1 1 2 3 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT 4 Regular Session 5 Monday, March 11, 2019 6 9:00 a.m. 7 Commissioners' Courtroom 8 Kerr County Courthouse 9 Kerrville, Texas 78028 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: ROB KELLY, Kerr County Judge HARLEY BELEW, Commissioner Precinct 1 24 TOM MOSER, Commissioner Precinct 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Precinct 3 25 DON HARRIS, Commissioner Precinct 4 2 1 I-N-D-E-X 2 NO. PAGE 3 1.1 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 8 action on request to allow Kerr County 4 Child Services Board to use a portion of the courthouse square for a display 5 during the month of April, 2019. 6 1.2 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 10 action to set a public hearing for 9 a.m. 7 on April 22nd to receive comments, concerns, and technical appeals concerning proposed 8 changes to the Kerr County Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps 0600G, 9 0625G, 0650G, 0750G, and 0775G, which is the South Kerr County Medina Watershed. 10 1.3 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 19 11 action to authorize the County Judge to execute a letter extending the scope of 12 services with CEC for construction inspection services related to the East Kerr County/ 13 Center Point Wastewater Project Phase I, and authorize TWDB, Texas Water Development 14 Board, budget transfer to fund same. 15 1.5 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 23 action to surplus two chairs in the 16 Environmental Health Department office, two stools from the Animal Services 17 Facility, and dispose of properly. 18 1.6 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 24 action to accept donations for the month 19 of February, 2019 as listed in the Kerr County Animal Services donation log. 20 1.7 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 25 21 action regarding the approval of use of the Kerr County Courthouse parking lot for 22 the South Texas Blood Drive to be held on April the 4th, 2019. 23 24 25 3 1 I-N-D-E-X 2 NO. PAGE 3 1.8 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 26 action to approve the Engagement Letter 4 under the Shared Services arrangement provided by Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company 5 (GRS) and the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) for actuarial valuation 6 services in compliance with GASB 75 to establish the liability for other post- 7 employment benefits (OPEB). The engagement letter is for the December 31, 2018 valuation 8 report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019. The cost will be $7,297.50. 9 1.9 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 27 10 action to approve the request for Kerr County pro rate distribution of proceeds 11 from the Tobacco Settlement Permanent Trust Account, and authorize the County 12 Judge to sign request. 13 1.10 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 28 action to approve contract with UBEO 14 Business Services for printer/copier services in County Attorney's office. 15 1.11 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 31 16 action to approve the racial profiling report for the Kerr County Sheriff's office. 17 1.15 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 32 18 action to authorize the County Auditor's office to prepare compiled financial 19 statements and/or perform audit services regarding the Emergency Services District 20 #1 (ESD #1) and Emergency Services District #2 (ESD #2). 21 1.16 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 33 22 action to accept annual Racial Profiling Report from the 198th District Attorney. 23 1.17 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 34 24 action to appoint Rosa Lavender as the Kerr County representative to the Alamo 25 Area Council of Governments (AACOG), Criminal Justice Advisory Committee. 4 1 I-N-D-E-X 2 NO. PAGE 3 1.18 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 38 action to change the current job title 4 for the Crime Victims Assistance Coordinator position and the Assistant Crime Victims 5 Assistance Coordinator to the Victims' Rights Coordinator and the Assistant 6 Victims' Rights Coordinator in order to eliminate confusion for grant purposes, 7 and amend court order 37155 to reflect the new job titles. 8 1.19 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 40 9 action to ratify and confirm the "FY 2020 Kerr County Improvement Improvement Grant 10 Program Intent to Submit Application" to the Texas Indigent Defense Commissioner 11 | (TIDC) to help fund a Hill Country Regional Public Defender Office for Bandera, 12 Gillespie and Kerr Counties. Grant application due May the 10th, 2019. 13 1.20 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 50 14 action to appoint county representative to the Kerr County Animal Services 15 Advisory Board. 16 1.12 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 51 action to prepare a Request for Proposal 17 (RFP) for copier/printer services for Kerr County. 18 1.13 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 79 19 action on interpretation of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations in 20 regards to Section VI, page 47, Paragraph 6.07B, and State of Texas Local Government 21 Code, Title 7. Subtitle A. Municipal Regulatory Authority, Chapter 212 Municipal 22 Regulation of Subdivisions and Property - A. Regulation of Subdivisions 212.014. 23 1.14 Consider, discuss and take appropriate 84 24 action regarding Kerr County Tax Resales. 25 4.4 Approve and accept Monthly Reports. 94 5 1 I-N-D-E-X 2 NO. PAGE 3 4.6 Court Orders. 95 4 5.2 Reporters from Elected Officials/ 97 Department Heads. 5 *** Adjournment. 98 6 *** Reporter's Certificate. 99 7 * * * * * * 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 1 JUDGE KELLY: Okay, Court will come to 2 order. It is Monday, March the 11th, 2019, right at 9 3 o'clock, and Commissioners' Court will be in session. 4 If you would stand with me. Let me remind everybody 5 turn your cell phones off. If you would, pray with me. 6 (Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.) 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Guess we're not going 8 to get any rain. 9 JUDGE KELLY: I'm reminded I forgot to pray 10 for rain. At this point, we go around and see what's 11 going on in everybody's precincts, and usually start 12 with Commissioner 1, but today why don't we start with 13 Precinct 4, and go in reverse order. 14 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: All right, first up. 15 Well, we had a very good West Kerr Chamber Banquet 16 function last week. I know the Judge and I were both 17 there. They raised a lot of money, and saw a lot of 18 good people and it was a fun time. It was held at Yogi 19 Bear Park, and it was good. 20 JUDGE KELLY: It was. Very comfortable. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I don't believe I 22 have anything this morning. 23 JUDGE KELLY: I think anything I've got is 24 on the agenda, so we'll just wait for that. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: A couple things. 7 1 Number one, the Nueces River Basin bill is being heard 2 this week, and that's the bill to preclude wastewater 3 from being discharged into creeks and Edwards Aquifer, 4 which that is. That's important, and this Court past a 5 Resolution supporting that so that Resolution will be 6 brought up in the subcommittee this week. 7 In that same light, pardon the pun, but 8 Starlite has indicated they're interested in looking at 9 in more detail at the option of tying into our central 10 sewer system. 11 JUDGE KELLY: Good. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So that was last 13 Friday's conversation, so I think that that's very 14 positive, and I hope that turns it up. 15 The other thing there was a huge turnout at 16 the AG barn this weekend for the -- or from Thursday on 17 all the way through Sunday for the San Antonio Kennel 18 Club. There must have been 50 RVs parked out there, so 19 it was a huge success. So anyway that's all I have. 20 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Well, mine's not as 21 exciting, but we did fill up the recycle trailer once in 22 Precinct 1 this weekend, and I had a person call and 23 said, I can't get anything stuffed in it, and by the 24 time I called Shane and tell him that it was full, the 25 guys had already been out there and emptied it and it 8 1 was parked where it was supposed to be. So they were 2 "Johnny on the spot". It's a good program. 3 JUDGE KELLY: Before we start the agenda I 4 forgot to mention, is there any visitors here that would 5 like to input the Court. This is your opportunity to do 6 so. I would ask that you approach the podium, identify 7 yourself, and where you live. Limit your comments to 8 three minutes. And this would be for any items that are 9 not on the agenda. Is there anyone that would like to 10 address the Court? 11 Okay, with that we'll go right directly into 12 item 1.1 consider, discuss and take appropriate action 13 on request to allow Kerr County Child Services Board to 14 use a portion of the courthouse square for a display 15 during the month of April, 2019. Kellie Early. 16 MS. EARLY: Good morning, Judge and 17 Commissioners. April is child abuse awareness month, 18 and I'm President of the Kerr County Child Services 19 Board, and we would like to request the Court that we be 20 allowed to use part of courthouse lawn to put out our 21 blue ribbon signs that just show how many children were 22 affected by child abuse in the last year. We'll put 23 those out on April first and then we'll take them up on 24 April 30th. And also, during child abuse awareness 25 month, on April 16th we're having an event that's free 9 1 to the public, and it's going to be at Mount Wesley, the 2 new area that First United Methodist Church is using, 3 and we're going to have several speakers come and talk 4 about community based care and the future of child 5 welfare in Texas. So CPS is rolling out a new plan 6 where it really involves the community a whole lot more, 7 so we need more information on that so we've asked a 8 speaker from the Department to come, and a speaker 9 from -- the person who actually has the contract in 10 Bexar County, it's already rolled out, so we asked the 11 Tapestry Family Services to come and speak to us so we 12 can get some more information. We're in region 8B, and 13 our region they'll start letting out for contracts at 14 the end of March. So it'll probably be 12 to 18 months 15 before we see a big change here with CPS, but it's 16 coming, and we just need to get, you know, educated on 17 it. 18 And then we'll have Phase 2. We're going to 19 have another follow-up to this meeting that'll be how 20 our community can help with this community based care 21 plan, so that's our hope. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Kellie, I got a 23 question for Jonathan, I guess, on the placing the 24 ribbons, is that going to have a problem with tree 25 service? 10 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only when they're -- 4 Kellie, when they're putting the signs up, I know they 5 usually go over on the corner on Sidney Baker, and that 6 mesquite tree will be coming down, and probably before 7 April first though. So that tree's coming down so I 8 think right around there, so you may want to be careful. 9 But I think that'll happen probably before April first. 10 MS. EARLY: Okay, well we're flexible if we 11 need to move to a different location, I'm fine with 12 that. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get with Shane. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I move for approval to 15 allow the Kerr County Child Services Board to use a 16 portion of the courthouse square for the month of 17 April -- 18 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Second. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- for their signage. 20 JUDGE KELLY: Been a motion by Commissioner 21 Moser, second by Commissioner Belew. Those in favor 22 raise your hand. Five zero. We're happy to help. 23 Thank you. 24 MS. EARLY: Thank you. 25 JUDGE KELLY: 1.2 consider, discuss and take 11 1 appropriate action to set a public hearing for 9 a.m. on 2 April 22nd to receive comments, concerns, and technical 3 appeals concerning proposed changes to the Kerr County 4 Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps 5 0600G, 0625G, 0650G, 0750G, and 0775G, which is the 6 South Kerr County Medina Watershed. Charlie Hastings. 7 MR. HASTINGS: Thank you. Attached in your 8 packet is a copy of the public notice that was published 9 in the Kerrville Daily Times on February 22nd, 2019 and 10 March the first, 2019 as issued by the Department of 11 Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency 12 concerning proposed flood hazard determination changes. 13 Specifically, the San Antonio River Authority performed 14 studies of the southern portion of Kerr County as it 15 relates to the Medina River Watershed and prepared 16 updated Zone A flood insurance rate maps, the ones that 17 you just read 600G, 625G, 650G, 750G, and 775G. The 18 updated maps have been -- they have changed based mostly 19 on new, higher accuracy LiDAR topographical information 20 and better computer modeling, meaning that the estimated 21 location of the one percent annual flood, more commonly 22 known as the hundred year flood, is more accurate. 23 Below in my packet, I have a recap of the timeline for 24 our community to submit technical-based appeals to FEMA 25 for consideration before publication of the new maps. 12 1 So here is our timeline: On November 23rd, 2 2018 FEMA published their notification of map changes in 3 the Federal Registry, and there should be a copy of that 4 in here for you. That's completed. On February the 5 6th, 2019 from 6 to 8 p.m. Kerr County hosted the Medina 6 Watershed Floodplain Map Changes Town Hall Meeting. We 7 had a town hall meeting at the Youth Event Center. 8 Notifications were mailed directly to 66 affected 9 property owners. The meeting was attended by 10 representatives of the San Antonio River Authority, 11 they're the ones making the proposed changes. The Texas 12 Water Development Board Flood Outreach Specialist, 13 Region VI National Flood Insurance Program, and the Kerr 14 County Floodplain Administrator's Office, which is my 15 office. We had one attend at the meeting. 16 On February the 22nd, 2019 FEMA published 17 their first notification of the map changes in -- 18 actually in the West Kerr Current and in the Kerrville 19 Daily Times, and then on March the first, they published 20 their second notification about the map changes in the 21 West Kerr Current and Kerrville Daily Times. And this 22 starts the time period. The clock is ticking now, from 23 March first you have 90 days, our community does, to 24 submit any appeals that we have, technically based. We 25 can give them comments, but we need to separate our 13 1 technical appeal from the comments so that it's clear to 2 them what's what, because what they're going to consider 3 is just a technical base, so it's gotta be 4 scientifically based. 5 What I'd like to do moving forward is to 6 today so set a public hearing for April the 22nd to 7 receive public comments, technical appeals, and then 8 we'll send those technical appeals to FEMA sometime 9 after that meeting. Our deadline of course is June the 10 first, that's the 90-day deadline to get those comments 11 out. 12 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Charlie, are you saying 13 that any citizen that has any objection or input has to 14 be scientifically technically based; 15 MR. HASTINGS: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER BELEW: They have to bring that 17 themselves? 18 MR. HASTINGS: FEMA wants it to go through 19 us. It's not a solid requirement, so we'll of this 20 public hearing and then people can bring those comments, 21 and I will put them all together and bring them back to 22 the Court probably at the next meeting, which would be 23 in May, that first meeting in May, and say here's our 24 technical appeals, let's send it off, we've gotta get 25 this in the mail before June the first. 14 1 COMMISSIONER BELEW: So help me understand 2 this. They have their comments or objections or 3 whatever. We do the engineering for the response to 4 FEMA, is that what you're saying? 5 MR. HASTINGS: No. 6 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Who brings this 7 scientific -- where does it come from, where does that 8 information come from? 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Another question. What 10 is technical? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have to hire a 12 floodplain -- someone like John Hewitt to go and prove 13 that the maps are wrong. 14 COMMISSIONER BELEW: That's what I'm saying. 15 So they would have to go and hire somebody, an engineer 16 and -- 17 MR. HASTINGS: We have some technical -- 18 I've reviewed it, and I have some technical comments for 19 them based on my review. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But individuals, that's 21 the question. 22 MR. HASTINGS: The individuals need to bring 23 that data to -- if they've got a technical concern they 24 need to get with me, and I'll help them sort through it. 25 I don't know know that they necessarily have to hire an 15 1 engineer. I am a licensed engineer, so if they'll get 2 with me, they'll come to my office and review these, and 3 I'll help them determine what's technical and what's 4 not, and we'll get it all compiled. 5 COMMISSIONER BELEW: That's what I wanted to 6 know. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Charlie, in the past I 8 thought that also they considered experience where 9 people said I know that this flooded in -- you know, at 10 some given flood, 2002, or whatever, okay? And that was 11 constituted as a one percent flood. Is that data -- 12 MR. HASTINGS: If they have that data and 13 they've got some pictures and some hard information they 14 can share with us, we can share that with FEMA. 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. One other 16 question. Is there a map which shows what it's it was 17 and what it's proposed to be? 18 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, there's one in your 19 packet, and I had Bobby make a better one than that so 20 that you can really see the difference, and we have that 21 at my office, and for everyone to see. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So the public could go 23 by your office and see that map? 24 MR. HASTINGS: That's what they need to do. 25 I have all the maps that FEMA has submitted, plus we 16 1 made our own to make it even more clear. We also have 2 light tables, so you can take an old map, and overlay 3 the other one on the light table and see the difference, 4 if you like to do it that way. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Good deal. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it needs to be 7 clear so Charlie doesn't get inundated, and both the 8 property owners are going to know, if your property is 9 in the Guadalupe Watershed, you're not affected. It's 10 gotta be in the San Antonio River, Medina River 11 Watershed. Under this scenario. 12 MR. HASTINGS: It only affects a small 13 portion of -- southern portion of our County, but it is 14 in each Precinct, every precinct's represented. 15 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Charlie, I had a 16 conflict the night of the town hall. Was it well 17 attended? 18 MR. HASTINGS: No, Sir it wasn't. There was 19 one person that came. 20 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: One landowner? 21 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, Sir. And that's out 22 of -- 23 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: 66. 24 MR. HASTINGS: -- 66 that were directly 25 notified, so maybe they just don't have concerns right 17 1 now, but what I'm also going to do is we're going to put 2 this public notification, we're going to have a public 3 hearing, is I'm going to contact those 66 one more time 4 and let them know about the public hearing, and maybe 5 include a -- maybe a map or something that will help 6 them, or a link to a map that they could go to on our 7 website so that it's clear. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Charlie, I would 9 recommend that you also, instead of posting in the local 10 paper, put it in whatever the Bandera local paper is -- 11 JUDGE KELLY: The Bandera Bulletin. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the Bandera Bulletin, 13 because all these properties, the likelihood is they all 14 live in Bandera, or Medina or at least that's their 15 mailing address. So you know, and I think it would be 16 helpful. At least we really go an extra mile and let 17 these people be aware of it. 18 MR. HASTINGS: So I'll get with the County 19 Clerk on that for the publication for the public 20 hearing. And we're talking about West Kerr Current, 21 Kerrville Daily Times, and the Bandera Bulletin. Is 22 there something in Comfort that should also -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: No. 25 MR. HASTINGS: Well, we have to put it in 18 1 the official paper that Kerr County has. I mean we have 2 to. And I think that's why FEMA put it in both West 3 Kerr Current and Kerrville Daily Times, they hit those 4 two. But we want it in the Hill Country Community 5 Journal as well. Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who pays for this? It's 7 coming out of our notice budget? 8 MR. HASTINGS: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- well I won't 10 make a comment. Never mind. 11 JUDGE KELLY: Any further discussion? 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Need a motion. 13 MR. HASTINGS: May I summarize? 14 JUDGE KELLY: Please. 15 MR. HASTINGS: The Kerr County Engineer 16 requests the Court to set a public hearing for 9 a.m. on 17 April 22nd, 2019 to receive comments, concerns and 18 technical appeals concerning proposed changes to the 19 Kerr County Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance 20 Rate Maps 0600G, 0625G, 0650G, 0750G, 0775G is the South 21 Kerr County Medina Watershed, Precincts 1, 2, 3, and 4. 22 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: I move to approve as 23 read. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 25 JUDGE KELLY: A motion made by Commissioner 19 1 Harris and second by Commissioner Letz to approve the 2 motion as requested. Those in favor raise your hand. 3 Opposed? Five zero. 4 Timed item number 1.3 consider, discuss and 5 take appropriate action to authorize the County Judge to 6 execute a letter extending the scope of services with 7 CEC for construction inspection services related to the 8 East Kerr County/Center Point Wastewater Project Phase 9 I, and authorize TWDB, Texas Water Development Board, 10 budget transfer to fund same. Charlie. 11 MR. HASTINGS: Thank you. Construction 12 inspection services for the East Kerr County/Center 13 Point Wastewater Project have a larger scope than 14 originally anticipated when the construction inspection 15 line item budget was originally created in 2016 at 16 $470,000.00; however, good faith efforts were made by 17 Kerr County to keep inspection costs low by awarding a 18 $350,000.00 award inspection construction contract to 19 CEC, Civil Engineering Consultants, and simultaneously 20 providing in-house inspection services from both the 21 Kerr County Engineering Department and the Kendall Water 22 Control Improvement District for the remaining 23 $120,000.00 budget. The $350,000.00 contract with CEC 24 was anticipated to provide inspection services for 12 25 months, at which time project contingencies would be 20 1 used to extend services; however, due to the in-house 2 inspection efforts and close management of the CEC 3 contract those services have been extended to 17 months. 4 Continued CEC inspection services are needed through 5 January 2020 to close out Phase 1 of the project; 6 therefore, it become necessary to extend the scope with 7 CEC accordingly as shown in the attached spreadsheet for 8 a cost of $289,384.10. A Texas Water Development Board 9 Project #10366 budget transfer in the amount of 10 approximately $290,000.00 from the contingency to 11 construction inspection line item under the LF1000495 12 funding source is required to fund the additional 13 services from the construction inspection consultant. 14 The contingency line item, originally budgeted at 15 roughly 2.4 million dollars, currently has a balance of 16 approximately $800,000.00. So there's plenty of funds 17 in there to fund it. 18 The County Engineer requests the Court to 19 authorize the County Judge to execute a letter extending 20 the scope of services with CEC for construction 21 inspection services related to the East Kerr 22 County/Center Point Wastewater Project Phase I in the 23 amount of $289,384.10, thereby extending said inspection 24 services from March 2019 through January 2020, and to 25 authorize a Texas Water Development Board budget 21 1 transfer of $290,000.00 from the contingency line item 2 to construction inspection to fund said scope services 3 extension. Precincts 2 and 3. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: A couple of questions, 5 Charlie. This is for Phase I. 6 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, Sir. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Phase I. Second 8 question is the $800,000.00 contingency, that does not 9 include taking out the three hundred thousand or two 10 hundred 90 thousand, so that would -- two hundred 90 11 thousand would come out of the 800 thousand, correct? 12 MR. HASTINGS: Correct. Bright it down to 13 five ten. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Bring it down to 500 15 thousand, in there. 16 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, Sir. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And I think we're 18 probably to the point of construction where the 19 contingency is adequate for what we have left for, you 20 know, a lot of lift stations and stuff is done. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a little bit 22 more to, I think, come out of that, and we talked about 23 it last week. But it'll be a new item. But I move to 24 make a motion to approve the agenda item as read into 25 the record by the County Engineer. 22 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Second. 2 JUDGE KELLY: Those in favor raise your 3 hand. Opposed? Five zero, unanimous. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Thank you guys. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The CEC representatives, 6 you want to introduce them, Charlie? 7 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, please. John Kaznowski, 8 and Ruben -- 9 MR. GUERRERO: Ruben Guerrero with CEC, I'm 10 the Project Manager and John's the Construction Manager 11 out here helping Curtis and Charlie. 12 MR. HASTINGS: And Curtis Brown is not here; 13 he's inspecting right now. He's working hard. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Just for the interest 15 of everybody, we have a design -- tech designer for the 16 system, Charlie's the project manager, Pasedo is the 17 construction, and so have an independent inspection, so 18 making sure that we're doing everything that the 19 county's obligated to do and wants to do, so good job, 20 guys. 21 MR. HASTINGS: And they do a very good job. 22 And they're dotting the i's and crossing the t's, and 23 that's going to be very handy when there's an audit on 24 the project. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 23 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They are here everyday 2 checking with detail and keeping track of all the 3 inventory and materials, and doing a good job. 4 MR. KAZNOWSKI: Thank you. 5 MR. GUERRERO: Thank you. 6 JUDGE KELLY: If I understand item 1.4 is 7 being dropped. I think there's ongoing discussions with 8 the City and their requirements with regard to that 9 project. 10 A timed item at 9:15 is 1.5 consider, 11 discuss and take appropriate action to surplus two 12 chairs in the Environmental Health Department office, 13 two stools from the animal services facility and 14 disposed of properly. Reagan. 15 COMMISSIONER BELEW: That didn't sound good. 16 MR. GIVENS: Good morning everyone. 17 JUDGE KELLY: And I didn't write it. 18 MR. GIVENS: I have four items, two of the 19 chairs that are in the Environmental Health office that 20 came out of deputy James Lang's office. One of them's 21 just pretty much worn out and does not function 22 properly, and the other one's real old and worn out. 23 Two stools at the Animal Services office. One is 24 completely broken and unusable, they were in the front, 25 and then the other one is broken as well, but you can 24 1 still sit on it. Just would like to get rid of both of 2 them. We've got our use out of them. 3 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Well, I move that we 4 accept the proposal to eliminate these hazards. 5 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Second. 6 JUDGE KELLY: Been moved by Commissioner 7 Belew and second by Commissioner Harris to approve the 8 motion as requested. Those in favor raise your hand. 9 Opposed? Five zero, unanimous. 10 Timed item at 9:15 item 1.6 consider, 11 discuss and take appropriate action to accept donations 12 for the month of February, 2019 as listed in the Kerr 13 County Animal Services donation log. Reagan. 14 MR. GIVENS: So what we started doing is 15 running a donation roster. We get a lot of small 16 donations, be it $5.00 here, a bag of dog food there. 17 Somebody comes to us with towels, blankets, and things 18 like that. What we're trying to do is log down exactly 19 what those are and approximate worth, value, and if they 20 want their name attached to it we take their name, and 21 if they don't we just put anonymous. 22 So what I have -- I got with Commissioner 23 Letz on start doing a monthly run-through of the 24 donation log that we're keeping in the new Shelter Pro 25 System. 25 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's great. 2 This is a way that two things: One, we understand and 3 the public will understand exactly what's being donated 4 out there, and the other probably more important thing 5 is it keeps us in full compliance with the law. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. Both of them 7 are important. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I make the motion 9 that we approve the donation register list as presented. 10 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Second. 11 JUDGE KELLY: Those in favor raise your 12 hand. Opposed? Unanimous, five zero. 13 Item 1.7 consider, discuss and take 14 appropriate action regarding the approval of use of the 15 Kerr County Courthouse parking lot for the South Texas 16 Blood Drive to be held on April the 4th, 2019. Miss 17 Doss. 18 MRS. JENNIFER DOSS: Good morning, 19 gentlemen. Yes, Branndon Frail with South Texas Blood 20 contacted me, and I think this is something that we do 21 twice a year, and so the first day is April 4th they'll 22 need the parking lot between ten and six, and the second 23 one is on August second, but we're just asking 24 permission for the use of the parking lot for the April 25 4th date. 26 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Move for approval. 2 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Second. 3 JUDGE KELLY: Any other discussion? Those 4 in favor raise your hand. Opposed? Unanimous, five 5 zero. 6 MRS. JENNIFER DOSS: Thank you. 7 JUDGE KELLY: 1.8 consider, discuss and take 8 appropriate action to approve the Engagement Letter 9 under the Shared Services arrangement provided by 10 Gabriel -- is it Roeder? 11 MR. ROBLES: Yes, Sir. 12 JUDGE KELLY: Smith & Company and the North 13 Central Texas Council of Governments for actuarial 14 valuation services in compliance with GASB 75 to 15 establish the liability for other post-employment 16 benefits. The engagement letter is for the December 31, 17 2018 valuation report for the fiscal year ending 18 September 30, 2019. The cost will be $7,297.50. Our 19 interim Auditor James Robles. 20 MR. ROBLES: Good morning. This is in 21 compliance with GASB 75. We've been with this company 22 for the last nine years. I would like to point out that 23 the cost has gone higher because the GASB 75 24 announcements replace GASB 45, so there's some extra 25 services they're providing and they're passing along the 27 1 cost to us. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: These amounts are 3 budgeted though? 4 MR. ROBLES: Yes, Sir they are. They were 5 anticipated. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion we 7 approve the agenda item. 8 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Second. 9 JUDGE KELLY: Been moved by Commissioner 10 Letz, seconded by Commissioner Belew to approve the 11 agenda item. Those in favor raise your hand. Opposed? 12 Five zero, unanimous. 13 Item 1.9 -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just for the record my 15 motion included authorizing the County Judge to sign the 16 Engagement Letter. 17 JUDGE KELLY: Sure. 1.9 consider, discuss 18 and take appropriate action to approve the request for 19 Kerr County pro rate distribution of proceeds from the 20 Tobacco Settlement Permanent Trust Fund Account, and 21 authorize the County Judge to sign request. James 22 Robles. 23 MR. ROBLES: This is another thing we do 24 every year. I believe you have the copy in front of you 25 that Jody provided. This is something that will be 28 1 revenue for our indigent health fund. And last year we 2 got 30 thousand for it. The prior year was 25 thousand. 3 So we'll make that determination based off the formulas 4 they use for our allowable expenditures. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So this is just to 6 apply for it? 7 MR. ROBLES: Correct. 8 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: All right, I move to 9 approve the Tobacco Settlement Permanent Trust, and 10 authorize the Judge to sign the request. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 12 JUDGE KELLY: Motion made by Commissioner 13 Harris and seconded by Commissioner Letz to approve the 14 application as presented. If no further discussion 15 those in favor raise your hand. Opposed? Unanimous, 16 five zero. 17 Item 1.10 consider, discuss and take 18 appropriate action to approve contract with UBEO 19 Business Services for printer/copier services in County 20 Attorney's office. Miss Stebbins. 21 MRS. STEBBINS: Hi. We are coming up toward 22 the end of our contract with Xerox, and we have gotten a 23 bid from UBEO, and it's reduced several dollars a month, 24 with a savings of around $135.00 for the year, I 25 believe. I didn't pick that up before I came up. But 29 1 I'm asking y'all to approve the contract with that 2 company. 3 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Well, I move for 4 approval. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Question. Go ahead. 6 But I'll ask the question after. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But we're looking at 9 also an RFP for the same type of thing for countywide? 10 Is that on item 1.12? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 12 MRS. STEBBINS: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So is this something we 14 should -- 15 MRS. STEBBINS: I need to have a printer -- 16 I need to have a copier and printer service in place, 17 and we don't have time to wait for that to happen. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Could that contract be 19 such that if we -- probably not. That's my question, 20 I'm thinking. I wouldn't sign a contract like that. 21 Okay, so this is just for services for -- 22 MRS. STEBBINS: Just my office, and one 23 machine. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. That's my only 25 question. 30 1 MRS. STEBBINS: Just copies, and scanning, 2 and just one machine. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But your request will 4 lead to the question when we get to the next item. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. Okay, it's been 6 seconded already. 7 MRS. STEBBINS: Last month, I think, we 8 visited some about -- Judge Kelly and I visited about 9 approving a Xerox contract I had on the agenda, and we 10 talked about the RFP, and checked out to see if we could 11 get a reduced rate from other companies. And so there 12 is one other company that has reached out to us recently 13 in my office specifically, and so I said give me a 14 quote, and he did, and it was less than the Xerox and 15 better machine. 16 JUDGE KELLY: Remember we dropped that from 17 the agenda? 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, right. 19 JUDGE KELLY: But the need still exists. 20 MRS. STEBBINS: So I don't know how to make 21 it mesh with the RFP possibility. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Time-wise compatible, 23 right. 24 COMMISSIONER BELEW: But you need something 25 today, Heather? 31 1 MRS. STEBBINS: Yes. My contract with Xerox 2 expires like this week, and so I'll need a machine in 3 there. I don't know when they'll come get their 4 machine. I've asked. But I'll need something. 5 COMMISSIONER BELEW: You can have them 6 unplug it and move it, and get the new guys to put 7 something in there. 8 MRS. STEBBINS: Yes. 9 JUDGE KELLY: There is a motion by 10 Commissioner Belew, second by Commissioner Letz to 11 approve the request. Is there any further discussion? 12 Those in favor raise your hand. Unanimous, five zero. 13 MRS. STEBBINS: Thank you. 14 JUDGE KELLY: Item 1.11 -- and for those of 15 you that are looking at the clock, yes, we are ahead of 16 schedule so we're going to have to make some 17 adjustments. But item 1.11 is consider, discuss and 18 take appropriate action to approve the racial profiling 19 report for the Kerr County Sheriff's office. Sheriff. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is our normal 21 report that we have to have every year that the Court 22 just has to accept. It's already filed with TCOLE in 23 Austin. 24 JUDGE KELLY: And if we don't, terrible 25 things happen to us. 32 1 SHERIF HIERHOLZER: Yep. I know for years 2 they had them stacked up in there. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move that we accept 4 the rational profiling report from the Sheriff's 5 Department. 6 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Second. 7 JUDGE KELLY: Been a motion made by 8 Commissioner Letz and seconded by Commissioner Harris 9 to approve the racial profiling report from the 10 Sheriff's office. Any further discussion? Those in 11 favor raise your hand. Again, unanimous, five zero. 12 Okay, we're going to skip the break at this 13 time. We'll try to take one at 10 o'clock. Don't 14 panic, we'll take a break. 15 Let's get down to the next untimed item, 16 which would will be item 1.15 consider, discuss and take 17 appropriate action to authorize the County Auditor's 18 office to prepare compiled financial statements and/or 19 perform audit services regarding the Emergency Services 20 District #1 and Emergency Services District #2. I 21 believe that's in Precinct 4. 22 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: That is. And this is 23 just a deal that we have to pass to allow our County 24 Auditor's office to go ahead and do an audit on the 25 ESD's 1 and 2. 33 1 JUDGE KELLY: We to these every year. 2 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: So i understand. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Question. James, do 4 you guys have the staff to do this? 5 MR. ROBLES: We do have the staff to do 6 this. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. The reason I ask 8 because those are taxing authorities, right, so they 9 could pay for that, but if he's got the adequate staff 10 we'll keep it like it is. 11 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Okay, I move for 12 approval. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 14 JUDGE KELLY: Been a motion by Commissioner 15 Harris and seconded by Commissioner Letz to approve this 16 request. By the way, James, we are very mindful of your 17 staff shortages? 18 MR. ROBLES: I appreciate that. 19 JUDGE KELLY: Is there any further 20 discussion? Those in favor raise your hand. Unanimous, 21 five zero. 22 Item 1.16 consider, discuss and take 23 appropriate action to accept the Annual Racial Profiling 24 Report from the 198th District Attorney. I put that on 25 the agenda because we to have do it or terrible things 34 1 happen to us. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we 3 approve the Racial Profiling Report from the 198th 4 District Attorney. 5 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Second. 6 JUDGE KELLY: Been moved by Commissioner 7 Letz and seconded by Commissioner Belew to approve the 8 Racial Profiling Report from the 198th District 9 Attorney. Is there any further discussion? Those in 10 favor raise your hand. Opposed? Unanimous, five zero. 11 Item 1.17 consider, discuss and take 12 appropriate action to appoint Rosa Lavender as the Kerr 13 County representative to the Alamo Area Council of 14 Governments, AACOG as we call it, to the Criminal 15 Justice Advisory Committee (CJAC). 16 And I put that on the agenda because Bob 17 Reeves was our representative to CJAC, and we talked 18 with our Crime Victims Rights Coordinator, which we'll 19 discuss that name change in a minute, because whoever 20 sits on that committee votes on and ranks the grant 21 requests, and so if we put Pam Peterman(sic), our Crime 22 Victims Coordinator on there, then she has to recuse 23 herself and can't vote for our grant request, so that 24 puts us with a foot in the bucket. So the idea here is 25 to put somebody on there that can objectively evaluate 35 1 these grant requests, and Rosa was the one that 2 volunteered, and we need to have somebody that can 3 participate in training to be able to rank these grant 4 requests, and then actually vote on them, so that's what 5 the issue's about. 6 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Should it not be a 7 county employee? 8 JUDGE KELLY: It can be. It doesn't have to 9 be. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You want to do it, 11 Harley? 12 MR. BELEW: I don't believe that I have the 13 time. 14 JUDGE KELLY: You know, the County has two 15 seats on CJAC, and Patsy Lackey is our primary 16 representative, and Bob was our alternate. So what 17 we're really doing here is filling an alternate position 18 in the event Patsy Lackey can't attend. The second seat 19 is Mary Krebs from KPD holds that seat at the county's 20 request; not the city's, ironically. And the alternate 21 is Bill Hill who's served a number of years in that 22 capacity. And this is going down to San Antonio and 23 networking with the various representatives that are 24 AACOG and on that committee, and being able to evaluate 25 grants, and if necessary even lobby for things that 36 1 might be more beneficial to Kerr County than -- 2 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Is this a paid 3 position? 4 JUDGE KELLY: No. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So Rosa's willing to 6 volunteer to do this? 7 JUDGE KELLY: Well, I visited with her. I 8 have another appointment with her tomorrow, so talk more 9 specifics depending on what we do here today. But as 10 you know, she and John spend a lot of this time of year 11 down in the Valley, and she's willing to drive back up 12 to attend these. So that level of dedication and 13 commitment, I felt like with her -- the history of her 14 expertise and it's on the CJAC Committee down AACOG that 15 she's been working with for years. We need to have at 16 least somebody as an alternate, in that alternate 17 position, that can speak on behalf of Kerr County. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And the thing is if we 19 approve this and something happens where she can't, we 20 can always change the position. 21 JUDGE KELLY: Absolutely. And God forbid, 22 we can always remove them if we need to. 23 COMMISSIONER BELEW: So in the event that 24 Patsy doesn't make it, Rosa would go, or she's in 25 attendance at all meetings? 37 1 JUDGE KELLY: Yes. Well, my understanding 2 is that Patsy and Mary Krebs have both been very 3 faithful in attendance. But in the event that Patsy 4 can't, we do have an alternate. And Bob did that -- 5 COMMISSIONER BELEW: And that's only for the 6 County, or either one of them that would be absent, Mary 7 or Patsy? 8 JUDGE KELLY: No. Just for that particular 9 seat, for Patsy's seat. Mary Krebs has her own 10 alternate, Bill Hill. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Move for approval of 12 appointing Rosa Lavender for the Kerr County 13 representative to the Alamo Area of Council of 14 Governments, AACOG, for the Criminal Justice Advisory 15 Committee. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just an alternate slot, 17 correct? 18 JUDGE KELLY: Yes. For the alternate spot, 19 yes. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay, I'll do that, 21 right. 22 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Second. 23 JUDGE KELLY: Okay, Commissioner Moser has 24 moved and Commissioner Harris has seconded that we 25 appoint Rosa Lavender to the alternate position for CJAC 38 1 Committee at AACOG. Any further discussion? 2 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Just I want to point 3 out, Judge, that it does not say that in the original 4 agenda item. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Doesn't say alternate. 6 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Does not say alternate. 7 JUDGE KELLY: No, I understand that. But 8 we're not removing Patsy Lackey, who is first. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Anyway, the motion 10 stands with alternate. 11 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. Those in favor raise 12 your hand. Opposed? Unanimous, five zero. 13 Item 1.18 consider, discuss and take 14 appropriate action to change the current job title for 15 the Crime Victims Assistance Coordinator position and 16 the Assistant Crime Victims Assistance Coordinator to 17 the Victims' Rights Coordinator and the Assistant 18 Victims' Rights Coordinator in order to eliminate 19 confusion for grant purposes, and amend court order 20 37155 to reflect the new job titles. This came to light 21 in the same conversation with Miss Lavender about the 22 different requirements of the -- what she calls VOCA, 23 and it's the victims -- I can't -- I don't remember the 24 acronym, but anyway it's what the whole crime victim 25 thing originates from the Federal Act. And there is a 39 1 word of art, a term of art, used in the Federal Statute 2 for a Crime Victims' Coordinator, and that is actually 3 part of the VOKA Act itself. And so the use of the word 4 rights, if you go back and look, I think we've even got 5 it in our materials here. It used to be crime victims 6 rights, and then when we received this recent grant, we 7 put it in there as Crime Victims Coordinator, which 8 confuses the requirement under the Federal statute on 9 whether or not we'll be disqualified from applying for 10 grants, because they have their own magic terms that 11 they use. So the proposal here is just to change the 12 job title from Crime Victims Assistance Coordinator to 13 be the Crime Victims Rights Coordinator and Assistant. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion to 15 approve the agenda item. 16 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Second. 17 JUDGE KELLY: Motion's been made by 18 Commissioner Letz and second by Commissioner Harris to 19 approve the change of the job title from Crime Victims 20 Assistance to Crime Victims' Rights Coordinator and 21 Assistant Coordinator. Is there any further discussion? 22 Those in favor raise your hand. Opposed? Unanimous, 23 five zero. 24 MRS. STEBBINS: It's Victims of Crime Act. 25 JUDGE KELLY: Victims of Crime Act, thank 40 1 you. 2 MRS. STEBBINS: You're welcome. 3 JUDGE KELLY: Somebody told me, I forgot. 4 It said VOCA, and I didn't know what it meant. 5 Item 1.19 consider, discuss and take 6 appropriate action to ratify and confirm the "FY 2020 7 Kerr County Improvement Grant Program Intent to Submit 8 Application" to the Texas Indigent Defense Commissioner 9 (TIDC) to help fund a Hill Country Regional Public 10 Defender Office for Bandera, Gillespie and Kerr 11 Counties, and the grant application is due May the 10th, 12 2019. 13 Again, I put this on the agenda because 14 we're just running out of time, and it's time to cuss 15 and discuss and figure out what we want to do. Let me 16 back up and talk -- remind you that we have discussed 17 before that there is an ad hoc committee, or a task 18 force, comprised of all of our prosecutors from both the 19 County and the District Courts, and the judges. We have 20 had both Judge Evans from Bandera, Judge Stroeher from 21 Fredericksburg participate in the process. 22 We have an acute shortage of attorneys that 23 are on the list to be appointed for court-appointed 24 counsel. This is important because I think as everybody 25 knows criminal defendants have the right to appointed 41 1 counsel. What everybody doesn't know is that 2 constitutional right is an unfunded mandate that passes 3 down to the counties. It bypasses the state and goes 4 directly to us. And it is in our budget that we have to 5 find the funds for these court-appointed counsel, and 6 it's over the years it's been quite extensive. And I 7 think probably oh, maybe was it ten years ago we looked 8 into a public defender's office and felt like that we 9 weren't able to sustain it at that point. 10 Just last week in Juvenile Court, which is 11 one of the low volume court-appointed dockets, the 12 Assistant County Clerk turned to me and told me that we 13 now have only two attorneys on the wheel for all of our 14 juvenile cases. 15 We have problems at the misdemeanor level in 16 particular. Judge Harris is the one that brought this 17 to our attention, and Judge Harris oversaw the request 18 for the study that was attached in the materials here to 19 the TIDC to let us know if they could help us on it. I 20 will confess that when I went to new judge school at the 21 end of January in Lubbock and discussed with my 22 mentor -- these judge's schools, as a mentee, they 23 assign us a mentor, and sit at the table to learn how to 24 do these new jobs that we've been elected to. And my 25 judge is Judge Evans in Bandera, who I've known for many 42 1 years and have a very good working relationship with. 2 And on Monday we talked about public defender's office, 3 and both typical Hill Country conservative judges, well, 4 we can't afford that. And by the end of the week, I 5 will tell you that they persuaded us otherwise, that we 6 really can't afford not to take a serious look at this. 7 This is not the application right now; this is just a 8 letter of intent to put us in line to make an 9 application if we so choose. The basis of this was a 10 presentation by Wesley Shackelford of the TIDC about the 11 grant funds that are available to help rural counties. 12 And this year there's over 16 million dollars worth of 13 funds that has already been appropriated and authorized 14 to be spent on indigent defense. There is a new Federal 15 act called the Fair Defense Act in which we are 16 presently -- I know, we can roll our eyes about it, but 17 the Feds tell us what we can and can't do, which we are 18 presently not in compliance. And that requires a 19 certain amount of training for each one of these 20 court-appointed counsels. And part of what the State is 21 trying to do is to provide some of the unfunded mandate 22 to the counties, and so these funds are being made 23 available to the counties. 24 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Does that include the 25 training of these attorneys for these new federal rules? 43 1 They've gotta be trained you said, there's some kind 2 of -- 3 JUDGE KELLY: I don't know if it's going to 4 include the training. The training is a six hour 5 course, and chief probation officer, Jason Davis has got 6 one of these courses scheduled for March the third with 7 the Kerr County Bar Association to try and train lawyers 8 who are willing to participate in the program. So we're 9 hoping to increase our certifications and become more in 10 compliance with the Fair Defense Act. But the whole 11 idea of being here that this is an opportunity for the 12 state to actually appropriate money and make it 13 available to counties to help us meet these unfunded 14 mandate obligations that we have. 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, Judge, for today 16 what we're doing, the letter of intent's been sent, so 17 what we're doing is asking to ratify and confirm that 18 letter of intent; it's not for the application itself. 19 JUDGE KELLY: Yes. This is me coming before 20 you asking for forgiveness rather than permission, 21 because it was due today. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I move for approval to 23 ratify our -- or ratify and confirm the letter of intent 24 for the FY 2020 Kerr County Improvement Grant Program in 25 the intent to submit the application thereof. 44 1 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Second. 2 JUDGE KELLY: There's been a motion made by 3 Commissioner Moser and seconded by Commissioner Belew to 4 approve the request as stated in the agenda item. Is 5 there any further discussion? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple questions I 7 have, Judge. And I'm not against doing this this 8 morning; it's just more informational. When would the 9 application go and when would this take place if we 10 proceeded? 11 JUDGE KELLY: The application's due May the 12 10th. And I got a call last week from Wesley 13 Shackelford reminding that we had not submitted our 14 letter of intent. And so Jody and I scrambled around 15 one late afternoon and got it on file, just to hold a 16 place in line in case we decided to submit the 17 application. As far as the actual fund itself, I'm sure 18 it will probably be when the legislature usually does 19 it, probably September 1. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So this would be for 21 next year this would be effective? 22 JUDGE KELLY: I think that's right. I'll 23 have to confirm that. 24 COMMISSIONER BELEW: So if we -- so it would 25 be part of the budgeting process if we have to come up 45 1 with more money for this. 2 JUDGE KELLY: I'll have to clarify that, but 3 that would be the hope. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other question 5 is, with that being said, we probably need at least one 6 workshop between now and May 10th. 7 JUDGE KELLY: Oh, yes. 8 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Another workshop. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: All the judges there. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And the reason is 11 I'm just interested in, you know, a couple of things. 12 You know, I don't know the answers. It's like we pay 13 court-appointed attorneys probably a third of what they 14 normally make, or half, or whatever. It's way below 15 market. If we increased that rate, would we have more 16 attorneys? That's my bottom line, my question is, is 17 the reason that we don't have -- can't get any attorneys 18 because we don't pay them, or that they just don't want 19 to do the work? 20 MRS. STEBBINS: The attorneys are -- 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: There's another 22 question how we prorate between the various counties. 23 What's it based on, the number of trials, or what's on 24 the docket, or does it vary every year? 25 JUDGE KELLY: Based on population. 46 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't need to get 2 into discussion. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: A workshop. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, a workshop. And 5 then another thing to discuss is if we get rid -- if we 6 go with the public defender office, I suspect we're 7 still going to have to hire outside attorneys. So my 8 question is, in the numbers does it account for that or 9 is it just like we don't have anymore outside attorneys? 10 And just looking at the numbers. 11 JUDGE KELLY: That study assumed that 85 12 percent of the caseload would be handled by the Public 13 Defender Office. And part of that is because when you 14 have multiple defendants the Public Defender Office is 15 only going to be able to take one and not the other, so 16 it will still be a limited budget for court-appointed 17 counsel. 18 But in response to your question, one of the 19 most common things that we see is in the Hill Country, 20 and I don't mean to offend anyone, especially not 21 myself, but our lawyer population is aging out. And 22 we've had a couple significant retirements lately here 23 in our local bar. And we frankly just don't have the 24 number of attorneys that we used to have. And the 25 influx of new attorneys is not keeping up with the aging 47 1 out of the mature attorneys. That's one of the 2 problems. 3 And as far as the rate goes for those of you 4 that don't know, at the County level we pay $70.00 an 5 hour for juvenile, I think, and the misdemeanors. And 6 they pay, I think, $75.00 an hour for felonies, which as 7 you know is a fraction of what the going rate is for our 8 attorneys. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Double or triple. Or 10 not triple -- yeah, probably triple depending on the 11 attorney you want. Anyway, those are things that I 12 think we need to talk about that, and a lot of other 13 things, because -- 14 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Needs to be a lot of 15 discussion. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's a -- you 17 know, I don't think it's going to save us money. It may 18 be a better route to go, but it may -- I don't think 19 there's a whole lot of savings. 20 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Workshop's needed. 21 JUDGE KELLY: Workshop's definitely needed. 22 But the idea was short term it will save us money. Long 23 term it will increase cost because we're going to have 24 more mouths to feed, there's no question about that. 25 Judge Evans and I met privately with a Wes Shackelford 48 1 there in Lubbock afterward, and based upon some of the 2 testimonials from the other counties -- and let me say 3 the State is particularly partial -- and probably need 4 to shut that down. 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: It's quieted. 6 JUDGE KELLY: The State is particularly 7 favorable toward multi-county rural public defender 8 offices. 9 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Shared cost. 10 JUDGE KELLY: Shared cost. And to try to 11 get a more unified standardized approach of the defense 12 of these cases region-wide. And I mentioned the 16 13 million that they have for this biennial, that's 8 14 million a year. The legislature works in bienniums. 15 There's another 16 million that the State has not 16 authorized for release that is being held on deposit, if 17 you will, by the State that they simply haven't 18 released. 19 In listening to the testimonials from the 20 other regional public defenders offices there at the 21 judges conference, it seems to be working quite well at 22 the multi-county model. And there's also optimism that 23 the state perhaps will go ahead and release more of the 24 $32,000,000.00 that they have. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's for this year 49 1 for those that have public defenders. 2 JUDGE KELLY: Well, the 16 is for this 3 biennium. The legislature works in two year intervals. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right, I got it. 5 JUDGE KELLY: There's another 16, that would 6 make it 32, that is still being held in escrow that the 7 state has not released to be used. But it is 8 specifically ear marked for public defender offices. 9 COMMISSIONER MOSER: For those which exist 10 today? 11 JUDGE KELLY: Yes. And if you look at the 12 study that they prepared for us, it was on the basis of 13 a four-year model grant of 80/20 the first year, 60/40, 14 and it goes on down until you get down to 20/80. Those 15 are four years. What TIDC is discussing are 16 sustainability grants that after the first two years 17 they're talking about the possibility; not promise, not 18 probability necessary at this point, but being able to 19 have a 50 percent sustainability grant as long as they 20 have the funding available, try to get the rural part of 21 the state in compliance with the Fair Defense Act. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So maybe when we have 23 the workshop we'll get some indication in the next 24 biennium of what that amount would be by the State 25 perhaps. Kellie will get that for us, I'm sure. 50 1 MS. EARLY: Sure. 2 JUDE KELLY: But lots to discuss. Or I say 3 discuss and cuss. Two edged-sword. Is there any 4 further discussion? Okay, there's a motion that's been 5 seconded on the table. Those in favor raise your hand. 6 Unanimous, five zero. 7 Okay, that closes out our agenda -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can go to 120. 9 JUDGE KELLY: 120, yes. The amendment, yes. 10 Item 120 consider, discuss and take appropriate action 11 to appoint the county representative to the Kerr County 12 Animal Services Advisory Board. Commissioner Letz. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You mentioned Phyllis 14 Allen who's a manager of Freeman-Fritts last meeting, 15 and since that meeting she has accepted, or agreed to 16 serve on that committee. So I make a motion that we 17 appoint Phyllis Allen to the Kerr County Animal Services 18 Advisory Board. 19 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Second. 20 JUDGE KELLY: Okay, been moved by 21 Commissioner Letz and seconded by Commissioner Harris to 22 approve Phyllis Allen of Freeman-Fritts as a member of 23 the Kerr County Animal Services Advisory Board. Any 24 further discussion? 25 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: That's the veterinary 51 1 role, right? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not the veterinary 3 role, she's the animal shelter manager role. 4 JUDGE KELLY: Okay, those in favor raise 5 your hand. Unanimous, five zero. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You to want take a break 7 now, Judge? 8 JUDGE KELLY: Yes. What I was going to do 9 let's take a break. For those of you that have come in 10 late, I see Mr. Gleason here, and I don't mean late to 11 your agenda item. We got ahead of schedule, and for 12 those of you that are keeping track with the agenda when 13 we return, we will -- at 10:15. We'll take about a 14 20-minute break. We will start with item 1.12, and 15 proceed from there. Court stands adjourned -- in 16 recess. 17 (Recess.) 18 JUDGE KELLY: I guess it was probably maybe 19 a couple months ago, at least a month, a month and a 20 half ago, I got a visit from Brady Wells, and talked 21 about UBEO making -- had made a proposal to the County 22 back last late summer, early fall that hadn't been 23 addressed. And we started checking around the 24 courthouse to see what our office equipment needs were. 25 And in the meantime been contacted by Xerox, 52 1 Larry Gleason is here, and also by DOCUmation. 2 Everybody wants to talk to us about our office 3 equipment, and the truth of the matter is the County 4 does have needs. And the the proposal last fall, I 5 guess early fall, was just a hair under $50,000.00. And 6 we've talked about it in our little information agendas 7 that we have on Thursday mornings, and it was close 8 enough that we decided that we wanted to do a request 9 for proposal. And we I understand that I think Xerox 10 has a special deal that you've been preapproved that we 11 don't have to have an RFP. But the County, I think, has 12 been discussing whether to have one or not. So that's 13 primarily what the topic is here, so I'll open the floor 14 up for discussion. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll start, you know, 16 and just a general comment, a couple of general 17 comments. We looked at this before, and always thought 18 it was a good idea, but it was always difficult to 19 figure out how to implement, so just kind of an 20 overview. The question, or the problem I think that I 21 always have, and this is when I start thinking about the 22 RFP, or RFQ for this is there are so many variables 23 exactly how you would do an RFP. So what exactly -- we 24 don't know -- I mean you'd have to go to every office, 25 to every machine and see exactly what they want and bid 53 1 it that way, unless there's a, you know -- and which 2 seems very cumbersome, a lot of time, involved, and put 3 the burden on us to do all that work. 4 Another option, and I look at the County 5 Attorney if we can do it this way, if we can just ask 6 them to submit proposals and we'll look at them and see 7 what fits us best. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: In my previous life, 9 okay, sometimes you can ask people to prepare, draft 10 RFP's, which you can use then to cut and paste, or 11 pattern what you need, and then use that. Make sure the 12 RFP isn't biased in favor of one person. So anyway, 13 it's a way to do it and really cut down on the 14 administrative effort. That's the way to get the 15 technical content in. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just -- that's a 17 way, but this seems like you have so many different 18 variables on this, you're going to have the machine, the 19 per copy, the maintenance, the cost of the ink. 20 COMMISSIONER BELEW: You can't get a good -- 21 and I think these sales guys will appreciate this. You 22 gotta know what your client needs before you make that 23 proposal; you can't -- you can throw out a bunch of 24 stuff and say this is a la carte, and here's Plan A, 25 Plan B, etc., but you really need to take their pulse 54 1 and get a good -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And if we're 3 going to do this, I want them to have to do all the 4 work; not us have to do all the work. 5 COMMISSIONER BELEW: We can do a 6 questionnaire, which might be helpful. I mean we could 7 inside the County send out e-mail questionnaires is the 8 only way -- I wouldn't want to go around and interview 9 everybody. But I'm sure it would help them to tailor a 10 proposal if they have some notion of what our needs are. 11 JUDGE KELLY: Well, let me kind of catch you 12 up on what happened. John Trolinger and I met with 13 Brady Wells and another fella, I forget his name right 14 now, and what I did with them was give them the action 15 plan to go talk to the departments and see what the 16 needs were. And I think they've done that. 17 But since then I've been contacted by two 18 competitors that are interested in this process, too, 19 and we welcome competition. You know, that's the 20 American way, so far. AOC hasn't changed that yet. 21 Pardon me for that political humor. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Full transparency is 23 what you said. 24 JUDGE KELLY: Absolutely, full transparency. 25 So I know that at least one of the bidders has done that 55 1 to the extent that the other bidders, if we're going to 2 do the bid process, but it's kind of hard for them to 3 bid without some kind of guideline as to what it is, and 4 we know at least one of the competitors has gone out to 5 talk to the counties -- or the county offices about 6 this. And what the other two choose to do is really I 7 guess kind of up to them. But in any event, I would 8 want all of our vendors to know that we are interested 9 in consolidating county office equipment contracts. 10 That is of benefit to us, and I think a benefit to the 11 vendors as well. 12 And the real question is how do we get 13 there. And the one person in the room who's remained 14 significantly silent through this is James Robles, 15 because historically the Audit Department, the Auditor, 16 has helped us with the RFP's. And for those of you that 17 don't know their plate is extremely full right now. And 18 so before we heap on them the request to prepare an RFP, 19 this is a chance for us to figure out what's the best 20 way to try to go about skinning this cat. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, I'd volunteer to 22 spend some time on that, and if we could do something 23 like getting a draft RFP's from potential vendors, and 24 circulating that -- draft a RFP and let them go out to 25 the department heads, or anybody else that's got 56 1 copiers, and submit -- and put the RFP out for bid. 2 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: You'd said that one 3 vendor's already gone through the process of checking 4 with our different offices, and what have you. 5 JUDGE KELLY: They have. 6 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Why don't we ask the 7 others to do the same thing. 8 JUDGE KELLY: At my direction as a matter of 9 fact. Because we had kind of a stale proposal that we 10 wanted to go back and make sure we knew who all was 11 interested in participating. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: The problem is then you 13 get apples and oranges, and then how you make an 14 assessment. 15 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: They went through the 16 process. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: You have to make a 18 selection. You gotta have some sort of criteria to use. 19 /HEUFRPLT. 20 MRS. STEBBINS: Last year Judge Pollard 21 asked each department head and elected officials to 22 permit one of the companies to come into their office 23 and assess their needs so they could make a proposal for 24 the entire County. And most of the departments did 25 that. Again, elected's don't have to do that. It was 57 1 suggested that we comply, and I think everyone did. But 2 that's how that happened, that they were asked to please 3 allow the company in to see what your needs were. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's fine, but I 5 think we need to have something definitive of what we 6 want, and then something by with which to measure the 7 proposals against. 8 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Well, that's why I 9 suggested a questionnaire, so if all the questions are 10 the same then all the answers are a little bit 11 different, you'll get an average basically and figure 12 out what most people want. It's probably pretty much 13 the same in most departments; not all, and then they 14 could work off of that. 15 JUDGE KELLY: Well, and the difference I see 16 between getting the proposed RFP's or proposals versus 17 the questionnaire is the burden of work here. 18 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Well, what I'm talking 19 about is this. Let me explain what I mean by the 20 questionnaire. Lets every department head get the 21 questionnaire, an e-mail, they just fill in the blanks, 22 send it back, and then you forward that on, here's what 23 our departments need. Here's what all of them said. 24 They can do what they want to do with the raw data. You 25 don't have to collate it for them. You don't have to 58 1 fill out the average, you don't have to make a graph or 2 anything like that. 3 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. So who prepares the 4 questionnaire? 5 COMMISSIONER BELEW: I don't know. 6 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I'm going to back to 7 what I think the process could be, should be. Let the 8 vendors provide a draft RFP, a draft, take it, collate 9 that into a single draft RFP for the County, okay, let 10 the department heads look at that with, you know, the 11 usage of their service, their copies, all that kind of 12 stuff, see if it fits the bill, and I'll be happy to do 13 that. And then send the RFP out for proposals. At 14 least we've got a common basis by with which to 15 evaluate. 16 COMMISSIONER BELEW: And disregarding what 17 we've already said. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, yeah. I mean I 19 don't know how to -- if you receive something, what do 20 do you with it? 21 COMMISSIONER BELEW: You'd have to eliminate 22 it. 23 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. Well, let's invite 24 vendor comment. If you would approach the lectern. This 25 is Brady Wells. 59 1 MR. WELLS: Brady Wells with UBEO. So some 2 of the challenges that we saw, right, so this was about 3 a six-month study, right, where we going through and 4 evaluate printers is sort of where this started, right. 5 So Larry and I had done a good job. Larry would compete 6 on copiers so we kept each other honest on, do you buy 7 Xerox, or do you buy it through me. 8 What hadn't been looked at was printing, so 9 just office printers. So that was the study was to go 10 through and take meter data from every device. The 11 county had a total 81 devices. It's a burden on IT to 12 support that many devices. It's a substantial number of 13 different consumables, right, so the county is buying 14 different -- there's no economy to scale. So the 15 challenge as a vendor is knowing that each elected 16 office is able to procure on their own, right, so how do 17 we look at the totality of the county at the same time 18 still allow individual purchasing. And then we saw in 19 some areas of the County, like in the Sheriff's office, 20 one of their most expensive devices is a fingerprint 21 printer. So the State provides them the printer, but 22 they're on the hook for the consumables, so that's not a 23 machine that we could replace or touch because it's a 24 state printer. So we see the same thing up in district 25 courts where that's a regional printer, so it's not as 60 1 simple as saying we need a 50-page a minute copier. 2 Larry you bid, and Brady you bid, and who's the best 3 fit, right. And I don't know if Larry wants to look at 4 printing, right. So in my past life, I was IKON. We 5 started out as IKON, IKON was purchased by Ricoh. I've 6 been a vendor with the county for 20 years. Larry and I 7 have competed during that time. The manufacture never 8 wanted to look at printers. But what the manufacture 9 wanted to do was say get rid of your printers and send 10 them to our copier. So as an independent at UBEO was to 11 allow so one to one replacement, don't get rid of your 12 printers, just use it at a cheaper cost. So that was 13 the program, and then when we started looking at the 14 others that can, you know help us with a copier. 15 So we're happy with it either way. It just 16 makes it very tricky to say, you know, you have 17 departments, Indigent Health, you know, Elections, Road 18 & Bridge. We have four printers at Road & Bridge, you 19 know, that ran four pages a month, one ran six pages a 20 month. Obviously, you can't make a business case on 21 those kind of devices. So if you look at it as a whole, 22 you can. But unless you start really dissecting the 23 county and saying you're part of the program, you're 24 not, you are, it's very hard to put it all together. So 25 what we've done since I met with Judge Kelly was to look 61 1 at it departmentally, and make a business case 2 departmentally. And Larry and I both -- we all work off 3 of pre-bid pricing, it's all-state pricing, so where 4 does it make sense? And I'm -- yeah, I think it's very 5 hard for the county to mandate just use me, right, I 6 think that's hard, yeah. You have 20-year relationships 7 with Larry, okay, so I'm fine with that. What we wanted 8 to do was look at printing, that was our goal is how do 9 we stop the bleeding of the county. It's been mentioned 10 for the last ten years is how do we save. 11 You know Larry and I can beat each other up 12 on copy machines and safe ten bucks a month. He knows 13 my price and I know his price. A copier is a copier is 14 a copier, and we both service you well. It's more on 15 the printing side is how we help. So that's the 16 challenge for y'all. 17 I've thought about it. I don't know how on 18 earth you'd structure a bid. You know, we're seven 19 months in on our side and still trying to figure out, 20 you know, participation -- 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: You said you don't know 22 how we'd structure an RFP? 23 MR. WELLS: No, Sir. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Really? 25 MR. WELLS: It'd be tricky because it's all 62 1 based upon -- it's not based upon usage. Right, it's 2 based upon usage; not upon need, right. So we can go 3 say, you know, an HP-4 printer there. You replace it 4 with an HP-4, but how many pages went through the 5 machine, how much did it consume? What are the -- you 6 know, there's a usage cost involved there. And that's 7 what that study provides is number one what are our 8 needs and what's the usage, and then if we don't have 9 participation and we're not buying that much consumable 10 then what is the price just for District Courts, or 11 County Clerk, or County, you know, they're all -- if 12 we're looking at economy as a scale without entire 13 participation it gets tricky. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But do you think there 15 would be cost savings based on the economy of scale? 16 MR. WELLS: Sure. You know cost savings 17 are -- 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So that's the 19 objective -- 20 MR. WELLS: It is. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And then the question 22 is how do we get to that end point? 23 MR. WELLS: So, and that -- so the two ways 24 to skin the cat, right, is you either say please 25 participate, right, to all your users, or if you just 63 1 say major county departments where most of the usage 2 comes from the -- you know, which also are your elected 3 officials, and they have a choice, right? And it'll 4 probably be the same way it normally is. Some folks 5 want to use Larry, some folks want to use me, right? 6 And I'm totally fine with that. We didn't put this over 7 to say we want it all, right, it's -- 8 JUDGE KELLY: Here's the dilemma -- 9 MR. WELLS: -- just how do we do our job. 10 JUDGE KELLY: We're interested. We're 11 interested, okay? We have a proposal. Before we do 12 anything we want to give the other vendors in town a 13 chance to compete. We think that's what's fair, that's 14 what's transparent. And so what do y'all propose? What 15 Commissioner Moser's suggesting is that y'all prepare -- 16 you craft your RFP's, draft RFP's, according to whatever 17 your needs or interests are, and submit them to us so 18 that we can evaluate it, because we need to try to 19 protect the tax dollar. We're glad that y'all are all 20 interested in helping us do that, and we want to partner 21 with somebody, and we may partner with you on some and 22 Larry on some or, you know, just whatever. Just how do 23 you bring that to us so that we can do it, and afford 24 the taxpayer the maximum benefit. That's our question. 25 And what I'm disinclined to do is to dump it 64 1 all off on James who's looking at me like please don't 2 do this to me. So any other input -- yes, Ma'am. 3 MS. STALEY: I'm Trish Staley with 4 DOCUmation. And I agree with Brady on what he's saying, 5 it's going to be an arduous process to be able to make 6 this happen. But I think the most fair process is once 7 again that assessment process. Take the burden off you, 8 and put the burden on individual vendors. We at 9 DOCUmation look at both print needs and copy needs, and 10 keep them separate. We don't want to look at separate 11 devices because it doesn't always make sense to have a 12 printer sitting next to a copier. So I think it goes 13 back to that assessment process. What is everybody 14 needing, why are they using it, where are those devices, 15 is it what you need, or is it what you have. And that 16 burden comes back on us, that's what we do. That's our 17 line of expertise is doing that assessment process. In 18 the end, you're right, we might have a few apples to 19 oranges, and that's the way it's going to happen. But 20 the most critical part is how do we put it together so 21 we aren't all off key. 22 There's another city down the road from here 23 that simply, they know what they have, and they simply 24 came across and said you know for an RFP we're going to 25 say we need ten-45 page per minute multi function, 11 by 65 1 17, five color and six black and white. And they were 2 very generic. But we all know that those 45 page per 3 minute machines will do the job, but they took the 4 burden themselves to do that. And in this case if you 5 want to eliminate that it's where the individual 6 companies come in and we all say okay, these are the 8 7 offices, 20 offices, that you are going to assess. 8 You're going to assess the copy needs, and you're going 9 to assess the print needs. And there's a lot of times 10 where we can consolidate those devices because you're 11 over burdened with printers versus copiers, and at the 12 end of the day if you can consolidate those and drive 13 usage to a different machine, then that's where the 14 money or the cost saving is going to be. So I go back 15 and say, you know, it is going to be -- the labor's 16 going to be on the individual companies that want to -- 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: For clarification, let 18 me ask you a question. So you are saying -- when you 19 say make an assessment, you mean everybody that would 20 want this business to go throughout the County and make 21 an assessment, and then come to the County with a 22 proposal based on six assessments, let me just -- 23 MS. STALEY: There must -- 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: -- choose a number. 25 Let me finish. Six assessments, or however many there 66 1 are, and then here's my proposal to you based on my 2 assessment, so now we have got six different things, 3 okay, that we have to -- and then make a decision on. 4 MS. STALEY: Yes and No. Unless you, the 5 county, know enough about what individual devices you 6 have to say this is -- these are the devices we want you 7 to propose on, then we come in and propose on those 8 devices. Unless you want to use -- without his actual 9 numbers, Brady's information, he's done the assessment 10 for us all, fortunate or unfortunate as it may be. We 11 all simply prefer to do our own assessment, and we've 12 done it many times as competitors of one another, even 13 where we come in and we look at things, because we all 14 look at things differently. Is what you have and that's 15 what we're bidding on, or is it what you need. But to 16 take away that burden from the county it's either yes, 17 allowing us all to come in and assess what the 18 environment looks like, or using someone current 19 assessments that's already been done, taking out the 20 numbers, and saying these are the individual devices, 21 there's 25 copiers or multi-function devices, and 22 there's 58 printers, give us a price. And it'll be 23 based on usage, it'll be based on -- you know, volume's 24 always so important not so much speed of the machines, 25 but the usage on the machines. 67 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Sounds like what 2 Larry's done would be the basis the draft RFP. 3 MS. STALEY: Right, he's done the leg work. 4 MR. Wells: So some of the issues that again 5 Trish doesn't know because she haven't -- you haven't 6 been here, right. So most of your machines are under 7 contract through Larry or I, so from a replacement 8 standpoint on copiers or MFP's, we're not looking at 9 replacing that at all. This is strictly around a 10 footprint, and then the process normally was how do you 11 handle your copiers when you have a need, and normally 12 it's Larry and I submit something, and a department says 13 Xerox, or us. And so we're not looking at what would 14 normally you'd look at in a large county or city or 15 whatever, where we're saying we need to do an 16 assessment, send us all your contracts, send us all your 17 agreements, and let's put you in some kind of schedule 18 of equipment. You know, we kept current on all of that. 19 JUDGE KELLY: Y'all see our dilemma? 20 MR. STALEY: Absolutely. We do do business 21 a little bit differently. We are looking at -- we do a 22 true evaluation of your current agreements as you will 23 if that's what's in place, is there a way to cut cost, 24 is there a way to lower monthly spending. The machine 25 that DOCUmation here is an owned machine and you own it, 68 1 you only have it on maintenance. 2 JUDGE KELLY: But the real problem that we 3 have is time. 4 MS. STALEY: Absolutely. 5 JUDGE KELLY: Larry, we haven't heard from 6 you, why don't you talk to us. 7 MR. GLEASON: Okay. My name's Larry 8 Gleason, I'm the Xerox Field Agent here. I understand 9 now putting it all under one bucket and see if you can 10 get the best value, less cost. The benefit of using the 11 state contracts that Xerox has participated on for 12 years, and IKON and the rest of them, it allows the 13 county political subdivisions to be able to buy off that 14 contract which has been negotiated statewide for all of 15 the business that they participate that that vendor will 16 pull through. Consequently those costs are lowered. 17 I've seen -- we've had RFP's for some of my customers. 18 They go out for an RFP, and they come back in higher 19 than what the state contract pricing would have been if 20 they would have just participated on that contract. 21 That allows the department heads to be able to use 22 whatever vendor they may want, buy whatever they want 23 instead of having to roll that piece of equipment in at 24 the same maturity level, and they can pick and choose 25 what they want and still participate and meet the legal 69 1 ramifications for state bid, and keep the cost structure 2 very inexpensive compared if they bought it through an 3 RFP process. 4 JUDGE KELLY: And we appreciate that as 5 competitors, and y'all are talking nicely but you still 6 want to win the contract. We understand, right? We 7 understand that's the nature of the beast. We've got 8 one of the competitors that's done a lot of foot work on 9 this thing, came around and did it twice as a matter of 10 fact. He did the initial time, and then once he talked 11 to me, I said you better go back and check, so he did, 12 and time is of the essence. 13 So what is the suggestion as to how we move 14 forward quickly to try to get something so that we can 15 evaluate where to go with this, because we have a need. 16 In fact today before y'all got here, we approved one 17 contract that we just simply we couldn't wait on. It 18 was -- we had to do it right now. So I'm curious as to 19 what input can y'all give as to how we do this in a 20 timely manner. 21 MR. GLEASON: If it were our company, we 22 usually call it assessment like she was talking about 23 where you basically you plug into the server, the county 24 server, and asses all of the volumes of all of the 25 printers, everything that sits on a network, whether it 70 1 be printer multi function, a copier printer devices, 2 everything. And then you go through a process of 3 evaluating the the needs of each department talking to 4 department heads, just like they did, so it's time 5 consuming. He's done a lot of the footwork on the 6 printer side. 7 JUDGE KELLY: But the good news is the 8 departments are up to speed. They've taken a look at 9 it. The elected offices have taken a look at it at my 10 request, I circulated a memo countywide, asked everybody 11 to take a look at it, so they're educated, semi-educated 12 at least at this point. What we're looking at is how 13 much time do you need to do whatever you think you need 14 to do, or whatever DOCUmation needs to do, what are we 15 looking at here, because ultimately once I hear the 16 recommendations from the three of you, I gotta to look 17 to our IT guy and say what works, what works for us? 18 MR. GLEASON: Probably take us 30 days 19 because we try to want to do a 30-day count on a meter 20 reading, and then you'll have the process for paperwork, 21 proposal. 22 JUDGE KELLY: Is DOCUmation 30 days? 23 MS. STALEY: I think 30 days would suffice. 24 I certainly think putting something on the server gives 25 you usage most definitely, but it doesn't give you 71 1 particulars on the devices. Great, it's nice to know 2 that the Department A has ten thousand impressions in 3 their usage, but do they need copy only, do they need -- 4 JUDGE KELLY: And I don't mean to be 5 disrespectful in anyway, but we don't need any more 6 complications; we need simplifications. 7 Let me ask, John, you see my dilemma, our 8 dilemma. We're struggling with how do we manage this 9 process of trying to get an economy of scale with our 10 office equipment. What's your input? 11 MR. TROLINGER: I think if we could take all 12 three vendors like we have now, we've got the ideal 13 situation, because I'm hearing all three are saying the 14 things that we need for all these different offices. We 15 have really complex printing needs. Let's say the 16 Engineering Department where they've got an expensive, 17 you know, spec blotter, and we've got the County Clerk 18 that's got at least three major functions with three 19 different major printing needs. So DOCUmation's right. 20 You can't just look at the count and say hey, you need 21 ten of these; you have to look and see if they're 22 printing birth certificates, and they have to have that 23 special -- 24 JUDGE KELLY: How do we expedite that 25 assessment process? 72 1 MR. TROLINGER: So the initial 30 days seems 2 fair. I don't know if that's the case for DOCUmation. 3 MS. STALEY: That will work. 4 MR. TROLINGER: I think 30 days is a fair 5 time period that the other vendors could come in and 6 evaluate the offices that we're asking for, and that 7 Commissioner Moser's graciously volunteered his time to 8 evaluate these proposals. 9 JUDGE KELLY: So what would be the next step 10 that you would propose at this time? If we're looking 11 at possible 30-day assessment period, what would be the 12 next step? 13 MR. TROLINGER: Well, the request for 14 proposal is just that, it's the Kerr County saying we're 15 asking for proposals, and please come in and evaluate 16 our systems and then make those proposals so we can 17 start with that. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So let me back up and 19 see if this fits. Another way to to do it instead of 20 having an RFP -- a RFP that you send out and they give 21 response, is to have each one of the potential suppliers 22 make an assessment, then come in and say here's our 23 assessment and here's our proposal. Now then, it'll be 24 a little bit apples and oranges that way, but probably 25 won't be that different, and you don't need the RFP. 73 1 MR. TROLINGER: That is the fastest way to 2 go. 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: That's the fastest way 4 to go. 5 JUDGE KELLY: Tell me what that -- 6 MR. TROLINGER: To invite the other two 7 vendors come in and make their evaluations, assessment. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Make their assessment 9 and then have a proposal coming in from all three, and 10 it'll be somewhat apples and oranges, but we could 11 probably make a decision at that point. 12 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Well, I still go back 13 to my concern is, you can look at the server, you can 14 see how many times something was used. Are we missing 15 out on either things that the departments wish they 16 could do that aren't able to do right now, which you 17 won't be able to tell by looking at that server data, or 18 are they satisfied with what they have, are there some 19 things they don't do or have to do the hard way because 20 we don't make it possible for them to do it the easy 21 way. 22 MR. TROLINGER: Right. Being able to find 23 out if hey, they wanted to be able to e-mail and fax and 24 all off this one machine and -- 25 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Scan, e-mail, fax, all 74 1 that sort of stuff. So just looking at that server data 2 is not going to give you that. 3 MR. WELLS: And that's what turns a 4 one-month study into a six-month study. I've said the 5 same thing, I've said it to Judge Pollard, you know, can 6 I have 30 days, and, yes. And then we have many 7 different printers and that are inexpensive maybe to one 8 department, but they're located in four different places 9 in the county. And it's difficult that way. And then 10 the normal RFP when you publish it, it would be a long 11 process, and normally the data in your case what it's 12 going to come back is Larry and I have the agreements on 13 the copiers, and long-term contracts, so the due 14 diligence there is done, but what's really hanging in 15 the balance are your printers. 16 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Well, do you guys have 17 a survey where you can ask, and I'm using that word 18 generically but some way to ask department heads what 19 else -- what other needs do you have that you don't 20 currently -- yes, Ma'am. 21 MS. STALEY: Through our assessment process, 22 and that's why it's so important to actually be on-site, 23 and do the due diligence of talking with the users, what 24 are you currently doing, what are some of the things 25 that are inhibiting you. Because you're right, do they 75 1 need to have scan to e-mails, is the closest scan to 2 e-mail down the hallway and to the left. Those are 3 things that we uncover and it is a long process, I kid 4 you not. And we want to know what we're missing, and 5 what is the delay, what are the hindrances, so it is 6 talking to those users. A lot of times, too it's okay 7 what's your wish list. Wish list is a wish, I wish I 8 had color, but it's the key details of the devices that 9 are going to be prudent to do an evaluation. 10 MR. WELLS: And the other part of that is 11 assessment, when we did this in the district court for 12 example, a large machine that came from a probation 13 office it was, you know, kind of to the district courts 14 it had never been looked at before because it's owned. 15 And then when you do the assessment and the contract 16 discovery on that printer that Larry and I are charging 17 the County normally somewhere in the half a cent range, 18 six and seven tenths, and that one's going to cost the 19 County 4 cents a page. So it's far more expensive to 20 service and support than that new machine under a 21 service and support agreement, so everything we're 22 saying -- 23 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Everything upstairs is 24 more expensive. 25 MR. GLEASON: And then you have the existing 76 1 contracts that are out. In my case there's quite a 2 number of machines, some of them -- about 2/3 have been 3 renewed so if through this RFP process those balances 4 will have to be figured in or into the price of the 5 contract, and those contracts don't just go away, they 6 have to be factored in, so and in that sense it could 7 cost more in the long run. 8 MR. WELLS: And we're not suggesting that. 9 MR. GLEASON: Yeah, right. 10 MR. WELLS: And in our proposal it's -- 11 we're not trading in a car, and at what business can we 12 touch now, and not look at, you know, contracts where 13 we're having to charge the county to buy them out of 14 those contracts -- 15 COMMISSIONER BELEW: So by necessity this 16 will be piecemeal. 17 MR. WELLS: In a way. We can bid it a 18 million ways under the sun, but at the end of the day 19 you're still going to come up with Larry has a lot of 20 contracts and I have a lot of contracts, and -- 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So bottom line there's 22 multi variables here, there's printers, there's copiers, 23 there's existing contracts with different durations, and 24 there's usage. 25 MR. WELLS: Yes. 77 1 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So those four major 2 things. So I can see, you know, that's what we're 3 trying to do is trying to normalize all of that, so at 4 some point in the future, we could have a contract to 5 take care of everything in the county, but right now to 6 transition for that it's going to be very difficult. 7 But some place you gotta start, if you think it's worth 8 it. 9 MR. WELLS: Right. And then the follow-up 10 question to that is let's say that, you know, the award 11 is for UBEO, right, and I know Larry has great relations 12 with some of the County, right, and that elected 13 official will not want to use us. And I feel it's 14 totally fair that Larry is able to compete for that 15 business, so at the today end of the day, what does a 16 RFP resolve? 17 JUDGE KELLY: Let me ask a question. I'm 18 trying to cut through this. I think we can debate this 19 all afternoon. 20 JUDGE KELLY: If we're talking about 30 days 21 to be able to -- whether it's piecemeal or whole hog it 22 doesn't matter to me, within 30 days we oughta be able 23 to look at proposals that all of you would be interested 24 in making to us. Is that basically a fair 25 understanding? 78 1 MR. WELLS: Pretty much. 2 JUDGE KELLY: Today is March the 11th. We 3 meet on the second and -- Commissioners' Court regular 4 sessions are on the second and fourth Mondays. The 5 fourth Monday would be April the 22nd. Would it be 6 realistic for us to set a deadline for you to get us 7 your proposals number one, first priority as soon as 8 possible so that we can analyze them and digest them, 9 but no later than April the 15th, which is that third 10 Monday, and then we'll put this on the agenda item for 11 action on the 22nd. Will that work for everybody? 12 MS. STALEY: Yes. 13 MR. GLEASON: I guess so. 14 JUDGE KELLY: Okay, then I'll make a motion 15 that we allow our three office equipment competitors to 16 complete their assessment and have us the final proposal 17 by April the 15th, and to put an action item on the 18 agenda for April the 22nd to address this issue. 19 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Second. 20 JUDGE KELLY: So I made a motion. It's been 21 seconded by Commissioner Harris. Is there any other 22 discussion? Those in favor raise your hand. Four zero, 23 unanimous. Those of the quorum present. 24 Okay, thank you. You got your work cut out 25 for you. Thank for all you've done. Play nice together 79 1 is all we ask you to do, but we want the lowest price, 2 so thank you. 3 Next item on the agenda is item 1.13 4 consider, discuss and take appropriate action on 5 interpretation of Kerr County Subdivision Rules and 6 Regulations in regards to Section VI, page 47, Paragraph 7 6.07B, and State of Texas Local Government Code, Title 8 7. Subtitle A. Municipal Regulatory Authority, Chapter 9 212 Municipal Regulation of Subdivisions and Property - 10 A. Regulation of Subdivisions 212.014. That's what's on 11 the agenda. What is this about? 12 MR. SHANN: Yes, Sir. I'm Rick Shann, and 13 Steve Stang. We live in West Kerr County in Canyon 14 Springs Subdivision, and we need help interpreting the 15 Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations regarding 16 replatted property. Previous boards had viewed 17 replatted properties as one lot. Current Board however 18 sees -- the current Board says the original plats in 19 subdivisions is used to determine the lots in the 20 subdivision because the original plat is called out in 21 the deed restrictions. What we're having a hard time 22 doing there are five lots that were recombined, or 23 either they split a lot or combined two lots, so as the 24 count goes through, they don't take -- the current view 25 is they don't take in consideration the replats, which 80 1 if you look at the statutes for the county and state the 2 replats govern over the original plats, so what we're 3 seeing is we need to take the -- or ask do we need to 4 take the replats is what the rules and regulations say 5 is governing over the plats that are stated in the deed 6 restrictions. 7 JUDGE KELLY: Have you talked to County 8 Engineer about this? 9 MR. SHANN: Yes, I did. 10 JUDGE KELLY: Okay, Charlie, what's the 11 deal? 12 MR. SHANN: He said there was -- 13 JUDGE KELLY: He's here. Let's hear what he 14 has to say. 15 MR. HASTINGS: My response was this was a 16 civil issue between the homeowners out there and their 17 Board, because they're trying to get an interpretation 18 that they can then apply towards their deed restrictions 19 and -- 20 MR. SHANN: For the maintenance fees. The 21 maintenance fees are based on $100.00 a year per lot. 22 They don't take into consideration the replats, which 23 the state regulations say govern over the original 24 plats. 25 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, can't a 81 1 homeowners association do what they want to with the 2 certain percentage of the land owners changing it? I 3 mean they've got that -- and correct me if I'm wrong 4 here, County Attorney, but having being President of a 5 homeowners association, landowners association, that's 6 what our governing documents say. We can change it 7 however we want to. 8 MR. SHANN: Well, to change the deed 9 restrictions, yes, that's true. But we're applying the 10 county rules and regulations. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: It's up to the Board, 12 your Board, to decide that. 13 MR. SHANN: Well, that's the problem. We've 14 decided it one way one time, and then we elect new 15 officials, they decided another way. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But that's your issue. 17 JUDGE KELLY: Yeah. We don't want to get 18 involved in your business. 19 COMMISSIONER BELEW: You're looking for 20 clarification here that we can't give you. 21 JUDGE KELLY: Allow me to think like a 22 lawyer for a minute. I'm a recovering attorney at this 23 point. Whatever the State Code says, it's not up for us 24 to interpret; that's state law. You go to a state court 25 and they'll tell you what it means; we don't tell you 82 1 that. 2 MR. SHANN: What about County? 3 JUDGE KELLY: Whatever our policy is, we 4 establish policy; we do not interpret that policy. If 5 you want to interpret that policy you can go to the 6 courts to find out and have them interpret it. If you 7 want us to change the policy you can petition for a 8 policy change. Do we have a policy that specifically 9 addresses this, Charlie? 10 MR. HASTINGS: No, Sir. 11 JUDGE KELLY: I mean my general recollection 12 is that replats govern, replats control. Once we have 13 approved replat it is what it is, that's our position. 14 We don't want to be drawn into these individual -- 15 MR. SHANN: That's all time asking, do the 16 replats control? 17 JUDGE KELLY: Replats control, I think 18 that's the law. That's what our policy says. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: But that's from a 20 county perspective; from a homeowners association that's 21 up to you. 22 JUDGE KELLY: If you're asking us what the 23 county's going to do, we're going to stand by the 24 replats, period. 25 MR. SHANN: Okay. 83 1 JUDGE KELLY: And then what y'all do with 2 regard to your fees that's an internal matter for y'all 3 to decide among yourselves. No disrespect, just saying 4 that we can't get involved in micromanage these 5 homeowners associations out there and restrictive 6 covenant, and we're not going to do that. 7 MR. SHANN: And that's not what we're 8 asking; we're just asking you what your interpretations 9 of the replats are, and they govern over -- 10 JUDGE KELLY: Charlie, am I missing 11 something? 12 MR. HASTINGS: No, Sir. A replat governs. 13 That's what state law says, and that's what our 14 regulations say. When they come in and they revise a 15 plat, that plat now governs. The old one you can throw 16 it away. 17 JUDGE KELLY: I hope that helps. 18 MR. SHANN: Yeah, it helps me. 19 JUDGE KELLY: It doesn't give you the 20 definitive answer. 21 MR. SHANN: No, and that's fine. I wasn't 22 asking for that; I was asking in your opinion what the 23 replat governs over, and that's exactly what it says. 24 JUDGE KELLY: We're always open to revisit 25 policy if policy needs to be changed, but I don't view 84 1 this has a agenda item for us to consider some sort of 2 policy change. We're just looking at what the policy 3 is. And I think we've stated what we believe it is, and 4 if the Court disagrees with that, they can tell us so. 5 MR. SHANN: What court would that be? 6 JUDGE KELLY: Well, because it involved 7 land, my guess is the district court, but I would defer 8 to my County Attorney on that. 9 MRS. STEBBINS: That's correct. Yes, that's 10 correct. 11 MR. SHANN: Thank you. 12 JUDGE KELLY: If we can be of further help 13 let us know. 14 MR. SHANN: That's what I wanted to hear. 15 JUDGE KELLY: We wish you the best. Let us 16 know what you come up with. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Sorry you had to wait 18 so long. 19 MR. SHANN: That's all right. 20 JUDGE KELLY: But you're always welcome. 21 A timed item at 10:30 is running about 30 22 minutes behind schedule is the last item we have on the 23 regular part of the agenda 1.14 consider, discuss and 24 take appropriate action regarding Kerr County Tax 25 resales. 85 1 MR. REEVES: Good morning, gentlemen. On 2 March 5th, last Tuesday, four properties were put up for 3 auction for delinquent taxes. Of those four, three were 4 actually sold at the courthouse steps, and we're not 5 concerned on those since the Sheriff signed the deeds 6 for the three that were sold. The one that was not sold 7 is now under the trust of Kerr County. I have with me 8 Sergio Garcia, who is our delinquent tax attorney out of 9 Austin. 10 JUDGE KELLY: And may the record reflect 11 that he's dressed in Hill Country attire. 12 COMMISSIONER MOSER: He's not delinquent. 13 MR. REEVES: He tries to do that when comes 14 to visit me, Judge. 15 MR. GARCIA: Spring break attire. 16 MR. REEVES: The County may sell a property 17 without prior approval of the taxing entities that are 18 involved with it if 100 percent of the judgment amount 19 is bid. If the amount bid is less than the judgment 20 amount then I have to go and get approval from each 21 taxing entity that's involved with the property. 22 On April 12th, 1999 the Kerr County Judge 23 was authorized to sign any deed for the sale of 24 properties taken pursuant to a tax foreclosure. In 25 other words, one such as we have held in trust. That 86 1 was by court order 25826. 2 On June 2nd, 2014 the above referenced court 3 order was discussed in Commissioners' Court, no action 4 was taken to change or modify said court order. I've 5 attached minutes to your backup regarding that. Since 6 we have three new members of the Court, and right now 7 there is only one on the Court that was there, since 8 Commissioner Letz excused his self, I seek guidance 9 regarding if they wish to continue the practice as 10 outlined in the court order. 11 I've also attached a draft resale agreement. 12 What I'm basically asking, gentlemen, is we received 13 sealed bids for this one property that was not sold at 14 the courthouse door. If we receive a hundred percent of 15 the judgment amount, which is delinquent taxes, court 16 fees, etc., does the Court wish to continue the court 17 order that's in effect whereas the County Judge is 18 authorized to sign the deed after consulting with 19 myself? So I seek guidance from you, and I only bring 20 this since there is a majority of new members on the 21 court since it was discussed five years ago. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: What would be the 23 reason to change? 24 MR. REEVES: Sergio? 25 MR. GARCIA: You know, I think it is a 87 1 process that has been working well, so I don't see a 2 reason -- or I'm not making a recommendation to change 3 it. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So what Bob is asking 5 for is really a confirmation of the court order. 6 MR. GARCIA: Correct. 7 MR. REEVES: That is correct. I only ask 8 that that where this comes up is while if we sell one, 9 we offer it with no warranty whatsoever, but a 10 subsequent sale of that property that is purchased may 11 seek title insurance, and I'm not practicing law, 12 Counselor, I'm being a realtor for a change, okay? 13 MRS. STEBBINS: Okay. 14 MR. REEVES: They're looking for a title 15 policy. They'll need some kind of paper trail showing 16 to the Judge who's authorized to sign that first deed. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: And right now he is. 18 MR. REEVES: And he is. And I was just 19 since we have not had one of these since 2014, and once 20 again with the new majority of the Court, I came to seek 21 your guidance. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, I think the full 23 wisdom and counsel of the previous Commissioners' Court 24 probably stands, but anyway -- 25 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: I agree. I just had a 88 1 related question. How's this information gotten out to 2 the public as far as when these come up, Bob? 3 MR. REEVES: As far as what we had last 4 week, all by statute. They're published in the local 5 newspaper, they're posted at, I believe, in this case -- 6 well, the Sheriff's gone. In this case they're posted 7 at the Sheriff's Office as well, as on the property 8 themselves, as well as on Mr. Garcia's website with his 9 law firm. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So five different 11 things. 12 MR. REEVES: We had of the three that sold, 13 they all sold substantially more than the taxes that 14 were owed. The excess funds are on deposit with the 15 District Clerk, and will be distributed in accordance 16 with the statute. 17 And please understand nobody was forcing 18 anybody out of a house. Two -- well actually, one of 19 them that did not sell, and two of them that did, the 20 cases were unknown heirs that taxes -- 21 COMMISSIONER BELEW: So the process if one 22 doesn't sell in the courthouse steps by auction, 23 basically an auction, then the next step is to take 24 sealed bids. And what's the process on that, Bob? 25 MR. REEVES: The attorney's office will 89 1 handle accepting sealed bids, advertising on their 2 website as well as it's picked up by other internet 3 companies that see them for sale, what have you. They 4 accept sealed bids on it. There's no set time by law 5 that we have to look at them. I believe in this 6 instance we're looking until the end of March. 7 MR. GARCIA: That is what we've been telling 8 bidders. We've had a couple people approach us and 9 we're saying look at it, and we'll give you until the 10 end of the month to submit your bid. 11 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Now, if the sealed bid 12 -- does the sealed bid have to at least cover the taxes 13 that are owed or -- 14 JUDGE KELLY: No. 15 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Or just whatever, just 16 the highest bid? 17 MR. REEVES: But we don't have to accept 18 every bid. We can reject any and all bids, is a better 19 way to put it. But if there is a bid that we feel in 20 this certain property that it would be beneficial to all 21 entities to go ahead and accept an amount less than the 22 taxes are owed, then I would have to come before the 23 Court, the respective school district. In this instance 24 it's Ingram ISD, the ESD, and the water district to get 25 approval from their Board. 90 1 JUDGE KELLY: And then we share pro rata 2 what the deficiency was. 3 MR. REEVES: It would be pro rata share of 4 it. So now on the other hand the county being the one 5 who's holding it in trust is responsible for the mowing 6 of the yard, the securing of the facility. That cost 7 can be added to the judgment amount for any 8 consideration, because it does cost our staff a certain 9 amount of money to go out and mow. The last one that 10 was held in 2014, the Maintenance Director at that time 11 kept a list of -- well, it was a vacant lot, took us 12 three hours to mow, weed eat, clean it up, my staff's 13 hourly wage is this, so we added that to the cost. 14 JUDGE KELLY: Let me first of all say that 15 thank you for your usual thorough documentation in 16 support of this issue. It was entertaining just to be 17 able to read the thoroughness with which this has been 18 addressed in the past, and I commend you for that. 19 Secondly, I took particular note with Mr. 20 Shiever's description of an incident he had down in 21 Brazoria County where it actually went to auction, and 22 what had been bid in around $10,000.00 came in at 23 $90,000.00 at the auction. As we all know real estate 24 shoppers at these sales are shopping. And we don't have 25 to accept the bids at this point, we can reject the bids 91 1 and go ahead and put it up for auction just like they 2 did in that example in the transcript, which I think for 3 Kerr County, I think we're pretty proud of our dirt and 4 rocks here, so that might be a possibility. 5 MR. REEVES: The three that did sell were 6 very competitive, very active bidding and, you know, as 7 it comes back the County is only entitled to the amount 8 of the taxes in the judgment, the court costs, etc. So 9 there is very active bidding on all three. 10 JUDGE KELLY: And just like we were talking 11 about in Commissioner's Belew's question, if the bid 12 comes in lower than the judgment amount then we share 13 pro rata in the deficiency. 14 MR. REEVES: That's correct. 15 JUDGE KELLY: And if we happen to auction 16 the property and it comes in like they did in the 17 example that Mr. Shiever talked about, we would share 18 pro rata again the overage. 19 COMMISSIONER BELEW: So what would be the 20 criteria for rejecting the sealed bid? 21 JUDGE KELLY: That's up to us. 22 COMMISSIONER BELEW: What standard is there? 23 JUDGE KELLY: That's up to us, it's 24 subjective. 25 MR. REEVES: It's very subjective. And I 92 1 would, to be honest, I'd have to look at my experience 2 in the industry whether the bid is reasonable or not. 3 And also, while holding cost, we're not having to pay 4 taxes at this point on it, but other holding costs are 5 maintenance, the damage to the property, is a good 6 business decision to hold on to it or not. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Just a business 8 decision. 9 MR. REEVES: And if it is below, then I 10 would come and explain to the Court my criteria, because 11 each property would be different, Commissioner. I would 12 come explain to the Court why or why not we should 13 accept a lower bid, and that and a dollar will buy you a 14 cup of coffee. 15 JUDGE KELLY: Not a dollar? 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Not even at dollar. 17 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Not even at Mini Mart. 18 JUDGE KELLY: But to further clarify when he 19 says the county holds in trust, we do have a fiduciary 20 duty to the other tax entities, the other stakeholder in 21 this, so that's the trust part of it that we're going to 22 have to work with them whether we accept a deficiency 23 or put it up for auction and try to get an overage. 24 It's something that we have to make sure that they're 25 interest is protected along the way. 93 1 COMMISSIONER BELEW: So the incentive then 2 is to be good neighbors to the other taxing entities 3 and try to help everybody not share expense. 4 JUDGE KELLY: I think the limited issue 5 before us today is do we stick with the prior court 6 order and not change our procedure, let the Tax 7 Assessor-Collector hold these in trust for us and allow 8 us to continue the way that we have traditionally, or do 9 we want to make it more office specific and handle it a 10 different way? 11 MR. REEVES: And as the order read it was 12 Tax Assessor-Collector; it did not read by name, so no 13 action is the same as affirming. 14 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. So that's what 15 I was going to get to, no action is required if we do 16 nothing. 17 JUDGE KELLY: No. I'm proposing that we do 18 take action to affirm. 19 COMMISSIONER BELEW: To affirm it. Does 20 that require a new court order? 21 JUDGE KELLY: No. What we're going to just 22 do is reaffirm the prior court order so that the future 23 Commissioners' Court can go back and see that we 24 revisited this issue once again and once again we like 25 the procedure that we have in place, and as Darrell 94 1 Royal would want to say, if it ain't broke don't fix it. 2 So I would make a motion that we that we reaffirm the 3 prior court order, whatever number it was. 4 MR. REEVES: 25826. 5 JUDGE KELLY: And continue that procedure in 6 the future. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Second. 8 JUDGE KELLY: So I've made the motion and 9 Commissioner Moser has seconded. Is there any further 10 discussion? Those in favor raise your hand. Four zero. 11 MR. REEVES: Thank you, gentlemen. 12 JUDGE KELLY: Thank you. Good job. 13 Getting over to 4.1 on the agenda, the 14 approval agenda, pay bills. 15 MR. ROBLES: No, Sir, not today. 16 JUDGE KELLY: Budget amendments? 17 MR. ROBLES: Not today. 18 JUDGE KELLY: 4.3 late bills? 19 MR. ROBLES: No, Sir. 20 JUDGE KELLY: I like this. 21 4.4 approve and accept monthly reports. 22 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: All right, District 23 Clerk's office for February 2019 by Dawn Lantz. Justice 24 of the Peace Precinct 1 for February, 2019, Mitzi 25 French. J.P. Precinct 2 report for February 2019, J.R. 95 1 Hoyne. J.P. Precinct 3 report for February 2019, Kathy 2 Mitchell. Precinct 1 Constable report for February 3 2019, Tommy Rodriguez. Precinct 2 Constable report for 4 February 2019, Kyle Schneider. Precinct 4 Constable 5 report for February 2019, Gene Huffaker. Environmental 6 Health report for February 2019, OSSF Supervisor Ashli 7 Badders. 8 Move for approval. 9 COMMISSIONER BELEW: Yeah, second. 10 JUDGE KELLY: Been a motion made by 11 Commissioner Harris and seconded by Commissioner Belew 12 to approve the monthly reports as presented. Those in 13 favor raise your hand. Four zero. 14 Court orders. 15 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Okay, we need to 16 approve court orders 37337 through 37341. 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Move that we accept 18 court orders. 19 MRS. DOWDY: There's a revision. 20 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: And just read the 21 order, okay. Court Order No. 37341, item 1.8 Capital 22 purchase for Hill Country Youth Event Center. It came 23 to be heard this 7th day of March 2019 with a motion 24 made by Commissioner Belew, seconded by Commissioner 25 Letz. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of five 96 1 zero to make capital purchase for a used forklift for 2 Hill Country Youth Event Center, with exclusion of 3 purchasing the replacement seat, for a total of 4 $18,951.76. Any excess over the remaining balance in 5 the 2014-CQ to come from the Maintenance Department line 6 item with a recommendation of the Auditor. 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: What was the change? 8 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: What wasa the change? 9 MR. ROBLES: I believe he said it came out 10 of the 2012-CO issue. It should have come out of the 11 2014. 12 JUDGE KELLY: It had to do with it 13 describing excluding the seat cover and then the 14 remaining balance of the existing funds. 15 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. Move for 16 approval. 17 COMMISSIONER HARRIS: Second. 18 JUDGE KELLY: As amended. 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: As amended. 20 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. There's been a motion 21 made by Commissioner Moser and seconded by Commissioner 22 Harris to approve the two monthly reports as amended. 23 Those in favor raise your hand. Opposed? Four zero. 24 Okay, information agenda 5.1, any reports 25 from commissioners, liaison commissioners committee 97 1 assignments? 2 Elected officials or department reports? 3 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Is John going to stand 4 up? 5 JUDGE KELLY: Oh, I'm sorry. 6 MR. TROLINGER: Thank you. Just briefly, I 7 sent out the department surveys that I discussed in my 8 presentation earlier, individual and then with 9 Commissioner Moser's help, to all the department heads. 10 And it's very gratifying to see the very positive 11 responses from the elected officials and department 12 heads. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Look forward to the 14 summary the next time you have a report. 15 JUDGE KELLY: Reports from boards, 16 commissions or committees? 17 Any update on the East Kerr County 18 Wastewater Project? 19 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Nothing. 20 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. 21 MRS. DOWDY: Do we have any Auditor's 22 reports? 23 JUDGE KELLY: No Auditor's report? 24 MR. ROBLES: No. 25 JUDGE KELLY: Okay. Do we have anything for 98 1 executive session? 2 MRS. STEBBINS: No, Sir. 3 JUDGE KELLY: Okay, there being none then 4 Commissioners' Court will stand adjourned. 5 * * * * * * 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 1 STATE OF TEXAS * 2 COUNTY OF KERR * 3 I, DEBRA ELLEN GIFFORD, Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, and Official 5 Reporter in and for Kerr County, do hereby certify that 6 the above and foregoing pages contain and comprise a 7 true and correct transcription of the proceedings had in 8 the above-entitled Commissioners' Court. 9 Dated this the 18th day of March, A.D. 2019. 10 11 /s/DEBRA ELLEN GIFFORD Certified Shorthand Reporter 12 No. 953 Expiration Date 04/31/2020 13 * * * * * * 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25