1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, October 29, 2007 11 9:30 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 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 ABSENT: WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X October 29, 2007 2 PAGE 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 3 proposals for 2008 Kerr County Employee Health Benefits plan 3 4 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 5 authorize issuance of new Request for Proposals for 2008 Kerr County Employee Health Benefits 6 Plan and notice and publication of same, and establishing deadline(s) for responding to same 13 7 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 8 appoint Evaluation Committee for responses to RFQ's for planning and design services for 9 Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center; present Court with recommendation 18 10 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 11 award contract to Neal and Neal Concrete for horse barn at Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center 19 12 1.3 Review and discussion on draft revisions of Kerr 13 County Subdivision Rules and Regulations -- 14 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt a resolution, as requested by Dietert Center, 15 for their Texas Department of Agriculture Home- Delivered Meal Grant Application 22 16 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 17 consider responses to Request For Qualifications and engage outside audit firm to conduct FY 06/07 18 Kerr County audit 29 19 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to appoint/engage outside firm to conduct FY 06/07 20 Kerr County audit 29 21 --- Adjourned 47 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Monday, October 29, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., a special 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come to order for a 8 special Commissioners Court meeting posted and scheduled for 9 this date and time, Monday, October the 29th, 2007, at 10 9:30 a.m. It is just a bit past that time now. First off, 11 because it is on the posted agenda, if there's any member of 12 the public that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not 13 a listed agenda item, feel free to come forward at this time. 14 If you wish to be heard on an agenda item, we'd ask that you 15 wait till that agenda item is called, but if you wish to be 16 heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, please 17 come forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind. 18 Seeing no one coming forward, we will move on. Commissioner 19 Baldwin, do you have any preliminary comments before we start 20 the meeting? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let's move quickly to 25 Item 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on 10-29-07 4 1 proposals for the 2008 Kerr County employee health benefits 2 plan. As the Court recalls, there were a number of proposals 3 submitted to us that appeared to be competitive. An issue 4 was raised as to the propriety or not of the -- of the notice 5 for those proposals that was issued by virtue of a reference 6 to the Government Code -- Local Government Code that referred 7 to municipalities rather than -- rather than county 8 governments. I believe that's correct, isn't it, Mr. County 9 Attorney? 10 MR. EMERSON: Yes, Your Honor. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And because of that, there was a 12 concern about the -- the propriety and legality of that 13 particular notice. But before us today are those proposals 14 that have been submitted for the 2008 Kerr County Employee 15 Health Benefits Plan. What action does the Court desire to 16 take at this time? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have a -- I guess a 18 question, and then I'll be glad to make a motion. Based on 19 the County Attorney's letter we received on the 24th, the 20 other issues -- well, first, Rex, is that the only reason 21 that you found in your research, was the municipal code/ 22 county code discrepancy? 23 MR. EMERSON: No, there's actually a couple of 24 problems with this -- this issuance of RFP. The first one 25 would relate to statute 262.025, which is notice. The 10-29-07 5 1 statute requires that notice be published at least once a 2 week in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, 3 with the first publication to occur before the 14th day 4 before date of bid opening. I don't have my notes in front 5 of me on that, but I know the first publication was on or 6 about August 5th. I don't think the bids were set to close 7 till September 4th or 5th, somewhere around there. And, in 8 fact, what happened was the notice was published one time on 9 August 5th, and that was it. It was never published again 10 pursuant to statute. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 12 MR. EMERSON: The second problem, as you've already 13 previously cited, is the incorrect statutes were cited as to 14 the proper procedures. The third problem that I found was 15 that the RFP, pursuant to -- let me get the right statute 16 here -- pursuant to 262.030, has certain requirements that 17 are supposed to be in the RFP, and nowhere in there did I 18 find that the evaluation criteria that would be used for 19 evaluating the RFP was actually posted. There was one 20 sentence in there that said, "Call me if you want to know 21 what I'm evaluating on." I'm not sure that fits the 22 statutory requirements, and I couldn't find any A.G. opinions 23 that clarified it. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 MR. EMERSON: Mr. Looney may be able to clarify 10-29-07 6 1 that, but it's really a notice issue. In addition to that, 2 there was some allegation, I think, that the -- the original 3 seven-party chart that was provided by Mr. Looney to y'all in 4 the workshop that was not marked with specific providers was 5 distributed to at least one or more insurance companies in 6 total, instead of being isolated. I can't really comment on 7 that, except that I -- I've done a rather extensive 8 investigation at the courthouse and talked to everybody that 9 had access to that chart, and if it was distributed to all 10 the parties, it did not come from here, to the best of my 11 knowledge. So, I'm not sure where the breakdown in 12 communication occurred there, but the confidentiality was not 13 breached at our end. I know Entrust was concerned that that 14 chart was presented in a public forum and was subject to Open 15 Records, but I don't think that's an issue, because the 16 Public Information Act specifically provides for the County 17 to withhold information that could affect competitive -- fair 18 and competitive bidding. So, if somebody would have asked us 19 for that, we could have withheld it based on that exception 20 anyway. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- 22 MR. EMERSON: But that's all the problems. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if it got out, was -- is 24 that a problem? 25 MR. EMERSON: I think it could be interpreted by 10-29-07 7 1 one party or another as to affecting, you know, fair and 2 competitive bidding processes, yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I'm pretty certain it 4 got out. I don't know how it got out, but I know it got out. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rex, what about this -- this 6 letter that I was just handed from the Legislative Council? 7 I see that you have a carbon copy -- or -- yeah. 8 MR. EMERSON: I did get a copy of it, and it 9 basically reflects what I just told you, is that those 10 statutes have to be adhered to in the interest of fair and 11 competitive bidding. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask my boy-dummy 13 question of the year. Does that mean that insurance should 14 be treated in the bidding process exactly the same as a 15 tractor? 16 MR. EMERSON: No, insurance has its own exceptions. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, very good. Thank you. 18 MR. EMERSON: For that matter, if you want to get 19 down to it, tractors and road equipment have their own 20 exceptions, too. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, of course they do. 22 Leonard's in the audience, and I just -- you know, we have to 23 give him fair play, too. 24 MR. EMERSON: May I comment on one more thing, too? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly. 10-29-07 8 1 MR. EMERSON: There was some concern at the last 2 meeting about Mr. Looney talking -- going back and talking to 3 the bidders prior to acceptance of a bid, and the Code does 4 specifically allow for Mr. Looney to do that in the interest 5 of obtaining the -- the best and final offer from each -- 6 each bidder. And then, after that point, when Commissioners 7 Court accepts one or the other of the bids, there are 8 allowances in the Code for Mr. Looney to go back and 9 negotiate a final deal, so long as it doesn't substantially 10 change the whole offer. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you know what, though? I 12 mean, I know that's a common practice and the law provides 13 for that and all that, but how -- how damn dumb can we be to 14 allow that kind of stuff to happen? 15 MR. EMERSON: I don't know -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give us your first -- your 17 best bid first, right out of the chute, and let's get on down 18 the road and take care of business of the taxpayers, instead 19 of all this pattycake and hand-holding and the ability to 20 cheat, you know, and all those things. I mean, I think 21 that's just nuts. Welcome to government. 22 MR. EMERSON: I can't disagree with you, but in 23 theory, from what I was able to find out, it's done because 24 of various terminology and wording adaptations in insurance 25 contracts, and it's done so that whoever the consultant is 10-29-07 9 1 can clarify the offers. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- let me read the 3 agenda item, see if I can ask my next question. I guess I 4 can. I think -- of course, Rex, I'm sure, will tell me if I 5 can't. One of the concerns that I had early on, and I think 6 I've asked this way before these issues came up, was the 7 issue of all of the bids, I think, even the one that raised 8 the issues, came in through Don Wallace, and I don't 9 understand how that -- was that the nature of the market? 10 Does that -- or do we require that? 11 MR. EMERSON: I think you need to ask Mr. Looney 12 that, because I'm not an insurance expert. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because it seems weird to me 14 that that would be the case, that -- that eight companies 15 would find a company in Seguin and decide to submit their 16 bids through the company in Seguin. 17 MR. LOONEY: It's public offering information. 18 That's why it's advertised in the public. I was surprised we 19 only got one agent bidding on it also, but it's -- it's a 20 public offering. It's advertised in the paper. It's posted. 21 Any agent that has the qualifications and license to do so 22 can bid on the contract. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I guess to move us 24 on down the road so we can get on with it, I'll make a 25 motion, based on the County Attorney's recommendation, that 10-29-07 10 1 we reject all bids and reissue the RFP, with the appropriate 2 notice requirements and other requirements as stated by the 3 County Attorney. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The reissue -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: By state law. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The reissuance is, I believe, a 7 separate agenda item, or at least that's the way it's 8 couched. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this is just -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, just the action on the 11 existing bids. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to reject all bids. 13 MR. LOONEY: May I ask for clarification? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Just a moment, let's see where that 15 goes. I have a motion. Do I have a second? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was the motion? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To reject all bids. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: To reject all bids -- present bids 19 on proposals on the 2008 employee health benefits plan. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to second that, 21 just to get us down the road. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion and 23 second. Any question or discussion? 24 MR. LOONEY: The assumption is that we're going to 25 take all of the current bids that we have and destroy those 10-29-07 11 1 so that there's not any -- any information available to those 2 previous bids? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- I guess. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that would necessarily 5 follow, wouldn't it? 6 MR. LOONEY: I think it's a rebid. We're assuming 7 that the bid is officially closed in that circumstance, and 8 those bids would not be open to public inspection. 9 MS. HYDE: I've got two sets -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's an issue of public 11 information and public records. 12 MR. EMERSON: That's Public Information Act, and 13 I'm not sure you can take old bids and destroy them. Must 14 retain all records. 15 MR. LOONEY: So we need to retain one copy of those 16 previous quotations? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All records? 18 MR. EMERSON: All documents, period, associated 19 with that. Evaluation documents and everything. 20 MR. LOONEY: Just making sure. 21 MS. HYDE: But they can box them up and just put 22 reject -- "rejected bids," correct? 23 MR. EMERSON: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussion on 10-29-07 12 1 the motion? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that if I were doing 3 this thing, I would tell them I want your best -- best shot 4 right up front. Give us your best shot. What's your best 5 deal you're going to do? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, for brevity's sake, I would 7 hope that's what they do, but statutory procedure and process 8 prescribes otherwise, Commissioner. That's just the way it 9 is. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I'm hearing you say is 11 that a lawyer has been ahold of this thing somewhere. 12 (Laughter.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The Legislature has been ahold of 14 this thing. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which are 95 percent 16 lawyers. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't know about 95 percent, 18 but there's a number of those guys over there, Commissioner. 19 MR. LOONEY: Commissioner, remember, it's in the 20 best interest of the taxpayers to get the very lowest number 21 that we can generate. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion 24 on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 25 raising your right hand. 10-29-07 13 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll now go 5 to the next agenda item; consider, discuss, and take 6 appropriate action to authorize issuance of new Request for 7 Proposals for 2008 Kerr County employee health benefits plan, 8 and notice and publication of same, and establish deadline 9 for responding to the same. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that, based on 11 some of the -- two comments I have. On the comments that the 12 County Attorney made, I think we need to make -- I'd like to 13 know, and I think it needs to be real clear in the notice 14 what your -- what their evaluation criteria are. That's one 15 of the issues that I think has come up, is exactly how you 16 are going to evaluate them. I'm like Buster; I'm a little -- 17 I know the law allows you to talk to them, but, boy, that 18 seems peculiar to me. I mean, to me, the process should be 19 you look -- you know, you or whoever is hired to look at them 20 looks at the proposals, comes back with -- tells us what you 21 think the best deal is, and then at that point, you talk to 22 them, to that one that you think is the best person. I mean, 23 it seems -- it just seems kind of convoluted to me for you to 24 be negotiating with everyone that puts in a bid, so what's 25 the point of putting in a bid? 10-29-07 14 1 MR. LOONEY: Could I comment? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please. 3 MR. LOONEY: Well, the process, unfortunately, is 4 that every -- every one of the bidders has a different 5 definition for the services that they render under kind of a 6 general category. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 8 MR. LOONEY: So, in discussion with them, the 9 primary reason is to make sure that they're clear on what the 10 services are that are going to be rendered under that 11 specific category. So, to use a generic term like 12 "administration," well, what's included in administration? 13 So, part of the discussion is to be sure that whatever this 14 definition is, is something that I've got clear, so that -- 15 trying to do as equivalent a comparison as possible in that 16 process. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, your discussions don't 18 include negotiating price based on -- you're talking about -- 19 MR. LOONEY: Well, some of it -- some of it has to 20 do with price, because price identifies the service. So, 21 what's included in that price? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but not just to say, 23 "Well, you need to lower your price." 24 MR. LOONEY: I never tell anybody where they are as 25 far as the process is concerned, as far as, okay, you need to 10-29-07 15 1 do this or you need to do that. I get calls all the time 2 saying, "What do we need to do to write this business?" And 3 the answer is, "You need to offer your best price." You 4 know, that's the standard answer. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 6 MR. LOONEY: But the regulation does say that once 7 you've selected a carrier, that we still have the ability to 8 go back and change some of those numbers in relationship, as 9 long as it doesn't, you know, greatly impact the cost of the 10 price of the -- of the contract. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. My other question goes 12 back -- and this is something that you brought up, I think, 13 at our -- probably every time you've been up here this year, 14 is that we're doing this process earlier than usual, which 15 means that we have -- or the people submitting bids have less 16 information, and that we also have some potentially large 17 claims that are in the mill process. When we get the 18 proposals back, they're going to be -- is it going to be the 19 proposal, or is it going to be still, "We're waiting to see 20 still on claims"? 21 MR. LOONEY: No, part of the -- you're right. Part 22 of the problem by going out early is the fact that many of 23 them retain the right to have information based on the claims 24 up until a certain point in time. We do have to -- now that 25 we're getting later in the year, we're going to have the 10-29-07 16 1 process hopefully to have enough information to them so that 2 all the bids now are the final bid number, so that there 3 won't be any potential for adjustment. But when they were 90 4 days to 120 days out, then we've got that time frame between 5 then and the end of the year that the underwriters all like 6 to have their Kentucky windage, you know, so we don't know 7 where we're going to be at this point. But -- so we renew, 8 and in the bid request and -- all the bid requests, there was 9 a request for tentative position statements on certain 10 employees. There's three employees that there's a need for 11 additional information, and we're in the process of obtaining 12 that information. But most of the bids say that they needed 13 it 60 days out to firm up their final numbers, so now we're 14 going to be at that time frame. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll be within that 60 days, 16 so they should be firm? 17 MR. LOONEY: We should have the final numbers. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll make a motion that 19 we authorize the issuance of a new RFP for 2008 Kerr County 20 employee health benefits plan, and notice and publication of 21 same. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. 24 Commissioner, there are certain time requirements that are 25 required; a minimum of 14 days, which would put us in a 10-29-07 17 1 position of putting a deadline on these proposals at 11 a.m. 2 local time on November the 13th of this year. Do you wish to 3 include that deadline in your motion? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The County Attorney 5 has sign-languaged that that deadline's 15 days. 6 MR. EMERSON: Needs to be at least 15, because the 7 notice says the first one has to be published no less than 8 14. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: 15-day intervening time, so a 14-day 10 intervening time would cover that, and the 13th would make 11 that permissible. 12 MR. LOONEY: Judge, you may want to make -- the 13 public notice, the earliest they can go out is tomorrow, the 14 public notice in the newspaper, so it will have to be 15 days 15 past that date, which I think it would be November the 16th, 16 or 15th. Judge, work with Rex to make sure we got that 17 timing correct as far as the public notice is concerned. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My motion includes that the -- 19 the timing be as soon as possible, but following state law 20 bidding requirements. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MR. LOONEY: As soon as possible. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Did I hear a second from you? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I seconded it. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any 10-29-07 18 1 further discussion or questions on the motion? All in favor 2 of the motion, signify by raising 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. Let's now 7 go to -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Luckenbach. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Good plan. Good plan. Let's go 10 back to Item 1. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate 11 action to appoint an evaluation committee for responses to 12 the RFQ's for planning and design services for the Hill 13 Country Youth Exhibit Center, and presentation to the Court 14 with a recommendation. Commissioner Letz? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda, and I 16 discussed this with Bruce prior to him leaving town. The 17 RFQ's that we submitted referred -- said the proposals would 18 be evaluated by an evaluation committee that would be 19 appointed by the Commissioners Court, so that we can have -- 20 Bruce and I can come to the Court, hopefully at our next 21 meeting, with a recommendation. That's why I put it on the 22 agenda now. Bruce and my feeling is that we agree that the 23 -- he, myself, and Roy Walston should be the actual committee 24 members, and then we would -- we'll solicit input from 25 Maintenance, you know, possibly the Auditor, you know, other 10-29-07 19 1 entities, other departments in the county, but the three of 2 us would be on the committee. I make a motion to that 3 effect. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'll second it. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 6 indicated. Question or discussion? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you have Number 3, 8 Number 4, and Roy Walston is the primary committee, and you 9 will add those other folks as needed? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Definitely Maintenance will be 11 involved in that because of their -- and the Auditor and some 12 of the others. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion? 15 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 16 hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move 21 to Item 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 22 award a contract to Neal and Neal Concrete for the horse barn 23 at Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. The bid for that 24 particular work was opened at a prior meeting. It was the 25 only bid received. As I recall, it was 25 thousand, 10-29-07 20 1 2 hundred and -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sixty. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: -- 60 dollars. That was the only 4 lawful bid submitted for that work. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we award the bid to Neal 6 and Neal Concrete. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second, but I've got a 8 question. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question 10 or discussion? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In this note from Cheryl to 12 Jody, it has a different figure. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was 25,360. Is 14 that the figure? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the figure that's in 16 this note. But -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He said 260, I think. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I did say 260. Was it 360? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 360. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says 360 here. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'm speaking from 22 recollection, so that's probably right. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I will second the motion 24 with the figure of $25,360. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. I have a motion and 10-29-07 21 1 second. Further question or discussion? All in favor of the 2 motion, signify by raising 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. Let's move 7 to Item 3; review and discussion on the draft revisions of 8 the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think I'm going to 10 pass on that. I -- when I put it on the agenda, I thought we 11 may want to talk about it, but I really think we really need 12 the full Court here for that discussion. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it'll be on our next 15 agenda, either as a workshop item or as an agenda item. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll go to Item 4, 17 which was consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 18 appoint/engage outside firm to conduct FY '06-'07 Kerr County 19 audit. That is a companion item that we have to Item 1.8 at 20 10:05. What's the Court's pleasure insofar as -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do both at one time. 22 I don't understand why they have two different ones. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd rather go to Buzzie's. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll go to Buzzie's for about 10-29-07 22 1 5 minutes, and we'll come back at 10 o'clock. We'll be in 2 recess till 10 o'clock. 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we're ready to go. We've got 5 a 10 o'clock timed meeting, and we're happy to see Ms. Tina 6 Woods here for that. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate 7 action to adopt a resolution as requested by Dietert Center 8 for their Texas Department of Agriculture Home Delivery Meal 9 Grant application. Good to see you here today. 10 MS. WOODS: Good morning. I don't know if y'all 11 received copies of these. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 13 MS. WOODS: Thank y'all so much for helping me with 14 this grant application. We learned earlier this year that 15 the Department of Agriculture was putting together a grant 16 program to help different home-delivered meal providers pay 17 for some of the meals that they provide that are unfunded. 18 Basically, we receive our money through the Alamo Area Agency 19 on Aging, but that doesn't fund our complete meals that we 20 provide on the home-delivery basis. So, Department of 21 Agriculture has decided that they would assist agencies like 22 ours to offset some of the expense of providing these meals. 23 One of the points on the grant application was that it 24 requires a resolution from the county where the agency 25 provides those meals certifying, number one, that you do 10-29-07 23 1 provide these meals. Number two, an agency has to already 2 receive a grant from their county supporting the effort that 3 they're doing, which y'all have been very gracious to support 4 this effort for many, many years. And the third part of the 5 resolution is that the county has to approve of the agency's 6 accounting system or fiscal agent. Now, part of our contract 7 with the county is that we provide a copy of our audited 8 financials annually when we apply for our grant funds or our 9 contract funds, but I didn't know if y'all realized what we 10 go through in order to just receive our funding through 11 AACOG. And that's essentially -- when I talked with the 12 Department of Agriculture's grant coordinator, that's what 13 they mean by that section of the resolution, that y'all are 14 comfortable that not only are we providing the meals, but 15 there's an oversight body that verifies that we are 16 delivering "X" number of meals, and they're going to eligible 17 clients. For a client to be eligible for home-delivered 18 meals, there's an eight-page form that we fill out. We go to 19 their home and do an in-home assessment of their meals, and 20 then that's checked by AACOG. And this is the monthly 21 invoice that we provide to AACOG, and the documentation with 22 rosters and information and sign-in sheets, et cetera. So, 23 they also do an on-site monitoring of us on an annual basis 24 to make sure that we're following all the Texas 25 Administrative Code rules to receive our funding. So, I am 10-29-07 24 1 essentially here today to ask you if you would approve this 2 resolution. This could mean essentially a grant as high as 3 $14,777 for our agency, because those are the number of meals 4 we provided last year that we didn't receive any sort of 5 government funding. So, I think the Department of 6 Agriculture is going to see who all applies, and then they'll 7 prorate the amounts, but that could be a significant bit of 8 income for us to help with our meals program. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the number of meals you 10 provided last year? 11 MS. WOODS: Those were the unfunded meals we 12 provided. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 MS. WOODS: 51,070-something meals. Some agencies 15 will stop; they will only provide the meals that they receive 16 funding for and create a waiting list. We've never done that 17 at Dietert. We really don't feel that's appropriate. And 18 we've been blessed with other donations, and worked very hard 19 to raise the difference that we need to be able to provide 20 those meals. But there are some agencies that strictly will 21 cut off folks when they've reached their max that they 22 receive government funding for. We do request donations for 23 the meals we provide. That's part of our requirement for us 24 to receive the funding. Our average donation for a 25 home-delivered meal last year was about a dollar and 41 10-29-07 25 1 cents. Our actual cost is over $5 to produce that meal, so 2 there's still quite a chunk that we need to make up annually. 3 So, this grant would help us tremendously. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: How many years have you had that 5 program going now? 6 MS. WOODS: Well, I've been at the center five 7 years, and I've heard that we had even a modest Meals on 8 Wheels program when the center was founded in 1969. I know 9 they were prepared by volunteers, and they're still delivered 10 by volunteers. We're at over 200 meals a day now, Monday 11 through Friday, so I would think easily since probably the 12 early '70's, the Meals on Wheels program has been in Kerr 13 County because of the Dietert Center. Which is very 14 impressive, I think. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fantastic. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fantastic service. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this the resolution? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I have the resolution here. 19 MS. WOODS: I think it's the same thing, Judge. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. It's -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it has Kerr? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the same as -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It has Kerr County in it? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it really does. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This one didn't. 10-29-07 26 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second for 5 approval of the resolution. Further question or discussion? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize County Judge to 7 sign same as part of that, I presume, Commissioner? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Is that -- it just 9 has one signature? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, yes. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? 13 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 14 hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you, 19 Ms. Woods. We appreciate you. 20 MS. WOODS: Thank y'all very much. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tina, I have been trying to 22 get the Court to have lunch at the Dietert Center for years. 23 MS. WOODS: Oh. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I can't get them to 25 agree whether the sun is shining or not. But how do -- what 10-29-07 27 1 do you recommend that I do? 2 MS. WOODS: Just call me. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Show up. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Quit talking about Buzzie's. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Quit talking about Buzzie's. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's got to be a way to 9 do this thing. I mean, seriously. 10 MS. WOODS: Oh, sure. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've pulled guns in here. 12 MS. WOODS: Oh, my. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Better not have. 14 MS. WOODS: We would love to have y'all, together 15 or separately, to come. And, certainly -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've been there. Not the new 17 center; we've been to the other center when you were over 18 across the creek. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Neat, neat place, the new one. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jody, they're inviting us, 21 the Commissioners Court, to have lunch over at the Dietert 22 Center. Would you help me get these guys over there? 23 MS. GRINSTEAD: Pick a date. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioners Court meeting 25 day. Break for lunch and go over there -- 10-29-07 28 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and eat. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about November -- 4 MS. WOODS: I'll bring you our menu so you can pick 5 the menu day that you like. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, there it is. There's 7 the answer. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: November 8th? 12th? 9 November 12th would be a good day. 10 MS. GRINSTEAD: 13th. 11 THE CLERK: 12th is the holiday. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: November the 13th would be a 13 good day, sayeth Number 3. 14 MS. WOODS: Sure. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's Old Testament talk, 16 "sayeth." Okay, November 13th? Are we kind of moving in 17 that direction? November 13th. 18 MS. WOODS: I can't believe this week is November. 19 Thank you all so much, and thank you for your support of the 20 center and what we're doing. It means more than you can 21 possibly imagine. It really does. And we'll see you on 22 November 13th. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you get a memo out to 25 the Commissioners Court that we're having lunch at the 10-29-07 29 1 Dietert Center? 2 MS. GRINSTEAD: I will. I won't be here to remind 3 you. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By order of Mr. Dietert. 5 MS. WOODS: His birthday is tomorrow. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See? We could have done it 7 today. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. If you'd been on top of it, 9 we'd have known that. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, absolutely. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: So, there you go. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've got two very similar 14 agenda items; let me call them together. Consider, discuss, 15 and take appropriate action to appoint or engage outside firm 16 to conduct FY '06-'07 Kerr County audit. Second is consider, 17 discuss, and take appropriate action to consider responses to 18 Request for Qualifications and engage outside audit firm to 19 conduct FY '06-'07 Kerr County audit, the latter agenda item 20 being posted for 10:05 a.m. today. And, of course, it's 21 after that time now. I think initially we have some of 22 Requests for Qualifications that Ms. Hargis has furnished to 23 us. I will open those now. She brought me a pair of 24 scissors; I hope I don't hurt myself. There was your 25 opportunity, Commissioner. 10-29-07 30 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know it. 2 MS. HARGIS: That's what I brought the scissors 3 for, is that one. Did you get it? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I ought to give that to Jon. He's 5 always done a good job of tearing into this stuff. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The first proposal appears to 8 be from Neffendorf, Knopp, -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see, where could they 10 be from? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Horry and Doss in Fredericksburg. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: No Crenwelges or Kleins. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For once. Or Hierholzers. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: There's multiple copies. The -- 16 MS. HARGIS: I think it's in that little black one 17 that you had. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Say again? 19 MS. HARGIS: Maybe it's in that little black -- 20 didn't have you a little black folder that came in there? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Haven't yet. 22 MS. HARGIS: Okay. Maybe I just -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's the other one. What 24 are you looking for, the original? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: No, we got them here. 10-29-07 31 1 MS. HARGIS: You got them, okay. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a proposal that is round, 3 another showing the estimated cost of audit, maximum -- 4 all-inclusive maximum price of $30,000. I've not looked to 5 see if that includes some of the single audits that we're 6 required to do. 7 MS. HARGIS: It was in there. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect it probably does. Didn't 9 the RFP request that? 10 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The second proposal is from 12 Null-Lairson, CPAs in Houston, with the estimated fees 13 section providing that the cost for this year -- estimated 14 fees would be $48,500. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move we accept both 16 proposals and refer them to the Auditor for review and 17 recommendation. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 20 indicated. Further question or discussion? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. How long will the 22 evaluation take of these? I mean, should we recess today and 23 come back after lunch? 'Cause I -- 24 MS. HARGIS: Yeah, 'cause we really need to award 25 it. 10-29-07 32 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Good question, Commissioner. 3 MS. HARGIS: I just need to see if they both cover 4 what I need for this year, and if they do, then it's kind of 5 obvious which one. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 MS. HARGIS: Or I can go do it with Tommy right 9 now, if y'all can wait a few minutes. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on 11 that motion? 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. Looking at 17 the agendas that are posted, there are no other items to be 18 considered. Do we have any reports from the Commissioners in 19 connection with their liaison or committee assignments? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've had a -- I don't hear any 21 from Number 1 down there. The -- for everyone's information, 22 Bill and I had lunch the other day with the current president 23 of the Airport Board. Just kind of -- and I believe he 24 actually met with the Judge recently as well, just really 25 trying to find what the -- where the County wants them to go 10-29-07 33 1 in the interim period more than anything else. And I took 2 the opportunity to -- I think Bill did too, to give our 3 opinion on that, and also give our opinion on a few other 4 things related to the management of the airport in recent 5 periods. One of the -- it was -- it's just a matter of -- I 6 think that the City has not done the bang-up job that they 7 report to have -- or keep saying they have done, and I 8 pointed quite a few specific details out to Mr. Bobertz, and 9 I think he concurred. But -- and I'm looking forward to, you 10 know, getting the report from the consultant and moving on 11 down the road and how we're going to do that. Also, I saw 12 Rex sent in the request to the Attorney General, so I 13 think -- you know, I don't -- I have no idea; I presume that 14 will take a month or so at a minimum? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Six months, yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Six months? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you expedite this? Don't 18 we have some connections? 19 MR. EMERSON: By statute, they have six months to 20 answer the response, and they've been running from five to 21 six months. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's good to know. 23 Anyway, but I think that we need to -- well, we will know in 24 the coming months; I think we'll be revisiting this whole 25 issue with the City as to what we're going to do. I know the 10-29-07 34 1 Airport Board is very uncomfortable with the current setup of 2 having only three board members, because it prohibits them 3 from communicating at all on airport matters without 4 violating Open Meetings, and that's -- which makes it very 5 difficult for them to operate, you know. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That was the discussion I had with 7 Mr. Bobertz. They're not uncomfortable about conducting the 8 business; they're just uncomfortable with the situation 9 they're in. It really makes it impossible for them to really 10 have a meaningful discussion about -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anything. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- any of the business at hand. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For example, they wanted to -- 14 they -- one of the board members wanted to go visit with 15 TexDOT about some Highway 27 issues, and only one board 16 member could go. They really wanted to have more, just to 17 get -- you know, to hear it, and they couldn't do it. Just 18 because of the -- it required two separate trips to Austin to 19 talk about the same topic, which, obviously, TexDOT wasn't 20 real keen on doing. So, anyway, it's just -- it's caused 21 some difficulty from a management standpoint out there. And 22 it's also -- the interim period has made it difficult with 23 the Airport Manager and that situation, 'cause that's also an 24 interim position, so it's a -- the whole situation is not 25 good the way it is, though it is continuing to function in a 10-29-07 35 1 good manner, I think. That's the only comment I have. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Any reports from elected officials? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: While we're waiting for her, 4 just one. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's not a requirement that 6 you fill this time, Sheriff. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, this is something I've 8 been thinking about for a long time that we need to start 9 looking at seriously, and I had mentioned it to Commissioner 10 Letz a while back. It may very well be time that we 11 seriously start looking at a committee on long-range plans 12 for your jail building and facilities out there, because of 13 crowding situations, housing of females, where we're going to 14 go, so it doesn't kind of hit us in the face all at once. 15 We're over our recommended population. We have been pretty 16 well all year. We're down to really being over on the female 17 population, and if you went by the jail analysis that the 18 Jail Commission did for us in 2005, in 2007 they even 19 recommended we have 240 beds, which we haven't taken any 20 action on that. And we -- we've slacked off some during, you 21 know, different times of the month, so I haven't pushed it. 22 But I think if you really want to look long-range, we need to 23 seriously put together a committee and start looking at that 24 facility and start doing some research on exactly where we 25 have been, where we are today, and where the Court may start 10-29-07 36 1 making future plans of where we need to go, because I don't 2 see it getting any better. I just see it constantly getting 3 more and more, and it's going to hit us in the face one time 4 where we do like we had to do back in the '80's or '90's 5 before the place was built, and house inmates out of county. 6 And that, to me, is just way too expensive to look at doing. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, I have two questions 8 about that. Just on face value, what you're saying, I agree 9 with you, but I have two questions before I can make any 10 decision. Are the District Courts doing everything they can 11 to alleviate the problem? And don't answer that. I don't 12 think it would be smart to answer that right now. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll answer it. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But those are things -- those 16 are all the issues. That's a -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a very good issue that 19 whatever committee is appointed, -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- I think that is a point 22 that seriously needs to be looked at. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. And in a much 24 broader sense than you and I can cover here today. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. I don't think we ought 10-29-07 37 1 to just be looking at adding more building and adding more -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me get to question two. 3 The next question would be -- and, seriously -- seriously, 4 sit down and have a visit about tent city. I know that's a 5 funny -- I know it's a ha-ha, but I still want to have that 6 visit. And I know -- you know, we haven't heard from the new 7 director, Adan, about that. But the former jail -- what do 8 you call those guys? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Commission. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commission. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Directors. Executive 12 Director. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Director guy. His -- his 14 comments -- I had several visits with him about it, and his 15 comment was that the drawback is -- is that you have state 16 rules that say you have to climate control -- temperature 17 control. And it's hard to do in a tent. That's the issue. 18 But we haven't heard that from the new guy. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, they actually have, and 20 that can be talked about. I think the committee, if this 21 Court wants to appoint one, needs to look at every single 22 aspect of inmate housing. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Including tent city? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Including tent city. Because 25 there are written rules about what you can and can't do with 10-29-07 38 1 tents, and the Legislature this year changed some of those, 2 but I think by the time you build what would legally pass and 3 be accepted by the Jail Commission, you -- you wouldn't 4 build -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you probably need to 6 put this on as a workshop item or an agenda item so we can 7 discuss it. I mean, I think we're going more into a 8 discussion period, which I don't think Rex -- 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. I don't want to -- 10 it's more of a report, but it needs to do something. Rex 11 always likes to get up and hit me. But she's back, so I ... 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm with you on the tent city issue. 13 I've been there a long time, as you well know. The other 14 issue that I think needs to be looked at in connection with 15 it is they got space to grow a pretty nice garden out there. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: And make that operation more 18 self-sufficient, and I think from a diet standpoint, be much 19 superior than what they can get outside the four walls there. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We were actually trying to go 22 there when we were promised some fencing from the airport, 23 and it disappeared on us. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. I'd recommend that 25 be -- I think we really need to look at being more 10-29-07 39 1 self-sufficient, more thinking outside the box, creative ways 2 of handling our inmate population, and -- and, of course, we 3 do have residential areas right around there; you have to be 4 really concerned with security, and new ones fixing to break 5 down and be built right across the street. But I think 6 there's -- we need to open it up and look at everything that 7 we can do to keep from having to build, but see where we're 8 at. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, all those topics. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go back to the two 11 RFQ's on the -- on the FY '06-'07 Kerr County outside audit. 12 Ms. Hargis, what do you have for us? 13 MS. HARGIS: In analyzing the cost estimates on 14 both firms, I would recommend the Neffendorf, Knopp, Horry 15 and Doss. They basically bid 350 hours, as opposed to 16 Null-Lairson bid 425 hours. Hourly fee amounts to about 110 17 collectively. The other firm is 114. There's also, like, 18 $4,000 worth of travel time and lodging, where they have 19 $600. So, I think for this year -- I'm familiar with 20 Null-Lairson; I've worked with them for years, but I'm not 21 familiar with this other firm, and the cost differential is 22 too great for me not to recommend that you take this one. 23 And rather than give him a three-year, I would just like to 24 give him a one-year, and let's see how they do, and then 25 rebid in the spring. Because I think we'll have more 10-29-07 40 1 opportunity to get -- this firm did it as a favor, and 2 they're already booked up, so I figured the cost might go a 3 little high, but it's just too high. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: So, your recommendation is the 5 Neffendorf firm? 6 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we accept 8 the recommendation of the Auditor and approve -- what are we 9 doing? Selecting? Selecting and approving the Neffendorf 10 firm for a one-year contract. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: '06-'07 outside audit. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second. 15 Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 16 by raising your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you, 21 Ms. Hargis. Anything further? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are those other little 23 things that we were talking about auditing? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: There are requirements that the 25 Adult Probation Department be audited, that the Juvenile 10-29-07 41 1 Probation Department be audited, as a result of receiving 2 various types of federal funds. It's called single audits, I 3 think is what they're called. 4 MS. HARGIS: No, those are actually required 5 separate audits. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 MS. HARGIS: The -- we have to actually audit them 8 separately for the state. They're required to have an 9 independent audit of their own, and always have been. A 10 single audit, if we get grant funds from the federal 11 government in excess of $500,000 -- used to be $250,000, but 12 its $500,000 -- we have to perform what they call a single 13 audit. And a single audit is a -- basically conforming with 14 the rules and regulations of the -- of the grant that you 15 receive. In other words, it's not necessarily dealing so 16 much with the figures that -- and the cost, as much as, "Did 17 you follow the procedures, the policy that was let out of the 18 grant? Did you do what the grant asked you to do?" And 19 that's what's a single audit is. It's -- it's really more 20 time-intensive than the regular financial audit, because you 21 have to look at a lot of small, detailed things. We don't 22 have a single audit this year. We don't -- we're at 23 $426,000, so we don't have one this year, but we keep track 24 of that in my office to make sure that we either do or don't. 25 And right now, we don't have one. 10-29-07 42 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's an aggregate total? 2 Or -- 3 MS. HARGIS: That's the aggregate total. Has to be 4 the aggregate total. Now, they can still decide if they feel 5 that our internal controls on a particular grant is not 6 sufficient, or that we've not complied with those, they can 7 still pull a single audit, but it's left up to the audit firm 8 at that particular time. It's called a -- you pick a major 9 fund, and they can audit one or all, but if you go over 10 $500,000 aggregate, then they have to choose one or the 11 other. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And at the -- related to the 13 airport, that single audit issue comes under the City? 14 MS. HARGIS: The single audit issue comes under the 15 City, because they're the management. So, they -- they're 16 required to have the single audit because of the grants that 17 they receive there. They also were required because they had 18 received some FEMA money which fell off, but they also get 19 some ORCA money, so they're well in excess of the $500,000. 20 And a single audit is actually a second report. Pressler 21 included it in your document, but most audit firms will give 22 you two separate booklets, one for the single audit. Those 23 are required for the agencies. We have to send one to ORCA. 24 In fact, we sent out 12 copies of our audit last year, and 10 25 of those were basically for the Single Audit Act. And you 10-29-07 43 1 were over $500,000 last year. However, because of the other 2 grants, we have to make sure that -- that we don't have 3 additional agencies that are asked for, and then we go over 4 it every year. So, we have to keep track of it every year, 5 but it's really a -- to make sure that you follow the 6 procedures. And the federal government has what they call 7 the Single Audit Act, and they keep changing it on a regular 8 basis for compliance. It's a compliance audit. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Hopefully, when -- as we get close 10 to $500,000, they'll move the threshold to 750? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 12 MS. HARGIS: Well, I don't know. They just changed 13 that 500,000 because of, I think, cost-of-living and 14 economics, but they were at the 250 from -- I want to say 15 '92, '93 to now. So, you know, it takes them a long time. 16 We don't want anything else to come out of G.A.S.B. right 17 now -- or the single audit. They just finished writing the 18 single audit manual again. It's hot off the press. The 19 federal government is a little bit more aggressive, and so I 20 doubt that it will change for at least four more years. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back to these probation 22 departments, have we been auditing them? 23 MS. HARGIS: Separately. It's my understanding 24 from -- from Mr. Williams that we have been auditing that 25 separately from the beginning. 10-29-07 44 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From Mr. Williams? 2 MS. HARGIS: I mean Tommy. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, Tommy. Okay. 4 MS. HARGIS: It's just -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what else -- what else 6 was in this bid package? Those two, and then what else 7 that's separate from -- 8 MS. HARGIS: There's really nothing separate here 9 except the single audit, and single audits can run as much 10 as -- depending upon the facility and the compliance, see, we 11 have several of them, so 5,000 is the cheapest you get by 12 with a single audit. Most of the time single audits are 13 going to be around 10,000, so that's the biggest portion -- 14 some of the portion of it now. I will say that, you know, if 15 you notice, their bids did escalate for the following years. 16 I think -- actually, he didn't give a -- Null-Lairson's did 17 go up. This one only gave us a bid for one year. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 19 MS. HARGIS: So, I assume when we go out again for 20 next year, that he may -- and he knows he has to include at 21 that point the other two. The -- reason we -- we allowed 22 Pressler to do the other two is, number one, they can choose 23 who they want, and number two, their year-end is 8/31, and we 24 had to get those done. We couldn't wait. And they have to 25 get them in to the state within 60 days after the end of 10-29-07 45 1 their fiscal year, so we had to go with Pressler on those. 2 And they could elect on their own to pay for those. Now, 3 they both budget in each one of those departments for the 4 cost of their audits. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 6 MS. HARGIS: So the Adult Probation would pay for 7 theirs. But the juvenile, because we participate in a large 8 portion of theirs, we would be paying for that. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they should pay for 10 their own. The -- now, we're going to do a deal with them 11 for one year? 12 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that begins when? 14 MS. HARGIS: They'll really -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said something about 16 spring? 17 MS. HARGIS: In the spring, I would like to go out 18 for bid for 2007-2008. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 20 MS. HARGIS: So that we get that early enough in so 21 that the firms can possibly give us a better bid and get more 22 bids. We only got two bids. I had three firms to turn me 23 down because of time constraints. Remember when I asked you 24 to keep Pressler? I said I was very concerned that their 25 budgets for time are already completed by August the 1st for 10-29-07 46 1 9/30's. There's so many governmental entities now, 2 especially in the Dallas and the Houston and Austin area, 3 with all these water districts, that the -- that there's not 4 that many firms that are qualified to do governmental audits. 5 Pressler was the only one here in town. I think we're lucky 6 Fredericksburg has one. Austin didn't want to drive this 7 far. I mean, there's a firm in Abilene, there's a firm in 8 Austin. There's not -- there's maybe six in Houston. And 9 the big firms have a limit of $150,000, so we didn't even 10 qualify for those. So, there's one out of Waco, and I spoke 11 with them when I was up there. They were too busy; they 12 couldn't -- they couldn't give us a bid. So, I think when we 13 go out in the spring, we can get a better bid. Then they can 14 budget the time. I think that's one reason why -- the 15 Fredericksburg firm is close. It's a good -- you know, it's 16 a good client for them, so let's see how they do. I have no 17 clue. I have never worked with them. So -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I haven't either, but I'm 19 willing to bet you that they're going to be great. 20 MS. HARGIS: I'm -- I'm assuming so. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, sure. 22 MS. HARGIS: And he's been very knowledgeable when 23 I've spoken with him, and very willing to do the audit. 24 So -- and he does -- he does tell me he's going to have his 25 field work done by the end of January when I spoke to him 10-29-07 47 1 before. So, that's one good thing. We'll be finished on 2 time. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 MS. HARGIS: Is there anything else? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? We'll be adjourned. 6 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 10:34 a.m.) 7 - - - - - - - - - - 8 9 10 STATE OF TEXAS | 11 COUNTY OF KERR | 12 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 13 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 14 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 15 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 16 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 30th day of October, 17 2007. 18 19 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 20 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 21 Certified Shorthand Reporter 22 23 24 25 10-29-07