r-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Wednesday, August 29, 2001
1:30 p.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: FREDERICK L. f1ENNEKE, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4

C1~'
Q
1
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
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., a special
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 HENNEKE: It is 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday,
August 29th, Year 2001. We'll call to order this special
session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. E'irst item
for consideration, and probably the only item we're going to
get to, is to consider and discuss budget issues. However,
before we go to that, there was a letter in today's paper
from former County Judge Bob Denson, in which he raises some
questions which I think are important for the public to have
answered. And I'm going to take this opportunity to ask the
Auditor, Tommy Tomlinson, to come up and ask him to respond
to those questions. The first question that Judge Denson
asks -- and I'm reading from the letter in today's Daily
Times -- is, is the County debt increasing? Tommy, what's
the status of the County debt, as it is today, compared to
where it was in 1998?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's the same as '98.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Same as '98. Now, we are
considering a debt, financing the radio project.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. That's
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we -- we would add some
more debt at the end of this fiscal year if we go through
with that. But right now, the debt is the same as it was in
1998, which is the jail bond and the tax anticipation note.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, the debt has not
increased any in the last two and a half years.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, just -- on that same
topic, when's the jail bond due to be paid off and when's
the C.O. due to be paid off?
MR. TOMLINSON: The jail bond, as I recall,
was an 18-year amortization. That was in '94. So --
MS. NEMEC: 2012.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2012.
MR. TOMLINSON: And the other one was seven,
and that was in '97.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, four more years.
MR. TOMLINSON: Four more years, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In reality, the debt
is less than it was in 1998.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. We've paid -- paid some
off.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The second question raised by
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Judge Denson was, are our reserves decreasing? And I guess
the question I would ask to you is, are you, as our
Auditor -- our independent Auditor, satisfied with the --
the state of the reserves for the county?
MR. TOMLINSON: For the General Fund, or
the activities that are supported by the general M & 0 tax,
yes. 'the answer is yes. For Road and Bridge, I would like
to see it higher, but I think it's okay. As far as -- as
the guidelines set out by the Comptroller's -- Comptroller's
Office, the Comptroller recommends three months. We have
three months in each one of those areas for -- for funds
supported by the Road and Bridge tax and the activities
supported by the general M & 0 tax. we do have three months
operating capital, as recommended by the Comptroller.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So far as the Road and Bridge
is concerned, the budget that we're going to discuss today
adds money to those reserves, and the Court has discussed
that we want to get the reserves back up to where you're
comfortable with them over a two- or three-year period.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. We -- in the
tax rate schedule that you have, I've transferred tax rate
sufficient enough to move $140,000 from fund balances out of
the general M & O funds to Road and Bridge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The last question that was
raised by Judge Denson really is a -- is kind of a general
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
one. Are County expenditures increasing, and if so, how are
they funded?
MR. TOMLINSOLd: Well, the answer -- oh, yes,
they're increasing. Yes, they are.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And they're funded by the
traditional --
MR. TOMLINSON: Traditional methods; through
fees, fines, taxes.
JDDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I think it's
important, in light of the letter, which was also in the
Mountain Sun, that those questions specifically be answered
as soon as possible so that there is no question among the
citizens of Kerr County as to what the financial condition
of this county is.
MR. TOMLINSON: I would like to add one thing
about Road and Bridge. And, this -- this has been a trend
over the last five or six years, that -- that the ratio of
non-tax revenues that support Road and Bridge have -- have
increased every year. Right -- today, for this budget,
we're -- we are estimating almost a million, three in
I
non-tax revenues. In the budget, we plan to levy taxes of
only $522,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are those non-tax
revenues?
MR. TOMLINSON: They're all associated with
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
license plates. And, so, that -- that's one reason that I
have -- that I'm not too excited about the fund balance,
because the -- the collections of those non-tax revenues
are monthly, and so we -- we can count on a twelfth of those
revenues to come in every month, so we don't have to wait
till December/January to collect the majority of whatever it
is that supports that activity.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thank you. Any other
questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- just a comment,
which is what -- I emphasize what Tommy said, that we're --
we currently meet the Comptroller's guidelines, but
historically we've always exceeded those guidelines.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, that's why,
you know, he'd like to see the Road and Bridge -- or we'd
like to see the Road and Bridge balance high, 'cause we have
traditionally kept these balances higher than the
Comptroller -- just because of our more conservative
approach, historically, than it's been before I was a
Commissioner.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, again, we have committed
ourselves as a Court to restore those balances in the Road
and Bridge Department.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Above --
8
1
„^- 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 HENNEKE: Above what's recommended by
the Comptroller. Okay. Everyone's been given a chance to
-- at least been given the further revised budget, along
with the revised budget summary. I guess, before we start,
does anyone have any general comments they want to make with
regard to where we are at this stage?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- and I don't
know. My general comment that I'd like to make is going
back to elected officials' salary, and it's something I've
wrestled with quite a bit, talked to quite a few people
about, and it's an area that -- if this is an area that we
cut -- and I would almost like to put it on the table, give
a 5, 10 percent increase this year, and appoint a committee
of -- not necessarily appointed by the Commissioners Court,
to address this, and have recommendations from the
community. Because I think it's very -- it puts the Court
always in a difficult position, and elected officials, in
that if you run for an office, you know what the salary's
going to be, but at some time I think that you also -- you
do need to get these increased or competitive with what
other counties are paying and what the market, I guess, per
se, should bear. But, just -- it's something that I would
like to see on the table. And, to me, the -- the committee
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
i-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
control over as a Commissioners Court, so it couldn't ever
be said that we're stacking someone to look at the salaries.
And, even if we do a higher salary increase, I think it
would be worthwhile to appoint a commission to look at it
and give a recommendation from the community as -- you know,
which we have not done since I've been on the Court,
something along that line. And, I would recommend doing --
doing that step, even if we go with the amounts recommended
in the budget right now, or if we decide to reduce it. It
just seems to me that it's a way to get input from the
community, and I think that my gut feeling would be that
they would probably be more generous than we are to
ourselves.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, again, when we --
look at is to bring our salaries up to the average.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What our comparable counties
might end up to our favor. But I don't have any difficulty
with that. I think you --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One thing about it, if
10
1
~. 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something about salary level determination. I mean, not
that you couldn't have representation that's drawn out of a
hat, jury pool or anything, but you'd want somebody on there
that -- maybe we could go find somebody, I don't know, but
we might want somebody on there that -- that sort of says,
"Here's the way it's done in industry," or "Here's the way
it's done in other agencies of government" or something,
other than just winging it, because winging it is what's
gotten us where we are now. You can do it on the back of an
envelope, and you have people make suggestions off the top
of their head, but with no more rigor than that in the
process, you end up with a hodgepodge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand exactly
what Commissioner Letz is saying; it's taking the politics
out of the process, but I would disagree with him a little
bit. You know, if -- if I were going to appoint --
personally going to appoint a couple of people, I mean,
there is not politics in my appointments at all. It woulc
be very bright, budget-minded people out of the retired
community that understand what we're doing, and, you know,
do -- they're not going to do anything in particular in
favor of me.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And don't want their
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: I want to make a point
that -- that the way that it's been laid out this year is
really not politics, because it's a statistical study of
what comparable salaries are. I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- no one has sat down and
subjectively come up with proposed salary levels.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We've taken information from
counties that have the same population that we do, and based
any -- any recommendations or any adjustments on the average
of what 18 counties our size do. So, it may be perceived as
political, but it's about as unpolitical a process as you
can get.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, does there not
already exist a compensation committee through which
compensation matters for elected officials could be --
JUDGE HENNEKE: No. There's a grievance
committee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Grievance committee.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which is not exactly the same
animal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it comes from the
same group. I mean, I -- it's just an idea. It's a way to
get input, but, 1 mean, certainly we can't do it this year.
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
Under any of the proposals that I've heard, you know,
elected officials are going to be interviewed again next
year, so seems like it's an opportune time early this year
to really look at it and figure out the best way to get some
oversight. And, I mean, I agree that -- I don't think there
was any intent at all to have population -- to pick the
counties that were closest to us and come up with numbers,
but then you hear Linda has two district courts in this --
in this area, and then we have so many -- we have more cars
here or, you know, this -- and it gets political no matter
how you do it. So, to me, it's just a way to get some other
input. The decision's still in this Court; we still have to
make it. We're going to have to raise our hand and vote yes
or no on elected officials' salaries. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry to say it,
Fred, but your comment -- perception is about 50 percent of
this game.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think it's more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's why we have to
be very, very careful of how we go about doing the County's
business.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's more than
50 percent. But, also, when you're doing what's right,
sometimes you have to do what's right, regardless. I like
your suggestion. I mean, I like what you're suggesting,
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that -- I like the way your suggestion is -- and I'm going
to paraphrase what I heard -- is we go ahead and start the
process and make adjustments this year, and we get a -- a
nonpolitical group to oversee the process and to make
recommendations, and I like that. I have no problems with
that at all.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can't hurt. I don't
want to do it any more.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've done it once, too.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I've done it once too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the only comment I
had before we --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any --
MS. NEMEC: I --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff?
MS. NEMEC: I'm SOrry.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead, Barbara.
MS. NEMEC: I just want to say that, you
know, when you talk about -- about it not being political, I
know that this model did not turn out the way everybody
wished it had, and there's a lot of low percentages on here,
and there's a few that are high, but we simply got on the
phone and asked for the information and they gave it to us,
and that's what's on here, and it's current information.
1
.-. 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
I wasn't here that day. But I can tell you that I, myself,
got on the phone. I'm the one that got these figures for
Commissioner Griffin, and these are true figures. And, so,
the way the model was done, unfortunately, the percentages
have turned out the way it has, but we all knew that that's
the way it was going to be done and agreed to it. And I
know that there's some question about, well, you know, how
many courts and all that, and I think that y'all are trying
to address that next year, and so that -- that's all I
wanted to say about the model. You know, I think it was --
it was fair. It didn't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree 100 percent.
I was referring to the political part of it and appointing a
committee next year. I wasn't -- Larry did a wonderful job.
I like what he did.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff, you have a comment?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I want to change
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's surprising.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Myself and -- and the
County Attorney, Motley, just got back from San Antonio and
our negotiations with Daily Wells. One thing I wanted to
assure the Court, everybody down there agreed they'd have
bottom-line figures of everything by next Friday, and so
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
that the Court could prepare --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Friday-week? Or this coming
Friday?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, Friday, a week. The
other thing that was talked about and I asked directly was,
in this first year's -- as far as the lease, as far as the
maintenance and everything on these towers and on this
system, it is -- the first year is all covered, either under
the warranty or in the price that you will have. That
doesn't have to be in the actual budget for this lease stuff
and that in this coming budget, which I think is important
to consider.
The last thing that I want to put out there
is that I've got Chief Deputy Graham and other people
already searching for grants to help fund this project, and
I
to help fund some other things that -- that we really do
need in the Sheriff's Office. The problem's going to be, in
all those grants I've seen so far -- and I don't know how
Tommy can do it, or if we'll have it in there, whether
they're with this project or other projects that we'd like
to get done -- they are going to need matching funds. I
don't know if that can be worked into this budget, 'cause I
couldn't tell you what they are. It's going to depend on
how much we apply for. You know, it's going to cost money
to make money to help pay for this system, but I think that
16
1
.-, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
would be -- could be a great benefit in paying for the
system and paying for other projects that we have -- that
we'd like to do.
But, I don't know if there can also be, in
later this year or later this coming year, to apply for
something, or if the County does. 'Cause the Judge and I
had talked about it, where there could be a set of surplus
funds somewhere that could be used for matching funds for
grants	that	the County	-- whether it be	Road	and	Bridge,
whether	it	be somebody	in the courthouse	or	the	Sheriff's
office apply for this. If that grant application was
approved by the Court to go -- because that's our biggest
problem in getting other grants. The department received
over $500,000 in grants this last year, this last budget
year, but we're going to have to have matching funds to
apply for some other grants if we need it. Just something
to keep in mind. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Linda?
MS. UECKER: While you're thinking about the
elected official salary issue, I'd like to address the Court
on another subject, if I may. Last year, the County hired
the Nash people to do a study to equalize salaries of
similar positions, not only within the area and other
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
counties, but also within the county, and I think Monday it
was the bookkeeper, whatever the position is -- the
accounting clerk in the County Clerk's office was raised to
a 17/l. And, at this time, I'm asking the Court to do the
same thing for my senior bookkeeper. She takes in and
disburses over $350,000 a month, and not only that, she's a
12-year employee and is a supervisor, and in my absence or
the chief deputy's absence, is that third person in charge.
And I have a copy of her job description, if anybody wants
to see it, that would certainly justify that. But, I
think -- based on the Court's action on Monday, I think it
justifies the fact that if we're going to go by the Nash
study, we need to keep those similar positions equal.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. Do you
want to hand that out now?
I MS. UECKER: I've got one copy of it. I can
make some more, or you can pass it around or whatever,
whatever the Court's pleasure is. Do you want me to make
some more copies?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, just give it to us.
We'll pass it around. Thanks, Linda. Anything else?
MS. UECKER: That's all. I'm just asking for
the Court to consider that effective in this year's budget,
before budget's finalized.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. Does
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anyone else have anything they want to offer? Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Y'all had a few housekeeping
changes?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's get -- yeah,
we'll get back to that in just a second. David?
MR. MOTLEY: I prepared a little handout;
it's just a summary of comments regarding the elected
officials' pay raise model. I did a summary on top and a
spreadsheet on the back, and it may be easier to hand them
out. But, in the averaging of the salaries of the County
Judges in the other 18 counties, included in their income
was their salary, travel, and compensation for service on
the Juvenile Board. Those counties, by statute,
I specifically the Human Resources Code, may have different
amounts of compensation Łor their service on the Juvenile
Board, and some of those counties, in fact, are allowed as
much as $5,000 more than is allowed by a Kerr County
Juvenile Board member. And, so, if you take that Juvenile
Board compensation, travel, and salary, and average that in
as just one income figure, it allows the Kerr County Judge
to take advantage of those higher statutory limits that
those other six counties enjoy, in -- by averaging them in.
Also, I feel it's improper in the model Łor the -- for a
COLA to be applied to any portion of the County Judge income
attributable to compensation for service on the Juvenile
19
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board, because the statute specifically limits the
compensation to $1,200, no more.
JUDGE HENNEKE: My understanding is that in
the revised numbers, that $1,200 was backed out before the
COLA was addressed.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, it looks like it
was.
MR. MOTLEY: I don't know what revised
numbers y'all are talking about.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that correct, Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: Yes. I think they're in the
budget, but I have to give Tommy that new number after I
back out the $1,200.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's already been
accomplished.
MR. MOTLEY: The most recent thing that I saw
was the handout -- the one with the 60 and the 100, with the
19 counties, and it was certainly not backed out at that
point. So, if it's been done, I'd like to see a copy,
maybe, of the new one.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right here.
MR. MOTLEY: And, really --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: David, you can have my
copy.
MR. MOTLEY: Thank you. Oh, man, that's a
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
big one. I don't know if the Court really intended to
increase the elected officials' travel, but to apply a COLA
to the travel allowance, in effect, increases that travel
allowance, although it may be only by $15.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The travel allowance has been
rolled in as part of compensation; it's no longer a separate
travel allowance.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And that's done for every
elected official.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay. And I would still
maintain that the -- as far as income, the definition of
income used in the model, that as to the County Judge, it
should include the elected official salary under the budget
called County Court, in that that money comes from general
County funds and does not -- is not a fee. And I say it's
not a fee because the County is prohibited by law from
paying fees to salaried officials for services that are paid
for by their salaries. And, that's the summary of the
comments. And I did do a spreadsheet, and the spreadsheet
does back out the $1,200 and the COLA on the $1,200 -- I
mean, it backs out the $1,200 in determining the other -- it
backs down to $1,200 the other Judges' Juvenile Board
compensation, and then on the Kerr County application of
COLA, it takes out -- and this may be error, from what the
zl
1
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 has just told me -- it takes out the travel and the
Juvenile Board for figuring the COLA, and perhaps it should
have the -- the travel allowance included in there for
that -- for this calculation. So, that might be an error,
but I hadn't seen this new model. So, anyway, that's really
the limit of my comments.
DODGE HENNEKE: Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: I would just like to say
something, just to set the record straight. We've been
hearing for two weeks about the County Judge's $9,000 being
fees or salary or whatever, and I just want to make the
comment that we have been doing that ever since I've been
here. And if we have been doing it wrong, it's up to Tommy
and I to get together and figure out the right way to do it,
and we're willing to do that. There's been some implication
that it's the County Judge that has set this salary for
himself. He did not even know what his salary was when Yie
first started, how it worked or anything. So, I just want
to get the record straight, that if it's been done wrong,
it's been the County Treasurer's office and the County
Auditor's office that did not set up that line item to be
paid the right way. We also have not been paying him the
$10 that he is allowed to be paid under the law, and this
next coming budget, Tommy and I will get together and
correct that.
z2
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Anyone else have
any budget issues they want to bring up?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: I have a couple items, and I
think Leonard has a couple of follow-up items on our budget.
And, especially after the meeting Monday night, the job
description I just handed out is for the administrative
assistant, which I think we're -- we propose to change the
name to coordinator. And, all the items in blue ink are the
additional duties she had added, I think, starting last year
or this year, the jobs that she performs having to do with
911 work and road naming, which were beyond her previous job
description. And we have we had the -- I think she's now
classified as a 17/5. We propose to increase that to a
19/5.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: And I also have one other
comment on the department heads at Road and Bridge. It's
our understanding that there was a 2 1/2 percent COLA, plus
a 2 1/2 percent longevity, plus a 5 percent increase this
year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: There was no longevity. Two
and a half percent COLA plus a 5 percent increase was what
we were working off of on this model.
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. I thought longevity
came just automatically with the number of years.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not as a department head, no.
MR. JOHNSTON: Oh.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's for employees.
MR. JOHNSTON: That would probably explain
why we thought the math was wrong.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Might have something to do
with it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That is a five plus
two and a half. It is five plus two and a half in the
current run.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct? Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's the comments I have. I
think Leonard has some additional ones.
MR. ODOM: Won't take long. Looking at the
budget, what we presented, if we go to 611, we submitted in
June -- and this is line item Crew Salaries, 111 -- we
submitted $519,094. Then we were asked to resubmit that,
because we had a 600 budget. What we see as what's being
proposed is that it's $506,000. We were trying to figure
out what was going on. What I believe has occurred with the
Treasurer or the Auditor, whoever did this, is they took
last year's budget, $993,745, and then they added the
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
cost-of-living, the COLA, and they came up with $506,000.
What we submitted in our budget was exactly the same that
I'm working off this year, and for the next two years, and
-- and previously, since y'all have been here, we've reduced
it a little bit each year. So, it was basically everything
calculated to the dollar. What we had in here was the merit
increases, as we were directed that we could work it into
the budget, and apparently that was not done. We had --
one, two, three, four, five people that had merit increases.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Leonard, I believe you're
right in that what has happened here is, in making a
calculation, the Treasurer has picked up --
MR. ODOM: Picked up the wrong number.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, there was no conscious
decision on the part of the Court not to allow you the
additional person or the merit raises that had been squeezed
out of your own budget.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
MS. NEMEC: Judge, if they don't give me a
copy of what merit raises they want for their employees, I
don't know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, that's the circle that
needs to be completed.
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Well, I understand, and we'll try
to do a little bit better, but we submitted all the data
that was asked for, and the first time I think we did that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can fix it.
MR. ODOM: But we do get that slot that we
had also, right?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the right
number? The requested $519,094?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Should be --
MR. ODOM: Well, plus 2 1/2 percent COLA,
which will be $532,072, if my numbers are right. And, of
course, that would change the FICA and retirement a little
bit, but all that we submitted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To the penny.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. Okay.
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On this current
budget -- or on the proposal, the only thing -- I got with
Tommy the other day and we got what we had talked about
during the last meeting, what was actually being cut and
what was actually being granted or included. The only thing
I would seriously urge the Court to consider, one is the two
scanners that we have asked for. Judge, you got to see what
our records condition is out there with the number of
1
2
.-.
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.~.
25
26
We've never been able
I don't know where, at all possible, I
could cut from my budget in what you're proposing to be able
to get those, but those are desperately needed items in our
department. And then the four patrolmen, just trying to
work shifts constantly with an average of three on the
street is really hard on our patrol people; it's really hard
to cover this county correctly as it should be. And, as
we've talked about before, the one investigator, the
additional investigator. Currently my investigators carry
anywhere from a 70 to a 90 per investigation case load of
active cases that they're responsible for, and it is really
hard to make headway on cases, especially when you have
major things come up, such as we've had in this last year,
that really draw on the entire department, and it puts all
those other investigations off. I just would urge the Court
to consider finding a way, if we can possibly, to fund the
patrol positions, the investigator, at least, the warrant
position. With the way that the Court has granted the ten
that I can swear in and -- and certify in the jail, that can
help us with a lot of transports, eventually, so the warrant
guys can actually get back to doing warrants. So, that
position, I can -- can forgive and give up, but I really
need the investigator, the patrolmen, and those scanners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty?
27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Prioritize between the --
the patrol deputies and the investigator. Which -- out of
those two, if you only get one or the other, which is the
higher priority to you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The patrol. I would
have to, because we've got to have that on the street. And
I can actually -- if I had to, I can try and get them to do
some of the investigations, but they so interlock with each
other in trying to get good, thorough investigations done in
cases in the court, I really would hate to prioritize, but
if you made me do it, I'd have to say patrol. We need the
guys on the road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MS. NEMEC: Looking at this that Mr. Odom
submitted, I see on here there's -- and, first of all, it
sure would be nice if every elected official/department head
gave me this before today; like, two months ago, when the
Judge sent a letter and asked them to do that. It would
make things a lot easier. These figures could have already
been inputted and we would have known wYiat those figures
were. Anyway, what I see on here is a column for longevity.
Longevity is not retroactive; is that correct?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct.
MS. NEMEC: So, there would -- in that case,
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there would be no one that is eligible to receive longevity
this year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless they will be here a
year on the start of October 1st.
MR. ODOM: And they did not get an increase
last year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct.
MS. NEMEC: And they did not --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, did not get an increase
as a result of the salary adjustment. Now, their COLA --
MS. NEMEC: So, you're saying that there are
some on here that aren't going to receive that, to get the
record straight, so we're --
MR. ODOM: Well, what I've got so far says
that everybody I've got listed, with exception of Frank and
I up there, should get it. That's what our records show.
MS. NEMEC: Well, I hear you had longevity
for you and Frank.
MR. ODOM: But that was --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They acknowledged that
that was --
MR. ODOM: This number doesn't reflect.
That's what we submitted at first, and then we were told,
"Don't worry about administration."
MS. NEMEC: Okay. So, these -- two, four,
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
six -- six employees that you have on here --
MR. ODOM: Five or whatever that number is.
~ MS. NEMEC: -- you're saying that they are
supposed to get longevity?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
MS. NEMEC: They have been here a year and
did not get a raise?
MR. ODOM: They did not get anything in the
Nash study, and they've been here a year since that time.
MS. HARDIN: Weren't we supposed to do
longevity every three years? Like --
MS. NEMEC: It was not retroactive. That's
what I'm saying -- trying to say, that it is not
retroactive.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That program started with
last --
MS. NEMEC: I don't think that this is
correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- this fiscal year.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara Holmes has been
trying to get up here.
MS. HOLMES: This is something that just came
up at the last minute, and I believe that Judge Brown spoke
with Commissioner Griffin just a few minutes ago about it.
30
,~-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
We have a video that we use in court. That video is used to
admonish the defendants when they come to court, with
instructions, and it's a couple-three years old. The County
Attorney's office is the one that had it prepared prior
to -- the very first one, and the admonishments have now
changed and we're going to have to redo that video. And,
since the first one came out of their budget, they've
requested that we see if we can find the funds to fund it
from our budget this year. Helena and I just did a rough
estimate. We're figuring maybe -- maybe $700, because we're
also going to try to do one in Spanish so far as for our
Spanish-speaking people.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are these required by law?
MS. HOLMES: The video itself?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MS. HOLMES: It is not required by law to
have the video, but every person in court -- the Court is
required to inform them of these particular rights and
admonishments. David might have a little more input into it
as far as the legality of, you know, what has to be done.
So --
MR. MOTLEY: The -- the accused persons
appearing in the County Court at Law and in all courts have
to be informed of various rights they have under the law,
have to be explained the procedure of what's going to
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
happen, and at arraignments have to be told of things such
as right to trial by jury, right to an attorney, that there
may be consequences of a certain type of convictions. And,
about three years ago, we thought it would be a tremendous
time-saving device for -- rather than us to tell everybody
individually, to have a videotape prepared and show it to
the group explaining their rights. And there have been some
new admonishments required by law, and the first one seemed
to go real well; we had it prepared over at the Tivy High
School media lab, and they did an excellent job. And, it's
time to update it, and -- and, as Barbara mentioned, we
think it's appropriate and probably required that we have a
version of it in the Spanish language.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are the video admonishments
acknowledged by law as sufficient for purposes of giving the
rights -- do you have any case law or any Attorney General's
opinions which show that this, indeed, satisfies the legal
requirements?
MR. MOTLEY: I don't -- I don't know that I
do. Typically, the -- there are certain admonishments which
must still be given face-to-face by the Judge, such as right
to counsel has to be given by the Judge to each individual
defendant. The other admonishments we cover orally, and
then ask them to sign a written waiver that they waive these
rights. And, so, by explaining it to them in a group
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
presentation, it's -- it's a significant time-saver. So,
that's why we had done it. It's proved, I think, pretty
successful, in that --
MS. HOLMES: The jail also has a copy of the
video, and they show it to the inmates prior to bringing
them into court.
	SHERIFF	HIERHOLZER: Your Honor, what	I see
this	-- the advantage	of it is, whether David has his	legal
deal,	it does give all	the inmates coming into court	a good
idea of what's going to go on and what's going to transpire
in court, 'cause that's always a big question, 'cause
99 percent of them don't have attorneys yet at this point.
The current video that is being used, I'm very, very
hesitant -- we've been using it at the jail to let them
know, on the ones coming over on Tuesdays,
have -- just in custody, not the ones out
have up to 30 inmates that have to see it.
go through it one-by-one, we're all day in
inmates, when we need to get them back out
agree with them on that aspect.
which you may
~n bond -- you may
If they have to
court with them
there. So, I
The problem I have with the current video --
I know the admonishments have changed, but the current video
is also narrated by a person who is now a defense attorney,
and I have a problem showing that at the county jail, 'cause
I feel like we may be, in a roundabout way, you know,
33
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
introducing this defense attorney to these inmates. Whether
they use him or some other attorney, what we need -- it
needs to be a totally neutral video, and it definitely needs
to be done in both English and Spanish. I know that under
the new legislation -- I talked to Tommy's office a little
bit about this, and the J.P.'s and I talked. Now, when a
person gets magistrated in the morning, when a J.P. comes in
and reads him his rights, we have to follow the same
interpreter guidelines set out in 31.03, I believe, of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, which says the interpreter can
get compensated and paid for that interpretation of reading
them their rights, which -- their normal rights in setting
the bond, that hearing, that arraignment time. So, the
video I agree with, if it's done properly and if it stays
totally neutral. I think it does speed things up, getting
them through the -- the court system on that first --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The question is, is
the cost of -- the approximate cost of providing the video,
is that cost you're talking about?
MS. HOLMES: We'll get a professional
interpreter to do the interpreting for it, the language
interpreting. They'll charge so much per minute or so much
per word.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Twenty-three cents, I
can tell you. I had to check.
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
MS. HOLMES: Someone quoted me 17 cents a
minute. We're sort of -- you know, like I said, it came up
at the last minute. We don't have a lot of figures together
yet. Then they'll charge so much for reading -- so much for
reading it. It will be $60 an hour for that. And, so --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The interpreter part
we're looking at. We're looking at changing all our stuff
for the guy in Mexico that we're after. The interpreter who
was accepted by the Mexican authority and has all the
credentials, has all the seals and everything and does it
for the District Courts here, quoted us a price of 23 cents
a Spanish word, so that it enlarges that a little bit.
MS. HOLMES: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Eddie?
MR. HOLLAND: Good afternoon. I am newly
installed as president of the N.A.C.A., so we now have two
presidents from -- from Texas on a national level. But --
(Laughter.)
MR. HOLLAND: Anyway, I come before you.
Last time we were talking about it, you said come before
you. We had something about salary, back on our 4-H and
Youth Coordinator salary. Last year, when we had the Nash
study, they came up with a nonexempt status, and we didn't
have any money in the budget. And, according to the law, we
had to -- because of these extra hours, Barbara can tell
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you, the figures went pretty high pretty quick on some of
those figures, and we didn't have any money. They relooked
at it again; they changed that position of Laurinda's back
to exempt status, but she's still doing lots of extra hours.
Now that I'm going to be on the road, she's going to be even
doing more, you know, representing me at different
activities. She is looked upon statewide now as a -- as an
extra extension agent in our office, doing lots of things
outside of Kerr County, but representing Kerr County on
different things. So, she has a lot of responsibilities.
She's been with me and invaluable to me for over 10 years.
And because of this, you know, she's not eligible to receive
some additional money or whatever. So, I'd like -- her
position is a 17/6, and I'd like to ask for it to be moved
to a 19 position on that. Is that correct, Barbara?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
MR. HOLLAND: She has some letters and
different things. I'm sorry, I didn't bring it. I was
going to give you a copy.
JUDGE HENNEKE: She brought one to us.
MR. HOLLAND: You have one? Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we have a job
description for her?
MR. HOLLAND: Yes, we do.
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we?
MS. NEMEC: I have one in my office. I don't
know if Eddie has one with him. Would you like me to go get
it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Anybody else?
I Marc?
MR. ALLEN: On my kennel worker position, I
requested it to be moved from an 8/1 to a 12/l. Y'all
recommended it stay, I guess, at an 8/1, but when I turned
my proposal in to the City, that increase was also on that
proposal to the City, and as far as I know, the City has
okayed that proposal. I'd just like y'all to think about
that. That position, you know, is pretty important to us,
but that person is only bringing home $904 a month, and
after they pay their rent and their car payment, they can't
really even afford to eat, so I'd just like you to
reconsider that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You only hire thin people for
that position?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Real thin.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Marc. Anyone
else? Tommy, maybe it's time for your -- Paula, did you
have --
MS. RECTOR: I just have one little -- and it
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
doesn't have to do with salary -- one little revision. On
Bonds and Insurance, my insurance provider kind of dropped
the ball on this. I have an additional four-year bond that
bonds me to the County Judge, and we are going to break that
down over four years, but I will need to increase that line
item by $322.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Bonds?
MS. RECTOR: That will make it $572. Bonds
and Insurance, 206.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's it go to?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Five --
MS. RECTOR: It goes to 5572. This is
actually a four-year bond, but we're going to break it into
four years and pay it on a yearly basis.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thanks. Quick, Tommy,
before anybody else comes up.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a list of -- of
changes that need -- that may or may not need to be made. I
just wanted to bring it to your attention before -- before
we adjourn today. Number one is that in the Maintenance
budget, we -- last year, at the very beginning of the year,
we moved a maintenance person to the jail maintenance
budget, and that -- that position was left in the
Maintenance budget in the budget you have in front of you,
so that -- that needs to be taken out, and that's a total of
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$21,960.
Also, I know you all remember discussions
about contracts with -- with nonprofit people --
organizations in the county. There were three of those that
were moved from -- from nondepartment -- from the one budget
to another. One of those was $3,000 for CASA, and it --
it's still in the budget. That needs to be removed. That's
another -- that's $3,000. And I have -- I have a note
from -- from the District Clerk. I don't -- she didn't
bring this up when she was up here, but in the original
budget, she had allowed for merit increases for two people,
and in calculating the change for the COLA and the salary
structure, those -- those two merit increases were not
included, and the total of that is approximately $2,250.
That's a plus. Also, in -- in redoing the salaries, as the
Judge commented, we rolled the travel into salaries. The Ag
Extension people are allowed $5,000 each for -- for travel.
That was taken out, but it wasn't added into the salaries,
so -- so that's $10,000 plus.
And, in reviewing the budget, I notice
that -- and I think we may have talked about this relative
to -- to the Nondepartmental Contingency line item, but I --
in the past, we have -- we have allowed some contingency
moneys for replacement of -- of data processing equipment.
And we have -- we have six computers in the -- in the system
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
that were purchased in October of '96, so they're -- they're
five years old, and I know that I have two of them, the
District Clerk has three, and the County Clerk has one.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Tommy, I probably have
MR. TOMLINSON: So --
JUDGE HENNEKE: You're always out there.
so I know I have that many, and they're dropping like flies.
MR. TOMLINSON: Also, they're -- I visited
with Shaun about this. That -- since the Tax Office has
started to image documents, we -- of course, when we
purchased the mainframe two years ago, we didn't anticipate
imaging courthouse-wide, so we -- we are continually eating
up hard drive space on our system. We are now at -- at
83 percent used up. And imaging takes tremendous bites of
space on a hard drive, and his recommendation is to enlarge
our hard drive, and that's -- the cost of that -- of his
estimate is $4,000, that we will especially need that if we
grant -- if the Court grants any other imaging equipment for
anyone. Also, there -- the Sheriff's Office has a file
of -- of mug shots that were taken five years ago that are
in the old system that the Sheriff's Office used. Those mug
shots need to be moved and -- and put on our system. I
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
2<
2~
2~
2`
mean, that will take a huge bite out of the hard drive.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What kind of capacity
increase does that $4,000 give us?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's 32 gig.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thirty-two gig?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
MS. RECTOR: And, Tommy, we're getting ready
to do our yearly load for 2001 taxes, and that's going to
eat up whatever's left, and we had that problem once before
where we ran out of space and had to take a -- one of our
packages completely off the system in order to do our load.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- also, there is --
and we don't -- I don't know this, but Software Group often
upgrades their software, I mean, for one -- one package or
the other, and there's always some training associated
with -- with that process. I don't know that that's going
to happen, but I think -- I think it would be safe to have
some funds in Contingency for that purpose.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we -- I think what you're
suggesting is a Nondepartmental -- we probably need to add
$4,000 for the additional hard drive capacity?
MR. TOMLINSON: For sure, that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And up the Contingency from
30 to 50? To 40? To where?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I have a total of -- of
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$15,000 here, so that -- that I think might be safe.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Into that, not
ccunting the four.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. That's -- that's six
computers plus any software upgrade for five. So, that
would be $45,000.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right.
MR. TOMLINSON: Also, there's -- there's
potentially -- we can have -- we will have a -- a bond
election in February, and there will be some cost associated
with -- with that election, because there is not an election
to be held on that date, so it will be a special election
for that purpose if -- if we do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you have a number we ought
plug in for that? Did you have a chance to talk to Jannett?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I didn't, but I -- but
she has -- I think she has $11,000 budgeted for elections,
so she's counting on one. So, my guess -- my guess is that
it might be twice that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. And, would you mention
to the Court what you told me earlier about the insurance
costs, just so everyone's up on the same page?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Part of the -- of the
change from -- from the budget that we submitted prior to
the change in salaries, the Treasurer and i have -- and the
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
County Judge had some conversation with -- with our health
insurance carrier. As a result of that, we -- we increased
the health insurance cost per individual by $400 per year,
so we increased the annual cost of health insurance for one
person to $4,555, and that is included in -- in the budget
that you have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that explain,
Tommy, why -- and I went through all of these in terms of
group insurance, why the increases in various departments
range -- they're all over the lot. One is as low as
7 percent and one as high as 230 percent. Many of them are
in the 30, 50, 70 percent range. Would that explain that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Yes, it will. Part of
that, too, is -- and I want you to remember that -- that
also included in this -- in this budget is the $30,000 to
U.G.R.A. for -- for that contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is that?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's in --
MS. SOViL: Health.
MR. TOMLINSON: Under Health, yes. It's 630,
I believe it is, Department 630. So, that's a large bite
of -- of the change from one budget to the next.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question on
this document you provided us, Tommy. On Page 2 --
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
43
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- some titles have
been changed in General Fund expenditures after salary
changes, all the way to the bottom. You have a total, and
then right after the total line, you have fund balance after
change, and then had a total change of $289,140. Would you
explain that?
MR. TOMLINSON: What I was attempting to do
is -- is show you how to -- how we would get back to the
fund balance that we showed before the change. The -- the
budget that we produced before this one showed a fund
balance of -- of approximately 4 million, 6 for General Fund
M & 0, and after the change it showed -- would be 9 million,
2 -- approximately 4 million, 3. So, I did this to show you
where -- where that difference was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Also --
and I --
MR. TOMLINSON: Also, in reply to the
Sheriff's concern about -- about the match for potential
grants, I think -- I think if the Court votes to -- to issue
a debt for the purchase of this system, that it's 100
percent match. So, 1 mean, I think we've exhibited good
faith in paying for -- for the system outright, and if
there's -- if -- if there's potentially a grant down the
line, then we can show that we've already paid for that
system.
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any questions?
Additional comments? Judge Wright?
MR. WRIGHT: I'm Dawn Wright. I'm the J.P.
in Precinct 2, and first I'd like to thank all of you for
all of your hard work and what you're doing for all of us.
And, I would like to address your attention to a request
that we made on an increase for the probable cause hearings
that we hold at the State Hospital. We haven't heard
anything back from that. We held -- or hold anywhere from 3
to 15 hearings twice a week out there; David's there with
us. And, we have asked for an increase in that. This
hasn't been changed since 1992, when we first took these
over. We would appreciate your addressing that. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Bill, you had a
question'?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One question. Is
Mr. Holekamp here'?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Glenn?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just -- it's okay.
It's really not bad. You may or may not be aware that last
night at the City Council meeting, they released a list of
funding of the hotel/motel tax, and it appeared that the
Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center will be awarded $11,291.
I think the Court probably would like to be reminded as to
what that's for, and how will that be handled in the budget?
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOLEKAMP: It is to be -- it's designated
to remodel the kitchen in the concession area to make it
considerably easier for caterers or other users to -- to
do -- do better meal presentations and packages. It's
stainless steel equipment and some fryers. It's a basic --
and since that is not the exact amount that was -- it's a
percentage of the request, we'll probably review that and
see exactly what we can purchase with that money. And,
normally, the -- in the past, the way it's been done is
we -- we purchase the equipment, and then it -- it is
reimbursed by the City.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JODGE HENNEKE: Okay, good. Excellent.
Anyone else have anything they want to bring up at this
time?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. Is it time for
us --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I was going to suggest we
take a break and come back in about 10 minutes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wanted to take a
break, is my request.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's take a break and come
back at quarter to 3:00.
(Recess taken from 2:35 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.)
46
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's go back on the
record and resume this hearing. During the break, I did a
very quick and very dirty summation of what was presented,
and my figures say that if we were to give -- grant all the
additional requests that were presented today, without
trying to factor in COLA's and benefits, we add about
$240,270. The -- the credits we got, being CASA, the
maintenance person, and the lease, our radio tower lease,
come up to $149,972, so if we were to do everything that was
addressed today, we would add to the bottom line $90,298
plus. So, somewhere around $100,000 more.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What were the big
drivers in the plus side?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the four patrol
deputies for the Sheriff, $99,000. And that's without the
equipment, and that's just the cost -- that's personnel
costs. And, again, that's not benefits or anything else.
Two scanners for the Sheriff, $32,000. Investigator,
$27,320. Road and Bridge increase, which is something we
need to do, was $26,000 approximately. Nondepartmental
Contingency went up $15,000. Bond Election went up $11,000.
Ag Agent's travel went up $10,000. I mean, those are the
bigger ones.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Uh-huh.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And then the salary
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
adjustments that were requested by the department heads.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four deputies. You're
talking about four cars, you're talking about four hats and
four -- not four cars?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. What we had talked
about during the original deal, Commissioner, was in the six
new cars we're getting this year, okay, we were -- this is
the third year, and we had originally planned to get rid of
six of our oldest ones. And, in rearranging those, it will
still put me with cars on the road with up to 150,000 miles
on them, which I don't like doing, okay, but we can try and
do something -- some finagling around to get those in
positions that don't have to be run constantly, all the
time. And this year, I would not say four new cars for
those people. It may be something that would make it a lot
easier if, instead of six a year, we went to seven, but I'm
not even going to -- you know, beggars can't be choosers in
this deal, and I'm just really trying to improve the
manpower at this point. And we can find a way to work it,
even if we ended up having to share a car for this first
year to get through that; when one's off, the other one's
running. But, the only problem with that is it really runs
a car into the ground in a hurry.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we going to go around
1
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
and each make -- I've got some comments that we have -- we
talked about, and Commissioner Baldwin said earlier he did.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's fine. I'm -- you
know, at this point, I think we are -- if we were to assume
we're going to do everything that was asked, we're right at
600 and -- no, $525,000 short. Okay.
MS. UECKER: Now, when you assume you're
going to do everything you were asked, I know the Sheriff
asked for his two scanners back again today, but do I have
to repeat my request? Or does my old request still stand?
JUDGE HENNEKE: If it didn't happen -- if I
didn't hear it, it didn't happen.
MS. UECKER: well, it happened in my budget
request, so --
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Well, let's just
add that -- just add $16,000 to the total.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- it seems that
we're getting more and more scanners that everyone wants
these days. I mean, does each department have to have a
scanner?
MS. UECKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't we have one or two
scanners in one area and share them? Does that just not
work? Everyone wants their own scanner, I can see.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The problem we have with
49
1
.-, 2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it, Commissioner, is -- and Judge Henneke can attest to
that need to be put into this system and never have. We've
never had records clerks, scanning equipment. You know,
we've never, ever, in all these years, had anything to take
care of this jail stuff on records. In the Sheriff's Office
portion of it, which is whole different deal, every case
file, everything we ever had before we went to the software,
is all in another full room, which the Judge also got a tour
of, and you're talking about -- if you try to put that one
in file cabinets, probably even more than 100 file cabinets.
There has never been a good records management system in
that department, and we've got to get it done, and the way
to do it -- the scanners aren't just your -- your everyday,
run-of-the-mill scanners you can buy for a P.C. They scan
into this County system, and that -- and it's a document
imaging deal that goes into the system, where anytime we
need to pull up something on somebody, everything is there.
And, the only way I can appropriately --
MS. UECKER: You can't put those on disk
rather than into the system?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They won't work that way
50
1
~,, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
guy on patrol in the squadroom who needs to go do his
reports, he needs to have all that information; 'cause
that's all -- that person's history goes with everything,
and it's a totally different --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess this -- if I --
my concern is that we are -- we've gotten by without
scanners. I know we need to update the technology with
what's current, but as we just found out from Tommy, the
more we do all this stuff, our computer just gets -- craters
every year, and we're going to have to upgrade it and
upgrade it. I really think we need to get, boy, almost a
county-wide plan; maybe use Shaun to really look at this and
see -- I mean, we're getting ready, if we do the scanning
requests alone, over $100,000 this year, with the
ramifications of that. And that just seems like we need to
really make sure we know what we're doing, rather than
buying all these scanners for all these departments. To my
mind, I just -- you know, it's -- seems a lot. I realize we
need to keep the records up, but we're in a very tight
budget year. I question that we have to do that this year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My problem is -- only
far, okay, since January -- and if Glenn was here, he had to
go and help us get them -- we've had to add over 30 file
cabinets in the jail alone, and they're full now. I just --
51
1
.-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~-~
25
I mean, we're at the point that we have a serious problem,
because that portion, the Sheriff's Department and jail,
never has had anything, and it's at the point that it is
I know, but I -- someone
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A long-range plan on
things we need to do, is to get into more of a strategic
posture rather than a tactical, where we run from brush fire
to brush fire to try to solve it. There's no question about
that, and that's something -- we can't do that today.
That's our problem. We've got to look at budget numbers
that we got to deal with today, of course, but I totally
agree that we have to have a long-range plan for information
systems, and that's one of the reasons we needed to bring
somebody like Shaun to work.
COMMISSIONER LE'T'L: My comment is, how it
does impact us today is that, you know, I sure would hate to
have us throw a bunch of money at that problem, and then
decide next year we're not taking the right direction. And
I don't see that -- you know, that we've taken any
county-wide look at that records information management and
the direction we're going with scanning right now. That's
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
my concern.
MS. UECKER: Maybe -- maybe several of us
need to go look at another Software Group county, and not
just on -- on the uses of it and the data and the
technology, but also as to the cost of it as a whole. You
know, I don't have a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Might be a good idea
to take a look at a larger county, because that's what we're
going to be.
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Ten years down the
road, we're going to be a larger county. Rather than just
trying to meet today's needs, we need to look -- project
where we're going to be so we can build a strategic --
MS. UECKER: I do know, Commissioner Griffin,
that Williamson County is using the total Software Group
scanning -- the imaging system.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They are?
MS. UECKER: And, you know, I don't know how
it's affected their budget, but I do know for a fact that
they -- they are doing it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm sure Software
Group would help us identify what those -- or more of those
counties that -- they'd love to sell us more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the only reason I'm
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
saying this is that, based on the numbers the Judge said, we
don't have enough money. So, you know, we're going -- and
I'm -- I'm not in favor of a tax increase; I'm not in favor
of taking our fund balances. That means we got to cut
somewhere. I mean, it's that simple. To me, that's an
area -- and I hate to -- you know, the -- I think the Court
and the Sheriff's Department are very committed to going
with the radio system upgrade. We haven't talked about that
a lot today, but that's a huge part of the budget, and, you
know, to me, that's important. The deputies are important
from a health and safety standpoint. Those two things are
very closely related, but we may have to choose between one
or the other. This year, I just don't see that we can do
everything.
MS. UECKER: At this point I'll withdraw my
request for scanners. I can proceed the way I'm doing until
i we can do some type of a study, and -- just so, you know,
maybe we can address this as maybe a priority for my office
next year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And it may be one thing that
would be worthwhile, would be to go out and contract a -- a
significant amount of dollars for a one-time shot to come in
and do backup. We may be talking $70,000, $80,000, but that
might be something --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When I was checking into
54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the scanners, Judge, and checking into that, there are
companies that come in and contract. With the records the
Sheriff's Department has alone, they told us that would run
close to a million dollars. That's why I went with the
scanners and personnel that we do ourselves. We got to --
you know, the problem is, we've got records back there that
we can not get rid of, okay? Old case files, old unsolved
cases, and some of those date back in the 1960's. They've
been shuffled from building to building, boxes to boxes.
We've reboxed them since I took office, and we're -- you
know, it's just a disaster. The only way to really organize
this and do it right is put it in the County's overall
system, which is Software Group, and then put -- that type
of scanner does put it in there in the appropriate place so
you don't lose those records, and you have a permanent deal.
I don't -- I checked. I don't know what else to do,
Jonathan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree we have a
problem. I think that same -- well, what you just said,
Linda can say the same thing, Paula can say the same thing,
Jannett can say the same thing. I'm sure Barbara can and
Commissioners Court can. We all keep records, and it's a
huge problem. I just think we need to come up with a plan,
and it's just a bad year to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLLER: The only difference is,
55
~--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the other courts are -- I'm not saying anything about Linda
or them. They all went -- Linda went to microfilming.
They're all doing microfilm. Jannett already has scanners.
MS. UECKER: Well, the Sheriff could have,
too, and didn't.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER
anything on this part.
The Sheriff doesn't have
MS. UECKER: It's not that he wasn't offered
anything.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's start with Commissioner
Baldwin, and then -- you had some suggestions, some notions
to throw on the table?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just had simple
questions, actually, just going through here. One is on the
County-sponsored activity on Page 58. I notice that Crisis
Council is there. Tommy said remove CASA. Did you say
that? Remove CASA?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They were moved.
JUDGE HENNEKE: They were moved to a
different budget.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They're in a different
budget, so they -- they were in there twice.
JUDGE HENNEKE: To the Juvenile Probation.
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Juvenile, that's
right, yeah. And -- but why is, like, Family Literacy taken
out?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That also was
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And K'Star?.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Family Literacy, K'Star, and
CASA were moved to the Juvenile Probation Department because
they provide services to directly to the Juvenile Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Very good,
thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that was just one
that didn't get picked up when it was moved over --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- to the other sheet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the Special
Projects, Road and Bridge Special Projects, Page 69.
Everything is zeroed out. Is that the way it's supposed to
be?
MR. TOMLINSON: Look at number
MR. ODOM: 611.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- 611, under 115, talking
about Road and Bridge Operating Fund. It's -- it was
consolidated into that fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: All the Road and Bridge funds
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were consolidated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I remember
having the conversation, but I couldn't remember what we
did, where it went. Franklin, you got all your -- y'all got
all your questions answered about the 5 percent and all
that?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes.
MR. ODOM: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know what it was;
hold on. Back on County-sponsored activity, Historical
Commission goes from $2,500 to $12,500.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's an additional --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is Page 58.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's -- that's an
', additional $10,000 to be used for the Union Church. I think
that's in play right now. I'd like to get them something --
again, that's a County-owned facility, and if the outside
renovation is not completed by November 1st, then the
County, through the Historical Commission, is going to have
to move that building again, and it probably will not
survive.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just an idea. If that
is a County-owned building, why couldn't we do the same
thing we're doing with this expansion, this renovation down
here, or my offering the -- the County work program?
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: You have offered. You're
just not aware of it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not what?
JUDGE HENNEKE: You're just not aware of it.
You have offered.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think there's both trustees
and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're welcome, Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- and supervised workers
involved in that project.
MS. UECKER: How can that be a historical
building when it was completely torn down and moved, and
then torn down and re --
JUDGE HENNEKE: It was never completely torn
down.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, did I understand
you to say that $10,000 -- we need to leave it in or take it
out?
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's in play, as far as I'm
concerned, because of the state of the budget. We have to
understand that if they don't get the work done by
November 1st -- and they're looking to this money to get a
lot of it done, because it's part of a matching fund grant
59
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that they have -- then the Historical Commission is going to
be required by Schreiner University to move that building
again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the original
agreement with the historical folks was that they were going
to raise these funds out of -- in their -- on their own.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To come in and do
this, and they've been in a couple of times; we just keep
pumping more money in. I'm in favor of moving the building,
moving it to one of our properties out there, and get
Rusty's folks --
MS. UECKER: Maybe we can store records in
it.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we could double
the size and put our scanners in it. But -- you know, I'm
not -- I'm not throwing a fuss at it. It's just we're
going -- they said that they were going to raise their money
out of -- out of the community, and I haven't seen a
fundraiser yet, except for the calendars, which I -- I
participated in. I bought one. Actually, bought two. And
-- and this is the second or third time since we made that
agreement that they've come in here and we've given them
money.
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner, this is the
first money we've given them specifically for the Union
Church.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Since I've been on the Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Since you've been on
the Court, that is true.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Since the building was moved,
this is the first money --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Since you've been on
the Court, this is true. This is about the third time that
this has happened.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That may be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Since it was moved and since
I've been here, this is the first time any money's been
allocated for that building.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I'm not
saying anything -- anything different than that, but I'm
just saying that they are not living up to their side of the
agreement, bottom line.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they are
working at fundraising. It's not been easy, but they are
working at it. They truly are. What they're trying to do
right now is to impress upon all the churches who sprung
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
from the Union Church the need for them to participate, and
they are actively trying.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm in favor of taking
$10,000 out, and if it gets to the point that the thing has
to be moved or the County has to do something, look at it at
that point. But I just -- you know, I'm not in favor of it.
I wasn't over -- real enthusiastic when we voted to do what
we've -- where we got us into the mess that we're in right
now with that facility, but we're there. And, if we start
having to fund it, I want to take a real hard look at the
whole agreement and what the County's responsibility is
going to be. And I think that, you know, if we're going to
start putting taxpayers' money into renovating that project,
I think I have to have a heart-to-heart with the Historical
Commission, the way we're going.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I'm -- as far as I'm
concerned -- I'll just say it right out -- everything in
this budget is in play.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everything in the
budget is what?
JUDGE HENNEKE: In play.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On the table.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. What
about the U.G.R.A. contract?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, everything. Anything
62
~..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.
2~
2`
else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Speaking of the
U.G.R.A. contract, I guess that -- I guess that $30,000
needs to be in there, just in case we cut a deal, huh?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. And it looks like we
have a deal. I mean, if we're willing to do that. U.G.R.A.
has indicated that this will work for them. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that's a11.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple. I'd
like an explanation of the need, under -- on Page 11, under
County Court at Law, the need for another court reporter,
which, when you add the salary and all the various benefits,
takes us right around $55,000. What is the need for that?
There has not been one, apparently, designated, and I -- now
we've got another one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This -- the money for the
court reporter in the County Court at Law has previously
been in the Jury Fund. That's bad accounting. So, this is
simply a transfer of funds from the Jury Fund to the County
Court at Law budget. It's not additional money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. On Page 8,
under Nondepartmental -- I think I know the answer, but I'm
going to ask the question anyhow -- Tommy, workmen's
compensation under -- under Nondepartmental, that's a number
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
for workmen's compensation for the -- all departments; is
that correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: Except Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I notice it goes up
significantly, and what is the justification for it to take
a rise from $98,000 to $79,000?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has our experience
been that bad?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. We were told by our
underwriter to expect a 40 percent increase in worker's
comp.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we need to find
a new underwriter.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We went through the exercise
about a year and a half ago where we got Mr. Gray from
Fredericksburg and he sent out solicitations, and this was
by far the best package we got, which was through TAC.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: well, I can
understand if our experience is that bad, we might be
eligible for a 90 percent increase, but if our experience is
not that bad, that's a different ball game.
MR. TOMLINSON: The information I get is that
in the private sector, that it's worse.
MS. NEMEC: We do about three claims a week.
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
We do about three claims a week, worker's comp claims a
week, and that's -- that's pretty high compared to what it's
been in years past. And we have one employee that is out;
looks like he's not going to be able to come back, so that's
a serious claim there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably, when we
looked at it, the $48,000 probably was a pretty good deal,
but that doesn't mean that the 79 today is a good deal.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's not a good deal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I intend to bring --
invite some folks down, make a presentation to us soon to
show us how we can lower that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we already participate
in the safety program, which got us a $12,000 deduction in
our workmen's comp premium for this current fiscal year, and
we will continue to participate in that program.
MS. NEMEC: That amount looks high, but we
don't see the revenue that we get from it at the end.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One additional
question, either to Tommy or to Paula Rector. On Page 34,
the amount of office supplies that was requested was $5,100,
but recommended is $23,900.
MS. RECTOR: They combined my Computer Supply
line item with my Office Supply.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
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
That's all I have, Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a few. First is
on Page 49, Constable Precinct 4. And, it appears that we
have equalized the constable's salary. I know we discussed
this; I just can't remember what we decided. I don't
remember this being what we decided. We've equalized the
salary to the same as other constables and left the deputy
salary here, as well, and I don't recall us doing that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, what this is -- if you
add the deputy salary and the constable's salary, it's the
same as the other constables' salary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. The other
constables aren't 534,000, are they?
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is not 34.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thirty-five, almost 35.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under recommended, it
is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh, are you looking at the
old budget?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the one we just got
dated yesterday.
MR. GARZA: May I say something?
JUDGE HENNEKE: The one that's run -- it
should be 526,373 for the constable, and $2,900 for the
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2`
deputy, because that was the arrangement that Constable --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- Terrill made.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those aren't required --
MS. NEMEC: Can I have that number?
Twenty-six --
JUDGE HENNEKE: $26,373 for the deputy -- for
official salary, and $2,400 for the deputy's salary.
MS. NEMEC: $2,400. How about deputy travel?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No deputy travel.
MS. NEMEC: No deputy travel.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see those
numbers on any of my pages.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I've got a more recent
book than you guys do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way it is
with County Judges.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, that's the way it is with
the budget officer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. I've seen that
before.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And I don't get paid any
extra for being the budget officer, either.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2`
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much was the
deputy's salary out in --
JUDGE HENNEKE: $2,400.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $2,400.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's by agreement between
Constable -- well, Larry, it's your precinct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what the
constable asked for?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what Constable
Terrill asked for, and was -- what he put in his letter.
MR. GARZA: May I make a comment on that? Or
am I allowed? Okay. Just -- my comment is, all the other
three constables, the budget to run our office is $35,410.
That's what mine is; all ours are about the same. Precinct
4 is, like, $41,000 or $42,000 to run his department.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's less than that now,
constable.
MR. GARZA: Okay. But that's just a point I
just wanted to make, Your Honor.
JUDGE HENNEKE: As a matter of fact, the
difference between the -- your budget and the budget in
Precinct 4 is less than $200.
MR. GARZA: Now, I guess. But at the -- on
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2:
2L
2`
the last official, you know -- okay. I just want -- thank
you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next, on Page 105, under
Parks, I had assured the Court that the bathrooms would be
in place at Flat Rock prior to the end of the budget year.
We still have a month to go; we may have them in place. But
I think that $27,000, at this point, should be carried over.
That's an L.C.R.A. grant; doesn't have any bottom line
impact. Just to make sure -- I mean, we're proceeding,
we're working with the City and plumbing to get everything
hooked up, but just in case, not have to come back and
explain the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me make a comment
on that same line, because the printout I have shows no
expenditures for Lions Park, when in fact there are
expenditures and another invoice is coming in. Those tables
and pads have been installed already, so we've used up most
of what was budgeted this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess, while we're
on that page, under Flat Rock, we have no operating expenses
for this year, or nothing for this year. Glenn, is that
realistic? We're not going to -- I mean, it will come out
of the Parks Maintenance budget, everything we do over
there?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~...
14
15
16
17
18
1°
2C
21
2~
2;
2~
2'
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Next, on Page 130,
the Schreiner Road Trust. And I just can't remember how we
decided. Larry brought up, I believe, a couple meetings ago
about trying to get that money used more readily, and the
recommendation was that we leave it the way it is right iiow
and the transfer is done during the year if -- if money is
to come out of there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What I had suggested
and what we had discussed was to take the undistributed
funds, which is about $25,000, I think -- I've got the
letter here; I'll look that up to be precise. But, here's
what my suggestion was, 'cause it helps our budget shortfall
overall. If we shifted the undistributed funds, about the
$25,000, to the Road Fund, that would mean -- or to the Road
Fund, we could use the addition -- those additional funds,
then, to -- to increase the reserve for Road and Bridge
Department. Tommy's programed $140,000; however, you know,
we've shifted those funds into a position where they could
be used next year in Precincts 1 and 4, as the trust calls
for, and then it just would help to -- and that's purely a
maneuver to help the bottom line. That was what I was --
I'm not sure we can do that, even, but I think we can. I
think, from the tone of the letter -- or the facts in the
letter that we got from Security Trust Bank on it, is that
we can move those undistributed funds. Don't touch the --
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2_`
would not touch the corpus of the trust; it stays just like
it is, but we just take those undistributed funds, and
they're saying -- the bank's saying, "What do you want to do
with them?" I'm saying let's get them where we can get it
to the bottom line, take that $25,000 to the bottom line,
and I think there must be some way we can do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what you would have
to do would be to find a special project in Precinct 4 and a
special project in Precinct 1 and allocate funds for those
projects. I don't think you can just -- I don't think the
trustee would agree just to have the $25,000 put into the
budget for use in Precincts 1 and 4.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We have to actually go
ahead and identify the projects. Can we do that, Len?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we're going to have
to identify projects, but I'm sure got you've got special
projects in both precincts that you could simply allocate a
portion of the -- of the trust.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or do it all in one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Or do it all in one.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can do it all in
one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or just wait for the
project to come along, and then draw -- draw on it at that
point.
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sheppard Rees. We
spend project money in Sheppard Rees this year?
MR. ODOM: Well, we're spending that now. We
got $29,000; we're clearing the right-of-way to finish the
engineering.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm talking about next
year.
MR. ODOM: Next year I have $100,000 in
there, so it could be added.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, $25,000 of that
could be this money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is true, that
could be. And 1 would certainly go along with that. If --
MR. ODOM: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now, we got to work
out the intricacies of the trust and all of that, make sure
we're doing what the trust says. I'm just saying it seems
like, to me, we ought to try to get that money to the bottom
line, to help the bottom line of the budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the trust talks
about specific things like right-of-way acquisition.
MR. ODOM: Well, at least --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I -- you know, I
just don't know if it fits in with your projects.
72
~-~-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Fits in with the High Water
Bridge. We still haven't got a figure from the State, but
that's probably going to run somewhere in the neighborhood
of around $20,000, $25,000 for the -- that property on our
side.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For right-of-way
acquisition?
MR. ODOM: For right-of-way acquisition
there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I will remind y'all
that we may not know that for a while, and we need to make a
commitment, like, today or tomorrow on what we're going to
do with the money, and that's -- so --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Essentially, you two
precincts -- if you're willing to say let's take the -- the
income and put it towards the Sheppard Rees project in the
precincts, then I think that we can make the appropriate
changes in the budget to that effect. Now, the question for
the Court is, do we want to take that $25,000 addition and
apply it towards the other projects, or do we want to apply
it towards the Road and Bridge deficit, which will then move
$25,000 -- do we want to increase the Road and Bridge
reserve by that $25,000, or do we want to use that $25,000
to make the increase we're talking about now and take that
$25,000 essentially up into the 0 & M?
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
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's the
reason we pay the chief budget officer the big bucks. He's
going to have to figure that out to get it on the bottom
line.
!i COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lose the 140 that we're
going to transfer to 115.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be my
preference.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which would give us, then, an
additional $25,000 in the --
MR. ODOM: If you transferred that into this
year's budget and I didn't spend it, then everything that's
left would go back to reserves October 1st.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think it's too late
for to us do it this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll do it next year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to see us use the --
budget $25,000 in Schreiner Road Trust fund for expenditure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: And take the -- that same
amount out of Road and Bridge operating budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That would work.
MR. TOMLINSON: And pay -- pay for whatever
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
74
project you want to directly out of the Schreiner Road Trust
fund.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my last comment,
Judge, is -- it's more of a general comment. When we do the
final budget book, can we get the juvenile -- the Hill
Country -- Recor; whatever Recor is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Detention facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A copy of that budget
attached to it, just so that it's in one book and the
public's aware of that budget as well? Is that possible,
Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: It always is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was just going through
here and saw Recor, and I just jumped on it.
MR. TOMLINSON: The budget that we'll file
has that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has that included? All
right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Larry?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I have two questions
regarding sort oL tYie overall budget and how we might
~s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
address the bottom line in addition. Rusty, do we have, at
this point, a -- any kind of confidence in a range of first
year costs of the radio project? Do we -- and it could be
from "X" number of dollars to "X" number. What -- in this
next budget year, what -- how much money are we going to
spend, roughly?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Zero.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, there's --
SHERir'E' HIERHOLZER: It's going to be covered
in those obligation -- however y'all do the financing. The
first year costs, okay. The system -- and we talked about
it directly this morning in San Antonio -- is a total
turnkey system, and the first year costs, okay, are going to
be included totally in that bottom line price that you get.
JODGE HENNEKE: So, all we have first year is
the amortization of the debt.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The debt, whatever that
is.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, there's some
amortization costs of whatever those certificates go for?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But there's things like
car radios and all that aren't part of this system, and the
six new cars that -- that are in the budget, all that
equipment's already in the budget. There are no -- no costs
like that. Now, we will probably have some radio
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
maintenance problems.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But that's in another
line item under Maintenance, and that -- that's car radios
going out or something like that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, the real cost to
the budget -- to this next year's budget of the radio
project is only the amortization cost, which depends on when
the certificates are issued, obviously --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And the total bottom
line dollar amount.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And what the total
bottom line is, and what the rate is, but that's not a huge
number in the first year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Probably somewhere in the
neighborhood of $190,000.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What is --
MR. TOMLINSON: We have -- if y'all see the
summary page --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yep.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- I have -- I have $165,000
tax revenue for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
JUDGE HENNEKE: 165.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Okay.
~~
1
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: And that -- that number I got
from Bob Henderson.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So --
MR. TOMLINSON: So he gave us an estimate
of -- of what the amortization would be on a million dollars
for seven years, and that's -- that's what the amortization
is on that. So, it probably will be less.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, there's no soft
spot -- what I'm trying to get at is, there's no soft spot,
there's nothing we can do to affect that first year cost, if
we do the program at all, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- yes, but this is
based on a million dollars. If the system came in at
$500,000, which I doubt -- I wish it would, but I doubt it
would.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I wish it would, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then there's basically
$80,000 -- this would be average, so there's something
between zero and 80.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we'll know --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Due to the R.F.P. and
the Government Code, we can't talk about what it is, but I
would -- I would -- after our visit this morning, I would be
-- I would feel very comfortable that the amortization he's
giving you would be a maximum.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So, we'll have
that number, say, a week from Friday, get it cranked into
the budget, and so that whatever the effect is, that we --
okay. Whatever the effect is, is the effect. We cannot --
if we're going to do the program, we can't affect that
number.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. One other
question -- it's a procedural question that I have -- is on
the certified values from KCAD. Do we get an update or
anything on that, or is the number that we have -- the
numbers that we have, is that it?
MS. RECTOR: That's it. Those are the
certified values.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Before we --
MS. RECTOR: Anything from here on out will
be what's under A.R.B. review, and any changes to the
roll --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
MS. RECTOR: -- will either take it up or
down.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. That's all my
questions.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Linda?
MS. UECKER: I just noticed this, and I
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
understand why you did it. On my line item, which is
Employee Training, 216, that -- the year-to-date that I had
spent was $200, and I had requested $1,000, which is what
the original budget was. You reduced to it $500, probably
based on the fact that I hadn't used it. However, two of my
staff are going to a school this month for two nights, plus
the registration, which is probably going to take up the
rest of that. And, hopefully, because of the -- maybe
having the staff trained, I'll be sending one to A & M in
March of next year, so I'd like to ask that that be raised
back up to the $1,000, 'cause I think it's important that we
train our staff as we can.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, so noted.
MR. TOMLINSON: Can I make one comment? In
the handout I gave you, there's a sheet in that that showed
the tax rates, and it will -- included in that is the tax
rate associated with that $165,000.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, got it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
MS. NEMEC: Judge?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, Barbara'?
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to pass out to each of
you the policy which y'all adopted on longevity, and there's
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
still some question on how that works by some of our
departments, so I was hoping that y'all could look at it and
clarify i.t for those who have questions about it, please.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think that's
something we need to deal with now.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. As long as -- I mean, I've
taken that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's clear in my mind, unless
I'm overridden, that this policy is not retroactive and
applies only to employees, not elected officials and not
department heads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain to me
what you mean by "retroactive"?
JUDGE HENNEKE: There is a philosophy out
there that anybody who's been here more than three years is
entitled to a step increase because they've been here more
than three years. But, the clear intent of the policy, as I
recall from the discussions about it, was that the policy,
which started on the day it was enacted, which was
October lst, Year 2000, went forward and did not go
backward.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because we had
adjusted some --
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We adjusted salaries.
E
c
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
V1
1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
~ JUDGE HENNEKE: So, the three -- the first
3 time anyone would be eligible for a step increase as a
result of three-year service would be October 1st, 2003.
' COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: My question is how
that's -- how we discussed it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If that is not what was
understood, then we need to bring it back formally on the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I agree.
MS. NEMEC: That is the way I understand, and
that is the way I'm doing the budget. I just had questions
about it on break, so --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- what's our
timetable look like, Judge?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We only have -- we have 32
days to get a budget. Under the Government Code, I am
required -- for purposes of making sure that it's done
right, Section 111.006 of the Local Government Code says
that when I've completed the preparation of the budget, the
Judge shall file a copy of the proposed budget with the
County Clerk. 111.007 (b) says the Commissioners Court shall
set the hearing on the -- the public hearing on the proposed
budget for a date after the 15th day of the month next
R7
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
following the month in which the budget was prepared, so I
have to file the budget by Friday in order for us to take
action on it next month. So, what I'm going to do is I'm
going to file this budget that I have here today, which will
not be the final budget, but it is a budget and it is a
budget that -- that will be reported on, and it can be
reviewed and we will amend the budget as filed when we come
to adopt it. Is that correct, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So everyone knows, I will be
filing today with the County Clerk this latest printout of
the budget, which is more recent than what you have, but it
does not include any of the changes that have been discussed
today. And that's so that we can have budget hearings
starting any day after the 15th day of next month, which
probably means we'll do it on the 16th, because then we have
to have -- when we approve the budget, then we have to set
the -- approve the tax rate, set public hearings, and
proceed. So, it's going to be a race at the end of the
month, but so everyone understands what's going on when they
see that a budget has been filed, this is the budget which
I'll file today.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, technically, it's
a proposal.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It is a proposal.
RZ


1
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 GRIFFIN: Technically, this is
the first proposal.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not technically.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's absolute.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's a legal -- it says "file
the proposed budget."
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So it's not even technically
a proposal; it's legally a proposal.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Everybody in the room
hear that? This is the first proposed budget we have had.
MS. NEMEC: Judge, I think when you do that,
I -- I'm supposed to give you a copy of the position
schedule so that you can file it with that. So that I know
that mine is right, I'm sorry, but I have a couple of
questions on what was asked here today, if it's okay for me
to ask those now? They're just -- they're real simple. Did
the Animal Control kennel worker go from an 8/1 to a 12/1?
Was that approved?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MS. NEMEC: So all those -- the District
Clerk's 17/5 to a 19/5?
MS. UECKER: No, 15/5 to 17/5.
MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry, 15/5 to 17/5. County
Agent's 17/6 to a 19/6, and Road and Bridge's Administrative
RA
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
Assistant, 17/5 to a 19/5; were all those approved?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not yet, they haven't
been.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what we're asking.
Are those acceptable to the Court?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, are they
acceptable now?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd say we have very
little choice in the matter, based on what we did the other
day.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe the answer is yes.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MS. RECTOR: Since we now have a proposed
budget that is going to be filed, can we not proceed with
the proposed tax rate and get the process going on the
proposed rate so that I can get started on my end as far as
our publications?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we're not close enough
to a bottom line yet to be able to say what the tax rate
will be, is my problem.
MS. RECTOR: Proposed. We have a proposed
4C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, but I don't want -- I
don't want to put a proposed tax rate out there that -- I
mean, we have so much work yet to do on this budget that --
unless --
MS. RECTOR: Is it going to be something that
we will need to wait until after the 15th day it's on file
before we -- see, I'm going to be running out of time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I know. I understand your
dilemma, but my situation is, right now we're approximately
half a million dollars over -- expenditures over revenues,
okay? Commissioner Letz has made his statement -- his
position clear, and I think he speaks, really, for all of
us; we don't want to do a tax increase, which means we've
got to find a half a million dollars to cut out. I don't
want to put a tax rate out there that affects that half
million dollar shortfall for the taxpayer to chew on unless
that's what's we're going to end up with, so when we do a
proposed tax rate, I want it to be pretty close to what
we're going to do. And, you all may disagree with me --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- but I think it misleads
the taxpayers, and inflames those people who are looking for
ways to criticize what's being done here unnecessarily.
4G
.~-,

1
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: Can you name some
names, please?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nevermind. I'm
joking.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I'm very conscious of
your --
MS. RECTOR: I know you are.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- dilemma, but I think we
need to hold off.
MS. RECTOR: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, having put the issue on
the table, we're half a million dollars over. What do you
guys want to do? I mean, there is -- Commissioner Griffin
and I spoke at the break. There are no large-ticket items
which we could wave a magic wand and do away with and come
anywhere close to that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We could zero some
thinys out and it wouldn't make any difference.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If we zeroed out the salary
increases and the COLA, we're still not there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still say the radar
unit needs to go.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I mean, I really -- I
really am not sure where to start. I mean, I can scrub it
R7
1
,.-, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
....
25
down and come in with a balance, but salary increases and
COLA, Sheriff's deputies, scanners -- you know, I can start
down the list and stop when I get to half a million, but
it's going to be a fairly long list, and there's not going
to be much left except operating expenses and -- and the
Capital Outlay items that -- that have already been --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just a comment I'd like
to make. What I've seen of the budget over the last two
years and what I've seen the other officials do, I think
it's going to be hard to cut it down, because I think
everybody's fine-tucied their budget and cut out everything.
You can tell that at this point in this year, with the
budget amendments and having to transfer things, 'cause
everybody cut it so close that, even with these last two
months, we're having to make amendments.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I couldn't argue with that.
I mean, you know, the performance by the elected officials
and department heads on the budget, I mean, since I've been
on here, has just been superb. You all have squeezed and
cut, evaluated, nixed, and I -- you know, it's like my old
drill sergeant when I was in the army. One time I came out,
having had my rifle pass for clean, and I said, "Look, Drill
Sergeant, my rifle's clean." He says, "You want to bet?" I
said, "No, you can't look at it." Well, if you want to make
me look at your budget and find something, I can, but that
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
would be an exercise that would simply be one that was
designed to accomplish a result, and not based on the
merits. I think these budgets are real, and I want to thank
all of you for the work you've done, because it's not easy
to have to look at what you actually do and make -- make
adjustments and make evaluations. So, I don't know -- I
really don't know where to go, guys. I mean, if you want me
to come up with a list of -- of cuts, and circulate it, that
will balance the budget, I mean, that's my job and I'll do
it, and then we can reconvene early next week and take a
look at that and see where we want to go.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's a good
exercise. If we try to do that individually, that's really
chaotic, because I may not agree to all the cuts that
Commissioner Baldwin does.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And I'll circulate it to all
the department heads and elected officials, too. This is
not designed to be a "gotcha"; we don't do budgets by
gotcha. Previous courts may, but we don't.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If I might just take a
second to also echo something you said, and that is that I
know how hard -- because I've worked with some of them in
developing their budgets -- how hard the elected officials
and department heads have worked to squeeze on their
1
,,-~ 2
3
4
5
1
6
6 I
' 8
9
1
10
11
12
.-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on
budgets. And I also know how hard the five of us have
looked at those and how we've scrubbed -- tried to do our
best to do what's right, and at the same time come up with a
balanced budget, so I don't feel any remorse at the process.
I want to applaud the people who have been involved, and I
think it's a -- it's a tribute to them and to the efforts of
this Court, particularly Judge Henneke, who has to get the
budget out to us, and in the final analysis, the buck's
going to stop right here on this table. The five of us are
going to have to vote on a budget, and we're going to get
there. we -- we know we will. Somehow or other, we're
going to get there. And, I just think that the process is a
good one. We are open to the public. We hear everybody
that speaks, that wants to speak, and I have no --
absolutely no compunction about saying well done, and let's
just keep at it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
directed to you and to Tommy. I note with interest that
Kerrville Public Utilities Board has just done a refinance
of its outstanding debt and managed, through refinancing, to
cut its interest considerably. Is there any possibility
that we could consider the same thing with respect to the
tax anticipation notes for the annex and the jail, and
the -- and the contemplated debt we are thinking about for
the communications systems, rolling them into one at a
an

r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
reduced interest rate? Is that a possibility?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I have had that discussion
with our financial adviser, Bob Henderson, and he has
informed me that there is no advantage to doing that; that
the rate on the jail bond is such that it really wouldn't
gain anything. Particularly, we've talked about the cost of
issuance. And, the tax anticipation note -- I've forgotten
why he told me that, but I raised that issue with him, and
he said that there's really no advantage to doing a
refinancing of those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there an advantage to
taking the new Certificate of Obligation and the tax
anticipation note and relooking at that as a -- I think it's
a relatively short-term thing, and redoing them for a new
seven-year -- both of them combined for seven years? Or
slightly extending it, you know, to -- I hate to go much
more than that, 'cause --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll ask the question. I
think the answer is that there's not a significant
advantage, but I'm happy to ask the question. Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you could -- the only
thing I can think of would be to -- on the new debt, since
the -- let me rephrase this. Since the old debt matures in
four years, you could pay interest only for -- for two or
three years on the new one, and then when the old one rolls
ni
r
L
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
off, you can -- you bump the -- the principal payment of the
new one in line with what we already paid off in seven
years. You could do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not -- I'm not sure how
much that saves us. Probably, it's somewhere in the
neighborhood of $50,000, $60,000 a year to do this, I would
guess.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it would -- it would --
I didn't look at --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- at the difference between
what the -- the principal and interest is on that $165,000.
I don't know -- I don't remember what's interest and what's
principal. But, you could -- that could help you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm happy to ask the
question. But, to answer your question, I have raised that
with regard to the jail bond with Mr. Henderson, and he
said -- after looking at it, he said there's no advantage to
doing it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd like for
him to take a second look, if you don't mind, at just the
tax anticipation note and the anticipated note for the
Sheriff's communications system, and see if there's anything
there that -- that affects that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll do that.
47
1
Pi
f
N
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is -- I
mean, I think this, especially today, has been a really good
exercise, and some years in the past, elected officials said
they didn't get a chance to come to court one last time
before the changes are made. And, I think they were all
given the opportunity today to do that, and, you know, I'm
very Yiappy with the process, pretty much as the Judge has
put together this year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Was it the consensus of the
Court that you would like me to prepare a -- a hit list,
so-to-speak, to come up with the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that we can all
take a look at it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I will do that. Let's -- one
day early next week, Tuesday, we have -- Tuesday is a bad
day, because --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Monday's a holiday.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Holiday. Probably next
Wednesday afternoon, we need to get back together and spend
some time in joyful fellowship. But, I will --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You know, I think you
make a -- that's a good point. This is a team effort and
everybody can be involved in it, and we welcome that. And,
as many inputs as we can get. Once you get the -- a strong
Q~
`I
B
f

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
list for us to all start working on, I think we need to hear
from everybody and get all the inputs, and by golly, we'll
get there. It is a team effort.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We busy Wednesday
mornings? Why are we doing afternoons?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can do Wednesday morning.
The afternoon was generally preferable. We could do it at
10 o'clock Wednesday morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That way our
fellowship could turn into breaking bread together.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of like
afternoons.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of like the
I afternoons.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. You're
outnumbered so far. Mornings are great, fresh and exciting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure about
that, but mornings are okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mornings are okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We could plan on 10 o'clock
next Wednesday morning, and sorry, Jonathan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about 9 o'clock or
9:30? That way we'll be sure to be done by noon.
94
1
~ 2
3
4
I 5
~ 6
7
8
9
I
10
11
12
13
~-.
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that German? I'm
going to tell you
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about 9:00? Then
we'll be done in three hours.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The earlier, the
better.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. Just
give me time to milk; you know I'll be in here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Chickens?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Milking those
chickens.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Going once,
going twice, sold. Thank you all for your hard work. We'll
get there.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:45 p.m.)
95
1 STATE OF TEXAS ~
2 COUNTY OF KERR ~
3 The above grid foregoing is a true and complete
4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
~ DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 7th day of September,
8 2001.
9
10
11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
12 BY: __ ~~~
Kathy Ba 'k, Deputy County Clerk
13 Certified Shorthand Reporter
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25