Tuesday, Brown County Commissioners Court met to discuss two items on their agenda.

The first item resulted in a lengthy debate comparing insurance quotes from Texas Association of Counties (TAC) and Porter Insurance.  Policy costs as well as coverage delivered for that cost were reviewed.  Deductibles and limitations of coverage were also discussed.

Cris Faugh, field representative for TAC pointed out that his company’s policy was designed specifically for governmental bodies unlike most other insurance policies, which reflect more commercial business type coverage than that of government entities.  He also noted that TAC’s board of directors was made up of commissioners, judges, and clerks who know the needs of a county.

The current coverage discussed was with TAC, which Faugh urged the commissioners to continue.  He also stated, “We aren’t just dealing with numbers, but what’s in the policy”.  To this, Judge West replied, “It is important to consider the options we have…if it saves the county money and has the same coverage.”  He noted the policies were very parallel, further stating that “This court has the responsibility to consider options available to us”.

Faugh further explained that it is difficult to establish values on the many historical buildings across our state, such as court houses.  Because of this problem, many of these structures are underinsured.  Some claims for these types of underinsured buildings often result in a penalty if insurance coverage is not 90% of the value at the time of the loss.  His policy would not penalize a deficiency of value.

Richard Porter, representing Porter Insurance, asked the commissioners to consider that his policy has a good terrorism coverage that was not in the other quote.  He mentioned that it is necessary to have an “apples to apples” type of comparison when looking at the two quotes.  His quote was higher and thus this extra coverage should be deducted from his original quote when considering the costs only.

Discussion of putting all insurance policies with one carrier was considered.  It was asked what the penalty for cancelling a TAC policy would be if Porter was chosen for all policies.  Faugh answered that there could be a penalty of $15,000 for the remaining policies but that the unused premiums would be refunded.  Porter pointed out that these unused premiums would not be lost but could then be applied toward the cost of the new policies.

After another brief set of questions, commissioners voted to continue coverage with TAC.  They thanked Porter Insurance for his time and preparation, allowing the court to compare exactly what their coverage options were.

Then the court moved on to the second item of business, consideration and approval of Interlocal Agreement of Solid Waste Disposal grant funds.  Sheriff’s Deputy, Tony Aaron presented the information to the court.  This grant money was received last year in order to help pay for the newly established position of a Solid Waste Disposal Officer’s salary and benefits.  Aaron explained that this is a three year grant which has to be applied for annually.  Proceeds decrease each year.  The first year 100% of expense of this position is covered.  The second year 75% is covered.  The third year will split the cost 50/50 with the county.  After three years, the position cost is given to the county.  Aaron asked the court to sign the application, stating that the grant requirements and coverage remained the same as last year’s grant, other than the 75/25 split for the cost of the salary and benefits for the officer during the current year.  This request for signature on the application was approved.