featured

General Counsel’s Report

August 2, 2018 by Emily Lomax

Expansion of Telemedicine Authorized

Recent legislation authorizing expansion of telemedicine in Texas should enable counties to achieve significant cost reduction and improved services in jail health services and indigent health care. Senate Bill 1107, effective Jan. 1, 2018, removed prior restrictions and increased the availability of telehealth services. Previously, the Texas Medical Board required doctors to conduct in-person visits prior to telemedicine appointments. Under S.B. 1107, doctors may consult with patients who they have not evaluated in person, provided all other medical standards are met. As with in-person visits, telemedicine must comply with HIPPA privacy requirements and adhere to the applicable standard of care.

Under the new telemedicine law, doctors may prescribe medications and make diagnoses via telemedicine. Patients may refuse telemedicine care and require in-person visits. Insurance companies may not deny coverage for video appointments. Doctors may not prescribe chronic pain medications (opioids) or chemical abortions.

Video telepsychiatry has already been implemented in many Texas jails. This service provides immediate evaluation of potential mental health inmates without the cost and inherent danger of transporting unstable inmates. It also provides an efficient treatment model for mentally ill inmates. Telemedicine will extend these benefits to clinicians providing physical health services, reducing costs and risks to inmates and county personnel. For indigent health care counties, telemedicine will facilitate group appointments for preprocedure
consultation, chronic disease management, and remote specialty care. With innovative approaches, telemedicine will provide an improved, more efficient system of health care for counties and their citizens. The Texas Commission on Jail Standards is currently considering draft rules to expand the implementation of telehealth in county jails. Commissioners Court members should monitor these rules with the local sheriff to ensure the full, practical application of the new statutes.

For additional information, please call me at 1-800-733-0699.

15 Historic Courthouses Receive $20 Million in Preservation Grants

July 16, 2018 by Emily Lomax

The Texas Historical Commission (THC) has announced grant recipients for Round X of the nationally recognized Texas Historic Courthouse Preservation Program (THCPP). The THC awarded matching grants totaling $19,713,303 to 15 counties to aid in preservation of their historic courthouses, including four grants to undertake full restorations.

Falls, Hunt, Marion, and Menard counties received major construction grant awards, each between $1.2 million and $5.8 million, for full restoration projects.

Camp, Coleman, Goliad, Kimble, Limestone, Milam, and Orange counties received emergency grants from $60,012 to $313,367 to address critical issues including structural failures of beams and exterior cladding, and water intrusion through windows and basements.

Callahan, Polk, and Van Zandt counties received planning grants to be applied toward the production of construction documents for a future grant application for a full restoration of their building.

Refugio County received a $450,000 emergency planning grant following major damage from Hurricane Harvey in 2017.

The THCPP Round X grants were made possible through a $20.2 million appropriation by the 85th Texas Legislature. The THC received applications from 17 counties requesting $52.6 million for projects totaling $95.4 million. The agency determined grant awards by assessing 21 criteria including the building’s age, endangerment, historical designations, and the applicants’ proposals and support for the project. Emergency grants were based primarily upon the score assigned to the endangerment category.

“The goal of the Texas Historic Courthouse Preservation Program is to positively impact as many communities as possible by revitalizing historic downtowns, bolstering pride through the restoration of a treasured landmark, and creating a safer, more functional building to serve its citizens,” said THC Architecture Division Director Sharon Fleming, AIA.

There are still 35 applicants awaiting full restoration funding after receiving planning and emergency grants and another 39 program participants that have not yet received any funding at all, with a total outstanding need of just over $400 million.

Approaching its 20-year anniversary, the program has attracted more than 134 participants and awarded more than $290 million to counties to fund the full restorations of 70 courthouses and provide smaller grants to assist with emergency and planning projects.

In addition to providing safe and functional buildings, restoration of historic courthouses benefits the state and local economies. Courthouse preservation projects have created more than 10,650 jobs in Texas and generated more than $555 million in revenue. Restored courthouses reinvigorate historic downtowns and promote heritage tourism, a $7.3 billion industry in Texas.

“By revitalizing Texas’ historic county courthouses, we help make a significant economic impact on communities,” said THC Chairman John Nau, III. “These precious historic resources provide essential state services and operate as centerpieces of county history, culture, and tourism.”

Texas has the most historic courthouses (more than 240) in the United States; these courthouses were deemed national treasures by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and collectively included twice on the Trust’s Most Endangered Places list.

“The historic county courthouses of Texas are renowned for good reason,” said THC Executive Director Mark Wolfe. “We remain committed to restoring every historic courthouse, maximizing the significant economic and community benefits these iconic buildings provide.”

For more information about the THCPP, visit www.thc.texas.gov/thcpp or contact the THC’s Architecture Division at 512-463-6094.

Brighter in Bee County

July 9, 2018 by Emily Lomax

Lighting Project Enhances Safety, Security

By Bee County Commissioner

Dennis DeWitt

Light: to illuminate the dark. Sounds simple, but in rural areas of many counties in Texas there is no artificial light at night. In rural unincorporated areas, a light is a beacon in the night.

As County Commissioners in South Texas’ Bee County, Commissioner Ken Haggard and I were determined to establish safety and security lighting in our rural areas and unincorporated communities in our respective areas of responsibility. We studied the situation for many months while working with our Texas Department of Transportation partners, but to no avail. Cost, time and engineering created obstacles.

Then, the “light” went on: Why not contact the local electric service providers directly to see if they had procedures in place to furnish and install safety and security lighting in the unincorporated areas? Commissioner Haggard blazed the trail, and I quickly followed with my electrical providers.

Indeed, there was a way, but it would require several steps, time, and approvals.

First, we identified locations and presented them to Commissioners Court for initial concept approval. The Court established criteria to include the following:

• pole location must be on public right of way;
• an existing electrical pole must be available for the proposed light fixture to defer costs;
• dangerous or blind intersections;
• intersections on hills or curves; and
• intersections with heavy truck or other traffic and areas near schools or other public facilities.

Pole locations near residences were not strongly considered because of excessive light pollution into the residences.
Next, this detailed information was communicated with the electrical providers to obtain detailed costs and timelines. Another Commissioners Court meeting was necessary to facilitate discussion, approval, and funding.

Following approval, individual pole numbers and location information was communicated with the respective electrical providers and the service companies billing Bee County for electrical service. The providers and service companies coordinated the process to ensure billing was timely and accurate.

One provider required an ESID# (electrical services identifier unique point of service delivery 17- or 22-digit number) with pole numbers and a unique letter prefix to identify Bee County; for the other, utilizing identifying names and pole numbers was required. One provider required a county check be delivered to cover payment of fixtures and installation before a construction order would be issued.

Both service companies bill Bee County monthly for the lighting service, ranging from a few dollars to more than $20 depending on location and company.

This project started as a simple thought and has evolved into an important health and safety issue for Bee County residents and those passing though. Reactions have been both positive and interesting. For example, one resident asked, “Why hasn’t this been done before?”

Another individual commented he was against the light in his community because he could not sneak into his girlfriend’s house without being seen. Another questioned the expense until it was pointed out the lighting benefits everyone – rich, poor, young, and senior – basically anyone who drives, rides, or walks in these areas.

First responders, the sheriff’s office, and the electrical service providers are praising the project as they routinely make emergency calls into the dark unincorporated areas; they are especially thankful during fog or rainy weather.

To date, approximately 40 locations have been established and are in various stages of completion. Additional locations will be forthcoming as additional intersections are identified as health and safety hazard areas, and as funding becomes available. The electrical providers and our billing company enthusiastically support the project and have been incredible to work with.

As you drive through the unincorporated communities of Bee County – Skidmore, Pettus, Normanna, Tuleta, Pawnee, and Mineral – be mindful of the folks traveling after dark in those areas and how the nights are much safer because of this simple lighting project, which began with the determination of two County Commissioners to provide a safer more secure environment in their areas of responsibility.

County Roads 101

July 2, 2018 by Emily Lomax

By Julie Anderson, Editor

County Progress is regularly asked for information on the varied county road systems. The text below provides a simple explanation of each system and the related Commissioners Court responsibilities, along with important information on statutorily required road reports.

The Basics

A county road is a public road that has been accepted for maintenance by the Commissioners Court pursuant to the standards set by the Commissioners Court. These roads are located in the unincorporated areas of the county.

There are many roads within the county that are not county-maintained roads including:

private roads constructed in private subdivisions, maintained by the private residents/homeowners association;
interstate highways, S. highways, state highways, farm-to-market roads, spurs, and park roads maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation;
roads within an established subdivision that have not been accepted for maintenance, therefore are still the responsibility of the developer; and
roads within the incorporated limits of cities, villages, towns or other entities, maintained by those entities.

With regard to the authority of the Commissioners Court, Bob Bass, attorney with Allison, Bass & Magee, LLP, cites the Transportation Code and the Local Government Code.

According to Chapter 251 of the Transportation Code, the Commissioners Court may make and enforce all reasonable and necessary rules and orders for the construction and maintenance of public roads and hire the labor and purchase the machinery and equipment needed to construct and maintain public roads.

Article 16, Section 24 of the Texas Constitution, together with Chapters 251, 258 and 281 of the Texas Transportation Code, allow the County Commissioners Court to lay out and establish, change, and discontinue public roads and highways, and to exercise general control over all roads, highways, ferries, and bridges in their counties.

Road statutes and legal opinions offer additional guidelines delineating authority and limitations:

An individual County Commissioner has no authority to establish a county road.
Roads should be classified as 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd class roads.
The Commissioners Court may establish or change the status of a county road.
The county cannot maintain a private road.
County labor, materials, and equipment cannot be used on private property. (Note that by way of Article 3, Section 52f of the Texas Constitution, counties with a population under 5,000 may perform work on private roads for a fee, with all proceeds to support county road maintenance.)
It is vital to have clear authority for maintenance on all roads in the county inventory.

Working the Systems

Chapters 251 and 252 of the Texas Transportation Code discuss general county authority relating to roads and bridges and systems of county road administration, respectively. The first two road management options are generally known as precinct systems, whereby County Commissioners oversee the roads in their individual precincts.

Road Supervisor System – Chapter 251.004

The County Commissioners are the supervisors of the public roads in a county unless the county adopts an optional system of administering the county roads under Chapter 252.

The statute requires a County Commissioner serving as a road supervisor to supervise the public roads in the Commissioner’s precinct at least once each month and make a report during the ninth month of the county’s fiscal year. See the Required Road Report section below for a detailed explanation of this required report.

Ex Officio Road Commissioner System – Chapter 252.001

The County Commissioner takes care of the roads in the Commissioner’s precinct. Under rules adopted by the Commissioners Court, the Commissioner directs the laying out of new roads, construction or changing of roads, and building of bridges. Subject to authorization of the Commissioners Court, the Commissioner can hire employees, to be paid from the county road and bridge fund. While this section of the statute does not specifically reference a road report, the statute does state that “an ex officio road Commissioner has the duties of a supervisor of public roads…” One of the duties of a supervisor, according to Chapter 251.004 is, indeed, completing a road report. In other words, County Commissioners who supervise their precinct roads as part of the Ex Officio Road Commissioner System are required to complete a road report, confirmed Bass.

In the remaining three systems described in the statute, roads are primarily managed by someone other than the County Commissioners.

Road Commissioner System – Chapter 252.101

The law allows County Commissioners to employ up to four Road Commissioners who are subject to the control, supervision, orders, and approval of the Commissioners Court. The Road Commissioner ensures that roads and bridges are kept in good repair, establishes a system of grading and draining public roads, and spends funds as needed on the public roads, bridges, and culverts. Road Commissioners may use road districts separate from precincts or operate under a countywide or consolidated system. The Road Commissioner is required to give regular reports to the Commissioners Court.

While the elected County Commissioners still maintain ultimate control over the roads, the appointed Road Commissioner oversees the daily activity.

Road Superintendent System – Chapter 252.201

This system is sometimes referred to as the “voluntary unit system.” In this system, the Commissioners Court appoints a Road Superintendent for the county or one Road Superintendent for each precinct for a two-year term. Work performed under the Road Superintendent is subject to the general supervision of the Commissioners Court. The Road Superintendent directs the laying out, construction, changing and repairing of roads and bridges and other related duties including grading and draining. The Road Superintendent is required to file a sworn report at each regular term of the Commissioners Court.

County Road Department System – County Engineer or Road Administrator – Chapter 252.301

This system, commonly referred to as the “referendum unit system” or “unit system,” requires a petition signed by at least 10 percent of the numbers cast in the last election for governor. The petition is presented and certified by the clerk, like any other election, and then goes on the ballot.

According to the statute, “The ballot for the election shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: ‘Adopting the Optional County Road System in _______ County.’ ” If passed, the countywide system is imposed upon the county and cannot be done away with except by another petition and vote.

The system creates a county road department that includes the Commissioners Court as a policymaking body and the County Engineer as the chief executive officer. The Commissioners Court appoints a licensed, professional engineer for an indefinite term. If a county cannot for good reason hire an engineer, the law allows the county to appoint a County Road Administrator who has had experience in road building or maintenance or other types of construction work.

Two key elements make this system unique. First, every road activity, whether it be construction, maintenance or use of county road department equipment, is “to be based on the county as a whole without regard to Commissioners’ precincts,” according to the statute.

Second, while the Commissioners Court maintains general policymaking authority, the County Engineer or Road Administrator is the executive officer, meaning he or she makes key decisions including hiring and firing, Bass specified. This contrasts with the Road Commissioner and Road Superintendent systems, in which the Commissioners Court maintains a supervisory role. The County Engineer is also required by Chapter 252.309 of the Transportation Code to prepare and file full reports on all aspects of road maintenance.

Required Road Report
Chapter 251.004 of the Transportation Code states that County Commissioners are the supervisors of the public roads in a county unless the county adopts an optional system of administering the county roads under Chapter 252 of the Texas Transportation Code.

Chapter 251.005 states that a County Commissioner who serves as a road supervisor is required to make a report during the ninth month of the county’s fiscal year showing:

the condition of each road or part of a road and of each culvert and bridge in the Commissioner’s precinct;
the amount of money reasonably necessary for maintenance of the roads in the precinct during the next county fiscal year;
the number of traffic control devices in the precinct defaced or torn down;
any new road that should be opened in the precinct;
any bridges, culverts, or other improvements necessary to place the roads in the precinct in good condition, and the probable cost of the improvements; and
additional requirement per Chapter 251.018: primary cause of any road, culvert or bridge degradation if reasonably ascertained.

In the 83rd Legislative Session, the Legislature provided for County Energy Transportation Reinvestment Zones. This legislation imposed a new reporting requirement by inserting a new section into Chapter 251 of the Transportation Code. This new section, Chapter 251.018, requires a road report for all counties, including those operating under either Chapter 251 or Chapter 252, to include in all previously required reports a statement of the “primary cause of any road, culvert or bridge degradation if reasonably ascertained.” This provision is tied to an effort to identify and track the costs to the state and county for road damages attributable to heavy truck traffic in the oil and gas sector. As a consequence, all Texas counties are now required to track the cause of degradation of roads, if ascertainable. These records were used for audit purposes for counties who participated in the Texas Infrastructure Grant Fund program.

For Chapter 251 counties (non-unit systems), the road report “shall be entered in the minutes of the Commissioners Court to be considered in improving public roads and determining the amount of taxes imposed for public roads.” In addition, “the report shall be submitted, together with each contract made by the Commissioners Court since its last report for any work on any road, to the grand jury at the first term of the district court occurring after the report is made to the Commissioners Court.”

Chapter 252 counties (unit systems) are not required to file their reports with the grand jury.

As stated earlier, Chapter 252.001 defines the Ex Officio Road Commissioner System, commonly referred to as the precinct system, whereby the County Commissioner takes care of the roads in the Commissioner’s precinct. The language in this section specifies that “an ex officio road Commissioner has the duties of a supervisor of public roads…” One of the duties of a supervisor is, indeed, completing a road report.

Chapter 252 describes who is responsible for road-related reports in the three remaining systems.

Chapter 252.107 requires a “Road Commissioner” to file reports at each term (meeting) of the Commissioners Court.
Chapter 252.207 requires a “Road Superintendent” to file a sworn report at each regular term of the Commissioners Court.
Chapter 252.309 sets out the duties of a “Road Engineer” or “Administrator” who shall maintain detailed records of all county expenses related to road maintenance.

“The road report is statutorily required as a basis for budgeting, so complaints of the necessity for such reports are misplaced,” Bass declared. “Additionally, if used consistently, the road report will have a very beneficial effect as evidence of county maintenance on those occasions when the county is required to defend the status of a disputed roadway.

“The practice of maintaining an annual road report is both common sense from a management perspective and of real value if used consistently,” Bass continued. “The establishment of a routine practice of documenting road maintenance costs, in terms of the statutory format, will result in much better financial support for preparation of the county budget, and will allow each precinct to better demonstrate its unique needs for funding.”

Lampasas County Breaks Ground on $18 Million Jail

June 18, 2018 by Emily Lomax

A project 10-plus years in the making reached a milestone April 30 as officials broke ground to mark the ceremonial start of construction on a new county jail. The 56,000-square-foot law enforcement center will include 112 inmate beds, offices for sheriff’s staff, a centrally located communications center, and more work space than is available in the existing county jail.

Voters endorsed the project with 62 percent approving the issuance of up to $18.75 million in bonds to build the new center, partnering with Burns Architecture LLC of Lakeway, and Don Krueger Construction of Victoria.

“Our present jail was built in the early 1970s and expanded in 1991,” explained Lampasas County Judge Wayne L. Boultinghouse, “like putting a big box over a small box. The kitchen and plumbing were not changed, so we became overwhelmed.

“The new facility is at the edge of town and will have adequate space and parking,” Boultinghouse continued. “I feel good about retiring in December, having made a big step forward in upgrading our facilities.”

The new jail will include three times as many beds as the existing jail; the county currently sends inmates to out-of-county facilities.

The project should be completed by the end of 2019.

– The Lampasas Dispatch Record contributed information to this article.