letz' motion, and then there was an 2 inquiry whether there was more than one employee, you said, 3 "I believe when I submitted for my employee, I did not give 4 her her merit increases that she had; I brought her in at a 5 lower step. So, if we're going to go back, then I'd need to 6 adjust hers also one step." 7 MS. NEMEC: I did say one step. At the time, 8 I was not prepared to talk about my employee. I had -- that 9 wasn't the issue at the time. As a result of us talking 10 about being consistent, then that's when I brought her up, 11 and at the time I didn't know or realize what she had been 12 before. I knew what I had brought her in as. And then, 13 when I went back and looked, I saw that she was a 15/6, and 14 adjusted it to that. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: My clear understanding of what 16 occurred was that after the merit discussion, Ms. Uecker had 17 a number of things to say about that; that if you're going 18 to transfer laterally, apply for another position, that you 19 know what that position is, you know what it pays, and they 20 know what the policy states. That they keep their longevity 21 increases, they see what it is paying. They can either 22 apply or not apply. My clear understanding was that the 23 merit stayed with the former position and it was not 24 portable, but rather the longevity became portable, the 25 longevity aspect of county employment, and that was 7-11-05 108 1 ultimately what was voted on. If I'm mistaken, why -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was for -- 3 that's what we voted on, Judge, but that was for any 4 employee or transfers that might have taken place from that 5 day forward. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct, and 7 that's what -- you know, I agree. I mean, that's what the 8 -- what that motion was. But there were -- the reason I put 9 on it the agenda when we did this time is 'cause we had 10 treated one of Ms. Rector's and Ms. Uecker's employees one 11 way, and then at the prior meeting, we treated one of Judge 12 Ragsdale's employees differently. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I thought that was 15 inconsistent. That's what got it on the agenda when I made 16 the motion to amend the policy. Then the discussion ensued 17 about what we do with the ones that had -- had happened 18 already during the year. You know, that's it. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I believe -- I'm trying 20 to see if we have any participation forms on this particular 21 matter. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 13. We're on 12. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Pearson, you were 24 deferring until Number 13? 25 MR. PEARSON: Correct. 7-11-05 109 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think also, back -- 3 Judge, if there's no other comments, I mean, I personally -- 4 my feeling is that your employee is at too high a level. I 5 don't think, you know, it should be transferred. I don't 6 think that was the intent at the time, to get -- go to a 7 19/6. But I also see that what you did -- I can see how you 8 got there from what is the discussion and the order. You 9 know, so it's kind of a -- that's why it's back before us 10 again. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I'm seeing 12 it like you do. And then, just as a matter of principle, I 13 see no reason to take money away from an employee when it 14 was -- when it was offered in good faith. And if the 15 supervisor made a mistake, then we'll leave it down. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of where 17 I'm coming from. We talked about that before when we had 18 that discussion, that what an employee has earned or been 19 granted by reason of meritorious services, they ought to 20 keep it. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the policy now 22 clear? Do we -- is this going to come up again in three 23 months, or are we all on the same page now? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the policy's 25 pretty clear. 7-11-05 110 1 MS. NEMEC: The policy from that date forward 2 is that they do not transfer their merit increases, only 3 their longevities. And that was just effective on that 4 Commissioners Court date forward. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there is a 6 question here that -- that I think we need to satisfy, and 7 the County Clerk sent us a memorandum dated today in which 8 she acknowledges that the court order, as published and part 9 of the packet, is incomplete, and it lacks a -- a 10 parenthetical phrase at the tail end of the first paragraph. 11 And it states, "and all employees that have had increases up 12 to this date this budget year will receive both a merit and 13 longevity grade increase." Which gets me back to my 14 original question. Do we adopt a revised court order, or 15 does this stand sufficiently to amend the previous court 16 order? 17 MS. PIEPER: The court order has been 18 corrected. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The court order has 20 been corrected to reflect what you gave us? 21 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, fine. 23 MS. PIEPER: That was just a clerical error, 24 so after I got the agenda and seen if there was a problem in 25 it, I went in and corrected my court order that I had typed 7-11-05 111 1 previously. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 3 That answers my question. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't -- I 5 mean, I think the -- I'm not happy with the result, but it's 6 the result. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that 8 agenda item? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I'm -- I'm 10 probably being redundant. I'm not happy with them either, 11 but I don't want Judy Carr to pay for it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item, Item 13, is a 13 timed item for 10:05, consider and discuss Budget Amendment 14 Request Number 6 dated September 27th, 2004. 15 MS. NEMEC: These just come out of nowhere 16 months later. I wish we could take care of them when 17 there's a question about them. But, anyway, September 27th, 18 Budget Amendment Number 6, I requested money to be 19 transferred from my budget, which I had money left over in 20 my Insurance line item and in my Chief Deputy line item. 21 The reason I had money in my Chief Deputy line item was that 22 my chief deputy at that time was taking comp time, vacation 23 time, and just time off that needed to be taken. She was 24 getting ready to leave employment at the end of December, 25 and so we needed some extra part-time. Jackie worked some 7-11-05 112 1 extra part-time that she's normally not scheduled to. I 2 also had to hire someone to come in with me and work to get 3 me caught up on everything, since my chief deputy had been 4 gone, and so I requested the funds to be taken from my 5 Insurance line item and Chief Deputy line item. I was told 6 that at this meeting, the Court had asked for an explanation 7 before they could approve this budget amendment, and I was 8 told that by the Auditor. On October the 5th, I believe, I 9 sent the Court a memo stating the reasons why I was asking 10 for this budget amendment. I also asked for copies of the 11 minutes so that I could see what had been discussed, and 12 there was motions made and seconded and approved, and then 13 rescinded and on and on and on. Y'all all have a copy of 14 that. And, also, when Commissioner Williams withdrew the 15 motion, he stated if we can get an explanation, we'll put it 16 back on a subsequent agenda. I just assumed that that was 17 done. I apologize that it had not been taken care of. I 18 was under the impression that it was, and I guess I should 19 have followed up on it, but I thought that when I submitted 20 my letter, I had done as requested and that's all I needed 21 to do. So, I'm asking you to go back and ratify that budget 22 amendment. And, again, there was money in my budget to do 23 this. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? 25 MS. NEMEC: No, sir. 7-11-05 113 1 JUDGE TINLEY: We did have a couple of 2 participation forms on this one. Mr. Pearson? 3 MR. PEARSON: I -- I guess my problem with 4 this -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Give your name and address, 6 please. 7 MR. PEARSON: Williams D. Pearson, Cattle 8 Drive, number 71. There seems to be an awful lot of 9 mistakes being made. I don't know -- just all I've heard 10 the last two hours is mistakes that are being made, and I 11 don't know whether it's a lack of -- of supervision, 12 oversight by the Court, or whether a particular official has 13 taken liberties with their position, but I have deferred 14 some of these other comments to this particular item, and I 15 would like to go back to Number 1.9. In listening to 16 conversation this morning, is there some reason why -- I 17 think we could save money. Is there some reason why there 18 couldn't be an annual average of premiums, let's say $4,500, 19 and have that as an automatic deduction from the County's 20 bank account by AFLAC, or the insurance carrier, and then 21 let the -- that would give the Treasurer time to get any 22 adjustments that she needs to make, to bring to the court 23 and make one check. By doing that, there would never ever 24 be any lapse of coverage. And most insurance companies give 25 you a discount on your premiums if you have an automatic 7-11-05 114 1 deduction from your account. I know my insurance companies 2 do. 3 The only thing I -- on Point 1.11 is I think 4 I would like to know -- I don't know about the rest of -- 5 what the rest of the Court thinks. I'd like to know exactly 6 how much has been -- in penalty has been deducted from the 7 employees' retirement system, and exactly how much interest. 8 We need a statement, I think, from somebody to the Court as 9 to -- as to what the Court's liability might be to the 10 employee retirement system. On the last item, 1.13, I -- I 11 read the minutes and so forth, and the reason I'm here is 12 some of the people in the community felt that there was a -- 13 a direct action by the County Treasurer in opposition to 14 what the Court had put on the record. That transfer of 15 funds from one line item to another was denied, and there's 16 concern that the Treasurer took it upon herself to just 17 either ignore that, or for whatever other reason, go ahead 18 and -- and take action that was against the Court's wishes. 19 That's all I have to say. 20 MS. NEMEC: Judge, I'd like to make a comment 21 on Mr. Pearson's comments. I did not go behind this Court 22 and do anything behind their backs that you had not 23 approved. I was asked to submit a letter of explanation. I 24 was told it would be put on the next agenda, and -- and I 25 had the money in my budget, and so, therefore, I thought 7-11-05 115 1 everything was taken care of. I will learn from this and 2 make sure that everything is taken care of, and that when 3 things are said they're going to be put on the agenda, that 4 they are put on the agenda, whether it be by me or a member 5 of this Court. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? 7 MS. NEMEC: No, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Prendergast, you asked to 9 be heard on this particular item? 10 MR. PRENDERGAST: Without taking up too much 11 time right now, my question would be to this Court, can you 12 go back and amend something that's already in a previous 13 fiscal year? Amend that, change or ratify that change when 14 those books have been closed, audited, been taken care of? 15 Once again, if you'll distribute a few things for me? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're getting thicker, 17 George. Hope this is the last one. 18 MR. PEARSON: Wait till after lunch. 19 MR. PRENDERGAST: I apologize once again. 20 Without getting into personalities involved here or anything 21 else, I think this Court initially approved that line item 22 budget change. They then came back and rescinded that line 23 item budget change due to some concerns about what was being 24 paid out. In fact, I have copies -- I've done an Open 25 Records request once again of copies of all of the checks 7-11-05 116 1 that were made from the months of July, August, September, 2 and October, which would have taken us through the end of 3 2004 fiscal year -- 2003/2004, and then the beginning of 4 2004/2005 fiscal year. In fact, copies of checks are there. 5 There were payments made on a part-time basis to an 6 individual without approval. After approval was sought and 7 denied, there were additional checks paid in the fiscal year 8 2003/2004. My concern is that if our elected officials 9 don't have enough respect for Commissioners Court to abide 10 by their rulings, then who -- who is going to hold them 11 accountable? And I'm afraid it's come down to the citizens 12 are going hold everyone accountable. I don't want to 13 digress to that point. 14 Again, I -- I truly don't believe that you 15 can go back and amend something that's already history. I 16 think we've got to go forward and fix what's been broken, 17 and recognize that there was a judgment -- or error in 18 judgment, and it was done and the money was paid, but I 19 think it was paid erroneously, against the Court's wishes. 20 And I question the judgment about why this person would be 21 hired by the Treasurer's office to be working in that 22 office, where there is private information about employees 23 of this county that that person may or may not have had 24 access to. But if they did, in fact, have access to it, 25 that concerns me, because the information in the employment 7-11-05 117 1 office is not public record. Specifically, as to the 2 Sheriff's Department his employees, even if I were to make 3 an Open Records request for the Sheriff's Department and 4 their employees, I'm not to receive that, because that's a 5 separate issue. But this individual had access to those 6 records on a part-time basis, what they were doing, why they 7 were doing it. I've got more questions, so I would ask this 8 Court not to grant this request. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the access issue -- 10 excuse me, Mr. Prendergast. 11 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: What is your concern about the 13 access issue with this particular individual? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think -- I guess 15 -- I don't know that we can go into or want to go into a 16 specific employee's personal situation in open court. 17 County Attorney? I hear -- 18 MR. EMERSON: No, sir. 19 MR. PRENDERGAST: This is not personnel, 20 because it's Open Records; it's filed in district court. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will defer to the 22 County Attorney. I'm looking for him to advise -- 23 MR. PRENDERGAST: Would you like to look at 24 the documents before you make that judgment? 25 MS. NEMEC: He's seen them. 7-11-05 118 1 MR. EMERSON: I think I know what the 2 situation is. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I just don't 4 want to get us in a situation where we're discussing 5 something we shouldn't be discussing. 6 MR. PEARSON: Open Records. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's related to a 8 certain employee. 9 MR. EMERSON: Yeah, as a general rule, you 10 can't talk about anything in open court relative to an 11 employee. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Especially without the 13 employee being present. 14 MR. EMERSON: It would be a violation of the 15 basic common law rules as far as embarrassment to the 16 employee. 17 MR. PRENDERGAST: Commissioners Court can't 18 talk about it? 19 MR. EMERSON: In this particular situation, I 20 suspect Mr. Prendergast is probably right, because the issue 21 he's referring to is public, open records upstairs in the 22 District Clerk's Office and in the District Court. Now, I 23 don't know that you can go beyond the basic information -- 24 MR. PRENDERGAST: Exactly. 25 MR. EMERSON: -- that's in that record. 7-11-05 119 1 MR. PRENDERGAST: That's why I didn't -- 2 MS. NEMEC: I'd just like to inform the Court 3 that I believe Mr. Prendergast's concern is the information 4 that this employee had access to. This employee was working 5 under my direction at all times. We were -- and the reason 6 I chose this particular employee was because this was the 7 time when my chief deputy was taking vacation time. I was 8 coming up here from 8 o'clock -- I'd leave at 5:00, come 9 back here at 8 o'clock and work till 2:00 and 4:30 in the 10 morning. And the -- the job that I had to do had to be 11 supervised, and I could not find anyone else who was going 12 to be able to do that with me. During my regular working 13 hours, I had my regular duties that I had to do, and 14 therefore, I had to be coming in at night. And you can ask 15 my girls; the joke around my office is that I've had to come 16 in in my pajamas several months to get the job done. And so 17 I -- and I assured the Sheriff at that point that this 18 employee had no access to any type of records that he should 19 not have had. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I'll make a 21 general comment just on this. I mean, I agree, I think, 22 with -- well, with what Mr. Prendergast was saying; I don't 23 think we can go back and change what was done a year ago. 24 You know, I think what was done was done. I don't know that 25 that makes -- you know, I don't know what the purpose of -- 7-11-05 120 1 of going back and approving it now -- I don't see what that 2 does. The other side of the question is that -- just a 3 general statement from me as to I believe what was said to 4 the Court, is that this Court does not supervise all the 5 elected officials in this county. They're accountable for 6 their own decisions as to who they hire and don't hire and 7 things of that nature. So, you know, if -- if someone has 8 an issue with who any elected official hires on a part-time 9 basis, something like that, you know, I'm not -- I, as a 10 Commissioner, am not going to get involved with that 11 directly unless it's a violation of our policy. And, you 12 know, to my knowledge, I don't see a policy problem here. 13 We don't generally closely review any full-time employee, 14 you know, as long as they're -- they are qualified according 15 to the elected official. I think it's a bad precedent for 16 us to start going into micromanaging other elected 17 officials. Quite frankly, I don't think we have authority 18 to do so. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 20 MS. NEMEC: I'd also like to make a comment 21 that, throughout the year, there are part-time line items 22 that are in the negative at the end of the year. It's hard 23 for departments to keep up with their part-time, and I'm 24 sure the Sheriff can tell you that himself. There have been 25 times when those line items are overdrawn. And what the 7-11-05 121 1 outside auditors look at -- and this budget year in question 2 has been audited already. What they look at at the end of 3 the year is that your bottom line in your budget is not a 4 negative figure. Which mine was not, because, as I said 5 earlier, there was money in there to transfer. I did it as 6 a courtesy to put it on the agenda to get that approved, 7 because I wanted everything to look clean. There are times 8 that that is not done and it's not possible. They don't 9 know what -- what the end amount is going to be, and so 10 those line items do go in the negative a lot. It's not out 11 of disrespect for the Court that they pay those part-time 12 employees that money. It just happens to be that way, the 13 scheduling, the circumstances that are around that. And I 14 think at this point, I'd like to ask our County Attorney if, 15 in fact, they could go back and ratify this. 16 MR. EMERSON: Are you talking about ratifying 17 an amendment from the prior year? 18 MS. NEMEC: A budget amendment from the prior 19 year. 20 MR. EMERSON: I don't know the answer to 21 that. 22 MS. NEMEC: Okay. 23 MR. EMERSON: I'd have to research that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the 25 response? 7-11-05 122 1 MR. EMERSON: I don't know. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say ratifying a 3 budget amendment where basically it's a -- I guess it would 4 be ratifying, but it's an approval -- the issue here was not 5 the budget amendment; there were funds in the budget. The 6 issue was whether the check was approved, as I recall. 7 Wasn't that off -- the checks? That, I think, was pulled 8 originally. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly, I don't 10 recall what caused us to rescind it. I don't recall what 11 the information was that we received that caused us to make 12 a motion to rescind. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it came back to 14 the -- there was a -- a combination that the Auditor made 15 the comment that we could have this information presented by 16 the Treasurer at the next meeting, in all likelihood. Which 17 the letter was presented, and in all likelihood, if it would 18 have been on the agenda, we would have approved it. But it 19 wasn't on the agenda, for whatever reason, and I -- I don't 20 think -- personally, I don't think this is that big a deal. 21 I mean, I think that the -- I can see there's a 22 misunderstanding on the -- from the Treasurer thinking that 23 it was going to be on -- the letter was sufficient. I think 24 the Treasurer should have made sure it was on the agenda. I 25 think that -- you know, but it wasn't, and, you know, we're 7-11-05 123 1 talking about paying of a -- of a service that an employee 2 made; paying for just work, and I think this Court would 3 have approved that, and intended to approve it, based on the 4 minutes from that meeting, and we just wanted an 5 explanation. We got the explanation, but never got it back 6 on the agenda to get it approved. That's how I recall, you 7 know, what it looks like. I think it's -- you know, there 8 was an error made by the Treasurer to make sure it was on 9 the agenda; I think there was probably an error by the 10 Auditor's office in not bringing it back to our attention, 11 and an error on our part for -- I guess it went through on 12 the bills the next month. I don't know how it got paid or 13 where it got paid from. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably went through 15 on the next month's -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So -- 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can see where that 18 series of events could have occurred to where it didn't get 19 properly approved. But now that I've looked through the 20 material that Mr. Pearson or Mr. Prendergast has given us, I 21 think it raises more questions. And I don't know, 22 Commissioner, whether or not this Commissioners Court's got 23 the authority to look into it, or some other authority would 24 have that responsibility, but I -- these questions have been 25 raised, and I think we need some answers from whoever can -- 7-11-05 124 1 can do the investigation and get answers on it. I, too, 2 would like to -- like to know why this employee was hired, 3 what he did, whether or not he was supervised, what 4 information he had access to. Probably more questions after 5 I have a chance to study it. 6 MR. EMERSON: Can I make one general comment? 7 I think if you get into that issue, you're getting into a 8 different agenda item. That's not on here. You're really 9 getting into a personnel policy management issue, and it's 10 not necessarily related to this budget amendment. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If, at some future 12 time, we were to get into that, would it be appropriate for 13 the Court to do it, or would it be a role that you should 14 play or the District Attorney should play? 15 MR. EMERSON: I think it's a -- are you 16 talking about that particular individual or the policy in 17 general? 18 MR. PEARSON: Big difference. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The circumstances 20 surrounding the employment/compensation of this particular 21 individual. 22 MR. EMERSON: Then I think that would have to 23 be done through an investigative agency, which, to my 24 knowledge, neither myself nor the D.A. has an investigator 25 on staff. 7-11-05 125 1 MR. PEARSON: May I -- 2 MS. NEMEC: I don't mind saying that I 3 believe that the question before the Court is that this 4 individual had been charged with a crime. The -- the 5 individual was involved in a fight. He wasn't involved in 6 theft or hot checks or anything like that. This individual 7 never, never had access to any money in my office, and was 8 under my direction at all times, and as I said before, had 9 no access to any information that is not Open Records 10 information or that concerned any employees at all. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, to answer your 12 question, Commissioner, I mean, there may be a policy 13 concern that, you know, we could address this across the 14 board about people being charged with certain offenses, 15 things of that nature, being able to be employed by the 16 County, period. And that may be a policy issue. But 17 anything beyond that, this Court, I don't think, clearly has 18 any authority in. And I think if there's -- you know, if 19 someone is alleging wrongdoing, that needs to go to the 20 D.A., Sheriff's Department, County Attorney's office, and 21 see if they're -- if they agree that there's -- it's worth 22 an investigation. But I don't see how that -- I don't think 23 this Court's in that role. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not our job. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think it's 7-11-05 126 1 our job, but I think we can do as we have stated in the 2 past. We can assist or recommend, whichever, that other 3 elected officials and department heads do background checks 4 on employees before they hire them. I think this calls that 5 into question. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 MS. NEMEC: And at the time this employee had 8 been charged, he had not been convicted of any crime, and 9 did not work for me any time after he was convicted of any 10 crime. And this employee was doing me a favor by coming in 11 at night with me. He has a regular day job, and so I wasn't 12 doing him a favor by hiring him; he was doing me a favor by 13 helping me get caught up in my duties. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What duties was he 15 performing? 16 MS. NEMEC: What duties was he performing? I 17 have everything documented. There were several things that 18 -- you know, I can go back and show y'all, if y'all would 19 like to come into my office. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did he have access 21 to my Social Security number? 22 MS. NEMEC: Never had access to anybody's 23 Social Security number. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or other personal 25 matters? 7-11-05 127 1 MS. NEMEC: Right. Health information; that 2 is, you know, privileged information. Anything like that. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Commissioner 4 Nicholson's bringing up a good point, but I really -- I 5 think -- I don't see it as germane to this particular topic. 6 I mean, I think that there -- we may need to take a look at 7 our personnel policy, which is another agenda item, as to 8 how -- who we hire, but I think we need to be real careful 9 what we do. We may lose some other employees, I mean, if 10 you say they can't be charged with any kind of a crime, 11 which I don't know. 12 MS. PIEPER: Commissioner, I may be out of 13 line, but I need to stand up for Barbara's defense, because 14 if you go in my office right now, you're going to find two 15 or three convicted criminals that is in there filing or 16 typing or doing computer entry, because without these 17 community service workers, I don't have enough employees. 18 And I don't know who she hired, and y'all seem to be picking 19 on this one particular person she hired, when I'm down there 20 right now working community service workers. So, if I'm 21 doing wrong, y'all let me know. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I say -- 23 MS. PIEPER: They do not have access to any 24 of your personal information. They're basically just down 25 there helping us to file other criminal cases. And -- and 7-11-05 128 1 I've been working community service workers ever since I 2 came in office. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we're 4 picking on Ms. Nemec, Madam Clerk. I think the issue was 5 put on the agenda, and we're trying to work our way through 6 it. 7 MS. PIEPER: Well, if y'all don't want me to 8 use community service workers, I'll take more hired help, 9 but I've got to be able to get the work done some way. 10 MR. EMERSON: I think we need to stick to the 11 agenda item. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Pearson, you had some 13 additional comments? 14 MR. PEARSON: This particular item was 15 brought to me by -- I'm a consultant with the Loma Vista 16 Homeowners -- Property Owners Association, and this issue 17 was brought to me because their concern was how many other 18 employees of the county are under indictment for whatever 19 crime, whether it's shoplifting or whatever. When you bring 20 in Roy Barrera, Jr., from San Antonio as the attorney for a 21 person that's working in the -- in the courthouse somewhere, 22 that -- that sends a flag up. And I think the concern is 23 that -- is it the policy of this county and its elected 24 officials of hiring individuals that are under indictment? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This isn't under the 7-11-05 129 1 agenda item. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's certainly a 3 matter that -- Ms. Uecker? You had asked for the -- 4 MS. UECKER: Well, I just want to clarify one 5 issue, on whether or not we're hiring people that are 6 qualified. First of all, this would address only -- 7 MR. EMERSON: We're getting off the agenda. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This has nothing to do 9 with the agenda. 10 MS. NEMEC: We have an agenda item about our 11 policy. 12 MS. UECKER: Well, I just wanted to answer 13 your question, in that deputies in the County Clerk's office 14 and in my office, and I think her chief deputy, have to be 15 bonded and insured, so the insurance company does a criminal 16 history check on those people. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Sheriff? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One quick comment, and 20 not much on this particular person. But Barbara and I did 21 have a conversation about this, and she did tell me exactly 22 what she told this Court, okay? Because it was brought to 23 my attention, and once in a while, when a county department 24 head or official does hire someone and there's something 25 questionable about it, normally we're going to hear about 7-11-05 130 1 it; our office does. And we already know, and we're going 2 to do our own checking into it. That's not the issue. But 3 back on all these other issues, the only problem I'm having 4 is that if I bring an item before this Court, as any 5 department head or elected official is entitled to do, my 6 only action on that item is on a court order. Once that 7 order comes out, I have to go by that. We can discuss all 8 day long in here, and what we discuss doesn't tell me what I 9 can or can't do. What I have to go by is what the order is. 10 And my problem is, what Barbara may have done -- maybe she 11 jumped a little bit on these, but the -- the items -- two 12 items we're talking about I didn't see in the court order at 13 any point, okay? Whether it be paying the individual extra 14 money, or on the merit increase on that other. 15 I was present during that meeting, and my 16 understanding was when Buster said, "Well, that's two," I 17 even had one employee that could concern, and it was my 18 understanding -- I didn't go back and read the minutes, as 19 everyone in here -- that that would come up later. But the 20 motion that was made and what was taken care of during that 21 Court order was that from that day on, longevity was the 22 only thing -- transfers to carry. And then I was waiting 23 for later on, if the other came back up. But I think maybe 24 if the Court would just make sure that department heads and 25 elected officials know -- you know, you can't tell me what 7-11-05 131 1 to do, Jonathan, 'cause I'm elected. But if you can just 2 stress that, you know, you'll insist that we only act on 3 court orders, and if we don't, bring us back here before 4 this Court and have us explain why we didn't, I think it 5 would solve a lot of these problems I'm hearing. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the broader question, 7 Sheriff, that you're raising is, if there's something this 8 Court has the authority over, such as fiscal management and 9 -- and responsibility and budgets and things of that nature, 10 if the Court enters a specific order with regard to that, 11 your concern is whether or not that's heeded or paid 12 attention to and properly followed. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. My concern is, 14 you know, I try and wait till we get an actual order, and we 15 go by the order. 'Cause we discuss a lot of things during 16 this open record, and it's ifs and ands, and if we talked 17 about everything I brought here and discussed, I could 18 probably have another 200 employees now if I had my own way. 19 But normally it's -- the order doesn't come out that way, 20 whether I agree with it or not. But we -- the department 21 heads and elected officials, I think, need to go by the 22 orders from the Court. And if there's a mistake in the 23 order, it should come back before the next court agenda and 24 be corrected. 25 MS. NEMEC: I'd just like to reply to the 7-11-05 132 1 Sheriff's comment. I didn't jump the gun; the motion was to 2 go back and give the employees who had not received their 3 merits, to go back and adjust those. And you got a 4 statement from the County Clerk saying that it was an error 5 and that was left off, so that was the intent and that was 6 the motion. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Reverend Shults, did you ask 8 to be recognized? Could you come forward, please, sir? 9 Give your name and address and whatever comments you had. I 10 hope they're germane on the subject. We're trying to shut 11 down. 12 MR. SHULTS: It is. It is. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. 14 MR. SHULTS: I came with the intention of 15 speaking to this issue about the transfer of funds without 16 authorization. And I'm not trying to be offensive, but to 17 me, as a citizen, the issue really is this. No employee of 18 the government, whether city, county, state, or national, 19 should make a decision based on what they decide to do 20 without proper documented authorization. And this is a -- 21 this is the case about the transfer of funds. And I realize 22 we can all make mistakes, but I worked in the Marine Corps 23 for 20 years. I worked for the Department of Corrections in 24 Oklahoma for 13 years. And, of course, when you get hired, 25 you can make a lot of decisions that you want to make -- you 7-11-05 133 1 know, let everybody go on down the road. But we could not 2 make a decision or do something different in accordance with 3 our policy and procedures without getting proper 4 authorization. And I personally believe Item Number 1.13 is 5 such an issue. So, you might have all sorts of different 6 issues, but unless one of your people that you supervise has 7 proper, documented authorization, they should not do it. I 8 just wanted to bring that up. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 10 MR. SHULTS: And do I realize you're trying 11 to do a good job, and I do appreciate that, so don't fire 12 me. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Looney? How long is your 14 presentation going to be? 15 MR. LOONEY: About two and a half hours. 16 (Laughter.) But I can boil it down to about 20 minutes, 17 depending on your questions that you'd like to ask, or we 18 can break for lunch. I'll be back here after lunch. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, why don't we recess for 20 lunch and come back at 1:30. 21 MS. NEMEC: Judge, I would like to ask the 22 County Attorney to give clarification on whether that budget 23 amendment can be ratified and approved, because I brought it 24 to the Court in good faith. I thought it was going to be 25 done. I followed up with what was requested of me, and if, 7-11-05 134 1 for whatever reason, that budget amendment is not going to 2 be approved, then I will gladly pay that money back, because 3 that employee did work the hours. He is entitled to that 4 money. And if it's not going to be reflected that that 5 money is being transferred into that line item, then it is 6 my responsibility to make it right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, you, as an elected 8 official -- I think you have the authority to ask that 9 question of the County Attorney. 10 MS. NEMEC: I have. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's intrinsic and 12 inherent in your position. 13 MS. NEMEC: Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute, we got sticking 15 up hands everywhere. Are we germane to this thing? 16 MR. PRENDERGAST: I am. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 18 MR. PRENDERGAST: I can't speak for the 19 Sheriff. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, Sheriff. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My only deal before we 22 break for lunch, Your Honor, the 1.19, unless you think it 23 will take a larger amount of time, I believe the backup was 24 furnished. I've got -- we've got all kinds of things going, 25 which some people are aware of, at this moment. 7-11-05 135 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's going to take a 2 while. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is it? Okay, then we'll 4 wait and come back. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's fine. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you have anything on this 8 last item? 9 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes. And I agree with the 10 Sheriff and what he's saying. My issue with it was, if your 11 personnel policy is such that you can hire these kinds of 12 people, then they have to be relegated to a situation where 13 they absolutely don't have access to private information. 14 In that regard, I would ask that Ms. Nemec, if she has that 15 information, bring it forward in public as to what, in fact, 16 he was doing. Because she was personally supervising him, 17 and I would like to know as a citizen what that individual 18 was doing in that office specifically. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Has any member of the 20 Court got anything further on that item? We'll stand 21 recessed for lunch until 1:30. 22 (Recess taken from 12:18 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 23 - - - - - - - - - - 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to 25 order, if we might. It's a bit after 1:30, the time to 7-11-05 136 1 reconvene. We are now down to a timed item for 11 o'clock. 2 Moving right along. That item is Number 20. Our insurance 3 consultant, Mr. Gary Looney, is here to give us an employee 4 benefits update. Mr. Looney? 5 MR. LOONEY: Thank you, Judge. Good 6 afternoon, gentlemen. I'm going to, if I can -- you have 7 your folders. What I want to do is give you a summary. As 8 you well know, as I said earlier, I can easily speak for 9 anywhere from two to two and a half hours and say nothing 10 that you all would immediately understand, because I speak 11 in a foreign tongue. So, what I want to try to do is 12 summarize everything, and then kind of give you an idea of 13 what these reports are. We've got some others that are 14 coming in, bringing you up to date on where we are as far as 15 the status of the plan financially. And I'm not going to 16 give you any projections at this point as far as rates or 17 rate direction, things of that sort, but I would like to put 18 something on the calendar for a workshop, probably in early 19 October, for the -- earlier than that? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Going to have to be, 'cause 21 our budget's got to be finalized by 1 October. So we'll be 22 in workshops -- 23 MR. LOONEY: We'll do two different 24 workshops, then. One -- we'll do one on financing only, and 25 then another one for an additional update toward the end of 7-11-05 137 1 the year that we can -- that we can bring that up. We'd 2 like to do that in a workshop setting, if we could, if 3 that's okay with the Court. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is he talking about 5 budgetary issues? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: We're talking about for -- 7 MR. LOONEY: Projection. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- establishing the funding 9 requirements going into this next budget year, based upon 10 the claims that we've had so far. 11 MR. LOONEY: And the reason I'd like to do it 12 in a workshop is that the reports that we get from the 13 insurance company, we -- we're on a month-to-month 14 reporting-type function. And our reports are more concise 15 when we get them 7 to 10 days -- or, actually, 6 to 9 days 16 after the close of the month. And your meetings normally 17 are too early for me to really have much time to do a lot of 18 analysis of that, so if we can set the workshop up the third 19 week, it gives me more time to be able to -- to look at the 20 numbers, and it's more current from that standpoint. That's 21 why I ask for the special meeting. You have your book in 22 front of you. I'm just going to go through real quickly and 23 tell you about the tabs. Then we'll go a little more 24 specifically through the tabs themselves. 25 First of all, the reports that we get from 7-11-05 138 1 Mutual of Omaha come under two different categories. We get 2 what we call a paid report, and we get a financial report. 3 The financial report has a different time frame associated 4 to it than the paid report does, so right now, some of the 5 reports that you have in front of you, some are paid 6 reports, some are financial reports, and there may be two or 7 three days difference in the reporting time, so they may not 8 exactly match up one to the other when I -- when I go 9 through. It may not be an exact matchup on dollars and 10 cents. But I'm not trying, really, to give you a very 11 specific dollar-and-cent ratio at this point; more so give 12 you the status of the plan. 13 The first section gives us a paid report 14 which tells us about dollars and -- gross dollars that have 15 been paid on account of all employees based on the plan 16 design itself. The page -- the Tab 2 is a prescription drug 17 summary. Naturally, that's really just a brief summary of 18 the -- the flow of the prescription drug costs through the 19 system. We're going to get a much more comprehensive report 20 than this probably -- actually, it comes out quarterly. But 21 this report comes from the Prescription Drug Management 22 Company, the more comprehensive report. We will be able to 23 identify exactly the medications that are being taken, the 24 high-frequency medications, who's taking the medications -- 25 not specifically, but by class -- whether it be retiree or 7-11-05 139 1 COBRA participant, whatever area that is in. It'll help us 2 to get a better handle on managing the prescription drug 3 card going forward for the next year. But that report -- 4 this report is more of a summary. These are the dollars and 5 cents flowing through the system currently, as far as the 6 claims are concerned, by plan and by the costs associated 7 with it. The third tab is the -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gary, before you go 9 to Tab 3, could you just tell me a little bit on the 10 prescription drug summary? You got -- formularies is 81, 11 almost 82 percent, and then generic utilization is almost 12 45 percent, which adds up to more than 100 percent. Can you 13 explain that or tell me -- help me through that? 14 MR. LOONEY: On formulary -- on formulary 15 means that the medication itself is listed within the 16 formulary. That is provided by Mutual of Omaha through 17 their prescription drug management company. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 MR. LOONEY: That doesn't necessarily mean 20 that it's branded or not branded. It simply means that it's 21 identified as a prescription medication available for use by 22 the employee, available for purchase. There are some items 23 that are not on the formulary. Outside the brand name -- 24 outside that, they're exceptional drugs that have to go into 25 a specific purchase program. So, the formulary is not 7-11-05 140 1 necessarily branded-versus-generic. Formulary is the entire 2 prescription program that's available. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4 MR. LOONEY: The generic is simply the 5 utilization within that total cost. That is 6 generic-versus-the branded. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 8 MR. LOONEY: On the -- on Tab 3, what we look 9 at is obviously what we've got from the standpoint of a high 10 claim. Do we have individuals that have high claims, and 11 what those high claims are amounting to. We set the 12 threshold to be $10,000. Anything in excess of $10,000 on 13 any one claimant we wanted to get a report on to see what 14 that status was. A couple of reasons. One, we want to make 15 sure that they're under some sort of managed care program, 16 if, in fact, they're eligible for it. And if they are 17 eligible for it, that we'd like for the managed care people 18 within the Mutual of Omaha organization to provide us 19 updates with what they're doing to help them manage these 20 situations. We've got five major claimants right now. Of 21 those five, we have two that are cancer treatment 22 individuals, one of which was a cardiac problem, and then 23 one of which was a -- a premature birth, but that's been 24 satisfied and we don't have any more major expenses in 25 relationship to that. So, really, the three claimants that 7-11-05 141 1 we're looking at, watching carefully now for the managed 2 care portion of it, are those two cancer patients and the 3 one that had the cardiovascular problem. (Coughed.) Excuse 4 me. Under Tab 4, that's -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One question on that. 6 You say there's five. When I count it up, it looks like 7 there's 10. 8 MR. LOONEY: There's five, though, in the 9 diagnostic process. Five that the diagnosis was such, and 10 that we wanted them to be under the managed care umbrella. 11 The others that are in excess of that were completed cases. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. 13 MR. LOONEY: They were situations where there 14 were accidental injuries where there was not any follow-up 15 or any condition -- any or additional problems that we could 16 see with that. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 MR. LOONEY: So we're tracking that. Under 19 Tab 5 -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 4. 21 MR. LOONEY: I'm sorry, 4. Under Tab 4, you 22 know, it's typically -- what you hear in the health 23 insurance industry is that 20 percent of the individuals 24 equal 80 percent of the claims. So, what we've done is 25 we've had them distribute the claim information by volume of 7-11-05 142 1 claim to see if, in fact, this is a true picture of -- of 2 that fact. The last three numbers -- the last four numbers, 3 as you can see, there was one claimant actually that 4 exceeded the $50,000 range. Actually, this report began 5 again. This is one of those financial reports where there 6 was a one-day differential, so there's actually two 7 claimants that exceeded that $50,000 range. But there was 8 only two -- there was only one that went over the -- the 9 high range, run into the high range. So, between those two 10 claimants, we had approximately $160,000 in claims on those 11 two particular claimants. So -- and that amounts to close 12 to 40 percent of the total claims paid under the plan. So, 13 it's true that we've got a few large claimants that are 14 impacting the total overall cost, but that's what we're 15 insuring against. That's why we have the specific insurance 16 in force, that one deductible we have, which is, say, 17 40,000. So, we've set that threshold at 40,000, so these 18 claims in excess of that 40,000 are being reimbursed. Total 19 amount of that reimbursement to date is approximately 20 $86,000, and so we're in that position. 21 MR. EMERSON: Can I ask one quick question? 22 The documents that were distributed, do y'all -- do they 23 have individual names, or -- there are no identifiers on any 24 of that? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 7-11-05 143 1 MR. EMERSON: Okay, thank you. 2 MR. LOONEY: Now, counselor... (Laughter.) 3 Are you the HIPAA security officer? 4 MR. EMERSON: In this case. 5 MR. LOONEY: Huh? I have a question. 6 Seriously, are you the HIPAA security officer? 7 MR. EMERSON: No. 8 MR. LOONEY: Who is the HIPPA security 9 officer? I'll tell you. Ms. Nemec is the HIPAA security 10 officer. So, that's a good question, because earlier the 11 question had come up about employees that potentially were 12 working in different offices that might have access to 13 information that has to do with personnel history of some 14 sort. So, our -- our HIPAA security officer is responsible 15 for training those individuals that might have access to 16 that information so that they know that they are -- or you, 17 as an organization, are protecting against the misuse of 18 that information. So -- and I'll say something else about 19 that. But there are some items, if you cleanse them, the 20 individual's name can be listed, as long as there's no 21 direct relationship to the actual claim itself as to the 22 diagnosis and/or other information that might lead to the 23 termination. But you can give name and volume or payment. 24 But there is none of that information in this report. 25 MR. EMERSON: Thank you. 7-11-05 144 1 MR. LOONEY: You're welcome, sir. Good to 2 meet you. I haven't had a chance to talk to you yet. But 3 that is what that -- that report is. And then on -- let's 4 see -- Tab 5 is just a real quick summary distribution of 5 whether our claims are being paid for dependents, whether 6 they're spousal claims or subscriber climbs. "Subscriber" 7 in this case means the employee. Then on page -- on Tab 6, 8 what we do is we take a look at the distribution by plan, by 9 the amount that is allowed for payment; coinsurances, 10 deductibles, copayments. And this gets us to our net 11 payment basis. Under Tab 7, we take it a further step, and 12 then if you'll go to -- actually, to Page 4 under Tab 7, 13 this is really the telling report that we look at, because 14 these are where the numbers come home as far as our total 15 bill charges. 16 And I -- let me say first, though, that this 17 -- this form right here -- this particular report right here 18 does not match what's in Tab 1. Tab 1 was a report that we 19 pulled this morning to get the final paid number for the 20 month of June. This does not include the month of June. 21 This is through the month of May, so this one doesn't match 22 with what's on Tab 1. But the distribution is what we're 23 looking at. We're looking at a total bill charge, and then 24 what has reduced that bill charge, what the employee 25 contribution levels are, what the prescription drug 7-11-05 145 1 distribution is, and then what the total payment is in 2 relationship to the total bill charges. The reason we look 3 at that number -- the reason we look at these numbers is 4 because this gives us an indication of how our plan is 5 functioning in relationship to payments in relationship to 6 bill charges. So, we look at this percentage to see whether 7 or not your plan is too liberal or too conservative, whether 8 the benefits and the manner in which they're being 9 distributed possibly need to be changed in some way as far 10 as that distribution. The one item that's not in here is 11 the reimbursement under the health reimbursement account. 12 The next session that we go through, the next period when we 13 look at the actual numbers, that number will be put in here 14 to bring it up to date for the total cost of the plan. 15 Under Tab 8, one of the things I wanted to 16 know, because of the initial questions that were being asked 17 about plan design changes, the feedback for employees and a 18 lot of questions, this is the call center. These are the 19 questions that go into the call center at Mutual of Omaha. 20 The questions that are asked in the different categories, 21 the volume of those questions, and this includes -- the 22 first page includes all of the calls. The second page 23 includes the calls from the employees. These -- this is the 24 list of calls from the employees themselves, and this is 25 from January, and this one does go to the end of June. So, 7-11-05 146 1 we expect -- we expect calls to come in. That's why the 2 call center is there. And these are the reasons that 3 they're calling, and this is the frequency of the calls. 4 This -- this ratio, this frequency of call ratio is not 5 extraordinarily high or extraordinarily low. It's pretty 6 much what we expect on a percentage basis as far as calls 7 are concerned. 8 The next one is actually from the physicians' 9 offices, from the total number of physicians. If you'll 10 bear with me, I want to go -- go to -- not go to Tab 9 just 11 yet; I want to go back to Tab 1, and a little more 12 description on this particular report. This particular 13 report indicates on the first page that our total paid 14 claims to date -- these are gross paid claims. This 15 includes prescription drugs, it includes all expenses. Your 16 gross paid claims to date are $589,000. From that, we 17 subtract our reimbursements that we receive, and under the 18 specific insurance, which is on the next page, it says that 19 our specific reimbursements to date are over $80,000. 20 Matching up numbers again. A while ago, I showed you a 21 maximum cost on the -- on the specific where I showed 114 22 and 52,000 over the -- those were the high claims. This is 23 -- there's a lag as far as that report and this report. 24 That report shows gross. This report shows actually what 25 has been paid, so there's a difference of about $3,000 or 7-11-05 147 1 $4,000 in there on those numbers, in case you go back and 2 try to match them up. But this is -- this shows what we've 3 paid in premium; it shows what we've been reimbursed, our 4 total premiums to date of approximately 79,000, and our 5 reimbursements were 83. So, our stop loss insurance is 6 doing what it's supposed to do; it's reimbursing us for 7 those high-cost areas. Any questions about that specific 8 deductible? I have to find my glasses; that's why I'm 9 stalling for time, excuse me. The numbers are getting too 10 small. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the number on -- 12 on the previous page, 589,292, is that net of the 83,666? 13 MR. LOONEY: No, sir, that includes that 14 number. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 16 MR. LOONEY: That includes that number. That 17 is -- that is gross numbers. Our basic life insurance is on 18 the next page. We've had no losses, thank you, which means 19 we've also had no accidental death and dismemberment losses. 20 If you'll remember, last year we were able to increase the 21 death benefit for employees on the plan. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is it now? 23 MR. LOONEY: Twenty -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 20,000. 25 MR. LOONEY: 25. 7-11-05 148 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's 20. 2 MR. LOONEY: 20,000. I believe it's 20. I 3 don't remember. 4 MR. WALLACE: 20. 5 MR. LOONEY: 20,000? I do remember we 6 increased it. So, basically, that's where we are as far as 7 paid claims at this point. Now, there are some concerns 8 that I have over reading through the information, so let me 9 kind of go over those with you. First of all, the -- we're 10 making an estimation on what the paid claims are for the -- 11 through the end of the month for June. We're running about 12 $20,000 a month in prescription drug charges. $20,000 a 13 month puts us at about -- between 20 and 22 percent of the 14 total paid claims are going to prescription drugs. We would 15 like to have that number in the 13 to 15 percent range. 16 We'd actually like to have it lower than that, but 17 apparently we've got really to take a good, hard look at 18 where those prescription drugs are. That's why I've asked 19 for that additional report. 20 One of the things that comes to mind 21 initially -- whether it's true or not, I'll have to 22 determine based on data -- is that we have a fairly large 23 number of retirees in the program, and as a result, 24 Medicare -- if people are eligible for Medicare, 25 prescription drugs are not covered under the Medicare 7-11-05 149 1 program, so a lot of the utilization under the plan may well 2 be coming from the retiree group. And that's what I'm 3 looking for in the next report, is to determine whether 4 that's correct or not. The Medicare law changed, and as you 5 know, we're going to have an option for Medicare 6 participants to participate in Part D of Medicare. I'm not 7 sure what happened to Part C. I don't know -- we got A, B, 8 and all of a sudden, Part C was skipped and Part D suddenly 9 is going to be available to us. But Part D, for a retiree 10 group to be eligible for participation in Part D of Medicare 11 in relationship to their employer, there has to be an 12 actuarial study done. And Mutual of Omaha -- I've discussed 13 this with Mutual of Omaha, and they are preparing the 14 actuarial study to determine the impact under the Part D of 15 Medicare. We have to have that report done by the end of 16 September in order to be able to qualify retiree Medicare 17 participants to be able to use Part D of Medicare. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gary, are you saying 19 this Part D is something new? 20 MR. LOONEY: Brand new. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Brand new, okay. 22 MR. LOONEY: Yes, sir, starts in 2006. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what you're -- the 24 goal here is to shift -- if they are retirees, to shift them 25 to Medicare paying for the drugs, as opposed to the County 7-11-05 150 1 paying for the drugs? 2 MR. LOONEY: Right. And we're trying to make 3 that determination. And part of our upcoming meetings, I'll 4 be able to give you a lot more specific information as to 5 how that potentially might -- may shift or may reduce costs 6 for us. The other thing that concerns me is that our HRA 7 program that we've put into effect appears to be working 8 very well. However, when I look at the distribution of the 9 costs that are -- where the employees are sharing in the 10 expense of the plan, we have some 90-plus thousand dollars 11 that have been expended by employees for coinsurance, 12 copayments, deductibles, and such as that. But out of our 13 HRA account -- that is the number that's under Tab 9. Under 14 the HRA account, we've only expended about $22,000. So, you 15 know, I think, at this point in time, we probably should go 16 ahead and notify employees once again of the HRA program, 17 how it works, to be sure that they are taking advantage of 18 the plan in the manner in which they should take advantage 19 of it. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gary, I have -- my 21 personal experience, I have a -- I know why that's the case. 22 And the reason is that every time I've gone to the doctor, 23 which isn't that often, and I give them that card, they say, 24 "No, we'll settle it later." And they'll wait and they'll 25 file the insurance, and all that goes out, and then I'll get 7-11-05 151 1 a bill from them later, as opposed to from the health care 2 provider. And we're talking about labs, talking about 3 pretty much anyone who uses several different doctors. 4 They'll send me a bill, and I don't know how to get that 5 card, you know, to my Austin doctor. 6 MR. LOONEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, without driving 8 to Austin, which is an inconvenience. So, I think the 9 problem is figuring out how to access that money when you 10 get a bill in the mail, and -- 11 MR. LOONEY: Well, once you've been -- once 12 your claim has been resolved, once you get that explanation 13 of benefits back from Mutual of Omaha -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 MR. LOONEY: -- where it has not been 16 utilized, all you have to do is fax that in to the HRA 17 administrator, and they will reimburse you on that bill. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's what -- I 19 think that is what needs to be clearly explained to the 20 employees, 'cause that's where the hangup comes. 'Cause 21 I've tried to use it; they say, "Oh, no, we'll worry about 22 it later." 23 MR. LOONEY: We want to make sure that it's 24 being utilized appropriately. And the -- I've talked to 25 very few employees at this point, but I have talked to a 7-11-05 152 1 couple of them that said that part of the reason they 2 haven't used it is because they want to save it up in case 3 of a critical illness circumstance. The others are -- were 4 somewhat questionable as -- well, one of them says, "I 5 haven't had any claims. I haven't had..." Thank you. Come 6 back more often, please. But we have funded -- that HRA 7 account is fully funded based on your current funding 8 mechanism. But when I see those ratios, I want to make sure 9 that we've got the communication link set up properly for 10 the employees to know how to utilize it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 12 MR. LOONEY: Now, when we do that, we know 13 we're potentially going to increase utilization, but that's 14 what the plan is designed to do, and that's what we want to 15 do as far as accomplishing that claim level. We did have 16 another problem with the card being used at the optometrist. 17 Well, the optometrist typically has two functions; they have 18 a medical function and they have a retail function, and when 19 they try to put something through the card that is a retail 20 nature, the card will not accept it. So, the individual 21 needs to be taught and trained on how to enter that 22 information into the system to be reimbursed appropriately. 23 We want to be very, very careful about how we do that, 24 though, because once they learn the trick, then they have 25 the ability to put retail through there, and the retail 7-11-05 153 1 won't be caught until the actual billing in the category 2 comes out. So, we have to be very careful how we work on 3 that particular piece of -- Mutual of Omaha has -- they're 4 aware of the program. We've contacted their claims people, 5 and we're working on making sure that that gets -- gets 6 resolved. 7 The retiree situation in general, I'm 8 gathering additional information concerning the claims 9 ratios for retirees. The County is one of the few major 10 organizations left, really, that provides substantial 11 retiree benefits for employees, so we're doing an actuarial 12 analysis to determine what that impact of Part D Medicare 13 may be in relationship to your retirees to see and make 14 recommendations to the -- may or may not occur as far as 15 retirees are concerned. Simply be a recommendation based on 16 actuarial information. The -- I was concerned because I've 17 got a number of -- of calls early on about COBRA 18 administration, about the old administrator had been doing 19 certain services under COBRA administration. The new 20 administrator was not doing certain services under COBRA, 21 and consequently, one of the reasons that we had moved COBRA 22 administration to Mutual of Omaha was that Mutual of Omaha 23 accepts full responsibility for COBRA once an individual is 24 notified of COBRA being eligible -- or their being eligible 25 for COBRA. So, the notification process was where we were 7-11-05 154 1 having a problem. 2 As a result of that, Mutual of Omaha and 3 Mr. Wallace has made arrangements with the Treasurer's 4 office to support them in a COBRA training seminar, which 5 will take place on this Wednesday, so we hope to get 6 additional information and training into that process so 7 that we hopefully will bridge those -- bridge those gaps. 8 The other part of that seminar also will have to do with 9 HIPAA and HIPAA certification and qualification, and so we 10 want to make sure that we're going the right direction as 11 far as our security and privacy issues are concerned with 12 the employees under HIPAA in that process. And is that -- 13 am I right? 14 MS. NEMEC: Yes, that is correct. 15 MR. LOONEY: Okay. 16 MS. NEMEC: I do have a policy in place on 17 that already. 18 MR. LOONEY: The policies are pretty much 19 there. We're just -- we do continuing education on these 20 processes all the time. Even though I teach HIPAA and COBRA 21 seminars, I go back to the same seminars too, because 22 there's always some glitch or something that's in there that 23 we need to be concerned about. The one thing that I'm not 24 concerned about at this point, believe it or not, is that 25 our funding appears to be doing exactly what we projected it 7-11-05 155 1 to do. We're right on track, within our budget 2 circumstances. Again, make sure that -- that our cash 3 flows -- we projected early minimal cash flows and then 4 increases and then leveling out, and if you look at the 5 graphs, that's exactly what we've done. Our turnaround time 6 with Mutual of Omaha is under 15 days, so our reporting 7 functions are very much up to date on our cash flow. So, 8 we're watching that very closely. Again, I think that the 9 HRA accounts are -- are something that we need to take a 10 look at, because that's the one thing right now that's being 11 underutilized. And if that utilization comes back, as I 12 said, we're fully funded for that and we have full access to 13 that. I look forward to working with you going forward in 14 the future. And what questions do you have, gentlemen? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: When do you think you might be 16 available to at least help us with our funding estimates 17 going into next year's budget? Bearing in mind that we're 18 probably going to be starting budget workshops later on this 19 month and on into August and September. 20 MR. LOONEY: I can -- the best numbers for me 21 to give you -- the most accurate numbers, of course, come as 22 late in the year as possible. I can give you initial budget 23 projections early in August. I can get you those early in 24 August, and with the caveat that they will be conservative. 25 And the fact is that we may have to make some minor 7-11-05 156 1 adjustments. Yes? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It just looks like, 3 from the service call summary, that the preponderance of 4 problems we experienced at the beginning -- or questions 5 have pretty well leveled off, and things seem to be pretty 6 smooth. Is that your assessment? 7 MR. LOONEY: They're tapering off. We expect 8 calls constantly. We know we're going to get calls. This 9 -- these are the calls that Mutual of Omaha handles. These 10 are the calls that they have received. Some of the calls 11 are -- the calls that go through Ms. Nemec's office or go 12 through Mr. Wallace's office are not recorded in this 13 particular area. So, what the frequency of calls -- I've 14 talked to Mr. Wallace. The frequency of calls in his office 15 has dropped substantially. I'm not sure about Barbara; I 16 haven't had a chance to talk with you about the calls in 17 your office. Are they the same? Up? Down? 18 MS. NEMEC: They're not as high as they used 19 to be. We get, you know, a few, but not as much as when we 20 first started on the plan. 21 MR. LOONEY: Yeah. So, hopefully things are 22 leveling out. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions for 24 Mr. Looney? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is I 7-11-05 157 1 appreciate the report. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's good. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do, too. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Appreciate your 6 work. 7 MR. LOONEY: Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, did you have 9 anything -- Ms. Nemec, did you have anything you wish to 10 offer in connection with this? 11 MS. NEMEC: No, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Wallace? 13 MR. WALLACE: No, sir. Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody from Mutual -- Jaime? 15 Carey? Okay, thank you very much. We appreciate it. 16 MR. LOONEY: Thank you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 14, 18 if we might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action 19 to award a construction contract or contracts to Lupe Rubio 20 Construction, Incorporated, in the total amount of 21 $805,898.65 to provide first-time sewer service for 22 Kerrville South covered by T.C.D.P. Contract 722411, 723095, 23 and 724441. Commissioner Williams? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 25 This is another illustration of the bidding process at work. 7-11-05 158 1 We first went out for bids on this project, I don't know, 2 about two months or so, maybe two and a half months ago. 3 Received no bids back. Readvertised, putting the net out a 4 little further, and the second time around got one bid, and 5 so that's the bid that is in front of us. The issue then 6 came up, how are we going to pay for that? Because the 7 funds available in the first of those two contract numbers 8 were insufficient to cover the total cost of the project. 9 So, we -- the Court, by resolution, petitioned O.R.C.A. to 10 allow us to consolidate the funds in Phase 4 into Phases 2 11 and 3 so that we could accomplish the task of providing 12 sewer service in the area, which is the heart of the problem 13 that we originally set out to try to cure, in the Loyal 14 Valley area down on -- off of Ranchero Road. The Court 15 agreed to that. The issue was sent to O.R.C.A. And while 16 the document that I put in your packet indicates that 17 O.R.C.A. had -- was considering it and was looking 18 favorably, I did receive a phone call from Grantworks as of 19 Thursday, where O.R.C.A. has approved it, and the -- and the 20 documentation will be forthcoming in that regard, Judge. 21 So, I haven't received it yet, but it should be forthcoming. 22 Am I correct, Ms. Mitchell? That was the word we got back? 23 MS. MITCHELL: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, without any 25 further ado, I'd like to offer a motion to approve the 7-11-05 159 1 awarding of a construction contract for Phases 2 and 3 under 2 Contract Numbers 722411 and 723095 and 724441 for the 3 continuation of the Kerrville South wastewater project. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. I 6 assume that's to the Lupe Rubio Construction, Incorporated? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, it is, to 8 Lupe Rubio Construction, Inc. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 10 further question or discussion? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make just a comment 12 a little bit. I talked to several people that I was 13 surprised didn't bid on this and some others about why we 14 only received -- no bids, and then one bid. And the 15 response I got was just the activity. Many construction 16 companies that do this are just -- they have too much work 17 on their plate right now. And it was not a -- you know, 18 that was the biggest -- well, the unanimous reason I was 19 given as to why we didn't receive very many bids, and some 20 local contractors included, that -- they said they just 21 couldn't handle any work right now; they're just too buried. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good problem. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it is a good 24 problem. And that's really kind of what the engineer 25 confirmed, that those who can do this work are just 7-11-05 160 1 overwhelmed with work. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like this is 3 probably a -- it wasn't lack of interest or problems that 4 were perceived or something like that. It was just the fact 5 that -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Too busy. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Too busy. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 9 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 10 your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Item 15 15. Pursuant to property owner's request, consider and 16 discuss waiving plat review fees for a replat of Lots 36, 17 37, and 38 in Southern Hills, Phase Two. Mr. Arreola? 18 MR. ARREOLA: Good afternoon. I was asked to 19 put this item on the agenda. The owner of this tract has an 20 existing, recorded plat, and he's planning on consolidating 21 these lots into one. There's three lots that he wants to 22 join into one lot. Each lot right now is about .85 of an 23 acre, and the new lot will be a little bit over 2 and a half 24 acres. So, he's requesting to waive the fees for the 25 Environmental Health plat review. 7-11-05 161 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this the one I talked 2 to you about, Miguel? 3 MR. ARREOLA: No. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't talk to you? We 5 talked about one of these at one point. Well, either way, 6 I'm in favor of waiving these. I think that we're in -- 7 this is really encouraging what the County wants to do in 8 our Subdivision Rules, which is enlarge lot sizes. And the 9 reason is, by law, O.S.S.F. has to review the plat, but we 10 do set the review fee. And I think it's a deterrent to 11 people to doing the right thing, and we're charging them 12 $200 for moving in a direction -- and there's really -- 13 clearly, if they could put three septic systems in, common 14 sense tells you that you can put one septic system in, and 15 they still have to follow the same rules. I'm in favor of 16 this; I think we need to make some accommodation for this on 17 a permanent basis so Miguel doesn't have to bring these to 18 court. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That will take an amendment to 21 the rules? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I need to look at 23 how we do it, because I don't want to get into amending our 24 O.S.S.F. rules. I think it's probably a court order that -- 25 for combining lots, that we could let -- Miguel is 7-11-05 162 1 authorized to waive the fee. We don't want to get into 2 changing the O.S.S.F. rules. We did that -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's probably the 4 simplest way of handling it, is by court order. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we can do 6 this today. All we can do is -- I'll make a motion to waive 7 the O.S.S.F. plat review fee for Lots 36, 37, and 38 in 8 Southern Hills, Phase Two. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 11 question or discussion? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just wanted to make a 13 comment. I couldn't see -- going through this thing with 14 Miguel and the property owner, I couldn't see anywhere where 15 the guy benefits anything by paying this fee. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He doesn't. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, he's just 18 paying the county a bunch of money to do something; he gets 19 no benefit. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something that we want, 21 too. Something that we're encouraging him to do. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're benefiting by 23 having one larger lot rather than three smaller. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 7-11-05 163 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. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank y'all very much. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Item 16, consider preliminary 9 plat of Heavenly Acres, a revision of an unrecorded plat in 10 Harper Valley Ranch located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom? 11 MR. ODOM: Morning -- afternoon, Judge. 12 Sorry, my mind's just stuck in this morning. What you have 13 before you is an unrecorded plat in Harper Valley 14 Subdivision, and it had three tracts, and what we have it -- 15 the preliminary is before you for five tracts. And it meets 16 subdivision requirements, and I put it before the Court to 17 accept this preliminary plat of Heavenly Acres. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 21 approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Seems like we've had 23 this discussion before. Down here on Tract 5 -- 24 MR. ODOM: Tract 5, okay. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Included in that 7-11-05 164 1 tract is this part that -- 2 MR. ODOM: Goes back to the right there. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 409 feet. 4 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the reason 6 for treating that -- why is it on there? Does it have -- 7 have something to do with the amount of frontage on the 8 road? 9 MR. ODOM: That's 200 -- I don't have an 10 answer. I don't remember what it was specifically, but 11 203 feet, that's more than enough. That may have been it 12 right there. To -- each one of them meets 200 feet, so you 13 have over 500 feet frontage on Tract 5, 303.07 and 203.32. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard -- are you 15 finished, Commissioner? My only question is, what is the 16 reason for mentioning that it's an unofficial, unrecorded 17 subdivision? 18 MR. ODOM: Because this came to -- it was 19 unrecorded. They came to O.S.S.F. to do that, and which 20 they turned it over to us. The Court has directed us that 21 it's an unrecorded plat, and that we contact the 22 individuals. And they came before us to -- they were trying 23 to sell -- I believe they sold 16, and I believe this 5.6 is 24 to a brother or something. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. But I 7-11-05 165 1 guess -- 2 MR. ODOM: And so we just had -- it was 3 brought to our attention. We called the people up, and we 4 were directed by the Court to take any unrecorded plat and 5 to have it platted, so that's what we're doing. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You misunderstand my 7 question. My question is, why have the terminology on 8 there? I think it just -- it kind of is confusing to have 9 all this "unrecorded, unofficial subdivision" language on 10 there. To me, you know, it's just a subdivision. And, 11 granted, it's -- and I think on the final plat, I'd prefer 12 to leave off some of that language, 'cause I think it's 13 confusing and doesn't really mean anything. What I'm 14 talking about, the box where it says "Heavenly Acres, 15 Revision of Plat of Tracts A, B, C. Unofficial, Unrecorded 16 Subdivision." 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, because 18 after you do this, it's no longer unofficial and no longer 19 unrecorded. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with them, 21 though at this point is a good time to say that, to alert us 22 to what it's really about. 23 MR. ODOM: That's the reason it's before you; 24 it's just unrecorded. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But the final doesn't 7-11-05 166 1 need -- 2 MR. ODOM: Don't need that. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just Heavenly Acres 4 when we're done. 5 MR. ODOM: That's right. And it was trying 6 to delineate, you know, Tracts A, B, and C -- it is -- it's 7 a little bit confusing, but it's a revision of those three 8 tracts into five. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is -- again, the 10 terminology, I'll ask the County Attorney. If it's an 11 unrecorded subdivision, is it a revision of an unrecorded 12 subdivision, or is it just a subdivision plat? Does that 13 make sense? The reason is, we're -- 14 MR. EMERSON: I understand what you're 15 asking. It's just a subdivision plat at this point, 'cause 16 it's never been officially recorded. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we'll just call it a 18 -- you can -- it's probably good to leave this map the way 19 it is right now on the final plat, but I wouldn't call it a 20 revision. I'd just call it -- 21 MR. ODOM: Fine. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a plat, Heavenly Acres 23 Subdivision. 24 MR. ODOM: Heavenly Acres, okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And y'all are doing 7-11-05 167 1 exactly what we asked. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Government's 3 working here. Thank y'all. Thank you, Gary, for doing it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 5 comments? 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. Let's 11 move to Item 17, if we might. Consider revision of replat 12 of Tract 56 of Wood Trails Ranch. 13 MR. ODOM: This is also in Precinct 4. What 14 we have -- what was presented to us is -- we're not changing 15 any lot lines. We're not changing any acreage. What 16 we're -- apparently, it was for sale. Tract 56 was for 17 sale, and the two counselors got together, the buyer's 18 counselor and the seller's counselor, and they wanted the 19 wordage off the O.S.S.F. taken off this plat. So, we think 20 that we could come to the Court -- I've talked to 21 Commissioner Nicholson, and also Mr. Letz has been contacted 22 about his opinion, but what we would have to do is, we would 23 have to set a public hearing for this, 30 days, and then -- 24 and then have a final on this. But I -- we don't see that. 25 Really, this should have been a revision of plat, maybe a -- 7-11-05 168 1 notes taken off. But counselors want to do this clarifying 2 and clean this up. U.G.R.A. had -- Mr. Brandenberg put 3 these notes on here, and they're not necessary. So, what we 4 have is a revision to clear that up, that Tract 56 is clear. 5 We haven't changed anything. No lines, no signs, just the 6 notes. So, we think that the Court -- if it's this Court's 7 decision to do so, we could take care of it right now as a 8 revision of plat. 9 MR. EMERSON: If I may clarify something, 10 too, the -- the complete rest of the story is that they were 11 running into problems because the title company was not 12 going to allow them to build a house where the dotted lines 13 are. 14 MR. ODOM: Where the dotted lines are. 15 MR. EMERSON: With the language. 16 MR. ODOM: We don't understand why that was 17 necessary to be done. My understanding is it was a 18 5,000 square foot area. And then they told Mr. Brandenberg 19 to put an alternate in there, so he just chose a place, he 20 said, where they said put one. So, he put one down there, 21 and that was U.G.R.A. doing this. So I'm not quite sure, 22 but -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What we're doing, we're 24 deleting some language -- some verbiage off the original 25 plat, and that just necessitates it to be a revision of 7-11-05 169 1 plat. Move approval. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. Sounds like a 3 revision to me. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 5 approval of the agenda item. Any question or comment? All 6 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next 11 Item, Number 18, consider preliminary plat of Ledge Stone 12 Subdivision in Precinct 2. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Odom? 14 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. When this was presented 15 to you, everything was all right. We met Wednesday to go 16 over drainage, as well as when the contractors would start. 17 They told me that they had -- and this doesn't preclude us 18 approving this, but I want to bring it to the Court's 19 attention; there has been a change. When I went out there 20 Thursday morning to look at their center line, they had an 21 L.C.R.A. 100-foot pole within 6 foot of the center line, so 22 there was some readjustment that needs to be done. And I 23 don't see this adjustment in this right-of-way -- and I'll 24 let Lee verify this, but I don't see that much of a change 25 as far as the acreage at all involved in this. Am I right 7-11-05 170 1 in that assumption, Lee? 2 MR. VOELKEL: Let me address that one issue, 3 yes, sir. Instead of moving the pole as to Lot 2, the 4 expense to do that, we shifted the road over a little bit, 5 is what it amounts to. We have the same number of tracts; 6 we have the same acreage. We moved the road about 20 feet 7 to the east to make the pole that Mr. Odom was concerned 8 about -- or has talked about at the right-of-way line so 9 that it's outside of the drivable area of the road. That's 10 what we've done with that. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This one called 12 Tracks Trail, that moves east by 20 feet? 13 MR. VOELKEL: 23 feet, if I remember right, 14 Commissioner. Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Does that 16 change any of the lot sizes in any way? 17 MR. VOELKEL: Lot sizes all stay the same. 18 Only thing that will change is the actual dimensions that 19 you're seeing there. They'll vary a little bit. The tract 20 size will stay the same and the number of tracts will stay 21 the same. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'm sorry, 23 Judge, what was your question? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: The adjustment was done down 25 where it intersects State Highway 27? 7-11-05 171 1 MR. VOELKEL: Actually, if you look at Tracks 2 Trail, it's the north and south link to that up and down. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 4 MR. VOELKEL: The whole thing, parallel 5 shifting it to the east. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause that power line 8 goes right there. 9 MR. ODOM: Power line goes across it parallel 10 to the road there. And -- just a point he just missed, 11 but -- 12 MR. VOELKEL: If you see Lot 4 and 5 there, 13 that common lot line has the power line on it, that little 14 line that's got the "U" on it there, Commissioner. That's 15 the overhead transmission line that exists on the property. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 18 MR. VOELKEL: And I think there were three 19 poles on the property, and I hit one. Amazing. But we took 20 care of that. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That's prescription, isn't it? 23 MR. VOELKEL: I don't know what that is, 24 Judge. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just so -- it needs 7-11-05 172 1 individual wells platted for this. 2 MR. VOELKEL: That's correct, everything will 3 be served by individual wells. As the plat notes, it's a 4 private road; will not be a County-maintained road, although 5 it will be built to county standards. We also have today 6 with us the engineer, Les Harvey, if you have any questions 7 of Mr. Harvey, or the owners of the property are here also 8 if you have any questions. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: These guys want to get 10 it done. They've been here since daylight. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're ready to 12 leave. 13 MR. VOELKEL: They were camping out here last 14 night. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any other issues that 16 we need to talk about? Are you satisfied? 17 MR. ODOM: Well, I think there was a question 18 we had on drainage there, and I will -- Les, do you wish to 19 address that to the Court? Because he was -- some things 20 had changed as of Wednesday. We thought this pit was going 21 to be filled in, but that's going to be left open, so 22 drainage goes over there. And I'll let Les tell the Court. 23 MR. HARVEY: My name's Les Harvey. I'm with 24 Harvey Engineering here in Kerrville, and I'm here on behalf 25 of the owners to request from the Commissioners Court a 7-11-05 173 1 waiver from stormwater detention requirements. And I can 2 address the reasoning behind that. This tract of land is 3 approximately 95 -- 95 acres. If you look on the plat, in 4 the lower southeast corner of this property there is an 5 existing multicell box culvert that goes underneath Highway 6 27. As you're probably all aware, the old railroad 7 right-of-way runs through there and serves kind of as a 8 berm. There's some cuts in it. And, frankly, the lower 9 southeast corner of this property, the 95 acres, is also the 10 outlet for an upper drainage basin of 878 acres, and this 11 95-acre tract represents slightly less than 11 percent of 12 the total drainage area. And that's the only drainage 13 structure near this subdivision. Area-wise, this 14 development, the effect is slightly less than 11 percent. 15 Hydraulically, it increases the runoff about 1.4 percent. 16 When you change the runoff conditions of the 95 acres, and 17 the remaining balance of the 878 remains unchanged, it'll 18 have a hydraulic impact of only 1.4 percent. In other 19 words, what's going through the box culvert now is 806 cubic 20 feet per second. After the development, what'll be going 21 through there is 815, so the difference in runoff you won't 22 even be able to tell by the naked eye. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the culverts are 24 sized sufficiently to handle that? 25 MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir, the cul -- and the 7-11-05 174 1 numbers that I just quoted you, the runoff, is for the 2 5-year storm, as required by the county rules. This 3 structure is designed by the 25-year storm, which is well 4 over 1,000 cubic feet per second. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Odom referenced 6 the pit which is at the northeast corner on Lots 6 and 7. 7 MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you tell the 9 Court how that fits into the picture? 10 MR. HARVEY: At one -- at one time, the 11 developers were considering filling that pit in and dressing 12 it up so that there was more buildable area on the two 13 affected lots. They have since changed their approach to 14 where the pit will remain; they'll dress it up as a water 15 amenity to those two lots. And in the past, water from 16 runoff from the upper acreage has drained into this pit, 17 overflowed, and gone down their easternmost property line to 18 this drainage structure I referred to a minute ago. That's 19 what will continue in the future. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How will that -- 21 MR. HARVEY: And it was good news to me, 22 because it keeps upland runoff from traveling through the 23 heart of the subdivision. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are any steps 25 necessary, Mr. Harvey, to make certain that that water 7-11-05 175 1 sheeting off of the 800-plus acres above is directed to the 2 pit appropriately? 3 MR. HARVEY: Just -- just to be on the safe 4 side, excess material from road construction and from 5 dressing up the pit is going to be used as a diversion berm 6 along the north boundary. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 MR. HARVEY: And along the eastern boundary, 9 a -- a purposely cut diversion channel will be cut to guide 10 water towards the drainage structure in a more positive 11 manner than just the topography that lays out there now. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 13 MR. HARVEY: That fence line along that side 14 will be cleaned and dressed up. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And after -- after 16 dressing up the pit and so forth, Lot 6, to me, is more 17 obvious than Lot 7. There is sufficient property left upon 18 which to build a dwelling and -- 19 MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- septic and drain 21 field and so forth? 22 MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- you mentioned 25 after the development, there'll be a one point -- small 7-11-05 176 1 percent increase flow. Is that due to the roads? 2 MR. HARVEY: Yes. Basically -- basically, 3 the small amount of the impervious cover that is purposely 4 built in the subdivision is the main hydraulic function in 5 the 1.4 increase. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's no change in 7 really -- that's not really redirecting any water or -- 8 MR. HARVEY: No, sir. We're -- actually, we 9 don't want to redirect any water. We want it to go where it 10 has always gone before. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 12 MR. HARVEY: And we're putting in some 13 drainage culverts on the road to help facilitate that 14 because of road construction. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- what 16 do you -- are you requesting a waiver here? 17 MR. HARVEY: No, sir, it wasn't -- it wasn't 18 officially listed that way on the agenda. We discussed it 19 in a meeting last week. If the Court would feel better with 20 me coming back at a later meeting before the final plat 21 comes up, I'll be glad to do that. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- I'm not sure 23 it requires a waiver. I think it can be addressed in a 24 letter, if you would just reduce what you said in writing to 25 the amount of the slight increase. 7-11-05 177 1 MR. HARVEY: Yes, I can address that in a 2 transmittal letter that will accompany the master drainage 3 plan. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think that 5 would suffice. I think -- 'cause, I mean, I guess we can 6 look, and maybe Rex can look at our actual language, which 7 is just kind of poorly worded at the moment in our current 8 rules, whether it requires a waiver or not. But we can let 9 you know that, but I think a letter would be sufficient. 10 That would be enough. If we do need to do a waiver, we can 11 grant it off of the letter, based on your letter. 12 MR. HARVEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval 14 of the preliminary plat for Ledge Stone Subdivision 15 containing 95.67 acres in Precinct 2, east of Center Point, 16 as per the presentation. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 19 approval. Any question or discussion? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's already a lot of 21 interest in this one. People ask me all the time about it. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If anybody hasn't 23 seen what's already taken place there on that old railroad 24 right-of-way, the developers thus far have cleaned that up; 25 it is absolutely gorgeous. And that will become the 7-11-05 178 1 entrance, I believe. Is that correct? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, it's very 3 interesting that they -- the railroad right through there -- 4 that's a pretty good berm, and that's kind of being left for 5 the most part, and then cut through to the roads, and it'll 6 be a natural, probably, sound barrier and visual barrier for 7 the subdivision. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's looking good. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's good. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 11 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 12 your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll 17 move to Item 19, consider and discuss authorizing the 18 Sheriff's Office to prepare an RFQ to be sent to architects 19 for study on an addition to existing county jail. 20 Mr. Sheriff. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, you have what I 22 have attached. Trying to figure out exactly, this being my 23 first time, what was meant by an RFQ, and calling several 24 agencies that are in the process of doing that. What we 25 have in the proposed Request for Qualification you have 7-11-05 179 1 before you is kind of done off of Anderson County. They had 2 one done; they did it this same way. And then attached to 3 that, talking with the Jail Commission, there is a list of 4 about 48, I believe, if I count them right, architectural 5 firms and that, that the state Jail Commission keeps on file 6 for this type of -- of purpose. And if we're going to go 7 forward with this at all, I would request that, number one, 8 that the last four lines of this -- I need a date on which 9 the qualifications ought to be due back that we could fill 10 in in the letter. And then I will instruct the secretary to 11 send one of these letters out, either by registered mail or 12 by regular mail, whatever the court would prefer, to every 13 one of the architectural firms listed on the two pages that 14 I got from the Jail Commission. Now, word evidently is 15 already out. I'm already receiving qualification notices, 16 statements of qualifications from a number of architects, 17 but I think we need to have it totally documented if you do 18 it this way. 19 A little update on jail status that I think 20 you should do before you vote on this is, of course, we all 21 saw the statements and analysis -- the facility needs 22 analysis Jail Commission did, which they recommended 96 23 beds, if y'all remember reading that. I had kind of 24 recommended 144, and I recommended that just off of what our 25 populations have been going, ups and downs. It was also due 7-11-05 180 1 to the number of years that -- when we built the current 2 facility, that it was stated that it would last us, and 3 falling way short of that, in my opinion. So, you know -- 4 and a lot of that was built on recommendation on number of 5 beds that the jail facility needs analysis back then had 6 recommended. And I -- I would love to see, if we're going 7 to do this, for it to address the problem and take care of 8 the problem for the full number of years. If we say -- if 9 we tell the public this is going to handle it 15, 20 years, 10 I would want to be able to stand behind that and say it's 11 going to handle it for 15, 20 years, whatever, and not fall 12 short of that. 13 Now, jail population lately, especially the 14 last two weeks, has drastically dropped. We had been 15 running in the 190's. I've seen it over 208 back in 2001 16 and 2002. We're constantly hitting above that 80 percent 17 maximum -- or 80 percent ideal situation that the Commission 18 likes for us to stay at, which would be 153. You know, most 19 of the months throughout the last several years, we've been 20 running over that 153, some of it due to our being able to 21 house out-of-county inmates, so it has put us up to that, 22 but I'm not housing any. This morning, population was in 23 the 130's. By tonight or tomorrow, I expect the population 24 to be back up to about 170 -- or 150 at a minimum, due to 25 some investigations that are climaxing today and some 7-11-05 181 1 roundups that are being done right now. And some of those 2 are going to have some high bonds, and I don't know what -- 3 what we can do. 4 We can sit back and just let this happen and 5 end up like we did 10, 15 years ago, where we're too late 6 and too far gone and we're paying for out-of-county housing 7 right and left, or we can take a proactive approach and at 8 least get the qualifications in, and then start taking it 9 and seeing the -- what the Jail Commission would recommend 10 with this Court and what the citizens of this county want, 11 because I think that's going to be a key -- key to it all. 12 I don't see this jail lasting much longer without starting 13 to get to a point of running over capacity most of the time. 14 And I will say one thing, and I'll say this for our newly 15 elected County Attorney. The biggest reason our population 16 has dropped in the last couple of weeks is 'cause the County 17 Attorney has been running people -- misdemeanor cases 18 through the County Court right and left, without dismissals 19 and that; I mean, legitimately taking care of these cases. 20 They're just working. And I think y'all were picking three 21 jury panels this morning for three different jury trials, 22 picking them all at once. There's been an aggressive 23 approach to the prosecution of misdemeanors and moving 24 through the system and not letting them just sit, and that 25 is definitely having an impact on our jail population. 7-11-05 182 1 Now, one of the other things that can be 2 studied is the work program. We'll get into the budget 3 process with something like that. That could help some. I 4 still see that we're going to -- to have to address this 5 issue very soon. And I'm very pleased; the problem we're 6 having with some of this investigation that we're climaxing 7 today, we're starting to round up -- I've already had the 8 District Attorney tell me, "Well, I don't think there's 9 enough defense attorneys around to be able to represent all 10 these people." And -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh-uh. Who said 12 that? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- the unfortunate part 14 about that is, it very well may be true. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, man. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because you have -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is Bill Pearson on 18 your list? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- conflict of interest 20 when they represent different defendants in the same type of 21 case. You also have a set number of defense attorneys in 22 this county, okay, so a lot of these are going to have to 23 come from other counties. These defense attorneys are going 24 to have their dockets in all these other counties with 25 defendants. And, you know, the majority of our defendants 7-11-05 183 1 in jail, a lot of them are represented -- are represented by 2 probably about five defense attorneys, which slows down the 3 entire process of moving these people through the system. 4 You know, sharing courts with other counties slows it down. 5 I -- it's not an easy answer. They just know we are going 6 to face some problems if we don't address it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's trying to tell us 8 there's a shortage of attorneys in this town. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm the last one to want 11 to admit -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought 13 he said, but we all know better, of course. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Me being in law 15 enforcement, I'm the last one to say we have a shortage of 16 attorneys, but that's what's being relayed to me. And I 17 think, you know, even the Judge can attest to how that works 18 with the defense attorneys. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think we need 20 to move forward with this step, and -- and then take a look 21 at where we are at that point. I mean, that's a long ways 22 from actually spending any money. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Taxpayers' money. 25 So -- 7-11-05 184 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. Now, I did put 2 in here, in the second paragraph -- the one that I got to 3 use in the sample had a certain number of beds, period, and 4 I felt we were still too early to -- to say we want to add a 5 certain number of beds, okay? The Jail Commission 6 recommended at least 96. My proposal to the Court last -- 7 or Commissioners Court before the last one was 144, if we 8 want to stay out of trouble, so I worded it in this, "Will 9 add an addition that will add approximately 96 or 144 10 maximum-, medium-, and minimum-security beds," 'cause you 11 have to -- and then also address some of the other issues. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My thoughts are, I mean, 13 I agree with -- I see no reason not to go forward with the 14 process. However, I think that we should put the date 15 really about September 30th to get this back. I don't want 16 to get -- we're going to be knee-deep in budget from now 17 until the end of this fiscal year. Once we get all these 18 in, though, we've got to start going through them, 19 interviewing. That takes a lot of time. So I really don't 20 want to -- you can get them back September 15th, sometime in 21 September, and then look at October really to start looking 22 at the -- you know, interviewing and going forward. And I 23 think we have the luxury of time, which is rare. We can 24 take our time and go through. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As far as I understand, 7-11-05 185 1 the request for qualifications coming from all these 2 firms -- and I won't list the names, because this was sent 3 without even asking, but this is one of them. They pretty 4 well have them already in packets and what their 5 qualifications are and how they work, but -- so I think 6 getting them in is not going to take very long. What I 7 think this Court needs to take a very long time in doing and 8 seriously looking at, and even if we have help doing it by 9 going and visiting all 48, you know, places all 48 of these 10 architects has built, is make sure we do pick one and we 11 thoroughly go through these qualifications, and make sure we 12 don't have the same problems we had -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last time. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- 15, 20 years ago. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I say I think 16 we ought to do it after budget. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm okay with going 18 out with an RFQ at this time, only because it's a first and 19 necessary step. If we're going to someday build a jail, 20 let's get started. And also, because it doesn't cost much; 21 some postage and some time. I don't think that that ought 22 to be read by anyone as an indicator that we've made a 23 decision to build a new jail. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're a long way 7-11-05 186 1 from that. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And on the other 4 side of that formula, if and when we ever get there, we 5 don't know if the taxpayers are -- are going to -- the 6 voters, I should say, are going to go along with that. So, 7 let's go ahead. I want to go ahead and do this, but I don't 8 want that to be read as a commitment that we're going to add 9 on to the jail. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, my idea -- I would 12 hold off sending out the letter until maybe early August or 13 something. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the only thing I'm 15 saying, Jonathan, as far as getting it back, is, you know, 16 you're talking about October or so after the new budget year 17 is -- of actually getting them in and interviewing them. I 18 would like to also take, you know, either by me or some of 19 my staff or one or two of the Commissioners, if they want, 20 during that to be able to have a large amount of time to 21 thoroughly evaluate these before we even start narrowing 22 them down to come back to this Court with the one that ought 23 to -- I think just the legwork part. The last thing I want 24 to see happen in this, gentlemen, is that -- in being here 25 when the last one was built, number one, I want to make sure 7-11-05 187 1 the public has every opportunity to ask and get answered any 2 questions they have; that we look at every alternative that 3 we can possibly look at before we commit to this type thing 4 or get too far, and that we take ample time. You had 5 mentioned the last one in the fall. I think the fall may be 6 next fall, you know, with the way we're going. We'll have 7 to try and do something. It's coming. We're headed there, 8 but -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm saying is -- 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Take baby steps. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm liaison to the jail; 12 I'm not going to have time to look at these things until 13 after September 30th. You can get them in when you want. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Whatever y'all want to 15 do. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll comment a 17 little bit further on -- and compliment Rex for what he's 18 done to speed up the system, to make it operate faster and 19 more efficiently. I don't know -- again, I don't know if 20 we're ever going to get a new addition to the jail or not. 21 Regardless of whether we have confidence that we will, all 22 components of the judicial law enforcement system need to be 23 doing the kind of things that Rex has done to see if we 24 can't make this thing work to where our current facility 25 would suit our needs for the future. 7-11-05 188 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amen. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know how we 3 do that. We say thank to you Rex and maybe -- and Rusty, 4 and maybe some of the others. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's one of the 6 reasons I publicly said thank to you Rex standing right 7 here, because he has saved me a lot in just the last few 8 months by the way they aggressively -- 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judges, lawyers, 10 everybody involved in the process needs to make an effort to 11 try to make it work better. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, is it your 13 plan that -- that when we get past this selection stage, 14 that we look at all of the options that may be available to 15 us? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Definitely. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to 20 authorize the Sheriff to solicit -- 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you've got 22 somebody else that wants to speak. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- RFQ's for architects 24 doing the new jail. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7-11-05 189 1 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the return date? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He can get them when he 3 wants. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: At his discretion? All right. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Don't do that. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying that, 7 from my standpoint, I'm not going to be able to spend much 8 time -- 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you want to put the 10 1st day of September? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If that's what you want. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes no difference. I'm 14 just not going to have a lot of time till after the budget. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With as much as we've 16 gone up and down, I wouldn't mind taking till September 17 either. Of course, once you get into this, we'll be able to 18 tell a little bit more. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: And you seconded, Buster? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. 22 Mr. Pearson, you had filled out a participation form for 23 this item, I believe. 24 MR. PEARSON: I did. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. 7-11-05 190 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Haven't even started 2 construction and he's already back. (Laughter.) 3 MR. PEARSON: I got to tell you, I got a 4 Xerox box full of stuff from the last one. I hope a certain 5 four-letter-word contractor isn't on your list. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're on the list. 7 All of them are that are possible. 8 MR. PEARSON: I'll get with you; we'll 9 scratch that one. And it's a shame to hear that you -- that 10 we don't have enough defense attorneys. I bet we could find 11 some low-income housing for some. But -- but, anyway, I 12 would like to draw the Court's attention to the fact -- and 13 I hate to be redundant, but the last fiasco we had, we did 14 not have a registered professional engineer as project 15 manager, as required by law under Article 3271a, Paragraph 16 19, Vernon's supplement. The County is required, in any 17 construction of over $8,000, to have a registered 18 professional engineer as project manager. And I hope, like 19 I say, we don't make that mistake again. I also would like 20 to congratulate Mr. Emerson. I hear a lot of good things 21 happening, and moving these things through the courtroom. 22 If these other judges are going to work, you know, at 23 nighttime, we could probably have some night courts up here, 24 move these things a little faster. 25 But on the size of the jail, this was kicked 7-11-05 191 1 around on the last jail, and there was people that wanted to 2 go to 46 and so forth -- or 48 and so forth. But I'd like 3 to ask Rusty, are you housing any out-of-county people now? 4 Are you making any money off of that? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Up until a month ago, 6 two months ago. You know, there were -- there have been 7 about three or four times in the past where I've had to ship 8 them all back because we hit way over that, but for the most 9 part, since the day I took office, we have been housing 10 out-of-county inmates, and we have billed out -- I would 11 have to get with Tommy to see, or I can run it on our 12 computer, but if you look in the last five years, well over 13 a million dollars or so easily in out-of-county housing. We 14 house any of them we can when we can, because most 15 surrounding jails need our help. 16 MR. PEARSON: I say that's pretty good on a 17 5.4 million jail, and I think that the Court should consider 18 the 144 beds, since there is a -- a definite shortage of 19 jail cells all over the country. And I think that we can 20 probably do the same thing -- the Sheriff could, to help 21 facilitate paying for this facility. That's all I have to 22 say. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. You have 24 anything further for us on this, Sheriff? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, sir. 7-11-05 192 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? 2 Comments? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising 3 your right 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. We'll 8 go to Item 21, consider and discuss directing the floodplain 9 administration -- administrator to deny permits where there 10 is a violation of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 11 Regulations. Commissioner Letz. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda, 13 the same as we had at our last meeting. At that time, Rex 14 had not had time to really look at the floodplain order and 15 that whole program to see if we could do it. He has since 16 informed me that we can do the same type of requirement that 17 we had for O.S.S.F., so I will make a motion that we direct 18 the Floodplain Administrator to deny permits where there is 19 a violation of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 20 Regulations. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 23 approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. That's the 25 right thing to do. That's a good, easy way to bring people 7-11-05 193 1 into compliance, and I'll just say again, my thinking that 2 we need to do this in a -- in a helpful, professional way. 3 It's not an "I got you." It's, "You applied for a permit, 4 and here's what -- here's how I'm going to help you get into 5 compliance." 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 8 comments? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising 9 your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll 14 go to Item 22, consider and discuss schedule for budget 15 workshops. Commissioner Letz? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seemed that time 17 is fast approaching. We don't have a schedule yet, so I put 18 it on the agenda for when we should have budget workshops 19 scheduled. I figured the Judge would put it on, but if he 20 did, I didn't know. I attached the dates that we had last 21 year, just so we can get an idea of the number of workshops 22 we had. What we're looking at for this year -- I mean, my 23 preference would be -- and I'm not sure where the Judge is 24 on presenting the budget to the rest of the Court, which is, 25 obviously, a real important piece of this puzzle. 7-11-05 194 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me answer that one right 2 quick. I gave Ms. Mitchell the -- there are still two small 3 components that I'm still working on, but the rest of it is 4 being packaged up to go to each individual department. And 5 then, of course, the Court -- each member of the Court will 6 get copies of all of them, so hopefully they will get a copy 7 this week, and we'll have that step accomplished. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: With that being said, you 9 know, maybe a week -- well, last year it seemed that we were 10 meeting an awful lot, you know, one after the other, and I 11 get budget burnout when we meet that often. You know, my 12 preference would be if we can schedule where we meet, you 13 know, maybe two times -- or once or twice a week at most in 14 our budget workshops, at least in the beginning part when 15 we're going through it. And then I think towards the end, 16 we always have a couple catch-ups. And, you know, with that 17 -- with what the Judge said, that we'll get the budgets this 18 week, maybe next week can be a free week, just to kind of 19 look through it, and the following week maybe we can have 20 our first -- our first workshop where we can kind of have 21 just a general discussion about where we think we are, where 22 we think we may be going. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When will we get our 24 numbers from KCAD through the auditor's office? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: My general understanding is we 7-11-05 195 1 don't get those until the very tail end of July. Isn't that 2 correct, Tommy? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: From the Appraisal District? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: From KCAD. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: We have preliminary numbers 6 now. I don't -- I don't know how much is in protest. The 7 information that I -- that's on what I have doesn't have 8 that amount. So, I think we need some more definitive 9 answers as to how much is in protest and the percentage he 10 perceives as being lost. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of the 12 certified tax roll, or what's the forerunner to the 13 certified tax roll, we don't get until the very tail end of 14 July. I believe that's correct, isn't it? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct, yes. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're still -- the 17 certified tax roll, all the protests -- or still a majority 18 of protests are unresolved at that point, I believe. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: They -- they do -- at this 20 point, they do know exactly how much is in protest. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: And there's always -- there's 23 a good indication of what percentage they're going to lose 24 to that, so I think that would be a good number. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to start the first 7-11-05 196 1 week in August, then? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably, once we get the 3 numbers, we have a pretty good idea where we're at. Or we 4 -- you know, either that, or if we get them the last week in 5 July, we could meet and have a general discussion as to 6 priorities and things of that nature. I think we did that 7 last year. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that kind of 9 meeting is necessary. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe one meeting the 11 last week of July, and then first meeting of August, another 12 meeting, and then someone go from there. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In August -- well, 14 when does this process have to be completed? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: September 30. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: September 30. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there another 18 benchmark date in between? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a bunch of 20 hearings coming in. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: We have tax rate hearings 22 and -- under the new law, we're probably going to have at 23 least two public hearings, which are not less than three 24 days apart. That's primarily for the city and the tax rate, 25 but it all kind of bundles together. You've got to do one 7-11-05 197 1 for the other and vice-versa. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty much -- we pretty 3 much need to be done by the middle of September. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, to satisfy all 5 the publishing requirements. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we set a date 7 for this first meeting where we talk about the budget and 8 what we hope to see, and then maybe set a -- a date -- the 9 same date each week for the next month or something like 10 that? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Be another option, sure. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next court meeting is 13 the 25th. We're talking about 26, -7, -8, something like 14 that? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, this month? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the first 17 meeting. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Our organization 19 meeting? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I cannot that week. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will you be here on the 22 25th? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about the first of 25 the next week? 7-11-05 198 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, August 1. 2 August 1 through 4, yes, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's 4 important that all -- everyone be here for that first 5 meeting. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First week in August 8 is probably soon enough. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: My best days, of course, are 10 Wednesday and then Tuesday afternoons. I don't -- don't 11 have dockets on those days. And I don't have dockets on 12 Fridays, but I don't think most folks like Fridays. But I 13 have dockets other days. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Wednesdays are free? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Wednesday's really my best 16 day, all day. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine with me. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wednesday, the 3rd? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wednesday, the 3rd. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: What time? 9:00? 10:00? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 6:30 a.m. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Send a cab after me, 24 will you? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00? Doesn't make any 7-11-05 199 1 difference. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What time? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have seen the 6 Commissioners Court officially adopt a budget late in the 7 evening on September the 30th, and it wasn't funny. It 8 wasn't anything funny about it. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that the one you 10 spent all night putting together the night before? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we're not going to 12 talk about that; Gerard's in here. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, what is it 14 you're going to give us sometime in the next few days? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to give you the 16 copies of the budget requests made by each of the 17 departments with any adjustments or modifications that I'm 18 recommending, with a caveat that will go out to each of the 19 submitters that personnel items -- additional personnel, 20 part-time, full-time, overtime -- I'll take reductions. 21 Salary increases, be they COLA's, merits, everything except 22 what's plugged in by policy, longevity and educational and 23 capital outlay, those will be reserved for the Court's 24 action, very similar to the process we've had in the last 25 couple years. 7-11-05 200 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My question of the 2 Court is -- it would be, I think, very desirable to give the 3 City information about joint ventures as soon as we can. 4 Would it be good to give them a copy of, say, for example, 5 Animal Control and -- well, those at this point in time? 6 Say, "Here's what we're working on. If it'll be helpful to 7 you in your thinking, you can have the information." 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That may be one of the things 9 that we want to take up at our initial session on some of 10 these joint City/County projects, to get some general 11 direction on those, because that's going to be a court issue 12 necessarily, I think. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can't see any harm 14 in saying to them, you know, here -- "Here's what we know. 15 We don't know how this is going to come out, but if it is 16 helpful to you in understanding the scope of -- of your 17 budget, you can see what we're looking at." 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, do we have any 19 indication as to if or when we will have joint budget 20 sessions with the City on projects that we do together? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: We've got EMS scheduled for 22 Wednesday -- this coming Wednesday, I believe. Beyond that, 23 we don't have any. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we're going 25 to have a joint, it's my understanding, from talking to -- 7-11-05 201 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking about a 2 general joint? I'm not aware that one's been proposed. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm asking. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Airport Board will 5 be -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's on the 19th. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we'll be looking at 8 July 19th, so we'll have the airport recommended budget by 9 the first meeting in August. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll have animal -- you 12 know, I don't know where we are in a couple of them, 13 obviously, like the library and recycling. But -- well -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, EMS is a 15 biggie. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: EMS is a big one, and the 17 airport are big ones. They're a little bit more unknown, 18 probably, than the other ones, 'cause they're -- we know 19 there's big changes in those two. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think it would be well 21 if we would, in that initial session, get those City/County 22 items, because that's going to take some direction from the 23 whole Court. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I -- so, Wednesday is 25 a good day, so I would -- maybe everyone block out every 7-11-05 202 1 Wednesday in August. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I was going to 3 bring that up. We're going to start on Wednesday, the 3rd, 4 and then the very next Wednesday some of you guys are at the 5 legislative conference. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that's out. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Skip that week. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I hate to skip a 11 week. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do, too. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about Tuesday of that 14 week? Tuesday afternoon at 1:30? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Tuesday afternoon is generally 16 good for me. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The 9th? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be the 9th. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can always cancel 20 them, but it's good to get them on -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1:30. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1:30. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or 1:00 is fine with me. 25 Judge, you don't have hearings on Tuesday afternoon? 7-11-05 203 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Not in the afternoon. I've 2 got them in the morning. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1:00 or 1:30? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm showing at 1:30. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1:30? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's Wednesday of 7 the next week? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then back to 9 Wednesday on the following week? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 17th. Sure. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 9 a.m. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00. Then the 24th at 13 9:00? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That ought to be enough 16 for right now. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll be gone, but 18 y'all can do fine without me. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's our plan. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kathy, you'll get that 21 schedule out? 22 (Ms. Mitchell nodded.) 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if I happen to 24 be working with anybody on the City side of the contract and 25 they want to know what Animal Control costs me, I'll share 7-11-05 204 1 with them the information I have. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Animal Control, we've 3 furnished them the historical figures. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know. Just -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If there was a 6 question in there, Commissioner, I -- the answer from me is, 7 absolutely. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is just my role 9 as facilitator and peacemaker. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Tator. Facilitator. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like it. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hunt boys don't talk 13 like that. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on that 15 item? We'll move on to Item 23; consider, discuss, and take 16 appropriate action on a plan for a one-day celebration to 17 commemorate the 150th anniversary of Kerr County in April 18 2006. Commissioner Williams? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I put this 20 back on the agenda, and we haven't talked about this 21 together for a long time. We have about 10 months remaining 22 before Kerr County gets to the month of April of '06, in 23 which it celebrates its 150th anniversary. You'll recall by 24 reading -- if you looked at the material I put in there, 25 most of that was prepared by -- all of it was prepared by 7-11-05 205 1 General Schellhase, who's chairman of the Historical 2 Commission, with respect to a multi-day celebration. Only 3 problem with that is, we can't find anybody to chair, and I 4 think we still have that problem. But the problem could be 5 lessened to some extent if we were to narrow our scope a 6 little bit and go from four days of celebration down to one 7 day of celebration. So, I just wanted to get it on the 8 agenda, let somebody talk about it, see whether we're going 9 to get -- whether they're not going to do it, whether 10 they're going to skip it and go for 200 or whatever. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should do it, 12 but I think it's not this Court to ramrod. I think we can 13 -- we're supportive of it, but I don't see the Court funding 14 it, and I don't see the Court, really -- unless one of the 15 individual members chooses to take the lead on it, I just 16 don't think -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not suggesting 18 our funding it, Commissioner, not at all. You 19 misunderstand. Not at all. If it's going to be done, the 20 money would have to be raised by the private sector. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a 22 terrific idea. Looks like a fun thing to do. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you like to be 24 the chairman, Commissioner? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 7-11-05 206 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as we're not 2 funding it, I agree. I think it's a great idea. I think it 3 should be done. And I -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who is it your 5 contention that could logically organize it and pull it off? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there some 8 organization that would logically do the organization and 9 management of it? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know, we thought 11 about that, and General Schellhase and I went out to see Bob 12 Miller out at the River Star Park, thinking maybe Texas 13 State Arts and Crafts folks might want to undertake it as a 14 project, but they felt they had enough on their plate 15 without doing this, and so they didn't. But, you know, 16 there may be another organization out there; I just don't 17 know. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the likely place 19 is the hysterical -- historical group. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: His group or the Chamber 21 of Commerce, or a combination of those or something like 22 that, to me. I mean, the County really doesn't have a -- I 23 mean, the historical association, I guess, is under the 24 County. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we have a 7-11-05 207 1 commission, but -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's basically a -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, they don't have 4 any fundraising capability either. The funds that they 5 raise, for example, were -- that were raised for the Union 6 Church, the Commission didn't do that, but the Friends of 7 the Commission did. It is a separate organization, and they 8 raised those dollars that were necessary for renovation of 9 the Union Church. So -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The one that comes to 11 mind -- I said Chamber; I really probably meant Convention 12 and Visitors Bureau. I mean, they kind of help spearhead 13 this stuff as well, but maybe contact them and see if they 14 can get with the -- through the City, see if they're willing 15 to do something. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I suggested Commissioner 17 Williams take it home. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I detect a little bit 19 of buck passing here. It's kind of going around the table. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Most of it's 21 stopping right there, though. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's what I'm seeing. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It seems to be right 24 back here. Well, okay. Thank you for your kind attention. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further -- anything 7-11-05 208 1 further to be offered in connection with Item 23? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so, 3 Judge. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Buddy, where I got 5 excited on here is when you were talking about having a 6 hound dog show. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hound dog show. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I saw a hound 9 dog show. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't say where it's going to 11 be. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was kind of 13 interested in that. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to get 15 old what's-his-face -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I was thinking 17 about entering it myself. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. Would you like 19 to chair that event? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. I'm going to be 21 one of the dogs. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Let's move on, 23 Judge. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have our 25 reports. Let -- before we get into that, let me inquire if 7-11-05 209 1 there's anything that we need to go into closed or executive 2 session about? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We skipped two items. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I skipped two items? 5 Excuse me. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, you did, way up 7 front. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: A thousand pardons. That's 9 right. We'll go back to Item 4, if we might; consider and 10 discuss and approve the appointment of election judges and 11 alternates for the term of one year in accordance with Texas 12 Election Code Section 32. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 16 approval of the agenda item as submitted. Any question or 17 discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. I have two 19 questions. In Precinct 107, that person lives in another 20 county? Can you do that? 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's just 22 the address. 23 MS. PIEPER: That's just the address. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does the person live 25 in Kerr County? 7-11-05 210 1 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the next one 3 109, isn't that Clayton? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Clayson. No, it's 5 Clayson. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it with an "s"? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, that's 8 correct. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 10 comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 11 your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Item 16 5, consider, discuss, and consider approval to enter into a 17 negotiation contract with Hart Intercivic and/or another 18 vendor listed with the Texas Building Procurement Commission 19 for a voting system that is certified by the Secretary of 20 State to meet HAVA requirements. Ms. Pieper. 21 MS. PIEPER: Judge, basically, it's just like 22 it stated. I would like a motion to -- or approval for me 23 and the County Attorney to enter into a negotiation contract 24 with Hart Intercivic to we can get our funding and our 25 election equipment stuff here on time so we could have it by 7-11-05 211 1 March 2006. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we -- and I probably 3 shouldn't even ask the question; I should know it. Have we 4 voted to go with Hart? 5 MS. PIEPER: No. That's what I'm asking you 6 to do now, is to approve negotiating a contract with Hart 7 Intercivic. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you say or 9 someone else as well. 10 MS. PIEPER: 'Cause the Judge asked me to put 11 that language in. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you -- do you have 13 a proposal from Hart? Or -- 14 MS. PIEPER: Yes, I do. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But are you 16 recommending Hart? 17 MS. PIEPER: Yes, I am. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: And she had previously 20 indicated, I believe, there were four certified providers of 21 this equipment, and they're all under state contract, or 22 were under state contract. 23 MS. PIEPER: So we don't have to go out for 24 bids for each one of them. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. I 7-11-05 212 1 recall the Secretary of State's comments here. 2 MS. PIEPER: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And in discussing this 4 with the County Clerk earlier, my understanding is that we 5 don't -- we get a better firm -- we won't get the best price 6 until we enter into negotiations. 7 MS. PIEPER: That is correct. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really, at this point, 9 we're not committing to Hart. 10 MS. PIEPER: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As much as we are 12 committing to negotiating with Hart to see what the price is 13 going to be, and have them come back. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we don't go with 15 Hart, we'll go another direction and come back. 16 MS. PIEPER: That is correct. But Hart's 17 equipment -- after reviewing all the equipment, Hart is the 18 one that suits Kerr County the best. We will still be able 19 to keep optical scan ballots, plus we will have D.R.E.'s, 20 which is the HAVA-compliant. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the 22 Clerk's request. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That the County Clerk 24 and the County Attorney -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, be empowered to 7-11-05 213 1 enter into negotiations about a contract with Hart 2 Intercivic. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 5 further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 6 signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick question, Judge, on 12 that. Jannett, do you know when they'll be coming back? 13 How long it's going to take and when they'll be coming back 14 -- when y'all will come back with a proposed contract for us 15 to look at? 16 MS. PIEPER: I'll have to call them and tell 17 them this has been approved, and then they're ready to go 18 after that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a budget 21 question. We need to know how much it's going to cost us. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we've -- 24 MS. PIEPER: We're thinking the HAVA funds 25 will completely cover it. 7-11-05 214 1 JUDGE TINLEY: It's going to be close, 2 according to the numbers that I've seen so far, I think. 3 Are there any matters to be -- any member of the Court wish 4 to take to executive or closed session? Okay. Hearing 5 none, we'll go to Item 24, a timed item for 2 o'clock. 6 We're catching up; it's only 3:10. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you mean? If 8 we stay till 9:00, we'll catch up? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Department reports. I.T. 10 AUDIENCE: He just stepped out. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, he missed his 12 turn. Road and Bridge. 13 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I have a copy for 14 everybody, including the Clerk. Since our last meeting, we 15 have done sealcoat on Peterson Farm Road, Mosty, Fall Creek, 16 Eugene Lane, Indian Creek, and Clark. We've shot 17 515,240 gallons of emulsion. We have all the gravel in 18 place for our sealcoat program, and you have -- back in this 19 packet in each precinct are the projects that we -- that we 20 have to do. This week, we hope -- we plan on shooting, 21 maybe starting Wednesday, Alvin, Earl, Douglas, Alta Vista, 22 Chula Vista, Loma Vista, Contour, Poco Vista, Palo Verde, 23 and Bailey Jo, and also Monroe. It may run into next week, 24 but we're going to get that area. What we will have left is 25 Ranchero Road. On the 19th, I have a vendor coming in; it's 7-11-05 215 1 called a zipper, which connects to my 930 loader, and which 2 does scorifying, so we're going to have that demonstrated 3 and we're going to take care of that area. There's some 4 little base failures down toward the school, but the one up 5 there that we're always having problems with. I've 6 contacted Mike Coward several times. I just called again 7 and told Mike Boyd that we're going to do this on the 19th. 8 I'm going to cement stabilize that. They already put that 9 on timing. I've encouraged -- I've been told that they 10 probably will leave on it timing for a while, which will 11 probably get compliance. They're a little bit different, 12 what they're getting now, 'cause it will be phased by 13 traffic. Either they will go back with timing, which we 14 don't want to, or go with a camera. And they implied that 15 they will put that camera back up, so I'm hoping that would 16 be the case. And they'll get off that timing sequence or 17 they'll go back in, but we're going to cement stabilize that 18 area right there. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was wondering, would 20 it help with the camera issue if Commissioner Williams and I 21 wrote a letter to court requesting that? 22 MR. ODOM: I think that would probably help 23 some. I've even volunteered to pay for it out of -- you 24 know, to get it done. They told me $4,000 or $5,000 is what 25 they talked -- then they were trying to schedule it, so we 7-11-05 216 1 think we will have it handled in the next week or so. We'll 2 be up there working that, and then we will try to get that 3 section between 16 and the school, and then drop the other 4 side around Shannon and go toward the creek right there and 5 try to pick that seal up. We won't do around the school 6 right now; that'll be next year, when I have enough money to 7 do striping, stuff like that. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, question, 10 please, on Elm Pass. Where are you going to pick it up? At 11 -- pick it up at the game preserve, Pecan Valley, and then 12 go out to how far? 13 MR. ODOM: Well, what we're going to do is -- 14 as a matter of fact, they're up there cutting brush right 15 now today. We're going to pick up a mile from where we left 16 off, which I think is called -- what is that? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sanders Road. 18 MR. ODOM: Sanders Road, okay. We're going 19 to change that intersection up right there and bring it 20 straight out instead of that wide-angle, but we're going to 21 cut brush right now, so they're working on that next mile. 22 They're going to try to cut brush to Elm Pass II. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 24 MR. ODOM: And we'll work and try to get that 25 ready. We'll take a look later on and see what my budget 7-11-05 217 1 is, 'cause I don't have that plan. I just have a mile, so 2 it's another half a mile in there to go. So, we'll take a 3 look-see where my money's at, if we can pick that up and 4 seal to Elm Pass. If not, then we're going to pick it up in 5 next year's budget; we'll finish -- we'll do a mile. I 6 think we'd pick up past Elm Pass, but we want to go to the 7 county line cutting and working that back in there. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 9 MR. ODOM: That's over the next couple years. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 4? I don't 12 want to -- don't want to get in your business, but -- one, 13 two, three -- the fourth one on your list on the front 14 page -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cutburth. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cutburth. That is an 17 actual -- these are not two words; it's one word, and it's 18 an old family name over there. And I think it's B-u-r-t-h, 19 Cutburth. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Road signs are 21 right. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The road signs are 23 correct, I think. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I was just 25 going to ask you, is Baldwin -- 7-11-05 218 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Baldwin is correct. 2 MR. ODOM: Baldwin's still there. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We did some work on 4 Byas Springs, and I see down here we have work on Beach 5 Road. Isn't that Byas Springs? 6 MR. ODOM: That is Byas Springs. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Used to be. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Road and Bridge has 10 done a lot of good -- good work, a whole lot. I mean, 11 there's a lot of resurfacing going on, and people notice 12 that, so that's good. 13 MR. ODOM: We have that section around Clark 14 Ranch right there; we stopped right there. I think it's W-2 15 or something like that, ranch, but we hit this Clark Ranch 16 in there, and then we're going to try to take it back to the 17 end of our pavement, and we still have some dirt. We're 18 going to look at next year, trying to clean some things up 19 over the next couple years, finish this single seal. We've 20 done some dirt -- we don't have dirt roads; we have all 21 gravel roads, but we've done some of those this year, so 22 we're down to the single digits on the amount of roads we 23 still have left. And -- 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Len, is Indian Creek 25 the road that we had a problem with that land owner who 7-11-05 219 1 wanted to put a gate across it? 2 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that -- 4 MR. ODOM: That is sealed. That is sealed. 5 Well, at this point, I -- knock on wood -- so far, we 6 haven't had any more complaints. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sealed all the way 8 back to the gate? 9 MR. ODOM: We have it sealed all the way back 10 now. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good. 12 Without anybody getting hurt. 13 MR. ODOM: And I guess I could go through, if 14 the Court wants me to, on each precinct on the sealcoat, but 15 what we're going to be doing -- but we're going to try to do 16 some seal -- you know, get caught up. Then in the fall 17 sometime, we'll pick up on the remainder of it and try to 18 finish it. Anything left, we'll try to finish up before the 19 end of the budget year. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 5 -- 21 MR. ODOM: Sir? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 5, Fall Creek is 23 in Precinct 1? It's not a different one, is it? It's 24 Precinct 2. 25 MR. ODOM: Well, Fall Creek is in Precinct -- 7-11-05 220 1 oh, I see what you're saying, I'm sorry. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We only have one of 3 those, huh? 4 MR. ODOM: Sir? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We only have one of 6 those? 7 MR. ODOM: I hope that's all I have. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There are some folks 9 that live out on Fall Creek that swear I'm their 10 Commissioner, and they have actually voted for me. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How'd they do that? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know, but I 13 like it. Its good. I mean -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Want to give me their 15 names so I can go talk to them? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great tax base. 17 MR. ODOM: And under what -- the way we have 18 the county divided up, I have five crews working, so we 19 divide -- it's not just one precinct. They overlap into 20 where they're -- they're working and all. So, when you look 21 at this, you say, "Hey, I've got some," but this is the 22 crews assigned to that and the way these roads hit, and they 23 knock them out. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len, I don't see too much 25 work being done in Precinct 3. I just thought I'd point 7-11-05 221 1 that out. An awful lot being done in 4 and 1. 2 MR. ODOM: Mr. Holekamp was there, and I just 3 want to point out there's only 450,000 compared to 4 1.2 million. So, to -- for me to be able to do that, I do 5 yours in about four years when we get rolling. So -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. 7 MR. ODOM: -- just look at the computer list 8 next year; we'll see how it all falls. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, you got 10 more going on than I do and Commissioner 1 has. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, depends on which 12 one you're talking about. The speed zones is. But, 13 speaking of that, on the first page, going back to your -- 14 MR. ODOM: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I'm reading this, 16 you're looking at these roads for possible putting speed 17 limit signs on? 18 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you thinking 30 20 mile-an-hour sped limit on these roads? 21 MR. ODOM: We'll find out what the 22 85 percentiles are. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: What's that mean? 24 MR. ODOM: If we have a subdivision, I don't 25 need a court order; we have it by Vernon statues. 7-11-05 222 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no subdivision on 2 any of those in mine. That road's going through -- 3 MR. ODOM: Lane Valley, Hermann Sons, Gaddis 4 Bluff, Cypress Creek, and Schwartz. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no -- I mean, 6 that's -- those roads aren't going through a subdivision. 7 MR. ODOM: No. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any of those. So, you're 9 looking at a speed limit. But you think we need a speed 10 limit. I agree with you; I think we do. But my question 11 is, will your traffic flow study come back, or will you come 12 back with a -- 13 MR. ODOM: I will come back with something. 14 I will talk to the Commissioner before I start to put this 15 on the agenda. Each one ought to know where we're at. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 MR. ODOM: We'll take a -- there are 18 mitigating circumstances. If you take a look at -- 19 Commissioner Williams had one, and which I had the wrong 20 information. We went back and did a data before, and it 21 showed 50 miles an hour was the average. That's the reason 22 we did it 50. I was told the City had 45 down there, but we 23 looked at it. We've done the same thing over the holidays, 24 over -- what was it, 4th of July or something like that. 25 I -- we had four or five days, and I had an average speed of 7-11-05 223 1 around -- between 31 miles an hour and 36. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, your count gives you 3 average speeds as well? 4 MR. ODOM: Oh yes, sir. My count gives me 85 5 percentile. The stat -- the manual says to set it at the 6 85. So, there -- there may be mitigating circumstances; we 7 may have Mooney traffic when it's running. Just -- and I 8 don't do that facetiously. I'm just saying there are 9 mitigating circumstances of a traffic flow that may be, you 10 know, higher speeds than what's actually out there. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one that Leonard 12 is referencing is Peterson Farm Road, and the Court 13 adopted -- based on information he gave us earlier, and 14 republished it and so forth, we adopted 45. Lo and behold, 15 when we checked to see what the sign says on the -- and 16 Leonard was misadvised. When we checked the sign coming 17 west to east -- east to west coming out of Mooney, it's 30. 18 So, we got one going west to east, 45, and they got one 19 coming back, 30. 20 MR. ODOM: It was 35. It was 35 there, and 21 we had some others, but I -- it doesn't make any difference. 22 I made a mistake, so I brought it to the Court. But we did 23 another survey, and that other survey itself was less than 24 the first survey. But it -- the reason was, Mooney wasn't 25 running traffic during the holiday. 7-11-05 224 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I was just curious 2 what you were doing. That sounds good. I mean, I would 3 like to know what you would recommend on these -- on roads 4 in my precinct. 5 MR. ODOM: That counter will give us the -- I 6 can even tell what's the actual type of weight 7 classifications across that, too. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On some of these roads, 9 do you go multiple spots on a road? 10 MR. ODOM: That's right. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 12 MR. ODOM: It's just not going to be one 13 place up front. I'll probably put out four counters in an 14 area if it's long enough to justify putting that in there. 15 Break it up. What -- we just see that -- that the D.P.S. 16 and the Sheriff's Department, when there's enough complaints 17 there, if we have an accident -- we've had, unfortunately, 18 two working, which signs are out and everything else. But 19 if they don't have them on there, then I'm sort of caught, 20 even though I have a placard working, "Road Construction 21 Ahead" or "Men Working Ahead." People going through there, 22 I'm told that they can go 55 miles an hour. We're told 60. 23 The manual says if it's unmarked, it's normally 55. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Len, the speed limit 25 I've heard the most about over the last two and a half years 7-11-05 225 1 is Goat Creek Cutoff. You and I have driven it, talked 2 about it. What is it, 30 or 35? 3 MR. ODOM: I think it's 35. 35. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And you can't drive 5 that slow on that road, and nobody does. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But they should. 7 MR. ODOM: But it's narrow. But the other 8 thing is, is that when you take Goat Creek Cutoff -- and I 9 don't mean to take the Court's time -- you look at every 10 driveway that's on there. I think I counted 140 driveways. 11 And so you start calling a driveway an intersection, you 12 start having that many intersections and adding to that, 13 that's like Ranchero Road. You've got 30, and then you've 14 got another area that's 35 by court order. That is way too 15 many driveways to allow people doing 45 miles an hour. 16 Another 10 miles an hour is probably another 100, 125 feet 17 of stopping ability, and people pulling out of their 18 driveways, that just -- it's an unfortunate situation. But 19 it's just too many intersections on Goat Creek Cutoff. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And you know all 21 about that, and I don't. It just seems to me like where you 22 have a -- any law, particularly, but a speed limit that's -- 23 that's not right for the perceived conditions, that people 24 quit paying attention to speed limits. Another place on the 25 state highway right there near Hunt Crossing, it's 35 miles 7-11-05 226 1 an hour. I know why it is, 'cause there's a lot of children 2 and tourists and all that. But, you know, you almost can't 3 go below 45. It takes a conscious effort to get it down to 4 35. 5 MR. ODOM: Well, when you take the warrants, 6 and you look at the warrants on the M.U.T.C.D. and then you 7 say, all right, I run it. You run it, and your 8 85 percentile's running in there. There is one warrant. It 9 says political warrants. So, if the Court determines -- and 10 that's a determination by the County Commissioners, if we 11 want to change it. That's the reason I say I will be 12 discussing it with you, and we'll try to come up with what's 13 reasonable. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's good. I'm 15 glad you're doing it. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, before we 18 get off this, would you make a note -- either you do it, or 19 come pick me up sometime and you and I will do it together, 20 or you can send a member of the crew or somebody up on 21 Sanders Road. They're out there working now, you told me? 22 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I'm told -- and I 24 did visit it, so I know it's the case. There is a property 25 owner there that has put a gate with an electronic -- 7-11-05 227 1 electronic opener across Sanders Road way up there. That's 2 a terrible road, and we both know it. I don't know if the 3 Sheriff's been up there lately or not. And then, as you go 4 a little further toward the end of it, there's another 5 intrusion into the right-of-way, and it's been there, I 6 guess, a long time. But in that second instance, it's a 7 cattle loading chute which intrudes well into the 8 right-of-way. Would you take a look at that? And then you 9 and I can talk about what we can do -- 10 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I'll take a look at it. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- do about those. 12 MR. ODOM: I'll try to get out there this 13 week. I won't be able to make it this afternoon. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 15 Appreciate that. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Mr. Odom? 17 MR. ODOM: Well, then also attached to this 18 list are subdivision plats that we've done, and as well as 19 floodplain construction permits. And the one that you had, 20 Commissioner Nicholson, was that Casa Bonita. That is 21 F-005 -- I mean 05-006, I believe, so I got a permit. We're 22 aware of some of these. And my memory is not what it used 23 to be; takes me a while to remember some of it. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Drive by there and 25 take a peek in there. 7-11-05 228 1 MR. ODOM: It's supposed to be a two-story 2 structure like the other one. It's not set on the ground. 3 It will be in -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I haven't seen the 5 stilts yet. 6 MR. ODOM: Well, I -- I can't remember all 7 the specifics on the thing, but we had it, and I went over 8 that with Truby. And that was my number on it, so I 9 remember someone coming there, and I've gone over it. So, I 10 get a lot of different calls or talks, and I -- but I'm 11 aware of it. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 13 MR. ODOM: If they don't do it right, 14 we'll -- we'll remind them. In a nice way. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Right. I'm open for 16 any questions, if you have -- or any improvements. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like this report. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's helpful to 20 see what the activity is, and the type of inquiry we've been 21 getting. 22 MR. ODOM: You can see, a lot of things that 23 come into the office, we can handle over the phone, or in 24 person for a map. Or any questions on platting, a lot of 25 times Truby can handle it. If not, I'll contact the people 7-11-05 229 1 or meet with these people. And -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the report, 3 too. It's good. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for 5 Mr. Odom? Thank you, sir. We appreciate -- 6 MR. ODOM: Thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- your report. Information 8 Technology. 9 MR. TROLINGER: I apologize if I missed the 10 first call. I had to step out for an emergency call. I 11 provided a written report as a bimonthly report, and it 12 speaks for itself. There's a correction on the first line; 13 the Sheriff's Office had a couple of seized computers, not 14 newly purchased computers. Specifically, I think the thing 15 I want to highlight here for us is I finished the evaluation 16 on our Software Group -- on our mainframe server, how it's 17 used, what we can do better, and what we can do to replace 18 it. I saw training as the number one issue, either way. 19 Another significant item, I'd like to thank the County 20 Attorney; we're using his server. It used to sit down in 21 his space, and now we're using it for multiple purposes 22 county-wide. There will be a consolidation there. And the 23 issue with e-mail, we're finished with the conversion, I 24 hope. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be -- 7-11-05 230 1 would that be what's prompting this love-in between you and 2 Judge Wright that I'm getting all this mail about? 3 MR. TROLINGER: I don't know if that's the 4 core issue or not, but it's -- it's been strenuous for a few 5 of the users. I think if we look at the end result, we're 6 going to have a lot of savings in efficiency, unrealized as 7 it may be. I've got numbers that I've generated, anywhere 8 from $25,000 to $100,000 per year in unrealized gains in 9 efficiency and loss of time by switching this e-mail server. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How's that apply to 11 Judge Wright and her operation? 12 MR. TROLINGER: She's going to receive less 13 -- less unwanted mail in her mailbox. That's the objective 14 for her. She's received quite a bit from the KTC and 15 kerrcounty.org account. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spam and pop-ups? 17 MR. TROLINGER: About 60 messages, she 18 reported to me last, for -- for one -- coming in on a Monday 19 after checking it on Friday. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the e-mails that 21 -- well, the copies of the letters I keep getting from Judge 22 Wright, and I think maybe sent to somebody else, refer to 23 our personnel -- or our policy on computer or technology 24 use. I'm just asking you, at some point, to look at our 25 policy again and make sure that everything -- that you think 7-11-05 231 1 it is efficient. I know one of the concerns was that people 2 wanted to play music and -- you know, and which is, I guess, 3 allowed in our current policy, over the computer, or listen 4 to radio over the computer, things of that nature, if they 5 wanted to. And I know there's some communication back and 6 forth about that. And the other one is something about 7 deleting or changing some -- or e-mails being deleted or 8 something, not knowing about it. But the bottom line is, 9 look at our policy and make sure that you think the policy 10 is still where it needs to be, and mostly on some of the 11 things -- if there's things that are costing the County 12 money that are not necessary. For example, it seems to me, 13 'cause of my computer and my dial-up speed, that whenever 14 I'm listening to music or video or something over the 15 computer, the -- it slows my computer down throughout. And 16 if this is -- and if, by employees doing -- listening to 17 music and radio on their computer, it's slowing down our 18 overall system or requiring us to do more upgrades than we 19 would have to do if they weren't doing it, I'd like to know 20 that. I think they need to be stopped, 'cause I don't think 21 it's a priority, in my mind. 22 MR. TROLINGER: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That type of thing. I 24 would like you to look into -- 25 MR. TROLINGER: To address that, to start off 7-11-05 232 1 with, I did initiate with Commissioner Williams -- prompted 2 him for a review of the policy, the network usage policy. 3 We did not get to that point. I missed you last meeting. 4 There's quite a bit -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. But, 6 you know -- 7 MR. TROLINGER: And we are going to proceed 8 with that. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good. That's 10 what Commissioner Letz is saying. You know, it should be a 11 living document. It's not written in stone; it can be 12 changed and updated or amended to meet our needs as they 13 evolve. So -- 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I thought -- 15 MR. TROLINGER: And I did see -- 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I thought streaming was 17 against the policy, which is what the listening to music is. 18 MR. TROLINGER: It is. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause we ended it with 20 all ours when that came out. 21 MR. TROLINGER: It is. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Listening to music is 23 not allowed on the county computer system. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of our employees 25 thought it was. 7-11-05 233 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, he's always said 2 it wasn't -- it is not. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. 4 MR. TROLINGER: The -- and I saw that before 5 -- before the conversion to Time-Warner, I saw the problem 6 with the network with the bottleneck going on, and I was 7 going to head that off with the review of the policy. I saw 8 it was going to take too long, and it just turned out that I 9 had to turn off all the access to the streaming audio -- to 10 the music, which is what prompted Judge Wright's first 11 letter, and for the reason of -- our network was 12 bottlenecked where there were departments that couldn't do 13 work, because they have to have access to the state computer 14 in Austin through the internet; for example, for the County 15 Clerk. So, I took the service that was taking the most 16 traffic, that was doing the most harm to the network, and 17 since it was against the policy, that's what it took to -- 18 that's the action I took. Instead of going after individual 19 users and saying, "You can't have internet access because 20 you're doing this," I just -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So -- 22 MR. TROLINGER: -- disabled it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They thought you could do 24 it, and you can't. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be 7-11-05 234 1 helpful for you to notify them that you're going to do -- 2 take one of these actions. 3 MR. TROLINGER: I didn't look at the specific 4 users when I turned it off. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay. 6 MR. TROLINGER: I only heard afterwards. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, maybe you can 8 get a megaphone or something and walk up and down the 9 hallway and let everybody know. But I just think 10 somebody -- that that's half the rub. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that they don't get 13 notified, and suddenly they're turned off. 14 MR. TROLINGER: Right. And it was an 15 emergency. It was -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. 17 MR. TROLINGER: -- basically a work stoppage. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not getting into 19 that. I'm just telling you that it would help a lot if 20 people were notified that you were going to do something. 21 I'm not arguing with whether it needs to be done or not. 22 MR. TROLINGER: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At all. 24 MR. TROLINGER: I will do -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Commissioner's 7-11-05 235 1 right. And you know -- you know where the source of the 2 problem is, right? You can look at the system, tell what 3 the source of the problem is? 4 MR. TROLINGER: I could take the time and 5 find each individual -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In each of these 7 situations, if you go to the elected official or department 8 head first and say, "Here's the problem, and here's the 9 corrective measure," it would ease the problem. It would 10 ease their angst considerably. 11 MR. TROLINGER: I understand. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'd have fewer 14 letters from our J.P. 15 MR. TROLINGER: There's a communication tool 16 in place called the mailing list; actually, several mailing 17 lists, and one of them is for department heads and chiefs, 18 where we're just getting everybody signed up on that, and 19 I'll be able to make a broadcast announcement, so to speak, 20 more easily than in the past, where I had to -- I didn't 21 know what all the e-mail addresses were in the county before 22 this. The -- the second piece on the -- on the Justice of 23 the Peace 2, Judge Wright, this morning I received another 24 letter complaining of the e-mail accounts and right to 25 privacy. I received a -- a call or an e-mail message; I 7-11-05 236 1 can't recall which. She was complaining of spam last Friday 2 before last. I didn't get to it probably until -- probably 3 until late at night, and I logged on to her computer, 4 cleaned off the spam e-mail messages, and changed the e-mail 5 accounts around to the county e-mail, and I left a note on 6 the computer, which is what I normally do any time that I do 7 work on computers; I'll leave a note specifying what I did. 8 And I think that's where this letter came from. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- one of the 10 things that -- and maybe we need to look at -- bring our 11 policy back with elected officials, is there is no privacy 12 on a county computer. I mean, that word doesn't exist. And 13 if she has a concern about privacy, she needs to come to the 14 Court and she needs to be explained. I mean, you're using 15 county equipment and county computers; there's no such thing 16 as privacy. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we may want to 18 take a look at what she cites here in that regard, 3.5 of 19 the I.T. policy, which says Right to Privacy. If that needs 20 to be tweaked or modified, then we can do that. 21 MR. TROLINGER: I appreciate her documenting 22 that, so -- I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. 23 Maybe there's some others that are affected. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it says here some 25 e-mails were even deleted. 7-11-05 237 1 MR. TROLINGER: That's correct. She had 2 spam; unwanted, unsolicited e-mail from, you know -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, she should be 4 giving you a kiss for that, but I don't think that's -- that 5 that's what this is saying. 6 MR. TROLINGER: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see any 8 kisses in here. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 10 MR. TROLINGER: No, there hasn't been many 11 recently. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, we need to figure 13 out -- 14 MR. TROLINGER: Well, here's how I treat 15 people's privacy, because I do feel that it's intruding when 16 I log on to their computer and do work on it. If I'm doing 17 regular maintenance or requested maintenance, I do the work, 18 leave them a message. If I do it during the day, I call 19 them before I do it. If it's after hours, I leave them a 20 note. Yesterday -- or Friday, excuse me, I had a request 21 for -- oh, golly. I had an Open Records request to find the 22 date that a file -- a particular document had been modified, 23 when it had been modified, when it had been created. Well, 24 I didn't just log on to that computer and check it. I went 25 to that user and said, "Here, I'm going to check for this 7-11-05 238 1 file and -- and see what the dates are." So, typically, 2 when I access a computer, whether I do it remotely or during 3 the day or after hours, the user knows that I've done the 4 work. And I'm -- if it's anything that looks like it's 5 going to upset them, if they're going to get their guard up, 6 I'm pretty careful to -- to talk with them about it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to 8 belabor the topic about, you know, your correspondence in 9 relationship with Judge Wright, but there is one sentence 10 here that I want you to talk to us about. She writes in the 11 middle of her paragraph, "We would also appreciate any open 12 files on our computers that we may be working on not be 13 modified or deleted without consent." Now, what would that 14 be? 15 MR. TROLINGER: I do not know what she is 16 referring to. That's probably a week ago that I -- I made 17 that change. But I did -- I simply -- if there are any 18 files already opened, I just -- I don't touch them; I leave 19 them alone. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When's the last time 21 you had a sit-down with Judge Wright and her assistant, and 22 talking? 23 MR. TROLINGER: Since the -- since before the 24 music died. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May I suggest that it 7-11-05 239 1 might behoove us all if you and Judge Wright and her 2 assistant have a little sit-down and just talk about the 3 issues, and so you can see if we can get on the same page? 4 MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. I've attempted to 5 break the ice via e-mail by asking if the hostilities had 6 ceased, but I did not receive a response. (Laughter.) 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a pretty good 8 sign they haven't. You may want to take the Sheriff with 9 you to this little meeting. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can always throw 11 your hat in the door first and see what happens. 12 MR. TROLINGER: And I know it's a big issue, 13 privacy. You know, it looks like I'm in control of 14 everything, but the fact is, there are 200 e-mail users and 15 probably 170 computers, and I just don't have time to -- 16 even if I'm not happy with a person, I don't have time to 17 spend -- whatever you want to call it that they're -- 18 they're saying that I'm doing here, deleting files and -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: John, you made a comment, 20 and I'm -- it was in passing, and I'm trying to figure out 21 why or how it works. I'm not objecting to it. You said 22 Open Records requests as to when a file was created and 23 modified? 24 MR. TROLINGER: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you -- how would 7-11-05 240 1 you get in that loop? 2 MR. TROLINGER: I received a request via 3 writing after George Prendergast had approached Ms. Mitchell 4 about an Open Records request to find out if a particular 5 document had been modified. I have the original here, if 6 you'd like to see it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm -- Open 8 Records requests are -- are good, and open government is 9 obviously good, but I'm just trying to figure out -- and I'm 10 a little bit looking at Rex for thoughts on this. At what 11 point -- I mean, you know, we can get bogged down in -- is 12 this for me? 13 MR. TROLINGER: It's a copy of the original. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want it. 15 MR. TROLINGER: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not asking for a 17 copy. It just seems like if we start getting Open Records 18 requests and asking us to go back and search when 19 documents -- every time they were changed and modified, is 20 that under the scope of Open Records for us to do that? 21 Because, I mean, I can just see -- if -- you know, most of 22 the time when there's an Open Records request, they're 23 searching for something. If they want to go back and know 24 every time a document was modified during that period, boy, 25 that could really, you know, be difficult. So, anyway, I 7-11-05 241 1 guess -- and I'm -- I was always taught that Open Records 2 requests were directed at -- the ones I receive are, "Do you 3 have any of this information?" And, generally, I don't keep 4 anything; I throw it all away, so the answer is no. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my line of 6 questioning. 7 MR. TROLINGER: That's why I want to show you 8 -- that's why I wanted to show you this document. 9 Basically, Mr. Prendergast came up to the desk here, asked 10 for if -- whether or not this had been modified and when. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is that? 12 MR. TROLINGER: This is the actual original 13 document, a memo dated October 5th, 2004. Would you like to 14 see it? There's the original request. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I'm shocked. 16 MR. TROLINGER: So, he had the original 17 document. He had asked, "Does it exist on the computer? If 18 it does, when was it modified last? When was it created?" 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See, my question is, 20 why -- why didn't he go to the keeper of the record instead 21 of you? I mean, I don't get that, but whatever. 22 MR. TROLINGER: I don't know how he was 23 directed to me, other than -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You feel comfortable 25 doing this kind of thing? 7-11-05 242 1 MR. TROLINGER: No. That's why I went 2 directly to Barbara and said, "Let's please sit down at your 3 computer and watch me when I do this." 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I guess, Rex, at 6 some point, we probably need to look at, you know -- well, 7 our I.T. policy, probably you need to be involved with the 8 next time we review that, but also as to how John's position 9 should be involved in Open Records requests, I guess is 10 really how I'm -- you know, I always thought it went to a 11 certain office, and that's kind of the county-wide umbrella 12 thing. I can see if someone's asking -- you know, I can see 13 if Buster goes to John and asks for help, that's one thing. 14 But if John gets in -- other than that, if the elected 15 official or that department asks him for the request, I 16 don't think the -- you know, John's office should be 17 involved in it any more than Maintenance should be involved. 18 MR. TROLINGER: And I did speak with Jannett 19 before I came to you with the review to -- 20 MR. EMERSON: I think you've got about four 21 different questions. 22 MR. TROLINGER: -- to get an idea how that 23 process works, the Open Records requests. 24 MR. EMERSON: I think you have about four 25 different questions inside your questions that you've thrown 7-11-05 243 1 out. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 3 MR. EMERSON: I think the answer to that 4 is -- is that any time a department head or elected official 5 gets an Open Records request, they have a duty to respond. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 MR. EMERSON: John kind of falls in there as 8 the department head. But, having said that, any information 9 that's available, whether it's electronic or paper, is open 10 to public access. Now, having said that, you don't have to 11 go in and create something that doesn't exist to answer a 12 question, if that makes sense. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You can't be asked 14 for analysis. 15 MR. EMERSON: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You can't assign 17 them; "I want to look at these percentiles," and all that. 18 But, under the law, I believe you do have a right to access 19 any -- any government document. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And one of the 22 things that the act covers is removal, alteration, or 23 destruction of government documents. So, it might be that 24 you -- somebody uncovers a document and says, "This doesn't 25 make sense. I wonder if this is the original, or has it 7-11-05 244 1 been altered?" 2 MR. EMERSON: I think that's correct, if 3 that's what you're saying. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I guess my question 5 is, can the individual just go to John Trolinger -- or, you 6 know, the I.T. person and make a request for him to do that 7 query? Or -- 8 MR. EMERSON: I think, as a department head, 9 my answer would be yes. Now, if John had three people 10 working under him, I don't think they could go to them. I 11 think it would bounce back up. But -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so he can access 13 your office and look at a lot of things in your office 14 without you even knowing it? 15 MR. EMERSON: I think if John gets hit with 16 an Open Records request for information in my office, you 17 know, probably the proper response is exactly what John did. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 19 MR. EMERSON: Would be to go to me. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that 100 21 percent. 22 MR. EMERSON: Because, technically, I'm the 23 one in possession of that information. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. 25 That's just not what I'm hearing. 7-11-05 245 1 MR. EMERSON: If somebody serves you with the 2 information -- with a request for information out of my 3 office, then you're probably perfectly legal in saying, "I'm 4 not in possession of that information." 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- and I 7 think we just may need to go over this, basically, the 8 technology Open Records requests, how to handle this change. 9 And I think that a request to John for anything out of 10 John's office, John is obligated to answer, but for John to 11 be asked -- for someone to ask John to find something from 12 Rusty or you or me seems odd. 13 MR. EMERSON: I think that's -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems out of sync, 15 because it's -- he may be able to get to the information, 16 but he does -- he's not the one that has it. 17 MR. EMERSON: I'm sorry, I guess I didn't 18 understand what you were saying early on. I agree with you 19 on that. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 MR. EMERSON: 'Cause, technically, John's not 22 the one in possession of that information. He knows how to 23 access it, but it's not in his area of control. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So he should, 25 pretty much on request, if it's something that's his 7-11-05 246 1 information in his computers, he should respond like I would 2 respond. But if he's asked to go into someone else's 3 department, he goes, "I'm not in possession of that 4 information. You need to contact this office." 5 MR. EMERSON: Correct. If somebody served me 6 with that -- with that information -- information request, 7 technically, I would have a duty to try to answer it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 9 MR. EMERSON: If I don't answer it, then I'm 10 subject to whatever penalties go along with it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But his answer -- 12 MR. EMERSON: And John would be the resource 13 that I would use to do that. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. You may want to 15 go to John, have him help you fulfill the request. But if 16 he gets asked for a request directly about your office, his 17 response is, "I don't have that. You might contact the 18 County Attorney"? 19 MR. EMERSON: Yeah. 20 MR. TROLINGER: Being that it's a technical 21 issue of accessing the record on the computer, and if the -- 22 you know, if the taxpayer had requested of Rex, "Tell me the 23 file change date and last access for file XYZ," I think I'd 24 still get a call from you saying, "Here, come down and..." 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But you should get that 7-11-05 247 1 call from Rex. You shouldn't go into Rex's computer and try 2 and get that information. Rex is -- you control the system, 3 but he is part of the system. He's in possession of that 4 information. 5 MR. TROLINGER: Right. So, what I'm hearing 6 is the request should have gone straight to Barbara instead 7 of me going to Barbara, and then carry out the -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I see 9 it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or you should have said, 11 "I don't have it. You need to go there." 12 MR. TROLINGER: Okay, will do. Understood. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Another scenario 14 that could occur is, somebody might make an Open Records 15 request of you and say, "I want to see this document you 16 prepared two years ago." Your response might be, "I deleted 17 that," which we do. 18 MR. TROLINGER: And I have a backup. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They pursue it, say 20 to John, "Can you help me find that on your hard drive?" 21 And he probably can do it. 22 MR. TROLINGER: Yes, I can. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I think if it's 24 still on that hard drive, it probably -- if that request was 25 otherwise legitimate, that would be something we need to do. 7-11-05 248 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 2 MR. TROLINGER: As a matter of fact, the last 3 thing that's not on the written report that I wanted to 4 mention is that I got a request from the 216th D.A. -- 5 actually, a court order from Judge Ables from the D.A.'s 6 office to do a forensic analysis of a computer for a 7 defendant, and I'm underway with that now to do exactly 8 that, search the hard drive for messages and retrieve those. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did you tell him we 10 charge $75 an hour for your work? 11 MR. TROLINGER: I wanted to charge them 100. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Little different than a 13 court order. 14 MR. TROLINGER: But it is a court order from 15 Judge Ables. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last comment -- this is 17 going back to your monthly report. I don't think there's 18 anything wrong done, but just as a reminder. I think you -- 19 the first item was you changed out 12 computers. Your 20 second item is, we're going, I guess, to redo them to give 21 to the juvenile facility.. Be mindful that any computers 22 that we have can't be given away. I mean, those computers 23 were given to be reworked and come back. We can't give 24 broken or old things away; they have to be declared surplus 25 and go through auction. 7-11-05 249 1 MR. TROLINGER: Understood. They did all the 2 work in my office on-site, and then they went straight to 3 the detention facility. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying, you deal 5 with a lot of old machinery. Just remember that it -- it 6 can't be thrown way. Even if it makes a lot of sense and 7 does a lot of good, we can't give it to other entities that 8 may be able to use it; we have to declare it surplus. 9 MR. TROLINGER: Unfortunately, that's -- 10 basically, Lion's Club basically were volunteers for us. 11 Actually, Tommy gave me a real good lead this morning. We 12 had been taking computers completely apart, once they were 13 depreciated, stripping out all the useful components, and 14 then sending them to recycle here locally. There's actually 15 a state agency that will handle that for us, and -- and the 16 preference for Tommy is that I go through that route to 17 recycle old components. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? Thank you. 19 MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Facilities and Maintenance. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Glenn, what do you 22 want the speed limit on Cypress Creek to be? 23 MR. HOLEKAMP: Fast as you want to drive. 24 What do you think? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 25. 7-11-05 250 1 MR. HOLEKAMP: I've got a -- no. I -- I have 2 a very brief one this time, unless there's some questions. 3 This last -- since we last met, we completed the County 4 Attorney's remodel, and my best calculations is -- is by 5 doing it in-house and with trustees, community service and 6 et cetera, we saved approximately $10,000 over using a 7 contractor to accomplish that task. So -- and that's even 8 just taking the money out for my employees, their time. I 9 felt like we did pretty good on that project. And we're 10 about 50 percent finished on a close-in space over at the 11 Sheriff's Office, which, with a little luck, we'll be out of 12 there in about a week and a half to two weeks. So, I think 13 they're changing some office space in the C.I.D. area to -- 14 to make things flow a little easier. We're doing that 15 in-house. Right now, on our trustee program, we're -- we're 16 not blessed with any real high, high-level intellect like 17 those that are fixing to go up, I think, Wednesday in outer 18 space. So, we're -- we're kind of in a transition right now 19 with some of our trustees. They're not -- they're picking 20 up trash on the roads, as all of you noticed. We're doing 21 quite a bit of that. Generating a lot of trash, quite 22 frankly. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a lot of good P.R. 24 Doing a great job with that. 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. I'm 7-11-05 251 1 a little concerned, in the afternoons, with this oppressive 2 heat; I'm trying to find areas where they can work without 3 getting somebody sick, but the supervisor doesn't seem to 4 think it's a problem at this time. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, he's in a truck. 6 MR. HOLEKAMP: He's in the truck. But the 7 other -- other thing is -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Keep the motor 9 running. 10 MR. HOLEKAMP: -- Commissioner Williams and 11 myself, before he went on vacation, before the 4th of July, 12 we talked briefly about getting with Bob Miller with River 13 Star on some possible positive changes to the restroom 14 facility at the park, and that -- I think we'll probably get 15 back on that as soon as we get that leveled out. Park rules 16 and booking policies, two areas that -- I don't know; maybe 17 we can do it all in one document, I don't know, since 18 they're all under my department, basically. But both things 19 are issues that I really feel like we're going to have to 20 tackle. The park thing is -- more and more people are 21 wanting to use it. They got questions about, "Can I roast 22 weenies down there? Can I set up a camper down there?" 23 They can't keep it overnight; that is the rules, no 24 overnight. But I don't have any rule that says they can't 25 set up a fifth wheel for the afternoon to have a watermelon 7-11-05 252 1 party. So, I think -- I think one of the things that we 2 need to do is kind of discuss this and put it in a policy in 3 some form or fashion. I don't mind doing a summary to -- to 4 give y'all some ideas of what I think might work, short of 5 closing down the park at night, and I don't want to do that. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glenn, we took a run 7 at that about three or four years ago, as you may recall. 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, we did. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it never got to 10 completion or fruition. 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, somewhere between 13 your office and mine, there's probably still a draft of what 14 we were playing with then, and maybe that becomes the basis 15 to start again. 16 MR. HOLEKAMP: Could be. And I'm willing to 17 try to tackle that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- first, I 19 think it's a separate issue than a booking issue. They 20 don't need to be combined. And the other side of it is, I 21 think with the -- as I understand it, they're starting some 22 work on the bridge across Third Creek. 23 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As that gets moving 25 forward and that bridge is installed, I think there will be 7-11-05 253 1 a lot more access, which I think will necessitate more 2 reasons for rules. And I also think on the roasting weenies 3 and things of that nature, I think if we can find some basic 4 components, we probably can get the trustees, someone in the 5 Sheriff's Department, to start building some of this stuff 6 right there, rather than buying barbecue pits and park 7 benches and that. I think we can make some of that stuff 8 pretty easy. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Give me the equipment; I 10 know we got the welders. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying. 12 I think we -- you know, that way you could have rules. I 13 mean, we don't want open campfires out there. And the way 14 you don't have open campfires is you provide barbecue sites 15 and different sites out there. 16 MR. EMERSON: Just a discussion -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have some park 18 benches that are in storage in the Road and Bridge yard that 19 we picked up out of San Antonio, remember, as a gift? As a 20 freebie. And some of those went to River Star Park, but I 21 don't think they took but about six or seven or eight of 22 them. There's still a bunch of them there that could be 23 spread out along throughout the park. 24 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex? 7-11-05 254 1 MR. EMERSON: I was just going to say, I know 2 several Boy Scouts looking for Eagle projects. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? 4 MR. EMERSON: I know several Boy Scouts 5 looking to complete their Eagle projects that would be 6 perfectly capable of building benches or fire rings or -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or frisbee golf courses? 8 We've been looking at that for a long time. 9 MR. EMERSON: I'm sure they'd love to. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're serious about that. 11 I think that would be a good, safe thing to have out there. 12 MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. 'Cause I'm doing this 13 for time; I know y'all have been here a long time. Another 14 question -- or statement is, I know budget is fixing -- and 15 budget hearings are supposed to start. I just want to plug 16 a few things into your head for you to think about, as to 17 the possibility of -- of some of the major repairs or 18 additions. Commissioner Letz, last time we met, said 19 something about ventilation fans for the Ag Barn arena. 20 That might be something that we need to look at. Generator 21 for juvenile detention. That's an emergency generator. If 22 y'all are not aware of that, there's one on the new 23 building, but there's none on the old -- the original 24 building. And there should have been one, because there's a 25 pad for one, but there never -- I'm not aware of one sitting 7-11-05 255 1 there, so that's an issue that may need to be addressed in 2 this budget year. The other thing is, is I've -- and I've 3 heard this mentioned several times about the trustee 4 program, expanding it somewhat. Operating equipment. When 5 we start expanding it -- right now, my department buys the 6 lawnmowers; we're buying the weedeaters, and we give them 7 the tools for them to work, which -- and the trash bags. 8 They're going through almost two boxes -- almost $50 a week 9 in trash bags, so -- and we're trying to go with a lighter 10 grade; trying to, you know, stretch this as much as 11 possible, but if we really get into picking up a lot of 12 trash -- which is impacting our trash pickup also, you know, 13 our pickup fees for our trash. I think we need to look at 14 possibly -- this -- the operating equipment, which is 15 supplies, needs to be considered at budget time if we expand 16 the program. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I can mention in 18 that, there -- there is some funding, with the change in the 19 law, that we could possibly use some of the inmate 20 commissary account, but it would not be anywhere enough in 21 that account to be able to fund all that equipment. But 22 we're going to have to look at that. 23 MR. HOLEKAMP: And I'm not complaining. I'm 24 just saying if you expand the program, it will expand the 25 expense considerably, so I would really like for that to be 7-11-05 256 1 taken into consideration. So, questions? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know what the 3 timetable is on the bridge across Third Creek? 4 MR. HOLEKAMP: No. I should have asked 5 Leonard a while ago. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't be any sooner 7 than we get the spans out from Hermann Sons. 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: But they -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's pretty soon. The 10 bridge is done, the new bridge. They're working on the 11 approaches right now. 12 MR. HOLEKAMP: But it's not far off. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say within a month. 14 MR. HOLEKAMP: Right, I'm pretty sure. Looks 15 good. I like the grade that they -- they used. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a big bridge, anyone 17 that hasn't seen it. 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: Any questions? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glenn, you look good. 20 MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Need to get a haircut, 22 but you look good. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got hair back. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good thing. 25 MR. HOOD: That's a good thing. Any other 7-11-05 257 1 questions? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, one more thing. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh. Glenn? Wait. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In your -- regarding the 7 budget that you were talking about, I thought of it; then I 8 forgot to ask the question. You might get some pricing on 9 tractors with large mowers that can be used at the airport 10 and park and possibly other facilities. Just to -- 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: Batwing type. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Batwing type. Whether -- 13 in your department, trustees, whatever, I see a -- you know, 14 one as a priority. I really would like to look at possibly 15 more than one tractor, I guess a smaller tractor and a large 16 tractor; big, open areas versus small areas, and see kind of 17 what we're looking at. 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard can probably 20 tell you that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. You might 22 -- I'm not sure if it goes under Leonard or -- well, you can 23 figure it out. Probably not that hard at all. 24 MR. HOLEKAMP: I'll probably get with him 25 anyway and talk about that. 7-11-05 258 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Thank you. 2 MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Collections. 4 MR. ALFORD: Afternoon. It -- today must be 5 Rex Emerson's day, as far as dog and pony show goes. After 6 reviewing our last year's budget versus this year's budget, 7 quarter versus year, just real briefly, we're up $46,676 in 8 the first quarter from last year. For the year, we have 9 $123,740. And I would like to think that's because of the 10 aggressive enforcement, whether it be the Sheriff or whether 11 it be the County Attorney's office, or combination thereof. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You know, if 13 everybody keeps bragging on Rex Emerson here, he'll become 14 useless. He's going to be coming in wanting a pay raise. 15 MR. ALFORD: Well, they say it rolls 16 downhill. We figure we're under Rex; make him look good. 17 That's basically my whole nutshell, just we're up. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good. 19 MR. ALFORD: So far this year to-date, we're 20 at $434,995. So, you know, we'll be half a million probably 21 pretty quick, next 30, 90 days. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was your 23 estimate for this budget year? 24 MR. ALFORD: I don't even try to estimate 25 what it's going to be because of so many underlying factors; 7-11-05 259 1 law enforcement, criminal justice. My estimate was hoping 2 to be half a million dollars, 'cause, you know, that's -- to 3 me, we cost y'all about $90,000 a year. I figure if we can 4 make you a half a million, it's probably not too bad of an 5 investment. Last year we were at 606,000, but with us 6 already being at 124,000 ahead, I mean, I'm -- I don't know. 7 I mean, I'm hoping three-quarters of a million by the time 8 it's all said and done. 'Cause you have to remember, we're 9 almost a year behind by the time we get these cases done, we 10 get everybody paid off. And I'd like to see the speed limit 11 on Roan Road and Wilson Creek at 70. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You got it. You 13 bring in three quarters of a million, you can have 70 miles 14 an hour. 15 MR. ALFORD: That's really all I have. I 16 know y'all are late, and seems like our bottom figures are 17 the main thing, so if y'all have any questions on what we're 18 trying to do, I'll be more than happy to answer them. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 20 MR. ALFORD: Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions? Thank you, 22 sir. We appreciate it. 23 MR. ALFORD: You bet. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: What else have we got? I 25 guess we're down to the approval agenda. Mr. Auditor? 7-11-05 260 1 First item, the bills. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the 3 bills. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second it, but I've 5 got a couple of questions. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 7 Questions or comments? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 2 on the bills. 9 And I know I've asked this, Tommy, since you and I have been 10 here, 300 to 400 times, and I -- for some reason, Tommy, I 11 probably still don't remember. I can't get my brain wrapped 12 around this thing. In the 216th and the 198th both, we 13 have -- what are you? -- a court reporter that we pay salary 14 to, and then here in both courts, the court reporters are 15 charging us for something. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why -- why is that? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: They have a good lobby. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Well, the top 20 one in 216th says court transcript for a certain person. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: It would be an appeal. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appeal, that's the 23 answer. You think that's both of these courts? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Probably so. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably so. 7-11-05 261 1 MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- most cases, that's 2 what it is. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I remember that 4 was what you were saying. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not all cases, 6 however. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that's true. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Page 15, Juvenile 10 Detention Facility. I went back and looked at some bills 11 that we had already paid at the Juvenile Detention Facility 12 to this Live Oak Industries, and we had -- or they had 13 purchased some goods from Live Oak Industries, the same kind 14 of things that we would purchase that I thought we had a 15 contract, or at least some kind of an agreement with the 16 Office -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Office Max. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Office Max. And I'm 19 wondering why -- why are we buying -- who is Live Oak 20 Industries, and why are we buying office stuff from them? A 21 facility reception station. What is that? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not sure. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Chairs, dividers, and 24 office supplies. There it is. That's $485. And then one 25 down at the -- a third from the bottom, reimbursement for 7-11-05 262 1 one box of -- what is that word? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Fluorescent bulbs. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fluorescent bulbs, 4 $118. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: That's probably -- that would 6 be an interdepartment accounting transfer from Maintenance. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: To this budget. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you tell me who 10 Live Oak Industries is? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: I guess it's the spouse of 12 Becky Harris. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Do you have 14 any idea how much money we have spent with that company, 15 total? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's several 18 thousand dollars. And I just -- I mean, I understand the 19 chairs. I think Mr. Williams even has one in his office, or 20 two maybe. I understand all that. But office supplies, 21 we -- we have an agreement with another company, and I think 22 that we should stay with that. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know what kind of 24 agreement we have with Office Max. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have state funding -- 7-11-05 263 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I know that. But -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know either, 3 Tommy. It's just -- 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, there's been several 5 occasions that we've -- we've purchased office supplies from 6 different agencies or different companies. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it just seems -- 8 I mean, it just seems kind of different to me that we 9 purchase office supplies -- a department head purchases 10 office supplies from herself. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Right, I understand. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And three counties 13 away. That just seems a little bit strange, that's all. 14 And I'm just kind of looking for an answer there. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: That's the reason it's on 16 here. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure that if it 18 were something illegal, that the legal beagles would be all 19 over it, which I are not one. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we have a shortage. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: But we have a shortage. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we have a Sheriff 24 and a County Attorney sitting right here. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I couldn't tell you 7-11-05 264 1 whether it is or not. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not asking that 3 question. I wanted to make the Commissioners Court aware 4 that that's happening here. That's all my questions. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I have a question 7 back on Page 1. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's under County 10 Court. And it's not what the topic is; I'm just interested 11 what the date is. It's mental health cases to Pat Tinley. 12 The period is '03 to '04 fiscal year. Why is there such a 13 time lag? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: The Judge presented the -- 15 the statement to -- to me last September. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: September. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: And I -- I intended to set up 18 a payable on the records for that, and I just didn't do it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: And so I'm -- we're setting 21 up payment for -- for the correct amount, is basically what 22 it is. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I should be glad that 24 he's not asking for interest on this, by what you're telling 25 me. 7-11-05 265 1 MR. TOMLINSON: It's for hearing fees that -- 2 that he's legally -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- there's no 4 question -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That we collect from 6 other counties. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I mean, that 8 wasn't the question. I was just surprised on the time 9 period that there would be -- okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I've computed the interest, 11 Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the only question 13 I had. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Motion and 15 second. All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 16 right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 21 Budget Amendment Request Number 1. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 1 is for 23 Collections Department. They're asking to transfer $274.31 24 in Postage and 274.31 from Office Supplies to Operating 25 Equipment to replace a computer in -- in their department. 7-11-05 266 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 5 question or discussion? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I hope you note 7 the amount of unexpended postage in that item so that -- 8 MR. ALFORD: Thank you, Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you can adjust it 10 appropriately in next year's budget. 11 MR. ALFORD: He's already done it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect I may have -- that's 13 one of the items we look at to try and amortize, and it was 14 before the amendment. Any other questions or comments? All 15 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 20 Amendment Request Number 2. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: The District Clerk asked me 22 to pull that amendment, so it's no longer -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: -- viable. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't get to ask my 7-11-05 267 1 question. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request 3 Number 3. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for Maintenance 5 from Glenn Holekamp, to transfer $72.07 from Repairs and 6 Maintenance to Capital Outlay. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 10 question or discussion? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this to make up the 12 slight difference in what we -- 13 MR. TOMLINSON: It's -- the invoice is 14 payable to Custom Carpets, for the downstairs. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 17 comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 18 your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 23 Amendment Request Number 4. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is from Judge Brown. 25 His request is to transfer $630 from Employee Training to 7-11-05 268 1 Operating Equipment, and that is to replace a printer and a 2 monitor in his office. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. All 6 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 11 Amendment Request Number 5. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 5 is for 13 Indigent Health Care. This, we don't have a notation on 14 here, but this -- this amendment is to actually increase the 15 budget by the sum of $9,104.03 and $1,176.01. We have 16 current expenses -- eligible expenses for indigent health 17 care for 36,000, and we only have a $27,120 balance. Same 18 applies for the next line item. We have current expenses 19 for our third-party administrator of $2,747, with only 20 $1,571 remaining. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Does that include declaring an 24 emergency? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it does. 7-11-05 269 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Transfers come from 2 where? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Surplus Funds in that fund. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, we're going to 5 do this again next month? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Probably so. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the rest of the year? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Rest of the year. Our 9 8 percent of our general tax levy is -- is approximately 10 700,000, so we have -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10,000 to go. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: More or less. 731 -- 631. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion to declare an 16 emergency and approve Budget Amendment Request Number 5. 17 Any question or discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you figure 630, 19 do you -- do you include, like, third-party administrator 20 and those kinds of things? It's just the actual expense? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: The actual eligible expenses 22 paid. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what the 8 percent 25 applies to, the expense, not the administration aspects of 7-11-05 270 1 it. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 4 comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 5 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. Budget 10 Amendment Request Number 6. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is for the 198th 12 District Court, asking to transfer $717.50 from Special 13 Trials to Special Court Reporter line item. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 17 question or discussion? 18 MS. PIEPER: Who made the motion, Judge? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or comment? All 21 in favor of the motion, 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 7-11-05 271 1 Amendment Request Number 7. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 7 is for the 3 County Treasurer. She's asking to transfer $230 from Books, 4 Publications, and Dues to Office Supplies. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 8 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 9 by raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 14 Amendment Request Number 8. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is for the 216th 16 District Court, requesting to transfer $706.25 from Special 17 Trials to Court-Appointed Services. It's for a 18 psychological exam for a defendant. Actually, it's for 19 Vincent Seard. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this -- the 21 Special Trials, is this the money we budgeted because of 22 that high-profile murder case? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Yes, it is. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And he will most likely 25 be going back to Vernon within the next couple weeks. 7-11-05 272 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This budget 2 procedure's allowed, but it seems like things like that can 3 wind up as a slush fund. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It does. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 9 approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the 10 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we 15 have any late bills? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I have one, payable to Brett 17 Ferguson. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: For $3,710. It's for 20 court-appointed attorney's fees. Actually, this was a June 21 invoice, so I'm asking for it to be paid with a hand check. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 7-11-05 273 1 approval of late bill and hand check to Brett Ferguson for 2 $3,710. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the 3 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I have 8 before me monthly reports from the Sheriff, Justice of the 9 Peace Precinct 2, County Clerk, Constable Precinct Number 1, 10 Kerr County Juvenile Facility, Justice of the Peace Precinct 11 1, and Justice of the Peace Precinct 4. Do I hear a motion 12 that these reports be approved as submitted? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 17 question or discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The juvenile facility, 19 help me understand. Are you there? June average 20 population, I understand that. And post-adjudication, I 21 understand that. So that means there were seven Kerr 22 County -- of the 20 -- or out of the 30, there -- no, out of 23 the 21, there were seven Kerr County? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: What it indicates -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the 7-11-05 274 1 preadjudication was 10, and out of that 10 there were six 2 Kerr County? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what it indicates. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: June revenue, 73. So, 5 we -- $7,000 dropoff in -- in May; is that correct? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what it indicates. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And 8 expenditures, 151,000. And so we had an increase of -- a 9 $15,000 increase in expenditures on -- from May. Is that 10 what that -- okay. I'm reading it right, then. Okay, thank 11 you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions 13 or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 14 your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we 19 have any reports from any of the Commissioners in their 20 capacity as liaison committee assignments? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'm sleepy 22 and I'm hungry and I miss my mother, but other than that, 23 everything is fine. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll do what we can do to 25 satisfy those -- those problems. 7-11-05 275 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll see y'all tomorrow. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any elected officials 4 or department heads have any reports they wish to render? 5 MR. EMERSON: Look up. Just one thing I want 6 to bring to the Court's attention. It's my understanding 7 that your Crime Victim's Assistance Coordinator, the 8 position was set up and funded through June 30th pending the 9 state grant that was supposed to be in July 1st, and I think 10 we're stuck in a nowhere land -- no-man's land right now 11 where the state grant has not come through. But, 12 technically, the position that y'all created has expired, so 13 I think probably the next Commissioners Court agenda, one of 14 you guys needs to put it on the agenda and figure out what 15 you're going to do with the position. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The best information I have at 17 this point, Mr. Emerson, is that there's been a delay in 18 getting the paperwork out, but that our funding was high 19 enough -- our priority was high enough on the list that we 20 will be funded. But, here again, until you get the official 21 notification, you don't know what you got; you're exactly 22 right. And we are in a no-man's land, and I'm not sure who 23 she belongs to or what manner -- in what manner we're 24 proceeding at this point in time. Precariously, I would 25 say. 7-11-05 276 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that being said, 2 based on some of the earlier discussions today, if there's 3 no position currently, where is she going to be paid from? 4 Or if there's no money in the position, where is that 5 paycheck coming from? What account? And if she's -- and if 6 there's no money if the account, then the individual needs 7 to be told to stop working. Or, you know, work without pay 8 potentially until it's resolved. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: What I'm confident we'll see 10 pretty quickly is a -- a notification that, effective 11 July 1, that position's been funded through the grant. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I expect that. 14 But -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: However. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: However. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We currently are in a 19 situation of having an employee that there's no money in the 20 budget to work, and I think the employee needs to be told. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can you fund it out 23 of 216th Special Trials? (Laughter.) I'm serious. Can 24 you? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could. 7-11-05 277 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Kind of like the Judge 2 sitting on that Criminal Justice Committee with AACOG. I 3 know that grant was approved high enough up to be funded -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It scored high. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- when it went to 6 Austin, but I think all of the grants across the state in 7 that group, Austin just -- whether it's due to the 8 Legislature tackling their stuff or the governor's office, 9 whatever, they've been real late sending out the 10 notifications that -- when you're going to get your money. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Funding problem could 12 delay the state sending it down. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I actually got, if there is 15 such a thing, a letter of apology on some of this grant 16 funding money, that -- that we're sorry that the 17 notification's going to be late coming out. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I saw that too. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I still think that 20 the employee needs to be told that, as of today, there is no 21 funding -- or as of July 1st, there was no funding, and I 22 think the person was on vacation the early part of July, so 23 I think -- you know, I think it's probably her first day 24 back to work; that there's -- you know, that there's no 25 funding to pay you, so stop work until we're advised. 7-11-05 278 1 Otherwise, we're asking someone to work without having 2 money. 'Cause unless we do a budget amendment -- 3 MR. EMERSON: Second part of that is that you 4 do have somebody working in a position that doesn't exist; 5 that if they get injured, are they going to be covered by 6 workers comp or not? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I think we 8 need to notify -- whether it's -- you know, and I would -- 9 the Treasurer's still here. I think it probably comes out 10 of her office. 11 MS. NEMEC: To notify her? I don't mind 12 notifying her. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That, you know -- 14 MS. NEMEC: I guess she won't be getting a 15 paycheck, then, on the 15th of July. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no funds in the 17 budget for it. So, I mean, we'd have to do a budget 18 amendment, or have the grant funds in the next three days. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We get -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to make 21 a query of AACOG, see where it stands. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I would think that -- 23 I mean, if -- the Treasurer should send a notification that, 24 as of today, that position does not exist. And -- 25 MS. NEMEC: And also, I would need a court 7-11-05 279 1 order of the position existing with the amount to pay her 2 and the line item to take it out of, and I don't have that. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That should exist, 4 because you've been paying her. 5 MS. NEMEC: But that was from the grant. 6 July 1st -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a temporary arrangement 8 that ran through June 30th. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the only funding that 11 we provided in the budget. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't do a court order 13 today, but clearly you can get that information, what it 14 would have been. But I think, you know -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me put in a call 16 tomorrow and see where it stands, Judge. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I think what Barbara's saying, 18 the only court order she has now is to pay only through 19 June 30th. She doesn't have anything beyond that. 20 MS. NEMEC: So, even if you get funding 21 tomorrow, I still can't pay her. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, if you can 23 just send a letter out saying that, you know, until our next 24 court meeting, that job doesn't exist -- 25 MS. NEMEC: I will do that. 7-11-05 280 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does Mrs. Lavender 2 know that? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: She knows that this whole 4 thing on the grant funding is up in the air. We had a 5 general discussion about it last week sometime. But -- 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't feel very 7 good about this situation. It's pretty shabby treatment to 8 have somebody by letter say, "You've been working the last 9 four weeks; we're not going to pay you." 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I'm confident that it'll 11 ultimately get resolved, but we -- we still got these other 12 issues to be concerned about. What if it doesn't? And what 13 if there's an injury? There's a lot of what-ifs here. 14 MR. EMERSON: If I may expand on that, just 15 for the Commissioners' comfort, we had several discussions 16 about it prior to her going on vacation for two weeks, and 17 she knew that when she came back, the position may or may 18 not be there, depending on what happened at the state level. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's better. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I think this will just be a 21 matter of memorializing what legally our position is right 22 now. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think it's going to 25 come as any surprise to her. 7-11-05 281 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: If and when the grant funding 4 is approved, and -- and the -- and the position is an 5 authorized full-time position, then, of course, it's going 6 to kick in, and it'll kick in effective presumably as of 7 July 1. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just thinking the 9 formal letter should come from the Treasurer's office, and 10 then Rex can explain the situation. Doesn't -- doesn't Rosa 11 report to you? 12 MR. EMERSON: Well, kind of. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's another issue. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 15 MR. EMERSON: We've had that discussion 16 several times. Rosa and I have probably had this discussion 17 half a dozen times or more, that we were caught in limbo 18 with the position expiring June 30th, but no grant money to 19 pick up the new position. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's different. 21 She's not being bushwhacked. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: No. No. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not really. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: No, she's knows it's up in the 25 air. 7-11-05 282 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, Number 4, she 2 worked here, what, a month and a half and took a two-week 3 vacation? 4 (Court reporter ran out of paper. Discussion off the record.) 5 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was your question? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything you had to say, 8 Buster? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not a thing. I'm 10 ready to go. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have nothing. Weren't 12 we going around the table? I have no comments. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? We'll stand 14 adjourned. 15 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:30 p.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7-11-05 283 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 20th day of July, 2005. 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 7-11-05