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, November 8, 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 h. t ~/ 4:i "c 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 2 I N D E X November 8, 2004 --- Commissioners' Comments 1.1 Consider approval to pay Election Workers before next scheduled Commissioners Court meeting 1.2 Set public hearing for cancellation of Spring Hollow Estates, Volume 4, Page 174 1.14 Consider approval to display framed US Flag in public area on 2nd floor of courthouse 1.3 Request Court's approval to declare the week of Nov. 8-12, 2004 Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Week, Proclamation to that effect 1.4 Open sealed Health Insurance proposals and refer such to Catto & Catto for recommendation 1.5 Public Hearing for Revision of Plat: Kerr Vista Ranch, Section Four, Lots 29-35 1.6 Open bids for engineered metal roof replacement and HVAC replacement for Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center 1.8 Public Hearing for revision of plats for The Reserve of Falling Water: Lots 21 & 22 into Lot 21A; and Lots 6, 7E, and 7W into Lot 6R 1.9 Consider revision of plats for The Reserve of Falling Water as discussed in public hearing 1.10 Presentation by Beverly Lutz, Alamo Rural Transportation Director, and Randy Plummer, Kerrville Station Manager 1.11 Public Hearing for name change, regulatory signs, resetting school zone at Nimitz Elementary; and abandoning, vacating & discontinuing roads in Kerr County 1.12 Consider approval of name change, regulatory signs, resetting school zone at Nimitz Elementary; and abandoning, vacating & discontinuing roads in Kerr County as discussed in public hearing PAGE 5 9 11 12 27 46 53 54 57 58 59 68 69 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 I N D E X November 8, 2004 PAGE 1.13 Consider making agreements with City of Kerrville and/or Kimble County/Junction EMS to authorize Kimble/Junction EMS to provide emergency medical services to a portion of northwest Kerr County 71 1.15 Consider status of acquisition of Juvenile Detention Facility 91 1.16 Consider financial status and projections at the Juvenile Detention Facility and consider any budget amendments 93 1.17 Consider possible litigation against 9-1-1 that may impact Kerr County (Executive Session) 144 1.7 Consider bids received and selection processes, awarding/rejecting of roof and HVAC replacement bids 144 4.1 ------------------------------------------- Pay Bills 15, 33 4.4 Read and Approve Minutes 21 4.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 21 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 22 4.2 Budget Amendments 35 4.3 Late Bills -- --- Adjourned 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 4 On Monday, November 8, 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 meeting of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County scheduled for this time and date, Monday, November the 8th, 2004, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. Commissioner Williams, I believe you have the honors this morning. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Will you please rise and join me for a word of prayer, followed by the pledge of allegiance to the flag. (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's any member of the public that wishes to address the Court on a matter that is not on the agenda, we would ask that you come forward and do so at this time. If you want to be heard on a matter that's a listed agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a participation form. There are forms at the back of the room. It's not absolutely essential, but that's what I prefer so that I won't miss you. However, if you want to speak to the Court on any matter that's not a listed agenda item, feel forward to step forward at this time -- feel free to step forward at this time; we'll be 11-8-04 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 5 glad to hear from you. Seeing no one to step forward, we'll move on. Commissioner Williams, what do you have for us this morning? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not often do you have an opportunity during an election week, particularly on an Election Day, to participate in an event that really brings a smile to your face and gladness to your heart. I had that opportunity on Tuesday, as I was asked by the Middle School, Notre Dame, to monitor and help them conduct a mock election for the president of the United States, and that was a really fun experience. We had all the middle school kids; a credit to the teacher who had really organized it. Beginning with developing their voter registration cards in the mess hall or in the dining room, they all waved their voter registration cards that they had, and it was set up so that all the kids came through by class. Their names were checked off as they came through the line, and they got to sign adjacent to their name, just like you would if you were voting here in the courthouse or wherever you vote. And then I had the opportunity to give them their ballot and their instructions on how to cast their ballot and where to put it in the box. It was really, really a neat experience, and at the end of the day, the teacher -- Carrie Clack, I believe is her name -- gave me a little book that they had prepared, "Why it is Important to Vote," by the Notre Dame 11-8-04 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 6 Middle School in the 2004 election. I won't bore you with all of them, but there are a couple of them are really kind of interesting, all written the their hand, why you should vote. You should vote because you are the future, and your voting means you make the decision on who's going to lead you into the future. People think they can't make a difference, but every vote counts. Another young person wrote, It is important to vote, because people are free to make choices and people are free to elect their leader. If people wouldn't vote, the country would have a dictator, and there wouldn't be any good changes because the dictator could be president for a long time. (Laughter.) Voting helps many countries. Like, if the people in Iraq voted for Saddam Hussein or others, maybe Iraq wouldn't have had Hussein as their president, and would be -- someone else in Iraq could be better. Maybe if people wouldn't vote, the world would be full of wars and misery, and on and on. But bottom line is, it's great to see our young people participate and have an understanding of what about our freedom to make a choice and our elections is all about. Thank you, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No comments this morning. 11-8-04 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: I attended the West Kerr County Chamber of Commerce annual Hunter's Festival Saturday, and want to report that that is really growing by leaps and bounds. It was very well-attended. It was hard to find a parking place, and even had to have law enforcement out there to direct traffic. And Hunt Volunteer Fire Department barbecue chef, 88-year-old Owen Crenshaw, did a terrific job in barbecuing briskets. Other than that, everybody in west Kerr County is happy, healthy, and wealthy. That's all. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just want to remind everyone of a meeting coming up that I think is maybe as important as anything that's going on around the -- around our part of the state. It's the Hill Country Alliance of Groundwater Conservation Districts having a meeting talking about the relationship between brush control and aquifer recharge. Super-important. I don't know; y'all may have these meetings once a week, and you have a meeting, walk out the door, and everything's forgotten. But that is one of those issues that I think needs to be talked about, and it's on Tuesday, November 16th, at the old courthouse in Boerne, and I think I'm going to run down there to that. That's one of those issues that we need to keep on the front burner. 11-8-04 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 8 Tivy football this Friday night, first-round playoffs in Burnet, Texas, against the Burnet Bulldogs. So, that's all. That's all I got to say about that. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. I'd like to remind everyone that this coming Thursday, November the 11th, is Veterans Day, and I would urge everyone to pay their respects to the veterans of this country and participate in activities or services that -- that do just that. We owe a great deal to our veterans. The very existence of our country, I think, is based upon our veterans, and so I think it's most appropriate that we pay our respects and honor those veterans. Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I may piggy-back on Commissioner Baldwin's comments a little bit? JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also invite everyone to a Region J meeting. We talk about brush control on a very regular basis, and how it affects water. The meeting is in Leakey this Wednesday at 10 o'clock in the morning. It will probably last about four or five hours. So, anybody that wants to come, there'll also be some -- I believe some review of some spring studies that we've done in Kerr County, and other water-related issues. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is another footnote to that, as well. I attended the regional Soil and 11-8-09 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 9 Water Conservation District meeting which was held at the Extension Office this past week, and they -- they talked about cedar control, cedar eradication, and the funding that comes down from U.S.D.A. And what we may not have been familiar with is that Kerr County had been prioritized into, I don't know, half a dozen different regions, the river and creek regions, and they've moved through with grant moneys clearing what they could with the moneys available, both on the North and South Fork, and now the next priority region is Johnson Creek. And I don't know how much grant moneys will be available, but somewhere between $70,000 and $100,000, which doesn't go too far, but nonetheless, it's an effort. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's move into our agenda, if we might. First item on the agenda is consider and discuss approval to pay election workers before the November 22nd, 2004 scheduled Commissioners Court meeting. The County Clerk asked that this be placed -- MS. PIEPER: You mind if I stand here, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: It's going to be pretty short, won't it? MS. PIEPER: It will be. I just put this on the agenda to get the election workers paid early, rather than having to wait till the 22nd meeting. I've got several of them that are going out of town and can use their pay. 11-8-09 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 They worked extremely hard for it. JUDGE TINLEY: I can attest to the fact that they worked hard, especially during early voting. We had an absolutely phenomenal -- MS. PIEPER: And this is what it is; it's for the early voting workers too. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve to pay the election workers before the November 22nd, 2004, scheduled Commissioners Court meeting. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question. How much money are we -- how much? MS. PIEPER: I submitted all the timesheets to the Auditor's office. The total bill for the election workers is $17,300. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what we're approving today? 17,000 -- MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that in your budget? MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's in your 11-8-04 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 11 budget? MS. PIEPER: I do have that part in my budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $17,300. MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: 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. Next item on the agenda is to consider setting a public hearing for cancellation of Spring Hollow Estates, Volume -- plat in Volume 4, Page 174. Mr. Odom? MR. ODOM: Thank you, Judge. Recently, we've had a letter to Mr. Baldwin to cancel a subdivision off Sheppard Rees Road, and I believe the -- if you will refer back to that plat, also, that this was Dulane and Mary Mangum, the owners of the subdivision, Spring Hollow Estates, and they're wishing -- it's about 31.28 acres and about 88 lots. I believe that it's in the best interests that they wish to vacate and abandon this subdivision up there, and I recommend that the Court do that. 11-8-04 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Talking about 88 lots that will be taken off the books, and we should jump all over -- MR. ODOM: All over. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- all over doing that. It's the guy's desire. So, I mean, we're doing -- when is -- when are we having a public hearing? MR. ODOM: This -- we would like to set it up for December the 13th at 10:30. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: December 13th? MR. ODOM: 2004, at 10:30. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for setting a public hearing on the agenda item. 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: That motion does carry. The -- looks like we've got a number of timed items on the agenda that we may have ourselves in a box over. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 14. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Let's go to Item 14, 11-8-04 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 13 if we might, consider and discuss approval to display a framed U.S. flag in public area of the second floor of the courthouse. This item was brought to me by our District Court Coordinator upstairs. The flag was -- apparently came into the possession of the District Court Coordinator's parents from a Boy Scout troop. It's been professionally framed. It's seen a lot of wear, as has our country in its history. But they have found a place, I think, tentatively in Courtroom Number 1. As you go into Courtroom Number 1, either on the left or the right of those double doors is a place where they've tentatively decided they want to display that. It will not be out in the main lobby area where -- where the judges' portraits are there. But that's -- that's our proposal at this time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have a comment. I am not up on all of the exact, I guess, formalities of how you display the American flag, but I think before we do it, we need to make sure that we're following all the appropriate rules, and if there's any requirements that go with that -- 11-5-09 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 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that we're doing it appropriately. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will this also contain some sort of a plaque on the frame that indicates who the donor was and so forth? JUDGE TINLEY: I have suggested to Ms. Henderson that -- that she do a very tasteful plaque to indicate the history of this flag, its origin and so forth, originally from the Boy Scout troop. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And I will be sure to ascertain that it's hung with -- that it's placed with the proper decorum. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing -- and this just goes with -- as a general comment to our court coordinator. We probably ought to really set up a file, either in our office or maybe the Clerk's -- I don't know where -- to keep track of these things, exactly where they come from and all that. So that if there's -- something comes down the road, that it's no longer, you know, appropriate to have it in that location due to remodeling or whatever, that we have a way to get rid of it that's proper. When I say "get rid of it," I mean return it back to the people there. We just tend to get a lot of donations, and 11-8-04 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 it would be a good file to keep on a permanent basis as to where these things come from, and so we can track it back when we get any type of donation for the courthouse. JUDGE TINLEY: Excellent thought. Any further questions or comments concerning the item? All in favor of the motion, please 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. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Recess time. JUDGE TINLEY: Getting close, isn't it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bills and all the other stuff. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we can move on to Section IV of the agenda, payment of the bills. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question. JUDGE TINLEY: Probably need to stir up the Auditor. I think that's exactly what she's gone to do at this point. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we're probably -- my question can be answered by the Kerr County Sheriff. On Page 5, County Jail is at the bottom. The second and third -- it has to do with employee medical and employee 11-8-04 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~^ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ._.. 2 4 25 medical, and it's a total of about $900, but it's billed to East Texas Value Care. Are you sending new employees to east Texas somewhere to get a -- get their medical done? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See? You stood there and just made me ask that question. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our new employees have a physical done over here by the doctors at Ultrafit, and a drug screen. Now, it may -- the drug screen may be being sent off to that East Texas Value Care to get read, but that's the only thing I could think of. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's about $900 for two. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe we should wait for the Auditor to get here. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Physical and drug screen, that's what it's going to be, on new employees. That is expensive. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $900 for drug screening? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Physical and drug screen. It very well could be that. I haven't seen that exact figure. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got the bills. 11-8-09 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 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Good. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't that be done here? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Actually, it's cheaper than anywhere else when we get it. It's not a normal physical. They go through a stress test and everything else, and the drug screen is for everything. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Stand by. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stand by. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 168499, no such critter. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Auditor's out for a few minutes. It will be a few minutes. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all the questions I had on the bills, Judge, so we -- can we come back to that? JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any other questions that someone other than the Auditor might be in a position to answer? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I had and I don't know -- I just noticed on No first page, the forensic service autopsy and that's up to 2,000 on some of them. increase by Travis County? JUDGE TINLEY: There was. a -- a question, departmental on the charge is 1,800, Was there an They gave us 11-8-04 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 notice that effective -- I believe, actually, it came in last year, if I'm not mistaken. Actually, I think the effective date, however, was October 1. I believe that was the effective date of it. I may be mistaken on that, but they gave us notice for these increases in the postmortem exams. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good time to probably invite the medical examiner from Travis County over to give a seminar to our J.P.'s about autopsy requirements. JUDGE TINLEY: You are reading my mind, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a new J.P. on board, and I think the Travis -- I think the medical examiner has offered on several occasions to come put on a free workshop for the J.P.'s as to autopsy requirements. JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Grimes has offered to coordinate that for us on numerous occasions in the past, and I think we need to just take him up on that deal and get that done. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think it would put everyone on a little firmer ground, and maybe save the County some money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's novel. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any other questions/comments about any of the bills that someone other ii-a-o4 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 than the Auditor may be able to answer? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a comment, but it needs to wait for the Auditor, I believe. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got questions on Page 7 that may be more appropriate to a later discussion. It has to do with the cost of preadjudicated detentions and postadjudicated placement, for some $22,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just wondering what the scope of that is. I'm -- what period of time that covers. Maybe that's more appropriate to a later discussion. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was Letz' question, I think. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I thought about it, but I decided, you know, might as well -- and Ms. Harris may be able to answer. JUDGE TINLEY: I think she probably can at this point. MS. HARRIS: It's $83 a day. As far as the length of time for a preadjudicated kid, that could -- that varies. It could be two days, it could be ten days, it could be three months, depending. ii-a-o4 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: About -- I guess the question that I would have would be, I mean, as I calculate it out, that equates -- 18,000 equates to about 200 days of -- MS. HARRIS: Of total time? COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm just wondering how many do we have, on average, preadjudicated kids out there? MS. HARRIS: On average, probably about six Kerr County kids. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that would be about a month's worth, okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we did not have the Kerr County juvenile facility, this is some $22,000 or $23,000 that we would be sending to another facility. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably more, because we'd have to transport them too. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we'd be spending probably at least that amount, plus we'd have the incidental costs to -- to get them there, to take care of the medical costs and return them and so forth for various hearings. Something else that maybe hasn't been figured into the equation is that each of these children has his or her own lawyer, and these lawyers must have access to their client. And if these children are some 150, 200 miles distant, or 11-8-04 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 21 50 miles distant, these lawyers are going to be incurring time and expenses to see their clients at these distant facilities. So, I'm not sure that's been -- that's been interpolated into the equation on some of these costs that we've been figuring. Okay. We don't have any minutes or monthly reports that I see. Do we have any -- have any transcripts -- uh-huh, okay. I have the monthly reports that have been furnished to me by the clerk for the following departments: Sheriff's Department; County Clerk's trust; County Clerk's general; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2; Environmental Health; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; and District Clerk. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as submitted? COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the delineated reports 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: I've also been furnished a transcript of the Kerr County Commissioners Court special session for Monday, October 25th of this year. Do I hear a 11-8-04 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 22 motion that such transcript be approved as submitted? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the transcript 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: That motion does carry. Do we have any reports from the Commissioners with respect to their liaison or committee assignments relative to various functions of the Court? Commissioner Baldwin? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What? I'm not a multi-task type guy. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- what's your question? JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any report to be rendered with respect to any of your liaison assignments for the functions of the Court? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, but thank you for asking. JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Commissioner 11-8-04 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 23 Williams? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll just make -- give a report on airport matters. I think the Airport Board, in its new makeup, has been meeting now for several months, and I'm just real happy to say it's performing. It's -- everyone is very much involved on the board, and we're still in a little bit of a transition, I think, phase going through right now as to exactly board responsibilities and working with the Airport Manager and City Manager and City staff and that whole bit, but I think it's really progressing better than I really had envisioned. And we're trying to schedule a workshop, which will be probably half day or so workshop out at the airport, and going over things that kind of -- really, get a -- relook at the master plan and economic development. I mean, the Board's really tackling a lot of issues out there which I think are very, very positive. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would concur. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further from your standpoint, Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's -- the other comment is, I don't know that -- I think it's actually Commissioner Nicholson that's liaison to Solid Waste and 11-8-04 24 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 O.S.S.F., but he and I are involved with that, and I just was thinking that about a year has passed, probably this month; this is exactly a year since we took over the O.S.S.F. program, and I'm real proud of the job that that department's done. I think that we -- when we took it on, there was a lot of skepticism in the community that we were -- that we could properly run this program, and I think Miguel and his staff has done a great job, and I think that it is probably the best run that whole program has been in many, many years. So, I'm -- you know, like to give kudos to everyone down in the -- that department. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I sure agree with that, and just an observation. I think, in retrospect, it was a good move for another reason. It freed the U.G.R.A. up from that nuisance, that burden, and I sure like the direction I see the U.G.R.A. going these days. They seem to be focused on the -- on the issues of keeping -- taking care of the river. And I noticed that they have made some sort of pact with the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, and I think two or three years ago, that couldn't have occurred. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was with the River Trust, not the Authority. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: River Trust, yeah. So, I agree with what the Commissioner said, that it's working well, and we receive very few complaints from 11-8-04 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 25 citizens about the way we do it. Doesn't mean they always like the rules, but they're -- the way they're handled is -- the folks down there are doing a very good job. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What we haven't heard lately, however, with respect to the solid waste part of the equation was where Miguel might be in finding somebody else to fill out the workweek for solid waste. I know we put that in the budget to expand that by a couple days a week, and I'm wondering if he has any candidates for that or not. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I haven't heard from him on that issue. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've almost killed enough time to start working on the agenda. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I could talk about Animal Control for a couple minutes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I could ask you a question which I've asked you in private. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got the answer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With regard to Animal Control, I'm getting calls from people saying, "What is this $10 fee and tax you're laying on me to register my dog? I don't want to pay it, and what are you going to do to me if I don't pay it?" So, I'll pass these questions on to you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, it -- thank 11-8-09 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 26 you. (Laughter.) I was hoping you were going to ask the question you asked me the other day about whether or not there was owner identification on the rabies tag, and yes, there is. But my telephone number and my vet's name is on that rabies tag. The fees we charge for registering animals are a partial effort to cover the costs of providing that service; that it doesn't cover the cost, but registration is way up, and the fees are generating more revenue than they ever have in the past. The population of unwanted dogs and cats is also up, so -- so we're at least breaking even by collecting those fees, if not making some headway. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The second part of the question is, if I don't pay that fee to register my dog, are you going to send the Sheriff out to get me or do harm to my dog? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't have the resources to do that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMI fees and we know who then the animal will and if not, we'll be down here, and for a it." SSIONER NICHOLSON: If you do pay the you are, and we pick your animal up, get a free ride home if we can do that, calling you and saying, "Your animal's small additional fee, you can come get COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have to confess, I 11-8-04 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 did use those arguments, but a couple of them weren't too pleased with the answers. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on to Item 3 on the agenda, request for the Court's approval to declare the week of 8 through 12 November, 2004, Employer Support of Guard and Reserve Week, and proclamation to that effect. General Schellhase. MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you, Judge and Commissioners. I come before you today as a representative of the Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve for Area 4. I'm the liaison officer for this part of Texas. I also wear another hat as ambassador for the United States Army Reserve for South Texas. I'd like to tell you that as of today, we have 197,594 Guard and Reserve on active duty. We're serving in 34 different countries, so Iraq is not our only place of interest at this time. The retention in the military at this time and the Guard and Reserve is 97 percent. Regardless of what you read or what you hear, the retention is the highest it's been in many, many years. The recruiting is 4 percent over the required goals that were set, except for the National Guard, because the goal was raised midyear, so they're at this time behind of about 8,000 new recruits. So, regardless of what's said and done, the morale is high in the military, and the Guard and the 11-8-09 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 28 Reserve deserve the support of all of us, especially the employers that are paying the big price. Today in Kerr County, we have numerous employers that are matching the pay for the Reserve and Guards that have been called up for active duty so they don't take a pay cut. We have numerous Reserve and Guard that are on duty that are taking huge pay cuts because of having to close their business down, especially the professionals. In the case of one that I'd like to point out, Major Lafon, Sandra Lafon, medical doctor From Kerrville that felt the need to support our country and joined -- or volunteered for active duty as a member of the Reserve. Today she's in Mosul, Iraq, serving in the 67th Combat Area Support Hospital. Her day goes something like this. Yesterday morning, she had 23 casualties in her hospital when she reported for duty. This morning when she reported in at 8:00, she had three, one with a head wound, one with a chest wound, and one with a foot missing, all Americans. The 23 yesterday morning were all Iraqis. So, we do have people that are directly related to us in Kerr County serving and paying the price for what they do to support this country. Professionals especially pay a big price. Having to close their office, lay off employees, and report to duty is a big burden on many of them. We also have a young man in Kerrville that was a painter. His National Guard unit was called to active 11-8-04 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 duty out of San Antonio. He has lost his home, he has lost his automobile, and is now serving in Iraq. The reason for his losses are ones that we get involved in with the area of support for the Guard and Reserve, is that the difficulty in changing the pay from National Guard/Reserve pay to active duty pay, he pays a price, because it took about four months for that transition to take place. We're actively at this time trying to get some of those decisions made by banks and mortgage companies to reverse those decisions, but it's not always easy. The accomplishments that are taking place today in Iraq are unbelievable; you don't read about them in the press because they're not good news. There's over 13 new sewer plants that have been put online. We have over 27,000 people working in just the sewer and water part of Iraq at this time. There are 380,000 policemen that have been trained and are now on the job. There are three regular army combat divisions that have been put together. There are four new police stations that have been built in Iraq alone, although they're blowing them up as fast as we build them. The new thing on the line right now is 62 border guard posts have been established, because as of about three hours ago, the borders to Iraq have been closed totally to all foreign countries until further notice. There are 37,000 generating plants that have been brought 11-8-04 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 online. There is more electrical generating being produced for the country of Iraq today than ever before, and you don't read about those things. There are seven and a half million people that have been put into schools and educational systems. All the books have been reprinted for the educational system by the military, that are taking out the "hate America" part of the education. There are 14,000 individuals that are working in the administration in Iraq that have never had the opportunity before, and including about 32 percent women, which you've never heard before. So, there's a lot of good things happening in Iraq that we don't hear about. So, those Reserve and Guard that are from this country are doing a great part, and will continue to do so. So I come before you today to ask you to recognize, as the nation has done this week, the 8th of November of 2004, as the week to proclaim support for the Guard and Reserves. I'd like to give you each a coin that represents the support for the Guard and Reserve. In addition to that, I'm going to give you an opportunity that not many people have the opportunity to do, but the Support for the Guard and Reserve would like to give you the opportunity to participate in a one-day Boss Lift, as it's called by the organization, to give you the opportunity to travel to San Antonio, board a C-5 operated by the Air 11-8-04 31 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 Guard -- the army -- the Air Reserve, the 433rd Airlift Wing, which will fly ycu to Houston, Texas, give you an opportunity to see the training that is going on by these great Reservists, and then fly you back to San Antonio. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Count me in. I'm in. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will too. MR. SCHELLHASE: It's a great opportunity. It's December the 3rd, and not many people have the opportunity to do this, and we're extending that to the Commissioners Court at this time. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to do that also. MR. SCHELLHASE: With that, I'd like to request that the Court approve the proclamation to approve this week. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I'd like to offer that resolution for approval, but I think it's important to read it into the record, and not just do it perfunctorily. With the Court's approval, I'll do that. "Whereas, virtually four of every ten members of our nation's military forces today are members of the National Guard or Reserve; and whereas, more than 176,000 of our Reserve Component troops are currently on active duty, alongside active duty forces, serving as equal partners in our integrated armed forces in the global fight against 11-5-09 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 terrorism; and whereas, like the Minutemen before them, they have left their homes and jobs and donned unforms to defend and advance the causes of democracy, peace, and freedom across our nation and around the world; and whereas, the Governor of the State of Texas has paid tribute to those serving our nation in the National Guard and Reserve, and just and as importantly, to the civilian employers whose continued support enables our Reserve Component soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen to defend our country with honor and distinction; and whereas, honor and recognition are due those employers for their unselfish commitment as they, too, become inextricably linked to our nation's security by sharing their most precious assets, their employees, in a total force concept in defense of our precious rights of democracy; therefore, be it resolved that Kerr County Commissioners Court does hereby designate the week of November 8 through 13, 2004, to be Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Week, and do hereby encourage all our citizens to join in wholehearted support of our National Guard and Reserve personnel and their civilian employers, both of whom give so much for the freedoms we all enjoy." I move the resolution. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for adoption of the resolution. Any question or comments? All 11-8-04 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 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: Thank you, General. MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you for all your service. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for this coin, General. JUDGE TINLEY: A bit closer to home on this same subject, the Texas Army National Guard here a few years ago was tasked as the first Reserve Component force to take command of the multinational force that was in Yugoslavia after that conflict, and here just last week, they were again tasked to participate, and have allocated troops from our own Texas Army Guard forces to participate in that effort. So, the -- the Army Guard and the Guard forces in Texas are the largest in the country, and we're doing our part and more, and we're damn proud of it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amen. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've got the Auditor here, don't we? Mr. Auditor, we've got some questions. MR. TOMLINSON: Some questions. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had two questions, 11-8-09 34 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 but we have them answered. It was bills -- examinations for the Sheriff's employees, and something to do with east Texas, and on our bills it says "East Texas-something something," but it's ncwhere on this stuff. The physicians are local. And -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There was actually four. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, there's four employees that got some kind of examinations. I don't know why it says "East Texas," but they're local people. So, that answers my question, sort of. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have, is there any way that we could add the Juvenile Detention Facility to our bills, so that we can look at those as we're, I guess, responsible for paying them? MR. TOMLINSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the next -- you know, just add it right in -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Separate them by category. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, just like -- like, just have a, you know, new section for Juvenile Detention Facility; list them all, so we can sort of become familiar with those as well. That was all I had. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? 11-8-04 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the bills. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment of the bills. 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: That motion does carry. Budget amendments. Budget Amendment Request Number 1. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for the Law Library. I have bills totaling $1,919.86. These bills actually were -- these were for books that were actually ordered in the prior year budget, so I -- I'm requesting that we increase the budget for Law Library by that amount. So, we're actually amending -- increasing the budget for that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That comes from designated Law Library funds? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question 11-8-04 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 36 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. Budget Amendment Request Number 2. MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is -- is a combination of -- for the Sheriff's Department, Jail, and Constable Precinct 1, 2, and 3, and it's related to the property coverage invoice from Texas Association of Counties. I need -- we need to increase the budget for the Sheriff's Office for vehicle insurance for $2,931. We're doing that by transferring $1,501 from Jailer Salaries and $1,430 from -- from the insurance -- from the Property Casualty Insurance line item from the Jail. For Constable Precinct 1, we need to transfer $201 from Office Supplies to Vehicle Insurance, and for Constable Precinct 2, transferring $201 also from Office Supplies to -- that says Maintenance; it should be insurance -- Vehicle Insurance. For Constable Precinct 3, we're transferring $201 from Office Supplies to Vehicle Insurance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the deal on the constables? Why do we have such a shortfall so quickly here? 11-8-09 37 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 think -- I think, in the budget process, we -- last year, we only -- we had a short year for premium, and we budgeted based on what we paid for -- for the prior year. If you remember that last year, our premium year was only for nine months. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That would explain it. MR. TOMLINSON: So I think that's the -- that's the problem. JUDGE TINLEY: This is going to handle all of the vehicles that -- that we have the insurance on where we budgeted short on them? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. That -- we -- that handles the premium for -- to TAC for the vehicle insurance, unless there's additional purchases made from this point forward. JUDGE TINLEY: At which time we'd need to build that into the purchase. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, I just want to bring up that the -- on the constables' offices and their -- their office supplies, I know that's not a huge item in their budget, and I don't remember how much we budgeted for them, but I know it's not a great deal. 11-8-09 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 38 MR. TOMLINSON: There was -- we increased those budgets from, like, $150 to $650, and I don't -- I didn't recall why we did -- why we did that. And, judging on history for office supplies in those offices, it appears that there's room for that move. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There may be. Looks like we're taking about a fourth of the -- MR. TOMLINSON: Their budgets are so small, it's difficult to find a place, you know, to take it, and that was the most logical. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seem to recall that on the -- their office supplies, they all made a -- a pitch for -- they had to get ticket books printed and things of that nature, and all of them had to do that. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there -- I don't -- they haven't -- they haven't completed the transaction for their -- I think it was radar units that, you know, they were -- they were given some units, and there's -- they had $1,500 budgeted for Capital Outlay for that purpose. Maybe we -- maybe we're good there. I don't -- we just have to wait to see what happens with that transaction. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only point is -- is that if they run out later on in the year, we need to remember that we did this today to cover a budget oversight. JUDGE TINLEY: Good point, Commissioner. 11-8-04 39 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: One comment I'd like to make, Judge, about the vehicle insurance. I'm a little concerned over -- that the Court, a couple of years ago, went to -- from the $250 deductible to the $1,000 deductible. MR. TOMLINSON: I've already explored that situation, and we -- we made money by changing. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, this year, we're back up to paying that -- within $1,000 of that same premium we were before we upped the deductible, and I just would like to -- MR. TOMLINSON: No, we had a -- we had a nine-month year the year before, and so we -- our premium was -- was only -- was 75 percent of our normal premium last year. But we also have more new vehicles. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm just concerned, because it seems like ours in the last two years has gone back up to the premium where it was before the deductible was changed, and I don't think we're going to be saving any money on that deal. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But insurance goes up every year. MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if you'd quit hitting deer -- 11-8-04 40 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: That, I can't help. JUDGE TINLEY: That last comment was the only suggestion I was going to make, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a question for the Sheriff. Sheriff, the jailers' salary is -- appears to be about $64,000 under budget early in the budget year. Now, my comment is, I was hoping that the significant improvements we've made in compensation for jailers would -- would dramatically reduce unwanted turnover. Is this under budget due to turnover? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The under budget? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've got a budget of 794,000, and we've got a balance of 73 -- 730,000 -- we're over budget. Tell me about jailer turnover. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jailer turnover has pretty well gone away. We had several right at the end of last budget year that left for other reasons to go to work somewhere else, but it wasn't due to financial stuff at the jail. Some of them were just older. But -- and we filled those positions, which changed right at the new budget year. But my jailer turnover rate -- I've got one that's been working in the kitchen that has announced he's retiring come, you know, another month; that he's through, but that's it. The turnover rate, thanks to this Court and what y'all have done with salaries and that, has changed that. 11-8-04 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 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. MR. TOMLINSON: I just gave you another amendment. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me first -- the numbers that you've crunched, Mr. Tomlinson, indicate that by changing the deductible to a higher amount, that the County has actually saved money? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, we did. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or comments on Budget Amendment Request Number 2? MR. TOMLINSON: I think maybe the reason for that is that we have -- we have a lot of vehicles in -- in Road and Bridge that we didn't have any losses on, and so by the time you add all those vehicles together, that's what affects the -- the savings. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the Sheriff may be spending more, but because of other departments, we're not -- MR. TOMLINSON: It just so happened that, you know -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's coming out of my budget. MR. TOMLINSON: -- that we had more losses in the Sheriff's Office vehicles. 11-8-04 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 42 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's only fair, Sheriff. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, that could change any time, but just -- it happened, you know, that way. JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. 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: That motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request Number 3. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This amendment is a request by the County Clerk to transfer funds to Election Supplies and Ballot Expenses. She's asking for $669.54 go to Election Supplies, $2,414.69 into Ballot Expenses. She's transferring $3,084.23 from Election Judges line item. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you repeat those 11-8-04 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 43 numbers? Those numbers aren't what I have. JUDGE TINLEY: Huh-uh. MR. TOMLINSON: I thought you got a copy of what I have. No, this is different. I'm sorry. MS. PIEPER: Mindy and I worked on this Friday, so you may not have the updated one. MR. TOMLINSON: This is the one that's signed. MS. PIEPER: We worked on it so quick, I didn't sign the updated one. MR. TOMLINSON: This is the -- this is the new one, then? MS. PIEPER: The one that is not signed is the new one. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Well, I'm not privy to that information. MS. PIEPER: I'm sorry. MR. TOMLINSON: So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would explain why you didn't know the answer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Want to sign one? MS. PIEPER: I'll sign one. MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, we'll try again. Okay. The transfer, as it reads on the unsigned one, is transfer of $3,000 from Election Judges, $313.50 in Public Notices, 11-8-04 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 $1,244.65 into Election Supplies -- wait a minute. This doesn't balance either. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. Look at the bottom, though. There's a balance of -- MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, 8,618.38 into Ballot Expenses. To make this balance, we need $7,176.53 to come from the General Fund -- General Fund, surplus reserve, or a transfer from -- from Contingency. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From what? MR. TOMLINSON: From Contingency in the Commissioners Court budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In order to go to the General Fund, we must declare an emergency. MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is not an emergency, in my opinion. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, if we have a Contingency, okay, which we do, then my recommendation would be to take it from -- from the Contingency line item. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have that number? Because we should be taking your advice. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have the balance, but I know that we haven't used any of that, so -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The number is 10 -- MR. TOMLINSON: I think we budgeted $15,000. 11-8-04 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 45 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's not going to answer. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right, we did. So, come from -- what are you talking about, the line item? What the line item number is? JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental Contingency? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that would be the line. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree that's where it ought to come from. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's probably sufficient identification, without giving the account number itself. It's Nondepartmental -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. JUDGE TINLEY: -- Contingency. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3, with the excess to come from Nondepartmental Contingency line 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: That motion does carry. Do we have any late bills? 11-8-09 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 MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, we don't. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Tomlinson? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Here's a signed one. JUDGE TINLEY: It is 9:55, and we will move to Item Number 4, open the sealed health insurance proposals and refer the same to the County health benefits consultant, Catto and Catto, for recommendation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They appear to be in many different forms, based on the thickness of the packages. JUDGE TINLEY: The first proposal that I have is submitted by Wallace and Associates. I don't know how much you want to get into the record here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably just the name will be sufficient, just because they're so different. JUDGE TINLEY: There are a number of different proposals submitted, so... The second one submitted is from the Standard Insurance Company in San Antonio. The third proposal is from Jefferson Pilot Financial submitted by Wallace and Associates in Seguin. Next one is from Benefit Planners. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure if this is a different one or part of the other one, but it appears to be different. 11-8-04 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 JUDGE TINLEY: In a separate envelope, another proposal by Benefit Planners. This indicates proposal for claims administration services. The other may be for the actual stop loss coverage. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe they both say the same. JUDGE TINLEY: Next proposal is Providence Insurance and Administrative Services. Next proposal is from Employee Benefit Administrators and Bryan Finley. COMMISSIONER LETZ: These were all banded together, so -- JUDGE TINLEY: We have a number of envelopes from Texas Association of Counties, Health and Employee Benefits Pools. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was in the same -- all those were together. JUDGE TINLEY: Bryan Finley and Associates appears to be in connection with Texas Association of Counties. Is that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: That was submitted bundled together? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next proposal is from 11-8-04 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 48 Texas Association of Counties, Health and Employee Benefits Pool. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a lot like Christmas. That goes with it. That's the time sheet, or the -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Seem to be getting bigger, don't they? Next proposal is from Wallace and Associates and Mutual of Omaha, it appears. Thank you, sir. It's good that you carry a pocketknife. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Number 3's having a hard time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Everything they can put it inside of. JUDGE TINLEY: Next proposal is from Group and Pension Administrators, Incorporated. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Baldwin, sitting on the end of the table has got some benefit, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the last one, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: And the last proposal we have is from -- looks like Benesight, B-e-n-e-s-i-g-h-t. I don't see any agency designation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move we accept 11-8-04 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 49 all proposals and refer them to Catto and Catto for recommendation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for acceptance of all the proposals and referral to Catto and Catto for recommendation. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I do have a question. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody back there has a -- MR. LOONEY: Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Gary Looney. MR. LOONEY: Thank you. In your reading of the proposals, did I not hear a proposal from your incumbent carrier? Was there -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. MR. LOONEY: Was there one from the incumbent? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, there was. MR. LOONEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, my question is, on the -- my memory fails me as to how our process is working this year. We have all the proposals. What's the -- I mean, and we're obviously referring them to our consultant 11-8-04 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 50 for recommendation, but I guess is it -- I mean, are we going to -- is it going to be the exact same plan we have now, or are we going to relook at the plan? I mean, what's the process? MR. LOONEY: There's supposed to be a number of options within those proposals for various different plans; that was part of the RFP process itself. So, during this next stage -- during this next phase, we'll have a negotiation phase. We'll measure what the current plan is and the prices against the proposals, and also look at options for the benefit plan design. One of the things that I had talked to the Judge about is having a -- a Commissioners meeting so that we can go over, in the interim, during the bid process, what the different options would be during that time frame, so that I can get some guidance from you all as to where we need to go with that. But it will not simply be a -- you know, Here's where we were before, here's the price going into the future. No, we'll have -- we'll have options, a number of options. One of the reasons I wanted to have the session -- the training session is to go over those options with you all well before I make my recommendation to the Court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, is that planned? Do you have a date in mind for that training? JUDGE TINLEY: I had -- ii-s-o9 --- - 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 51 MS. MITCHELL: 15th. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, a week from today was the first -- first alternative, and I had asked Ms. Mitchell to poll you gentlemen and find out your availability on that date. And Mr. Looney said he'd be available on that date, and we'd have a workshop. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's what I -- that was my question. JUDGE TINLEY: And if we haven't got that nailed down by today, I thought we could today. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 15th? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Afternoon session would be okay for me. JUDGE TINLEY: Afternoon, as opposed to morning? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 o'clock? JUDGE TINLEY: That work for you? He said he's going to need about an hour and a half ideally, I believe. MR. LOONEY: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it does. I don't have my other calendar with me. I -- I surely want to be a part of the process, because I'd like to know more 11-8-09 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 52 about -- have more information on this issue this year than I had last year. Go ahead for 1 o'clock Monday, and I'll -- I'll confirm that. MR. LOONEY: If you need to vary that in the afternoon, that's fine. I'm available the whole afternoon -- entire afternoon. JUDGE TINLEY: I normally have juvenile cases begin at 3:00, so 1:00 ought to work just about right for me. We appreciate you making yourself available, Mr. Looney. MR. LOONEY: Not a problem. The other thing I think we need is something to help me carry all those proposals out to the car. We can stack them up. MR. HOLEKAMP: I'll get one of my guys up here in a minute. Will that be all right? MR. LOONEY: That will be great. MR. HOLEKAMP: You have about 15 minutes? I've got an item on the agenda, and as soon as I'm through. MR. LOONEY: Fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does that -- does that address your question, Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, good. Okay. Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 11-8-04 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 53 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one other comment on that, if I might, Judge. If it's possible to have any summary information in advance of that meeting, that would be helpful. If it's not, it's okay, but I do think members of this Court need to be able to spend whatever time they need to studying this issue. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on to our next timed item. At this time, I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a public hearing for the revision of a plat for Kerr Vista Ranch, Section Four, Lots 29 through 35, in Volume 5, Page 237 through 242, located in Precinct 4. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:10 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public here present today that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision of the plat for Kerr Vista Ranch, Section Four, Lots 29 through 35, in Volume 5, Page 237 through 242? Any member of the public wish to be heard? There being no indication of that, I will close the public 11-5-04 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 54 hearing. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:10 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: And the next item on the agenda is a 10:05 item, to open bids for engineered metal roof replacement and HVAC replacement of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. Time for you to go to work again, Commissioner Letz. COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are at least envelopes. JUDGE TINLEY: Don't need an axe to get into them. First one I have is from Hardin Heating and Cooling. Next one is Professional Installation Services, Foxworth-Galbraith. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge -- JUDGE TINLEY: You prefer that I read the numbers out? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the amounts should be on these, 'cause it's pretty clear. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. On the first one with Hardin Heating and Cooling, this appears to be as to the HVAC only. $41,425, per the proposal. The Professional Installation Services from Foxworth-Galbraith, it indicates for the engineered metal roof portion, $101,250. The next 11-8-04 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 55 one is from Compton's of Kerrville, Inc. While there's nothing to definitively indicate what it's for, it appears to be only for -- I'm going to assume it's for HVAC only. Yes, here it is. The spec sheets indicate it's for HVAC only. That amount is $70,057.46. Next one is from R & J Eagle Contractors, Incorporated, HVAC bid. Amount is $73, 658. COMMISSIONER LETZ: HVAC. JUDGE TINLEY: Next one is a bid for HVAC, State Aire, $54,036. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Say that again, please? HVAC or gas. $37,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Roof, I believe. JUDGE TINLEY: Next one is from R & J Eagle Contractors with respect to the reroofing. Galvalune, 209,850. Colored high-seam, 223,470. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And one more final roof one. JUDGE TINLEY: And the next one is from JUDGE TINLEY: $54,036. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Next one is from Air Tech, It appears that there are alternates here, electric It shows a price, $34,000; heat pump, $42,000; gas, 11-8-04 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 56 Feller Fabrication. That's on the engineered metal roof system. There are, apparently, two bids. One is with air conditioning; I assume that has something to do with the removal of the existing. I'm not sure without evaluating. That amount is $108,431. Notation, "No A/C, $99,431." Is that all, Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all that I believe we received. JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like we got some pretty good participation. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept all bids and refer them to the Maintenance Director for review and recommendation. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for acceptance of bid and referral to the Maintenance Director for review and recommendation. 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: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Holekamp? 11-8-09 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 57 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where are we on a new or improved P.A. system for the facility? MR. HOLEKAMP: It's been completed. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you, sir. I -- I don't have a lot of interest in it, but I'm just trying the take care of Commissioner Williams, 'cause he promised everybody in the county that it would be fixed. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When do we hog callers have an opportunity to check it out? MR. HOLEKAMP: The first hog show you wish to participate in, I guess. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll go check it out. MR. HOLEKAMP: All right, that'd be fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Let' s move to the next timed item on the agenda slated for 10:15. I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a public hearing for the revision of plats for The Reserve of Falling Water, Lots 21 and 22 into Lot 21A, and Lots 6, 7E and 7W into Lot 6R. (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:18 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the 11-8-04 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 58 public that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision of plats for The Reserve of Falling Water, Lots 21 and 22 into lot 21A, and Lots 6, 7E and 7W into Lot 6R? Any member of the public wishing to be heard on this item? Seeing no one coming forward or otherwise indicating an interest, I will close the public hearing. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:18 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: I will reconvene the Commissioners Court and call agenda Item Number 9, revision of plats for The Reserve of Falling Water, Lots 21 and 22 into 21A, and Lots 6, 7E, and 7W into Lot 6R. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Len, as I understand, we had a plat a while back. I don't have one with me now, but my recollection is that both of these are decreasing -- we're not -- we are not increasing the number of lots in the subdivision. MR. ODOM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made 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. 11-8-04 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 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Why don't we stand in recess for about 15 minutes? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good idea. (Recess taken from 10:19 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we could, please. I'll reconvene the meeting of the Commissioners Court scheduled for this date. Next item on the agenda is a timed item. Number 10, presentation by the Alamo Rural Transportation by Beverly Lutz, the A.R.T. Transportation Manager, and Randy Plummer, Kerrville Station Manager. Commissioner, Precinct 2, Commissioner Williams. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, this is just an effort to bring the Court up to date on those activities that are -- and programs that are sponsored by and administered by AACOG, that have value and meaning to citizens of Kerr County, one of which is the transportation program -- the regional transportation program. So, it's my pleasure to introduce to you today Beverly Lutz, who is the Regional Transportation Manager, and Randy Plummer, who is the Manager of the Kerrville Intermodal Transportation Facility, and I've asked them to come to us today and just 11-8-04 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 `°~ 2 4 25 talk a little bit about transportation, give you some sense of what's available and what we do, what the numbers are, the participation and so forth. Beverly? MS. LUTZ: Good morning. Thank you for that. We've prepared some packages here; I want you to have those, and we'll kind of run through those a little bit. I am Beverly Lutz. I am the Transportation Manager in Alamo Regional Transit. We provide rural public transportation for 11 counties in AACOG, which we do now direct services in 10 of those 11 counties. We do the Medicaid contract, which is 11 of the 10 counties -- I mean 11 of the 11 counties. In your packet, you'll see the -- the first part of it is -- this is the packet that we hand out to the area judges every month, and you'll see that only September is filled in. And we -- we keep filling these in every month. As you turn the page, you'll see there's a page for each county. There's Atascosa, Comal, Guadalupe, and then you'll see Kerr back there; it's behind Kendall, and there's Kerr County, what Kerr County did for September of '04. And then, like I say, as we fill in the -- the months, we hand these out to the area judges every month. The very last page, it says C.C.S.C.T.; that's Community Council of South Central Texas. That is provided by them, and they do the public transportation. They're the only subcontractor that we have in the area. 11-8-09 61 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 next package that you have shows you last year's numbers, so you can go and compare as we go through the months, and it's the same type of order. You have the cumulative summary, and then you have the counties following for Comal, Frio, Atascosa. You'll see Kerr back there again. And the last page, again, will be Community Council of South Central Texas. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, just so everybody understands, Beverly, on the -- on the annual summary for Kerr County, for folks 60 and under, there were 10,303 trips; is that correct? And for 60-plus, there were 8,917 trips, for a total of 19,220? MS. LUTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Trips that were originated out of the intermodal facility? MS. LUTZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For residents of Kerr County; is that correct? MS. LUTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. LUTZ: The next part of your packet is the copy of the fares, the rate sheets that we have. So, in case anybody in your area came and asked you about transportation, what would the fares be, we've got it from town to town. It's a little bit easier than trying to 11-8-04 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 figure out the mileage. This way, everybody knows exactly what the mileage will be from -- say from Bandera in town, or Bandera to Wharton's dock. And it goes down; you'll see where it says Kerrville in the second column. The next page talks about Atascosa County. Then you'll see following that are -- is a fare sheet for each county. So, it gives you a -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are these mandatory fares or are these suggested fares, or how is that handled? MS. LUTZ: These are mandatory fares, except for Title III services, which could be just for the nutrition centers and going to and from medical treatments for people that are over 60; then it's contribution. But we're into discussions on that one currently. We've got some decisions that need to be made, because their funding is very short, limited funding for what we're trying to do with the seniors. We have more demand than funding. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are these -- on the -- who's eligible to use this service? MS. LUTZ: Everyone. COMMISSTONER LETZ: Anyone? MS. LUTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no -- it's not just for the -- you know, for the -- MS. LUTZ: No, the service is for all ages. 11-8-04 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: How does it work? I mean -- MR. PLUMMER: I'll give you an overview on that in just a second. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. LUTZ: Okay. On the next page, it just talks about the drug and alcohol program. I just wanted to give y'all little bullets on that, just to let you know that we do have a drug and alcohol program. If anyone tests positive, they're automatically terminated for employment; they are no longer eligible to work for us. Our policy is so good that the State has recommended it to be used as an example in the Best Practices manual for the state for other providers. The next page is kind of like what you were asking, the types of services. It tells you on there it's a service for all ages, so anyone -- if they want to go shopping or to the doctor or go visit a friend even, they can call up Randy at the Kerrville Intermodal Facility and schedule the trip; get the fare sheet, and off they go. Randy will talk a little bit more about what Kerrville does in just a minute. The next sheet is kind of some rules that we have. It's a service for all ages. It's kind of a client-rider brochure; it's front and back. It kind of gives some general rules. And the next page is the same 11-8-04 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 rules, but in Spanish. And then the -- the next page, we're working on a client survey form. We want to know how we're doing with the riders, and I gave you this 'cause we're -- right now they're at the printers; we don't have the final document back, but this is exactly what's being printed up, so -- and then on the back, it will have where they can mail it back to us. I'm going to turn it over to Randy now. He's going to tell you a little bit, you know, about what the Kerrville facility does. I just wanted to give you this so you can go back and look at them later. If you have any questions, you're always free to call either Randy or I. We put his card on the front of your envelope, so -- but I'm going to let Randy talk more about Kerrville Intermodal Facility. MR. PLUMMER: In the new facility, we've been established now for a little over a year. We've been pleased that we've been able to operate. The Kerrville Bus Company functions out of that facility as well as Alamo Regional Transit. In terms of the Alamo Regional Transit, we're a Monday-through-Friday operation. We are open from 8:00 to 5:00. Those are the hours that we actually take reservations. We do some extended service before and after hours if we have early morning or later in the evening doctor's appointments, as well as runs for Medicaid; we do have a Medicaid contract in our northern counties here, and ii-a-o9 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 so we do do extended services. That could be anywhere from 6 o'clock in the morning pickup to get them over to the Ambulatory Care Center or whatever happens to be going on. So, we do go outside of those hours, but this is for the appointment times. We did go ahead and list the phone numbers. I believe you have our local number as well as our 800 number, and our Kerrville Intermodal Facility operates for Bandera, Gillespie, Kendall, and Kerr County. We did -- we dispatch for those four counties out of this facility. We do have trolleys available. Those are for public transportation only. We do not do any charter service, so no -- no private functions such as weddings. But, for instance, we did the Texas Arts and Crafts Fair several months back, and had a good turnout; we ran all four days out there. The price on that is $60 per hour. We do operate the Kerrville Bus Company out of there. They are -- they do their own operations, but they're in the same facility. They are open Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 5:00. They take cash only for bus tickets, and they do have a shipping service available as well, so if y'all have any shipping needs, feel free to utilize them. I went ahead and listed the schedules also for the Kerrville Bus Company, to just show you what -- how many different buses are coming into and out of Kerrville 11-8-04 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 66 and from what directions. We currently have 14 buses that come through Kerrville on a regular basis. So, in terms of Alamo Regional Transit, we take reservations, and the reservations are on a first-come, first-served basis, and we have been extremely busy. We are in the process of attempting to hire more drivers, and we're hiring part-time drivers where we can have more flexibility in scheduling. Again, the 8:00 to 5:00 hours are starting to extend themselves more and more as we have -- have different residents with different needs, so that -- that's been our main focus. We do have a good fleet of vehicles, and we have gotten the maintenance up on them, so we -- we're well maintained and ready to travel, and we are just looking for some additional resources in terms of personnel. Any questions? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was just going to make a comment to Commissioner Williams. We're bringing our convention to Kerrville -- our association convention. Seventy-seven commissioners courts will be in here, and I was really wanting to use these trolleys, but, gosh, the price is way too high for us. That`s the only comment I wanted to make. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm hearing your comment. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much. 11-8-04 67 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's all. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is free okay, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's pretty close. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not making any promises. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can -- I'll negotiate with you on that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we're somewhere between 77 and free. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's great. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to thank you both for coming. It's neat to know exactly what's going on. Kerr County has had this type of service for many years. Before Alamo took it over, Dietert Senior Center operated it, and a lot of our folks have come to expect it and use it, and so I'm pleased to have you come down and tell us about it. Thank you for your time. MR. PLUMMER: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for taking the time to come down and join us. MR. PLUMMER: Thank you. 11-8-04 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "' 2 4 25 MS. LUTZ: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is a timed item, and at this time I will recess the Commissioners Court and convene a public hearing for name change, regulatory signs, resetting school zone at Nimitz Elementary, abandoning, vacating, and discontinuing roads in Kerr County in accordance with public notice that's been 8 published. 9 10 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:47 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open court, as follows:) P U B L I C H E A R I N G JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning the name change, regulatory signs, resetting school zone at Nimitz Elementary, abandoning, vacating, and discontinuing roads in Kerr County in accordance with the public notice? Being no one -- excuse me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have -- two people have contacted me and asked me to voice their concern during this portion. JUDGE TINLEY: Very good. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They both are objecting to the closing of a portion of Riojas Road. Gene Hall, whose phone number is 995-2448, he objects to that. And also Nancy Carr; phone number of her is (210) 847-0659. And ii-s-o4 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 I just wanted to get that into the record. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard with respect to the name changes, regulatory signs, resetting school zone at Nimitz Elementary, abandoning, vacating, and discontinuing roads in Kerr County as given in the public notice? Hearing or seeing no one stepping forward, I will close the public hearing, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. (The public hearing was concluded at 10:49 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.) JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 12, consider approval of name change, regulatory signs, resetting school zone at Nimitz Elementary, abandoning, vacating, and discontinuing roads in Kerr County as provided in the public notice and called in the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on this one, I would request that we take no action on abandoning Louise Eh1er Lane East, the 380 foot of Riojas Road North, or the name change of Louise Ehler Lane East to Barbara Way East. I think we may be able to act on those at our next meeting, but not today. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the changes as outlined, with the exception of the abandonment 11-8-04 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 and the name change as noted by Commissioner 3. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for the approval of the agenda item, with the exception of the abandonment, vacating, discontinuance of Louise Ehler Lane East and 380 feet of Riojas North, and the name change of Louise Ehler Lane East to Barbara Way East. Any question or discussion? MS. HARDIN: I have a question for Commissioner Letz. On the -- on the Riojas, if we can work with the gentleman to work on a cul-de-sac or a way to turn around, would we then have to bring it back to the court, or do we have to readvertise? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe if we are within the nature -- I mean, pretty close to doing the request as listed, I don't believe -- I don't believe we need another public hearing. MS. HARDIN: We do not? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do not. MS. HARDIN: I will work with the gentleman and see if we can work something out. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions? Comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11-8-04 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 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. (No response.) JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, would you concur that, I mean, as long as we don't substantially change a road closure or abandonment, we would not need a new public hearing? That's the way I would think. Do you agree? JUDGE TINLEY: If there's no material variance from -- from the notice of public hearing and what the proposed action by the Court is, I don't think we need a new public hearing. You would need a new agenda item, of course, to do it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: But not a new public hearing, unless there's going to be any material change. Let's go to the next timed item, Item Number 13, consider and discuss making agreements with the City of Kerrville and/or Kimble County and Junction EMS to authorize Kimble County/Junction EMS to provide emergency medical services to a certain portion of northwest Kerr County. Commissioner Nicholson. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioners, in our first meeting in October, we passed a motion authorizing the County Judge to sign an agreement with Kimble County providing for them to provide emergency medical services to a portion of northwest Kerr County, and for him to modify an 11-8-04 72 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 agreement with the City of Kerrville that deals with the provision of emergency medical services. In a subsequent meeting, our last meeting, three additional issues came up -- were raised. One had to do with liability of Kerr County in the event that we contract with Kimble County to provide these services. Second one had to do with the capability of Kimble County to provide EMS services, and the third one had to do with whether or not assigning this EMS service to Kimble County was supported by a majority of the residents that would be so served. I'm going to talk first about the -- the capability issue, and then Mr. Motley and Mr. Budow are here to talk about the liability and the will of the majority of the citizens. Most of the comments I have about facts on the capability of Kimble EMS are -- I learned from work done by Ms. Rosa Lavender, reported in the West Kerr Current, so I want to make sure I give credit for that and to thank the West Kerr Current for doing that research. And I want to preface it by saying that I have not heard in this proposal any concern about the capability of Kerrville EMS; that the capability is not the issue. It's their ability to get there in a timely manner to provide the needed services. What we see is that the closest Kerrville EMS station is 52.1 miles from the Y.O. Ranchlands gate. Kimble is 22.1 miles. 52 miles versus 22 miles. Kimble is 30 miles 11-8-04 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 closer than the closest Kerrville EMS. Kimble's got 20 medical responders, including three paramedics. Most of the other 17 responders are intermediate level E.M.T.'s. Their E.M.T.'s take calls working six-hour shifts, and they must be within four minutes of the EMS building while they're on those shifts. Kimble EMS has three ambulances serving 4,500 residents. Kerrville has five ambulances serving 45,000 residents. The ratio there is, each ambulance serves 1,500 people in Kimble, and each ambulance in Kerrville serves 9,000 people. The Kimble EMS is housed next to the Kendall County Hospital. Some E.M.T.'s are hospital employees. Others are volunteer firefighters and law enforcement personnel. The hospital's C.E.O., a Mrs. Marlene Jones, is also the EMS Director, so the hospital and EMS are tied closely together. Most calls are made with three people on board the ambulance, including one paramedic who can provide advance cardiac life support care. Marlene Jones, the -- the EMS coordinator, says the -- is quoted as saying the quicker response available from Junction, with the strong medical service they have in place, would create competent emergency medical response for Y.O. Ranchlands residents. And last, they provide the option that patients who are served by Kimble EMS can choose whether -- whether they go to hospitals in San Angelo, Kerrville, Fredericksburg, or 11-8-04 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 San Antonio. These -- these facts are enough to convince me that Kerr citizens in the northwest corner of the county will be better served by Kimble EMS than by Kerrville EMS. Again, simply a function of the amount of time it takes to get those services to the victim. That's all I have on the capability. Mr. Budow, do you want to address the issue of what is the will of the citizens of far west Kerr County? MR. BUDOW: I invited some of my neighbors today, and there's perhaps some other concerned citizens. I thought I'd quickly review where we've been over the past nine months or so. This is my sixth time; I'm hoping that the sixth is the charm today. So, to quickly review, we saw five -- we've seen five objections since April raised, and I thought I'd just click them off very quickly. The response time and capability, one and two. The need for an interlocal or mutual aid agreement between the County and the County and the City, respectively. The opinion of counsel as to the liability implications. And number five ultimately is the will of the people or the -- the public, including the expanded service area that Kerrville asked us to consider at the last meeting. Beginning with Chapter 774 of the local -- the Health and Safety Code, state provisions of the Health and Safety Code dealing with the local provision of emergency services, this very specific instance is called 11-8-04 75 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 out. I will just read it to you briefly. A municipality shall provide emergency medical services for the county in which that municipality is located, or for a municipality located within 30 miles of that municipality, if it meets all the standard T's and C's of the interlocal agreement. So, I think the fact that we're within 22 miles, less than 30; the fact that we've made this request, and the fact that it's called out within the state Health and Safety Code provides you a -- I'll call it a safe harbor, for lack of another term, appreciating that that has some legal implications to it. With regard to response time, I won't repeat what Commissioner Nicholson said, other than 22 versus 52. There was some question in the past that they're a volunteer service, and could they possibly respond in a timely fashion? They are, by contract, obligated, as you've heard, to be within four minutes of the center. They are typically across the parking lot and in the hospital. We're talking about R.N.'s and paramedics and certified emergency response nurses, volunteer or not, and in this case they actually receive a fee on the EMS side. We're convinced, as -- as all research has shown, that their response time will be superior. In fact, we'd rather have an Eagle Scout in 20 minutes than a doctor in an hour. It's just that simple. Capability. As Commissioner Nicholson again 11-8-04 76 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 said, it's not about Kerrville's capability. Somehow we got waylaid on whether Kerr -- Kerrville's capability was -- was appropriate or not. That's not the issue. The issue is, can they get there in something under an hour? Reasonable period of time. Fast as you can drive 52 miles versus fast as you can drive 22 miles. That's the issue for us. There's six times better ambulance coverage; we've already talked about that. There's paramedics on most runs, which was called into question earlier, but I think that's been mitigated by the facts as they came out. We've established protocols with 9-1-1 and Kimble once you approved our moving forward, so that the question of was the handoff going to be consistent, was it going to be dealt with in a standard manner, and -- and would they deliver standard services appears to have been dealt with. So, those are the capability and response time. With regard to the agreements and the interlocals, again, as was said, there was a unanimous motion approved by this Court giving the Judge permission to sign on two contingencies. As to form, the County Attorney produced two interlocal agreements for mutual aid agreements, one for Kimble and one between Kerrville and Kerr County, so I would say that the form contingency has been met. The Kerrville contingency -- or the second contingency was that Kerrville agreed to -- to agree, if you 11-8-04 77 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, with the circumstance. And what we heard last time is that they do. They are not opposed to it. They don't support it, but they're in agreement with the documents that have been put forward, with one additional contingency, that being the expanded service area. And I'll deal with that when we come to the question of the will of the people. Motley, you want to get in now, or you want to wait? MR. MOTLEY: Doesn't make any difference to me. Let me just -- let me just real quickly say that a question had been raised, sort of a general question about the -- maybe the difficult situation Kerr County might face for having the agreement with Kimble County. I can't see any increase in liability. I mean, and this is -- I think it's a governmental function that Kerr County would be performing. We are allowed to contract with other persons, other agencies, other -- in this case, another ambulance service to provide this essential service. If anything, you know, Kerr County might be, it seems to me, facing some kind of a potential increase in liability for not doing something to improve the service when something is available to improve the service for the residents out there. I just don't see any increase -- I didn't look up a jillion cases or anything, but just -- I just don't see any -- you know, there's nothing to say that Kerr County would not be sued. For example, if a run is made by the Junction people and 11-8-04 78 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 something bad happens, there's nothing to say Kerr County won't be sued, 'cause they probably will be sued. You know, whether or not they're successful ultimately is going to depend on what sort of immunities and what defenses and such are available and how the case shakes out. But, you know, there's no shield from -- necessarily from being sued. But I just don't see any increase in liability, I guess, long and short. If y'all have any questions, I'll be happy to answer those. MR. BUDOW: All right. Then, last objection that was on the table was the will of the people. I will repeat what I've said before, and then add to that in light of -- of the last meeting. I'm here; I have several neighbors who are also Ranchlands and board members here to address this as well. We've had properly noticed, duly called meetings with this item discussed where we've had a majority, over 60 percent, represented, and not a single objection. Not a single one. Now, that said, the individual -- a former developer in our area who owns a total of 61 of the 11,000 acres was raised last time. Didn't participate, hasn't responded to the -- to the surveys. I've followed up on that after the last meeting to include a survey of over 80 percent of the people in writing. I've received more than half back. Again, gentlemen, no objections. 11-8-04 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 79 I know Commissioner Baldwin has called around. I'd be anxious to hear if -- if he found particular objections in our precinct, but I haven't been able to find them. I know there's one individual, but I think that -- it's enough said that this individual is a former developer in this area. He owns 61 of the 11,000 acres. And so, within our little area, I can't comment on his particular interest. He does own some acreage -- considerable acreage north of us. But, again, let's look at the -- look at the maps. What we find is that -- I took the -- whatever you want to call it, the purple and brown map, made a black and white out of it, and the little green stripe up here, this little green stripe is what belongs to Mr. Cummings that we know of. The blacked-in area -- all the rest of the blacked-in area, I have spoken to a majority of the landowners, and a majority of the landowners continue to support this position. This ranch up here in the corner of -- the easternmost corner of the area that Kerr County -- Kerrville proposed to include in the expanded area is part of a very large ranch that's under trust, and actually, the only house on it is in Kimble County, so I'm not sure whether that should be or shouldn't be included, but to the extent that it needs to be, I've spoken to the land manager -- the manager about it and received their approval. They are 11-8-04 80 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 midway between Kimble and Kerrville anyway, so they don't care. This green area up here is the area under question. You can see all the green area is what we've been talking about, the will of the area, the white and slashed-in area, the people who either I haven't gotten in direct contact with or are represented by Mr. Cummings. Two other points to make. One is just to make visible the 52 miles versus 22 miles. Junction is coming from here to there. Kerrville has to come one of two routes. They're coming -- from the Coronado station, they come up 27, go all the way around 41 into Real County, back up through Edwards County, and then they get to us, so it's a -- it's a roundabout way. Its just a visual representation of how quick one can get to us versus the other. Lastly, I wish to point out that Kerrville is serving county residents in Edwards County that they will have to pass through over here, and they are serving residents in Gillespie County outside here, but more particularly, just like us, inside the county, we have Gillespie serving everything in the corner of Kerr County. So, this is not, again, a precedent that is new to anyone. It should be a matter of -- of adjusting the agreements to the acceptance of -- of both Kerrville and Kimble and Kerr, of course. So, on that basis, I'd like to ask that if there are no further objections, that the Judge be allowed to, as 11-8-09 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 authorized previously, sign and execute the agreements that are on the table. So, before I do that, I thought it might be worthwhile for the press and for you gentlemen to hear from some of the neighbors as well, if you'd like, on this point. JUDGE TINLEY: As indicated by Mr. Budow, I have some participation forms that have been received in connection with this item. First one I have is from Mr. Bruce S. Drake. Mr. Drake? MR. DRAKE: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll come forward, please, sir? MR. DRAKE: Good morning, Judge. It's a pleasure to be here. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. MR. DRAKE: I stand to speak in favor of -- of you executing those agreements, as you might imagine. I'm a retired fellow, and I live out there full-time and expose myself to chainsaws and cedar removal quite often, and when someone's hurt, we expect to get response help there as quickly as we can. And so I think you guys have been dealt a very difficult situation. Your forefathers -- or our forefathers had the wisdom to stick the county seat in the extreme southeast corner of this county and give you guys an undue burden to deal with, and I'm -- I don't know 11-8-04 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 how you do that. That's tough. Anybody with any wisdom would stick the county seat in the center of the county, like most other counties in this country, but you guys have a challenge. But, to me, it's obvious what's right. I think it's obvious to you what's right, and I would encourage you to do what's right, Judge. So, thanks for your time. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being here. Mr. Robert W. Owen. MR. OWEN: Thank you, Judge, Commissioners. Appreciate the opportunity to come up here and speak briefly in favor of this proposal also. I'm a resident of the Y.O. Ranchlands and far west Kerr County, as Mr. Drake who just spoke. Been there about two years. In that two years full-time, I'm aware of three instances in which 9-1-1 has been called, Kerr -- Kerr EMS, and in all three instances, the response was as swift as they could, but it took somewhere between an hour and 10 minutes and hour and 20 minutes to actually get an ambulance to the victim. And in one of those three instances, there was a car fire. Kerr EMS was called and Kimble Volunteer Fire Department was called. The VFD was at the car in 17 minutes and had the -- had the fire out, and it took about another 50 minutes for the Kerr people to get there. Again, as has been said before, this is not a question of capability. I've talked 11-8-04 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 to a number of the Kerr EMS folks. They're fine people, very highly qualified. It's just a question of how fast they can get there. So, I would urge you to -- to allow this -- this to proceed. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Paul Bryant. MR. BRYANT: Thank you very much. I'm about a 15-year landowner, but have lived out there full-time for about 5 years. If I could, let me just walk through my thought process on this, and I think I can duplicate my thought process and the majority of the landowners out there. Five years ago, if you'd asked me what do I want, you come to me cold, I would have said, "Oh, no, don't take me to Junction." You know, you got a great big hospital in Kerrville. That's probably the thing to do. My wife and I talked about this greatly, and I said, "Okay. Well, if anything bad happens, just tell them to get the helicopter out there." Well, when you go through an education process like we've all gone through, you tend to have certain revelations. One -- one is that Kimble is very competent and can handle it as Kerr could, so we have two possibilities now. After visitations with the leadership of the Kerr County EMS, we find out we can't just have the helicopter, quote, come get us; that, you know, a land vehicle must come out and then they make the decision as to 11-8-04 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 whether or not a helicopter is appropriate. So, now we have -- we've chewed up more time. So, our thought process is, guess what? One more time, if we can be served competently, but from a much closer location, it makes all the sense in the world. And then, if it makes sense after we're stabilized to move us to Kerr, to San Antonio or wherever, I think that makes all the sense in the world. When I talk about my thought process, I'm also the past president of the landowners' association; I was Harry's predecessor in this. When someone buys a tract, they're usually from Houston or Dallas or somewhere like that. They have exactly the same thought. They say, "No, I don't want to go to Junction. It's too small. I want to go someplace big." After we have the same discussion with them, invariably, without exception, they come around to the same answer that we have come to. So, at the end of the day, I think that we, as citizens on the far west side, are better served in the manner that Mr. Budow has -- has described to you, and we ask for your assistance and cooperation in this. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My turn? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either you or me, or somebody else. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 11-8-09 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 85 MR. BUDOW: I'm done. I'm just waiting. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I certainly didn't want to interrupt you. MR. BUDOW: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've been dealing in Kerr County, been dealing with emergency service folks for many years, and any time that you're dealing with insurance rates and all those things, response time is the first criteria that you take a look at. And I -- and I agree, response time is. But I would not put off -- or put down the issue of quality of care. I think that that is -- to me, it's equally as important as response time, if not more important. And T'm certainly not going to belittle Junction. I have no idea -- I have -- some of those people in that deal there are my relatives, so I'm certainly not going to say anything bad. But I can say this; that the City of Kerrville EMS service is the very best service in the state of Texas, and they've been named so. The quality of care is night and day. I think I would -- but I'd agree with you, Mr. Budow, that I think that I would rather have an Eagle Scout before I would a doctor, as well. Now, T took it upon myself last week to -- to get a list of the homeowners and property owners out there, and I called and I talked to about 10 folks. I don't recall you gentlemen, but -- I don't know if I talked to you or 11-8-04 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 not, but I talked to about 10 homeowners, and all but two were in favor of the Junction service. There were two that -- that have negative comments about it, and that -- that was really my concern. I mean, I'm certainly not -- I'm not a government person that wants to make decisions for you in your lives; I want you to do that. But I want to make sure that you're making the right decision. And -- and it appears that you guys have researched it and studied it, and it's your desire to go with the Junction service, so I am too. That's all. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I only have one question, and one comment. Mr. Budow, if -- if a Kerr County resident, either within the purple or in the brown area, either way, were to summon Kimble County, and they're there quickly, as would probably be the case, if they wanted to be transported to Sid Peterson, is that an option available to them? MR. BUDOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even though Kimble County makes the response? MR. BUDOW: Yes, sir. The way I understand it is, it's first and foremost the patient's choice. Assuming that the patient can speak for themselves, as the -- as the case may be. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's good. ii-a-on 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 87 Thank you for that answer. My only other -- my comment is, I just wanted to be satisfied in all of this discussion that those folks not represented directly by you in your homeowners' association, one, knew about what's going on, and two, to the best we could determine, are on board with that change. I'm hearing nothing that indicates to the contrary, so I'm in support of it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have just two comments. One -- and, I mean, I'm in favor of doing this; it's fine. But, one, Mr. Budow looked at me several times when he mentioned Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings -- I've never talked to him about this issue. Just for your information, he's not who I talked to. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Neither have I. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it doesn't make any difference. And the other thing is really just a matter of a term you used, that -- that we "objected" to it. You've been here, six different objections. I don't view what we did -- what I did, anyway, as objecting to it. I just want to make sure that, one, it's done legally and properly through a process with the City of Kerrville involved, because they do handle the EMS for the county. And the other part of it is that I just want to make sure that all of the residents were told that we had an opportunity to hear from all the residents. So -- and I -- I know you 11-8-04 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 probably feel like we've made you jump through an awful lot of hoops in six meetings coming here, but I think every one of those hoops is necessary to protect the citizens, and I also think that it's necessary for to us protect -- work out interlocal agreements. That's my only comment. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me understand where I am on this. We had the two mutual aid agreements which we had before us, and there was -- there was no objection to those. Those are standard mutual aid, county-to-county; happen all the time in law enforcement, emergency medical service, fire protection, so forth. My understanding of exactly where we are is that the City has taken the position that in order for Kerr County to be in a position to authorize emergency medical services for Kerr County residents in this far northwest quadrant to be served by someone other than Kerrville EMS, that we must have an amendment to our existing EMS contract which Kerr County has with the City of Kerrville. MS. BAILEY: Your Honor, can I respond to that? JUDGE TINLEY: I was going to ask you to respond to that, Ms. Bailey, because am I correct in that assumption? MS. BAILEY: Not exactly. I think that it would be more correct to say that Kerr County -- the 11-8-04 89 1 ""' 2 3 I 4 ~ 5 6 i 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ""' 2 4 25 agreement that Kerrville has with Kerr County for provision of EMS services obligates Kerrville EMS to provide services everywhere in the county. It doesn't give us exclusive rights, so you could authorize this agreement with Kimble County without amending our contract. However, we still are obligated -- we would still remain obligated under the contract to go out there, so you'd end up with two sets of -- of entities going out there. So, it makes more sense to decide between us who's going to do -- who's going to do which parts of the county so that we don't get double -- overlap, because that's going to increase everyone's costs. It increases your cost for the runs that have to be paid for. It increases our costs. It increases the patient's costs. It increases confusion. So, does that answer your question? JUDGE TINLEY: What I'm hearing is that, in a practical and realistic manner, yes, that an amendment is necessary in order that we designate someone other than Kerrville EMS as the primary responder for -- MS. BAILEY: Well, as the responder. We still -- we would not -- Kerrville then would become a non-responder in that area, with the exception that we have an interlocal agreement ourselves with Kimble County, and if we responded out there, we would be responding on behalf of a request by Kimble County through our interlocal mutual aid 11-8-04 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 90 agreement, not under this contract. We would be non-responding to that quadrant of the county that we're eliminating from the contract. JUDGE TINLEY: But the bottom line is, in order that there not be overlap, confusion, duplication, and unnecessary expense, we do need an amendment to the Kerrville/Kerr County EMS agreement. MS. BAILEY: Yes, that's correct. And that's -- one other thing I wanted to mention is that we have provided a draft of that agreement. Both Mr. Motley and I have reviewed it in a cursory manner, but before you put your signature on it, I'd like for -- for David and me to be able to get together and make sure that we've got the language exactly the way both parties think it needs to be. It may not change at all; I just didn't want to you sign what you had thinking that was something that we've both signed off on. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to move that we approve the making of an agreement between Kerr County and Kimble County for the provision of EMS services to a specific portion of northwest Kerr County, and that we authorize the County Judge to sign that, and that we authorize the County Judge to sign an amendment to the contract between Kerr County and the City of Kerrville, and ii-a-o9 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 91 both of those contingent upon the approval as to form by the County Attorney. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval of the agenda item. Any further question or discussion? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The designated area is that which is shown on the graphic in purple? Or everything that's shown on the -- on that map? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Everything that's shown on the map. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Rectangular quadrant. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 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: That motion does carry. Thank you, gentlemen. The next item on the agenda is a timed item. Finally running behind. Item 15, consider and 11-8-04 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 92 discuss the status of the acquisition of the Juvenile Detention Facility. Commissioner Letz? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I put this on the agenda to kind of find out where we were, because as I read through the letter we got from the Sheriff and your letter that went to the trustee, there seemed to be a conflict in that the portion -- the new portion which was going to be -- or presented at our last meeting to be converted into a jail-type facility under the Sheriff has fallen through, as I understand it, and due to the -- I guess the offer made was contingent on us being able to do that. Therefore, to me, we need to get it back on the table as to what we're going to do with the Juvenile Detention Facility, because we're basically back where we were at our last meeting. JUDGE TINLEY: The interim agreement, Commissioner, that I signed and forwarded to the trustee for the bondholders, and which has now been executed by them, incorporated the agreements that were approved by this Court and the conditions that were approved by this Court. The -- in response to looking into those matters, of course, the Sheriff and Mr. Gondeck, who's here present today, met with the Commission on Jail Standards, and that meeting resulted in the letter that we got from the Sheriff. And it would appear that the content of the Sheriff's letter indicates that one of the conditions of our pursuit of the purchase 11-8-04 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 93 appears not to be viable. But I suppose that's also a matter of interpretation, but that's kind of where we are; you're exactly right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, based on -- on that, has the -- you know, the Juvenile Board talked about this? Looked at this? Do they have a recommendation? I mean, 'cause it's a -- drastically changes the County's position, in my opinion. JUDGE TINLEY: The Juvenile Board has -- has not met since this occurred. And I, in the meantime, did ask Ms. Harris to -- as did you, I believe -- to rework and recrunch and work on some additional numbers, and she has some additional thoughts about other programs, which I think probably are more appropriately under the next agenda item. With respect to -- I don't know whether you prefer that I go ahead and call it, and we just kind of roll them all together. How do you want to do it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine with me. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me go ahead and call Item 16 also to run concurrently with Item 15; that is, consider and discuss the financial status and projections at the Juvenile Detention Facility and consider any budget amendments. Before we get too far into this, I might note that we have a participation form that has been filed. Mr. Larry Neal wishes to be heard on this item. Mr. Neal, 11-8-04 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 94 feel forward to -- feel free to come forward at this time. MR. NEAL: Thank you, Judge Tinley. I'm Larry Neal, vice president of Security State Bank, Pearsall, Texas. First of all, I'd like to thank the Commissioners and Judge Tinley for the opportunity to address y'all this morning. I just wanted to bring one thing out this morning, and be quite brief. My dad was a county official for 37 years. He served as County Clerk -- County Auditor of Frio County. And one thing I learned from my father's teaching was that the only thing that happened when you had a hot temper was that you burned bridges. I would like to express to the Court my admiration and applaud the Court for their -- what they're trying to do here, and trying to find a solution to a very, very difficult situation. We too find ourselves in the same situation. We're trying to find avenues and trying to find courses of action that could alleviate the problem that we find ourselves with. But what I would like to do is just express my appreciation to the Court for their attention to this matter and their consideration. A couple of you I was able to catch at the last court meeting; a couple of you got away, but I would like to express our appreciation for your consideration in this matter. Thank you very much. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Neal. It's not often we get kind words. We're appreciative of them any 11-8-09 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 95 time we can get them. We appreciate that. Ms. Harris, why don't I let you come forward. And you, of course, have read the Sheriff's report about -- MS. HARRIS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: -- the review of the Jail Commission? MS. HARRIS: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: About the new portion of that facility. What new and enlightening information do you have for us today? MS. HARRIS: Well, I have a copy for you gentlemen. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what we need, some more numbers. This is plan number 87? MS. HARRIS: No, my plan, this would be number two. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two. MS. HARRIS: Okay. As Commissioner Baldwin has already astutely pointed out, that this looks very similar to the one that I gave you before. Commissioner Letz called me on Thursday and asked for me to see if I could come up with any other more streamlined numbers -- budget, and so I did so. If you'll notice on Page 1, I no longer have the Q.C.C. position in the full-time position. I had a very good meeting with Dr. Jaime Quintanilla, who is 11-8-04 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 a psychiatrist. His expertise is in adolescent psychiatry. Had a visit with him on Thursday. He had come to me about a month -- about a month ago, wanting to extend his services to our facility in helping us to establish a residential treatment facility, 'cause he had read in the paper about the desire to put a substance abuse treatment facility in, and that is his expertise. To make a long story short, he has agreed to come to our facility on a contract basis, so that's why you will see -- in the contract employees on the first page, you will see Contract Psychiatrist. We have talked about what his fees would be. By bringing him on board, we would eliminate the need for the contract psychologist that was on your previous budget. As well, this gentleman can take care of our suicide assessments. He can take care of our psychotropic medication evaluations, which that billing would be passed on to the placing counties. He can do the oversight of the substance abuse treatment program, and he can also do sex offender treatment. Now, sex offender treatment would bring in even another population of resident. We would take only male sex offender juveniles; we would not take females. There is a much greater need for sex offender treatment in males than there is in females. I did some research through T.J.P.C. site, and there is a 25 ~ great need for sex offender treatment, as well as substance 11-5-04 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 97 abuse treatment. There are facilities across the state that offer sex offender programming, as well as substance abuse programming, but it is not treatment. I can only find -- in my research so far, I can only find one facility in the state that offers sex offender treatment. There are several that offer general programming, as well as Kerr County. We -- we'd offer general sex offender programming. So, I wanted to point out those changes. There was a mistake on the first budget also in regards to withholdings. Inadvertently, the 30 percent withholdings included the contract employees. That's not correct, so I made that adjustment on the first page as well. That -- that 30 percent withholdings is only for your full-time employees, so that changes that deficit. It's still a deficit on that first building, but it changes it dramatically. 'Cause I believe in your first one, I think it was a $314,000 deficit, and it was reduced to $138,000 deficit for the one building. The two buildings, I didn't change anything for your new building -- for the second building, which shows a substantial deficit. Now, what you're going to see on the third page is -- and I think Commissioner Letz was wanting this information, about what your daily expenses are for both buildings and daily expenses for just the one building, and I have put that on there that your daily expenses for one building, as it 11-8-04 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 98 stands, is $4,225 a day. Your break-even for that figure would be 51 residents at $83 a day. If you increase the per diem by $5 to $88 a day, it would take 48 residents to break even. And then, if you increase that per diem to $90 a day, which I do not recommend -- that's fairly risky marketing-wise -- you would need 47. Now, here comes my new figures and my second proposal. One of my staff came up with an excellent idea late Thursday afternoon before 5 o'clock, when we were able to do some research. The new building could possibly be turned into a nonsecure residential treatment facility for substance abuse. It would qualify and have to be licensed by the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services. We contacted that department and ran this by them, described the facility, described the physical configuration of the facility. Of course, being nonsecure, we'd have to take the locks off the doors, because it would be residential treatment. The juveniles would still be court-ordered there, but those types of juveniles qualify for what is called IV-E federal funding. That federal money is given to counties -- to placing counties to place those individual kids. You can charge a higher per diem for those kids, and I projected a $90-a-day per diem for those kiddoes. They would be court-ordered for substance abuse treatment, residential-type setting, which means they can 11-8-04 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 99 walk out if they want to. If they walk out, they violate the court order; I call the Sheriff's Department, Sheriff's Department picks them up and takes them over to the old building in the detention side, so I get them either way. (Laughter.) So -- so, that's how that works. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Double gotcha. MS. HARRIS: So, there is a licensure training in San Antonio tomorrow with Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services. Because, I'll be honest with you; that is not my expertise. I would have to write a totally different policy and procedure manual. I can do that. I do know how to do that. You have to have a separate staff and a separate administrator. However, how you get around that is I would merely name an existing employee as administrator. I oversee it. I would still be the overseeing administrator of everything. The food service and the laundry service would have to be contracted by ourselves. And I know that sounds kind of strange, but how it would work is, since there's no kitchen in that new building, the residential treatment facility would contract with the postadjudication facility for the food service and laundry service, 'cause you got to have a separate budget. You got to have a separate line item budget for the residential treatment, and then we would have a separate line item budget for the long-term and the detention side, 11-8-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 which that's doable. It's a very doable thing. I have explained in here, and I -- I tell you once again, IV-E is not my expertise. This is information that was gathered by phone calls that were made Thursday and Friday, and I believe this is correct. And I know that Kevin would be a bigger expert than I am, because he places kids using IV-E money, but I believe that the counties get approximately -- and Tommy may know this -- about 80 percent? Like, Kevin -- Kevin makes a projection of how many kids he -- he sends using IV-E money. That IV-E money comes to him at the beginning of every fiscal year, so he has a pot of IV-E money that he uses to place those types of juveniles in IV-E placements -- qualified placements, and it's approximately 80 percent? Is that what he gets, of his cost? Or does he get 100 percent? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the amount of money we'll get for Title IV-E is based on expenditures. MS. HARRIS: From the previous year. MR. TOMLINSON: From the previous year. And for Kerr County, it's about $80,000 a year. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? MS. HARRIS: $80,000. MR. TOMLINSON: About $80,000. MS. HARRIS: Counties -- placing counties look for IV-E placements. I get several phone calls. I've 11-8-04 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 had several phone calls, "Do you take IV-E kids?" No, you can't when you've got a lockdown, secure facility. You cannot take IV-E kids. It has to be nonsecure in order for you to qualify for that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many like facilities are there in the state of Texas, to your knowledge? MS. HARRIS: There's several. I don't have an exact number, Commissioner Williams, but there are several IV-E -- IV-E placements. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple questions. MS. HARRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot has been said in all of this discussion throughout that we have been victimized by -- among other things, by the rate structure that's imposed on us, or the per diem rate structure that's imposed on us, I assume by the State of Texas. You're projecting in this -- I think in previous projections, $83 a day? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question is, how does that square with what we've been told about rate reductions -- per diem rate reductions? And, secondly, how does it square with other facilities against whom you would 11-8-04 i ~ ~ ____ 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 be competing? MR. HARRIS: It squares right in the median in competing with other facilities. We're right in the median. We are not charging too much, nor are we charging too little, if -- if you want to look at it that way. The lowest rate that I'm finding so far that's being charged by other facilities similar to us is around $65 a day. And there is no treatment involved; it is just general corrections programming. Basic programming. As far as squaring with the State, let me see if I can explain how this works. The Legislature had budget cuts, asked every state agency in the state to cut their budget by a certain percentage. T.J.P.C. was no exception. So, T.J.P.C. had to look at their budget and they had to decide where they were going to cut. So, there were two programs that they stopped the funding altogether, and the nature of those programs slips my mind, because we never use those programs, nor were we qualified to. So, their funding was totally cut off. The other programs that were -- that their funding was reduced, that was Level 5 funding was reduced, and Title IV-E funding was reduced. Now, Level 5 funding, the facility does not see that reimbursement. And I think there's been some confusion as to did the facility receive that reimbursement. No, they never did. Facilities don't receive that 11-8-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 •-- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103 reimbursement. The placing counties are reimbursed. All right. During the old classification system for juveniles, there was what was called the Level 5 kid. That kid is almost ready to go to T.Y.C., the Texas Youth Commission. They're a hair from going to T.Y.C., but they are court-ordered into facilities to give them one more chance to see if you can turn them around. But they're a pretty hard-core kid, and there is extensive criteria by which a kid has to qualify to be classified as a Level 5. Okay. So, a county has a Level 5 kid, so a county looks for a facility that accepts Level 5's. We do. Used to, you could charge the maximum amount that was allowable by T.J.P.C. for those Level 5 kids. In the past, it was approximately $115 per day for those Level 5 kids. Okay. So, you could charge a different per diem for those kids and you could get a higher price because the placing county's going to get their money back. The placing county is going to get that reimbursement. The facility's just charging a per diem. Okay. What happened was, when T.J.P.C. had to have budget cuts, they reduced the amount of total money that was available to place Level 5 kids. That went from $115 to approximately $106 a day. At the same time -- at the same time this was occurring, we started seeing a decrease in juvenile arrests. You had fewer Level 5 kids that were qualifying, because they were not being 11-8-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 arrested and not being adjudicated. So, you had all of this happening at the same time. So, there's more beds out there than there are kiddoes. So, to be competitive so you get a piece of the pie, you reduce your per diem rate to be competitive, and you offer the very best programming and treatment that you possibly can for the money that you're getting, and it's not a money-making situation. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the reality is that it was market forces that we experienced putting a squeeze on our per diem revenue. MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As opposed to the State taking money out of our mouths, so to speak. MS. HARRIS: It went hand-in-hand. It went hand-in-hand, because we would not be getting any kids if we charged the $106 a day. We wouldn't be getting it, because T.J.P.C. changed their classification system effective September of '03. It's no longer Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and 6. It's what's called moderate, specialized, intensive; it's a totally different classification system. So, what used to be a Level 5 kid, they divided that criteria in half, so you have a Level 4 moderate that only gets $80 a day. They're only allowed $80 a day for that kid, and that kid used to be a mild Level 5, but a Level 5 kid irregardless. 11-8-04 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Harris? MS. HARRIS: Yes? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many Kerr County juveniles are in detention at that facility today? MS. HARRIS: Detention? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many Kerr County juveniles are in detention anywhere today? MS. HARRIS: I couldn't answer your question about which ones are in detention anywhere. As far as detention is concerned, we have two in detention, which is the pre kids. Long-term, postadjudication, we have one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe I should direct this question to the Judge. How many juveniles -- Kerr County juveniles have -- have you presided over that are going to facilities other than the Kerr County facility? JUDGE TINLEY: Probably the best response I can give you, Commissioner, is several. But insofar as being able to tell you right now how many are still in a program outside of Kerr County, I can think of one offhand, because it's recent, but -- well, I can think of another one. Two come to mind, but there could be more than that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're talking about -- JUDGE TINLEY: Assuming that those two are still in those programs. 11-8-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we're talking about two -- JUDGE TINLEY: Which we don't have here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two here, and two perhaps somewhere else. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it could very well be more than two somewhere else. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess what I'm driving at, Judge, and Ms. Harris -- and, Sheriff, I'm going to direct this to you, too -- is how many of our young folk are in juvenile detention someplace? What is our responsibility -- level of responsibility? I want the Sheriff to answer my question. And the Sheriff -- I've had discussions with him, so what I'm about to ask him is no surprise. We've talked about it, and I know he has a response, and I know what his response is going to be. There's an old saw, I guess, Judge, that you don't ask a question unless you know what the answer's going to be. I know what the answer's going to be, but I think the record should be -- should receive the answer too. When last we spoke, Sheriff, you made, I would characterize, an impassioned plea for a juvenile detention center in Kerr County because, among other things, you believed that it was a deterrent to juvenile crime. Now I'm learning, and my colleagues are learning, we have two juveniles of our own in 11-8-04 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 25 107 detention, and perhaps two or maybe a couple more someplace else, undefined. Would you please tell me and the Court why your letter seems to indicate a 180-degree turn on that particular topic? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On that particular topic, as far as having a juvenile detention facility in this county, my opinion has not changed. I honestly think we do need one. I think it is a definite deterrent to crime. Where I have changed, and also finding out part of the question that you just asked the Judge, in talking to one of our former judges, is our postadjudication kids probably in the last six years that were from Kerr County, we haven't sentenced maybe more than -- what I'm being told, and this may not be totally accurate, we haven't sentenced more than probably 10 to 12 in the last six years here -- to here. That most of those postadjudication kids are getting sent to other counties, simply because it's cheaper to send them because of some of the reimbursement Kerr County gets, same as what Becky was saying. You know, the sending county gets reimbursed, okay? So, my understanding, it's been cheaper to send our postadjudicated kids to other counties. The biggest deal that I think we need here -- and this just my professional opinion -- is a preadjudication facility of up to 16, 24 kids. I'm understanding that an average juvenile -- right now it's 11-8-04 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 25 108 low, with two. An average is probably six to eight Kerr County preadjudication kids in the facility. So, expecting future growth in that in Kerr County, or assisting with local surrounding counties, like we do in the adult jail, I would still recommend and I still strongly feel that you've got to have a local juvenile facility, due to -- one is, if you don't, same as my first proposal stated, you're going to have more and more adults getting the kids to do the crimes for them. This isn't unusual, but it's going to go up more, because it's easier to talk that kid into doing it and saying that, "Well, they're not going to pick you up; there's no place to put you in this county." COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another question, Sheriff. Given that there are currently a couple Kerr County juveniles in detention here, and a couple perhaps elsewhere, how did you come to the conclusion that your expenses with respect to juveniles, if we had no detention facility, would be annualized and increased by about $300,000? Can you enlighten us on that? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The -- where we got that is if there are 300 or 400 kids picked up locally, preadjudication, that have to be transported if there is not a local facility, okay? And what -- what the Family Code states -- you know, I think we may be able to work some agreements with the Juvenile Probation Department, but what li-a-oq r 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 25 109 the Family Code states, it's actually the Sheriff's duty to transport those kids to all activities. That is, once they're picked up, preadjudication, within 48 hours -- when they're picked up, even if they're picked up by City of Kerrville, it would be the Sheriff's responsibility to take that kid at 2 o'clock in the morning to wherever there is a facility available to lock him up. Now, right now there's one in Hondo, but I understand that's, like, a nine-bed facility, and probably would be full instantly, and then you're looking at San Angelo or even farther away than that. That kid goes there, and then within 48 hours he has to be brought back for his first detention hearing, so the officer's got to go back up there and bring him back. And the law actually states all activities involving that kid. That could be medical stuff; that could be psychologicals. It's all activities. It could be several court hearings. If you have a bunch of kids that are being held preadjudication in facilities around the state, because some of them are closing and -- and some of them are going to be crowded, then that could mean a lot of man hours on the road transporting juveniles. Currently, the Juvenile Probation Office has said that they would either contract or help assist in doing that, transporting during daytime hours. If it was nighttime, it's probably still going to fall on my department to do. But, with what I'm 11-8-04 110 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 understanding now, with the number of kids that aren't being put in -- you know, two right now, five to six -- it may not be that big of an impact -- immediate impact. Could be later; I don't know. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Hope that answers your question. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question back to Ms. Harris. I'm confused as to exactly how many residents there are at each of the facilities. MS. HARRIS: How many what? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Residents. The old facility or the one building, that has 42, so it will hold 42? MS. HARRIS: It will hold 48 now, because I got permission from T.J.P.C. to open up that dorm that was not utilized. LETZ: In the old -- Old building can house 48. LETZ: Old, 48, okay. And the 24. LETZ: 24? Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER MS. HARRIS: COMMISSIONER new will house what? MS. HARRIS: COMMISSIONER MS. HARRIS: 11-8-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When I look at Page 4, under the Both Building proposal -- MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it's based on 49. On the revenue side, 49 times 83. MS. HARRIS: 'Cause it would be 42 kids in the old building and 14 in the old building -- I mean in the new building, I believe is what I did. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question was, why wouldn't we have more than -- if it's 42 and 14, why wouldn't it be -- I mean, is it just because -- MS. HARRIS: Because that's not realistic. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, you discounted it based on occupancy, basically? MS. HARRIS: Right, that's correct. That's correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you feel that -- I mean, basically -- well -- MR. HARRIS: 35 kids in the old building that would be post and pre -- or, excuse me, that would be post. And then 14 kids in the new building would be pre, if you don't do the nonsecure residential treatment thing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right now, if you do the nonsecure residential -- MS. HARRIS: That's on the -- that's on that 11-8-04 112 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 last page. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But there you can increase the occupancy? MS. HARRIS: Yes, I can increase the occupancy. COMMISSIONER LETZ: To 42 and 24? MS. HARRIS: Yes, 42 kids in the -- which would be pre and post combined in the old building, and then 24 residential treatment kids in the new building, so you increase it to 68 total kids. And, remember, you can charge more money for those residential treatment kids; charge $7 a day more. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you didn't -- it doesn't appear that you've put a risk factor for occupancy in the -- in the 42 and 24 number. MS. HARRIS: 'Cause I don't believe it would be one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can keep it that full? MS. HARRIS: The 24 kids in that -- in the nonsecure residential treatment I think is a very realistic number. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You believe that the demand is out there? MR. HARRIS: Yes. Yes, sir. 11-8-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 113 JUDGE TINLEY: Speaking of demand, Ms. Harris, you say on the nonsecure substance abuse, you can charge -- did you say $7 more per day? MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: You mentioned a little bit ago on the sex offender treatment program -- MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Did I hear you indicate there was only one facility in the state actually capable of offering that now? MR. HARRIS: From my research that I have found so far, yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: And is that program at that facility full to capacity? MR. HARRIS: Yes, they are. They have a waiting list. JUDGE TINLEY: Significant waiting list? MR. HARRIS: I couldn't tell you that, sir. I just know that they have a waiting list. I don't know how large it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there additional revenue available over and above the standard rate for the sex offender treatment program? MS. HARRIS: Not that I'm aware of, no. Not that I'm aware of. 11-8-04 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 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess kind of where I am is that, I mean, we're in a -- I'm probably -- I'm looking back at Mr. Spurgeon now; he's about to be the focus of my question. We're in a situation that we have -- I mean, from a debt standpoint, we've combined the facilities, and from an operating standpoint, it doesn't look like we can really continue going forward on a combined facility, because none of the numbers that we looked at or discussed include any kind of debt service. So, we're losing money, plus we're losing -- I mean, plus paying for it. So, I mean, there's a pretty big loss. Is there any way that we can go to the bondholders and just say we can't do this deal the way it is, but we would be willing to do part of it? And -- you know, or work out some kind of a -- a way that we could continue to operate. Because, I mean, I don't see -- it looks real bleak to me, going forward on what I'm seeing. Yet I think there is a chance to help the county and help the bondholders some. I think everyone from the last meeting knows that if we just don't appropriate and we say turn it back to the trustee, that one of the -- well, the bondholders probably will get nothing, and I think that's a very unfortunate situation when there is a value to the County to keep at least part of this facility operating. So, did that confuse you enough? MR. SPURGEON: No, I don't think it did. I 11-8-04 115 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 don't think it did at all. And I think the answer to the question is, gentlemen -- and it may seem a little bit contrary to answer that I think I give Commissioner Williams, but it's -- I think Commissioner Williams asked -- or maybe it was Commissioner Baldwin asked about the ability of the County to purchase it for less than the outstanding principal amount of the debt. My answer to them was I don't think that's advisable, because you can open yourself up to potential litigation with bondholders and those kind of things if you -- if you turn it over to the trustee and then you kind of put in a bid for it and those kind of things. But I think where you're going -- I think the way I'd answer your question is, if you come together with the bondholders, with the agreement of the bondholders, that instead of maybe buying it for 100 cents on the dollar, but for something less than that, and that the bondholders are agreeable to that, then you're fine. So long as you've got 100 percent of your bondholder approval, I think you can do that. I was more concerned about a situation where you sort of deliberately go into default, then you would make some sort of an offer that would be -- essentially not have bondholder consent. But if the bondholders would come together to you and say, "Look, we're willing to work something out; we understand the sort of financial difficulties, that the County's having a tough time 11-8-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 116 justifying doing it on these terms," if -- if the bondholders are willing to come to the County and say, "Let's talk," then I think that's something that would work, just like in any kind of a contract. Which, essentially, you have a contract with the bondholders. If the two parties agree to amending that contract, you're able to do that. And it's through your bondholders -- they are the ones that are your other contracting party. The trustee will go along with whatever the bondholders tell them to go along with, so it's really your bondholders that are -- will be the most important part of the -- of some sort of an arrangement like that. I'm not sure if I answered your question. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You did. MR. SPURGEON: We have -- we've identified them all, and I actually -- frankly, I forgot to count number-wise, but I think we have roughly 15. We know where all of them are, we know who they are, we know who to contact. So, the good news about that is that that's a relatively small number, and they're all identified. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. I stand 11-8-04 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 amazed at what I've heard here today. We've talked about 65 possible juveniles housed out there. We've talked about sexual offenders. We've talked about alcohol and drug programs, and that for someone to be trained in that, the -- the very last and only school is tomorrow, so, you know, the sky's going to fall in on us again. But I'm going to tell you, I voted last meeting to approve this agreement to do C.O.'s, and it was strictly based on it going to be half a juvenile facility and half an adult jail, and that's not even on the table today. For some reason, this thing has disappeared off into the sunset again, and -- and I'm -- you're going to have a hard time getting me to vote for a damn thing from this point on. I mean, it's gotten to the point where we don't know how this thing was caused, who caused it. Did the State's funding change really cost us 220,000, or did it cost us nothing? I mean, nobody knows anything. We've agreed to do -- to buy the dad-gum thing with half jail and half juveniles. Now, for some reason, how did we get by that? I mean, just to -- one fell swoop, that -- the whole thing was gone, and I'm going to tell you, my vote was based strictly on that, not on 65 -- 68 kids and sexual treatment and alcohol treatment. Had nothing to do with it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess the answer to your question partly is in the Sheriff's letter. 11-8-04 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Sheriff says we can't do it any more, and in our agreement it says the County receives a written certification from the Texas Commission on Jail Standards that the newly constructed building project can be modified at a reasonable cost. That is not a reasonable cost, in my mind. The deal's over. It's over, in my mind. It's over. I mean, there's no reason to talk about a kid receiving any kind of treatment or an adult person receiving any kind of treatment. The deal is over, in my opinion. That's not directed -- that's not a question to anybody. That's a statement of where I'm at. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree that the -- the offer we made to the trustee is dead. That thing might as well be thrown in the garbage can, because those conditions aren't -- you know, has changed. And unless there's a -- a very realistic way for something to work out there, you know, I agree, I can't go forward either. I'm just not willing to shut the door and not look at other proposals still. There are -- but I think trying to make a decision at a very -- in a rushed fashion -- and this isn't a criticism of Ms. Harris at all, but she's trying to scramble and figure out how to keep the facility filled up, which is the only way to make anywhere close to breaking even. But there's so many what-ifs in -- in that line of -- of 11-8-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 y. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 119 decision making at this point that, to me, you know, it's in the court of the bondholders, and for them to come to us and say, "We're willing to talk." Because without some relief, I just don't think it's going to work. And that's -- you know, and we have a bondholder here, or a representative of a bondholder, and I know we have a gentleman that sold some of the bonds here. But that's just kind of -- you know, it doesn't work financially for the County, and it's unfortunate. It's unfortunate that we can't separate them and have a little juvenile detention facility, but the way the bond and debt structure is, we can't do -- it's all or nothing right now, and all doesn't work. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your point's valid. And I understand Commissioner Baldwin's frustration; I think we're all frustrated. But the Sheriff's letter really brings us back to square one. And I think the point Commissioner Letz is trying to make by asking the question of Mr. Spurgeon and -- and Mr. Henderson, although he hasn't spoken yet, is valid. But I think we need -- and we need to find out an answer, if possible, to that. I think we can't do all this in one week or one hour. But if we don't do the deal as we thought we were going to, and if the costs to rehabilitate the portion of the facility that was going to be allocated to adult detention is prohibitive, it is prohibitive for a reason, and it is because the Commission 11-8-04 120 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 on Jail Standards set some standards that we didn't know and we have to follow; otherwise, we can't be certified and it n't be utilized, and the expense to do that is going to be greater than we anticipated. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that we know, and the Sheriff knows that we know, that it's only a matter of time before he's going to come in here and ask for a new facility or an expansion of his facility. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About a minute and a half. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, he's probably poised -- as soon as I get done, he's going to ask for it. And so, to do that, then he's going to be looking to the Court to fund another facility at the current building cost, plus whatever the additional costs of construction would be 18 to 24 months hence, and that gets us back to square one again. Does this facility make sense at a reduced cost, as opposed to the current cost? And how does that square with the Sheriff's intent to seek an expansion of his current facility? All that, we have to come to grips with. JUDGE TINLEY: We -- as Commissioner Williams said, we haven't heard from Mr. Henderson. My -- my understanding was that you had to be somewhere later on this afternoon, Mr. Henderson, and I want to give you an 11-8-04 121 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 opportunity to be heard before we recess for lunch. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sure Mr. Henderson is glad to have that opportunity. MR. HENDERSON: Good morning, still -- or maybe not quite. I did have a conversation last -- late last week with the Sheriff, and had come to understand some facts, as y'all did, that things weren't -- weren't everything that we had hoped they could be. I think the most concerning fact to me was not only that it was going to cost substantially more to convert that second building to an adult facility, because I will tell you, in my mind, the amount of money we're talking about is not really all that significant. I mean, you don't take lightly half a million dollars anywhere, but, you know, that's not something that I -- that I felt like, you know, was an unsurmountable difficulty. What I was more concerned about after visiting with the Sheriff was that what we had understood when the Commissioners Court last met and reached the decision that Commissioner Baldwin referenced, was that that facility was going to be able to house 48 adults, and that was going to free up substantially more beds in the Sheriff's existing facility, which had some direct revenue-creating opportunities because of the ability to then lease out beds for adults from other jurisdictions and offset the operating losses that Ms. Harris was projecting on the juvenile side. 11-8-04 122 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, what -- what I've learned, and I think what the Sheriff's letter indicates, is that in addition to costing more to -- to renovate the facility than was anticipated, what we would be looking at is actually only 24 beds at that facility, as opposed to 48. We'd lose the revenue-generating capacity of that, and they're minimum security prisoners instead of maximum security prisoners. I have not had the opportunity to visit with Ms. Harris or review any of the numbers that she submitted to the Court today. She's been very cooperative; I'm sure that she will -- she and I will have the opportunity to come to those discussions. I think what we need to do, in keeping with Mr. Spurgeon's analysis and advice, is to go back to the Sheriff and go back to Ms. Harris, and in light of Ms. Harris' new revenue projections and in light of the reduced number of adult detainees that can be held in a second -- in the second building, adjust the revenue figures on the Sheriff's side, if, in fact, they can be adjusted. And I'm a little concerned, from my conversation with the Sheriff, about the capacity issues that there -- you know, there may not be. we may find ourselves in a situation to where the revenues generated off the -- off a reduced number of prisoners in the second building to 24 may not cover his own operating costs, let alone contribute something towards the operating deficits on 11-8-04 123 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 juvenile side. However, I think all that work has to be done. And I say that because, if we were to follow up on Commissioner Letz' suggestion, which -- which Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Baldwin had raised at previous meetings, I don't know how we're going to be able to sit down with the bondholders and talk about a number that -- that covers that delta without having gone through that exercise first. Because, obviously, the first question that the bondholders are going to ask is, "What are we talking about? 90 cents on the dollar? 50 cents on the dollar? What's it going to take to make the numbers work?" And -- and, again, I know, Ms. Harris has submitted numbers to you gentlemen. I haven't had a chance to review those or discuss the operating cost aspects of this with the Sheriff. I think we need to do that so that when the bondholders ask that question, we can tell them, "90 cents won't work. Maybe 75 cents will work." Or -- you know, I don't know. As the Judge indicated, we just -- we have to do a little bit more work. As a practical matter, the Commissioners Court has already passed the extension to the operating agreement, the juvenile facility, to keep it open -- operating till December 31st. As Commissioner Baldwin has pointed out, at least one of those conditions clearly cannot be met. We still are obligated under that lease to give the trustee some period of notice -- is it 15 11-8-04 124 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 or 30? MR. SPURGEON: 30 days. MR. HENDERSON: 30 days, so we're obligated at this point -- 30 days from today, we're obligated to this point well into the first week of December, anyway. So, I think what we need to do is -- is start -- as Commissioner Williams said, we're back to square one. We're going to have to start crunching the numbers from square one again. I'm -- I know that's not much of an answer. It's really more of an explanation, I think, as to where we go. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Bob, you know, I try to -- I try to bring everything down to real common sense like my daddy taught me to do, and this thing that Jon keeps talking about of -- of dealing with the bondholders and, you know, these offers and all, I think it's up to the bondholders to come to us, or to -- it's -- you know, far as I'm concerned, we can throw this thing in the trash, and it's over. I mean, seriously, it's over, far as I'm concerned. Now, if the bondholders want to do something new and different, y'all sit down and talk about it -- sit down with our lawyers and talk about it. Otherwise, it's over. MR. HENDERSON: Well, I understand where you're coming from, Commissioner, and I -- I appreciate your frustration and your wanting to get to the bottom line. But we need to do the work for our own use as well, because if 11-8-04 125 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 bondholders come to us and say, "We'll let you have this for 60 cents on the dollar, we still have to do this work to know if 60 cents on the dollar works or 75 cents on the dollar works or 50 cents on the dollar works. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This could go on forever. MR. HENDERSON: Yeah, I -- I respect your frustration. But -- but some of this additional work's going to have to be done, just for our team to know how to respond to whatever bond offer -- whatever offer the bondholders might make. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does it seem logical to you, Mr. Henderson, that any tender offer that might be made to the bondholders less than 100 cents on the dollar could include both a break-even on operations as well as debt service? Do you see that as a potential? Because that's part and parcel of this whole thing. Funding the -- funding a deficit operation is one thing. Funding a deficit operation and debt service is quite another. MR. HENDERSON: Well, Commissioner, I would say this. Just listening to Ms. Harris' presentation, she talked about the $314,000 operating -- operating deficit for the original larger building being reduced to $138,000. I need to get into this IV-E thing that -- that I understand, you know, opens up a whole new avenue of issues. But even 11-8-04 126 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 at $138,000, clearly, you know, that's not covering debt service, so I don't think that it's going to be reasonable to expect that any configuration Commissioners Court decides to pursue is going to break even when you consider operating and capital. Clearly, those numbers aren't going to be there. So, I think what you -- what the Commissioners Court is faced with is the comments that the Sheriff made at our last meeting, the comments that the Judge made at our last meeting about how reasonable is it to expect certain governmental services to be cost-effective or break-even, and what other value do the citizens of Kerr County get from having this, you know, viable, operating juvenile facility here? And how much is that worth to the Commissioners Court and to the citizens of the county? But it seems, unfortunately, clear that -- that if the -- if the bondholders were to give you this facility for free, you're not going to be able to operate it at a break-even cost. Now, that -- obviously, that does not mean that the facility doesn't have value. It does have value, and in terms of the real estate and the physical plant out there, it has value. The -- the intrinsic value to the citizens of Kerr County is something I leave to the elected officials to decide. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Henderson, I mean, I -- you know, I agree with what you said, and I don't think 11-8-04 127 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 -- I don't have an expectation of that facility being able to break even, including paying the debt service. You know, I understand that it is a cost to the County to house our juveniles. And, you know, I think the decision we have to wrestle with is, how much is that cost? And, based on the numbers that we currently have -- historically have of housing juveniles, it's -- that cost is to ship them out of county versus keep that facility open. Right now, we're at about $600,000 to keep the facility here, it's going to cost us a year. MR. HENDERSON: Including debt service. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Including debt service. But it's all one number; it's still tax dollars. I don't care if it's debt service or tax dollars; it's still tax money. So -- and if we can house them out of county for $300,000, that's a no-brainer; we go out of county. I`m sorry, you know. But if it gets to be within -- that total number within 100,000, it becomes a lot more -- okay, there's an intrinsic value to the County. Right now, to me, that gap is too big. It has to be narrowed. MR. HENDERSON: I would make two points. One is -- and I know that Commissioner Baldwin's going to appreciate this. One is -- is that, you know, our numbers very dramatically changed from the last time we met with this Court. Not only do we have the costs of renovating the 11-8-04 128 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 facility to an adult facility increasing, we've got the revenue number from that operation decreasing dramatically as a result. of the reduction in the number of beds. And, you know, the basic premise of how much it's going to cost the County to transport juvies on a preadjudicated basis out of the county has been called into question. So, there's three significant numbers that have changed. And I -- I respect his frustration with that. I feel frustrated myself. On the other hand, I would point out that, based on the information that we had at the last meeting, the Commissioners Court did proactively make the decision to keep the facility open, with the understanding that we were going to not break even on the facility, but, in fact, pay debt service of about $410,000 per year, and have an operating deficit of another $150,000. So, I think when you took action a week ago, if one were to make an attempt to quantify your decision, the decision was that the County was prepared to spend $550,000, $600,000 on -- on the facility. Those costs do appear to be low at this -- at this point. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's a difference. That was also deferring the cost of a new jail. MR. HENDERSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a big difference in those, even though -- so, anyway, to me -- I mean, you know, from my standpoint, we're done for the day. I mean, I 11-8-04 129 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 don't know what the rest of the Court feels like on this issue. Because I don't see that we have any more information. And the powers that be, whether it's the Juvenile Board, Ms. Harris, bondholders, y'all have got three weeks to come up with a proposal before the 1st of December; otherwise, it's being shut down. MR. HENDERSON: Let me point out -- I probably need to defer to Mr. Spurgeon here. The agreement is that you give them 30 days notice, so it's really not even 30 days from today, I don't think. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's what I'm saying; you have until the 1st of December. MR. HENDERSON: No, what I'm saying is -- is that, you know, if you gave them 30 days notice today, it would be December the 8th, and -- and you probably don't want to give them 30 days notice until you've made a definitive decision and we're done. If y'all are going to vote today that you're done, I guess what you're doing is voting to give them 30 days notice. I'm not sure that`s even on the agenda. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm saying is, by December 1st, if we don't have a valid proposal -- MR. HENDERSON: I see what you're saying, Commissioner. Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- by December 1st -- 11-8-04 130 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. HENDERSON: We give them 30 days notice December 1st. I follow what you're saying. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's an automatic -- I think the agreement says we agree to continue it through December 31st. MR. HENDERSON: Unless you vote to extend. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we give 30-day notice to the contrary if something else -- we want to break it off earlier than that. So, I think you're right; we got till the end of the year to get this thing to a point where we can make a decision -- no, we got till early December to make that point. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want -- I'm not going to delay this; I just haven't spoken. I wanted to give other members of the Court the benefit of my thinking on it. One, I'm in agreement with Commissioner Baldwin that the contract -- or the proposal we have is voidable, and unless things change, I would also vote to void it. The second thing is that having a juvenile detention facility in Kerr County is on my wish list, as are some other things, but it -- it would not make the cut at over half a million dollar-a-year cost to Kerr County. That's all. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: May I make a couple more comments about some other checking that I had done into the adult part of it, and just like Commissioner Williams said a 11-8-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 131 while ago? Last Thursday, our adult population in our jail was 171. 80 percent is 153, so we are over that, although we are still able to classify. Last Thursday, our female population was 28; maximum beds is 32. We were still at the same, okay? I even noticed in today's Daily Times an article about female incarceration since 1995 has gone up 48 percent nationwide, so I think we're seeing that on the rise, as most other counties are. I did some checking into that current -- the new facility out there. My understanding, on it alone, it's about -- and the bondholders may listen to this -- it's about 2.6 million owed on it. To turn it into just a minimum security 24-bed adult facility, you'd have to upgrade the evacuation system, which Mr. Gondeck can -- can attest to, for at least 100,000, so that would be 2.7 million on that one facility to make it a 24-bed minimum security adult facility. And then you still have the 12 employees that you're going to have to put over there and the rest of the operating costs year-to-year. In doing some checking, I had, as of Friday, another architectural firm, same one that built the current jail, put some figures together for me. For an addition of 51 beds -- it would be 48, plus 3 separation cells on the current facility today, 'cause it was designed to where you could add onto it. Construction costs, contingencies, and 11-8-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 11 12 ~--~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 132 other fees -- it includes furnishings in the cells -- would be 2.7 million as of today's prices. Now, Mr. Gondeck's doing a 48-bed addition to another jail at this time that is almost a million less than that. I do not see -- and that's why -- one of the main reasons I wrote the letter I did to y'all. I do not see any way that this would be feasible for an adult facility. And my other line goes back -- now that I've learned a little bit more, even about the juveniles, is we're housing maybe five or six at any one time of our own kids in Kerr County. All the other kids are being housed out, so all we're talking about doing is bringing in, whether it be sex offender, substance abuse kids or whatever, from other counties to keep this one open, and I'm against that. And Becky knows that. It's not a popular deal; I may not be well liked because of it, but I think the County needs to take care of their own. I think I can either transport, tell the smaller facility to house Kerr County kids, and build -- and I think you could build that smaller facility and build the addition onto the jail on the current 17-acre property that the jail is sitting on now for a lot less than this indebtedness is going to be, than is owed on that facility. And, personally, as the Sheriff and as a taxpayer, I think it's totally wrong to even carry this on any farther than it is. There's employees strung out out 11-8-04 133 1 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 there wondering what's going to happen to them. Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: I believe we've pretty well wrung that one out. Commissioner Letz, on the last item on the agenda -- we may have another item to come back to; I'm getting all sorts of signals back here. What is this? You know, that used to be a poker game we used to play; remember how you do like that? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks like the hungry goat signal. MR. TOMLINSON: Part of that -- that item had something to do with an amendment. I believe that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Budget amendment. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Yes, on 16. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Sure does. MR. TOMLINSON: Since -- since the Court approved an extension agreement, my question is, did -- does that automatically assume that -- that the Court will fund the expenses up until that date? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With a particular dollar amount? Or are you just saying you go out there and spend anything you want? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, any ordinary expenses. I mean, I'm talking about daily operating expenses and payroll. 11-8-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 134 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a two-prong agreement. One was the extension of the lease and operating agreement. The other was notice of intent to acquire based on certain conditions. While the notice of intent to acquire may be somewhat spongy right now, it -- we're still obligated on the first part. MR. TOMLINSON: But there's -- JUDGE TINLEY: If we need to take some action and transfer some funds here, I guess that's what we need to hear from you. MR. TOMLINSON: That's right, and that's my question. I mean, do -- do we need -- do we need to get specific approval every time? Or is this -- is this something that we can -- can do as needed until -- until the end of the extension agreement? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it needs to be handled like any other department that the County funds. We need to have line items, the money go into those. We can do it all in one meeting, but I think it needs to be trackable very easily for this Court. JUDGE TINLEY: I think, as Commissioner Letz indicated earlier in the meeting, you set it up in your accounting, just as you do for virtually any department. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, my problem -- my problem is that -- I mean, I can define today what -- what 11-8-04 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 the expenses are today, but I don't know what the expenses are going to be on the 15th. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know what the expenses are going to be on the 15th. I'm talking about the payroll. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we -- MR. TOMLINSON: I can't give you a definitive answer as to how much I need to -- we need to transfer for that payroll. We're not going to meet until after the 15th. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but couldn't we -- I don't know why we couldn't put, you know, enough money -- we know about how much it's going to be for all those items based on historical -- MR. TOMLINSON: I could give you a good estimate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we put that amount in each line item to get us to our next meeting, and then we look at it again. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, in any event, we've got what's incurred, and up to our next meeting -- we've got another five weeks, in any event. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: More than that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it would be 11-8-04 1 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 more than that -- seven. That we're obligated by Article II, expenses to cover. That's what this agreement says, and I think the Judge says it's been signed, so I guess we -- JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- I mean, to me, I don't know if you can -- maybe you can't. I don't know if you can -- how quickly you can get that done, but by our next meeting, I'd like to see it like every other department. We can put -- you know, we can make the best educated guess that you have or you can come up with, with Ms. Harris' input, as to how much to put in each line item; we approve that, because I'm very uncomfortable saying, yes, we're going to pay everything out there. I mean, I want to know exactly how much money we're putting into each item. MR. TOMLINSON: I can give you a -- a close estimate today of -- of what we'll need before -- or by the 15th of this month, or this payroll. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you have it at 1 o'clock? MR. TOMLINSON: I have it right now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're coming back at 1:00? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I could be home on my tractor by 1:00. 11-8-04 137 I r 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 back at 1:30. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hope we're coming MR. TOMLINSON: I can't give it to you by line item specifically. I mean, because -- I mean, there's -- there's 12 different line items associated with payroll. But I can't give you exact -- I mean, I haven't -- I can tell you about -- approximately how much the payroll is, and -- and I know exactly what the bills were today. And I -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Harris raised her hand. MR. HARRIS: You do need to be aware of the fact that when this comes out, that everything is up in the air, so forth and so on. I've already had several people quit, and I will have more. I've already got a couple right now that are teetering, waiting to see what happens today. I can't hire any full-time people. Don't intend to hire any full-time people, because I can't tell them that they're going to have a job in 30 days, and I do not have any part-time people on the payroll except for one individual, and I'm not getting very much of a response to advertisements in order to fill that. So, what I'm telling you is that there's going to be a day very soon that I will be out of ratio, because I won't have the staff. And I've already got the men working 12-hour shifts now in order to 11-8-09 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 have proper ratio, so there's going to come a time, probably pretty soon, that I will not be able to maintain ratio, and I will have to get an emergency variance from T.J.P.C. to use his deputies. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me make an inquiry. She's in a tremendous predicament out there. She's hung on a tether hook. On the next item, that's going to take us a bit. Do you see -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- 15 minutes, 20 minutes, something like that. JUDGE TINLEY: What's the preference? That we just blow forward, or that we go ahead and recess for lunch and come back at 1:30? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No difference to me. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to make a comment about the other open item. I'm -- I, for one, am not ready to talk about putting a roof on that thing till we dispose of this stuff. So, coming back with -- Maintenance Department coming back with recommendations as to roof and air conditioning a building, I'm not ready for that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He was talking about -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know what he was 11-8-04 139 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 talking about, but this is another open item on the agenda. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing about it also, Mr. Gondeck was kind enough to drive up here from San Antonio with blueprints of that juvenile facility, if any of y'all had questions of him, since he was the architect. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought Wayne just wanted to come look at us. MR. GONDECK: I just enjoy listening to everything. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I bet you do. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate your interest, Mr. Gondeck. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's going back to the Auditor's request. I mean, clearly, we have to do some kind of budget amendment to get some money -- what -- how much do you need to get us through the 15th, based on your best estimate? MR. TOMLINSON: Well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or up to our next meeting, actually. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there -- there won't be any more expenses until the next meeting except for payroll. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: So, today's bills total 11-8-04 140 ..... t r 1 1 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 23,800. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? MR. TOMLINSON: 23,8. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 23,8. MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: The payroll, if the payroll is the same as the last payroll, was 58,000. JUDGE TINLEY: 81,8. MR. TOMLINSON: So, we have -- we have approximately $12,000 in cash today. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 69,000. MR. TOMLINSON: So, 70,000 would -- we have -- and we have -- we do have 58,000 and change in receivables uncollected. So, to make sure that we make the 15th's payroll, I think we need to do -- I think we need to transfer at least 70,000. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 70. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion we declare an emergency and transfer -- or allocate $70,000 to fund operations of the Juvenile Detention Facility through our next court meeting. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to declare an emergency and authorize transfer of $70,000 from 11-8-04 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 141 reserves to fund the operational requirements of the Juvenile Detention Facility through -- to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our next court meeting. JUDGE TINLEY: -- 11-22-04. Any question or discussion? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would like to see about -- I guess around December the 1st sometime, I'd like to see a total of the amount of money that the County taxpayers have put into this thing, like this today, please. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's going to be revealing. 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. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is one other possibility that Mr. Gondeck brought up that y'all may want to listen to before you break. JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't want to go to lunch with us, did you, Mr. Gondeck? MR. GONDECK: Well, it's not that I don't enjoy y'all's company. One possibility that has not been 11-8-04 F I i 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 25 142 really looked into yet -- and part of it has been lack of documentation or actually information on the existing building. The last time I went through with any real diligence on that building was probably back in 2001 on the existing building, and realized that, you know, it does have some substantial issues with it, as far as being utilized for a maximum security adult facility. However -- and I'm just going to state this, and I know I always end up on the record stating the things maybe that nobody else wants to really hear. I don't know for sure as far as whether this is politically correct or anything else, but if we look at the total use of the existing facility as a juvenile facility, either as a total detention facility or a partial detention and residential facility, and how we can best utilize those beds -- and I'm not sure what the pro forma work is on that -- then to look at the existing facility as taking those components that right now are serviceable of the kitchen, laundry, the office areas, and some of the ancillary areas, and looking at the rest of it being gutted, and then come back in and rebuild a secure adult facility in there, probably to, again, look at the -- the possibility of housing females in there, that is a possibility. In many of the projects that we've seen today going up around the state, most of your buildings are -- jail buildings are being built out of rigid frame or metal 11-8-04 t 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 25 143 building-type structures as to what you have, and you come in and build the secure jail inside of it. There are some components within there, some air conditioning systems and other things that -- that may have to be, you know, totally modified, but that may be a proposition that -- that you want to look at to see what the actual -- I guess, the purchase of the building as-is, the renovation of that, what are those costs versus what you can utilize that for as a 48- to 60-bed female facility, to also augment a 24-bed detention or detention residential facility. I know that nobody's had any time to really think about that or whatever else, but if -- if y'all want some numbers whenever y'all meet again on that, we'd be happy to work with the Sheriff and Ms. Harris on, you know, what it would take to go through there and generate that. I would say, right now, that it is -- just off the top of my head, you're probably going to end up spending a million to million and a half dollars to do it. But it's one other thing -- I know that -- I think that everything should be put out on the table and -- and looked at. If you want us to do that, we're willing to help you do that. If not, I don't mind if you say no, because it's not going to be a real clean proposition. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate the benefit of that 11-8-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 information. Wayne, again. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Thank you, MR. GONDECK: You bet. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else in connection with Item 15 or 16? Why don't we move on to Item 17, then, consider and discuss possible litigation against 9-1-1 that may impact Kerr County. That's shown as an executive session item, so we will go out of open/public session now, and it is now 12:38. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on that, the Assistant City Attorney's present, and she probably has some information that will be useful relating to this. So, certainly, I would appreciate her being -- JUDGE TINLEY: You want her in? Okay. All right. (The open session was closed at 12:38 p.m., and an Executive Session was held, the transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's 12:59, and we'll come back into open and public session. Is there any action offered with respect to any matters discussed in closed session? It appears that there is one more item that -- on the agenda for today that was not acted upon, that being Item Number 7, consider and discuss bid received and 11-8-04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 145 selection processes and awarding or rejecting of roof and HVAC replacement bids. Is there any action proposed to be offered in connection with this? I don't see Mr. Holekamp here. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It'll be tabled until our next meeting. JUDGE TINLEY: No one offering anything, that one will be passed, then. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could take the Ag Barn and put juvenile beds in there. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That kind of thing. There's a start. That would rile them up. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or we could take the Stock Show put it in the Juvenile Detention Center. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got a big building. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anything further to be offered for the meeting today? Hearing nothing further, I'll declare the meeting adjourned. (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:59 p.m.) 11-8-04 146 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 STATE OF TEXAS ~ COUNTY OF KERR ~ 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 12th day of November, 2004. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 11-8-04 ORDER N0.28894 ELECTION WORKERS Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the Election workers before the November 22 scheduled Commissioners Court meeting. ORDER N0.28895 SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR CANCELLATION OF SPRING HOLLOW ESTATES. Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Letz The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to set public hearing for the 13th day of December 2004 at 10:30 A.M for cancellation of Spring Hollow Estates. ORDER N0.28896 DISPLAYING FRAMED UNITED STATES FLAG ON 2ND. FLOOR OF COURTHOUSE. Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to accept the donation of a flag, by a local Boy Scout Troop and to display the flag in court room number 1. ORDER N0.28897 APPROVE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following Monthly Reports. Sheriff s County Clerk's Trust County Clerk's General JP#2 Environmental Health JP #4 District Clerk's ORDER N0.28898 READ AND APPROVE MINUTES Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the Minutes from Regular Session Monday, October 25, 2004. ORDER N0.28899 PROCLAMATION Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to declare the week of November 8th thru 12th to be employers support of the Guard and Reserves week. ORDER N0.28900 CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS On this the 8th day of November 2004, came to be considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are: Expenses Amount 10-General $310,157.81 14-Fire Protection 10,416.66 15-Road & Bridge 30,735.75 18-County Law Library 3,076.86 33-District Records Management 1,400.00 50-Indigent Health Care 729.80 80-Historical Commission 5.50 Total Cash Required for all Funds $356,522.38 Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay said Claims and Accounts. ORDER N0.28901 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY LAW LIBRARY Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Requested + Q -- 18-650-590 Books $1,919.86 ORDER N0.28902 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY JAIL CONSTABLE PRECINCT # 1, 2, 3 Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Requested +O 10-560-480 Vehicle Insurance $2,931.00 10-512-104 Jailer's Salaries (1,501.00) 10-512-206 Insurance-bldg & jail (1,430.00) 10-551-480 Vehicle Insurance 201.00 10-551-310 Office Supplies (201.00) 10-552-480 Vehicle Maintenance 201.00 10-552-310 Office Supplies (201.00) 10-553-480 Vehicle Insurance 201.00 10-553-310 Office Supplies (201.00) ORDER N0.28903 BUDGET AMENDMENT COUNTY CLERK Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes: Expense Code Description Requested +() 10-402-430 10-402-330 10-402-210 10-402-108 Public Notices Election Supplies Ballot Expense Election Judges + $ 313.50 + 1,244.65 + 8,618.38 (3,000.00) *Note; Balance of $7,176.53 to come from non departmental contingency. ORDER N0.28904 OPEN AND ACCEPT BIDS HEALTH INSURANCE BIDS Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to accept health insurance bids and that the proposals as submitted be referred to County Consultant, Catto & Catto for recommendation. ORDER N0.28905 OPEN AND ACCEPT BIDS HILL COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER. Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to accept the bids for replacement of metal roof and HVAC., and the proposals as submitted be referred to the Maintenance Department for recommendation. ORDER N0.28906 REVISION OF PLATS FOR RESERVE AT FALLING WATER. Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to revise Lots 21 & 22 into Lot 21A; Lots 6, 7E & 7W into Lot 6R. ORDER N0.28907 REGULATORY SIGNS, RE-SETTING SCHOOL ZONES Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to Re-set School Zones Ranchero for Nimitz Elementary School Ranchero Road-Beginning 200 ft. east of Valley View/Ranchero intersection and ending 520 ft, south of Ranchero/Monroe intersection. Monroe-Beginning and ending 200 ft. north of Ranchero Road intersection. Loyal Valley/Valley View-Beginning 200 ft. south of Ranchero Road intersection and ending 480 $. north of intersection of Ranchero Road. George Muck -Beginning and ending 200 ft. south of Ranchero Road intersection. "End of School Zone" signs to be placed at all points of termination. No Parking on Center Point River Road West of Bowlin North side of Road for 666' South side of Road for 345' ORDER N0.28908 AGREEMENT WITH KERRVILLE-KIMBLE -JUNCTION EMS Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to authorize the Judge to draw up and sign agreement to provide emergency medical services to a certain portion of Northwest Kerr County. ORDER N0.28909 BUDGET AMENDMENT JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY Came to be heard this the 8th day of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to declare an emergency and transfer $70,000.00 from reserves to fund the operational requirements of the Juvenile Facility through to November 22, 2004.