1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, May 10, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
!~
Jl
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
May 10, 2004
PAGE
--- Commissioners' Comments 4
1.1 Approve road names for privately-maintained roads
	in accordance with 911 guidelines	8
1.2	Set Public Hearing date for alternate plat	
	process for Lot 13 of Riverside Park	9
1.3	Consider variance for slope exceeding 120 on	
	portion of road in Hermosa Subdivision	10
1.4	Final Plat for Hermosa, Pct.4	12
1.8	Consider transferring funds for purchase of	
	ice machine, Road & Bridge Department	20
1.9	Advertise for bid on 5-year lease of backhoe	21
1.6	Presentation/discussion of Collections Department	
	performance review	24
1.5	First Responders report	57
1.7	911 Report	70
1.10	Review, discuss, & approve 2004 Employee Benefit	
	Administrative Service Agreement	85,147
1.11	Approval and acceptance of 2004 Excess Loss	
	(Stop Loss) Insurance Policy presented by E.B.A.	99
1.12	Report from Environmental Health Manager regarding	
	responses to concerns expressed by septic system	
	installers, changes in policies/practices	122
1.13	Commissioner's Court resolution seeking assistance	
	from TexDOT to improve safety of intersection at	
	Rachel Lane and Texas Highway 27 west of Ingram	126
1.14	Authorize hiring outside attorney or others to	
	finalize acquisition of right-of-way for Hermann	
	Sons Bridge project	130
4.1	Pay Bills	131
4.2	Budget Amendments	134
4.3	Late Bills	141
---	Accept Racial Profiling Report	143
4.4	Read and Approve Minutes	144
4.5	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	145
3.1	Action as may be required on matters discussed	
	in Executive Session	147
5.1	Reports from Commissioners	151
---	Adjourned	154
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, May 10, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the
regular Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date,
Monday, May the 10th, at 9 a.m. It's a minute or two after
that now. I would first like to call on the Reverend
Stockton Williams, who is the Lector at the St. Peter's
Episcopal Church here locally. If you would please stand
and join ...
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. At this
time, if there is any member of the public that wishes to
come forward and address the Court on any matter that is not
listed on the agenda, they're privileged to do so at this
time. If you want to be heard on a matter that is listed on
the agenda, we would ask that you please fill out a
participation form. Those are at the back of the room.
It's not absolutely essential, but it helps keep me straight
up here so that I don't forget you when that item comes up,
and so that I will recognize you. But, at this time, if
there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard
about any matter that is not listed on the agenda, please
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--.
25
4
feel free to come forward right now and tell us what's on
your mind.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I see nobody making the move,
so we'll move into the next area of inquiry. Commissioner
Baldwin, what do you have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, I have a special
guest with me today; my grandson, Taylor Robertson's in the
back. Most of you have met him, but some of you have not.
Taylor and I spent three days over the weekend in beautiful
Kingsville, Texas, where they measure mosquitoes by the
wingspan, and we -- we've -- we saw a couple of them kind of
like that. And we went to the Lone Star Conference track
championship down there over the weekend, and -- and my boy
didn't do as good as we thought he was going to, but that's
okay. He -- he's just a freshman; he'll be back. He won
fifth in the hurdles and sixth in the high jump, so he did
fine, and as -- for a freshman, that's pretty doggone good.
We saw a couple records being broken; just a good time. But
we also saw -- Saturday afternoon at the track meet, we saw
it rain right at 5 inches in two hours. It was wonderful.
It was wonderful. And then the sun came out, and it got
probably 180 degrees, with those mosquitoes. It was a great
time; just want to let y'all know how much fun I've had over
the weekend. That's all.
5-10-04
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple things,
Judge. There's date coming up in Kerr County which is
significant to us, and has to do with our sesquicentennial,
which I believe is 2006, so I passed a little brochure out,
because I came across these -- this kind of depicts what
Karnes County did in celebration of its sesquicentennial,
listing how they arrived at funding their events and all the
events that took place to celebrate their 150th anniversary
I took the liberty of passing these on to our Historical
Commission as well, so that they could have a look and see
what other counties have done. This particular county,
there were no county funds expended for the celebration, but
they said they had a pretty good time despite that.
The only other thing was, every now and then
we hear -- I think each of us have heard from time to time
about the comparison of what we do in Kerr County by
comparison to what takes place in Gillespie County. Well,
the third quarter gross sales report seems to indicate that
we must be doing something correctly, because in the third
quarter of 2003, gross sales were reported, upon which sales
tax was collected in Kerr County, of about $267 million, and
Gillespie County topped out at about $115 million. And I
realize we're bigger, but we must be doing something right.
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
That's all I got.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have -- to
piggy-back with what Commissioner Williams was saying about
the sales tax and the comparison between the two counties,
it's interesting that the -- during the slow-down of the
early 2000's, Gillespie County showed a drop in their
revenue off sales tax, whereas Kerr County had continued --
there's been a growth. It hasn't been a great growth, but
there has been a growth. So, it's an interesting point.
Also, just a -- to mention again about Trooper Knapp lost
his life near Comfort. Our thoughts and prayers go out to
his family. And I wish there was a TexDOT representative
present. Something is amiss on the interstate system right
there, it appears, because there have been six fatalities at
that exact location in the past year. Different -- all
different incidents. All -- you know, not a common thing
happened on all of them, but something needs to be looked at
by TexDOT, and I'm sure they are. I know they spent a great
deal of time over the weekend in that location trying to
figure out exactly what happened in that accident. On the
sesquicentennial, it's Comfort's as well this year; they're
having their celebration, I believe, primarily in September,
so I hope to see everyone down there. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson?
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We had our
hardworking 911 representatives out at the Hunt Volunteer
Fire Department Saturday working overtime selling address
plates to -- looked like a steady stream of traffic through
there. So, thank you for doing that, and I think that was
pretty successful. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the sesquicentennial, I
don't know how many of you have had inquiry made of you
previously, but Ms. Snodgrass, who, as most of you know, is
quite, quite active in matters historical about this county,
she began approaching me actually the year before last, as
I -- as I recall, and I think virtually every time I see
her, she mentions the fact that we need to be thinking about
this and kind of getting our thoughts and ideas together.
So, if it's up to Clarabelle Snodgrass, we're definitely
going to have some sort of sesquicentennial observance here
in Kerr County. The other thing I'd like to mention is the
good folks over at U.G.R.A. have been kind enough to be
benefactors to us of a number of bald cypress trees.
They're in the process of what they call a river
reforestation project, and they had some extra bald cypress
that they had ordered for the purpose of that project, and
contacted us about us possibly putting some of these in in
our park system; Flat Rock Lake, out at Center Point, and
some of the areas where we abut the rivers and streams.
5-1G-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
8
They're very good at improving the quality of the river
stream course water, and they also help to retain the banks
when they're right there at the bank. So, we're grateful to
U.G.R.A. for giving those to us so that we can participate
in that program with them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, just one other
footnote on this Karnes County sesquicentennial. That the
Commissioners Court did form a nonprofit corporation for the
purpose of being arm's length away from it, but for the
purpose of raising funds, and that corporation of interested
citizens went out and raised the necessary funding for their
project.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure, when that word gets
back to Clarabelle Snodgrass, we may be thinking about that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's on its way back
to her right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect so. If no one has
anything further in that light, we'll move forward with the
agenda. First item on the agenda is consider approving road
names for privately maintained roads in accordance with 911
guidelines. Ms. Hardin?
MS. HARDIN: We have four privately
maintained roads, two of them in Baldwin's and two in
Nicholson's.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve.
5-10-09
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any questions or discussion on
the item? If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. The
next item on the agenda is to set a public hearing date for
alternate plat process for Lot 13 of Riverside Park,
Precinct 4.
MR. JOHNSTON: We have that plat pending. I
think probably a good date would be the June 14th meeting.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we set a
public hearing for June the 14th at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
set a public hearing for the alternate plat process for Lot
13 of Riverside Park in Precinct 4 for June 14th of this
year at 10 a.m. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Franklin,
what's the situation on this one? I don't recall --
MR. JOHNSTON: They're dividing a large
acreage -- not real large. It's, what, 20 acres or so into
5-10-04
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a 15- and a 5-acre tract. Has frontage on -- everything on
road, just a matter of having a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thanks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next
item is consider a variance for a slope exceeding 12 percent
on a portion of a road in Hermosa Subdivision in Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Both -- go ahead.
MR. JOHNSTON: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, both Franklin
and I have both driven this road, and we're asking for a
variance on one portion that's about 100 feet, and another
portion that's less than 400 feet. And, frankly, driving
it, it doesn't seem like much of a slope at all to me
compared to a lot of slopes on our other county roads and
even on our state highways. I don't think there's any risk
here of endangering the public or residents of that
subdivision by granting a waiver on this slope.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, I believe this
is allowed under the Subdivision Rules. Don't we go
5-1G-09
11
1
~. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15 percent?
MR. JOHNSTON: We go 12, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought --
MR. JOHNSTON: But we can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought there was a --
I thought there was some discretion. But, actually, one of
them's over 15 anyway, so we'll need a variance, but I don't
see any problem.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, I move we grant
a variance to exceed the 12 percent slope on a portion of
road in Hermosa Subdivision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve the variance for slope exceeding 12 percent on the
indicated portions of the road in Hermosa Subdivision. Any
further questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment as to why
this is required or why the Subdivision Rules is like this.
We did it like this originally, or whenever that originally
was done -- '97, I think -- to require -- to make sure that
special attention is noted when we have these slopes, and
that we're aware of it. It's not really as a -- not to go
above it; just so that we're aware of it, because it does
require a few different safety issues. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
5-10-04
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.,
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next
item is consider the final plat for Hermosa Subdivision in
Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This was kind of a
rush, and that was my fault. I advised the contractor if he
got his material in last Monday, that we'd be able to have
this on the agenda, and that put Franklin in a bind to get
the review done. Are you satisfied with the review,
Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: I have two questions that I
haven't had a chance to resolve yet. One is the form of the
letter of credit. Normally, the procedure when a
subdivision is not finished and we have a letter of credit
to guarantee the completion, the -- the bank will follow
basically the form we have in our Subdivision Rules, and
then we still -- we have the County Attorney review it. And
the letter of credit that -- that we received was not
exactly the same form as the -- the one in our book, and
I've not had a chance to have the County Attorney review it
for content. And even the amount, we haven't really had a
5-10-04
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
chance to analyze that yet. Seems probably adequate, but I
haven't thoroughly looked at that. The other item was, we
have a letter -- it's in your packet -- that the engineer on
the job that the developer has on his payroll designed the
drainage structures, and he designed them for two-year
frequency. I think our rules call for five-year frequency.
And I haven't had a chance to contact him and let him check
his -- maybe it was just a typo, or see if his sizes are
adequate for a five-year. He was planning on doing a
letter -- a letter of certification upon completion of all
of the roads, but doing -- with the letter of credit, I
guess the letter of credit will guarantee that he'll also do
the letter of certification when the job's complete.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think those are two
very good questions, very important questions in this
process. They need to be resolved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I would agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Johnston, would you
indicate to me where the two-year frequency is --
MR. JOHNSTON: On that letter?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- is indicated? I see it
now.
several times.
MR. JOHNSTON: I believe it's on there
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
5-10-04
14
1
„_, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: I think, under each
calculation --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I see it now. Bottom of
that first paragraph.
MR. JOHNSTO
a list of things. That is
two-year frequency on each
got one -- one letter; you
you'd like to see it also,
that was left out.
N: Each structure has a -- gives
culvert design; then he has
calculation. I think you only
didn't get the second page, if
on the design. For some reason,
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- are you
finished, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a -- and this is
-- I only bring it up because it's in the covenants, which
we really have no say on, but there's a thing on here I
believe that the Court -- I think we need to address it
sometime. There's a wildlife management provision in here,
which I would presume the subdivision is going to for a
wildlife -- or for an agricultural exemption on the
property, which is fine, as in other subdivisions in the
county. However, there was a -- Kendall County did not like
this and took two places, Falling Waters and Cordillera
Ranch, to court over this issue, and they won. Those
5-10-04
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
subdivisions do not qualify as wildlife management. Now, I
don't know how that's going to handle it as a -- you know,
because it -- one of the -- there's always differences in
one situation to another. But I think it's something that
the Court needs to think about and visit with the Appraisal
District, 'cause they're the ones that make the decision,
not us. But it does have an impact, certainly, on tax
revenue and -- and, in this case, on these covenants. But,
like I say, it's something we really don't need to make a
decision on today. I just brought it up 'cause I know that
it's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they have an ag
exemption now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that they do
or don't, but I would imagine that they -- it's a ranch
being divided, so it currently does. And if you have a
current exemption --
MR. JOHNSTON: Here's the man that can tell
you more about it.
MR. VLASEK: Yes, sir. As far as the
wildlife management, I -- my attorney's not here,
Mr. Jackson. That's put up only to control any wild hogs,
excessive deer population, et cetera. There's no
hunting-type place. We're not going to try to raise or
maintain them as livestock.
5-10-04
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand that.
I was just -- it's more the -- it's the property tax issue,
whether the -- the property retains its ag exemption or
whether it loses it once it becomes a subdivision, and
that's the issue that was litigated in Kendall County, and
the Appraisal District won that. You cannot have both. I
personally disagree with that; I think you can. But,
anyway, that's neither here nor there. I think it's
something that, county-wide, we need to look at down the
road. It really doesn't affect this subdivision.
MR. VLASEK: Also, on the drainage, it's got
to be a typical -- I don't think I've ever heard of a two --
two-year flood frequency. As a matter of fact, when the
engineer was working on it, he engineered it at 25, and I
went, "Oh my god." And then I said, "It only has to be a
five-year flood frequency," and he reduced it down. He had
to find the calculations for a five-year flood frequency.
Is there such a thing as a two-year flood frequency?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think there is, but we just
need to clarify that point, whether those are designed for a
two-year cross-road drainage or five-year.
MR. VLASEK: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the letter of
credit's really the major --
MR. VLASEK: The letter of credit as well,
5-10-04
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is -- it came to my attention that the one that County uses
is not legal by the -- according to the State of Texas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, y'all just
basically drew your own up, huh?
MR. VLASEK: No, sir, my bank talked with the
County Road and Bridge, and Mr. Johnston returned the phone
call and said that they would accept this letter of credit.
MR. JOHNSTON: I told him to go ahead and
submit it, but we haven't had a chance to have it reviewed
yet. That's that point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going to get
it done here today; I can see that. We won't get it done
here today. I don't -- I can see that.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know how long it takes
for you, David --
MR. VLASEK: Before
a list of specifically what I need
care of so that we don't spend any
COMMISSIONER BALDWI
ask David if he would look it over
back?
leave today, could I have
to -- we need to take
more --
V: Franklin, did you just
today and try to get it
MR. JOHNSTON: I just asked him how long it
would take.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I was just trying
to figure out -- maybe we can get to it today, if you got
5-10-04
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that resolved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it can be resolved, we
can do it today, but I think the -- the final notice -- I
don't think it's proper -- proper to put pressure on the
County Engineer to review it, you know, under a short time
period. I mean, if he can get it done and he's comfortable
with it, County Attorney can review it, we can bring it back
later -- later in the day.
MR. VLASEK: I'm willing to do whatever it
takes to have this resolved today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aren't the stormwater
runoff coefficients -- aren't they in question, too?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Has to be -- that
would probably be a matter of a phone call and a fax to
clarify that. And -- but it's more the County Engineer,
whether he's had sufficient time to look at it and he's
comfortable with it, 'cause it's his recommendation. We can
pass on it right now and bring it back if they can get it
ready.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the question is what
the Subdivision Rules require in the way of the frequency
interval. If they require a five-year, that's what it needs
to be submitted as.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But what he was
saying, that may be a mistake, and if it's a typo and it is
5-10-04
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
calculated on a five-year -- if they weren't, I don't see
any way of getting it done today. I mean, if they have to
recalculate and resubmit it.
MR. VLASEK: Right. I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just whether it's a typo.
MR. VLASEK: I'm certain it was done on a
five-year frequency. I got the notes they give me on pipe
sizes and where they go. It's just a matter of contacting
him and getting him to fax something over here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How long will we be
here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All day.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Got a 1:30 item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to be here
in the afternoon.
MR. VLASEK: Okay. So, I'll just -- I'll --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To keep the County
Engineer from having to come back down, he could probably
fax his approval. I mean, just so you don't have to -- you
can work from your office, fax something down once it's
ready.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anything further by
any member of the Court in connection with the final plat
for Hermosa at this time? Thank you very much. Is -- is
5-10-04
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Young here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see him
anywhere, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we go on down and
pick up Item 8, to consider transferring funds from Account
15-611-575 to 15-611-570 for a capital acquisition; ice
machine, looks like.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Morning, Judge. Recently -- I say
recently. In the last year -- last several years, we've had
problems with the ice vendor. And we particularly have been
having a problem lately with getting enough ice for the men,
and summer's coming up. We have found out that the only
vendor that serves around here is one vendor. We called the
City of Kerrville to see how they were resolving the
problem. They said they were having the same problems we
were having, and they were concerned also. So, we have --
in the past, we have participated with the Ag building over
there, but it's -- we -- when we get in a bind, it's getting
this ice, because these vendors never bring it when they're
supposed to, and they do it when they want to. And the Ag
Barn has reservations about us taking it on a continual
basis, so we would like to transfer some money from
Facilities that I have; I have $993.39 in Capital Outlay,
5-10-04
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and transfer the remaining $947.44 from Facilities to the
Capital Outlay, and ask the Court's permission to use
capital outlays to buy this machine for $1940.83.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1904.
MR. ODOM: Well, my note says 1940, but --
I'm sorry, it says 1904.83. Typo on my part.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
MR. ODOM: This takes care of our problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and approval --
and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any further
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next
item on the agenda is consideration of advertising for bids
on a five-year lease of a backhoe.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The -- our lease is
coming up in June, and we've had it five years. We've had
an outstanding lease of about $800 a month to lease that for
five years. We hope that -- we certainly won't be at 800,
but we think we'll be in that -- we've calculated it to the
5-10-04
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
point we think we have enough money to resolve that problem
last year when we put it in the budget. So, we're asking
permission to go back out again for a -- a backhoe that is
similar to what we have by specs and all, and allow
different vendors to bid on that program. That's been
successful for us for several years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What does a backhoe cost?
MR. ODOM: Four-wheel drive, maybe 80,000.
Maybe 80, 85. The reason we're doing just a four-wheel
drive vehicle -- backhoe is because it has the power to be a
loader, where a two-wheel has -- you know, it moves you
around, but this way we don't need a loader. You can take a
loader off. We can still load with that four-wheel drive.
It turns out very well for us if you can be able to load in
the yard or to move rock. It also -- that type of machine
that we wish to have, we'll have the hammer that is
associated. We bought that five years ago to break up rock.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is budgeted?
MR. ODOM: This is budgeted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. You say you have a hammer?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. It's -- it breaks up
rock. It is a hydraulic hammer.
5-10-04
23
1
2 on --
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: It's an attachment that goes
MR. ODOM: Attachment that goes on the
backhoe, yes, sir. You take the bucket off, you put the
rock-breaker in there. It's a hydraulic bit; it'll bust up
rock.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And you already have
that piece of equipment on-hand?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, we bought that. That is
paid for. That is not part of this lease.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Odom. Let's
get back to the timed 9:30 item. We have a report on the
First Responders from -- I assume that's Mr. Kyle Young. Is
that correct, Mr. Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. He
is not in the room. And this is not the first time. Of
course, it's not -- yeah, it is, too. It's not the first
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
time.	We'll	have a	come-to-Jesus meeting	with	him about
this.	I don	't like	this. But Item Number	6 is	ready to
rock and roll.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. They're here
early, is what you're telling me?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm
saying. They're here on time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me pass on Item
5 and we'll go to Item 6, presentation and discussion of
Collections Department performance review with comparable
statistics from prior budget year, require future
performance reviews on quarterly basis with year-ending
summaries of all activities. Care to bring us into this
item, Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. I put it on the
agenda as just a simple report, and -- and Commissioner
Williams had the -- had some thoughts on it, so we put our
heads together and -- and put together some questions for
the department head, and we asked him to come and just give
us a report on these things, just so that we can see where
we are and what we're doing, where we're going. And -- and
my goal here is to enhance or to assist that department,
because it is a money-making department for this county.
And I thought -- and I'll give it to Mr. Williams -- I
thought we would just have a conversation here and see --
5-10-09
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see where this goes -- plays out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, we need a
conversation, and it's important that the Court knows of the
activities of the Collections Department, particularly with
respect to fines outstanding. And there's always fines
outstanding; we keep adding to that. So, I put together a
series of questions which I thought would shed some light on
this. We discussed it with Mr. Alford, and I think he's
prepared to respond to those questions, which are part of
the backup.
MR. ALFORD: Okay. Question Number 1 talks
about --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excuse me. Would
you first tell me how to read this? I like the --
MR. ALFORD: Yes. Well, you're right. Thank
you. As we go through it, this chart will make sense to
you. It is kind of confusing. Half of it's right-to-left;
other half is left-to-right. Does that help you out any?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No.
MR. ALFORD: I didn't think so. Okay. As we
go through the questionnaire, I hope it will help you some.
Regarding Question Number 1 in your backup, comparison
amount, where it exceeds 21 percent collection in our County
Court at Law for the same times, for October 1 through
May 4th. Now, then, before we go into the felony money, if
5-10-04
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
we can talk about that for a minute, we have no teeth in our
felony laws that allows us to collect felony money at the
rate that we do our county money, County Court at Law. So,
as you'll notice, our 216th, 198th collection rates are
considerably lower. We're in constant contact with Judge
Ables, Judge Prohl, and also the Office of Court
Administration in Austin. I talked to them this morning,
and they assured me they are reviewing the two laws that are
in question and hope that in this next session, they also,
along with the district clerks, will present new legislation
again. They tried it last time; it didn't fly, but they are
hoping to make it fly this year. Our assessed money is down
this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait just a second.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what you're saying
is that there is no authority to collect those fines? That
is county money. A District Judge has assessed a fine to
someone.
MR. ALFORD: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you don't feel
like -- or powers that be doesn't feel like that we have the
authority to go get our money?
MR. ALFORD: Correct. That's the very short
story of it, yes, sir.
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm sure that we
could fluff it up and say all kinds of words, but that's
about the bottom line?
MR. ALFORD: Well, yes, sir, it is. There's
a -- a point of law; the County Judge and I have talked
about this on numerous occasions, I believe, and it comes
down to interpretation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Interpretation of the
law?
MR. ALFORD: Of the law outstanding -- or the
current law. That's the way it reads.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has anyone -- to your
knowledge, any county ever tried to collect their own money?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And have they
collected it?
MR. ALFORD: I don't know. It -- there are
rumors to the effect that -- that numerous counties are now
looking at this, and are in the same boat that we are right
now and trying to push forward with it. I believe it's
going to boil down to the individuals involved. I really
can't give an answer on that one. I know that's something
that Austin is looking at. I have a hard time with it, too.
I just can't understand why the State of Texas would allow
this type of loophole to go on.
5-10-09
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my opinion is
that there's not a loophole there. We simply need to go get
our money.
MR. ALFORD: I agree, but we have to have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very simple to me.
MR. ALFORD: We have to have a master to help
us on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
Brad.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You've got a
percentage number, like in Column 3, 61 percent.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then it goes on
across, 53, 84, 58, 93.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are those -- is that
-- does that represent the percentage of the assessed fines
that has been collected, or is that a discounted percentage?
Which?
MR. ALFORD: No, sir. This is the amount --
if you notice the assessed, what the assessed is, is what --
for example, we used Judge Brown. This is what, from the
bench, he has said the defendant will pay in fines and court
costs.
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, a total of
349,393 was assessed?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the time frame
that you've listed, from --
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 5-10-03 through
5-4-04. And the 217 represents --
MR. ALFORD: What has physically been
collected. That is money. That's not -- that's not a
credit; that's not layout. That is on the reports as money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. So,
61 percent of what Judge Brown levied has been collected?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In this particular
time frame?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
That goes across the same way?
MR. ALFORD: Yeah. And -- it does. And
that's what -- if you'll notice, I guess, the fifth column,
2003 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. ALFORD: -- it's at 53 percent. So,
right now, we're getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie, is
5-10-09
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what it amounts to. Last year at this time, they collected
431,000. It -- this year, he"s collected -- or he assessed
431 last year. Same time frame this year, he's assessed
349.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But last year you
collected 231; this year, 217?
MR. ALFORD: Right. So, you're actually
getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie. And the reason the
percentage rates are going up as you go further down, it's
very simple. We still have a lot of these cases. Some of
these figures for this -- May 4th was two weeks ago. You
know, we haven't started collecting that money yet. It --
so as you go down the line, that's why your percentage goes
up, if that make sense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. ALFORD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I want to know
is, why is the pie smaller? Is crime going down in Kerr
County? That's what it appears to me. Why else would the
pie be smaller?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Sheritt is
smiling; it must mean it is.
MR. ALFORD: We still talk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's going to talk
about the gang activity.
5-10-09
1
„~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, crime is not going
down in Kerr County; it's just taking longer to get them
through the court system now, 'cause the courts are bogged
up.
MR. ALFORD: That sounds like a very
politically correct way of putting that. I don't know. And
I haven't asked that. It -- we can only go after what's in
front of us, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. No, I'm
not throwing a rock at you. I just wondered why the pie's
smaller all of a sudden. Sounds like, to me, crime's gone
down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gives us less
deputies at budget time, right?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wait.
MR. ALFORD: Now you see why I referred that
back to you for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The cars are not the
right color or something. I mean, there's something up
here. Thank you. Go ahead.
MR. ALFORD: And I -- that pretty much -- on
number -- yes, Number ?_ talks about case load. It varies.
As you can see, as of this year, we're at 761 cases in
County Court at Law. 66, 216th; and 26, 198th, and it goes
on across. As you can see, it varies. 2003, we're at 2034,
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
and 2002, we're 1976. Last year, we're back up -- or, I'm
sorry, 2001 was 2235.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a pretty
precipitous drop
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in County Court at
Law, from 2034 cases to 761.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the same time
frame from one year till the next.
MR. ALFORD: No, sir, it's not the same time
frame.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Different time.
MR. ALFORD: It's the full year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I see it. I'm
sorry.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, even so,
it's still a pretty precipitous drop.
MR. ALFORD: You talk about -- if you double
it, you're talking about 1400, 1500.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1500.
MR. ALFORD: So, on the -- Number 3, on the
current, this is going to boil down to something that is
just going to be interpretation. What the Commissioners
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
Court may consider current and what I consider current are
different things. Same thing as delinquency. We have no
way of putting a number on what is current and what is not,
because as far as we're concerned, the defendant today has a
job; he's paying us. He loses his job tomorrow, some people
may put that into a delinquent file 'cause he's not paying
us. We kick a different style of program in place. Six
weeks from now, if the defendant has a job, he becomes
current. So, it fluctuates a whole lot with the type of
citizens I'm talking about, so we can't really put a
"current" versus "delinquent" on that. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm curious
about -- about that. You're assessing a current versus
delinquent status based on an individual's job status?
MR. ALFORD: The --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He may or may not --
she may or may not have a job, but the fact of the matter
is, the account is either current or it's delinquent, and it
doesn't make any difference in -- I'm wondering why, in my
mind.
MR. ALFORD: Well, again --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is that
distinction?
MR. ALFORD: The distinction is whether or
not he's paying.
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I miss a payment
on my automobile at the bank, whether I'm working or not,
I'm delinquent.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. And I reiterate the
fact that we kick in a different type of program as to how
we handle these people.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you -- do you have the
ability and the discretion, based upon circumstances, to do
deferrals because of -- do you work out terms with these
people who are paying, who have reasonably good records of
payment over time?
MR. ALFORD: I believe we do. I'm not very
sure I know where you're going at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what I'm suggesting is
maybe if someone's been real prompt and regular in their
payments for a number of months, and say they lose their job
or they have some adverse health problems or something, and
they come in, sit down across the table from you and say,
"Mr. Alford, you know, under normal circumstances I'd be
here bringing my monthly payment, but right now, you know, I
lost my job last week," fell ill, whatever. Is it customary
for you, in appropriate cases, to work out deferrals with
these people based upon the communication between you?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, it is. It -- and
it -- depending on the hardship, we may request a magistrate
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
to assign them to community service around the courthouse to
work some of it out, whether it's cutting the grass or
sweeping the floors. It just -- we take each one on an
individual basis.
JUDGE TINLEY: And does that play into the
account, whether you consider it as current or delinquent?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, it does. And, again,
that would not be considered in money. That would be
considered in credit, so that's where you would go from
money to credit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you account
for that? How do you reconcile your accounting of that?
MR. ALFORD: That's Tommy's deal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ALFORD: Computer does that. And the
reason I say that, I believe that the clerk would go in and
give them more or less "time served" type of status,
versus --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At so many dollars
per hour?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, it's all laid out by
law. They get $100 credit per 8 hours work. And the
Question Number 4 regarding delinquency, we do not feel like
it's delinquent -- or everything's delinquent. If it's over
30 days, we feel like it's delinquent. Very simply,
5-10-04
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whenever the defendant walks into our room, the first thing
we ask him is, "Can you pay in full in 30 days?" Just a
simple yes or no question. And if they say, "No, we can
not," we put them on a payment plan. At that time, we feel
like it's delinquent, because we want the money now. The
Court orders the defendant to pay it immediately, and so
that's what we strive for. As of last Friday, we currently
have 80 outstanding case fines or commitments that we
have -- we had. When I say "we," it's the current
department, the current administration, the Collections
Department. I'm not sure how many commitments are out right
now out of County Court at Law. I don't know if we can come
up with that exact detail, but over the last -- since
September of '02 to today, I know for sure we have 80
delinquent cases. What I'm saying is 80 cases we --
delinquent; we can't find them. And, probably in the
majority of those 80 cases, there's also violation of
probation warrants out for them, where they've absconded.
So, that's what I would consider delinquent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- we need to
-- I mean, I think it's a good way to track, and I think we
need to settle on what you're going to track. To me, it's,
you know, current or accounted for, whatever -- whatever
term you want to use. You're either working with the people
or you're not. If you're working with them, then you --
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
MR. ALFORD: That's current.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're current.
MR. ALFORD: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we're not working with
them, then we're delinquent. And, I mean, whether or not
they miss a payment or not is somewhat irrelevant to me. I
mean, I think if we're in contact with them, I -- you know,
if they miss 10 payments, then I think there's some -- then
they go into a different category.
MR. ALFORD: We kick in at 30 days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that, you
know, that's how I would like to see it done. And that way,
there's -- we're all speaking the same, you know,
terminology when it comes to all this.
MR. ALFORD: And that's kind of way I looked
at it, because the only thing I can sit here and tell you is
I know we have 80 cases since September 2002 that are
delinquent. Now, we've had others that have --
either warrants have been served, they've paid it out,
something has happened. But right now, today, I can tell
you we have 80 delinquent cases.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At what point do you
ask for a warrant?
MR. ALFORD: After -- probably after about 60
to 90 days, depending on the letters. We make phone calls;
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
we send out letters. Depending on responses from those, we
have show cause hearings where the defendant has to come in
and visit with us. If we can not reach an agreement, he
goes back before the magistrate and some type of action is
taken. That may continue an additional 30 days. So, again,
it's on a one-on-one basis; it could be as recent as 60
days. After delinquency, as long as 90, 120 days after
delinquency.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we look at the J.P.'s?
I mean, it looks like Questions 6, 7, and 8 are part of your
chart.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6, 7, 8 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 6 and 7.
MR. ALFORD: On the new measurements, I
believe that's talking about. I'm sorry, on -- I got with
Tommy about this, and he's working on the figures. As they
come available, I'd be more than happy to get with each
Commissioner or come back whenever they come available.
It's my understanding that those numbers are in the working,
and Tommy's trying to get them and see what we can do with
the J.P.'s.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, currently, you do not
do any collection for J.P.'s?
MR. ALFORD: No, sir, we started this
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
whenever -- last Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Last meeting.
MR. ALFORD: This is the first time we've
really -- what we've done before is assist them in locating
people on a one-on-one basis, but we've already started on
J.P. 1's; we've already mailed some letters. We've already
made personal contacts with some of the defendants, and
we're, you know, going forward with the J.P.'s.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you visited with the
company that we're going to -- you know, that is our
alternative to the State?
MR. ALFORD: No, sir, I have not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean, I think
it would be a good idea for you or for J.P.'s, because the
reports I hear from Kendall County is they're very happy
with the way it works, and they're collecting a lot of
revenue through that private --
MR. ALFORD: And that's why we basically set
up the J.P.'s to give us 30 days. That's what we kind of
asked the J.P.'s, 'cause some of these we're seeing are
years -- I believe there's some '99, some 2000's, so what's
another 30 days? Some of our programs that we've run,
it's -- we're able to locate some of these. J.P. 3 and 4
are trying to rework their warrant list after the D.P.S.
runs, and they're -- they're coming. I've talked to both of
5-10-04
1
,._., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
the clerks last week. They're on their way. They're being
worked on. J.P. 2 and J.P. 1, we have them in our office
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's
appropriate that we try to collect it in-house for 30 days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then, if not, as I
understand it, offer it to whoever they are --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or maybe longer. I mean,
we --
MR. ALFORD: And that's fine with us, if
you'll give us longer. And we have longer. We have
forever. It's just that after they send it to the official
payment corporation, they get their money. That's the only
reason we asked for 30 days, is just to try to give us at
least a 30-day window. We have -- we've already kind of
worked out schematics on how we're going to handle these for
budget expenses. Commissioner Williams and I talked about
this; we're going to do, like, A, B, and C when we first get
them. If they come back, then we'll kick in some other
programs.
on the chart.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brad, I have a question
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I go to the far right
5-10-04
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
column --
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it says 2004. First
number down is 93 percent.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What that means is that
of the 'Ol-'02 year, as of now, you've collected 93 percent
of that?
MR. ALFORD: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ALFORD: That does not -- and I feel
certain that if you'd go in and credit the time served, the
layouts, the dismissals, the waivers, it should be at 100
percent. We have noticed it takes about 18 months to 24
months to complete a cycle. And that's why I feel like, on
the 2003 right now, we're -- or for the '02-'03 year, we're
84 percent. I feel like we'll be well into the 90's by this
time next year. I hate to go out on a limb and say that,
but traditionally, we should be there. Some of these cases
are still being paid for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other quick
question I have, Brad.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The independent
auditor, Pressler Thompson, listed in our -- in our audit
5-10-04
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
assets of 654,654 at the end of September '03. That is
court fines and fees outstanding. My notation is,
"outstanding and potentially collectible." Does that number
which was in the audit comport with the total -- totals that
you might have for the same time frame of these various fees
and so forth?
MR. ALFORD: No, sir, it does not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would you explain
the difference?
MR. ALFORD: It -- I met with the Auditor,
again, and it's my understanding that this figure is over a
12-year period.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 12-year period?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you mean?
MR. ALFORD: That Tommy ran a report,
whatever report he runs -- don't make me lie with him
sitting here -- and this came over whatever report he ran.
I guess it showed the outstanding balance due of fines and
court costs for 1998 to present. Or did you have -- what's
your cutoff? September?
MR. TOMLINSON: It was '92 to present.
MR. ALFORD: '92 to present was the report
that he ran.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you don't think that
5-10-04
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
„_._ 2 4
25
was an accurate number?
MR. ALFORD: No, I -- no, the -- my
understanding, Commissioner Williams asked me if mine lines
up with his, and no, this doesn't equal --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think anybody
was aware that that 654,654 was outstanding compounded since
1992. I don't think I had that awareness. Which was a long
time.
MR. ALFORD: I don't know. Commissioner
Baldwin came to me, and it kind of floored both of us, so I
immediately ran to Tommy asking, "Where did you get these
numbers?" I wasn't under the impression that we missed over
half a million dollars this year. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the number is -- it's
a correct number if you go back --
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that period?
MR. ALFORD: I have a full trust and
confidence in Tommy, and if he says this is since 1992 -- if
he says this is since 1892, I have a very -- we've discussed
this, and as you can see from the collection rates in our
district courts, I'm willing to bet a very large amount of
this money is going to be district court money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would appear that
way.
5-10-04
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ALFORD: Yes. And I met with Linda, and
Linda -- and I think it may be higher than you think.
654,000?
MS. UECKER: Well, Brad, I think the -- to
clarify the 1992 thing, I think if you went back to 1960 and
ran the report to present, it would give you the same
figure. I mean, he entered in 1992, but I think those
figures don't go back that far, as far as the report is
concerned.
MR. ALFORD: I don't know.
MS. UECKER: After, you know, I looked at it
a little bit. 'Cause that's -- you can put any date in
there you want to, so long as you go, you know, pretty far
back. It's probably going to give you the same amount.
MR. ALFORD: And that may be due to the fact
of data input by the County until a certain date, I guess,
is what you're thinking? Again, I -- I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I can explain that somewhat,
if you want me to. Well, the reason I went -- I went back
to '92 is -- is for -- for accounting purposes, with
GASB-34, we -- I had to arrive at what I considered a
reasonable amount for reserve for bad debts, so I went back
to -- to '92 and -- and looked at that year by itself.
And -- and this report I did gave me the amount of
5-10-09
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
collections -- monetary collections, and the amount of time
served and community service, anything that reduced the
amount that was assessed for that year. So, I went forward
and I looked at the activities that were assessed in 1992
for every year thereafter until -- until I got to current
year, which was 2002-2003. What I -- what I discovered was
that, on fines and fees that were collected in 1992, the
collection rate on those -- on those fees were zero when you
got to 2002, because after that length of time, the
likelihood of collecting any of that money is almost zero.
So, for that reason, I didn't go -- I didn't go back further
than '02. So, for -- for each court, I did the same thing.
I did it for district courts, County Court at Law, and for
all the J.P.'s.
So, I -- I built a matrix that shows the --
all the fines and fees that were assessed for each court,
and then I -- I went forward and I arrived at the
collections for each year for -- for the year of assessment
forward. So then, based on that, I came up with what I --
what I considered a collection -- or a reasonable collection
rate for each court, and then I applied that rate to -- to
the -- to the assessments for the current year to come up
with a reserve for loan offices -- not loan offices, but for
bad debts. So, the 650,000 that you're talking about is --
is the outstanding amount net of -- of bad debts for all
5-10-09
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
courts back to 1992. I found out that my -- my research
showed that -- that for J.P.'s, their collection rate falls
off to almost zero after -- after three years. I mean, it
goes down to under 2 -- 1 percent. So, the courts are
different. And you also have to remember that -- that part
of the 650,000 is not Kerr County money. You know, part of
it is State money.
But, from -- from a receivable standpoint,
from an accounting viewpoint, we -- we recorded that amount,
because it is receivable. Actually, there is some
controversy and -- among financial people and auditors
whether or not a fine is -- is really a receivable or not,
for the simple fact that that is not payment for an activity
that -- that the County has done, or it's not a fee for
something. It's a penalty. So -- so, there is some
discussion about whether or not, you know, a fine is really
an asset or not. So, I mean, we chose -- we chose to record
it, in conversation with the auditors and -- and, you know,
people at the Comptroller's office. That was our decision,
to go ahead and -- and book those -- those fines as -- as
receivables. And there -- I mean, it's not rocket science;
I mean, my approach to this, but it was the only logical way
I could -- I could determine to come up with a reasonable
amount to -- to report. I think maybe that -- well, I
approached it very conservatively. So I think, in my
5-10-04
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opinion, the $650,000 is a, you know, very conservative
amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was your
percentage allowance discount? What's your allowance
discount percentage?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it differs for each
court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think, over a 12-year
period, the collection rate for -- for the district
courts -- or the net is around 52 percent, and that -- that
includes the fines and fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know -- probably
Brad can do it easier, or work with Tommy or whoever. I
think it would be helpful to me just kind of to take the
current report you have, Brad -- you know, not all the
detail, but just look at the -- going back to -- if you're
using '92 from the Auditor's standpoint, go back that far
and let us look at how much out of the '92-'93 year is left
uncollected. I presume you'd be close to 90 percent in
every year, so until we get pretty close, kind of an aging
report for that 15-year period, because that's really what's
critical. I mean, if the --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly what I've
done. I've already done that.
5-10-04
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Then if we
can see a copy, that would be helpful, because if there's --
and even if -- you may not think we're going to collect it.
I mean, if the possibility of collecting it is, you know,
virtually zero, we'd like -- still like to know what is
there at what point, or when you wrote it off. So, to me, I
think that's kind of the condition.
MR. TOMLINSON: Essentially, we wrote
everything off prior to 19 -- actually be 1993-94.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: '93-'94. Because I think
that that's -- that report is what I'd like to kind of see,
to see how much we wrote off and see if it's worth going
back, you know, to -- for Brad to try to collect some of it.
MR. ALFORD: I think it will be if we get
this law. If Linda and her organization help get this new
legislation passed, I think it's worth looking at. I think
it's worth going back after, but it's going to depend on how
this law, if it ever happens, will be worded as to how we
can go back and how far we go back. If they put limitations
on it -- if they say, "Okay, from this day forward you can
do this, this, and this," well, that's what we have to look
at. But if they just retroactivate it, I think it's worth
looking at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brad, I don't want to
belabor this, but why can't you get the money that's owed?
5-10-09
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
What's the -- the law that says we can't go after the money
that's been assessed by district courts?
MR. ALFORD: 43.09 of the codes and
procedures is where our main hangup is, where it talks about
if you can -- if you are convicted of a misdemeanor, you can
do this, this, and this, but if you're convicted of a felony
after you've been in jail, at that time the Court can do
different things. It just gets real cloudy as to what you
can and can not do. That's our hangup. And the Judge is --
both of our judges here have looked at it and have reviewed
it, and they're like, "We don't see when we can use this."
Because I have proposed several different questions as to,
"Give me an example of when I can use this," and they're --
they've had Austin research it. They've had Office of Court
Administration's attorneys look at it. Judge Ables told me
last week that they are -- quote, they are concerned about
the laws as they stand. So, I mean, that's all I can tell
you, 'cause it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I still don't understand
it, but I probably never will.
MR. ALFORD: If you read it, you won't
understand it either, because I don't. But, again, we have
to rely on our County Judge, his expertise and his past
criminal prosecution, to help us with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know if I rely on
5-10-04
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the County Judge on that, but anyway -- I mean, if we did --
I mean, if there's a fine, then -- if the money's owed, it's
owed.
MR. ALFORD: It's pretty simple, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to go and get it.
But I guess it's more complicated than I can see. Thank
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all we have for
Mr. Alford?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- while we're on this
subject, I know there's some concern about the collection
rate in the felony cases in district court. Ms. Decker, our
District Clerk, is here with us, and she has done a
considerable amount of work in this great big gray area, the
iffy aspects of whether or not the law provides, and while
we're on this subject, if she would come explain to us kind
of the nuts and bolts of what that problem is, I'd
appreciate it.
MS. DECKER: If I could, I'd like to make a
comment on the 1992 report. And the explanation by the
Auditor -- and I don't -- I think what you have to remember,
on felony cases, you have to consider the time that these
people are in T.D.C. That amount is uncollectible during
that time. It's not until they get out that you can
5-10-G9
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
actually start considering that delinquent, because the
Parole Board's supposed to have them come report, and, "You
need to go to Kerr County and pay that fine." If they don't
do that, then it becomes delinquent. And I don't -- I'm not
sure that that was considered in -- in the report or not.
There's a couple of issues that I might just want to
clarify. Mr. Alford said that O.C.A. is going to work on
some legislation. We will do that with their advice, but
O.C.A. cannot legally submit requests for legislation. And,
yes, the statutes are -- are gray, but I think where the
difference is, is whether or not they're current or they're
delinquent. The statute is not gray on collecting fines and
costs on felonies after judgment. It is gray, however, once
they become delinquent. It's gray on those felony cases
that are delinquent where there is T.D.C. time assessed. It
is not gray on felonies that are delinquent where there is a
fine only assessed. So, I think the -- what I'm trying to
say is, the bottom line is, on felonies, until we get some
changes made, the key is to keep everybody current. You
know, once they become delinquent is where we have a
problem, especially on those cases where they're in T.D.C.
or they're coming out of T.D.C.. Or even --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, are you saying
that when someone appears before the Judge and he says,
"Okay, you're fined $1,000," can we require them that very
5-1G-04
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
moment to go in front of the Collections Department just
like everybody else?
MS. DECKER: They do. That's what the
judgment says.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when they become
delinquent, then the law gets goofy -- or cloudy, excuse me.
MS. DECKER: On felonies where there is
T.D.C. time. It's not -- it's not cloudy if there's no jail
time or T.D.C. time assessed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, what
you're saying is that if there is no time to be served -- is
that what you're saying? -- T.D.C. time served or time to be
served, we are at liberty and have an obligation to go after
them immediately if we determine --
MS. DECKER: Depending on -- depending on the
Collections Department. Now, when the Judge assesses a fine
and a cost, he doesn't tell the inmate, you know, when
you're going to pay it. He just says, "You need to report
to Collections now." So, Collections, based on their
investigations and a credit record, whatever you call it,
you know, they make that decision. So, I think once they
become delinquent, if there's no T.D.C. time assessed, then,
you know, we -- we can go after them. And, just for the
record -- and Judge Tinley probably knows this, too -- is
there is no felony offense where there is, upon conviction,
5-10-09
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that no T.D.C. time can be assessed. I mean, that is the
allowable on every conviction on a felony. However, some
district courts, Borne judges, depending on the
circumstances, will not assess T.D.C. time, and those are
the ones I'm talking about. Isn't that right, Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Pretty close.
MS. UECKER: I've been working with Jo
Carter, a District Clerk in Randall County. They have
actually come up with a program, and I've gotten some forms
from her where they are doing just that. I mean, they're --
it doesn't matter what kind of a case it is. It doesn't
matter whether there's T.D.C. time or not; they're going
after them based on -- based on what their interpretation of
the law is, and I'm not sure that it's correct. However,
their judges -- her District Judges are saying, "We're going
after them. If they want to challenge us, they can get a
lawyer and come back and challenge us."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's where I'm at.
That's the way it should be.
MS. UECKER: Well, the problem is -- is,
right now, we need to get our District Judges to sign those
orders. We -- Brad can't issue a warrant. I can't issue a
warrant without the Judge saying, you know, we need to go
after them. We can make a -- I think -- I think the key to
this collections is -- is keeping everybody current, keeping
5-10-04
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
them from going delinquent. Now, I'm going to try -- I'm
going to talk to the judges again, and -- and Brad and I
have talked about this, and we want to do some test cases.
And I have not had a chance to talk to Judge Ables about the
Randall County -- what they're doing. Of course, that's a
much larger county than we are. I talked to Jo last week.
I said, "Has anybody complained?" I mean, has anybody said,
"Randall County, you can't do this; you cannot issue that
warrant for me"? Nobody's said a word, so nothing's been
challenged there. So, if I can get somebody to sign some
orders so we can go after it, we'll try it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any idea of how
long they've been issuing those warrants and how many
warrants have actually been issued under that scenario?
MS. UECKER: I don't know how long -- I mean
how many warrants have been issued. I do know that this has
been going on about a year, because -- and they did this
based on some presentations that Russ has done at different
conferences and seminars.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, what about the
effort of actually getting legislation to change and
clarify?
MS. UECKER: We're still working on that.
The reason -- I have had a lengthy conversation with
Representative Keel, who filed the bill for us last time.
5-10-04
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
He did not even request a hearing for it, but -- and I've
talked to him since then, and I think he understands the
problem now. I sat down with him one-on-one, and he
actually did not understand, I don't think, what we were
trying to do. Plus the fact that that was not high on their
priority list. Redistricting was.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. He's a former
sheriff?
MS. UECKER: He's a former sheriff, and he's
also a former prosecuting attorney, I think. So, maybe my
choice of sponsors was wrong, and we're going to look at
that too. However, he did say that, you know, he would
probably be willing to carry it again, and I said, "Well,
you know, are we going to be able to get some hearings on
it, at least?" And he just wasn't interested in it last
year. But, yeah, we're -- Brad's going to help me; we're
going to get some other collections agencies -- Chad Graff
out of Lubbock has been real helpful. They're having the
same problems, so he and have I been working -- I think Brad
knows him, too.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, we've talked.
MS. UECKER: Yeah. So, we're still working
on trying to get something with a little more teeth.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I've got a
5-10-04
56
1
.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question for either Brad or Tommy. One of you said that the
J.P. collection rate falls to essentially zero after three
years. What's -- what causes that?
MR. ALFORD: From what we've seen, it's
driver's license information. Where the trooper or deputy
writes a citation, the information they're using is off that
driver's license. Well, that could be as long as 3.9 years
old, and they have moved four times since then; may have
been remarried, different names. I mean, there's a lot of
different workable solution -- problems. But what we're
seeing -- that's why we've asked for this 30-day window for
some of our programs. By the time the time frame rolls in
to us, these people have moved four times. I talked to one
gentleman the other day and he asked me how I -- how I found
him. Well, it's -- you know, that's not important. The
important part is, I did find you. So that's where we're
coming in at. We've noticed it in our past history. That's
pretty good.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
MR. TOMLINSON: A lot of our citations are
also on people that don't live in Texas.
MR. ALFORD: And military.
MR. TOMLINSON: Military people.
MR. ALFORD: A lot of military people.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're generally more minor
5-10-04
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
offenses and for lesser amounts, and so it takes some sort
of time to pay them out. I think that probably factors into
that, wouldn't it, Mr. Alford?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further of Mr. Alford
or anyone else in connection with this particular subject?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. -- Commissioner Baldwin,
are you ready to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. We'll return
to the fifth item on the agenda, report on First Responders.
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I've asked
Kyle Young from City of Kerrville to come by and give us a
report, and he -- you gentlemen remember the First
Responders is a program that we support and we drive, and --
and as well as pay for. Kyle, the reason we put times on
these deals --
MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir, I apologize.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, not -- don't
apologize yet. I may get on you here.
MR. YOUNG: Uh-oh.
5-10-04
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is for your
convenience, not for our convenience in any way. It's
for -- mostly for the professional people that we deal with
that are -- the emergency folks that we've asked -- asked to
come in; it's for your convenience, so you can get in and
get out and get back to work. And when you don't show up on
time, it throws us off, and it makes me mad. So, I would
appreciate it -- if you've had an emergency, I understand
that, but I'd appreciate it, from now on, when we set a
time, that you come in and be here on time. Thank you.
MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
MR. YOUNG: The First Responder program, I
haven't had an opportunity to come speak with y'all since
the last E.M.T. class. Out of the last E.M.T. class, we
gained seven First Responders after the last E.M.T. class.
That was 100 percent of the First Responders that were
sponsored by Kerr County in the program. So, all seven
passed their E.M.T.'s now, and they're working out in the
zones. This equates to one First Responder in Zone 1, which
is south Kerr County; two First Responders in Zone 2, which
is the Center Point area; two First Responders in Zone 4,
which is Ingram; and two First Responders in Zone 5, and
that is in the Hunt area. That gives us a total of three in
Zone 1, eight in Zone 2, two in Zone 3, five in Zone 4, and
5-10-09
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eight in Zone 5. That is very good coverage. There's two
zones in there that we would like to get a few more First
Responders in, but overall, I believe our county is very
well covered now with First Responders.
All of our First Responders, we're working on
trying to get them AED's. Several of them have them now.
We're a lot better covered since KPUB gave us some AED's;
that's working wonderful with us. As far as training, the
First Responders have been offered training. We, with
Kerrville Fire Department, provide C.E. training every
Wednesday, Thursday, and -- every second Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday of every month at 1:30. They are invited
to any of those. We are also holding another E.M.T. class
at this time, which they are allowed to come to any of
those. We run those two nights a week.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that part again,
about the night?
MR. YOUNG: We're having an E.M.T. class
right now that they can come on Tuesday and Thursday nights
from 6:00 to 10:00 and attend any of those classes as they
see fit for continuing education.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's at no cost to them?
MR. YOUNG: At no cost to them at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, a refresher. They
5-10-04
60
1
__ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
audit the course, as it were, but they still get credit on a
continuing education basis?
MR. YOUNG: Right. They can come one night
and get four hours of continuing education credit in
whatever subject area that we're teaching that night. We
purchased some equipment for the First Responders out of
your budget this year. 90 percent of that has been handed
out now. The majority, if not a11, of the First Responders
have appropriate equipment now. We are running a little
short on pagers and radios, but they have been able to,
through some of the local volunteer fire departments --
those members who are members of those fire departments have
been able to use their radios to gain this -- gain
information when we have a call.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kyle, could you give
us an idea of what kind of equipment that this court is
providing?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. What we're providing
is First Responder bags, regulators, suction kits,
C-collars, things like that, the major items that are -- are
to be used during this. We've also -- due to a shortage in
the Kerrville Fire Department, we've had to go with Hill
Country Medical and set up a separate account for the First
Responders. Those bottles are kept -- the 02 bottles are
kept separate from the Kerrville Fire Department bottles, so
5-10-04
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
they're able to get those without having to go to actual
central station. They can get those at my office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool. Thank you.
MR. YOUNG: Do you have any questions on the
First Responder program?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do. Kyle, take me
through the steps that it takes to become a First Responder.
If somebody indicates an interest today at being a First
Responder, what happens between today and the time that
they're first eligible to answer a call?
MR. YOUNG: They have to attend an E.M.T.
class, which is over 500 hours, and a full class that
contains classroom and clinical time, which consists of
emergency room rotations and also rides on the ambulance
with sponsoring agencies. Sid Peterson Hospital is who we
had an agreement with during the class that you sponsored,
and Kerrville Fire Department is where they responded on the
ambulance time. That is all part of the classroom and the
E.M.T. class itself. After the E.M.T. class is completed,
then they have to apply with Texas Department of Health and
take a national registry test at that time. Once they pass
that test, then they are eligible to be First Responders.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How long does that
take?
MR. YOUNG: The testing process depends on
5-10-09
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
when they actually are finished with all their clinicals,
when they get their application in, and when a test site is
available for them to go and test. With the new national
registry testing, it sometimes pushes them back a month or
two before they can actually test, due to the test load.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, these seven that
just became E.M.T.'s within the last year, how long were
they in training before they could answer a call?
MR. YOUNG: The class started in June and was
over in November. And then, at that time, they started
getting into Texas Department of Health and taking their
test. It ranged from one month after the class to several
months before they could get in and get tested.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you sign off on it
because of the hours that they take?
MR. YOUNG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And does the medical
director here in Kerrville sign off on it as well?
MR. YOUNG: No. He -- he's one of the course
personnel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. YOUNG: He sponsors the course,
basically. We have to have a medical director overseeing
each one of the courses.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
5-10-04
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kyle, on the numbers for
eastern Kerr County, does that include those that are in
Comfort or living in Kendall County?
MR. YOUNG: No. We have Zone 6, which
basically runs from Roane Road on into Comfort. If we have
something in that area; we can call and request that the
Comfort Volunteer Fire Department assist us in those areas.
I know a lot of our Center Point people will respond over
past that, anyway, so that's covered both ways, depending on
the severity of the incident.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a concern
about emergency services in the far west part of the county,
Mountain Home, Divide, Y.O. Ranchlands. You were saying we
have five E.M.T.'s in Area 4, which is Ingram, and eight in
Area 5, which is Hunt. Are any of these people physically
located in the far west part of the county?
MR. YOUNG: No, sir, I -- there's two that
cover the Mountain Home area that are not really active, per
se. They're on the rolls, but they're not real active.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And nobody in Y.O.
Ranch Estates?
MR. YOUNG: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kyle, you mentioned that a
number of these E.M. -- these First Responders are also
5-10-09
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
members of the volunteer fire departments. What -- what are
the percentages of those? Do you have that?
MR. YOUNG: Well, we have a lot of them that
are also members of the Kerrville Fire Department. In Zone
1, we have two members of the fire department -- the
Kerrville Fire Department, one member of Turtle Creek. Zone
2, we have -- one, two, three -- four that are members of
the Kerrville Fire Department, two that are members of the
Center Point Volunteer Fire Department. In Zone 3, we have
three members that are members of the Kerrville Fire
Department. That is all of Zone 3, consists of Kerrville
Fire Department employees. In Zone 4, we have two, maybe
three that are members of the Ingram Volunteer Fire
Department. I'm not sure on the status on the other one.
He was associated with the Ingram volunteer Fire Department,
but I've heard lately, within the last couple of weeks,
that -- I'm not sure of his status. In Zone 5, three
members are members of the Kerrville Fire Department, and I
believe five are members of the Hunt Volunteer Fire
Department. And, out of those, two members are on the
Kerrville Fire Department.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A county of our
size, in terms of geographics and population, how do we
stack up in terms of total number of First Responders?
Should we have more"?
5-10-04
65
1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. YOUNG: We should have more in some of
the zones; Zones 1 and 3 are pretty slim. As far as Zone 2,
five is very well covered. Zone 4 could probably use one or
two more, but pretty much the ones that are in those zones
respond quite frequently. In the E.M.T. class that we have
now, we have one Zone 1 First Responder that is going
through that class right now, so he should be able to help
in Zone 1. Zone 3 is actually the one that we're really
most concerned about, and that's 16 North. And, in that
area, that -- three of those people, they're all on the fire
department, so that coverage is -- is fairly slim. So, a
lot of the firemen that live in the city, if they hear that,
they respond out to help.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kyle, can you provide
us -- not right now, but at your convenience -- a map as to
where the zones -- what the zones cover?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, we can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way, we can -- when
we talk the about zones, it will be easier, to me, to
understand which one's which.
JUDGE TINLEY: And notation as to coverage in
each of the zones.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and number of --
number of -- you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Possibly with a break-out of
5-10-09
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
how many are members of -- paid firemen with Kerrville Fire
Department, other volunteer firefighters, and those in other
status.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be helpful.
MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir, sure can.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are there any critical needs
right now for our county First Responders?
MR. YOUNG: The -- the thing right now that's
-- that's the most critical -- and we did purchase some
radios a while back -- is coming up with a better
communications system for the First Responders, be it an
alphanumeric paging system, where they can get a page and it
can -- they can just look at it. Because the way it is now,
they hear the First Responder page and they have to wait
until the dispatcher gives the information out to know which
zone it is in. So, you've got people in five or six zones
getting up, waiting to find out what zone it's in. By the
time they hear it, then they -- if it's not their zone, then
they have to go back to sleep, where if they had basically
an alphanumeric pager, they could pick up their pager, look
at it, and if it's not their zone, they could go on back to
bed. And that's probably the biggest thing that they have
come to me about, because just doing the radio
communications in the pagers, sometimes, you know, that type
of communication is fair at best. So, I think that's
5-10-04
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,_ 2 4
25
probably the most critical thing right now. The
communication between the First Responders on scene and the
ambulance with the radios has -- has helped in that aspect,
but actually, the notification process is -- is a little
weak, because they're not going to keep their radios on all
night and listening to all the traffic on that channel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can sit down later
and work through that; you can kind of brief me on that, how
that works and what -- what it would take to remedy that
problem, and --
MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we'll go from
there.
MR. YOUNG: One last item that I would like
to visit with you about the First Responder program. As of
Friday, I have tendered my resignation with the Kerrville
Fire Department. I'm in my last two weeks with them, so I'm
not sure right now exactly what they're going to be doing in
the interim. That is yet to be decided here within the next
two weeks. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where are you going?
MR. YOUNG: Temple, to Scott and White
Hospital. I'll be a shift commander on their -- their EMS
program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic. Good for
5-10-C4
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a loss for us,
but good for you.
MR. YOUNG: I'm really looking forward to it.
It's a big step up for me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, my butt-chewing
was all for nothing.
MR. YOUNG: All for naught.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dad-gummit.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just rolled off his
back.
MR. YOUNG: I just wanted --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, with that, then,
I'd like to thank you, 'cause I think you have taken First
Responders further than it has since I've been a
commissioner, the whole time, than any other person in your
position. I appreciate you --
MR. YOUNG: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- getting it through,
and what you've done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much,
Kyle. Appreciate it.
5-10-04
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. YOUNG: I'll get these reports to you
before I leave.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate this report and
your service. Thank you very much.
MR. YOUNG: You bet. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good luck in central
Texas.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now that Commissioner Baldwin
feels better, at least --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, that made me
feel bad.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Kathy?
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've had occasion to
be on the scene of accidents three times out in Kerr County
where the First Responders -- with the First Responders, and
we get a lot of value for what they do. I think our money is
well-spent on this program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely. It's just -- you know, it seems like I've been
communicating a little bit with the folks out at Tierra
Linda, which are in another county, of course, but we
participate with them the in some ways, and they get so --
their little community out there gets so active and involved
5-10-04
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in everything, it would be kind of neat to see if we could
get the Y.O. people to kind of get involved and maybe get a
First Responder or two out there. You know, get them
trained, certified, and I think that would be neat. That
may be some answers to our -- to your questions. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything
further on that particular agenda item? Let's see if we can
go ahead before our break and take care of Item 7, the
report of 911 activities. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, thank you.
Mr. Amerine, I have a time on here of 9:50, and its only
10:30. What are you doing here so early?
MR. AMERINE: I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill has assured me
that it'll be short and sweet and to the point, so you have
to listen real quick.
MR. AMERINE: Commissioners, Judge Tinley,
thank you for having me back. I'd like to start off by
saying that the address project in 2003 is complete, and we
can say that officially now that all the procedures and
plans have been executed. The results weren't 100 percent,
but we didn't anticipate that they would be. You can see in
these first numbers on this status list that out of 50,822
phone lines that we cover in the 911 system, that there's
only 4,500 remaining that we still don't have addresses for.
5-10-04
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So, the addressing project is complete. Addressing is not,
and we're officially in a maintenance mode. And I know
that's a term that Commissioner Baldwin likes a lot,
"maintenance," but that's officially where we're at right
now, is in a maintenance mode. But when you look at it in
context of where we were a year ago, we had about 49,000
phone lines in our 911 system, but only 32,000 had
addresses, so we've made a significant leap in the number of
addressable phone numbers that are in the 911 system. They
give us something to respond to when folks call 911, so I
think, in that context, the addressing project of 2003 was a
good success.
So, what are we doing in post-address project
days? What are we doing today to continue this process?
There's an acronym I'm going to give you here called MSAG,
which is something the phone companies use to assure
standardization of addressing as folks come in and establish
phone service. We've provided the initial copy of the --
the MSAG, which stands for Master of Standardized Address
Guide, we've put -- provided the initial copy of that to
both Hill Country Telephone and Kerrville Telephone Company.
Essentially, what the MSAG is, it contains all the
approved -- and this is something that we worked with Road
and Bridge, the City of Kerrville, City of Ingram -- all the
approved road names that's private and publicly maintained.
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
The second part of that, which we haven't
completed yet, is we'll provide a list of all the legitimate
house number ranges on each of those streets, so someone
can't come in and say, "I'm at 3500 Upper Turtle Creek,"
when there is no such number on that street. The final
thing is something called emergency service number, and
that's part of our 911 system, so that when someone dials
9-1-1 and their phone number and address displays, it also
provides a list of all their responding services, which
volunteer fire department, which First Responders, what law
enforcement agency responds. Now, Kerrville Police
Department has already put that cross-reference list
together. We simply have to add it to the MSAG and assign
it an ESN number so that when someone dials 9-1-1, this
information will automatically display. Right now, the
dispatchers have to look that information up based on the
address, so it's somewhat of a labor-intensive process. The
whole MSAG process should be complete by the end of this
year.
Mobile home parks. I think I told the Court
when I was here a couple of visits ago that, because of the
complexity of addressing mobile homes, the fact that a lot
of them are not truly incorporated mobile homes or managed;
truly, they're just a, you know, 50-by 50-foot lot with five
homes on it, that that was a challenging effort, and that we
5-10-04
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have completed addressing those in this year, 'cause we
forestalled doing them last year. We've completed 22 of 32.
The ones that remain are quite small, but we can complete
all 32 of those in the county before the end of this year.
How are we going to respond to these
remaining 4,500 phone numbers we have in our 911 system with
that address? We've set up a plan -- this is the
maintenance plan -- to directly call these folks from our
office and have them come into our office, make them
understand that their public safety depends on them getting
a physical address so that we can respond to them in an
emergency. The plan has been laid out, and we're going to
actually start executing that today, as soon as we have a
script approved on what we're going to say to these folks
when we call them.
Sign sales. As Commissioner Nicholson said,
one of the things that we're doing to try to be proactive at
911 is, we're going out to the community volunteer fire
departments on weekends, making ourselves and our machines
and materials available to folks so they don't have to drive
to Kerrville during the work day, when it's difficult for
some folks, because of their professions, to get these
signs. I also have heard good feedback from the various
First Responders, volunteer fire departments, law
enforcement, that they're giving a ration to folks that they
5-10-04
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
respond to that they had difficulty finding when they don't
see a sign on their property, and I appreciate that.
There's nothing they can do to fine them or cite them on
that, but they are letting them know that they're putting
themselves at risk when they don't see a sign. Sign sales
is brisk. It's not as -- as -- to give you some idea, we
probably should have something on the order in the county of
14,000 signs. We probably have about 4,000 at this point,
so we have a long ways to go. We'll continue to sell signs
as long as we need to.
So, with that being all the address update,
very briefly, I'd like to tell you what we're doing, what's
the big initiative for 2004. We have seven-year-old
equipment at the PSAP. That's two years beyond
obsolescence. I mean, I'm over there kicking, you know,
caressing, doing whatever I have to do with that equipment
practically two to three times a week to keep it running.
We're currently in negotiation or prenegotiation with
several vendors to replace the equipment. We had a vendor
presentation from three of those vendors last week. We hope
to have Request for Proposals responded to before the end of
the third quarter and have a contract before the end of the
year to replace that. One of the things that we're going to
do for the County specifically is, right now at the
Sheriff's Office, all they have is a modem and a printer for
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
a 911 call transfer, and in my talks with Rusty and his
dispatch supervisor, that's wholly inadequate. There's no
way they can keep a history of calls that come to the
Sheriff's Office. They can't keep a history of the kind of
medical conditions that that person may have so that when
they call back, it comes up and you don't have to keep
asking the same questions. So, we're going to buy for the
Sheriff's Office a full-up 911 workstation, so when there's
a data transfer, not only will you get a call transfer and a
modem printout of what the addressing information is, but
you'll have the ability to do two-way communications with
the 911 PSAP to be able to update information that's vital
to future calls.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back on the PSAP
equipment that you have some bids in, how far are you -- are
you going -- I mean, how much -- like, I've always wondered
about this. You know, how much -- when a call comes in, how
much information pops up on the screen?
MR. AMERINE: Today? You want to know today?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, today's, and
then what will you go to? I know there's room to grow.
MR. AMERINE: Yeah, there's a lot of room to
grow. Right now, we have the ability to store a phone
number, a physical address, and a name. That's essentially
it. With the equipment that we are proposing to buy, we'll
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
be able to do the same -- there's ALI information, the
address location information. We'll be able to store Phase
II wireless latitudes and longitudes, the location of where
a cell call is coming from.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
MR. AMERINE: We'll be able to store call
history, which does not currently -- we store today, but
does not currently display for the dispatcher. And we'll
also be sable to store what they call a sub-ALI subject,
maybe some specific directions other than a physical address
that would assist a responder in locating that person.
Maybe there's medical history; for instance, diabetic or on
a respirator, all these kind of things that would be
beneficial to a First Responder. There's also -- one of the
things we're looking at, if we can afford it in this year,
is something called mapped ALI, where, when the 911 call
comes in, besides getting a textural screen display of
address and all this other information, you also have one of
the maps that we can produce from all the GIS layers that
are available right now, road file, the aerial overheads and
the survey property data; actually be able to put an icon --
flashing icon on where the call came from, so you have a
visual indication of where the call's coming from as well.
And this is -- most of the other large counties, like Harris
County, which is filthy rich compared to Kerr County,
5-10-04
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they've had that for some time. It's a great help to
dispatch. So, those are the sorts of things, Commissioner
Baldwin, we hope to go to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
MR. AMERINE: Estimated cost could be
anywhere from $50,000 to $125,000, which we're funded for at
911. We've had money set aside for a couple years to do
that. As soon as we spend that money, depending on how much
we spend, we'll be in a -- a passbook savings mode again for
the next five years, when this equipment's obsolete; we'll
have to buy it again. So, we'll know better when the
proposals come back on what the cost will be. And, as it
states here, three positions at Kerrville Police Department,
one full station at the S.O., and we estimate the completion
of that installation, like I said, the end of this year,
first part of next year. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's generated the
need for four more positions?
MR. AMERINE: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What has generated
the need for four more positions?
MR. AMERINE: These aren't four more. These
are replacing equipment at the three positions that already
exist at Kerrville Police Department, and adding one new one
at the 5.0., 'cause there really isn't a responder position
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
at the Sheriff's Office, like I said. It's just a modem and
a printer. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill -- how did you know
I had a question?
MR. AMERINE: 'Cause you ... (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two questions. One, I've
had several people tell me recently that they're unsure what
their address is. They have it in their subdivision, but
they don't have a number. Do I just tell them to call you?
Is that the best way for them to verify --
MR. AMERINE: They should not dial 9-1-1 to
find out what address is being displayed. We actually have
had people do that. The dispatchers explain that that's 911
abuse. Actually, calling our administrative line, we have
the ability to tell them what the address is in the PSAP for
them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the other part
of the question, you just think, over time, you're going to
get people to start putting more signs up?
MR. AMERINE: I think the issue -- as you see
more signs out, people will go, "Gee, I need one too."
We've actually had people say that. You know, they said the
neighbor on either side of them had a sign up; maybe I ought
to get in and get one. So, I think it will actually
accelerate the process as we see more and more signs.
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you got thoughts of
doing any -- talking to the phone company about having them
do some sort of an insert, you know, basically at no cost to
us, other than printing costs, of just, you know --
MR. AMERINE: I've talked to them about that
several times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Several times? Okay.
MR. AMERINE: Yeah. It's -- it's -- I have
not been successful in getting any kind of -- anything, even
when we were back in the formal addressing project, getting
them to -- hey, gee, you know, you've received at least one
or two notices from the County. You've received a couple
from the Post Office. You've seen several articles in the
paper. Just wanted something in the bills from the two
phone companies to say, "If you haven't responded, you need
to." And neither phone company -- and I understand why;
there are legal and liability reasons why they wouldn't put
anything in there. Their responsibility, when it comes to
911, is collecting an address and pushing it to me, and
that's the extent of their legal liability.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that, but it
seems like they put other advertisements and stuff in phone
bulls. I don't know why they couldn't do this, too. But,
okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill, under 4a --
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- which it talks
about the City of Kerrville's addressing.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're not directly
involved in it, but do they have someone on their staff
committed to -- to working on that and coordinating with you
or what?
MR. AMERINE: They're supposed to, yes, sir.
They still have several addressing issues that need to be
addressed. Main, Broadway, Memorial are -- still have
distinct names. That has not been addressed yet. That
should all be Main, all the way out to what the County and
the City decided upon where the point of demarcation should
be. But, for whatever reason, there hasn't been any
activity in addressing in the city that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you don't --
there's not going to be a problem? The numbers running out
Harper Road and then, when it gets to the county line --
city limit line, the number picking up and --
MR. AMERINE: No. When they get around to
it -- and I do believe, in speaking to the City Manager,
that they will -- there won't be any issues with the
continuity of addressing from the city to the county.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bill, your new PSAP equipment
5-10-04
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will be Phase II compatible in all respects?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Long/lat and so forth? Any
update on any funding assistance on any of that? I know
that has been kicked around for some time from federal
sources, for example, I know.
MR. AMERINE: Well, we've already committed
-- already spent just under $10,000 getting -- getting what
they call the final leg tandem, which will collect all the
wireless information and bring it down through the long/lat
tandem in San Antonio to us. We've already paid for that in
a five-year contract. The City of Kerrville -- I'm sorry,
Kerrville Telephone, you might have noticed in recent
papers, has already started contract negotiations, if they
already haven't been set, with the intermediate provider of
that information. Intrado is the service agency that will
collect and database the wireless information, so, in turn,
will have to contract with Kerrville to do that. The only
thing that remains is for us to ask the two major providers,
through the F.C.C., to actually start pushing Phase II data
to us. We haven't done that yet. We won't till we get our
new equipment, so really, it's just a formality at this
point to file the F.C.C. paperwork to request Phase II data
once we have our equipment in place.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you see any financial
5-10-04
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
obligation in that regard?
MR. AMERINE: There'll be service charges
we'll have to pay, either indirectly or through Kerrville
Telephone, to pay for the Intrado databasing service.
There's also cost recovery. Interestingly enough, the
State, through CSEC, has basically thumbed their nose at the
wireless carriers and said, "Take it from your customers;
were not giving you a cent for cost recovery." That's to
pay for all the switches and routers that are required to
download that information to the PSAP's. The districts --
independent districts of the state of Texas have, under the
leadership of Laverne Hogan -- some of you may have known
her; she passed just in the last two weeks. She was the
first and the only Executive Director for Harris County.
Under her leadership in cost recovery, we've been
negotiating what that cost would be to pay the wireless
companies in five-year contracts. But, to answer your
question, we haven't started any grant process to pay for
that, because it's a reoccurring cost. I mean, I'd have to
be going after a grant every five years, essentially. We're
a small district. We -- we have under 50 -- 50,000-plus
phone lines, and the cost to us will be affordable, even
within the service charges we currently collect from our
customers. I think that actually answers your question in
kind of a roundabout way. I'm sorry.
5-10-04
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're used to it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for Mr. Amerine?
Yes, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing I'd like to
mention. During this time, as Bill stated also, it's
becoming a very serious problem for us to find locations.
Because now we're kind of in the interim where some people
have their new sign out; there are other people who don't
have a sign at all. The block numbers are totally
different, and it hasn't been unusual at all to pass up a
residence by over 3 miles trying to find it on one road.
You know, Upper Turtle Creek is extremely serious. And what
I'd like to encourage is people seriously need to get out
and buy the signs and post the signs, 'cause that's causing
us some major problems right now locating people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that point, I think on
some of the longer roads, you know, those that are 5, 6,
7 miles, it may be helpful if members of the Court or
Commissioners, you know, contact a few people. If you have
a few reference points, anyway, it helps a lot. I mean, you
know, to get --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it does, but you
have a reference point with the new address which is, you
know, as many as 10 blocks different than the address this
person is still wanting to use, or still says they have, and
5-10-04
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
their place isn't marked, and it really causes us some
problems. We just need to do anything we can to get people
to go ahead and get the signs and post them, because
that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Once the Post Office
quits delivering mail, they'll probably change their
address.
MR. AMERINE: Well, when we -- when we
receive the 911 call -- and, by the way, all these new
addresses are in the PSAP, whether people are using them or
posting them or not. When they dial 9-1-1, their new
physical address is displayed. Now, as a matter of
procedure, the dispatcher always asks, "What address do you
have displayed?" so that the Sheriff's Office and others
will be able to find them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We do that, but a lot of
them are ones that aren't dialing 9-1-1; they're dialing the
agencies directly or something, and they're giving them
their old address, and it takes forever to find it when
you're --
MR. AMERINE: When that occasion occurs, when
there is a discrepancy between the PSAP and our -- what's
displayed, we are working those case-by-case to try to get
those resolved. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to make
5-10-09
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one point, that you had mentioned earlier not to call 911 to
find out what your address is, but call your office. It's
792-5911.
MR. AMERINE: That's correct. 8:00 to 5:00,
Monday through Friday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, this is exciting.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Government at work.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We'll stand in
recess until 11:00.
(Recess taken from 10:50 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, it's a bit after 11 a.m.
Let's come back to order. The next item on the agenda is
Item Number 10, review, discuss, and consider approval of
2004 Employee Benefit Administrative Service Agreement. I
placed this on the agenda. If the Court will recall, I
believe it was the first meeting in April, I mentioned that
the agreement had been presented and that I had some
concerns about it. The request of the Court at that time
was that we put it back on the agenda, and for me to pass
along my concern to the County Attorney, which I did. And
my -- when I originally got that document, I requested our
personnel benefits officer to confirm that, in fact, the --
the administrative services agreement conformed to the bid
5-10-09
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the award that was made back in December. The only
confirmation that I received was with respect to the
monetary items. But, in order that the Court might be
aware, or possibly be reminded what the concerns that I had
and that I confirmed to the County Attorney were, I'm not
able to verify that the annual plan document fee that's
called for in the administrative services agreement was, in
fact, part of the bid or the award. There's some other
monetary obligations.
Now, in the whole scheme of things of the
over one and a half million dollars that we budget for
employee health care benefits, it's not that much money, but
it's about $3,000, and $3,000 is $3,000. The other concern
that I had was that the term of the agreement, on its face,
says that it is a three-year agreement. The bid and the
award, as far as I'm able to determine, is for one year.
Actually, for us to be able -- I don't -- I don't think this
Court has the ability to enter into a three-year financial
obligation, save and except there be some sort of
certificate of obligation, bonded indebtedness, or some
other approved long-term approval of debt. So, I think
we're prohibited in that respect.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: The other thing is, I --
5-i0-04
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the -- the bid did provide for a three-year guarantee on
third-party administrative fees, and those being locked in,
so in that context, we should have a one-year agreement.
And -- but with the option in the county to elect to extend
that agreement for an additional two years, with those
third-party administrative fees that were properly bid and
properly accepted locked in at the existing rate. The other
concern I had was the -- the termination clause of that
agreement provided that -- here, again, it referenced it as
to a three-year agreement and said that we could only
terminate within a 30-day window immediately prior to the
anniversary date. I believe that we should have the option
to terminate virtually any agreement, if we feel like
there's just cause, upon 30 days notice at any time. There
was at least one other provision that was in the agreement,
as tendered, that was not in a -- the tabulation of what the
bids and the awards were, so far as I've been able to
determine. There was a mandatory mediation provision.
Certainly, as a -- as an alternative, we like to keep
mediation available, and it is. Mediation is always
available. But to have that required as to any dispute, I
think, of course, maybe precludes us having some options
that we would otherwise have.
I would have hoped that someone from E.B.A.
would have been here today to respond to these questions and
5-10-04
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concerns. I don't see anybody from E.B.A., and no one has
indicated to me that there is anybody here from E.B.A. I
did note that there was delivered to each of us this morning
an e-mail, which came to the personnel benefits officer, our
Treasurer, indicating that -- that at least Mr. Rothwell
would not be here today. I wasn't certain about --
certainly, they have other principals in that outfit down
there, or other representatives that could have been here
today, and I'm a little disappointed that they're not.
Mr. Motley, do you have any other items that you're
concerned about in connection with this agreement?
MR. MOTLEY: You're talking about just on the
application for the administrative service agreement?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, the administrative
services agreement of the third-party administrator. That's
the only one I'm talking about now.
MR. MOTLEY: No, I don't have anything listed
out to me. I've never actually received a copy of the -- the
bid documents and the matrix that was worked out by Mr. Gray
and such that is to compare this to. I've not -- I don't
have anything to compare the bid to -- I mean the agreement
or the contract with to see how -- how well it complies with
what was bid and what was recommended.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aren't those at the
County Attorney's -- the County Treasurer's office?
5-10-04
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOTLEY: They are. I think they are. I
believe we've -- I'm not sure. I've requested several
documents and haven't gotten them, but I'm not sure if that
was one of them or not.
MS. NEMEC: Are you talking about the bid
package itself? Okay. After the last meeting where this
was on the agenda, I was asked to provide the County
Attorney's office with the bid package. I went down there
and I left that with Wayne -- I'm not sure what his last
name is -- and I came back up here and I let the Judge know
that that had been delivered to the County Attorney's
office.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I haven't looked at it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You haven't received it?
MR. MOTLEY: I haven't looked at it, if I've
received it. I'm not aware that I've received it.
MS. NEMEC: So I don't have it; that's in
their office.
MR. MOTLEY: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER WII,LIAMS: What is the history
of our service agreement relationship in terms of terms in
the past? One year, two year, three years in the past,
every time it was renewed?
MS. NEMEC: Always been a one-year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
5-10-04
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: It's always been a one-year, that
I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why, then, was it
three in Don Gray's recommendation? According to this memo,
Mr. Gray recommended to the Court -- and I'm told it's in
the minutes -- recommended that the E.B.A. contract be
renewed for three years, with fees fixed for the three-year
term. That would have been a departure, then, from our
previous terms for service agreements.
MS. NEMEC: Normally, we just go with a
one-year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I mean, and I
haven't read the minutes, but my memory is, I mean, I don't
think it was for a three-year term. I think it's a one-year
term. I agree with the Judge -- with what Commissioner
Baldwin said; I don't think we can do a three-year term.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm okay with one
with an option to renew it at the current rates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, maybe E.B.A.
misunderstood, but I don't think I misunderstood it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I agree with the
Judge; I agree with you. I don't -- we can't do three
years. I'm sure we cannot do three years. And -- and I
recall Mr. Gray recommending a company; I don't recall him
adding three years or anything. But my question is, where
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,... 2 4
25
91
is the document that corrects all that? Let's put together
something that -- that meets our needs, the clause in there
that we can get in and get out and all the -- all those
things that you listed. Let's draw one up and adopt it and
go on with life. We're dragging this thing out again, and
we should not be doing that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioner, the
problem is, that's a bilateral agreement, and we -- we
cannot unilaterally adopt an agreement which binds two
sides.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, they don't have
to sign it if they don't want to, but I think that instead
of us presenting problems, we need to present a solution to
this thing. I mean, this -- this has drug on way too long.
Way too long.
JUDGE TINLEY: My solution would be that --
that the administrative services agreement, with the
deletion of the mediation paragraph, with the termination
provision providing for Kerr County have the right to
terminate that agreement at any time on 30 days prior
written notice, that -- that the agreement be for a term of
one year, with the option -- and Kerr County to have the
option to extend that for two successive one-year periods,
independently of each other, and that the -- the third-party
administrator fees be frozen at the rates as specified in
5-10-04
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that agreement; and lastly, that any requirement of an
annual plan document fee be deleted and eliminated. That,
subject to those changes being made, I think it would
conform to essentially what we've done in the past with --
with this same third-party administrator. Would it not,
Mr. Motley?
MR. MOTLEY: I believe it would, Your Honor.
It would be similar to what's been done in the past.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question
in that right there. Asking them or asking anyone to freeze
the fees on subsequent years, is that -- I mean, is that a
legal, proper way to do things?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think they bid it that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's how the three years got
in there. They bid it on a freezing of their third-party
administrative fees for a period of three years. That's how
the three years got in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's your
understanding, then, that they can do a one with an option
to renew at -- at Kerr County's option, to renew at the
rates as quoted?
JUDGE TINLEY: Third party administrative fee
rates as quoted, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other question,
5-10-04
93
1
"~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Judge. What problem do you have with the mediation clause?
It says, "The parties shall mediate any dispute prior to any
litigation being commenced." What problems do you have with
that?
JUDGE TINLEY: The problem I have is, it --
it precludes our options unnecessarily. Certainly, it's not
to say that mediation isn't appropriate in -- in whatever
context it may arise, but it was not in the prior agreement,
as I've been able to determine, the one that -- that we had
previously with E.B.A. It was not contained in that
agreement. Incidentally, the termination clause as phrased
in this agreement was not in the prior agreement, and the
annual plan document -- document fee as specified in one of
the two options in the presently tendered agreement was not
present in the old agreement, either.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of agree with
Commissioner Baldwin. I think it's incumbent on us, if we
have problems with this agreement, to delineate the problems
with E.B.A. in a letter outlining the changes we'd like to
see made, and indicate that we're willing to go ahead with
those changes agreed to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- these comments
that the Judge is making I think should be made on this
document by hand, initial them and send them off. And if
they initial them and send them back, they accept them, and
5-10-04
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if they don't, they don't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's quicker, rather than
trying to create a new agreement. I mean, I don't know why
we wouldn't do it that way. Just line through the pages --
you know, the mediation, the only question -- comment I have
as to mediation, you know, I think that we need to be
consistent with all our contracts. I don't know if we are
or aren't. I think that we need to look at that in all our
contracts and delete mediation from all of them if we do,
because I know it's my personal experience that it exists in
a lot of contracts. And I think that it -- you know, I
don't think we should pick and choose the ones that we
delete and not delete. I think it's probably a good
practice to delete it in all of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that -- but
there's also value in the mediation clause, and if this
particular one were modified to read, "by mutual agreement,
shall mediate any dispute prior to any litigation being
commenced," to me, that's acceptable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I think I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we -- I agree
with Commissioner Baldwin; I think we need to move on. I
think that our -- I mean, it's a potential risk to the
5-10-09
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
employees by leaving this hanging any longer. And I think
that, I mean, from what I'm hearing, there's pretty much
agreement on the Court.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got three items
here -- maybe I missed one -- that sounded like we're
thinking we'd like to change. One is the provision that we
can -- either party can terminate the -- the agreement with
30 days notice at any time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that the
agreement's for one year, with Kerr County having the right
to extend up to two years at the current rates.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two one-year options to -- to
extend the agreement, yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And to delete the
document fee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Delete what?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The document fee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Plan document fee. And either
delete or modify the mediation -- or the mediation
paragraph.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Annual plan document fee
is not -- that's not in our prior years or wasn't in the
bid?
JUDGE TINLEY: The prior contract had a
5-10-04
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
clause in there with respect to that; it said printing fees
only.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my preference would
be to -- we'll be here, I know, this afternoon -- is let our
Administrative Assistant make these corrections, and we can
vote on an actual document, rather than have it floating out
there where there'll be more confusion. I think these are
all pretty easy to make.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right by me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then come back and
approve it and move on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that where we're going,
gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, are you
comfortable with those issues?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think the Judge brought
up a point that we need to consider, is that, in essence,
it's just another offer back to E.B.A. to do business this
way. If they choose to sign that, then it will probably --
the ball will be back in their court again. I don't see
those -- I don't recall those being in the previous
agreement, the previous one, and I -- I don't think -- you
know, I mean, if y'all want to do the mediation, I don't see
5-10-04
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anything wrong with that, but the others -- the three-year
we can't do, and I think that was an error. I feel like I
went back and looked in the minutes, but I'm not -- I don't
recall; I've looked at a lot of stuff on this. We can check
those minutes while the Administrative Assistant is typing
that over the lunch hour, if you check and see what was
actually said in that meeting, 'cause I wasn't present. But
I think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean Mr. Gray's
recommendation?
MR. MOTLEY: Right, three years in duration,
or was it just a three-year lock-in on the administrative
fees? I think that's what it was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It might have been
the latter.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, it was the latter.
MR. MOTLEY: I don't have any problem with it
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's, in my opinion,
a good direction to go to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are you -- anything
further on that item, pending returning to it?
MR. ELLER: Judge? I submitted a request.
JUDGE TINLEY: You certainly did, Mr. Eller.
I apologize; I was about to overlook you. My apologies,
5-10-04
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sir. Mr. Charlie Eller has submitted a request to speak on
this item. And my apologies, again, sir.
MR. ELLER: I'm Charlie Eller; I live in
Greenwood Forest. This Court continues to amaze me. I'm --
didn't fall off the potato wagon last week. I put in a long
career in business, contracts, law and otherwise. But, to
me, it is beyond belief that this Court, who authorized the
hiring of a litigation attorney who was certain to file a
lawsuit to recover taxpayers' funds from a company, and now
propose to sign another contract with the same company to
perform the same service that the lawsuit alleges was
improperly performed. In fact, the lawsuit says breach of
contract, negligence, and making false representations. If
you hired someone to put a roof on your house and it started
leaking while you were talking to them about putting a roof
on a house down the street, and filed a lawsuit against
them, would you go ahead with the other roof? I don't think
so. I urge you to stop this proposed approval, nevermind
sending a new one in, and find some way to protect our
employees until this matter is resolved. I would love to be
the other party's lawyer, who would be able to walk into a
courtroom and say, "They must have been happy with me,
Judge, because they just renewed my contract." I think it's
terrible. And I further urge you not to use executive
sessions to hide this and related matters from the public.
5-10-04
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Eller. Again,
my apologies, sir. Is there anyone else that wanted to be
heard on this item? We'll move on, then, to the next item;
review, discuss, and consider approval and acceptance of
2004 excess loss insurance policy as presented with Employee
Benefit Administrators. Here, again, I wish there was
somebody from E.B.A. to -- to act as the agent in this. I
received the copy of the policy from an E.B.A.
representative -- I don't recall whether it was April the
29th or April the 30th, but it was one of those days. And,
previously, if the Court will recall, I was directed in
February -- February the 12th, I believe --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 11th.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to sign an emergency
application -- sign an application for stop loss insurance.
At that time and previous to that, I had requested from our
employee benefit administrator to confirm that the
application for stop loss was, in fact, in conformance with
the bid and the award, and at that meeting in February, when
I was directed to sign the application, it was confirmed
twice, as I recall, by the employee benefits officer of --
of Kerr County that it did, in fact, conform. A review of
that application and this policy now reveals that apparently
it was not in conformity with the bid and award, at least in
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
my review.
I've got a couple of areas of concern.
One -- one of them relate from the -- relates from the
insurance regulation standpoint; the other one relates,
coming back from our end, on the bidding laws and procedures
that are required to be followed by this Court in committing
substantial amounts of county money. Essentially, what has
happened is -- and discovered after-the-fact, is that the --
the company that -- that the application was made to, and
which I was directed to sign at that meeting in February, is
a company which is different from the company that was
specified in the bid and the award made last December.
Secondly, the -- the exposure that the County has on the
minimum annual aggregate deductible is greater in the
application than it was in the bid, and now the policy has
it being greater in the policy than it was in the
application, so it's been stepped up twice by a total of
about $28,500, round figures; I think it's a little bit more
than that.
But, that being the case, I've got a number
of concerns. Number one, is it proper for a bidder to bid
one company, and then obtain the coverage from another
company without obtaining some sort of consent or approval
from the entity to which the bid was made? I know in the --
in the civil arena, that might be called bait and switch.
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
Is it permitted by State Board of Insurance rules? Is it
standard practice in the insurance industry, absent a prior
explanation and consent of the proposed insured? Is it
ethical? On the bidding side, does it comply with the
bidding laws and procedures that we're required to follow
when that type of activity occurs? Even if it is lawful, is
it ethical for this Court to permit this type of activity to
occur where there's been specific bids and specific awards?
And is it not possible that we're open to exposure from
other bidders who bid on this matter, and may have been very
close on the mark, of coming in and -- and putting this
whole process open to question? There's some things about
the policy itself that I have some concerns about. One of
them, of course, is, as I've mentioned, the exposure of Kerr
County on the minimum aggregate annual deductible is stepped
up from the bid to the application, and then again from the
application to the policy. I'm aware in the industry that
it's possible that that may be, at least in some measure,
due to increased participants in the program, but I think we
need an explanation of that.
And the last question I have, if you'll look
in the policy, I believe it's on -- looks like it's
Prefac-1, which is about the fourth or fifth page of the
policy, maybe. At the bottom, it's noted as Prefac,
P-r-e-f-a-c, dash one. There's a -- there's a paragraph
5-10-09
1
'~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
there titled "Premium Rate and Aggregate Deductible Factor
Change." What that says is that the company reserves the
right to recalculate the premium rates under the plan for
the last two months of the prior policy period -- premium
rates and the monthly aggregate factors retroactively for
the policy period if there is more than a 10 percent
variance between, first, the average monthly paid claim cost
per covered employee under the plan for the last two months
of the prior policy period, and the average monthly paid
claim cost per covered employee under the plan for the first
10 months of the prior policy period.
What that says to me is that if we experience
a catastrophic loss or a spike in -- in claims, that the
company has the right to go back and recalculate, number
one, our premium retroactively, and we will -- that premium
under the policy. Secondly, that they can increase our
minimum annual aggregate deductible. I submit that that's a
rather significant advantage on their part, and actually,
that's why you buy this insurance, is to protect yourself
against these catastrophic losses and claim spikes. And
what they've done now, by virtue of that clause, they have
shifted that loss back to the good citizens of this county.
I don't -- I don't know whether that is even a permitted
clause under state rules. Certainly, I don't think it was a
part of our previous coverage. I'd like someone from E.B.A.
5-10-09
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to explain that. I think it's a significant addition. It
wasn't noted by me in the bid submitted by E.B.A. If it was
there, I certainly missed it. I don't think we're being
offered what we agreed to and what we accepted as part of
the bid and the award process.
Commissioner Baldwin wants solutions rather
than problems. I think a solution to the problem would be
that we notify the carrier, number one, if they can supply
what they originally bid and was accepted, we can certainly
accept that, because that's what we bargained for and that's
what we're entitled to. Assuming that this activity is not
in violation of State Board of Insurance rules or otherwise
not in violation of bidding laws or other laws, I don't
think we ought to accept it without certain changes being
made, one of them being, certainly, the elimination of that
premium adjustment clause. The other would be to lower the
minimum annual aggregate deductible to the lowest figure
that was submitted in the E.B.A. bid. And I would suggest
that an appropriate solution would be for E.B.A., if they're
receiving any sort of compensation other than as third-party
administrator in placing this bid, be it placement, finder's
fee, placement, permission, whatever it may be -- rebate,
that that be waived by them and not allowed. Here, again, I
would hope that E.B.A. would have somebody here if they were
interested in this.
5-10-09
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Were they invited
here?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that they were.
They obviously knew it was here; they sent the e-mail that
says I'm not going to be here. I would point out that the
e-mail mentions that, gee, I won't be here, and what we've
done for you is great. I notice there's no mention in the
e-mail of -- of this premium adjustment clause. There is
the -- the howling that, gee, if you don't take what we're
willing to offer, you may not have coverage. Gee, let me
suggest to you that we got coverage. If they give us what
we bid -- what they bid and we accepted, that's fine. Until
they do that, I suggest we have coverage under their E & O
coverage, because they're the ones that are not playing by
the rules of the game. Now, if you want us to come to the
business about, "Take what we offer; it's our way or the
highway," that's up to you. I can't subscribe to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have no
problem -- I agree with everything you're saying. My
problem is, I can't respond or really discuss this, 'cause
this is the first time I've seen this. You have had it for
a while, have looked at it. I haven't, so I really can't
respond to that. If it's not what was bid, they either give
us what was bid or we move on. I mean, I -- I agree
totally. But, I mean, I think that the -- and I guess my
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
concern is that it has taken five months to get to a point
that I'm being informed for the first time that the
documents don't work, or are not what were bid. And I don't
understand where the breakdown is; in our system, I guess,
or their system, where the problem is, because I think that
this -- I should have been aware of this, or -- you know,
sooner. I think the other thing is that the -- we're
talking about a -- you know, insurance contracts, and my
main experience with those have been with my personal ones,
and there are lots of provisions there a lot of times. And
I'm not -- in business, those things are recalculated all
the time, so I don't know if these are -- are or are not
proper. I think you have to look at what's customary in the
business to a degree, and to do that, I would -- you know,
if they can't justify it to this Court's satisfaction, the
other option would be possibly to get an insurance expert to
explain the contract to us. Because I don't think I'm -- I
just -- I'm not an expert in that. That's why we have
Professional Services; that's why we contract with people,
to give us that expertise.
JUDGE TINLEY: As I indicated, Commissioner,
I think this thing initially showed up at the very tail end
of week before last, and, of course, it went into the -- to
the court packages --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
5-10-09
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: -- last week. And, so, there
hasn't been a whole lot of time for us to -- any of us to
look at this thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't being critical
of you. My question is as to why we're getting the contract
five months into the term of the year. And, you know, it
just seems odd to me -- seems that this would be something
we would receive sooner during the course of the year.
That's my question. What's the --
JUDGE TINLEY: I asked for it, I know, over a
month ago, and have made considerable inquiry about it.
Like I say, it's just finally showed up on my doorstep at
the very tail end of week before last.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are two or
three things, Judge, that I find curious. Somebody can
enlighten us, perhaps. If -- if the underwriter's
agreement -- and that's what this is, right? Underwriter's
insurance policy, or the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- policy to insure
our stop loss. If that -- the terms and conditions of that
and the rates are -- and the rate change paragraph that
concerns you are in violation of the bidding laws, the
County Attorney should be able to advise us on that. Point
number one. Secondly, somebody needs to tell us whether
5-10-09
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these things that are contained in this insurance document
are permitted by Texas insurance law and are standard in --
I don't know by law, but many contracts which Texas
Insurance Commission allows to take place. And, thirdly,
this memo from Mr. Bothwell talks about, "I did not change
MGU's." What is MGU's, Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: It's managing general
underwriters.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. "I did not
change that," Cobalt in parentheses, which is -- I believe
the rates that were quoted originally were from Cobalt as
the underwriter. "I did not change that between the
proposal and the final premiums. He" -- I don't know who he
is -- "was able to get better rates from Monumental."
MS. NEMEC: Cobalt was able to get better
rates from Monumental. Cobalt --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Monumental is
rated A-plus superior, so forth and so on. So, I guess I
need a little enlightenment on that, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems that --
you know, to me, we need an insurance expert if we're going
-- if we have these concerns on this. And I don't know if
Mr. Gray provides that type of service, or if there's others
around that, you know, could provide that service. I mean,
I don't have the answer. I don't know whether these are
5-10-04
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
customary items or not; if that's a customary change that's
permitted and should be permitted or not. And I think
that -- I think the one point -- the only point that I have
information on -- I believe it came from the Auditor -- was
on the -- the amount difference, and that was, as I
understand it, a higher enrollment than was bid. And that
came, I believe, through the Auditor; possibly through
Barbara. More employees enrolled, and that increased the
cost. And that seems -- you know, that would make sense,
obviously. The -- it's going to change from month to month
as our number of employees changes, so I think that's
understandable and makes sense, and it's appropriate. But I
think -- on the other point, I think that, you know, we need
to look at someone who's an expert on insurance contracts --
and maybe we've already hired one that we can visit with and
see if these are customary or not. I think that's the gist
of the -- of the question.
MS. NEMEC: And the Auditor and I have been
asked repeatedly to look at these contracts and to advise
the Court if they conform to the bid. I have repeatedly
told the Judge that I do not feel comfortable doing that. I
am not a professional in this; I am not an attorney, and I
don't like doing it. I have never had to do that before for
any other court, and I don't know why, all of a sudden,
we're getting put with this burden. And I think, next time,
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
that these bid packages should stay with the person that we
have contracted to look over them, so that when we do get
contracts in like this, we can send them to him and let him
look to make sure that everything is in order. I don't
think that should be our responsibility. We're -- we're not
in that profession.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. That's why I
said I think that -- I don't think we have the -- the
expertise in-house to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought Mr. Gray
was commissioned by the Court to do just that.
MS. NEMEC: He was, but then he turned all
those bids back -- he gave them back to me, and I had them
in my office. So, then, when he was being called and asked,
does -- is -- does this conform to what the bid was? He's
saying, well, I don't have the bids any more; I can't tell
you. Now, what we should have done right there is send the
bids right back to him until all contracts were signed, but
that wasn't done. We were just kind of looking at them and
trying to figure it out ourselves, and then that's when the
Auditor wrote the Court a letter with these statements on
it, and that's when this was signed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
MS. NEMEC: So, it's already been signed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know that.
5-10-09
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my view is we
need to find -- you know, use Professional Services. If
Mr. Gray feels that this is, you know, not within the scope
of what he was hired to do originally -- which I would think
it would be, but if it isn't, I think we need to, you know,
cross that bridge first. And if he's not, find somebody
who -- someone else who's able to look at the contract
versus the bids, versus the state law. I think it's pretty
simple.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is Monumental Life
the current underwriter, stop loss?
MS. NEMEC: Yes. At this -- yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are the current
one?
MS. NEMEC: They are the current one. It's
my understanding that Cobalt has three underwriters that
they represent. Monumental is one, Fidelity Life is another
one, and thence there's a third one. And it's my
understanding, from talking to Mr. Rothwell, that what
happened here is -- and this is coming from him -- that once
the bid was awarded, there had been some more time that had
lapsed through that time, so, therefore, he had another
month's claims experience that he submitted to Cobalt. So,
what Cobalt did with that was, he went back to his three
insurance companies and resubmitted and was able to get a
s-io-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
lower rate from Monumental, and that's why the contract is
with Monumental.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He got a different
contract based on three months of experience of 30,000 stop
loss --
MS. NEMEC: Based on another months' claims
experience at that time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was -- which was
lower than the average upon which it was bid?
MS. NEMEC: That's what he told me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess, to move
forward, we should appoint someone to call Mr. Gray and ask
him the very questions that we posed a minute ago. I mean,
is this part of his contract? Because we feel it is. And,
you know, let's get some expertise where we can move
forward, 'cause I don't think -- I mean, I don't see how
we're going to move forward otherwise.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Mr. Motley and I could
engage Mr. Gray.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, I --
that's fine. I mean, I just think that -- I mean, we don't
have the expertise in-house, and we need to move forward on
this for the benefit of our employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand your
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
comments, Judge, about your belief that we are legal -- we
still legally have stop loss insurance coverage in place.
I'm not a lawyer; you may be 150 percent correct, but I am
concerned, because we have exposure, and I'd like to have
that settled.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mrs. Nemec, we have been
forwarding the regular amounts to the third-party
administrator, E.B.A., monthly since December, when the
award was made? The routine amounts that we --
MS. NEMEC: What do you mean by "the regular
amounts"?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you forward amounts down
there for them to, number one, pay claims; number two, pay
stop loss premiums; number three, pay third-party
administrator fees and expenses. You've been making those
payments on a monthly basis, just like you did all through
last year?
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: When they send me their monthly
billing, it's all on there, and we send it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: We pay off the monthly billing,
yes. So they have been accepting premiums, even though the
contract hasn't been signed.
5-10-09
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the question, I
think.
MS. NEMEC: Yes, that was the question.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the question.
MS. NEMEC: My husband's an attorney, so I
kind of can read under your --
JUDGE TINLEY: And they're not sending you
the check back, as has been alleged in another case several
months later, with "void" written on it, and the check comes
back?
MS. NEMEC: Hmm-mm.
JUDGE TINLEY: No. Okay, that's good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can we ask that
you give a memo to the Court when you talk to Mr. Gray to
let us know what he said, so that if we need to do a special
meeting or something, that we can -- I mean, at least keep
us up --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- as to what's going on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Be happy to. We can certainly
do that. Be happy to.
MR. ELLER: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Eller, you wanted to
weigh-in on this?
MR. ELLER: Just a couple of items.
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, certainly.
MR. ELLER: I bought a lot of insurance in my
life, but I never bought it until I read the policy. I
guess, why wasn't the policy a part of the bid process? How
did you vote on something not even knowing what you were
voting on? The other one is, I'd like to compliment our
litigation attorney, who's not present, but I think he was
very on-the-mark with breach of contract, negligence, and
making false representations. I think this is loaded with
them. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Eller.
Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just for clarification
purposes, Judge, 'cause I know once -- you know, of the
200-something employees that the County has, 94 of them work
at the Sheriff's Office and jail, and I know the questions
that I'm going to get. Real quick, our previous insurance
policy technically expired, what, January?
JUDGE TINLEY: December 31st of last year,
yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Are -- is it
positive, since a new contract has not been signed, that our
employees are totally covered, with at least the same health
care benefits that they had last year, that they have now?
JUDGE TINLEY: Even if --
5-10-04
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because our -- are our
employees exposed to where the County would have to pick up
the tab if, say, the same thing that started a lot of this
litigation part were to happen? That happens with them --
the last one happened within a week, and if we have that
kind of loss -- I pray we don't, but are my employees'
families or is the County going to pick that up if the
E.B.A. comes back and says, "You didn't have a signed
contract; we're not honoring anything"? I'm just concerned
how I explain to the employees to reassure them that they
definitely have health insurance right now. Because if it
was expired, does that even do away with the 30-day notice
or whatever was written in the prior contract that they have
to do? 'Cause there is no contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: In response to your question,
Sheriff, the only thing certain in this life are death and
taxes. So, insofar as being able to tell your employees --
maybe you're planning on scheduling a meeting and having
them all in; I don't know -- that you definitely have health
insurance, I don't think you can do that. I don't think I
can do that. I don't think anybody can do that in any
scenario.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One of the benefits this
county offers employees is -- is a health insurance package,
okay? And I think that the employees have a right to know
5-10-04
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that they definitely do or do not have health insurance
right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, in response to that
question, again, Sheriff, I can not give you absolute
assurance. My position is -- is that as long as we have
submitted the premiums and they've accepted them, and they
bid it and we're willing to accept what they bid and we
awarded, if they don't have the policy in place, they have
an E & O policy in place that should cover that. I'm not
going to play "my way or the highway" with them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't blame you there,
and I'm not -- I don't have any problem with the -- with all
the litigation and contract negotiation. Sounds like there
were some very valid comments on what the contract has
compared to what the bid has. I'm just very concerned at
this point, and I know that the employees are probably very
concerned at this point, as to whether them, their families,
if they have it on their kids or whatever, actually have
insurance right now. And that is a major thing for us --
for me, personally.
MS. NEMEC: They have insurance. Claims are
being paid. I've been getting E.B.A.'s claims that I've
submitted, and they're paying them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have
insurance.
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All right. I hope so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through with
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know.
Does the County Attorney have any -- any comments to make on
any of it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley?
MR. MOTLEY: I'll be happy to talk to
Mr. Gray, with or without Judge Tinley's participation, and
see whether compliance is there between the bid -- the award
and the agreement submitted. It may be that Mr. Rothwell
would be willing to accept the application with those
changes made, and be able to sign off on that in short
order. I don't know. But I expect we can get the -- all
the bid documents related at least to this bidder from
Ms. Nemec and send those with the contract; probably
overnight those to Mr. Gray and let him take a look at
those, give us a pretty quick opinion on the compliance part
of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they're in your
office, from what you said, all the documents. I mean,
didn't you --
MS. NEMEC: Yes, they are in the County
Attorney's office.
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm -- I'm trying to say
that I think we ought to send them part of what was bid --
you know, the bid package.
MS. NEMEC: The bid package is in your
office.
MR.
MS.
MR.
been given to Mike
upon us to treat a
if --
MOTLEY:
NEMEC:
MOTLEY:
instead
11 bidde
Okay.
I gave it to Wayne.
I'll look for that. It may have
of me. I think it's incumbent
rs fairly in this process, and
JUDGE TINLEY: That's another concern.
MR. MOTLEY: -- we selected this bidder, then
we need to hold this bidder accountable for what they bid.
That would be fair. But if we let this bidder do things
that change after the fact and the other bidders are not
allowed to do that, I think we could be looking at some
trouble from other bidders.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does -- my question is,
going back to something Commissioner Williams said, if the
change in stop loss carrier was to lower it, your
recommendation is that we ignore the savings to the
taxpayers and pay the higher amount, because it was what was
bid?
MR. MOTLEY: I don't know that that was my
5-10-04
119
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recommendation at all. I -- and I'm not sure that the lower
amount of the premium was reflected in the amount that the
County would pay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't know. I
was just --
MR. MOTLEY: You said there was savings. It
may be a savings to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: Maybe they're going to pocket
the savings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- I'm serious.
The question, I'm saying, is if the change is to the
County's benefit, do we not accept it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have to
examine that question. If we're told that -- that the
MGU -- between the proposal and filed premium, he was able
to get better rates from Monumental, you know, it's either a
true statement or not a true statement. If it is a true
statement represented by Mr. Rothwell, then Mr. Letz'
question prevails. Is that not in the County's best
interests?
MR. MOTLEY: I think if the net savings is
passed along to the County, that's great.
MS. NEMEC: 'Cause the bid had already been
awarded at that point.
5-10-09
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say again?
MS. NEMEC: The bid had already been awarded
at that point. At that point that he got the -- the savings
from Mutual Life -- he's saying that that's why he went with
Mutual Life; that's why Cobalt contracted with Mutual Life
instead of Fidelity. The bid had already been awarded to
E.B.A.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said Mutual; you
mean Monumental?
MS. NEMEC: I mean Monumental, yes. Excuse
me.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question?
MR. PRENDERGAST: This Mr. Gray, I
understand --
JUDGE TINLEY: You need to identify yourself
for the reporter, please.
MR. PRENDERGAST: I'm sorry. I'm George
Prendergast, just a citizen. This Mr. Gray, I don't know
what his background is. I looked at his web page when you
guys hired him the last time. I can't determine that he has
any special, unique qualifications to make him an insurance
adviser, other than he claims so, because he doesn't list
any more in his resume than possibly what I could list in my
resume. He's certainly not an attorney. And the questions,
I think, that have been raised are legal issues more than --
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
than just what the coverage is also. I would suggest
possibly you hire an attorney who can address the legal
issue on the bid and award, and also whether or not the bait
and switch is legal or illegal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you make -- just
to answer that question, I think it's a good point. I think
the reason I said refer to it Mr. Gray is 'cause we have
paid him a sum, and if he's qualified, I -- certainly, if
he's not qualified, I would -- I think he's, I mean, an
ethical person. He'd say that's not -- that's not what I'm
doing for the County. So -- you know, but I think it's a
good point. And the comment I made earlier was that, you
know, we've just had him so far on this, and we haven't --
in other years, as well. I think it's -- it is his
expertise, at least what he says his expertise is. I
presume it is. If there's someone -- if he's not qualified,
then I think we should hire -- find someone that is
qualified.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To get the answer.
Find a person that can give us the answers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're still where we
were? Okay. Anything further on -- wait a minute. Come
forward, please. You'll have to give us your name and --
MS. JETTON: I'm Margie Jetton, and I have
been in insurance for about almost 20 years. But what I was
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,_.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
thinking, I think this should be addressed to Texas
Department of Insurance. That is something that they can
answer, and I think that's who you need to bring in and ask
some questions or do some research with. Not just --
because different companies underwrite in different ways,
and what may be okay with one company may be completely
different with another. But the Texas Department of
Insurance is the one that -- that these accusations need to
be addressed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point.
JUDGE TINLEY: That is. Thank you,
Ms. Jetton. I appreciate that. Are we -- are we through
with this one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Guess so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on. Next item on
the agenda, consider and discuss a report from the manager
of Environmental Health containing responses to concerns
expressed by those engaged in the business of septic system
construction and repair, and outlining responses to those
concerns, as well as proposed changes in policies and
practices.
MR. ARREOLA: Morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning, Miguel.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go ahead, Miguel.
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
MR. ARREOLA: Morning, sir. You have in your
package there the response that we got together for the
professionals in the industry. This is in response of a
meeting that we had, I think, April 20th at 10 a.m. There's
a few questions that they had. It's about three of them. A
few has already been worked on, and I'm going to just give
you copies of Items 1 and 2 that we're already working on.
Those are copies of letters that we sent last week in
response to their concerns. A few highlights. It's --
like, Item Number 9, it's already done; it's already
finalized. We already took care of that one. Item Number
27 is something that we addressed on the budget for next
year. And Item 31, it's also being done. I don't know if
you have specific questions, you want me to go through each
request that they had. Basically, what they're requesting
is to improve the way we administer this program, and we're
willing to do that. We're willing to change in any way we
possibly can, as long as we meet the state rules and protect
the environment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we don't need to
go through these, Miguel. I think you did a great job of
having a mechanism to get the comments from the installers,
and then responding. And you've mailed this out or have it
available for them --
MR. ARREOLA: No, it's still -- still in the
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
probation area. We're going to make sure that that's what
we, as a department, and you, as the Court, is happy with,
and we'll send it to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm -- you know,
I'm very happy with the -- you know, the report. I mean,
I'm -- I think you're probably a bit nicer than I am a
couple times through the report. The one that caught my eye
was about trusting installers. I trust them with
verification. But I think that -- I mean, I think you're on
the right step. I think this is the feedback, and going
back and forth with installers, I think, will go a long
ways. I think you're -- you know, we have to verify the
systems are in properly, and we have to be consistent and we
have to follow state law. I think it's very -- it's very
simple. I think you show a great deal of willingness to --
to work with procedure and timing and all that, that you can
within the budget that we've given you to work with. I
mean, if we threw a bunch of money down your way, you can
make some of these things -- make them a lot happier, but
that's not going to happen, I don't think, so there's going
to be some scheduling difficulties and things of that
nature. So, I think it's -- I commend you for it.
MR. ARREOLA: Overall, the response at the
beginning were, they're happy with the way we're running it
there. They have a few concerns, but overall, they're
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
pretty happy with the way we're doing things -- the work.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the key that's
demonstrated here is, number one, the willingness to
communicate, and number two, the communication.
MR. ARREOLA: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because that's the only way
you're going to find solutions to these concerns that they
have. And -- and I -- I want to commend you -- and I know
Commissioner Nicholson had a hand in it, his efforts --
for -- for getting this whole communications process going
and -- and brainstorming and addressing these areas of
concern. I think it's a good thing, and just keep on
keeping on, far as I'm concerned.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were all the major
installers present?
MR. ARREOLA: The majors, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of them were?
MR. ARREOLA: The main or top, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I commend you
for your great restraint, and your ability to respond in a
manner that is super. I think you did a great job.
MR. ARREOLA: Great. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And your courage
also. You're going to send this to the installers?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Talking about his
courage, we just went from insurance and lawyers to septic
tanks. We're the ones with courage.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Direction is right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a message
there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He just did it. He
said the direction is right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you, Miguel.
MR. ARREOLA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move on to the
next item. I assume no formal action is needed there.
Consider and discuss a Commissioners Court resolution
seeking assistance from the Texas Department of
Transportation to improve the safety of the intersection of
Rachel Lane and Texas Highway 27 located 3.8 miles west of
the Ingram city limits.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Rachel Lane and 27
is the intersection where a woman who lived on Rachel Lane
was killed in an automobile accident less than a year ago; I
don't remember exactly when. And then I think that we -- I
think this was spoken in this court. Another woman who's a
resident out there told us that twice she has been stopped
for a school bus there and has been rear-ended, one time
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
destroying her car, and the other time just an accident with
no injuries. It's a very dangerous place. The Road and
Bridge Administrator himself has been out there several
times. We've been talking with Mr. Coward at TexDOT. There
are at least three possible solutions to it. Two of them
are quite expensive. It would be to relocate the
intersection either to the east or the west, and would mean
condemning or acquiring that right-of-way to do that. And
then the third one is less expensive and could be
accomplished more quickly, and that is to cut down the berm
going back about 15 more feet, 'cause there's a rather steep
berm there, and the -- cutting it back 15 feet into the berm
for something like 400 feet, to give the vehicles -- both
vehicles, the one coming from the -- from the east to the
west, as well as the one turning onto Highway 27, a few more
seconds of line-of-sight capability. The -- it's amazing to
me these kind of costs, but the -- the TexDOT engineer says
he thinks it'll probably cost about $250,000. I believe
he's convinced it needs to be done and he's prepared to do
that, and he asked for some indication from this Court that
we supported that and that was a priority item for us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The berm is county
right-of-way?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a state highway
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I meant
state highway.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At the intersection
of a county road and state highway. So, I make a motion
that we approve the proposed resolution.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the resolution. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question. For the
berm being cut, is it the road -- you got to cut the road
down?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, it's a -- as you
sit there in your vehicle on Rachel Lane, if you want to
make a left turn to the east, there's a curve, oh, maybe 100
yards from the intersection, and the berm prevents you from
seeing through that curve and seeing the vehicle coming.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's the -- it's in
the right-of-way, but not on the road itself?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who would do that
work, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: TexDOT.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We or TexDOT, or both
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
of us?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now, Mr. Odom
indicated a willingness to -- to help him with equipment or
something like that, but I'm not sure that's the way TexDOT
works.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might visit with
Mr. Odom a little bit, and I don't know what equipment -- I
mean, it may be one of those things we could do in-kind,
some of that for, versus other projects that we're working
on with TexDOT around the county.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's made that
offer. Yes, I think he could take a berm down pretty
quickly. The expensive part would be building the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Retaining wall.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- retaining wall,
and Mr. Odom had some ideas about how costs on that could be
reduced.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't happen to have
the turn slots at the airport in mind, did you?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's close.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's possible. Possible.
Lots of area that we can try to spend TexDOT dollars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's for sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next
item --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next item I put on the
agenda, consider and discuss authorizing hiring outside
attorney or otherwise to finalize acquisition of
right-of-way for Hermann Sons bridge project. I put this on
the agenda, and the -- if you want to go into depth about
it, I want to do it in executive session, for acquisition of
real estate. But the bottom line is that it is taking
longer than I had hoped to get this right-of-way acquired.
I think we're getting there now, but because of some time
issues, I would like authority that, if needed, at my
discretion, to spend up to $1,000 out of Flood Control to
expedite any or all of the remaining acquisition.
(Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the expenditure of up to $1,000 out of Flood
Control budget item for Commissioner Letz to have
discretionary authority for expenditure to do what's
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
necessary to finalize the acquisition of that right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. And I'll be
glad, during -- I think we're going to go into executive
session later; I can give an update as to what comes of
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the item?
(Commissioner Baldwin returned to courtroom.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Nicholson
voted in favor of the motion.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was the motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: To authorize Commissioner Letz
to have discretion to spend up to $1,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I vote aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. All opposed, same
sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Why don't we
-- why don't we move -- well, we've still got the Auditor
with us. Let's go on over to Section 4 and talk about
paying the bills here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the
bills.
5-10-04
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
payment of the bills. I got a couple questions right quick,
Mr. Tomlinson. Or maybe the Sheriff can help me. The --
the Prisoner Medical expense, pharmaceuticals, $4,000?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you feeding
those guys?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Lots of dope. It's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't say that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't help what the
jail physician prescribes, and we get more and more medical
conditions in the jail, so, unfortunately, our medical
expenses are going up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe, before you say the
magic words, "You're under arrest," you ought to make some
medical inquiries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Are you on any
drugs, legal or otherwise?"
JUDGE TINLEY: The other question I've got is
on Page 7, T.C.E.Q. up at the top, on-site council fees.
What's that? Page 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Under Environmental Health?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. T.C.E.Q.,
on-site council fees. Do you happen to recall what that is?
5-10-04
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm trying to find it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to guess.
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, okay, I got it. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: All right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it's fees
that we're required to pay, as reflected by line item on
this report.
MR. TOMLINSON: I can look it up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Do you have it?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a flow-through fee that
we collect?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a budgeted
item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, that's all the
questions I got. Anybody else have any other questions or
concerns?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I hope that's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
134
amendments. Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for County Court
at Law. Judge Brown has requested a transfer of $500 from
the Master Court Appointments to Special Court Reporter
line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any
questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for the jail, as
requested by the Sheriff, to transfer $15,946 out of
Operating Supplies; $10,000 to Capital Outlay, and $2,946 to
Operating Equipment, and $3,000 to training. This is to
purchase an inmate tracking module from Software Group. The
Sheriff's here if you want to ask any questions about what
-- you know, what this does.
JUDGE TINLEY: My information is it allows
25 ~ him to have immediate data entry, rather than spend a lot of
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
135
time and personnel expense of manually making those entries.
I mean, that's the bottom line, isn't it, Sheriff, for that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Automatic entry. It's a bar
code type of entry.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is, why is
there so much excess money in Operating Supplies?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because we have been
trying -- and, seriously, we've tried very diligently this
year to cut down a lot of our operating expenses in the
jail. A lot more of the inmate items are coming out of the
commissary fund than are usually eligible to, and we're
keeping that down. Now, next year's budget proposal, I will
be honest, does reflect this decrease in operating, okay,
because we -- I don't feel we need it next year, unless
something gets exorbitant. What this does is, right now,
all welfare checks, any time an inmate goes to -- to
recreation yard or we have a lot of them that have welfare
charts on their door and all that. We have to manually
write all those down and keep a record of it, written record
forever. That's part of -- you know, doctor appointments,
welfare checks, recreation, commissary, anything -- any
inmate movement. What this allows us to do, we are using
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
bar cards already and ID bracelets on all the inmates to
help us control medication, and this allows us to scan that
bar code that's on that ID bracelet, and it automatically
puts that information in the computer, and there's no more
hand-writing it to document it, which saves us a lot of man
hours on the floor, since we don't have those four employees
that we worked out last budget year. It just saves us time.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the first
time in a year and a half I've heard those magic words,
reducing costs.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- if he hadn't mentioned it
himself, I was going to throw it out there, because when he
first came to me with this idea and I -- I mentioned the
term that I used to him occasionally -- what's that term,
Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: "Hat in my hand," or
what?
JUDGE TINLEY: "Hidey-hole." He said, no, he
was going to come back with a reduced budget in that area.
Because --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And it does -- now,
you'll see in the budget proposal, it is reduced by even
more than that. It's reduced greatly, but the new federal
stuff on the Prison Rape Prevention Act has upped it to get
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
the digital cameras.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I knew there was a
catch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is a -- what's
the increase in training?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, that's a decrease.
We're taking that out. We're doing a lot more in-house
training. I did a whole 'pother deal. That should be --
part of that fund is coming out of the training budget,
swapping those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks like you're
adding $3,000 to the training line here.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, part of the price of
software is -- is in-house training.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, this is training
toward running this system?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm just classifying the --
the expenditures.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. I appreciate
that. I didn't -- I thought training was training jailers
to be jailers. I didn't understand that it was related to
this new software. That's a good thing, Tommy. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion?
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
138
MS. PIEPER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY:
approval of Budget Amendment
question or discussion? All
your right hand.
(The motion c
JUDGE TINLEY:
Motion made and seconded for
Request Number 2. Any further
in favor, signify by raising
arried by unanimous vote.)
All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Just a minute, we're having a
conference here.
(Discussion off the record.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There was another
portion that was going to be a separate budget amendment
coming out of the Sheriff's Office part that evidently is
also, the way it's set out here, coming out of the jail
part, and what that is, is $4,500 for the crime scene
digital imaging part of Software Group, which allows us --
one is -- one of the District Attorneys has been, I guess
you'd say, kind enough or progressive enough with our
department that we have just been able to order 13 digital
cameras for crime scene photographs and things that the
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
139
investigators need and patrol needs. This will save us
thousands on 35-millimeter film. In our major crime scenes,
we use both, but all our normal ones, you can use digital.
And what this $4,500 out of that does is purchase that
package and software where those digital images are
downloaded directly into the case file of the offense that
you're investigating, and not have to be downloaded
separately and kept on separate disks. They're actually in
the computer under the case file. And, evidently, that's --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's part of this
amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of this 10,000?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's part of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I thought you
were ordering another one.
JUDGE TINLEY: More bang for the buck. Okay?
Well, it's approved. Budget Amendment Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: 3 is for Nondepartmental. My
request is to transfer $450 from the Address Coordinator's
salary line item to the Independent Audit line item for
$450.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any further
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
140
question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any more budget
amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's coming right there, for
the County Clerk's office. County Clerk has requested a
transfer of $2,880 from Part-Time Salary to the Deputy
Salary line item. Jannett, do you have --
MS. PIEPER: Judge, I have three deputies
out, one on vacation and two out on medical leave that will
be out for at least six weeks, if not a little more. So,
this puts my office in a bad crunch, so I am requesting to
move money from the Deputy line item into the Part-Time, and
I have a gentleman that has agreed to come in and work
part-time for at least six weeks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you tell the
Court who that gentleman is?
MS. PIEPER: Jim Bullock.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the County Clerk's budget amendment request,
5-10-04
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which I denominated Number 4. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any
more budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. I have --
JUDGE TINLEY: We have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's payable to Texas
RSA-15-B-2 Limited Partnership, and it's for a total of
$8,000 for the annual licensing permit for tower sites. We
approved the budget amendment last court, and these are the
bills.
Partnership.
JUDGE TINLEY: Give me the name again. Texas
MR. TOMLINSON: Texas RSA-15-B-2 Limited
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's it for again?
MR. TOMLINSON: For the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Tower site rental.
MR. TOMLINSON: For the annual payment for
5-10-09
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
142
the tower sites for the radio -- for the communications
system.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve payment and authorize issuance of a hand check to
Texas RSA-15-B-2 Limited Partnership in the sum of $8,000 in
connection with tower site rental. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Current year, or
current and past?
MR. TOMLINSON: Current and past.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Current and past?
MR. TOMLINSON: Two years involved in this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any
further late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would like to make one
5-10-04
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other comment on the savings, Jonathan, that we had. And I
-- what I want to do is -- is thank the Court, because a lot
of our savings this year came due to the salary increases
and that that the jail staff got. Our turnover rate went
pretty well to zero, and which saved us a lot of training
expenses, uniforms, all the operating stuff, and I think the
Court needs to be thanked for working with us on the
salaries last year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have before me the Racial
Profiling Report from the Sheriff. I don't know that we
have accepted this previously. I think, under the law,
we're just supposed to accept it. We may have previously
accepted it, but I'm not absolutely sure of that. So, I
will accept a motion to accept the Sheriff's Racial
Profiling Report.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is for the year ending
12-31-03.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
acceptance of the racial profiling report. Any further
question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising
5-10-04
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm opposed to the
report.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that what we have to do, is
propose --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I just said I'm
opposed to the report -- to having to do the reports.
JUDGE TINLEY: I am too.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much did it cost
us?
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, scads. I've also been
presented with the transcripts from the Commissioners Court
special session on Monday, October -- or April 5, 2004;
special session Wednesday, April 7, 2004; regular session
Monday, April 12th, 2004; and special session Monday,
April 26th, 2004. Do I hear a motion that those transcripts
are approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
5-10-09
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I also
have before me the reports submitted by the Sheriff's Office
and Constable, Precinct Number 4, and the District Clerk.
Do I hear a motion --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of those reports as submitted. All in favor,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We
want to defer on the reports from Commissioners until after
lunch?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll stand in recess
until 1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:23 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll come back to
5-10-04
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
146
order. We went into recess some time after noon, subject to
coming back to order at 1:30. It's a couple minutes after
that now. Very quickly, after a motion was made to accept
the reports, the elected officials were handed a report from
Constable, Precinct 3, for the month of April '04, and I
assume everybody got a copy of that, did they not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept and
approve it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made for acceptance and
approval of the report as submitted. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda
appears to be executive session items, so at this time we
will close the open meeting -- and it's 1:34, it appears.
So, we will close the open meeting and proceed to go into
executive or closed session. Looks like we're going to need
the members of the Court, the reporter and County Attorney
and the litigation attorney. Where's Mr. Motley? There he
is, okay. Do you want to change that, David?
(Discussion off the record.)
5-10-04
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The open session was closed at 1:34 p.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: It is now 2:58, it appears,
and we will come back into open session. Is there anything
to be offered as a result of the executive or closed
session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I'd like to make a
motion -- I'll make a motion that the Commissioners Court
has full authority over the E.B.A. litigation, including all
decisions and expenditures, and that the point of contact
for communication with Mr. Walraven will be the County
Attorney.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further questions or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. If we
could, let us go back up to Item 10 on the agenda, the 2004
Employee Benefit administrative service agreement, pursuant
to the Court's request. I have made some interlineations,
alterations, modifications to that agreement, as indicated
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
when we were in session earlier. Mr. Motley, do you have
any comments you'd like to make with regard to the changes
or modifications which I've made?
MR. MOTLEY: No, sir, I really don't. I
think those are the four areas I believe that you found a
difference between what was bid -- awarded, and what's in
this document. And I agree that they should be removed, and
certain other things should be substituted or added. And
it's indicated clearly by the handwritten notes in my copy.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to move
that we approve the changes to the administrative service
agreement between Kerr County and Employee Benefits --
Employee Benefit Administrators, Inc., authorize the County
Judge to sign the same and return it to E.B.A.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a comment and a
question. Looking at Page 6, the section related to
mediation was stricken in its entirety. I thought that
Commissioner Williams had some alternative language for
mediation as opposed to striking it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did. I had leaving
that in and modifying it to say, "The parties, by mutual
agreement, shall mediate any dispute prior to any litigation
5-10-04
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
being commenced."
JUDGE TINLEY: You know, either way. I
suppose that it was after your comment, I think, that
Commissioner Letz mentioned we need to -- we need to be
uniform on our agreements, either in or out, and --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Commissioner
Williams' suggestion is a good one. If there's not mutual
agreement, there's no sense mediating anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly right.
MR. MOTLEY: May I make a suggestion on the
wording on that? After mutual agreement, the parties "may."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
MR. MOTLEY: Rather than "shall."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, sure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I amend my motion to
include that suggestion on the mediation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that
amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: After mutual agreement --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By mutual agreement,
may.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- parties may mediate any
dispute prior to any litigation being commenced. Okay.
With those changes -- I assume those were acceptable in the
motion and second? All right. Any further questions or
5-10-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
150
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We
had another item that was left open with regard to Hermosa,
I believe. Is that something we're going to need to maybe
take a look at --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody's looking at
everybody else.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tomorrow, Commissioner
Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to
suggest, Judge, that you consider adjourning until 9 o'clock
in the morning, and that we take up the -- the agenda item
dealing with Mr. Frank Vlasek's subdivision at that time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Final plat for Hermosa?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I'm expecting,
by that time, that -- that the County Attorney will have an
opinion on the letter of credit, and that the issue over the
two-year versus five-year --
JUDGE TINLEY: Will be resolved.
5-10-04
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You mean recess?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Recessed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will not be here
tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I won't either.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Commissioner
Baldwin said he would be, and I -- I'll be here, and I think
the Judge --
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got mental health
hearings beginning at 9:00 and a special probate at 11:15.
If we could -- or 11:00 -- 11:15. If we can set it about
11:30, it would probably work real good for me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that interfere
with your lunch plans, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. We won't be here
very long; I don't think. So, 11:30?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I may be able to make it
back by 11:30, so if I'm here, I'm here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that brings us down to
information, does it not, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I told y'all
about the 240-pound mosquitoes this morning. That's all
5-10-04
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I've got to say.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one modification
came out of the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee.
Kerr County will be receiving an additional $15,000 for some
new communications trailer upgrades. We're getting the
trailer. It was 85; they're going to add some upgrades,
undefined, for another 15.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all you got?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For now, that's all I
got.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe I have
any additional comments or reports, other than the airport
this morning.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: The only thing I have to bring
forward is that U.G.R.A. is starting the river cleanup
program, and they're wanting us to designate a
representative or representatives to represent the county at
that meeting. They wanted it to be a collaborative effort.
I've had some preliminary discussions with -- with General
Manager Greg Etter of the U.G.R.A., and actually, I think we
might have managed to get some of our community service
workers squeezed into that program to do the actual
on-the-ground work, and I think that's going to be a
5-10-09
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
material benefit. But that's kind of the direction that --
that I started the county resources going, and -- but he's
going to have this meeting, and he wants to have a
representative or representatives from the county. So, you
gentlemen may want to be thinking about that as to who --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Nicholson will be
happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I'm the
wrong person for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're just
exactly the right person for it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Bill's got years of
experience.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's corollary to
O.S.S.F.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can leave that as an open
item for right now. But I would -- I would mention that
they're having a -- having an organizational that they want
somebody there on, looks like, the 20th of May, and if
someone else doesn't commit to go, I guess that's what I get
to do at that time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Normally, I would agree
to commit, but my schedule's going to be a little bit busy
5-10-09
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that -- right around that week.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm awful busy that
day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What date?
JUDGE TINLEY: 20th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm out of town.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got to roll my
socks.
JUDGE TINLEY: What a deal. What a deal.
Okay. Do we have anything else? Hearing nothing else, we
will stand in recess until 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, morning,
the 11th of May of this year.
(Commissioners Court recessed at 3:07 p.m.)
5-10-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,~..,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
155
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 14th day of May, 2004.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : ___ ~ C~~f 1u _(~ ~2!Y~l ~ ______ _______
Kathy Bak, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
5-10-04
ORDER N0.28629
ROAD NAMES
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to approve the names for Privately Maintained Roads in accordance with
the 911 Guidelines as follows:
Existing Road Name Approved Name Location
7001 Clazet Fields W Blue Ridge Mobile Home Pazk
Lorna Cove N Shazbella Trail N. Off Drummond Dr.
7000 Tate Trail S. Off Gabe Rd.
Gordon Morris Ranch Rd. Annie Laurie Dr. NW Hwy 41
ORDER N0.28630
PUBLIC HEARING
RIVERSIDE PARK, LOT 13
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to set a Public Hearing for June 14, 2004 at 10:00 AM for the Alternate
Plat Process for Lot 13 of Riverside Park.
ORDER N0.28631
FINAL PLAT FOR HERMOSA
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by
a vote of 4-0-0, to grant the variance for the slope exceeding 12% on a portion of the
road in the Hermosa Subdivision.
ORDER N0.28632
BUDGET AMENDMENT
ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to transfer $947.44 from line item 15-611-S7S to line item 15-611-570 to
purchase an ice machine.
ORDER N0.28633
REQUEST FOR BIDS
ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to approve the advertising for bids on a 5-year lease of a Backhoe.
ORDER N0.28634
RESOLUTION TO TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RACHEL LANE AND TEXAS HWY 27 WEST
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to issue a Resolution to seek the assistance from the Texas Department of
Transportation to improve the safety of the intersection of Rachel Lane and Texas
Highway 27 located 3.8 miles west of Ingram City limits.
,--~
ORDER N0.28635
HERMANN SONS BRIDGE
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by
a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer $1000 from Flood Control to hire an attorney to finalize the
acquisition of the right-of--way for the Hermann Sons bridge project.
ORDER NO. 28636
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 10`hday of May 2004 came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
10-General	$89,586.17
14- Fire	$10,416.67
15-Road & Bridge	$39,638.31
18-Law Library	$1,988.86
19-Public Library	$32,265.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$5,647.17
80-Historical Commission	$6.01
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS $179,548.19
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin,
the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay said Claims and Accounts.
ORDER N0.28637
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY COURT AT LAW
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to transfer $500.00 from line item 10-427-403 master court appointments into
line item 10-247-494 special court reporters.
ORDER NO.28638
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to transfer $15,946.00 from line item 10-512-331 Operating supplies and put
$3000.00 into line item 10-512-487 for training, $2946.00 into line item 10-512-569 for
operating equipment and put $10,000.00 into line item 10-512-570 for capital outlay to
purchase an inmate tracking module from the Software Group.
ORDER N0.28639
BUDGET AMENDMENT
NON DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to transfer $450.00 from line item 10-409-107 address coordinator into line
item 10-409-400 independent audit.
ORDER N0.28640
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY CLERK
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to transfer $2880.00 from Deputy Salary line item 10-403-104 and put into Part-
Time Salary line item 10-403-108.
ORDER N0.28641
LATE BILL
SHERIFF
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to pay with a hand check $8000.00 to Texas RSA 15B2 Limited Partnership for
the annual license for the tower site rental.
ORDER NO. 28642
KERR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DPARTMENT
RACIAL PROFILE
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by
a vote of 4-0-0, the Kerr County Sheriff s Department Racial profile from the year
ending 12/31 /04.
ORDER N0.28643
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, the minutes from the Special Session of April 5, 2004 and the Special
Session from April 7, 2004, Regular Session April 12, 2004 and Special Session from
Apri126, 2004.
ORDER N0.28644
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to approve the Monthly Reports from the following departments:
Sheriff
Constable Pct #4
District Clerk
ORDER N0.28645
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 10~h day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to approve the Monthly Reports from the following departments:
Constable Pct #3
ORDER N0.28646
INSURANCE LITIGATION
Came to be heard this the 10th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, that the Commissioners Court has full authority over the E.B.A. litigation,
including all decisions and expenditures, and that the point of contact for communication
with Mr. Walraven will be the County Attorney.
ORDER N0.28647
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT
Came to be heard this the 10`h day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, approve the changes to the Administrative Service Agreement between
Kerr County and Employees Benefit Administrative Inc. and authorize the County Judge
to sign the same and return to EBA.