1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTX COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Tuesday, September 2, 2003
10:30 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "B:ILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
~I
Y~
~~
2
1
,,... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
		September 2, 2003	
			PAGE
---	Commissioners' Comments	4
1.1	Cost-of	`~
-Living adjustment (COLA) of 21-~o c~ ~I Z~ ~	7
1 . 2	Increas	e group health insurance by 15 0 ~~1,2 ~ c`am'	8
1.3	Establi	sh minimum annual salary	16
1.4	Salary	increase to Sheriff's deputies ;.;? ~'~'~-/	23
1.5	Salary	increase to Jailers and Dispatchers, ~ ~~-L<	33
1 . 6	Salary	increase to Sheriff ,? .~ v (~-..f3	39
1.7	Establi	sh Merit Salary Increase Fund>~-d ~~'~	44
1.8	Increas	e/adjust elected officials' salar~ ~.~~~.61,	101
1.9	Designate required reserve fund balance ,~ a~Z4,~,	67
1.10	Establi	sh Information Technology budget ~ ~ Lc.:7	72
1 . 11	Modify	Court Collections budget,~2 ~ L4~ ~~	72
1.12	Modify	216th District Court budget,~2 ~ ~ ~	74
1.13	Modify	198th District Court budgeter .~~ ~~-~	74
1.14	Modify	District Clerk budget ;~ ~,~-~l	79
1.15	Modify	Justice of the Peace Pct. 4 budget v?~J'~-7~	79
1 . 16	Modify	County Jail budget ~~ ~~~7~3	80
1 . 17	Modify	l/
Parks Maintenance budget v~•~v~~ r	81
1 . 18	Modify	Constable Pct . 1 budget ~? a~ rZ~ ~	82
1.19	Modify	Constable Pct. 2 budget,~1 5~.~-"~ ~'	103
1 .20	Modify	Constable Pct. 3 budgeto"~ ~ ~~ 7	106
1.21	Modify	Constable Pct. 4 budget~.~' ~-~ ~
~ ~	108
1.22	Modify	Sheriff's Department budgeter ~'~	110
1.23	Modify	Juvenile Probation budget ~ ~ ~--~ 111	,154
1.24	Modify	Health and Emergency Services budgetv~~Z ~~~114
1.25	Modify	et~~'~1~~
Rabies and Animal Control bud	115
1.26	Modify	~
County-sponsored budget ~ Z ~'	115
1.27	Reduce	or eliminate funding to Ag Extension	129
1.28	Reduce	or eliminate funding for Books, Publi ~ $~	~ ~3'~~'`~Z 1
	cations & Dues, provide through Law Li}~r ry 130
~	,184
1.29	Reduce	funding to Public Library p2 ,~~
~	143
1.30	Modify	~
Fire Protection budget~~ ~	155
1.31	Modify	Road & Bridge budget, ~' ~~ ~ T	159
1.32	Modify	Records Management & Preservation buc~ qe~`~
r	160
1.33	Modify	Parks budget ~ ~ ~..~~j ~ 8	161
1.34	Modify	Non-Departmental budget ~ ~ ~ ~''	164
1.35	Modify	County Court budget Z~"Z~~	165
1.36	Discuss 2003-'04 holiday schedule Z~Z ~~ Z	180
1.37	Discuss adoption of General Provisions	191
		,/
~~ ~~1`	
---	Adjourned	195
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 Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 10:30 a.m., a special
budget meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was
held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the
meeting -- special Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for
this date, Tuesday, September the 2nd, at 10:30 a.m. It's
approximately 2 minutes after 10:30, so we can proceed. Do
you care to do the honors this morning, since we're in an
actual meeting?
COMMI:~SIONER WILLIAMS: Why not?
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to need
all the grace we can get.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to need all the
divine guidance we can muster.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this point, we have the
Visitors' Input. Anybody who has anything that they'd like
to bring to our attention that's not a matter that's listed
on the agenda, we would welcome you to tell us about that
9-2-03
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--
25
now. If you have a matter that's listed on the agenda, we
would prefer and ask that you fill out a participation form,
which I assume we have at the back of the room. If not, if
you'll let us know, we'll get some. That doesn't mean that
you have to do that in order to be able to participate. It
merely means that hopefully we won't miss you by having one
of those participation forms. So, is there anyone that
wishes to come forward and speak at this time on any matter
that's not listed on the agenda? Any matter that is not
listed on the agenda, feel free to come forward and speak at
this time. It appears that there's no one wishing to come
forward. We will then move to Commissioners' comments.
Commissioner Baldwin, do you have anything for us this
morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner
Nicholson? I mean, excuse me, Williams. I'll get to you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. Nothing,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir, nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: And Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. As you might imagine,
I've got just a few comments. If you'll recall, I had
9-~-03
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
earlier talked about business and politics, and kind of
thrashed out that subject. I think another thing that needs
to be injected into the mix is responsibility. This may be
one of the poorest p~~litical decisions that I make, but as a
matter of personal privilege, I feel it's important that we
discuss this issue of personal responsibility. Late last
week, our local daily newspaper, in an editorial, took me to
task and portrayed me as unrealistic, insincere, and
disingenuous as a result of my filing a so-called balanced
budget. And, in doing so, it recited as its factual basis
to come to that conc:Lusion the following three things: One
is that there were no raises for County employees. Two,
that there was no provision for increased health insurance
costs, and three, that there was no cost-of-living increase
for County employees.
Now, that newspaper or any other newspaper is
entitled to vilify me in any manner it chooses, for any
reason. That is its privilege. That's what the editorial
page is for, as an expression of opinion. But that
privilege carries with it a responsibility. Since I filed
the budget that's before this Court right now, I have not
talked to, nor have Z had a request to talk to a single
representative of that daily newspaper. Also, it would
appear that the representatives of that paper have not made
even the simplest of efforts to even review or understand
9-2-03
6
1
,_.. 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 budget that I filed. Had the representatives of that
newspaper taken the time to do either one of those things,
the factual accuracy which would have been required for its
statements, I submit, would have been different in at least
two of the three premises that they utilized, because I
believe they are blatantly false.
One, the budget which I filed contained
raises for a majority of the employees of Kerr County. That
budget also contained additional raises for approximately a
dozen Kerr County employees, most of which were in cases in
which the employees were required to take on an increased
case load or workload because the elected official or
department head cooperated with me in a shared sacrifice by
reducing staffing levels. The estimated cost for health
insurance in the budget that I filed was an increase by more
than 20 percent over the amount budgeted for this current
year that we're in now. That figure was given to me, as it
was given to all elected officials and department heads for
preparing their respective budgets, by the elected official
in charge of personnel, employee benefits, and insurance
coverage.
No COLA was included; it got that one right.
But then, it should have. I told them right up front that
it wasn't included. That was a decision and a consideration
for this Court as a whole. This Court has a responsibility
9-2-03
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
to the employees of Kerr County, the taxpayers and citizens
of this county, and I believe this Court is doing our best
to balance those interests and discharge that
responsibility. I believe the local daily newspaper also
has a responsibility to these same people to do the
necessary work, to gather relevant information and report
that information in a factually correct manner, whether it
be contained in a news story or on the editorial page. It
occurs to me that the daily newspaper in this particular
case has not discharged that responsibility. Thank you for
your time.
Let's move on to the first item on the
agenda, consider and discuss changing the proposed 2003-'04
Kerr County budget by granting a cost-of-living adjustment
salary increase of 2 and a half percent or other amount to
all Kerr County employees and elected officials, and
designating source of funds for any increase as necessary or
appropriate.
COMMI:~SIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I make a motion
that we grant a cost-of-living adjustment salary increase of
2 and a half percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
grant a cost-of-living salary increase of 2 and a half
percent to all employees and elected officials of Kerr
9-2-C3
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
County. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY:
consider and discuss changing
budget by increasing budgeted
for all elected officials and
designating source of funds f
and/or appropriate.
Motion does carry. Next item,
proposed 2003-'04 Kerr County
group health insurance costs
employees by 15 percent, and
sr any increase as necessary
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. This says
15 percent. In your comments and your original budget, you
said 20 percent. Wh<~t is an adequate number to get the job
done?
JUDGE TINLEY: That question is directed at
me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: My original budget included a
cost increase of slightly over 20 percent, as directed by
the -- the county official, over that which was budgeted for
this current year. The Auditor has since indicated to me
very recently -- week before last, last week.
MR. TOMLINSON: Last week.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very recently, that there's a
9-~ 03
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
belief that it needs to be increased even more; that is, by
an additional 15 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what would be the
number we would be acting on today?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 15.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Additional 15.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: An additional 15.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it's even more --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would be a total of
35.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it would be increased by
20, and then 15 of that, is what I'm understanding, because
the proposed budget that we're operating off of is the one
which I filed. That already contained the 20-plus percent
increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. So, we'd
be increasing it 15 on top of the 20 that was in your
proposed budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. That's -- that's
how I perceived the motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, just -- you know,
it may be not the appropriate time, but going back to your
comments -- and it does relate to this, part of the comments
-- you know, and I think the reason for the editorial was
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
the result of a discussion you and I had when you wouldn't
say, basically, how you felt on specific issues. And I
disagree with your position on that. That certainly is your
position; that's fine. I think the public has a right to
know how each of us think. To me, it would clear up a lot
of that if you would vote on these issues today, so we can
figure out where each of us stand. And I don't think you're
prohibited from voting. I know it's your option, unless
there's a tie or your vote has a, you know, direct -- could
change the vote. So, obviously, if it's unanimous, it's not
going to change it, but I just -- you know, to me, it would
solve some of the issues and the questions that I had last
week. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: As I told you last week,
Commissioner Letz, I think if I had any particular feelings
about any of the issues we were discussing last week, I
think it could fairly be judged by anyone who was paying
particular attention concerning my inquiries, my comments,
my questions or other things that I may have done or said in
connection with particular items of business -- as I told
you last week, I will not precommit my vote until I have all
the information. I now have, apparently, all the
information that I'm going to get, and should the occasion
become necessary, I will vote today, because the matter is
now before us.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I don't want
to deal in semantics or -- or pursue something
unnecessarily, but Item 1.2 says we'd be proposing to change
the '03-'04 county budget by increasing it 15 percent. I
read that as meaning the '03-'04 budget is going to be
increased 15 percent over the '02-'03 budget, not the
proposed budget that you submitted. I just want to clarify
where we are. Are we at 15 percent or 35 percent?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the way I think it
reads, and what I intended for it to read, is that
15 percent over and above the proposed budget which I filed
August the 11th. Now, that budget includes the 20-plus
percent increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If everybody
understands, that's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where I intended it to
be. Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: Since I had my conversation
with our insurance c~~rrier about the percentage increase
for -- for health insurance, his comment to me on that
question was, what -- what is happening with the industry.
Since that time, I've talked more specifically with -- with
our third-party administrator. Their -- preliminarily, they
-- their guess is that -- that maybe it might be less than
15 percent. So, the percentage we're giving you here is --
9-z-o?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-..
25
12
is an estimate based on -- on what the industry, on the
average, is seeing as far as renewals are concerned.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now I'm confused. I
thought I understood it. Is the total increase -- is it --
if we add another 15 percent here, we're saying we're having
an increase of about 35 percent?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. Because the -- we budget
-- well, we're having a 35 percent increase on what we
budgeted for '02-'03. We're having a 15 percent increase in
what we actually -- what it actually cost us in '02-'03.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're budget -- so
the number is less than in the Judge's proposed -- original
proposed budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. If you'll remember, we
did a budget -- we did a budget amendment of 140-some-odd
thousand just two weeks ago. That was to increase the
budget by the amount of the actual cost for '02-'03. So,
the Judge -- the Judge's proposed budget included that
amendment. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: It included actually more than
that, I believe.
MR. TOMLINSON: And -- but this 15 percent is
15 percent on top of his proposed budget.
MS. NEMEC: And it's not 'cause the rates
went -- or the rates are going up 35 percent. It's because
9-~-G3
1
---~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
last year we didn't have an estimated, so we underestimated
what the cost was going to be. So, part of that increase is
last year's increase, not this year's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're increasing the
amount in the August 29th budget by 15 percent?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: What is that -- that number,
in terms of dollars? The 15 percent?
MS. NEMEC: I don't have that.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have a number, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Quick calculation, based on
260 employees, tells me it's about $214,000. Does that
sound about right?
MR. TOMLINSON: That sounds right. I did a
calculation. My worksheet's somewhere.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that sounds like it's in
the ballpark?
MR. TOMLINSON: In the ballpark.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, 15 percent is
200-some thousand. If it's already an increase that was
greater than that, compared to our last year's budgeted
numbers, we're going up some $450,000, give or take.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the scenario, as I
understand it, Commissioner, is that we had the current
year's of $4,555 emp:Loyee cost. And, in starting to prepare
9-2-03
1
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
the budget, the Treasurer and the health benefits person
said we're going to lase $5,484 per employee as the cost.
That was included. After that was done, it seems like we
had a shortfall in this year's, so we had to adjust the
budget, and now, in order to try and play catch-up,
apparently some -- there's a request for another 15 percent
on what's in the current proposed budget.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wasn't last year $5,484
was the actual cost? The budget was a little bit short of
that, so what this 15 percent -- my understanding is all of
us prepared our budget at the $5,484 price, which is what we
asked. So, the 15 percent would be 15 percent on top of the
$5, 484?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it would. Which was
20 percent more than what was budgeted originally for this
year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because of the shortfall
last year?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, as we're going
through this, could either Tom -- probably Tommy, or
possibly Barbara, tell us on each item if they're in or out
of that -- the last run of the budget? Some of these items
I know are in there.
MR. TOMLINSON: That --
9-'_'-03
1
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are -- the first
two, I believe, are.
MR. TOMLINSON: Both of those items are in
what -- what you have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move the increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget presently on file be
increased by budgeting group health insurance costs for all
elected officials and employees increased by 15 percent.
Any further questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I -- I don't
like having to vote for this. I'm going to vote for it,
because there's not any alternatives, but between now and
the first of the year, we need to find out what our
alternatives are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know we're going
to do that, but that's -- let's commit to making a good
effort of that. This is -- this is too much money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's unacceptable, but
maybe not -- no option.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead.
9-2-U3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next
item is consider and discuss changing proposed 2003-2004
Kerr County budget by establishing a minimum annual salary
of $20,812 for Kerr County employees and granting salary
increases up to such minimum to all employees making less
than such minimum, and designating source of funds for any
increase as necessary or appropriate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we're going to do
this, the personnel officer pointed out to me that if we
modify that -- that proposed minimum annual salary by a
little bit, it would fit into our current rate schedules.
And that was how much, Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: $20,826. That would be a 14-2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 826 instead of 812?
MS. NEMEC: $826. And if that's adopted,
then that means that that -- on that particular entry level,
they wouldn't start at a l; it would be a -- a 14-2. That's
as close as we can get on the schedule.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That equals a 14-2?
y-?-o3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
	(Ms. Nemec	nodded.)	
	COMMISSIONE	R BALDWIN:	Let me ask you a
question.	What does that	-- that's --	now, if we approve
that, that	would be a new	entry level.	Do we have any
longer-term employees that	are now in	that position of a
14-2?			
MS. NEMEC: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it seems to me
that what we're possibly doing is putting entry-level people
in the same place as four-, five-, six-year employee people.
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a problem, I
would think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a problem with
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
in my brain, I don't see an
can see is us to just raise
impossible; there's not eno
to do that. But -- so what
WILLIAMS:
BALDWIN:
answer to
everybody
agh money
do we do?
It is a problem.
And rolling it around
it. The only thing I
on up, which would be
in the state of Texas
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the roll-over
effect and how does it -- can you simplify the roll-over
effect -- roll-up ef:Eect?
9 ? 03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
MS. NEMEC: Well, without really going
through here and doing a spreadsheet on how many people that
would affect -- but just, like, for instance, looking at one
in the County Clerk's office, she's been here since '99, and
she is making $20,826. And, of course, you have the problem
of the employees who have more responsibility that are just
a little above that. Without changing everybody up a little
bit, that's going to happen. You know, that might be
something y'all want do this year, and then look at the
others next year, since we don't have the money to do all of
them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, once you start
bumping up, though, I mean, it goes all the way up the line.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It never ends.
MS. NEMEC: If you want to -- exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you finished,
Commissioner, on that point?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, sort of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- I mean, I agree
with you on what you said. But, additionally, you know, two
other things. I guess, first, Barbara or Tommy, what is the
-- I guess the value of our health insurance to the employee
itself? I mean, it's, what, 400 -- how much is it a month?
MS. NEMEC: Four -- well, what we're paying
9-2-03
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
now is 457 and some change, I believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that's an
important number, because if you say that's valued at
$6,000, $5,000 or somewhere in that range, you have to take
the salary and add $5,000 to it. That's part of their
compensation package, so I think that it's a -- you know,
and I'll use this to go back to something I said in the very
beginning. I don't like the federal numbers. I don't think
they apply to Kerr County. I don't -- in fact, I don't know
how Washington came up with a poverty level, other than
that's the number they use for grants and all kinds of
federal programs. I don't think it has any relevance as to
what poverty is, the way I think poverty is defined in the
dictionary, or by most of our minds. So, I just have a -- I
think there's two issues there that I think you have to look
at: What we're doing in Kerr County, and what we're doing
with our employees. And I don't think it's as relevant to
try to equate that with a federal number.
Do we need to pay some of our lower level
employees more? Definitely, and I'm in favor of doing that.
But I don't know that this is the way to do it, because I
think, one, it doesn't take into account the health
insurance, and if we're truly trying to get them to a
minimum amount, you have to include health insurance or
other benefits, retirement and other -- there's a value to
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--.
25
20
all the county benefits, so I think you have to look at
that. I would rather look at the pay schedule, or the --
the schedule and figure out ways to boost those that are,
you know, at the bottom. And I think there are some
areas -- I think we have one employee that was about a 9;
that was an entry level, I think, in Maintenance. To me,
that's unacceptable. But I don't know that, you know, you
have to go all the w<~y to what this proposes here.
MS. NEMEC: Well, we did move that one
employee in the reclassification when one left.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we resolved those low
level employees in connection with a shared sacrifice that
the Maintenance Department supervisor was -- that we worked
out with him, and actually ended up saving money through the
long-term.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't know
how we address it. I mean, I'm in favor of trying to
improve all employees, and I think that we're kind of on
a -- on somewhat of a plan with longevity and merit
increases and other things to do that. I'm just a little
bit -- I'm uncomfortable with setting a minimum that's based
on a federal poverty level that doesn't really mean anything
directly in Kerr County, and isn't actually taking
everything into effect.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, another thing we
9-2-03
1
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
need to watch out fo.r as well in that -- in that line of
thinking, Commissioner Letz, is the -- you -- I assume that
we're talking about a Medicaid level, is what we're talking
about. And, as an example, let's say that we have a single
mother with a couple of children -- two children, and we
raise that person's salary above this magical federal
number, which I agree is -- has been massaged and is not
real. Then that person loses their Medicaid, and then tries
to purchase county insurance. So, when the numbers all
balance out, it's costing them more money. We're not
helping them; we're hurting them. I mean, that's a
possibility. I just, you know, want to watch that as we go
through that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Helping them may cause an
adverse effect.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we -- are we maybe looking
down the road in the near future of doing another
comprehensive look at the salaries across-the-board?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think the
County -- I think we're obligated, in my mind, to look at
that every so often. I think -- and I think the Court, just
about every five years, plus or minus a couple years, has
been doing that, and I think you need to continue to do
that. That's -- you know, to make sure that we are paying
9-2-03
1
.~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--
25
22
competitively.
JUDGE TINLEY: It appears -- it seems to me
that we -- all this might be leading us to a comprehensive
study from top to bottom.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think a lot of what
Commissioner Nicholson has brought to the table is, you
know, possibly -- or the need, probably, of more time being
spent as to what we're comparing to. What is a comparison
for Kerr County employees? Is it, you know, the City
employees? Is it private industry in Kerr County? Is it
other counties? Is it all of the above and some --
(Cell phone rang.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If that's not Jesus
calling, let's turn .it off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you have to -- I
think that's something the Court needs to look at and figure
out what's the proper formula.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree that, you
know, it is kind of a sticky wicket when you get down to it,
and I agree that we have an obligation to boost those on the
lower end of our pay scale up to a more realistic number.
The percolate-up effect bothers me. And also, you mentioned
the health care -- the increase in health care coverage, or
the cost for health care benefit to the employees -- all
employees is about $160 a month, based on the numbers you
9-_^-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..._
25
23
just approved. I don't know how we deal with this to do it,
'cause Commissioner Baldwin raised a good point. And the
experience --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you,
Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, absolutely. If
you do, you do. When the Workforce Development people were
going through those initiatives to get people off the
poverty list, they found the same thing; that when you bump
them up to a certain level, they lose certain benefits that
are important to their well-being. I'm not saying they
should continue to do that, and I don't think we want to get
ourselves mired in that, but I think we need a structured
approach, and we have to have that. We have to see what the
up-perk effect is, and it could be pretty significant. So,
you know, I'm at a loss to know exactly what to do about
this, unless we commissioned a study pretty quickly to
determine what that effect is. I think we have some roll-up
effects that are going to be hard to deal with.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion on this
issue? Do we have a motion to be offered in support of the
item or against the item? Being none, we will move on to
1.4, consider and discuss changing proposed 2003-'04 Kerr
9-~-03
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
County budget by granting salary increases to Sheriff's
Department deputies in the amount of $3,000 each or other
amount, and designating source of funds for such increases
as necessary and/or appropriate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This -- this item
and the next one, I think, are connected, and probably
everybody in the courtroom -- almost everybody has heard the
rationale for doing it. It's -- it has a lot to do with --
with equity, with the comparison to the amount paid by City
of Kerrville for law enforcement officers. Probably the
cost of this, or some portion of the cost of it, will be
recouped by a reduction in turnover -- voluntary turnover,
and the associated costs with ghat. The $3,000 for the
Sheriff's deputies will not bring them up to equity with the
Kerrville Police Department officers in terms of base
salary. That would take something like $4,700. But we're
taking into account the value of -- to the employee of being
able to take a patrol car home.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, as you know,
Commissioner, I'm not -- I can't base my thinking process on
what the City does. I'm just not into that comparison
thing. I don't think it's a good comparison. And it
appears to me that i.f -- if we adopted the budget as-is,
with this increase to the deputies, and then the next one,
the jailers and dispatchers, that there would -- you know,
9-2-03
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
as-is, as we've talked about and laid before us, that there
will be a -- somewhat of a tax increase in order to pay for
these things, and I don't -- I don't know how much. I
haven't run those numbers. But, in my mind, I think we need
to start looking for ways in all of this to start cutting
back a little bit and to keep us from raising taxes on the
taxpayers of Kerr County. And these next two items --
actually, next three items are a place to do that.
Now, I don't have some kind of magical number
to replace the $3,000, but I would think $1,500 or $2,000 or
something like that to replace those numbers -- cut all
these numbers in half and see what that does for the -- for
the reduction in the bottom line numbers. That would be my
proposal, is to cut -- cut these in half, and then next
year, try to pick up the other half. And I know we're
notorious about this planning about this half thing, but --
but if -- if -- in our court orders, in adopting these
things, if we're -- if we get -- use really specific
language and specific numbers, I think that next year, we
can come back and revisit these things and know exactly
where we are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, overall, on -- on
this one, on 1.4, which is just -- just the Sheriff's
deputies, you know, I -- I'm somewhere close to where
Commissioner Baldwin is. I was between -- you know, I'd
y-z-os
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rather do it, just because of the budget situation this
year, part now, part next year. I know the preference
you've stated previously is, let's get it all done at once.
It's just hard to do that, as I see it, with the budget that
we're working with this year. I think that there is a
likelihood of -- of a little bit of room to work next year
with the budget, based on the impact we have of longevity
increases this year. So, certainly, I'm in favor of doing
it. I think it will be a big plus to the citizens of the
county if we can get, you know, better people and paid
better -- better not say better people. If we can get --
get better pay for our people in the Sheriff's Department.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He really didn't say
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't say that. And if
it takes, you know, two years to do it, you know, good.
Hopefully we'll get to a point of catching up with the City.
I think that is -- I differ a little bit with Commissioner
Baldwin on this point. I think it is a comparison we need
to look at. I think it is somewhat the same market, though
I think there's lots of other reasons that go into it. I
think it's a useful number, but I think the fact that we do
provide cars that they can take home, that does help them,
and also, it's just a different position. I mean, there are
people that may choose to be a Sheriff's deputy as opposed
9-2-03
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to a K.P.D., regardless of salary, and I think there are
probably some that we have in the Sheriff's Department that
were formerly K.P.D. people. So, you know, I think that it
is something you need to strive for. And, you know,
somewhere between the $1,500, $2,000 this year, try to catch
up next year, would be my feelings on this one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My approach differs a
little bit, in that I'm not totally certain that there is
not always a disparity in the wage structure between
sheriff's departments, plural, wherever they may be, and
police forces, wherever they may be, and I'd like to know a
little bit more about those disparities. I agree that we
need to improve it. But what -- so what I'd like -- kind of
like to see us do would be to take that number that's
detailed in 1.4, which is $3,000, cut it in half, and do a
little bit more comparables -- do a little bit more of a
study on comparables to determine if there are disparities
in other sheriff's departments and the reasons for them, and
as opposed to just going blanket against Kerrville Police
Department. I share a concern that other Commissioners have
raised, in that I don't know that we'll ever catch up with
the City of Kerrville with respect to total parity between a
Sheriff's deputy and a Kerrville Police Department officer.
I recognize that the risks are the same, but I also
recognize the tax bases and the way taxes are appropriated
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
is different. County government is a different animal than
city government, and we spend our dollars differently. So,
I would be in favor of halving that number. I'm not so sure
I'm quite to the point that Commissioner Letz indicated, as
to guaranteeing that we will do the second part. I would
like to have more information before we commit to the second
half.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem with
that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't subscribe to
the theory that these -- the jobs are different, the
deputy's job versus the police officer job. They both have
the job of serving and protecting people in Kerr County.
The Sheriff's deputies serve a few more people than the
police officers do. The Sheriff's deputies cover a much
larger area than the city police officers do. They both
deal with the same bad guys, in Kerrville or in the county.
The jobs are -- are much more similar than they are
different. There's not much -- I don't see any differences
in them. The only major difference I see is that a city
police officer doesn't leave the city limits, and the deputy
cover the entire county. I -- I would like to eliminate
the -- the disparity, but I'm also understanding your
arguments about the reality of county finances.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where the
9-2-03
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rubber hits the road.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I have a motion with
respect to 1.4?
COMMISSIONER WILLTAMS: The Sheriff had his
hand up, Judge.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd like to make one
comment about it, the $1,500 or the $2,000. To -- and I
understand the budget and the tightness of the budget, but
with the way it works, too, a lot of times coming back and
trying to do more the following year, and how that works, I
would really strongly urge the Court to seriously consider
at least the $2,000 for the officers. That will get us up
at least to where I may not lose officers to the City. It
gives them a little bit. But, you know, I strongly
encourage you to look at it again next year, but for
immediate for officers, I think the $2,000 should at least
be seriously considered.
JUDGE TINLEY: How many officers was it that
you had indicated that you had lost?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Total certified
officers, counting your S.R.O.'s and that, I believe it's
41.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that you lost to the City
of Kerrville, I'm sorry.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've lost 16 employees
9-2-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
to City of Kerrville.
JUDGE TINLEY: Employees?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Were those deputies or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some are deputies, some
are other employees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I understood it was
deputies. That was --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've lost 16 employees.
I'd have to go back, Judge, and look at exactly -- most of
them are deputies, okay. Probably 80 percent of those are
the deputies that we have lost. I've got --
JUDGE TINLEY: Over what period?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About four -- I couldn't
tell you right off. I'd have to go back and look.
JUDGE TINLEY: Four, five years?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About -- longer than
four or five years. But I've got three considering it now,
one that's already tested with them and everything. And his
whole reason -- we had a visit this morning -- is salary.
Might not lose them if we can at least get them close.
That's why I strongly urge the $2,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of these 16, how many
under your watch and how many under the previous Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think nine of them are
9-2-G3
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
since I've been Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nine?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of the nine, how many
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Seven.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many did you get
back from Kerrville Police Department in the same length of
time?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a net loss of seven --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Officers. I lost my
dispatch supervisor, lost other ones too on top of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we started out with
16, now we're down to seven.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Since I've been --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you haven't hired
any city policemen to come over from there over to your
place?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I hired, and then they
went back. They couldn't make it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like maybe
they're kind of lost.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can't do a financial
statement for them, but I would just strongly urge the Court
to consider the $2,000 at a minimum.
9-2-03
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to
make a motion that we grant salary increases to Sheriff's
Department deputies in the amount of $1,500 each.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that the proposed 2003-'04 Kerr County budget be
changed to grant salary increases to Sheriff's Department
deputies in the amount of $1,500 each. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And there is no
language in this order about doing another half next year
and all that. We'll look at it as we go.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't remember saying that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, you didn't.
I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't -- sure didn't
say it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I picked up on that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this in addition
to the 2 and a half percent COLA?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it would be. Any further
questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
9-~-G3
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item
is consider and discuss changing proposed 2003-'04 Kerr
County budget by granting salary increases to Sheriff's
Department jailers and dispatchers in the amount of $4,000
each or other amount, reduction of jail and/or dispatch
personnel, and designate source of funds for any increases
as necessary or appropriate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've debated this
long and hard, and what I'd -- I think a good approach would
be is for the Sheriff's to tell us what -- what he feels he
could live with, an amount less than $4,000 that would work
on his extraordinary turnover problem, and -- and get the --
get the head count up to a rate that we can safely operate a
jail with.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've agreed to not fill
four of the current jail positions in order to try and get
this. I truly feel that anything -- if you cut it back to
anything less than $3,000 per employee, we'll ruin our whole
scheme of trying to get us up there. It will not put us
much more at all than Boerne and other jails, Kendall County
jails and that. And I think we need to at least get to the
9-~-03
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
$3,000 additional each officer, and at that point we can
still not fill the four jail positions; we'll eliminate
those four and drop this from four to three.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, what, if
any --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This would help.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- problem does more
money for jailers -- what additional problems does it create
for you if your jailers get more money than your deputies?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jailers are $10,000
behind deputies. They'll never get more money than
deputies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And, you know, I'm -- I
come from both sides. I come from being a deputy, and I
also come from being a jailer. And I honestly feel, across
the state of Texas, jailers are totally underpaid, and they
should be paid equal to any --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the answer is, for
you, it doesn't create a problem --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- if the Court were
to grant more of an increase to jailers than we considered
for deputies?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not at all.
9-~-03
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't be a
problem?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not at all, 'cause
they're so far behind.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you'll recall, we
had a discussion about the economics of this. The -- the
reduction of a full-par manpower count by four would produce
an annual savings of $82,000 base salary, plus payroll
roll-up, so this -- this item will be partially funded by
the offset from -- if he was at full-par manpower, by that
amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many jailers are
we talking about here?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We got 37, I think.
Or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's jailers and
dispatchers; that would be the 37. 'Cause we cut the four
out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that
we increase the jailers and dispatchers in the amount of
$3, 000.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that the proposed 2003-'04 Kerr County budget be
changed to grant salary increases to Sheriff's Department
9-~-03
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
jailers and dispatchers in the amount of $3,000 each.
Reduction -- or was that not part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excuse me, yes. And
would coincide with a reduction of four positions in the
jail.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Four approved jail
positions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Judge. Read
my mind.
JUDGE TINLEY: Reduction of three jailer's
positions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three or four?
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, four jailer
position. I'm getting that confused with the $3,000. The
raise would be $3,000 per remaining jailer, reduction of
four jail personnel, jailer positions. Any questions or
discussion about that?
COMMISSTONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple
comments, Judge. This, too, would be in addition to the
cost-of-living allowance which the Court previously
approved, and that would create for the Court about a
negative $30,000 to do what we're talking about.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just Item 1.5.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much?
9-?-03
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thirty on the
reduction versus the increase.
JUDGE TINLEY: You get a net cost of -- of
how much?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thirty -- however
many you said. How many? 35? 34?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 37.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 37 times $3,000. And
somebody earlier said that a minus four was $82,000. Three
times 37 is 111,000, take away 82.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm looking at some numbers
that were last furnished and revised as of last Wednesday, I
believe, on a $4,000 increase, and what I did was
interpolate that down to -- to three-fourths of it, and I
get 142,000 there. And then, of course, you've got to take
out of that the -- the 83-plus, plus the payroll and other
benefits.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you rolled
the benefits in; I didn't, Judge. That's the difference.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's just a base
salary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the net
difference, Judge, that you have?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to get probably
9-2-03
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
about 40 -- well, probably close to $50,000, the net.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And these --
well, it's -- this -- all these items we're discussing are
in the run that we -- the full amount is in the run that
we're looking at from 8/29, correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, they are. The only
difference is, I used the number of 39 jailers and
dispatchers.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 39?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I recall
hearing.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It may be. It may be,
because one was a dispatch supervisor.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's the number that I've
had all along. I don't know where the 37 came from.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think that's correct.
It may have been misquoted before.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thirty-nine before
the cut of four, or after?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: After.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After.
JUDGE TINLEY: So you got 43.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are the numbers --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jailers and dispatchers.
I believe that's correct.
9-_^-03
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
MR. TOMLINSON: So, the 39 is reflected in
the budget that you have.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think 50 is probably the
closer net cost. But, without being able to take some
difficulty, we'll go ahead and -- is there any further
question or discussion about this particular motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County
budget by granting salary increase to the Kerr County
Sheriff in the amount of $26,500 or a level comparable to
that of the City of Kerrville Chief of Police, or other
amount.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: May I make a comment on
this first, Judge?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hope so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hope you do, before
we do.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't ask for this.
This is parity. I mean, it is a legit figure with what the
Chief of Police is. I think it's -- it's not correct, okay,
to do that or to even consider doing that. This Court, I
9-2-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.„1 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r~
25
40
believe, or most members of this Court will recall, and I
think I heard some of that discussion last week, about that
the elected official or the Sheriff should be about $5,000
above the chief deputy's salary, whatever that was. And
that's what I would recommend, and then take the remainder
and just divide it between the other elected officials or
whatever. But don't consider that kind of raise.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to reiterate
the -- one of the bases for this proposal, and that's the
comparison between our Sheriff's compensation and the Chief
of Police compensation. And I can see that our Sheriff has
a bigger job. Again, like the -- consistent with the
argument for the -- for the Sheriff's deputies, they serve
and protect more people than the -- than the Chief of Police
does. They have a larger area of the county, and they have
the -- the complexity -- not "they," the Sheriff has the
complexity of managing a jail. I can -- I think I can make
a good argument that -- that the Sheriff should be paid as
much or more than the Chief of Police. But I'm also -- I've
got a few phone calls on this. Recognizing the reality
of -- again, of our -- the economics facing the County, what
I'm going to propose is -- is that we pay the Sheriff
15 percent more than his chief deputy. Fifteen percent
is -- is a commonly used number in salary administration
between levels of supervision. If we did that, we can cut
9-2-u3
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this number in half, and provide for a $13,250 increase.
That would actually be a little more than 15 percent. I
figure 15 percent is about $12,500.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the
Sheriff's salary needs to be treated like any other elected
official salary. If we're going to establish a policy, I
think it has to be uniform across the county. I don't see
why the Sheriff should be tagged at 15 percent and the
District Clerk should be tagged at $1,000 or whatever. I
mean, I think it should be uniform. And I really would
rather deal with his salary along with everybody else, all
other elected officials' salaries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just for the purposes
of enlightenment, what is the Sheriff's salary, and what is
the chief deputy's salary currently?
MS. NEMEC: The Sheriff's salary, with the 2
and a half percent increase cost-of-living, is $47,032. And
the chief deputy, with the $3,000 raise, is $50,205. And
the Sheriff is $47,032.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that includes?
One more time, for the record.
MS. NEMEC: That includes cost-of-living on
both salaries, 2 and a half percent cost-of-living, and that
also includes the $3,000 -- well, no, the deputies were
awarded $1,500? Okay. Then, no, it's $48,205 plus $1,500.
9-2-G3
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
$49, 705.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be --
MS. NEMEC: For the deputy. The chief deputy
is $49,705. That includes the 2 and a half percent
cost-of-living, and it also includes the $1,500 raise.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $49,705?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the chief deputy?
MS. NEMEC: That's correct. And the Sheriff
right now, with the 2 and a half percent cost-of-living
increase, is at $47,032.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right, thank you.
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we have about a
$2,700 disparity there right now, correct?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we took that
$2,700 disparity and then raised -- added it to the current
salary, and then raised that by the 15 percent increment
between the levels of supervision, looks like we'd come up
with something like 57,5 -- $57,500, compared to the Chief
of Police, $72,000 or whatever -- there's probably a raise
coming up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There was, earlier, a
number thrown around that -- last week when we met, that had
to do with a $5,000 increase for the Sheriff for the purpose
9-2-03
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of getting him -- some space between himself and the chief
deputy. If we were to consider, based on the numbers that
the Treasurer just gave us -- maybe I got it wrong. I was
going to say 10 percent would get you there, just about.
$4,700 on top of 47. That would get you there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somebody do something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is a motion on the
JUDGE TINLEY: There is no motion on the
floor. I -- Commissioner Nicholson said "I propose," but
beyond that, I've -- I didn't perceive that as a motion,
unless you want to confirm that it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that the
Sheriff's salary be increased by 10 percent, based on the
numbers provided by the Treasurer, for the purpose of
elevating his salary above the chief deputy. That's the
purpose, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Where does that
10 percent take his number?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I'll give it to
you; just a second. He's at $47,032, times 10 percent. It
gets him up to $51,735. That puts -- that's about a $2,000
clearance between he and his chief deputy.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I made it as a
9-2-03
44
1 I motion.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,.-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the salary in the proposed '03-'04 budget be changed to
provide that the Kerr County Sheriff be increased by
10 percent to a total of $51,735. Any further questions or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and
Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed?
(Commissioner Letz voted against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I could comment, I
think we're obligated to do it to all other elected
officials.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. We'll end up
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is consider and
discuss changing the proposed '03-'04 budget by establishing
a Merit Salary Increase Fund as a new budget line item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm still thinking
about that last one. Just a comment on that, but without --
I don't want to be argumentative, but the idea that we have
to do the same thing for other elected officials, there
9-~-03
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
aren't any comparisons. They don't have a County Clerk job
over there that would compare to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: City Clerk. But it
doesn't compare. In my mind, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, go ahead. I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, let me make a
comment. My comment was for the methodology used; it was
10 percent. You know, if you would have set the amount,
that's one thing, but setting a percentage above your next
-- your highest -- next highest person, I think that is a --
it's a policy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe that's a
percentage above the next highest person. It's just a
percentage of an increase.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
$51,735 and said, that's the best deal
It's not enough, but it's a reality.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. A
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
I hear your logic.
Yeah, I understand.
I just looked at the
we'll get here today.
you got it.
re we now on Item 1.7?
Yes, we are.
This -- this concept
9-2-03
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of a merit fund of money to be used for granting merit
salary increases came up in our earlier deliberations, and
we talked about it being used in a way that we reward --
would reward employees for productivity increases. At that
time, we were envisioning that there might be some magnitude
of staff reductions through attrition to increase
productivity on the order of -- seems to me like it was 12
to 15 -- 10 to 15, I don't know. We did get some
cooperation from some of the departments, and they came in
and said we can do our work differently and get by with --
with fewer people, one or two fewer, but we didn't get the
-- the volume of productivity improvements that we expected.
So, we -- I can see now that the -- the $25,000 budget item
for -- for merit salary increases is -- exceeds what we'll
need, and I recommend we drop that number to $10,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where would you put that new
line item?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd ask the Auditor.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think I already have it in
the line item, in the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental.
MR. TOMLINSON: In Nondepartmental, in the
budget you see, at the -- at the proposed $25,000.
9-~-03
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would further
suggest -- this is not part of the motion, but that we
establish a process for nomination and approval of -- of
those who participate in this merit increase pool. And I
don't have a process to recommend right now, but it's not
rocket science. We can come up with one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you raised
that point, 'cause that point kind of troubles me, about how
merit increases are -- are determined. One of the things
that bothered me about the merit pool, as such, and still
does, is -- I'll ask a question as opposed to making a
statement. Does that put the Court in the position of
having to make the determination on merit for any particular
department, as opposed to the department head making that
determination?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think, between
this Court and the -- and the County's Personnel Officer,
that we can come up with guidelines -- pretty simple
guidelines that -- where department heads and elected
officials would nominate -- follow those guidelines and
determine whether or not their employees are eligible, and
then nominate employees for participation. Then I would say
that this Court would make the decision on how that's spent;
specifically who -- who participates, who -- who gets part
of that fund and how much.
~-~-03
48
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 BALDWIN: Are you saying that
this Court is going to make the decision for Linda Uecker,
who's going to get the --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm saying that,
based on the guidelines for how it's spent, Linda Uecker
would determine whether or not her employees are eligible,
and if so, she would nominate the employees to receive part
of that fund, and then we would then look at a merit salary
budget that says, here's 10 or 15 people who have been
nominated, and we would approve that budget. It's not
something that needs to be done by -- by October 1st. It's
something that can occur when -- when we're ready to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As an alternate
approach, Commissioner, I'm wondering, is it not feasible
that the department head makes the decision as to who in his
or her department deserves merit, and for the particular
reason? You know, I like your thought -- your creating some
guidelines or setting some parameters so that everybody
doesn't get a merit just because today is a nice day and
it's sunny outside. But would it not be just as effective
if the department head made those determinations and just
built that into its -- that department head's budget request
for the ensuing year? As opposed to creating a pool? I'm
kind of asking to kind of air it out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which we have done
9-~-03
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
before.
MS. NEMEC: And with this, with setting aside
a certain amount, my question would be, who's going to get
it? The person that comes in here first? Well, if you run
out of that money and there's still employees on the list,
then how do you determine who's going to get it?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I expect to see
is a list that says, here's all of the people in the county
on County payroll who are nominated for merit increase. It
won't be one list from each -- that's something you would
pull together, using guidelines. Each department head or
elected official would say, "I want John Doe to receive --
participate in this merit budget, and here's the rationale
for that," and would put together a merit budget, and the
whole budget would come to this Court. It's not a complex
process. It would be pretty easy to administer. I think it
should be separate from the regular salary budgeting
process, because I think the money is distributed in that
case in ways that does not reward productivity improvements
and outstanding performance. It very often gets spread
evenly among the employees, simply because the
decision-maker doesn't want to have to identify those who
perform the best.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're on to
something. I think that is better than putting it in the
9-~-03
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
specific budgets, and I'm certainly willing to go along with
that. But these guidelines, I think, have to be really
specific in how it -- how the thing works. And, I mean, I
can't see how that's going to happen, but I'm -- I'm sure
you can, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll work on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dave, if you will
respond to Barbara's question about what -- what would
happen, hypothetically, if we were to have, in a particular
budget year, more merit increases proposed than we had
funded? How do you see that working itself out?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One possible way we
could address that is just by shaving back the amount
recommended for each one of them. If they come in here with
-- if we had $10,000, they came in here with $15,000 worth
of recommendations, we would just cut -- and we saw that
they were all deserving and met the guidelines, we'd just
cut them all back by a third.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- maybe I'm
missing something. I don't see the point. I don't see why
we just don't do this in the budget process each year, and
just -- I mean, I think the -- I'd like to see guidelines
developed, and I'd like to see, you know, a lot of the work
9-~-03
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
you're talking about implemented, and I'd like to see -- I
think it's a good plan, but I don't know why we just don't
do it at the end of next budget year, or each budget year,
and put it in the following-year budget. Because, I mean, I
just -- seems like it's getting overly complicated by doing
it midyear. And I don't understand how you can budget for
it, because there truly may be one person that's entitled to
it or there truly may be 20 that are entitled to it, and I
don't see how you -- you know, if we -- how we determine
that when we have a fixed pool of money going in. It's --
just seems difficult.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if -- if you
can't determine who should get it, then we're saying that we
can't distinguish between outstanding performance and just
coming to work every day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we do it the
following budget year. I think we do take into account --
and I think we've done some of that this year by
reorganization and adding responsibilities and, you know,
taking the recommendation of the department heads and
elected officials and their people, and giving merit
increases, which is essentially what we did in some
departments where we -- and we kind of tagged it to
productivity this year, which I think is good. But I think
we have guidelines that the Court adopts, and let, you know,
9-<-03
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
elected officials and department heads know those
guidelines. I just don't see why it can't be done during
the budget process.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if you recall,
we did grant some merit increases a couple of months ago,
and it appeared that then -- I know it's -- that's not part
of our policy. It appeared that the criteria for them had
to be, in part, that there were funds available, and this is
a way to avoid that, so they have funds available.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sort of leaning
toward giving a -- giving it a try. If -- if we were to
fund it on a limited basis for -- for this budget year, and
after developing the parameters by which a department head
should be guided, so that we don't have a situation where
everybody in a particular department
meritorious duty, I kind of want to
limited basis. This does presuppose
given, it carries through. Once you
doesn't go away after a year or two.
think.
has performed
give it a try on a
that once a merit is
get it, you got it; it
That's the way I
MS. UECKER: I just have one question. Would
this put the Commissioners Court in a position to grant a --
to allow the County Treasurer to give a merit increase, oh,
for her employee over an application by another elected
official for a merit increase of one of their employees?
9-2-03
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. The personnel
officer's job would be simply to compile the recommendations
and --
MS. UECKER: I was just using her as an
example.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But that's the
proper function of that office, I think. She would compile
the recommendations that came to her, and assure that they
meet the guidelines criteria, and then hand those
recommendations over to the Commissioners Court to --
MS. UECKER: Well --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- approve or alter.
MS. UECKER: -- my question was, is this
going to put the Court in a position to decide one merit
over another?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
MS. UECKER: Okay. How do you know that? If
you don't know what -- what the basis for the recommendation
was in the first place?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, we're going to
require you to tell us what the basis of the recommendation
is.
MS. UECKER: Okay, yeah. I -- I like the
idea, Commissioner. I just feel like it's going to be --
9-~-03
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
end up being a real political race to the Commissioners
Court, you know, for increases. And I -- I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, too. And that's
where -- what I'm saying about these parameters. I think
that they have to be clearly, clearly defined so that you
understand them just like we do, if we do this thing. I'm
not sure --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you have to set,
like, two days a year that the Court would actually vote, so
there's not a run for somebody to get one and use it up
before -- y'all set a certain time of year that's a cutoff,
all the nominations have to be in, and then each department
head has to justify to you, and you select out of all those
at one time.
MS. UECKER: The problem you're --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not how often
you vote; that doesn't trouble me. It's the aftermath of
the vote that kind of troubles me, where you come back and
you say, "Well, you know, my guy did so-and-so and
so-and-so, and you didn't take that into consideration, but
her girl did so-and-so and so-and-so, and my guy deserves
more of a merit than she does." That's what bothers me.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's a position
the department head's going to have to make, and then it's
up to the Court. I guess it's the way it's --
9-2-03
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
„~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can manage this.
When Commissioner Letz was working for Exxon, he got merit
increases, and there was some documentation that said he was
faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings
in a single bound. And -- and if those managers at Exxon
are smart enough to manage this, we surely are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happened to
those skills, Commissioner? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion that -- that
we change the proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget by
establishing a Merit Salary Increase Fund in the
Nondepartmental budget account in the sum of $10,000, as a
new line item. Do I hear a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it,
'cause I want to get to a point where we can do a little
more discussing. I have a question. Are we talking about
this happening at any time during the year? Or a particular
time during the year?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I
would envision doing the guidelines, and the process would
be, say, by November I, submit nominations for merit
increases that meet these criteria. I'm pulling --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you will work
with the County Treasurer to develop the criteria?
9-2-03
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 NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now I'm confused, which
has happened several times this morning. If you had the
guidelines due November 1, that's basically merit increases
for last year, based on the way we do our budget. I mean,
you have the month of October. If they did great work in
October, you could give it. I mean, to me --
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to see it six months
into the year, kind of give them a chance -- they're already
getting raises. Let them prove themselves for six months,
and let us see what -- who falls under the guidelines for
those six months, and then --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That will work.
MS. NEMEC: Or four months, you know,
whatever. But give us some time after the budget goes into
effect, after new salaries go into effect, to see what our
employees are doing from there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But --
MS. UECKER: Plus the fact that this $10,000
is going to cover half a year, based on --
MS. NEMEC: What?
MS. UECKER: It would not be a whole year,
but it's going to impact the following budget as it goes on.
Is that right?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
9-~-03
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to me that it would,
absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think one of the
keys is this set of guidelines coming out of the gate with
the money, so that we all -- so that everybody understands
exactly what they're doing. As you go through the first six
months in evaluating that person, what are the -- what is
the criteria that you evaluate by? We may be heading
down -- your comment scared me a little bit, about Billy Bob
giving Sally Sue a raise, and the next department over feels
like that their employee's much more important than that
one. We're --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an inherent
risk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's more than a
summer storm, believe me.
MS. UECKER: I -- I just fear that, you know
-- you know, that every elected official's going to come
with some names. I mean, that's a given. The only thing I
fear from, you know, decisions made in the past, is that may
be -- you know, some of the elected officials within the
courthouse are going to be left high and dry, as compared to
Road and Bridge and the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Sheriff gets
it all, and y'all don't get any. Is that what you're
9-?-03
58

1 I saying?
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. UECKER: Well, could be. Or Road and
Bridge. You know, based on last month's decision about, you
know, a merit. That's just the only thing that I'm
concerned about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm --
MS. UECKER: And this Court's going to be
different, of course.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have the same
concern. And I are one of these guys, but I have that
concern as well. I just can't see how you're going to get
around doing that. 'Cause if I give mine -- my employee an
increase and you don't get to get one, then you and I are
going to be mad at each other. I mean, it's as simple as
that.
MS. UECKER: In other words --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And history shows that
the courthouse is bad about that.
MS. UECKER: -- you're going
that you believe the Sheriff over believing
opinion of -- of my merit increase request.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What
potential danger of being is, Commissioners
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Persona
should just be very strong and written that
to be saying
me about my
this has the
never win.
Lly, I think it
no merit
9-2-03
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
increases during the middle of the year, and at budget time,
if an elected official or department head wants to try and
get a merit raise for their employee, they prove it to y'all
as part of the process. Like it's kind of been, except the
line's got to be stronger, and you don't give any during the
middle of the year. They have to all do it in the budget
process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, I'd
like to offer an amendment that no merit increase from the
pool be considered sooner than six months into any budget --
any ensuing budget year, and a further amendment that the
initial year, no merit increases will be given until the
parameters are designed and approved by Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second that
motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give a specific date;
don't just say six months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, October,
November, December, January, February, March. There would
be no merits considered before March 30th of -- or
April 1st -- April lst of the ensuing -- of the budget
year -- the ensuing budget year. So that you always have --
six months has to elapse in a current budget year before you
can consider it. And, secondly, that none be given in the
first year until the parameters are designed and developed
9-2-03
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and approved by Commissioners Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: You mean be given, or become
effective until April 1?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess we're
saying the same thing. Become effective.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. And the
amendment -- the amendment has been seconded. Is there any
further questions or discussion concerning the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just wondering if
April Fool's Day just happens to be a part of this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a point I
hadn't considered. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a good
one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be. Everybody
gets a merit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is everybody clear on the
motion? Any further questions or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and
Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed?
(Commissioner Letz voted against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
(Discussion off the record.)
9-?-03
61
1
,,, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, consider and
discuss changing proposed 2003-'04 Kerr County budget by
increasing or adjusting the salary paid to Kerr County
elected officials and designating source of funds for any
increases as necessary and/or appropriate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now we're talking
about things outside of COLA, are we not?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully outside the
11 Sheriff.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hopefully.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, a few days ago,
seemed like to me that we talked about a $1,000 increase in
elected officials. Did we not have that conversation?
Hello? Is anybody home here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Yes, sir, we did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did. That
conversation took place, as I recall.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It did. And in that
same conversation was that $5,000 for the Sheriff. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm getting a feeling
9-'_'-03
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here that maybe that number's changed some. Am I just
feeling wrong?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. Try something,
see what happens.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Auditor is waving his
hand.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, what you have in front
of you includes $1,000 per elected official.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
MR. TOMLINSON: Other than the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more time? I
didn't hear it.
MR. TOMLINSON: The budget you have in front
of you includes the $1,000 per elected official.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Excluding the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excluding the
Sheriff?
MR. TOMLINSON: Excluding the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And his was 26,5?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, we saved
some money there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How many elected
9-~-03
1
„, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~,
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
officials do we have, excluding the Sheriff and the
Commissioners Court?
MS. NEMEC: We have 18. Then minus six,
then. And I may not be right on that, but I think it's 18
all together. I can check here real quick.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is a question,
not a recommendation. If we were going to spend $18,000 --
18 times $1,000 -- would we spend it $1,000
across-the-board, or -- or give it some other way? Do we
need to give as much to the lowest level ones as we give to
the highest? 'Cause there's a bigger disparity compared to
other -- other counties or whatever?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you --
MS. UECKER: I think when the discussion
happened last year -- I'm not sure. I think some large
adjustments were made to the constables, and did that
include some of the J.P.'s or not?
JUDGE O'DELL: We got 600, I think.
MS. UECKER: But, anyway, that was over and
above those, other than the constables, because -- because
of the -- you know, you don't have a vehicle, so you're
going to get a bigger increase. So I think the discussion
about taking care of it next year did not include
constables, as I recall.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor?
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
MR. TOMLINSON: Those -- those numbers do
include the Commissioners Court and the County Judge, in the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And constables?
MR. TOMLINSON: There was an issue raised by
Commissioner 4 that that might not be correct, so I want to
make that clear before -- before we tackle this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, how many,
excluding the Sheriff, elected officials are going to be in
a situation of making less than their chief deputy or chief
-- are any of them under the current schedule?
MS. NEMEC: None.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: None?
MS. NEMEC: Excluding the Commissioners Court
and the Sheriff, and excluding the County Court at Law
Judge, because I think his salary is set -- and I may be
wrong about that, but I show 13 elected officials. That's
including J.P.'s, constables.
JUDGE TINLEY: Be a total of 18, then, when
you include the Commissioners Court?
MS. NEMEC; Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the Sheriff?
MS. NEMEC: Nineteen with the Sheriff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. UECKER: And I think, Commissioner Letz,
9-2-03
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
the discussion of the elected officials making less than the
chief deputy that came up last week was the elected
officials -- the Treasurer, the County Clerk, the District
Clerk, you know, the Tax Assessor -- making less than the
chief deputy -- the Sheriff's chief deputy, because of the
administrative responsibilities that that chief deputy has
compared to what an elected official does. I think that's
where I was going with that -- talk about that. And I know
we can't do that this year, but I think that's something to
look at down the road. And because, you know, the -- if you
look at the structure of -- of the elected -- each elected
official, I think it's important to realize that it's only
the County Treasurer, the District Clerk, the County Clerk,
and the Tax Assessor/Collector that don't have secretaries
to perform some of those administrative functions for us.
So, here we sit without secretaries, but yet we have
employees. Yes, we have, but they're doing the duties that
the Government Code says they're supposed to do, which does
not include secretarial work, so we have do our own
secretarial work, you know, added to our administrative
positions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MS. UECKER: And I'm not asking for a
secretary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're not getting one.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
66
MS. UECKER: Now, in the future, maybe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- when
we -- if we're talking about constables as well, there's
another agenda item which affects their compensation, so I
don't know -- I mean, I'm not saying we need to exclude
them. I'm just saying it's addressed in another agenda item
specifically related to the constables.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The $1,000
across-the-board seems to feel good to me, excluding the --
excluding the Sheriff and the constables and the
Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
all elected officials, excluding the Sheriff, constables,
and Commissioners Court, be increased -- the salaries be
increased by $1,000, and the proposed '03-'04 budget be
changed accordingly. Is that correct, gentlemen? Any
further questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In addition to the
COLA which was previously approved?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, this is on top of any
other items. That is my understanding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Just wanted to
25 ~ get it out there.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion concerning the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We are
right at lunchtime. Why don't we adjourn and come back
at --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What time?
JUDGE TINLEY: 1:15.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Correction, we'll stand in
recess till 1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:02 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, it's a bit after 1:30.
Let's come back to order. The meeting that was scheduled
for today, Special Commissioners Court meeting that started
at 10:30 this morning, which went into recess right at
lunchtime to reconvene at 1:30. It's now a couple minutes
after that. By my count, we are at Item Number 9, consider
and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget
9-2-03
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
;-^
25
and/or establishment of fiscal policy by designating
required reserve fund balance to be maintained by Kerr
County during such fiscal period. In case some of are you
wondering why we're not looking at the Auditor right now, I
got a message during the lunch hour that his wife had -- was
-- had some sort of illness, and he was seeing to get her
some medical help.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wow.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, that's where we are on
that one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we maintain a
25 percent balance in the reserve.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the -- I guess that would be the establishment of a fisr_al
policy?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Designating a required reserve
fund balance of 25 percent. I assume that's of general
operating -- general operating funds?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or -- or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A brief discussion. And
this is just more so that the record, I think, is clear that
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
that amount is -- as I understand it, is the recommended
amount for, I guess, governmental entities that rely on ad
valorem taxes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The state
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: State-recommended, and
it's not just an arbitrary number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By the Comptroller.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comptroller has --
recommends that, and that is basically what the Auditor told
us last week. And that is a minimum amount, not an absolute
amount, as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My thinking on it,
Commissioner, is, if my understanding is correct, that we've
almost always been above the 25 percent, and that if we had
ever been as little as 25 percent, we would never have
exhausted the fund. And it doesn't mean it won't happen
this year, but I have some degree of comfort that that will
be -- be at least adequate.
JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection of the
Auditor's expression of druthers was that he thought we
ought to maintain at least 30 percent. I guess I'm somewhat
conservative, as is he, that -- that that's a more
comfortable level, at least in my mind, especially in view
of the fact that we are creating, by the actions of the
9-~-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~o
Court, a lot of obligations in the future, and I'm concerned
that while we may have the reserves this year to take care
of those obligations, I'm concerned about ensuing years.
In addition, we have at least one item on the
horizon that could cause -- give us considerable difficulty
iii the future, and that is the constitutional amendment
that's now pending which would allow local governments,
counties, and cities to freeze ad valorem taxes, or would
require us to freeze ad valorem taxes on residential
homesteads of those over 65 or disabled. I fully suspect
that amendment will, one, pass, and two, there will be a
very rapid move to see that it's implemented in Kerr County.
And I'd hate to see us getting ourselves to where we can
bump that lowest level, looking at obligations such as that
down the road, and possible difficulties of -- of being able
to raise sufficient funds without forcing us to get into a
rollback situation. I don't see us there now, but that
doesn't mean we couldn't get there pretty easily if -- if we
pushed the envelope. I just -- I just think a more
conservative fiscal policy would be to possibly have it a
bit higher than 25 percent; possibly 30 percent, or even
possibly a tad higher. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment, you know,
just -- and I think that the 25 percent is sufficient. I
think what the Judge said and what the Auditor recommended
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
at 30 percent, I mean, is -- there's nothing wrong with
that, necessarily. But the other side of that is that
reserve funds -- if you keep an excess balance in reserve
funds, that is taxpayers' money that we're basically keeping
in a savings account, and you're taxing more than is
required, assuming you don't need it. If you do need it,
you know, you'll have to deal with that event. But I think
that the -- the State Comptroller recommends a number of
25 percent, and I think that is a -- for this year, and also
if you're looking down the road a little bit, based on what
we can project from some long-term indebtedness being paid
off in two years, along with the longevity hit, if you want
to use that word, that we're taking in the budget this year,
which we will not have next year, I think that 25 percent is
an appropriate number, if you take the overall, big things
into account.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on what I see
on the last -- last run that we have here, where the
requested expenditures in the general line was 11.5,
25 percent of that would be 2.882, and the estimated balance
was greater than that. If you consider the cuts that we've
made today and will continue making in some of these line
items, we're going to end up at an estimated balance greater
than 2.9, so it's going to be more than 25 percent anyhow.
It will be closer to 28 or 29.
9-2-03
72
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 LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County
budget by establishing an Information Technology Department
budget at the same funding levels as specified in the
'02-'03 Kerr County budget, plus any applicable longevity or
other adjustments as may be designated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Item 1.10 be approved. Any question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, who seconded?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item Number 1.11, consider and
9-~-G3
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
discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget by
modifying Court Collections budget account by, one,
decreasing Books and Publications line item from $75 to $50
or other amount; two, decreasing Travel line item from
$1,200 to $300 or other amount. And I might point out to
you gentlemen, I lumped these kind of by department, and
certainly, if we get to a point where you want to break any
of them out separately, we can certainly do so, but I did so
for -- for, I think, clarity purposes and maybe some degree
of convenience, 'cause I think they can probably all be
handled in one item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded
that -- that Item 1.11 be approved. Any questions or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question. On
the Travel line, the $1,200 down to the $300, that $1,200
was -- they thought about going to Huntsville and doing all
this stuff?
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the reason for the
decrease, when that kind of got scrubbed. Any further
questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
~-z-o3
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Item 1.12,
consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County
budget by modifying 216th District Court budget account by,
one, deleting elected official salary line item of $1,080 or
other amount, and two, adding Special Trials line item in
the sum of $150,000 or other amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
item 1.12 be approved. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment, that the
-- the reason for the $150,000 in Special Trials is pending
a capital murder trial that's in the 216th District Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. That's why
it's there. Any further question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.}
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Item 1.13,
consider and discuss change in proposed '03-'04 Kerr County
9-~-03
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget by modifying 198th District Court budget account to
add the Special Trials line item in the sum of $150,000 or
other amount. I threw this in because I was advised very,
very late in the game that there's another capital murder
trial scheduled in the 198th to occur sometime this year.
Sheriff, what's the defendant's name?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The 198th capital
murder? The only one I know about --
JUDGE TINLEY: Where the baby --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, that's a city case.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a civil case?
JUDGE TINLEY: City.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: City. Police Department
worked that case with the -- involving the death of an
infant child.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that would be
scheduled to -- to be tried sometime this year. And I can't
think of the name.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that gentleman in custody?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's not in custody?
MR. PICKENS: Baby's name is Josh.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Bond. He's on bond.
9-2-G3
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
MR. PICKENS: Josh Freeman was the name.
JUDGE TINLEY: Then he may not go --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not going to carry as
much as the one in the 216th, but capital murder is a
capital murder trial, and I don't know if there will be
something to waive the death sentence in there or not.
Whatever. There could be all kinds of options in that; just
don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: I realize this particular
item, there's been no prior discussion on it through the
workshops. This was brought to my attention at the very end
of last week, and out of an abundance of caution, I put it
in. Now, we can -- my personal opinion is that it probably
will not be tried as a capital case.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: For whatever that's worth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm trying to find the
198th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 19 -- Page 19. And
it's zero.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Special Trials there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do we have on
Court-Appointed Attorneys? $78,000? It appears that
9-?-D3
~~
1
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's -- I mean, there's a larger amount than estimated
for this year in Court-Appointed Attorneys, which is kind
of, you know, akin to this. I don't know if this person's
going to need court-appointed legal services or not.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't recall.
JUDGE TINLEY: With an individual on bond,
you can generally presume that if they can make bond,
they're going to have a hard time convincing the trial judge
that they need a court-appointed lawyer. That's kind of an
unwritten rule. There's obviously some exceptions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is your department,
Rusty, or K.P.D. responsible for the security and things of
that nature?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Security would be all
our department once the trial starts, no doubt.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think we need
to budget for it if -- I mean, you know, if there's
something there, we need to budget for it. It appears --
from what I'm hearing, I don't see that -- there may not be
anything there that we need to budget for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, question.
Could we just raise the Court-Appointed Attorney to
$100,000, which gives it some -- some additional money
there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't think that
9-2-03
78
1
2
.-.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be the appropriate line item, just because the
conventional wisdom at the moment is he's probably not going
to need court-appointed --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So let's put $75,000
in Special Trials.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, they're letting
me make motions and everything up here.
MS. DECKER: Oh, no.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded that the '03-'04 proposed Kerr County budget be
modified, that the 198th District Court budget be modified
to add $75,000 in the Special Trials line item. Any further
questions or discussion about the motion? All in favor,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I voted for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
9-2-03
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
.~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consider and discuss change in proposed '03-'04 Kerr County
budget by modifying District Clerk budget account by, one,
decreasing Operating Equipment line item from $2,600 to $600
or other amount, and two, adding Capital Outlay expenditure
of $2,600 or other amount for acquisition of big printer.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Item 1.14 be approved. Any further questions or discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Number
1.15, consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr
County budget by modifying Justice of the Peace, Precinct
Number 4 budget account to increase Office Supplies line
item from $2,095 to $2,600 or other amount.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve 1.15. Any further questions or discussion? All in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
9-2-G3
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 1.16,
consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County
budget by modifying the County Jail budget account by, one,
increasing Employee Medical Exams line item from $4,000 to
$4,500 or other amount; and two, increasing Jail Uniforms
line item from $8,000 to $9,000 or other amount; and three,
increasing Prisoner Meals line item from $170,000 to
$180,000 or other amount; and four, increasing Prisoner
Transfer line item from $16,000 to $25,000 or other amount;
and five, increasing Radio Repair line item from $500 to
$1,000 or other amount; and six, increasing Training line
item from $4,500 to $8,000 or other amount.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember most of
this, but I don't remember all of it. Is that what we kind
of nodded around here last week?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is. The only one
that I would say you could leave is that very first one,
from the $4,000 to $4,500. Since we eliminated four
positions, you can leave that at the $4,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool, dude. I'm with
you. I'm with you, Rusty. You and me are buddies.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: With that -- with that change,
9-2-03
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do I hear a motion that 1.16 be approved?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
1.16 be approved, as modified, by item one, decreasing from
-- by leaving it at $4,000, not increasing to $4,500. Any
further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion.
Signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
1.17, consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr
County budget by modifying Parks Maintenance budget account
to decrease Operating Equipment line item from $2,000 to
$1,200 or other amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a second, Judge.
I may have a question here.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is the one where --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- apparently the Auditor
plugged in off of another line $2,000, when, in fact, it
should have been $1,200 too begin with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. My question
has to do with another --
9-~-03
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
1.17 be approved. Any further question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 1.18,
consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County
budget by modifying Constable, Precinct Number 1 budget
account by, one, increasing Miscellaneous line item from
$100 to $700 or other amount to acquire radio; two, deleting
Fuel and Vehicle Repair line items, the existing ones;
three, adding new Fuel line item in the amount of $1,300 or
other amount; four, adding new Vehicle Repair line item in
the amount of $500 or other amount; five, adding new Vehicle
Insurance line item in the amount of $6,750 or other amount;
and six, adding Capital Outlay line item in the amount of
$7,200 or other amount to acquire and equip new vehicle
patrol unit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got a motion by Commissioner
9-2-03
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Williams, but I don't recall having heard a second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second it so we
can have some discussion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and
seconded to approve 1.18.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question was, when I
was going through the new printout that we received, it
appeared that some of the constables had different amounts
than other constables, and I was under the impression that
we were -- our overall intent was to kind of equalize their
line items. And the only exception that I remember to that
is the radio that 1 and 3 didn't have.
MR. PICKENS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which would be $600
higher for those two. And I just wasn't clear that we had
done that with -- when I went through this. I apologize, I
haven't had time to go through and compare exactly what is
on the agenda to what's in here, but I --
JUDGE TINLEY: My -- my intent in preparing
all of these agenda items was, in the two cases in which
there were radios needed, to add them, and in all of those
budgets -- of course, we're excluding 4, since we don't get
into the automobile -- anything relating with equipment
repair, fuel, and insurance in existing line items, that
those be eliminated. we establish uniform line items for
9-z-c~
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Fuel for $1,300, Repairs, $500, and Insurance for $650, plus
the Capital Outlay for each. I think that's what that says.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, it's my
understanding that, although we weren't buying an automobile
for Constable, Precinct 4, that he would be granted these
same benefits for fuel and repairs and insurance and those
things as the other three are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way it
ought to be.
JUDGE TINLEY: On 4, I treated him
differently from 1, 2, and 3, where vehicles were going.
The only thing I did to 4 was to increase his elected
official's salary line item up to a full salary. Now,
whatever he's got in there for fuel, you know, he would
continue to have. Let's take a look.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Doesn't have
anything. What I'm saying is, with the exception of the
$7,200 to purchase a vehicle, Item 6, that the Precinct 4
constable should get the same provisions as you've got
there, 1 through 5 for the other three.
JUDGE TINLEY: The fuel, insurance, and
repairs? Essentially, the new line items for fuel,
insurance, and repairs?
5-2 G3
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you're exactly right,
and I apologize for that omission. I missed it somehow. We
can correct that when we get to 1.21.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While we never did
finalize the purchase of fuel, I thought the Sheriff at one
time indicated a willingness to enable the constables to buy
fuel the same way his deputies fuel their vehicles. Do I
remember correctly, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, you do. We have --
that went through RFP's and bids over here on Schreiner
Street, Maxey. We have an account set up where it is tax
deducted, and each of our units is issued a gas card, okay?
And the units are assigned a number, so when the monthly
bills come, in I see it. And what I had suggested, if they
wanted to, to keep that lower rate, is if you put that fuel
amount in our budget, then we would take care of it for the
constables and issue them a card to where they can get it at
the same place. Only thing, I'd have to just watch each
month and see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the reason I
raised it, because to me, that makes sense. There's some
control on it. You get fuel at a cheaper price, correct?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
9-2-03
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-..
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Without paying taxes.
I don't know how that will work for Constable 4, whether
that works for him or not. It may not, but it certainly
works for 1, 2, and 3.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it would
work for him.
JUDGE TINLEY: He needs to get whatever the
benefits 1, 2, and 3 are getting. He -- at a minimum, he
needs those benefits, if not more, because he's providing
his own vehicle.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only problem -- is
he driving from Ingram into Kerrville to tank up?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, we carpool
every now and then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we follow the
Sheriff's suggestion, we would be -- would be rolling that
$1,300, 13 times 4, into the Sheriff's fuel line item.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing I don't like
with that is, why can't we get a -- is for future tracking,
just so -- it's a constable expenditure, and it ought to be
in the constable's budget. And I wouldn't know why --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They could probably get
the same type of account out there and get their own -- own
card and own account. I'm just offering it for us. However
9-2-03
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they want to do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's at the same terms, same
rates as you're paying, I feel certain.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I won't speak for that
company, but I wouldn't see -- us and the police department
get fuel from there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think Jon's right.
Being able to budget, break it out and see -- at the end of
the year, see what's really happened here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the other question I
have was, from looking at them -- and the dollars are pretty
insignificant, but trying to keep things equal, Constable 1,
Office Supplies, $50; Telephone, $600. Two, Office
Supplies, $40; Telephone, $600. Three, Office Supplies,
$100; Telephone, $125. And I really don't -- you know,
don't know why there would be any difference between those
items.
MR. GARZA: I use my own cell phone. I pay
for my own. I've got a prepaid cell phone, and so basically
my money for the phone is just for my office phone, whatever
calls I make. Any calls I get and I use my own personal
cell phone, I pay out of my own pocket.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that answers that.
Okay. Leave them the way they are.
9-2-03
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what about a
couple of years ago, we rolled -- a couple years ago -- last
year, we rolled the travel into the salary, and I see that
it's not rolled back out. Did we intend to do that? I
intended to do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, we probably
should have done that up under 1.8.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably should have,
but we didn't. But it's not too late.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess we can go back and
revisit 1.8, can't we?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, we can.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would you explain
that to me, Commissioner Baldwin, what we're doing?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What we did? We've
always had a travel line, and we've always had a salary
line. And we started visiting about it and realized that
the travel money was really and truly salary, so we rolled
that travel into the salary line.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You did that across
all -- across county-wide?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did that with
Commissioners and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. And now,
9-~-G3
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
suddenly -- so we've done that, and so suddenly we come back
now, and some departments are wanting a travel line. And
we're -- and, in my mind, we're paying double here. We're
paying for travel, and then we're turning around and paying
for travel. So I think -- personally, I think that that --
that travel that we had rolled into the salary needs to come
right back out into a travel line and be spent for what it
really is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- and with
the constables, the County's now providing a car, and -- and
fuel under separate line items; we're providing more than
the travel that we rolled in originally.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was that amount
we rolled in originally?
MS. NEMEC: $1,800.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,800.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Was it the same for
all four?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MS. NEMEC: I think so, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I could just see us,
in three years -- we do this; in three years, we roll the
travel into the salary, and come back in three years later
and do the same damn thing again. I mean, that's --
commissioners courts do those kinds of things. Goofy. And
G-2-U3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
somehow we need to get a handle on that and stop now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see something else
that I'm curious about. The salary listed for Constable,
Precinct 1, is $26,992. The salary listed for Constable,
Precincts 2 and 3, is $29,492. If we back out the salary --
the $1,800 from Constables 2 and 3, that would still leave
those two with $1,000, approximately, more than Constable
Number 1. My question is, why?
JUDGE TINLEY: Tell you why. One, if you'll
recall, the original budget was $29,492. But what you're
looking at is the estimated actual because that went
unfilled for a while. But other than that, they should all
be the same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unexpired term.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it, thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner
Baldwin, this -- this issue vis-a-vis Constable, Precinct
4 -- again, I'm not trying to -- to get special advantage
for that constable. I want --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, sure you are.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want them all to
be alike. Well, everything is better out there, but we need
to treat everybody the same. Does the fact that he owns his
own vehicle have anything to do with this -- with this
9-2-03
91
1 I issue?
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: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if it does for
him going forward, it should have for the others going back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure I understood
that. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if we're giving
credit for going forward for this constable having his car,
we got -- do we give credit to the others for having used
their car all these years?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. We gave them
$1,800.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't remember --
just to answer your question, I don't recall what we did
with Precinct 4. Have we -- have we always had a separate
line there, travel line of $1,800, rolled it into the -- did
we do that with him as well?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we -- originally,
we did. But as to now, what we do, I don't think we ever
discussed it. I mean, we agreed that he would get the same
fuel allowance, but the fuel allowance is part of the
$1,800. But he is probably coming out better with the
$1,800 than the $1,3C0 in the -- no, he's coming -- what's
the vehicle -- well, the same; that's how we came up with
the $1,800, I guess. So --
°-^_-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
	COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON: So you	see it as
being fair?	If you take the	$1,800 back, you	see it as
being fair to	take it back a	cross the board?	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Because we	added -- yeah.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Take $1,800 back	from the
constables in	lieu of the ca	rs that they're pr	ovided and
that they're	being provided?		
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: You take it	back from all
four.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think you could take
it back from Precinct 4, who's providing his own vehicle, if
that's the purpose for the $1,800.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we added $1,800 of
fuel and auto repairs.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're giving the others
that also.
vehicles.
service.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are County-owned
JUDGE TINLEY: He's performing the same
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He chose not -- and also,
he chose not to get the new vehicle.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's kind of
where I'm coming from. He made that choice. He made the
choice. If he wanted a new County-owned car, he could
9-2-03
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
probably get one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. The
distinction is, he's -- the $1,800 would be used for his
car, and the 1, 2, and 3 would be used for a County car.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If it's fair, I`m
fine with it. It sounds like it's fair.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to give him the
$1,300, the $500, and the $650, though?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what are we doing
about the travel and salary thing? Are we just going to
blow right past that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can always have
another meeting next week.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, sure could. In fact, we
got one next week.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Buster, your
constable wants --
MR. PICKENS: So, if I'm hearing this right,
you're saying you're going to give the constable out of
Precinct 4 the $1,300, $500, $650 for the personal vehicle,
plus he gets the pay raise as well, too, of the $29,492, and
we get docked on our salary? Is that what I'm
9-z-a3
1
2
^.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
understanding?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe. Why?
MR. PICKENS: I'm just asking.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I think I hear a
little anger in your voice.
MR. PICKENS: No, I'm just trying to get
clarified on this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that
anyone's getting docked anything to start with, but the
$1,800 travel allowance comes out of all four constables,
and then everyone gets the new line items that are -- exceed
the $1,800.
MR. PICKENS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're treating all four
constables exactly the same, except three of you constables
get new cars the County's paying for, and the one that chose
not to isn't getting a new car, but the travel portions are
the same.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If he chooses not to
be constable again whenever that new election comes up, then
we'll -- and we get a new one, we'll have to deal with the
car issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's one reason
9-2-03
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'd like to -- personally, I'd like to leave all those lines
the same in there. 'Cause if we get a new constable in a
few years, we're going to -- this Court is going to forget
what happened and start all over.
MS. NEMEC: I'm a little confused how you're
going to take $1,800 from that salary when it was not added
in there. If y'all could -- you could pass that around,
that might make some sense.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A complication has
arisen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't shock us,
though.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to --
MS. NEMEC: Okay, you see where the Constable
1, 2, and 3 are making $29,492?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. NEMEC: In that $29,492, travel was added
to that amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. NEMEC: But if you see Constable 4 back
in salary in 2000-2001, his salary was $20,322, and you see
that zero there for travel? There was nothing ever added to
his salary for travel.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he'll be brought up to
9-~-03
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that same level, or at least that's the proposal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought that -- I mean,
that was a --
MS. NEMEC: So you're not saying you're going
to take Constable 4's salary and minus $1,800 from his
salary, right? That's not what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought his salary was
the same as the other ones.
MS. NEMEC: It will be now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're going to have
the same salary for all of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: It will go up and then it will
come back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. Isn't
Constable 4's salary less because he volunteered to have
something deducted to pay for a deputy?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
MR. GARZA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now we're adding that
back; we're paying the deputy separate, and we put that
money back into his line. Now, what does that do?
MS. NEMEC: Well, if you leave them all -- I
mean, as long as the -- the end result is that they're all
the same, it will be okay. But -- but, technically, you
can't take his salary that he has now and take $1,800 from
9-2-03
97
1
2
,--~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that line like you're doing to the other constables, 'cause
there was never $1,800 added to his salary for that. He
never had a travel.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take his salary, the
one you're talking about, and add back the amount that he
deducted for a deputy. Put that back into his salary.
Where is he, then, in relation to the others?
MS. NEMEC: I think he's still, like, $4,000
off. It's not --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, he's the same in
the current proposal.
JUDGE TINLEY: Add $2,400 and he's back up
even with them.
MS. NEMEC: Even?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should be.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $29,429.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're going to
leave them all at $29,429?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minus $1,800.
JUDGE TINLEY: 492, I believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $29,429. $1,800,
which -- I mean, if we take it off of one, I mean --
MS. NEMEC: Okay, I see what you're doing.
9-''-03
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.	AYALA:	Could	I	ask	a question?
MS.	NEMEC:	Plus	the	2	and a half percent
cost-of-living.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $27,629?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. AYALA: I understand what y'all are doing
with the travel and don't have a problem with it. My
question is, how come we weren't included with the $1,000
across-the-board raise for elected officials?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good
question.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The reason you
weren't is 'cause we knew we were going to be having this
discussion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we were waiting on
you to remind us.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like an
option is to take that $29,429, subtract $1,800, add back
$1, 000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or just take off
$800.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's it.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. We're going to take --
9-2-03
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
we're going to take the 29,4 --
MR. PICKENS: 492.
MS. NEMEC: -- 492, and give a 2 and a half
percent cost-of-living increase to that, which makes it
$30,229, and then we're going to take off the $1,800, and
then we're going to add back $1,000?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
8
understand it.
MS. NEMEC: Okay, I've got it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should end up
being $28,629. That's taking only -- taking $800 off the
$29, 429.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not at 492; I don't know
where all this dyslexia crept in here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more time?
MS. NEMEC: I've heard 29 instead of 92.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Minus $800. New
number, $28,629 salary. I would incorporate that change in
my original motion, Judge, before we get off on another
track.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a -- as an amendment to
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
.._.
25
9-2-03
1.8?
100
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where we are,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I hear 1.8?
JUDGE TINLEY: 1.8 has to do with the elected
officials' salary, that particular item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know what it's about.
Okay, we're making the changes, and the final salary is
$28, 629?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under the constables,
yes, it would be $28,629, with the adjustment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And your rationale was
the regular salary, less $800?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. I think
also, Judge, after we've taken action on 1.18 -- that's
where we are now -- I think we ought to go back to 1.8 and
remove constables from that motion on 1.8, to be consistent
with what we've done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very good. Very good. Okay.
Do we have a motion and a second on the floor? You amended
your motion.
23
24
25
5-2-03
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1.18. I moved it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Commissioner
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
101
Baldwin seconded. I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: You seconded?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, who knows?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe it was
Commissioner 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think I did.
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that amendment is
acceptable to you, Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I expect.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.. Any further discussion
on 1.18? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. At
Commissioner Williams' suggestion, we will go back to 1.8.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move, Judge,
that we remove constables from that court order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And note that it was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was taken care of
under 1.18.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: That applies for 1.19 and
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
1.20 as well, the constables?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's part of the motion,
then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And one more thing, just
to make it a little more confusing. Since we didn't --
since we don't have a later item related to Constable 4 --
or we do have a later item?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's 1.21, but we're
going to have to treat that differently. Item 1.19, do I
hear the same motion with respect to that as I heard for
1.18?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would amend my
motion to include 9.
JUDGE TINLEY: 19, you mean?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1.08 and 1.09. Isn't
that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1.19.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, 19, I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have the same thing for
1.20.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not there yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only thing 19 and 20
have that 18 doesn't is the postage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to do
them one at a time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. Let's just
do --
JUDGE TINLEY: 1.19, consider and discuss
change in proposed '03-'04 budget by modifying Constable,
Precinct Number 2 budget account by, one, increasing --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By one? Judge, we
didn't vote on 1.18, did we?
MS. PIEPER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: We did not?
MS. PIEPER: No, you did not.
JUDGE TINLEY: I stand corrected. Any
further question or discussion on 1.18 as amended? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.}
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we did.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we did, too. I had
already had it marked, "4-0." 1.19, consider and discuss
a-z os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
changing proposed '03-'04 budget by modifying Constable,
Precinct Number 2 budget account by, one, increasing Postage
line item from $37 to $100 or other amount; two, deleting
existing Fuel and Vehicle Repair line items; three, adding
new Fuel line item in the amount of $1,300 or other amount;
four, adding new Vehicle Repair line item in the amount of
$500 or other amount; next, adding new Vehicle Insurance
line item in the amount of $650 or other amount; and six,
adding Capital Outlay line item in the amount of $7,200 or
other amount to acquire and equip new vehicle patrol unit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That makes that
consistent with number 18?
JUDGE TINLEY: With the exception of the
Postage line item, I think. And it doesn't have the radio
in it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
1.19 be approved. Is it your intention that this operate
the same as 1.18 did?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If there are some
differences in postage because they think they need it, I'm
okay with postage.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They all have
9 2-03
1
..., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
105
different requirements.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- what I'm speaking of, this
one doesn't have the $800 item in it at this point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The $800?
JUDGE TINLEY: You removed the constables
from the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's constables,
plural, so that would apply all across-the-board.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That took care of
$1,000. You going to do something with the other $800, or
leave it alone on 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We removed $800.
JUDGE TINLEY: On 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLTAMS: We removed $800 from
salary, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: On 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Make it -- make it
uniform. Applies here, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Just wanted to make
sure we got into the record what the intent was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion. Do I have a
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I seconded.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further
,--~
25
9-~-03
second?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-_
25
106
questions or discussion? All in favor of 1.19, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 1.20.
This is Constable, Precinct 3, proposed changes to the
budget. We're increasing Miscellaneous line item from $100
to $700, again, to acquire a radio; increasing the Postage
line item from $37 to $100, and increasing the Office Supply
from $50 to $100, deleting the existing Fuel, Vehicle
Repair, and Vehicle Insurance line items, adding new Fuel
line item of $1,300, adding new Vehicle Repair line item of
$500, adding new Vehicle Insurance line item of $650, and
adding Capital Outlay line item in the amount of $7,200 to
acquire and equip new vehicle patrol unit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. And this is
with the same salary adjustment.
JUDGE TINLEY: The $800 salary adjustment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
MR. GARZA: Question. Commissioners, will I
still have a Training School line item in my budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GARZA: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't change that.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.._.
25
107
MR. GARZA: Okay, just asking. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you confused,
Angel?
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir, Commissioner, I am.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Welcome to the crowd.
MR. GARZA: No, I was asking, 'cause the
other constables are going to have more in their telephone,
and I was hoping to put mine into training. One further
question. Are we still included in the training for Thunder
Ranch, all three constables? I mean, is there -- was there
money budgeted for us to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever -- whatever was in
the original budget remains the same, except as we're
modifying it right here. Now, how you intended to expend
that, I don't know.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except for them buying
their own ammo, I think that comes out of our budget. It
comes out of my training budget to pay for those ranch
visits.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we consider that
an invitation for them to attend?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not their deputies, but
the constables. That was agreed to a couple years ago at
this Court.
(Discussion off the record.)
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
JUDGE TINLEY: Who made the second?
MS. PIEPER: There was no second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. I'll second,
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve 1.20, as modified, with the $800 salary adjustment.
Any further questions or discussion? All in favor, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you vote, Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, motion carries. Item
1.21. This is Precinct 4 Constable. The only thing I've
got here is to elevate the salary to the initial parity of
$29,492 before any other adjustments, such as COLA or
whatever. It's my understanding that, based on the
discussions, we need to add to that some new line items or
additional line item accounts to provide for Fuel in the
amount of $1,300, Vehicle Repair, $500, Vehicle Insurance
for $650.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And subtract the
$800 to back out the travel allowance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would make it
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
$28,629 on the salary line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: I come up with $28,692.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 629.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion to that
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
MS. NEMEC: Have I 29
and you subtract $800 from that, what
JUDGE TINLEY: You get
MS. NEMEC: Right. Th
That's what I'm coming up with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
Mickey Mouse calculator.
What is it?
-- if you take $29,492
do you get?
92, not 29.
at's what I'm saying.
I get $28,692 on my
MS. NEMEC: Earlier, you were saying 29. You
were saying 29.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You stated it wrong.
JUDGE TINLEY: You made the motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And motion's been made and
seconded to approve 1.21 and to adjust that item by
decreasing the salary, after increasing it, by $800, adding
the three line items -- new line items for fuel, $1,300;
9-~-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
repair, $500; insurance, $650. Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Okay,
1.22, consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 budget
by modifying Sheriff's Department budget account by, one,
reducing Group Health Insurance from $370,008 to $279,696 to
correct the error in the original budget, increasing Uniform
line item from $10,000 to $12,000, increasing Crime
Prevention line item from $500 to $1,000, increasing
Training Schools from $1,800 to 25 -- $18,000 to $25,000,
adding Capital Outlay line item of $46,535 to acquire and
equip four new vehicle patrol units. The error in the
original budget had to do with a re -- an erroneous
computation of the number of people that -- that it was
required to purchase health insurance for, and that was an
error that I made. So, we -- we made some money by -- by
that error.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This has a positive
effect nn our ending balance? Is that what you're saying?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Yeah, it's going the
right direction for a change.
9-2-03
111
1
.-.. 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: This change was already
in the new printout?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it is. It is in there.
But since --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the proposed budget we're
working off of is the one that I filed, that's the reason
I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- couched them all as I have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve 1.22. Any further question or discussion? All in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 1.23,
consider and discuss changing the proposed '03-'04 budget by
modifying Juvenile Probation budget account by, one,
increasing Attorney Ad Litem fees line item from $25,000 to
$35,000, and two, increasing Alternate Housing line item
from $65,103 to $100,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
9-2-03
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which -- which tab
are we at? Is that Juvenile Probation, 53? It is in my
book.
JUDGE TINLEY: Works for me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
and I guess you can answer it, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How are salary
increases set in this particular budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: I can tell you how the budget
got here. The Juvenile Board approved it and sent it here.
And there was one salary adjustment that was necessary to be
made. Are there longevity increases there also?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe there are, yeah.
Yeah. Other than the one adjustment that needed to be made
to give parity between the -- the probation officers,
they're basically under the same rules that everybody else
is playing by. But the second step to that is that that's
what the Juvenile Board approved and sent this way, with the
exception of the two changes which I'm -- which is in the
item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And the
Juvenile Board consists of two District Judges and the
County Judge?
9-2-03
113
1
2
3
4
5
0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. That's
correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want the
record to show -- I'm not going to vote against it. I want
the record to show, however, that this represents, in both
those cases, a percent -- I'm not sure how much of that is
attributed to longevity, but it is considerably more than
others, and I just want the record to show that. I'm not
going to vote it against it, however.
JUDGE TINLEY: There was -- in the salary
item, you're talking about?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there was one adjustment
that was necessary, and -- and I think the Juvenile Board
thought it was absolutely essential.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Necessary?
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I guess -- was it
just an increase? Or was it a -- a change? Or -- I mean,
was it a merit increase? Was it because somebody else was
making too much; there had to be an adjustment to keep the
position correct? Or new responsibility? What was the -- I
guess the category it would fall under as the reason for the
increase?
9-2-03
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Avoid E.E.O.C. Is that plain
enough, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sort of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a pretty good
reason.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
MS. PIEPER: Commissioner Baldwin, did you
just second that motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I did not.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't hear him second it.
I have a motion to approve 1.23. Do you hear a second?
Let's move on. Item 1.24, consider and discuss changing
proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget by modifying Health and
Emergency Services budget account by, one, increasing
U.G.R.A. Contract line item from $50,000 to $64,000, and
two, decreasing First Responder Coordinator line item from
$10,831 to $9,675.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve 1.24. Any further question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9-2-03
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Motion carries. Item 1.25, consider and discuss changing
proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget by modifying the Rabies
and Animal Control budget by increasing Operating Expense
line item from $7,500 to $8,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve 1.25. Any further question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Item 1.26,
consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 budget by
modifying County-Sponsored Activity budget account by, one,
eliminating and reducing funding to selected agencies, as
may be determined by the Court; and two, increasing KCAD,
Kerr Central Appraisal District, contract line item from
$91,094 to $97,648.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I think
there's an error on 410 and 420. And I don't think -- I
think the Court's intention was not followed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Where are you?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm on Page 64, under
410, which is Dietert, for its programs to the elderly. We
9-2-03
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have heretofore funded them to -- to their requested amount
of $15,000, which was renewed again by Tina Woods here at
our last meeting. Our intention was to fund public
transportation to a larger amount, which we indicated our
willingness to do, and that amount is $7,883. Now, what was
done apparently on 410 and 420 was to take the 15 and divide
it in half, and give public transportation $7,883, and cut
Dietert to $7,117. I don't think that was our intent. Our
intent was to increase public transportation. I'd like to
see Dietert restored to the level of 15, and the funding for
public transportation $7,883 as well. You see what he did?
He took the 15 under 410 and split it in half, and $7,883
and $7,117 gives you 15.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I took the
$7,883, which was the suggested transportation AACOG
allocation for Kerr County, took that off of the 15, gave
the balance of the 15 to -- to Dietert. And, inasmuch as
Dietert had been providing the transportation heretofore, I
eliminated the $5,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But even if you just
took the difference between the $5,000 public transportation
which was in there, and added the additional $2,883, that
would still leave Dietert more than $7,117, even if you did
it that way.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, my intention was to divvy
a-?-os
1
,~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
117
up the $15,000. That's what I did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd like to see
Dietert restored to 15, and fund public transportation as
well.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And your reasoning is?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They provide a lot
of -- a lot of services for seniors that, if they weren't
there to provide those services, I just feel confident
Commissioners Court would have to fund it somehow, to some
extent in excess of $15,000. So I think we really get a
pretty good bang for our buck by helping out Dietert Claim
for $15,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if I -- I
understand what you're saying, and I almost agree, but I
don't know that this Commissioners Court would ever feel
like that we have to fund that. That -- really and truly,
that is a function of the church, and out of the kindness of
the Commissioners Court, we come along with tax dollars
doing this, and have for many years. I mean, I've always
been for it and -- always been for it and always will be,
but I don't know that the Judge is doing the wrong thing
here. I mean, I don't -- I don't know. Hope y'all don't
make me -- make me vote on this right this moment, because I
.-..
25
9-2-03
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- I
will.
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mean, the -- going back to the discussion that I recall on
this overall item is that the -- the County feels like we
should get out of the business of sponsoring social
entities, and I think Dietert is one of those in that
category. Now, whether that's too drastic a cut, it may
well be, but I think that the -- you know, I guess -- you
know, I understand Dietert Claim is a great organization;
they do great work. But there are dozens of other
organizations that do just as good of work that we don't
give a penny to. So I think we either need to, you know,
help them all or help none, and I'm in favor of helping
none. But to get to that point, I think you need to, you
know, get there slowly. I mean, I would be -- if $7,000 is
too much of a cut, I can maybe go as high as $10,000 for
this year, but I don't have a problem with where it is right
now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm supporting that
thinking, and what I see here is that we've got six of these
social service agencies. Two of them had been eliminated
earlier. We got Child Advocacy at 3,000, K'Star at 5,000
Crisis Council and CASA at five, Historical Commission at
2,500, and Dietert Claim at 1,500 (sic), a total of $35,500.
We started -- not started; we've been talking about it for a
while, but it was a point for your consideration. I'd
suggest we think about cutting all of those by 50 percent,
9-2-03
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and -- and informing them of our thinking that -- that
we'll -- our strategy that we'll make further cuts in the
future. Don't cut them -- don't cut them completely off
now, but cut it in half and tell them that we'll be looking
at it again next year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem
with that philosophy, but I do -- some of these are -- are
basically under the County, as I understand or recall, and
I'm not sure which ones. Commissioner Baldwin, can you
enlighten me some?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, I can't
remember all of that. I know that the County uses -- uses
the services. It just seems to me we're a little bit late
in the game. I like exactly what you're saying,
Commissioner 4. I would handle it in the way that this
Court has -- we fund R.C.& D., and that is a grant-writing
operation, and that these agencies -- we need to let them
know that R.C.& D. is out there and the County pays them to
write grants, and these agencies need to go to that -- to
R.C.& D. and get their grants written, and you have three
years and we'll see 'ya, is the way I would handle it.
That's the way I've been trying to handle it for years here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we have a
philosophical difference, which --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- really wouldn't be
our first one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gosh, I thought it
was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think some of these
things truly do a -- a beneficial service to Kerr County,
and Crisis Council comes to mind, CASA comes to mind. And
we had already cut out Big Brothers and Big -- Child
Advocacy comes to mind, K'Star. And I think it's -- I think
the County Judge and maybe the County Court at Law Judge
could speak more informatively to that than I can, because
they do seem to use it, and they would know what kind of
services the agencies perform. I do see some obligation
there. I only want to make one other comment about Dietert.
Prior to this budget going into effect -- or prior to
Dietert getting out of public transportation, the County
funded Dietert for two purposes, to the tune of $20,000.
5,000 bucks is escaping someplace, and it was the public
transportation line of five which, in effect, has gone away.
If we follow the County Judge's logic in what we did, he
took the 15 that Dietert formerly got, split it down the
middle, 78 and 71, but the prior $5,000 has gone away. He's
nodding. He agrees with me; he's nodding.
JUDGE TINLEY: $5,000 is gone, no question
about it, from what I've got down here.
9-2-03
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. DECKER: May I ask a question? I mean,
is it -- is it proper for the County to -- rather than
funding all of these individually, to give one amount to the
United Way, and let them divide it up?
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe the answer to your
question is probably so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would work
beautifully if all of them participated. I'm not sure they
do. Maybe they do. I don't know if they do participate in
United Way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not a big fan of
United Way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The problem with
that -- another problem with that is, United Way takes an
administrative fee right off the top.
MS. DECKER: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I'm not in
favor of that part.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pretty good whack
right off the top.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, everybody I
know that deals with -- or that are involved in these
agencies are always yelling about government involvement.
You know, don't get -- don't get involved with the
9-z-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
government because they -- you know, there's no free money;
no free lunch, you know, and that thing of, you know,
they're always going to want something in return. And here
we are -- here we are; they're doing it right here. I just
don't think that -- I mean, I -- I mean, I was around when
some of these things were founded. My wife has served on
some of these boards, the founding board. And -- and I love
them, and I love what they do, and I know they're tremendous
and wonderful. But it's not a function of government.
These things are not a function of government. It's a
function of the church, and that's where -- that's where it
belongs. And I really -- for their own good, I think we
need to wean them off the government.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I concur. I have no
reason to believe that any of them don't do good work. In
fact, I -- some of them I know about, and they do really
good work. And I see them not too differently than I see
the Extension Service and the Ag Barn, that they're --
they're doing good work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boo.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're serving a
small population and all of that outside the function of
government, in my view. There's a lot more out there. I
can tell you, the Hill Country Youth Ranch needs about a
half a million dollars.
9-2-03
1
,,., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they're not in
here asking for funding, either.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a motion to offer
on 1.26, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to move to
reduce the funding of those five agencies, Child Advocacy --
six; Child Advocacy, K'Star, Crisis Council, CASA,
Historical Commission, and Dietert Claim, by 50 percent of
the amount now in the budget, and to inform them that it's
our intention to get out of the business of funding them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those six?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, six.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about -- what
about Economic Development, while we're there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we had earlier
indicated our willingness to continue to support it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I know. It's one
of those -- I know. It's one of those things that we don't
address, that we never call into question. We never ask
them for any kind of report. We never -- I don't have a
clue -- I've been here 11 years; I don't have a clue who
they are and what they do. We just keep doing it because
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
they're nice people and they're part of the Chamber. And
I'm sure they are. But what's the difference between --
what's different between them and all these other things?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you could
take a look at the whole list, starting with the Trapper
contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's cut it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even though we get a
report, you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's cut it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's never trapped
anything in my back yard.
JUDGE TINLEY: In response -- in response to
your question, Commissioner, about the Economic Development,
that organization, it is technically not a part of the
Chamber and is now making -- it's in the transition process
to become totally independent. It did have some
interlocking --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, like the same
board.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah -- well, not only the
same board, no, no, no. But the beneficial effect derived
there is that their sole purpose in life is to generate
something that will create tax revenue for us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And jobs for Kerr
9-2-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jobs, growth, and tax revenue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you know that, in
the 11 years I've been here, I don't recall a company coming
in here asking for a tax abatement? Not one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had one. I don't
They withdrew.
they withdrew.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, I mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They asked for it and
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm off my soapbox,
but I'll be back next year. I just don't see the function.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I -- do I hear a second to
the motion as offered?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear another motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me try it.
I would -- I would like to move the public transportation
$5,000 that the Judge lost to Dietert, and I would so move.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the totality of your
motion?
9-~-03
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There will be another
one if we get past this one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I hear a second to
that motion? Hearing none, motion fails for lack of a
second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we
-- I would move that we approve the Kerr County-Sponsored
Activity as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
-- when you say "as presented," are you including the KCAD
change because of the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You were talking about
this piece of paper right here, were you not?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does that include 97
for the KCAD?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unfortunately.
JUDGE TINLEY: As modified, with the $97,648
for KCAD. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, at what point
can we notify these agencies that -- that things are going
9-2-03
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to change? I mean, can -- can we send a letter -- can we
put it in the motion? That we approve this, but -- I don't
know.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's not part of the motion
right now, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, it's not.
JUDGE TINLEY: We might want to consider it
on --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not sure it's
proper to do it that way, but it's just -- you know, we're
going to drop this in again next year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've talked about
this too long.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- the question I have
and the problem I have with the -- well, I've had with two
out of three motions that I've heard is that it seems to me
that some of these -- and I'm not sure which one is almost
under the County. And I -- going by -- I believe it was
Thea that brought that up, and I think it was Child
Advocacy -- and I don't know that. And if we -- or maybe it
was -- the County Attorney might have brought it up.
Anyway, somehow we're responsible -- it's not just an
organization that we provide funding to. One of them is
a -- a link to the County, and I don't want to vote until I
9-2-03
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know which one that is, or two of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe there are two of
them. Child Advocacy is one, and the Historical Commission
is another. My understanding is they're created by statute,
and they are linked to county government.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And is there -- and in
that link, is there an obligation to fund?
JUDGE TINLEY: I can't give you an answer to
that question, Commissioner. I'm lucky to be able to give
you the first answer.
MS. UECKER: What's happening with those
organizations, as we've already seen with the victims' crime
fund and the mediation, and the -- each county's Child
Welfare, is when the funding starts going down, what they do
is they get a strong lobby, they go to Austin, and they say,
you know, let's add 50 cents to each case filed, and then
this becomes a fee-based obligation from the County to that
organization.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second
that we approve the agenda item, with the KCAD change from
the original filed proposed budget. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, Judge. The
agenda item says eliminate or reduce funding of selected
9-2-03
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agencies.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, obviously, we're not
going to do that. It's approved as it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the one change from the
original budget, 91 to 97, the change for KCAD.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize if -- if that
creates some confusion. Any further question or discussion?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin and Williams voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed?
(Commissioners Letz -and Nicholson voted
against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll vote far the motion.
Consider and discuss changing '03-'04 Kerr County budget by
reducing or eliminating funding to the Agricultural
Extension Service budget account.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we just go on to
1.28?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I won't make all
those speeches all over again. You've all heard them, and I
have good reason to believe that they provide a good and
valuable service. And they don't provide it to a whole lot
~-2-ns
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of people, and they cost a whole lot of money, $137,000 a
year. So, I don't feel that the County's getting good value
from funding the Extension Service at that level of cost,
and I would be surprised if -- if we defunded them, if they
didn't find funds somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the last part of
what you said about funding, but I'm not sure that that's
accurate. It would be great if we could find some other
source to fund them, but --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably not
accurate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't know if
it -- you know --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wishful thinking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think my
feelings -- I've stated previously that I'm in favor of that
agency.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion in
connection with agenda Item 1.27? Being none, we'll move
on. Item 1.28, consider and discuss change in proposed
'03-'04 Kerr County budget by reducing or eliminating
funding for Books and Publications line items to various
departments to the extent the same can be provided with such
Books, Publications through the Law Library or Law Library
budget account.
9-2-03
131
1
,.,... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This one, I think
the total of these line items in the various departments is
18 and a half thousand dollars, something close to that. I
think I've heard Ms. Uecker say that we have moneys that are
available for that, and these -- these costs could be paid
out of the -- the Law Library fund or -- what's it called?
MS. UECKER: Yeah, Law Library fund.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. And so what
I'm proposing is that -- that money is lying there unused;
that we eliminate that -- that item from each individual
department's budget, and that they present their -- their
receipts for payment to the Law Library.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm in favor of it. You
know, I think we're doing it to a large part by, certainly,
District Clerk's office and County Clerk's office.
MS. UECKER: I would just like to add to
that, if you're making a motion, that that -- that is going
to apply to only standing subscriptions, so that somebody
doesn't go in there and decide they now see a whole bunch of
fantasy books that they want. I'll order them and send the
bill to the Law Library.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a risk.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not only -- Linda, I
don't know what your fund balance is in that, but, like,
Sheriff's Office, all the officers that we end up getting
9-2-03
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
new Penal Codes and Code of Criminal Procedures each year
that they carry in their car. I called Linda last week and
left it. It's about a cost of about $1,500.
MS. UECKER: Right. The balance that we
have --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Fund balance, okay.
MS. UECKER: Yes. The balance we have in
there now is between -- I'm not sure exactly. It's between
55 or 58 to 70 thousand dollars. We charge $35 on each case
filed in the County Court at Law -- is it 35, County Court
at Law?
MS. PIEPER: 35.
MS. UECKER: And in District Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only concern is how --
how to do the budgeting for it. I know the intent is to
take a portion of each office's Books, Publications, and
Dues category and take it out of a separate fund, a
designated fund, being the Law Library fund. But how do we
budget for it in both the General Fund and the Law Library
fund? That would be my question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm wondering if we
couldn't approach that same topic by agreeing with the
concept, and doing it to the extent -- what kind of caught
my eye was the providing "to the extent possible," and leave
everything in place and see where that takes us. And if,
9-~-03
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
next year, her funds are able to take care of the whole
thing, great. Then we don't fund anybody else for that
purpose. Would that work?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, still, they're
different funds. I mean, so we have -- we'll have to have a
budget amendment to get the money from the General Fund --
well, I don't know that we can move money, I mean, to get --
to pay for it out of the Law Library fund.
MS. DECKER: No, you just zero out those line
items in this fund, and then do nothing else. And then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we zero out all in the
General Fund? We zero out all Books, Publications, and
Dues?
MS. DECKER: No, not -- you'd have to
separate the dues part of it. But then, at the end of the
year, of course, you have to -- to budget that -- the Law
Library account the same way that you would do Records
Preservation or Mediation or anything else. I would just
present a list of all of the -- or the elected officials
would need to bring me a copy of what they're going to need,
and we can add it all up and appropriate those funds in each
-- beginning of each budget year, like we do now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would this also be
able to handle the County Attorney's needs as well as the
Sheriff and yours and everybody else?
9-2-03
134
1
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. UECKER: Yes. I think -- did you say
$18,000? Did that include the County Attorney's?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know.
MR. MOTLEY: We have $7,000 this year
requested in the budget, and I'm not sure exactly what part
of that breaks down to dues, but we will have some dues out
of there that won't be paid. And I think we're going to
suggest that we leave the dues, whatever that amount is,
$500 or $1,000, and then zero the balance -- $6,000 out, and
I just take her my bills and she pays them. The only
question I would have about it -- probably wouldn't kick in
this year, but next year or the next year, whenever we run
out of money, we're going to have -- I don't know how much
money goes into that fund each year, but we are eventually
going to be faced with a situation where we exhaust that
fund, I think, during the budget year, and we just need to
plan ahead on that.
MS. UECKER: Not unless you desire to buy
some big, huge set of books. I mean, there again, you'd
have to address the issue on a -- on a year-by-year basis,
like do you any other budget line item.
MR. MOTLEY: And just add general funds into
your books and publications, is that what you're saying? To
account for any possible shortfall? Is that --
MS. UECKER: Well, if -- if that happens, but
9-2-03
135
1
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 don't see that happening.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay. I just didn't know what
the yearly income was to the fund.
MS. DECKER: We're going to be all right for
several years.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay. You know, I'll -- I can
live with that. We'll need something in there for dues; I
don't know, 500, a thousand bucks. I don't know what it is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like the only
risk in just zeroing out Books/Publications is that -- just
what Ms. Uecker said, that somebody may see that as an open
checkbook to go in there and buy things that they don't
need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it also -- I
mean, how cumbersome would it be to increase the -- or
decrease the line item in the Law Library the same amount?
That would be the aggregate of the total in all the other
accounts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Then you got to peel out the
dues before do you that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And figure out --
how do you get that word back to each department head and
elected official as to what their budget is so they don't
just go buy whatever they want'?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, haven't they
9-2-03
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
established that for us? Isn't that there right now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's there now, but if we
zeroed it out, it won't be there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's take
Commissioners Court as an example. We've got $1,500 in
there for Books, Publications, and Dues.
MS. UECKER: Each office?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Total for the Court.
JUDGE BROWN: Excuse me, I apologize. Do you
want me to go ahead and start the juveniles, and whenever
you can get through, then I'll just -- you pick up where I
leave off?
JUDGE TINLEY: That'll be fine, Judge.
Appreciate it. Thank you for your help.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Need some help?
JUDGE BROWN: Yeah, come on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'll be down
there in a minute.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if we scratched
that $1,500, went to zero, and whatever it is we were going
to get with that, we'd go to Linda and buy it through her
funds, I don't see that that would inconvenience --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Except there's some
24 dues in there.
25
MS. UECKER: Yeah, there's -- you can't zero
9-2-03
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out the dues part. What is approximately 800 times 35 on
your calculator?
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: 28,000.
MS. DECKER: Okay. That's an approximate
figure. It's probably a little high of what the income's
going to be in the Law Library account each year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the kind of
money you talked about before, Commissioner. Money we're
collecting, but it's settling in our bank account, not being
used.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As far as your
concern about maybe somebody orders a whole brand-new set of
law books that they haven't had before, couldn't we have
every department head/elected official who orders
publications, whatever they are, give the District Clerk
a -- a list of what they have? And that creates a
benchmark, and anything over and above that has to be
justified.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that could
control --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good way
to handle the control question. How do we relatively go
through and quickly reduce all the Books, Publications, and
9-?-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
138
Dues, and leave dues?
MR. MOTLEY: One other thing. A lot of books
we buy we buy every other year. There are also sets of
books that we buy that are only updated maybe every three or
four years. I can give Linda a list of what we have now,
but I also want to make note that there are publishing
companies that do come out with new publications that are
very valid, very useful, and never been published before.
So, you know, there -- there will be times when something
new is on the horizon there that we should be able to take
advantage of somehow. If there's, like Commissioner
Williams said, some way to validate that -- I'm not talking
about going out and getting just any old thing, but pretty
much what we're going with is something new that might be of
value to us on the horizon.
MS. UECKER: And I think that's, you know,
exactly what he was talking about, is if -- if you come
across that situation where you need -- just bring me what
it is, and I'll go to the Commissioners Court and we'll --
they'll either approve it or not approve it.
MR. MOTLEY: Y'all are going to be -- I don't
know how much time and accounting you're going to save by
doing that it way. If you have to approve book orders --
MS. UECKER: That's me, not them.
MR. MOTLEY: If you have to approve a book
9-2-03
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
order one at a time or whatever, that might be burdensome to
the Court.
MS. DECKER: How often is that going to be
that you have a new set of books?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's no different
than you coming in year after year, and next year, saying,
"Well, there's some new stuff I need," and ask for a big
allowance to -- it's no different.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, you're probably right.
I'm just thinking -- I'm not against the idea. I'm for the
idea. I just would want to be sure there's plenty of money
coming in to cover -- kind of in perpetuity, so to speak,
and that's fine.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The only thing
that's keeping us from getting there is, we don't know what
the fees are. We don't know how much of this --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is dues.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- $14,000 or
$15,000 or whatever it is, is dues. How can we overcome
that obstacle?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Elected officials
should know what dues they have cranked in. We know what
our is. We know it's dues to West Texas, for example.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what else?
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
140
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: State association.
But we don't -- we don't -- we never joined the national
organizations.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What kind of action
can we take today with that uncertainty?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could include in
this motion to adopt this concept that the elected officials
and department heads, including Commissioners Court, provide
the District Clerk with a list of publications only, and
then -- and everything else stays in their line.
MS. UECKER: For your information, mine is
already out of there. It's coming out of the Law Library.
I think I have, like, $50 or something like that left in
dues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When will you get an
answer? If you tell everyone -- send a memo out that we're
deleting that line item, it needs to come back for dues
only, and those that do, do, and those that don't --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That will work, by
exception.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, Judge, you can sign
that memo.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge can do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion on 1.28?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't had one yet?
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-~.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
141
MS. PIEPER: There's no motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The motion is to
eliminate funding for books and publications by zeroing out
that line item, which includes books, publications, and fees
JUDGE TINLEY: Dues.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Dues. And that each
organization that needs a budget for dues will notify the --
the Commissioners Court of what that need is. Can you clean
that rambling statement up a little bit? Make -- make a
motion out of it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
each -- each elected official and/or department head provide
the Commissioners Court with an itemization of dues required
to be paid during the coming fiscal year, and that that
amount be deducted from that department's allocation for
Books, Publications, and Dues and be left remaining there,
and that the balance of all those accounts be transferred to
the County Law Library fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only, I guess,
amendment to that -- could we have it to the -- instead of
making them come to Commissioners Court, let them go to the
Auditor?
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
142
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that acceptable with
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
MS. UECKER: I think that motion might need
to include to furnish me a list of current subscriptions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I -- my thought
was we need to figure out the process for this at our next,
maybe, Commissioners Court meeting. I mean, if you could
write something up, Linda, as to how it's going to work best
with your office, then we can approve that. Then they can
use that procedure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you develop
that for us, and we can approve the process at the next
meeting? We're looking at the concept now.
MS. UECKER: Okay. When's the next meeting?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Monday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Monday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tonight. Tomorrow.
MS. UECKER: That's a little bit of a
problem. I'm going to be gone to a --
JUDGE TINLEY: We won't hear it Monday,
anyway.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
143
MS. DECKER: -- a workshop Thursday-Friday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After the budget year
starts or whatever.
MS. DECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Later on.
MS. DECKER: Okay. So, it's not essential
that we get to it Monday?
JUDGE TINLEY: We're worried about the
economics in getting it in the budget now as to where it's
going to be in the budget, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss changing '03-'04 proposed budget by
reducing funding to Public Library budget account by
15 percent or other percentage of requested amount.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This morning, I got
the -- the contract with the City concerning the library
contract, and I noted that -- that the County Judge and --
and Commissioner Williams, our liaison, did notify the City
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
by letter on May 21 that this -- they were giving notice of
Kerr County's intention to renegotiate the terms of the
library contract for the fiscal year beginning October 1,
2003, so the window of opportunity is -- is open for doing
something different with that. The 15 percent number is --
is a number that's sort of pulled out of the air of -- of
what would be a challenge. For most organizations, it would
be a challenge to reduce their costs by 15 percent. So, I
think we need to reduce our annual investment in the
library. And I think their -- their budget probably doesn't
get as much attention from the City as we would like for it
to, and that it's a very large cost, $397,000 to us, and we
need to find ways to reduce that cost.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that,
embodied in the letter that we sent to the City at the
Judge's request -- and the Judge asked me my thoughts on
where we should go with this -- had to do with two things.
My belief that we were not included to the extent that we
could or should be in the budget-making process, and all we
have been given in the past has been a number that -- we're
supposed to trust that number, including this year, and
stamp approval of it. And, secondly, that we needed to have
a better understanding, and even if it -- even if it meant
an ordinance change on the part of the City as to who and
how many people were appointed to that board and how that
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,..-..
25
145
process worked.
So, these are the two items I had in mind
when the Judge asked me my thoughts on the contract. I
agree it's a large number, and if we don't work toward
mitigating, it's going to continue to grow. But I think at
this juncture, it would be inappropriate to arbitrarily
reduce it by 15 percent on our part. I would rather be
involved -- or the Judge be involved in the decision-making
that goes into the budget, as opposed to doing it ex post
facto. So, you know, for that reason, I would -- I would
not want to support an arbitrary cut. But I do need -- I
think the City needs to be made to understand that we
definitely want to be involved in the budget process. We
want to know what goes into that and a justification for
increases, if any.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Williams,
we have said that numerous times to the City. Numerous
times. And I agree with you that we need to be involved in
the budget process. No question about it. But can you
imagine a better way to get that done?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, this right
here accomplishes what you --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the Lyndon
Johnson philosophy; hit them over -- hit the donkey over the
9-2-03
1
,--, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
146
head with a two-by-four just to get his attention. I would
disagree with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't saying they
were donkeys. You might say that, but I -- I wouldn't say
that they were donkeys by any means.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not suggesting
that at all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some of my best
friends are over there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we do need to
tell them that we approved it, and with great reservation as
to the process, and fully intend to be involved in the
process from the get-go in the next year. That's my sense
of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we've done that
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we
have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to that extent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they've said --
"Why, sure. Sure."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- nothing
would make me, probably, happier than cutting the funding
here, but I do feel we have a little bit of obligation right
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
147
now with the City and where we are at this point in the
workshops. We discussed things there, but I think it's kind
of -- it's difficult to go in and just arbitrarily cut
funding. Well, I wouldn't say it's arbitrary, but to cut
funding this late in the game, though I really, you know,
would like to go back. The letter is with the City right
now -- which they didn't respond to, I might add -- to
renegotiate the contract or relook at the contract. And I
think we really, from the taxpayers' standpoint, need to
figure out where the library's going. I mean, the costs are
certainly extremely high. I mean, seems like you can almost
build a new building for what we're funding over there, or
do a bond issue over 20 years and fund it for $800,000 a
year. So, I think we need to figure out what's going on and
what the long-term plan is and what the City's plan is as
the manager of this partnership to get -- to make the
library more self-funding, whether it's through grants or
dues or whatever their other options may be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I want to
present my thinking one more time, and that is -- it's a
little more palatable than a 15 percent cut, and that is to
just freeze what we're sending over there. I think it was
$397,000? Did I hear that number? Almost $400,000. That
we would -- that we're going to freeze that number. We're
not going to send $397,000 and one penny over there next
9-2-G3
1
,--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
year, until we accomplish what Commissioner Williams wants
to do, and the liaison from this Court is comfortable --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that approach.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- with what's going
on. And, I mean, we're not going to send another penny. I
don't know that we can commit next year's Commissioners
Court to that kind of thing or not; I don't have any idea,
but it doesn't matter. We can do it. I mean, I'm willing
to try.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the approach.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just think that
that's what we need to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: For whatever purpose it might
serve, I had a call from Dane Tune, who's the finance
director of the City of Kerrville, after the joint
City/County workshop, but actually, I believe it was before
we did any of the budget workshops. It was either the
morning of or the day before they were having their little
retreat that they do where everybody goes out -- I think
this year they went to Lazy Hills or somewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think they become
one with earth or something?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: And --
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,.,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-.
25
149
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One with a donkey.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the inquiry was with
respect to if -- if I had anything to report to them or if I
needed anything from them with respect to the joint
projects. And I told him that, you know, I could not speak
for the Court. There had been no final action taken by the
Court; that, obviously, we'd been at the workshop and there
were some things discussed and requests made. The final
thing that I left him with, however, was that he should not
expect that the requests which they made at that time would
necessarily be honored. That was my sense of it. And he
thanked me, and I guess went out to Lazy Hills at that
point.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, in the joint
City/County workshops, in discussing the library budget, my
recollection is that there was a, probably, consensus among
the participants that the library delivery -- book delivery
program was an experiment that hadn't worked, and that would
be disposed of, even to the extent that they talked about
how they could get rid of the truck that was given to them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would have
expected they'd come back and -- subsequent to that meeting,
come back to Commissioners Court and say, "Well, we don't
need the $397,000 any more; that program's gone away. We're
9-2-03
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~--
25
going to be able to reduce one -- one position or these
other costs, and so here's the new number that we need."
But that didn't happen, so I don't have a lot of confidence
that they're going to be responsive to a vague suggestion
that we -- we're going to do better in the future, when they
haven't been responsive to that specific issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On that particular
item, that would have amounted to about a half a position
and the fuel for the vehicle. But you're right;
theoretically, they should have amended it downward by a
couple thousand bucks probably, but they didn't do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: That item also would have
included service into the county, which, of course, is I
think clearly going to be eliminated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And secondly, with respect to
your -- to your observation that a 15 percent cut is a
challenging task for a manager to deal with, a 15 percent
cut by this Court of its apportioned part of this would only
result in a 7 and a half percent cut to the budget as a
whole. For whatever that's worth to you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I went out and got a
drink of water a minute ago, and I missed part of what you
said, but I thought where you were going was that the van
and all that, and that program being done, there should be
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
151
some savings. And why don't we reduce the amount we're
sending over there by the amount of that savings? I mean,
that was in this $397,000, so we ought to back it out, since
we clearly aren't doing that part of the program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we can do that.
Let me see if I can take a crack at it, Judge, make some
sense of what we're talking about, 'cause I'd like to add a
couple of admonishments. That we reduce the library funding
in the amount of -- of $397,000 requested by our share of
the amount of the costs to fund the outside county book
service, which we understand is a half a position and truck
expenses, and that we indicate to the City that the level of
funding will be frozen, and that we -- the Court is -- wants
to be a part of the budget process next year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about that
reduction? What about the reduction?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the first
thing I said.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I thought you
said remain -- it remained the same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, no. Less
that amount -- half of that amount, whatever that is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r...
25
152
the Court approve the request for Public Library funding in
the amount of $397,000 and change, less half --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The amount --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the cost for the bookmobile
or rural book -- or remote book delivery system that's being
phased out, and with the further admonition that the City be
put on notice that we want to be further involved in -- in
the economics of the library operation budgeting expenses,
et cetera, in the future. Did that include putting them on
notice that we're inclined to want to make further cuts in
the future?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think it's
implied, if we're going to be part of the process, that
everything's up for grabs.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the least you leave to
be interpreted, the better off you are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm open for
suggestions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Would that sort of an
add-on be acceptable to you?
(Commissioner Nicholson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing I would like
to see is that we reduce -- in our budget, reduce the
funding amount by $10,000, which should be -- you know, half
of a van and position is clearly worth more than $10,000, so
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
153
$387,000, put in our budget. And that way, it also makes
sure that we remember that we did this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, what if
we said $10,000 or the amount required? 'Cause we don't
know what that amount is. $10,000 or the amount required to
fund that half a position and our share of the -- of van
expenses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your motion is
just as you had it originally. I just think we need to
change our budget by $10,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I got you.
Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We -- and this is the
whole point. We don't know what that number is, because the
City hasn't told us. That's the whole point of this
conversation.
JUDGE TINLEY: They have the pencil. Any
further questions about the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, you want to
bring this back in the morning? Or do you think we can get
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
through this?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think we can get
through it. How are you holding out, Ms. Kathy?
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we're going to take
about 10 minutes here.
(Recess taken from 3:18 p.m. to 3:33 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order. It's just a bit after 3:30 in the afternoon. We
took a short recess about 15 minutes ago. Let me go back to
Item 1.23, if I might. That one has not had any action on
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we skipped
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't skip that; we
just didn't have a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kinda, sorta.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah, there's a
question about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Agenda Item Number 1.23. Any questions or -- or
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-..
25
155
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Number
1.30, consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr
County budget by modifying Fire Protection budget account
by, one, increasing all Kerr County Volunteer Fire
Department line items from $11,000 to $13,000, adding Divide
Volunteer Fire Department line item of $13,000, increasing
City Fire Contract line item from $100,000 to $125,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. And
discussion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve 1.30. Any questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I remember --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First, we need to
add the out-of-county fire departments that we're under
contract with, that being Tierra Linda, Junction, and Castle
Lake. We agreed for $1,000 to each of those.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're in the existing
proposed budget, Commissioner, so we won't need to add them.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
They're already there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're not -- but
they're not to be funded at $13,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: No. "Kerr County fire
departments" is what the agenda item says, from 11 to 13.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: Those are all three
out-of-county fire departments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So's Comfort.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, point well-made. Point
well-made. I think it would be covered on the increase from
11 to 13, since they're already at 11.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Comfort?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. They cover a good
part of Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So long as that's
clear, that we're also voting on that piece of it. The
second one is --
JUDGE TINLEY: Comfort is included,
considered a Kerr County VFD for the purposes of that
motion. And the three other out-of-county -- Tierra Linda,
Junction, Castle Lake -- are already in at $1,000 each.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
157
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I look again and I'm
not proposing anything different on this, but this
25 percent increase on the City fire contract is still a
difficult item for me. I'm just looking at the -- the joint
programs budget, City/County, and I think that's a really
good way for governments to cooperate like that. I think
you can find some efficiencies and eliminate redundancies.
I also see that it's an enormous part of our budget,
$3.3 million or something like that, and I just -- I'm
carrying on our discussion earlier about the library. I
just think that we need to be more involved and we need to
have more info on the budgeting process, all the things that
we participate in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, I think --
and I potentially agree. I think one of the things we need
to do is have a -- or develop a game plan to go to the City
with, and a proposed way to get more involved. I think one
of the problems is that City Council relies on City staff.
We -- and they look at -- we look at City Council as the
people we generally tend to communicate with, and they look
to us. But the problem is that we're missing, because we
are the staff, for the most part, far the County on these
issues. We are. So, I think that the -- the approach may
be that each of us have to take on, I mean, the area that
we're liaisons with, and make it clear to the City that we
9-~-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
158
work, you know, in those areas, you know, one-on-one
or two-on-whatever. But some kind of approach -- I just
think we need to have -- not just say we're unhappy, we want
to be involved. We need to say how we want to be involved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good point.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think your point's well
made, Commissioner. I think we need to generally put them
on notice that we want to be infinitely involved in the
entire process on any of these projects, and that they
should not expect to approve any budget without having our
prior review and approval of it generally.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where I think
the process has kind of gotten skewed. They put their
numbers together, they meet with us in a joint meeting, they
give us the numbers, they're happy with the numbers, and
they expect us to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And to give them the
benefit, they look at the same to us. I mean, you know,
Animal Control -- you know, the thing is that they operate
more into these jointly -- the joint operations items than
we do, but we need to figure out a way to correct the
problems.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
159
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item,
consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County
budget by modifying Road and Bridge budget account by, one,
adding Engineer's Salary line item of $23,868, increasing
Group Health Insurance line item from $16,452 to $21,937,
deleting Contract Engineer Services line item of $25,000,
increasing Employee Medical line item from $2,000 to $3,200,
and increasing Right-of-Way Survey and Engineering line item
from $4,000 to $10,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BAI,DWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve budget -- or agenda Item Number 1.31. Any question
or discussion?
MS. NEMEC: Judge? $23,868 plus 2 and a half
percent?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's the base salary
line item.
MS. NEMEC: And that --
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the line item in the
original budget. It doesn't include any add-ons or -- or,
stated another way, it excludes any add-ons.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
160
MS. NEMEC: So I don't add the 2 and a half
percent to the salary?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, the $23,868 is the base
amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's the current
amount.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question would
be, is it our intention that it, too, be adjusted by the
COLA?
MS. NEMEC: That's my question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be the
question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of course. Any further
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County
budget by modifying Records Management Preservation budget
account by, one, increasing Old Records Preservation line
item from $4,559 to $9,559 to allow $5,000 for allocation to
9 2 03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
161
District Clerk, and adding -- two, adding the Capital Outlay
line item of $16,000 to acquire imaging license and
equipment for the District Clerk.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Agenda Item 1.32. Any question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item,
consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 budget by
modifying Parks budget account by adding to Flat Rock Lake
Park line item the sum of $21,100 for restrooms under
L.C.R.A. grant, $15,100; and footbridge, FEMA funds, $6,600.
COMMISSIONER wILLIAMS: Judge, I have a
couple comments here. I want to deal with -- first, I want
to deal with both parks, Flat Rock and Lions. Lions, I had
not requested $15,000, as I told the Court earlier. I had
requested the $1,500, which is a continuation of my
improving that park little by little, year by year, and I
would ask that that $1,500 be reinstated. Secondly, the
agenda item talks about Flat Rock Lake Park, 21,7, which is
the remainder of the L.C.R.A. grant and the FEMA money of
9-2-03
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$6,600, and we said it's for restrooms. I think we have
determined that we're not going to build a restroom for
$21,000; that we could use those dollars -- and L.C.R.A, has
given tacit approval for other improvements in the park, but
not the restroom. I don't think we're going to be able to
get it done for that, so I'd like us not to designate it as
such and tie our hands for some use that we can't possibly
fund with that kind of money.
COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	Commissioner,	will you
bring in a proposed -- kind	of a -	- what we can	do with that
money?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will, yes. If we
undesignate it here for restrooms, yes. But I would like to
restore $1,500 for Lions so I could continue the
improvements there, and I would move the budget item with
that adjustment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page are you on?
JUDGE TINLEY: 98.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 98 in the printout.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, basically -- no,
not basically. In reality, we just added $1,500 to our
budget?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Which is
what we had this year. I guess we have two this year. It's
coming down from two to 1,500.
9-~-03
163
1
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: What --
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I apologize for
that error in putting $15,000 instead of $1,500. Of course,
the other side of that is, if it had gotten approved, you'd
really be in fat city.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we'd have gone
hog wild.
be done?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- what needs to
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to improve the
entrance area and get some gravel, do some site work, and
possibly have room for one more table under the big tree.
But that's basically -- I want to do some site work, and I
don't know if Road and Bridge can help me out on that or
not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's kind of a new thing
for to us fund parks at all. I mean, I know we've done it a
couple years now, and I think -- I mean, the improvements
you made are nice, but it's just a matter -- I mean, I don't
know that we need to improve it every year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if you get to
the level it ought to be, you don't have to. The same would
apply to Flat Rock Lake. If we get it to a level that we'd
like to have it, we wouldn't have to do it; just maintain
it.
9-2-03
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would probably rather
have it a lesser amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll settle for
$1,000, which is half of what it is this budget year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that your motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and
seconded that -- that Agenda Item 1.33 be approved, with
the -- and the exception that the restrooms be deleted, and
that an additional $1,000 be allocated for Lions Park. Any
further questions or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County
budget by modifying Nondepartmental budget account by, one,
deleting Information System Maintenance Contract Services
line item in the sum of $45,000, increasing Mainframe
Maintenance line item from $5,000 to $8,400, and increasing
Capital Outlay item from $5,000 to $9,200 for acquisition of
additional hard drive capacity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that to handle the
9-2-03
165
1
-^ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
.-, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
imaging?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Agenda Item 1.34 be approved. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For my information,
how were we able to delete the Information System
Maintenance Contract?
JUDGE TINLEY: Because we went back and
recreated the Information Technology Department --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- at an earlier agenda item,
under number --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I got you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Number 1.35,
consider and discuss changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County
budget by modifying County Court budget account by, one,
9-2-03
166
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adding new judicial supplement line item in the amount of
$4,000, and increasing the Mental Health line item from
$6,000 to $16,000, providing that both such line items shall
be totally funded from court costs collected from counties
for which mental health cases are heard.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, two questions on
this one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the first part, the
$4,000 supplement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know you reduced it, or
Tommy -- someone reduced it to elected officials' salary in
the new printout, but it wasn't noted here, and maybe we
should have taken it up under the other item.
JUDGE TINLEY: That should go under 1.8, in
all probability. That's where all of those were addressed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The other item, I
don't recall increasing the Mental Health line item $16,000.
I thought we left that at $6,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: There was a discussion both
ways. And, you know, that's what's before the Court now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Refresh my memory.
What would that be for, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: For the preliminary mental
9-2-03
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~
25
health hearings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The J.P.'s get that, and
it's been $2,000. You know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They get six.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right now, Kerr County's
paying six.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you approve the item, I
think the net cost for funding both of those items is going
to cost $4,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say that again, Judge. I
think I'm missing something.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kerr County is presently
paying, from Kerr County funds, the sum of $6,000 under that
Mental Health line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: The approval of 1.35, both
components, the $4,000 and the $16,000, or a total of
$20,000, would come at a net cost to Kerr County of $4,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where does the -- okay, I
understand the $4,000. I mean, I understand the judicial
supplement portion of this. I don't see -- that's -- and
I'm happy with the resolution that was in the proposal, on
the $6,000. I see the $6,000 here, which was included as a
Mental Health line item, 104. Where's the 16 come in? I
9-~-03
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.~-, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mean, I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: The 16 would only come in if
this Court authorized it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is it true that the 16
is actually derived from fees that the other counties pay,
where the current six is paid out of the County General Fund
itself, so you're replacing that six with the 16 from the
fees?
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what it amounts
to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know that. Why do we
have to increase the -- why are we increasing the
expenditure to 16? I mean, that line item right now, 104,
is paying $2,000 to three of -- each of the J.P.'s.
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have to,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying why would -- I
mean, so we're basically -- this is increasing the J.P.'s
salary by $5,333 a piece for three of them, 'cause three of
them participate in that.
JUDGE TINLEY: The judges that hear those
cases will be fee-based for hearing those cases, but it will
be being paid by the counties for whom the cases are being
heard.
9-2-03
169
1
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: Partly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, 80 percent of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 80 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: I say 80 -- I can't guarantee
that will remain that. The current stats show that it's
about 80/20.
COMMISSTONER LETZ: But the same logic that I
used that I have -- I think it's a good idea to do that, but
I think you adjust the elected official's salary by a like
amount. I think it should apply to the J.P.'s, `cause it
applied to you.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a whole `nother issue.
Just do with it what you like. I think it's good business
to use somebody else's money to satisfy your obligations.
I've said that since day one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't know why we
can't use the $6,000 out of that fund. Why can't we just
take the six -- I mean, why do we have to -- why is the
$6,000 coming out of the general revenue, or 16 come out of
the other -- why can't we say the $6,000 is coming out of
the designated fee fund?
JUDGE TINLEY: I suppose you could, but it --
it seems rather silly when -- when you can use three times
that amount of somebody else's money not to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you're just -- I
9-~-03
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~
25
mean, you're just -- but what you're saying, though, you're
just -- you're paying three times -- almost three times the
amount for the same service currently being provided.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are the J.P.'s -- do
they get that $2,000 notwithstanding the number of cases
they hear?
JUDGE TINLEY: If they never hit a lick, they
get $2,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If they don't
do a one, they get --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except for J.P. 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: Under the current procedure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except for J.P. 1,
who opted out of the equation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So this would change
to it a fee-based?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they could get as
many -- as much over $2,000 in terms of cases they hear?
JUDGE TINLEY: It would be based on the
number of cases the particular judge hears. That would
determine the judge's compensation.
9-2-03
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
171
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What if we
established the J.P.'s at the $2,000, and anything they
heard above that, they could get? I'm not in favor of
cutting the J.P.'s pay, to be perfectly honest about it.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're not in favor of cutting
the J.P.'s pay?
another matter.
12
13
14 drop.
coming.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The County Judge is
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: I was waiting for that shoe to
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I knew that was
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think the County
is cutting their pay. Their net take-home is not changing,
as your net take-home is not changing. And you get the net
-- under the proposal, you know, for the County Judge's --
you know, not counting COLA's and all that other stuff, is
the same as it was for the County Judge last year. I think
we should treat the J.P.'s the same way.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't actually --
Commissioner, let me correct you slightly, if I might.
9-~-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
172
Taking maximum advantage of the item that -- that you
understand, the judicial supplement, taking maximum
advantage of that, I would be entitled to receive $4,000.
That's if I heard 400 or more cases. What I would not
receive is the applicable COLA on the amount that was
deducted from the salary line item. So, under your
rationale, I would be suffering a penalty by bringing this
matter to the Court in an attempt to use other counties'
funds to pay Kerr County's obligations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only you didn't reduce
your salary, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Correct. Net cost to Kerr
County for that was $800.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should make up
the difference.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's your -- your call,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's --
JUDGE TINLEY: My whole -- my whole point
here in putting this item on the agenda is to attempt to use
other counties' funds to take care of these obligations to
the extent those funds are available to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I think -- I
mean, I agree with your logic, and I've said that. But
we're getting more and more into a situation where
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
173
designated fees are funding certain parts of our budget,
whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean that we're
going -- because the Law Library fund has $20,000 extra in
it, we're going to go spend $20,000 because it's
fee-generated; it's not general funds. That's the logic
you're using, and I don't think -- I don't agree with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that -- that's not the
logic I'm using. What I'm trying to do is calculate the
number of cases that will be heard and a reasonable
compensation per case, and I think the amount I've put in
there is a -- is a reasonable amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm saying that I
think that you and the J.P.'s and other people that are
doing -- you know, hearing those cases should get paid the
same amount, as best we can figure, as you did last year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, unfortunately, if you
want to take advantage of somebody else's money and save
Kerr County taxpayers some money, you're going to have to go
with the fee-based.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask a
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the bottom line.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we raise the
Mental Health line item from $6,000 to $16,000, what's going
to be the impact on compensation on J.P.'s?
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
174
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They get $5,333 each
more -- or $3,333 more, 'cause they're already getting
$2, 000.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't want to do
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't either, not for
doing the same amount of work. I don't know why we cannot
pay them $2,000, as we currently are, out of that line item,
which is coming from out-of-county taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't understand
that either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, you --
JUDGE TINLEY: You --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You make it say that we
have to pay all $16,000, or it has to come out of Kerr
County. Why?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir, that's not what I
said.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then, I'm in favor
of what Commissioner Nicholson says.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we can raise it
to $16,000, keep giving those three J.P.'s $2,000, and put
the rest of it in the bank.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, no, no, no. If it's
generated as a fee, they receive the fee.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's different
than the -- the judicial supplement of $4,000. We've been
collecting those fees and we've been putting that $4,000 in
our bank account.
JUDGE TINLEY: Unlawfully, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have an opinion on
that, that that's unlawful?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney's out
there.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, we've addressed that
issue, and I believe that the moneys that are collected for
that, $10 per case, is -- it says it is for salary
supplement for the judge hearing those particular types of
cases. So, it says that -- in black and white, that's what
that money is intended to be spent for, on that issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what
we've done.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thinking about that in
the same way, like Sheriff fees on serving warrants. You
know, service of that warrant, that fee to serve that
warrant is actually to cover the mileage and the cost of
what it takes to go out and serve that warrant. That money
still goes to the General Fund.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we could --
JUDGE TINLEY: Does the law in that case say
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~-~
25
176
that the Sheriff who actually serves the warrant -- if
there's a fee set for it by Kerr County, it shall be paid to
the person serving that warrant?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know what it
says to the person, but it says it's to cover the cost,
being mileage and all that, to go serve that warrant. And
it's a flat fee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think that's the
difference.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We don't -- we don't --
MS. UECKER: That all applies to all court
costs. That isn't saying anything.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, that's any fees.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we apply the same
principle of the -- that we've applied to the judicial
supplement, the Mental Health line item, we could choose to
collect the $16,000, and then reduce the base compensation
of the Justice of the Peace by an amount that's equal to the
difference between $2,000 and what they'd collect under the
$16, 000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we can have our
cake and eat it, too. We can take the $16,000 and not
increase the gross compensation of the J.P.'s.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct, the difference
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
._..
25
177
being the COLA and some of the benefit side of it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then what are you going
to do with J.P. 1?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: J.P. 1 doesn't
participate. Up until this year, we've paid constables
different salaries. We pay J.P.'s different salaries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know why we
can't continue to pay J.P.'s, from those dollars, the
amounts that they're currently receiving.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So do I.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- what is currently has
been budgeted in past years?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $2,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, you can do that.
Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out of the fees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Why not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All it means is you're
going to keep a reserve fund in those fees. And if we get a
reserve built up -- it doesn't say you have to pay them out
each year; it says have you to pay them out. I don't see
there's any difference in the Law Library.
MS. UECKER: Yeah. I get a big raise, don't
I? $70,000? I'll take it.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
178
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hey, what a windfall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if you have a
balance in there, then you can -- you know, you can
determine --
COMMISSIONER
going to do with it later.
the same, fund it out of th
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
I thought that's what we've
WILLIAMS: Determine what you're
I'd like to see the J.P.'s keep
use funds from other counties.
LETZ: I agree.
WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact,
been doing all along.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I agree. We
discussed that. We gave them the supplement at the same
time we're collecting the fees. I thought it was a wash.
But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So did I.
MS. UECKER: You can reduce the amount
charged on cases if you run into too much supplement.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'd like to
collect all the money we can, the $16,000 and $4,000, and
not -- not increase the gross compensation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not increase it above
the level that it currently is?
(Commissioner Nicholson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. Which
includes $2,000 for mental health hearings, one or a
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--.
25
179
hundred?
(Commissioner Nicholson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That we collect the
judicial supplement line item in the amount of $4,000, and
the Mental Health line item in the amount of $16,000, but
not increase the gross compensation to those who are
eligible to participate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's already
seconded.
JUDGE TINLEY: You seconded?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And I think -- I
mean, waiting on discussion. How I interpret that is how it
was reflected in the current budget for the County Judge,
and that the -- and also as included in the current budget
of August 29th under Mental Health line item, that $2,000 to
J.P.'s 2, 3, and 4 -- or a total of $6,000 divided equally
amongst J.P.'s 2, 3, and 4 needs to be funded out of the fee
collected for mental health hearings, or whatever the fees
come from.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is the intention of the motion
9-2-03
180
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
_~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not to increase the gross compensation? Is it also the
intention of the motion not to decrease the gross
compensation?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Status-quo. Except
charge it against other counties.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's going to be -- that's
going to be hard to hit. Okay. Motion made and seconded.
Any further question or discussion? All in favor, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
1.36, consider and discuss '03-'04 holiday schedule for Kerr
County employees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have two different
pages here. Which one we working off of? The one with the
pretty yellow line at the bottom?
JUDGE TINLEY: The first one you saw was the
one that was first pitched out. The second one is the one I
believe that Ms. Nemec decided to offer up as an
alternative.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does that mean,
December 26 instead of this holiday?
MS. NEMEC: Instead of July the 5th. 'Cause
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,•-~
25
181
July 4th falls on a Sunday, and we usually -- whenever it
falls on a Sunday, we get July -- we get the Monday off, or
if it falls on a Saturday, we get the Friday off. And since
it falls on a Sunday, I think more employees would rather
have July -- I mean December 26th off than have that Monday
off.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't we have a
general policy that says if a holiday falls on a Sunday,
it's automatically the next day?
MS. UECKER: That's what she said.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For all of them, no
matter which holiday?
MS. UECKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- I mean, I see the
reason for it, and I think -- actually, I have no problem
with it, except that it leaves the courthouse closed for
three days at the end of the year.
MS. NEMEC: Two and a half. The 24th, I was
just proposing to work half a day. Have our party that we
normally have, and --
MS. UECKER: Which is basically what happens
anyway. Even if the courthouse is open, the offices shut
down early. I'm usually the only one here, you know, after
noon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm the only one that
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
182
works, but the rest of y'all all leave.
MS. UECKER: And just -- just for your
information, I questioned my staff earlier to ask them what
they would rather have. Would they be willing to give up
the 4th of July if they could get the 26th after Christmas
day, and they unanimously said yes. They love that option.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in total
agreement.
MS. NEMEC: And in the past, when -- when
Christmas has fallen on a Thursday, we've done this before,
the two and a half days. But this way, I was just offering
a day to give up for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's -- this
is something new. And I'm going to give my same little
speech as I give every year, is that on Christmas, granny's
traveling to little Billy Bob's place up in Fort Worth, and
she needs that extra day to travel.
MS. NEMEC: Travel.
MS. UECKER: Travel back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we don't -- let's
see. We do not have Texas Independence Day recommended.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see Texas
Independence Day is not on here.
MS. NEMEC: It's not the -- it's just not a
federal holiday, and -- and it was not --
~-2-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
183
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't care what the
federal people are doing.
MS. NEMEC: We can always add it. Hey, that
will be 12 and a half days, no problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In place of Martin
Luther King.
MS. NEMEC: Martin Luther King, I put no for
us. I'm not counting that in the 11 and a half days. I
just showed it on there because it's a federal holiday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it could be in place
of Columbus.
MS. UECKER: We used to always get 13 days
every year, as I recall.
MS. NEMEC: We used to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When is Texas
Independence? September the 16th or something like that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: April 21st.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it April 21?
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
following K.I.S.D. would be
employees that have childre
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
NICHOLSON: Well, looks like
-- would be beneficial to the
n.
LETZ: I would agree with that.
BALDWIN: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we adopt the
9-^-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
184
holiday schedule as presented by the County Treasurer.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the holiday schedule as proposed by the County
Treasurer-slash-personnel officer be adopted and approved.
Any further questions or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MS. DECKER: Judge? Can I -- can I ask you
to go back to 1.28, which is the Law Library fund? In order
to save the County that money, it's going to increase some
of my responsibilities, so is it also your intention to
leave that supplement the same? Is it going to increase
some of my --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no.
MS. DECKER: -- salary?
JUDGE TINLEY: The policy adopted by the
Court is, if you get a supplement, it comes off the salary,
isn't it?
MS. DECKER: Sounds like it.
(Discussion off the record.)
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
185
JUDGE TINLEY: Huh?
MS. DECKER: It's -- it's a salary? It's not
MS. NEMEC: It's a salary.
MS. DECKER: Salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, it's a salary?
MS. DECKER: Right now, its $2,100.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're in good shape. You
want to go back to it?
(Ms. Decker nodded.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes or no?
MS. DECKER:
COMMISSIONE
MS. DECKER:
MS. NEMEC:
MS. DECKER:
evenings and weekends.
Yes.
R WILLIAMS: Yes?
Yeah.
$2,218, with a cost-of-living.
2,218. 'Cause that's usually
JUDGE TINLEY: You forget who I am?
MS. DECKER: Yes -- no, I'm not forgetting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay.
MS. DECKER: You can ask some of these other
gentlemen that have seen me up here on Saturday morning
moving books around. I haven't in a while, but I do work at
it in the evenings.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's your question on 1.28?
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
186
MS. UECKER: I guess to put some type of a
token increase on the salary for added responsibilities.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This comes out of the
fund?
MS. UECKER: Comes out of the same fund.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How's $3,000 sound?
MS. UECKER: Fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the Law Librarian's stipend or compensation be increased by
$3,000 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, no. Up to
$3,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. UECKER: Not "by."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up to $3,000. It's
$2,218 right now, right?
MS. UECKER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me. That her current
compensation be increased up to $3,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good try, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what it sounded like to
me. You said, "How does $3,000 sound?" She said she wanted
an increase; you said $3,000. That sounded like an increase
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
187
to me. Do I clearly have the motion, gentlemen? All in
favor of the motion, signify by --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, wait, wait.
Discussion?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That seems like a little
bit of a steep increase, in my mind.
MS. UECKER: $800?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $782.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the net cost to Kerr
County?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Zero.
MS. UECKER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Net cost to Kerr
County is zero.
MS. UECKER: Zero.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $782 is what it is.
Percentage-wise, it's just like the Sheriff got, or
thereabouts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a question or
comment, Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's too much.
That's my comment.
MS. UECKER: This -- you know, this was
9-~-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
188
before we went to the computers; it was Saturday mornings,
moving books. And then we went to the computers; it's
loading disks and making sure the computers are all working,
emptying the trash off of them. Yeah, I heard you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Equates to $15 a
week, is what it amounts to.
MS. DECKER: Yeah, and helping customers look
up the law that come in there and don't know. I mean,
that's really the biggest time-consumer right there.
(Commissioner Letz left the courtroom.)
MS. DECKER: Some of them, I ask to come back
at 5:00 and I help them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
MS. NEMEC: Judge? Before you go to the last
line item, may I ask a question, please? The direct -- the
amount that it's going -- that it was going to take to do
direct deposit for employees, was that added in anywhere in
the budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't believe so.
9-~-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
189
MS. NEMEC: Or did we just decide not this
year? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- to my knowledge, it
wasn't. It wasn't in the items that the Auditor and I went
over at our last meeting in preparation for this latest run
that was done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we had
intentions of doing it, though.
MS. NEMEC: I thought that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember thinking
that, anyway.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think I can give you
reasonable assurance that we didn't even talk about it.
But, you know, that's certainly --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remember Barbara
bringing it up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Direct deposit? I had
the conversation.
MS. NEMEC: I just don't -- I just don't
know.
(Commissioner Letz returned to courtroom.)
MS. NEMEC: I don't think the numbers were
put anywhere. I don't think that $3,000 was ever put
anywhere. And I do want to let the Court know that the --
if you do decide t0 g0 ~~>i tr that . i t T~ii 1 1 nrnhahl v ha
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
190
January before I can even look at them coming out here and
-- and doing everything. We are kind of behind right now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Does that work like the
school's does, where it actually goes in about two days
earlier than what it --
MS. NEMEC: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- normally would?
MS. NEMEC: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's where you always
hear everybody wanting to pick up their paycheck early. But
I know the schools, direct deposit goes in a couple days
earlier than if you get -- if you wait and pick up a
paycheck.
MS. NEMEC: The way we pay, there's no way
that could happen, because on the 15th, we pay for them
working through the 15th at 5 o'clock, and the only way that
could happen is if we bring our cutoff schedule two days
earlier, so that we can complete everything two days before
payday. But, I mean, that's not when we pay. I don't see
why we would want to do that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. No, it's just a
question.
MS. NEMEC: That would mean them getting
their paycheck deposited on the 13th and having to work two
days. They may not show up those two days, and they're
9-~-03
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-~.
25
already receiving their pay for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the Court's pleasure on
the direct deposit?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I like the
program, but why does it cost us $3,000 again? Tell me.
MS. NEMEC: It would cost -- $3,000 is for
the software that we're going to need from our bank
depository and from our Software Group.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where would that go?
What -- what budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental.
MS. NEMEC: I would put Nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nondepartmental.
MS. NEMEC: Don't increase my budget any
more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to say no.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have a motion to offer
in that respect? Okay. Item 1.37, consider and discuss
adoption of general provisions, '03-'04 Kerr County budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is a document
that is in our budget every year that I don't know that
anybody ever reads, but it's -- to me, it's an important
document. As an example, Section 2, where just recently we
talked about budget amendments and how, if there's going to
be a budget amendment, the department head or elected
9-2-03
192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,_„ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
official needs to come to Commissioners Court prior to
making the purchase. Just one of those things that's in
here. Judge, I move that we adopt the general provisions
for 2003-'04 Kerr County budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're speaking of the one
as -- as --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- usually provided, which is
a three-and-a-half-page item containing six Roman numeral
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I don't
think it's a full three and a half pages, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would you go for three and
four-tenths?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four-tenths, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're getting picky
here at the end of the day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Should we mark it as an
exhibit so we can clearly identify it?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did that have a
second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
9-2-03
193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, Commissioner Letz did?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I heard Letz do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're out. Want back in?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. I'm ready to
vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This certainly has
been an emotional day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nice way to put it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, is the agenda -- I
mean the budget on Monday's agenda? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: I did a budget agenda request
item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're free to check and see.
I think it's been approved, or I -- I've asked that it be
put on.
9-2-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
...~
25
194
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, considering you put
it on and you're the one that approves it, I would think it
would be approved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the other hand --
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't -- you can put a
budget item -- an agenda request in and approve an agenda
item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, so can you. And
you did it, so -- consider it done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further business?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, did we have
a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have an Executive
Session called?
JUDGE TINLEY: I put that on there in case
any members of the Court felt a need to. Is there a need
felt by any member of the Court that we need to go into
Executive Session for either of the items listed below?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just so -- just so
nothing's forgotten, on 1.27, y'all never did address that;
you skipped over it. No motion, I believe, is what I have
on my record.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct, there was no
action taken on that item.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
9-2-03
195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1.27?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Extension Office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we intended not
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't know. I
just -- y'all took action on all the rest. I didn't want
that one to slip through the cracks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any desire by any
member of the Court to go into closed or executive session
for -- for the items listed?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I gather there is none. We'll
stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:20 p.m.)
9-2-03
196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 8th day of September,
2003.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
'~,_
B Y : _ ~~~v "^~ -----------------
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
~-?-o?
ORDER N0.28259
2.5% COST OF LIVING (COLA) SALARY INCREASE
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
to change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by granting a cost of living
adjustment (COLA) salary increase of 2.5% to all Kerr County Employees and elected
officials.
ORDER N0.28260
HEALTH INSURANCE
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
changing the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget by increasing the budgeted group
health insurance cost for all elected officials and employees by 15%.
ORDER N0.28261
INCREASE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DEPUTIES SALARY
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 to changing the proposed 2003-2004 Ken County budget by granting salary increases
to the Sheriffs' Department Deputies in the amount of $1,500.00 each.
ORDER N0.28262
INCREASE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT JAILERS AND DISPATCHERS SALARY
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 to changing the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget by granting salary increases
to the Sheriffs' Department Jailers and Dispatchers in the amount of $3,000.00 each with
a reduction of 4 jailers.
ORDER NO. 28263
INCREASE KERB COUNTY SHERIFF'S SALARY
On this the 2nd day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-
1 to changing the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget by granting a salary increase
to the Kerr County Sheriff by 10% to a total of $51,735.00.
~` ORDER NO. 28264
MERIT SALARY FUND
On this the 2"a day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, then amended motion by Commissioner Williams
and seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of
3-0-1 to changing the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget by establishing a Merit
Salary Increase Fund of $10,000 as a new budget line item with Commissioner Nicholson
and the County Personnel Officer, Barbara Nemec would write the guidelines that no
merit increase from the pool be considered sooner than six months into any ensuing
budget year, and that the initial year, no merit increases will be given until the parameters
-- are designed and approved by Commissioners Court.
ORDER NO. 28265
KERR COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY
On this the 2°d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
that all elected officials, excluding the Sheriff, and Commissioners Court, be increased by
$1,000, and taking $800 off the Constables salary and change the proposed '03-'04 budget
be changed accordingly.
ORDER N0.28266
REQUIRED RESERVE FUND BALANCE
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 to approve the establishment of Kerr County fiscal policy by designating a required
General Operating Reserve Fund balance of 25% to be maintained by Kerr County during
such fiscal period.
ORDER NO.28267
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT BUDGET
On this the 2°d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 to change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by funding the Information
Technology Department budget at the same funding levels as specified in the 2002-03
Kerr County Budget, plus any applicable longevity.
ORDER NO. 28268
COURT COLLECTIONS BUDGET
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 to changing the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget by decreasing Books and
Publication line item from $75.00 to $50.00 and decrease Travel Line item from $1,200
to $300.
ORDER NO.28269
DELETING ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY FOR 216th DISTRICT COURT
On this the 2°d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
by changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget by modifying 216th District Court
budget account by, (1) deleting elected official salary line item of $1,080 or other
amount, and (2) adding Special Trials line item in the sum of $150,000 or other amount.
ORDER NO.28270
198`h DISTRICT COURT BUDGET
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 by modifying the 2003-2004 Kerr County budget by adding to Special Trials line item
the sum of $75,000.00 to the 198th District Court.
ORDER NO. 28271
DISTRICT CLERKS BUDGET
On this the 2"a day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
by modifying the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget by decreasing Operating
Equipment line item from $2,600 to $600 and adding Capital Outlay expenditure of
$2,600 for acquisition of a big printer.
ORDER NO. 28272
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #4
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 by
modifying the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget by increasing the Office Supply
line item from $2,095 to $2,600.

ORDER N0.28273
KERB COUNTY JAIL BUDGET
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by leaving the Jail budget account for
Employees Medical Exams line item at $4,000 and increasing Jail Uniforms line item
from $8,000 to $9,000 and increasing Prisoners Meals line item from $170,000 to
$180,000 and increasing Prisoner Transfer line item from $16,000 to $25,000 and
increasing Radio Repair line item from $500 to $1000 and increasing Training line item
from $4,500 to $8,000.
ORDER NO. 28274
PARKS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET
On this the 2°d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
by modifying the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget by decreasing Operating
Equipment line item from $2,000 to $1,200.
ORDER N0.28275
CONSTABLE PRECINCT NO. 1
On this the 2°d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
by modifying the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget by modifying the Constable
Precinct No. 1 budget account by increasing Miscellaneous line item from $100 to $700
to acquire a radio and deleting existing Fuel and Vehicle Repair line items; adding new
Fuel line item in the amount of $1,300 and adding new Vehicle Repair line item in the
amount of $500 and adding new Vehicle Insurance line item in the amount of $650.00
and adding Capital Outlay line item in the amount of $7,200 to acquire and equip a new
vehicle patrol unit.
ORDER NO. 28276
CONSTABLE PRECINCT NO.2
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 by modifying the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget for the Constable Precinct
No. 2 by increasing the Postage line item from $37.00 to $100 and deleting existing Fuel
and Vehicle Repair line item and adding a new Fuel line item in the amount of $1,300
and adding a new Vehicle Repair line item in the amount of $500 and adding new
Vehicle Insurance line item in the amount of $650.00 and adding Capital Outlay line item
in the amount of $7,200.00 to acquire and equip a new vehicle patrol unit.
ORDER NO. 28277
CONSTABLE PRECINCT NO.3
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
by modifying the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget for the Constable Precinct
No. 3 by increasing the Miscellaneous line item from $100 to $700 to acquire a radio and
increasing Postage line item from $37.00 to $100 and increasing Office supplies line item
from $50 to $100 and deleting existing Fuel and Vehicle Repair and Vehicle Insurance
line item and adding New Fuel line item in the amount of $1300 and adding new Vehicle
Repair line item in the amount of $500 and adding new Vehicle Insurance line item in the
amount of $650 and adding Capital Outlay line item in the amount of $7,200 to acquire
._.. and equip a new vehicle patrol unit.
ORDER NO.28278
CONSTABLE PRECINCT NO.4
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 by
modifying the proposed 2003-2004 Kerr County budget for the Constable Precinct No. 4
by decreasing $800 travel from the salary line item and increasing Elected Official's
Salary line item to $29,429 and deleting existing Fuel and Vehicle Repair line item and
adding a new Fuel line item in the amount of $1,300 and adding a new Vehicle Repair
line item in the amount of $500 and adding new Vehicle Insurance line item in the
amount of $650.00 and decreasing $800 travel from the salary line item.
ORDER NO. 28279
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT BUDGET
On this the 2°d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
to change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by modifying the Kerr Sheriffs
Department Budget account by reducing Group Health Insurance from $370,008 to
$279,696 to correct an error in the original budget and increase Uniforms line item from
$10,000 to $12,000 and increase Crime Prevention line item from $500 to $1,000 and
increase Training Schools line item from$18,000 to $25,000 and adding Capital Outlay
line item for $46,535 to acquire and equip four new vehicle patrol units.
ORDER NO. 28280
HEALTH AND EMERGENCY SERVICE BUDGET
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 to change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by modifying the Health and
Emergency Service budget account by increasing U.G.R.A. Contract line item from
$50,000 to $64,000 and decreasing First Responder Coordinator line item from
$10,831.00 to $9,675.00.
ORDER N0.28281
RABIES AND ANIMAL CONTROL BUDGET
On this the 2°d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 to change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by modifying the Rabies and
Animal Control budget account by increasing Operating Expense line item from
$7,500.00 to $8,000.00.
ORDER NO. 28282
COUNTY SPONSORED ACTIVITY BUDGET AND
KCAD (CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT)
On this the 2"a day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the court approved by vote of 3-0-2 with Judge
Tinely voting yea, to approve the Kerr County-Sponsored Activity as presented and
modified with the $97,648 for KCAD.
ORDER NO. 28283
FUNDING BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS THRU
LAW LIBRARY BUDGET
On this the 2°d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by eliminating the funding for Books
and publications line items to various department to the extent that the same can be
provided through the Law Library budget and that the Elected Officials and Department
Heads provide a list of current subscriptions to District Clerk Linda Uecker and each
elected official and/or department head provide the Auditor with an itemization of dues
-- required to be paid during the coming fiscal year, and that that amount be deducted from
that department's allocation for Books, Publications, and Dues and be left remaining
there, and that the balance of all those accounts be transferred to the County Law Library
fund.
ORDER NO. 28284
PUBLIC LIBRARY
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 to change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by reducing the funding by
request for Public Library funding in the amount of $387,1801ess half of the cost for the
bookmobile or remote book delivery system that's being phased out.
ORDER N0.28285
JUVENILE PROBATION BUDGET
On this the 2°d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 by
modifying the proposed 2003-2004 Ken County budget by modifying the Juvenile
Probation budget account by increasing Attorney Ad Litem fees line item from $25,000
to $35,000 and increase Alternate Housing line item from $65,103 to $100,000
ORDER NO. 28286
ALL KERB COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 changing proposed '03-'04 Kerr County budget by modifying Fire Protection budget
account by, (1) increasing all Kerr County Volunteer Fire Department line items from
$11,000 to $13,000, adding Divide Volunteer Fire Department line item of $13,000,
increasing City Fire Contract line item from $100,000 to $125,000. and (2) Comfort is
considered a Ken County VFD for the purposes of the motion. And the three other out-
of-county -- Tierra Linda, Junction, Castle Lake -- are already in at $1,000 each.
ORDER 28287
ROAD & BRIDGE BUDGET ACCOUNT
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
to change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by modifying the Road and Bridge
budget by adding the Engineer's Salary line item of $23,868.00 and increasing Group
Health Insurance line item from $16,452. 00 to $21,937.00 and deleting Contract
Engineer's Service line item of $25,000 and increasing Employee Medial line item from
$2,000 to $3,200 and increasing ROW (Right of Way) Survey and Engineering line item
from $4,000 to $10,000.
ORDER NO.28288
RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION BUDGET
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 to change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by modifying the Records
Management and preservation budget account by increasing Old Records Preservation
line item from $4,559.00 to $9,559.00 to allow $5,000 allocation to the District Clerk and
adding Capital Outlay line item of $16,000 to acquire imaging license and equipment for
District Clerk.
ORDER 28289
PARKS
On this the 2°d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by modifying the Parks budget
account by (L.C.R.A. Grant - $51,100.00) and footbridge (FEMA - $6,600.00) and with
the exception that the restrooms be deleted, and that an additional $1,000 be allocated for
Lions Park.
ORDER NO. 28290
NON-DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET
On this the 2°a day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
to change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by modifying Non-Departmental
budget account by deleting Information System Maintenance Contract Service line item
in the um of $45,000.00 and increase the Mainframe maintenance line item from
$5,000.00 to $9,200.00 for acquisition of additional hard drive capacity.
ORDER NO. 28291
JUDICIAL SUPPLEMENT FEE
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by collecting the judicial supplement
line item in the amount of $4,000, and the Mental Health line item in the amount of
$16,000, but not increase the gross compensation to those who are eligible to participate.
ORDER NO. 28292
HOLIDAY SCHEDULE FOR 2003/04
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 to approve the Holiday Schedule for 2003/04 as follows:
Holida Date
Columbus Day October 13, 2003 (Monday)
Veteran's Day November 10, 2003 (Monday)
Thanksgiving November 27,28, 2003 (Thursday & Friday)
Christmas December 24, 25, 26, 2003 (1/2 day Wed, Thursday & Friday)
New Year's Day	January 1, 2004 (Thursday)

President's Day
,.-,	
February 16, 2004 (Monday)
Easter (Good Friday)	Apri19, 2004 (Friday)
Memorial Day	May 31, 2004 (Monday)
Labor Day September 6, 2004 (Monday)
ORDER No. 28293
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-
0 to change the proposed 2003-04 Kerr County Budget by modifying the Law Library
Salary for Linda Uecker by adding in the Salary line item additional $782.00 for the extra
duties as the librarian.
ORDER NO. 28294
GENERAL PROVISIONS
On this the 2"d day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
adopt the general provisions to 2003-04 Kerr County Budget.