1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Budget Workshop
Friday, August 15, 2003
10:30 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "B.ILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN Ll~TZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
~I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
I N D E X
August 15, 2003
Budget Workshop:
Overview
County Judge
County Court
Commissioners Court
Collections
Volunteer Fire Departments
Health Department
County-Sponsored (Economic Development)
Nondepartmental
Permanent Improvements (Youth Exhibit Center)
Parks
City/County
County-Sponsored
Maintenance
Sheriff's Department
Adjourned
PAGE
3
22
29
31
41
59
67
78
82
89
98
109
124
135
232
8-15-03 Budget Workshop
1
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
On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 10:30 a.m., a budget
workshop 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: I'll call to order the
Commissioners Court workshop scheduled for this date at
10:30 a.m. It's a minute or so after 10:30. The purpose of
today's workshop is for budget discussion in accordance with
the schedule that was previously posted. I understand that
there may, because of availability of some people, have to
be some adjustments or changes, but we're going to try and
follow it as best we can, subject to the availability of
people. It was indi~:ated when the workshops were set that
some of the members of the Court may want to make some
general or preliminary comments or statements, so at this
point, I'll go to that particular aspect of it.
Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. The only
comment I have to make is a small report from the conference
I just returned from last night. You know, you go to those
meetings and listen to those lawyers -- excuse me, listen to
those guys talk for -- actually, democrat lawyers on top of
that -- for hours. And you can -- you know, you grab ahold
8-15-D3 Budget Works}iop
1
2
3
4
5
6

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
of every 18th word, and it begins sometimes to mean
something, and sometimes it doesn't. But at all those
conferences, the -- the meat of learning is done in the
hallway with your colleagues. And I just wanted to bring
back that there are counties that are -- are having major,
major budget problems. Good friend of mine that I've pa1'd
around with for years is a Commissioner down in -- below San
Antonio. They have 140 employees in their county, and
they're laying off 22 to meet their budget shortfall. And
that's just one example.
And what that says to me is that -- that
there's a shortfall across the state, and that also says to
me that -- that Kerr County has, in years past -- we'll find
out here in a few minutes how we're doing, but obviously,
we've done a fairly good job in years past, and -- and I
don't think that we're to the point of so many counties, the
problems that they're having. And that's -- that's
basically what I wanted to say. But that -- there's a lot
of people in really, really bad shape out there. It's not
just Kerr County that's going to struggle here a little bit,
but everybody's in really bad shape.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would echo what
Commissioner Baldwin said, because I heard a great deal of
8-15-03 Budget Workshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
the same thing, in addition to the reports that we heard
about how the actions or the inactions of the Legislature
are transcending down into this document in terms of funds
not being available, funds being slashed, no funding, or in
cases of new fines and fees, higher percentage going to the
-- to the State. And in some cases where we do the
collections, we get no percentage at all, which is a
departure from where we are. So, our work is clearly cut
out for us, but we're not in this boat by ourselves. All
counties find themselves very much in the same boat with us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to add one
thing to that, if I could. They have -- they've tried for
years to do a bill, to have a bill come out of there in the
form of a constituti~~nal amendment that says that the State
cannot pass a mandate down to local authorities without
sending money with it, and they've tried that for years and
years. This last session was the first time that it had
ever gotten out of committee with approval, so that issue is
on the track to get somewhere now. I mean, the lawyers --
and I understand it clearly. What they're saying is that,
you know, if you -- if you get it out of that committee,
it's on the road. And it may take -- it may take a couple
of two or three sessions to get that thing moving, but it --
there's motion for the first time ever that -- that
something like that might happen, and that -- that excites
8-15-03 Budget Workshop
1
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
me. We need to participate in that, in my opinion. That's
all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you have anything further,
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple of comments.
First, I mean, I appreciate the work you've done. It looks
like you've gone through and done a lot of work already on
paring things down. I did notice quite a few blanks that
were left in your proposed budget, which I presume mean that
those are on the table today and next week to go through.
But I think, overall, I was very happy with the budget you
presented. I think that there's a few items that we need to
go over, but overall, I thought it's very good. A little
more specific thing -- this is just how I look at the
budget. To me, the critical thing is fund balances.
Expenditures are not necessarily a real accurate picture of
what's going on. If you -- one year may be higher or lower,
but you have to look at why they're higher.
In the past, I guess, years, we've done
various construction projects, and those have kind of kicked
up the budgets in those years and things of that nature.
So, I think that I look more at fund balance, and the
overall budget you presented does a good job on -- it's a
8 15-03 Budget Workshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

slight improvement in our overall fund balance. I do note
in that one area that I have a concern on, Road and Bridge
Operating -- a gener~~l thing. I see that their fund balance
is going to a -- what I think is lower than it needs -- than
it should be, especially with -- with some of the flooding
disasters we've had in recent years. That's an area that I
think we probably need to really look at possibly shifting
some tax rate around, solve that problem. More of a
shifting of tax rate, and -- but it will affect other fund
balances.
Another -- two other, I guess, general items.
One is related to primarily elected officials. Maybe this
applies to department heads, too. Several years ago,
largely at my encouragement and desire and convincing the
rest of the Court, travel allowances that were in a separate
line it ern were rolled into salaries. I think we need to
reverse that. I think it was a mistake to roll them in.
And what I am hearing and seeing is that the memory of some
of the elected officials is short on that area, and
they're -- you know, I think they're wanting to come --
they're coming back now wanting travel allowance, but that
was included in thei.:r salary items two years ago or three
years ago, whenever we did that adjustment. So, I think
that it is more accurate probably to keep that as a separate
line item, and I would recommend that we go through --
8-15-03 Budget Workshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
throughout the budgets, and anyone who had a salary -- or a
travel allowance that was rolled into their salary, that be
rolled out and kept as a separate line item. I think it
keeps everything a little bit cleaner.
And the other question I have -- and I don't
expect an answer today, but I certainly do before we get
finished with these workshops. T am very confused about
what we've done two years ago with elected officials'
salaries, or last year -- I think two years ago or last
year. I've looked back through the minutes and looked
through what we did, and I don't see any relationship as to
what the Court ordered, based on the minutes of the record,
and the salary distribution that was given -- I get my years
confused; I don't know if it was two years ago or last year.
But, either way, I understood that -- I think it was two
years ago that we dick a study to try to find -- to get
elected officials iri this county to a parity with other
comparable counties. That was done. We came up with a
median salary level, and the intent was to give a 50 percent
-- those that were below the median were given a 50 percent
to catch them up to the median that year, with that other
50 percent coming last year or this year. I don't see that
that was done. And it's probably -- the Auditor and the
Treasurer are the two that probably have the best answer.
That's something I just -- at some point, I want to
8-15-03 Budget Work~ahop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
understand where those numbers came from and what happened
to the order that wa:~ given by this Court. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You all are aware
that this is my first time through the budget process, and
it's a pretty steep learning curve. I've found so far that
there's a significant difference between government
budgeting and corporate budgeting, so I'm having to unlearn
some of the things that I thought T knew, and learn how to
deal with this kind of a budget. T wanted to tell you about
some of my hopes and biases that I'm going to have input
into this budget. I'm hoping that the budget process would
provide at least three things: Find ways to increase
employee productivity and improve the quality of services we
provide, it will treat our employees fairly in terms of
compensation and benefits, and it will give taxpayers good
value for their tax payments.
I'm particularly interested in dealing with
personnel issues. I see that we have the lowest paid salary
structure of any government entity in Kerr County, and I --
I think it should be a source of embarrassment for this
Court that we have probably some 20 percent of our employees
that are paid less than the maximum allowed to be eligible
for food stamps and Medicaid. I don't think that's good
public policy, and I think we need to address it. I also
8-15-03 Budget Workshop
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
believe that there's inequity in staffing in some of our
departments. Some appear to be staffed very lean, and some
appear to have too many people. The department heads,
whether they're appointed or elected, need to consider that
the size of the compE~nsation pie is not going to grow very
much, and it is better to have fewer people and give those
that you have a larger slice of the pie. It's good for
productivity, it's good for employee morale and a lot of
things. It's also good for the taxpayers.
I think our law enforcement people are -- I
think our employee health insurance is inadequate. I think
it costs too much, it covers too little, or both, and I see
that the large majority of our employees do not enroll in
dependent coverage. Most of otar employees are enrolled in
employee-only, and there can be several reasons for that.
Perhaps they have a spouse that's got a good insurance
policy, or perhaps they don't have a spouse, but I think a
lot of people have not enrolled for dependent care because
the insurance plan is either too costly or -- or it's not
good enough. I'd like to see us establish a minimum living
wage for -- for our lowest paid employees, and it would be
an amount above that that makes them Medicaid-eligible. If
we do that, I think it costs around $125,000. It's not an
easy decision.
I'd 1_.ike to see us increase the compensation
8-15-03 Budget Workshop
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
of law enforcement personnel to a level that's competitive
with other law enforcement agencies in Kerr County, and
that's -- I'm talking about deputies as well as elected
officials. That could be very costly to do that, probably
on the order of $150,000. I'd like to see us establish a
policy for merit increases, and fund that policy by the way
of -- of granting merit increases to genuinely deserving
people. I'd like to see us provide incentives to department
heads, whether they're elected or appointed, to improve
employee productivity and reduce head counts to a reasonable
level. I'd like to see us seek professional advice and find
ways to improve our employee health plan.
I'm going to turn to Road and Bridge now.
It's my opinion that the County Road and Bridge Department's
budgets have been neglected the past few years. I think
that they do a good job of increasing productivity, and they
-- they do a lot with the money they have to work with. And
I think it's underfunded, and taxpayers expect and believe
-- I believe they're willing to pay for a more aggressive
effort to maintain and improve our roads. The lateral road
tax rate in 1997 was 5.92 cents. It was lowered to 3.72
cents in '98, lowered again to 2.14 cents in 2000, and it
was raised to 2.34 cents in 2001. What this means is we've
seen a 60 percent reduction in our lateral road tax. I
don't know why -- why we did that. It appears to be some
~-15 G3 Budgct V7orkshcp
1
-- 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
effort to try to balance between the road budget and the --
and the general budget. I think we need to restore the
lateral road fund to the level it was previously.
I believe fire protection's another major
issue for citizens in Kerr County, and we have good
volunteer fire departments. Some are more capable than
others, and we need to insure that we support those and
support the -- the enhancement of those that need to -- need
to build up their capability. I want to tag along on
Jonathan's comments and say I thank Judge Tinley for doing a
good job of organizing this budget, and the thoroughness
that he used to go about it. I think you've got it in a
shape that we can work with it. That's all I've got.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner
Nicholson. I'm somewhat. puzzled by the blanks that
Commissioner Letz was talking about. Some of the blanks
that are there are blank because they're meant to be zero,
but as far as I know, I've tried to fill in most of those
blanks. I -- I also am concerned about the -- the decline
in operating revenues out at Road and Bridge, and I think
there needs to be a readjustment of the tax rate, because
there is a segregation of the maintenance and operation
portions of the revenues and the tax revenues and the Road
and Bridge portion, and the Road and Bridge portion has been
diminished. And, as a result, their ability to operate
~-15-03 Budget '~VOrkshcp
1
-- 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
effectively and the reserves have declined.
Like Commissioner Nicholson, I also am doing
this for the first time, and it's been a learning experience
for me. And, as I'm sure most of you have heard, it was a
different process this year, different than done in prior
years, and as is very often the case when something is done
differently, there are expressions of concern or
uncertainty, or possibly even doubt. Having said that, I
want to thank all of the elected officials and department
heads for their cooperation and their making themselves
available to talk with me about their budget requests, their
concerns, the -- the reasoning behind their requests, and --
and allowing me to qet a better understanding and insight
into the needs of each of their respective offices as a
result of those discussions. The process that was followed
this year is, I believe, what Chapter 111 of the Local
Government Code requires that be followed, and that's why we
followed it. Hopefully, this new process will prove to be a
better process, and cae can achieve the objectives that we
all are trying to achieve in providing appropriate financing
for the operation of our county government.
Now, let me, for the benefit of the
Commissioners, and I guess to a lesser degree those of you
here today, give you the guidelines that -- that this budget
was prepared under, what it does and does not include.
8-1~-03 Budget W~L}:s,~op
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Number one, COLA's, cost-of-living adjustments or increases.
It does not include any cost-of-living adjustments or
increases. A number of the budget items that you see in
employee compensation will be less than what was requested,
and more often than not it is that way because the COLA is
backed out of it. The COLA was included in the request, and
what I recommended is back -- the COLA's backed out of it.
My thinking there was that, number one, I thought the Court
would want to see what the numbers were before granting any
COLA. Secondly, my rationale in thinking was I felt like
the granting or not of a COLA was a decision to be made by
the Court as a whole.
Longevity and educational increases. As most
of you are aware, thE~re was a policy that was established, I
believe approximately four years ago, which provided for
longevity and educational increases. That policy is still
in place, and as a result of being in place, I felt like
longevity and educational increases should be included. If
we want to change the policy, that's another decision, but
right now that policy is in effect, and so those numbers are
included in the employee compensation numbers that I've
provided in the budget. I particularly want to thank the
Treasurer for helping me with these items, and it was very,
very instrumental in giving me the right information I
needed in order to be able to do this. You can have a
~-15-i.3 Buaget ~1cr}_~'i~p
1
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
disagreement as to the policy, whether it's correct or
incorrect or whether it needs to be modified or adjusted,
but right now it exists, and so those numbers are included.
Salary increases for elected officials.
There were a number of the elected officials that indicated
treat they felt like certain salary increases or adjustments
were warranted, and they were requested. The budget that is
before you today and that was filed with the County Clerk,
as required by law, does not include any salary increases
for elected officials. Here again, it was my belief that
the salary increases for elected officials should be a
matter for this entire Court to address, and therefore, they
are not included.
Capital outlays. Capital Outlay items are
generally not included. The notable exception is Road and
Bridge, and that exception was made because Road and Bridge,
by its very nature and its operation, is capital asset
intensive and utilizes a great deal of equipment and capital
assets, and it has been for many, many years an integral
part of its budget. Otherwise, Capital Outlay items are, I
believe, to be handled by this Court on an individual,
case-by-case basis.
Now, all of the elected officials that -- and
department heads that I talked to in preparation for making
up this budget were told of these various guidelines. They
8-i5-'J3 2uaget Worksl~np
1
,,..., 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
were told what would or would not be included, and they were
told that they were privileged to come before this Court and
say whatever they wi:~hed to say, of course, and to ask this
Court for whatever changes they wanted to make, but they
were advised of these guidelines. I have done what I
believe the law mandates that I do, and that is prepare and
file a budget. Unlike proposed budgets of at least the last
four years, which required either a tax increase or the
Court's authorization to spend the County's financial
reserves to cover what I discovered to be millions of
dollars of expenditures which were in excess of anticipated
revenues, the budget which I have filed and is before you
today will not require a tax increase, and it will not
require the further erosion of our diminished reserves.
Gentlemen, this is a balanced budget before you. Whether it
remains that way is up to you. Okay. First one we've got
up --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, may I make a
couple comments, if I may? Going back to -- and kind of
they're all together, but it's just more for, I think,
information to you. Dave, possibly you don`t know -- I
don't know; maybe do you know this. Road and Bridge had
built up a large reserve based on the tax that was there,
the 9 cent, whatever it was, and they weren't using it. It
wasn't in the -- since I`ve been a Commissioner, we pretty
8-i5-03 Buaget lti'or'-.shop
1
„_., 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
much have funded whatever was recommended and requested out
of that department, with probably the exception of last
year, as I recall. So, I think -- I mean, the reason was
that we were out of kilter. The reserves were real high
there and they weren't using that money, so we did transfer
some of that tax rate into the other. I think we're at the
point now that, you know, you never -- it`s very -- it's a
balancing act, in my mind, as to where you set that rate. I
think you're right, it is too low now, but I don't think it
needs to go back up to 9 cents again, 'cause I think that is
more than was needed, and more than has been requested by
Road and Bridge Department.
The other point you made about, you know,
adjusting salaries and trying to get them up
across-the-board, that has been a goal of mine and I think
the Court's. In the last six years, we've gone through a
couple of surveys an~i trying to adjust salaries and trying
to raise them. Every time we raise them, unfortunately, the
other entity -- I wcn't say "unfortunately," but other
entities do the same thing, and we're not catching up to
where we should be, but it hasn't been because of lack of
effort. It's been -- we certainly have done a huge salary
adjustment two years ago, which is -- had a major, major
impact on our budget today, and will in the future. And
part of that is the longevity and educational, I guess,
~ - 15 - 0 3 B ud~ e L Vdo r ~.:; Ii ~F>
1
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
policy that we instituted.
One o~ the things that I really like that I
heard Commissioner Nicholson say, and I -- and it's going to
really take a -- a new way of thinking throughout the
county, primarily by elected -- or elected officials and
department heads, is to kind of -- I'll use a term you hear,
"think out of the box." The County, as long as I've been a
Commissioner, and I think way before that, you know, has
pretty much not had a merit policy. I think we need to. We
have -- the adjustments we've made have been pretty much
across-the-board in the past si_x years I've been on the
Court -- seven years, and there really has not been a -- I
guess, a policy or a -- a direction to qo with a merit --
more of a merit-type policy, other than each elected
official, they recommend people to certain positions, and
based on what they did in those positions, they got paid
accordingly.
I think that the -- the only way that I see
in the near future, being the next five years, that we're
going to make any significant changes in our salary
structure is either a very substantial tax increase, or
think out of the box and see if we can figure ollt ways to
reduce staff through attrition or -- I'm certainly not in
favor of any kind cf layoffs, but through attrition, and
spread that salary out and raise the salary level.
~-1~-03 Budget 6aor}cshoo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
Basically, reduce numbers of County employees, but increase
the salary of the remaining employees. I think you have to
set a policy in place to get that done. That is what has
been done, as you're aware, throughout private industry for
the last 20 years, arld it's something this county has not
been able to do and riot done. And I don't know that we can
do it, but I think it's something that T really would like
to see us look at. I don't know that we can look at that
and do any kind of a policy under this budget, but certainly
by next year, I would certainly encourage the Court and
other elected officials to really start looking at what we
can do to improve salaries across-the-board.
My final point is a -- a comment, you know,
the Judge made regarding basically deficit spending in the
past four years. And I think that is true; the Court did.
But the Court also was funding, basically -- had built up
very substantial reserves for the purpose of spending them
on capital projects, which we did, so that I think that
it's -- it's accurate, from a number standpoint, that we
spent -- you know, lowered reserves -- spent out of reserves
the past four years. But we have always, the last budgets
that I voted on, kept the reserve level at what is
recommended by the State and recommended by our Auditor, and
we spent the excess down, because it is my feeling that, you
know, it is not the purpose of county government to be a
3-__-03 nadget 6hor'_sf.op
1
.--. 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
savings account and hold money that should be in the
taxpayers' pocket. We should either spend it on county
projects and things that are needed for the county, or we
shouldn't keep it. The alternative, in my mind, of doing
the courthouse renovation and some of these other large --
Animal Control was done during that period, the new
Extension Office. A11 those were done largely
out-of-budget, or over short-term financing through tax
anticipation notes. The alternative of not doing those
would have been to lower t:he tax rate, because I don't see
that -- I certainly am not in favor of us building up
reserves for the sake of having reserves. I think we need
to keep our reserve level at a percentage that is
recommended by the State, and not beyond that. I think that
it is not wise use of taxpayers' money for us to build up
reserves. Anyway, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a
question, if you don't mind. You're ready to bail off in
it, aren't you?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I was going to go one by
one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let me ask you a
question. Are we going to deal with the entire budget? Are
we going to pull out salaries and deal with them as a
8-15-J' ~~dget wor};~},~p
1
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
separate item? Just pull out salaries and deal with
salaries at some other point? Or are we going to do it as
we -- if we're -- if we're going to do it now, I would think
that we would want to talk about those issues that
Commissioner Letz brought up, and that's breaking out the
travel and the other issue of -- of this 50 percent thing of
equalization. Seems like to me that we need to finalize
that, get that clear if we're going to go off into each
budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my thinking,
Commissioner, would be that -- that we hear what the various
elected officials have to say about some of the -- some of
the requested increases. I'm -- I'm not sure we're in a
position to really m~~ke even a preliminary decision about
what those ought to be. I think we need to give these
individuals the opportunity --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to express them. And then,
when we get to the tail end of the process, we can talk
about the broader issues that affect the budget, from Page 1
to Page 100 or whatever it is. That was kind of my
thinking.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: YeaYi. And I think
that's good thinkin~~. Many times we have broken out
salaries, and just -- that would be an agenda item all of
~-15-~3 Budge ~n7ork.sl~op
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
its own, you know, to deal with that all by itself over
there after -- after we get through with everybody. I
JUDGE TINLEY: We have an additional workshop
day that we have not yet allocated, and that's a week from
today, that we've not -- we don't have things plugged in
for. We got things plugged in for today and next Tuesday
and next Wednesday, but there were a total of four days set
aside. But if therE_'s no objection, I'll proceed to go into
-- the first one up is mine. As can be noted there, there
are some increases in some of the areas. There is at least
one decrease, I think. The primary increase has to -- we're
going to have some increases in group insurance on all of
these because of the new figure. The other one has to do, I
believe, with the conference dues and subscription. That,
of course, was not restored last year, as were most of them
in the prior year. And there were some other -- there was
some decreases and there were some increases, but they're
minor. I'd be happy to answer any questions that any of you
gentlemen have about any of those items.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no questions.
It looks good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: You gentlemen take any
questions from the public?
8-'_ 5- 0 3 Buaget Wor k~~ f_~~p
1
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, let us finish
first. And it's up to the Judge. I mean, fine with me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With respect to
yours, or all of them?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: No, just the issues you're
talking about, that's all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: General -- as to overall
or philosophy, or specific --
JUDGE ELLIOTT: The specific issue of the
County Judge's budget. That's what you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ask your question as soon
as I'm finished. It's up to the Judge. County mileage.
That, I believe, i_s new?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it is. You're right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that --
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the issue of county
mileage came up, I believe, at the request of -- of
Commissioner Williams on out-of-county mileage, and that
also is a new item in the Commissioners Court budget. And I
allocated a portion of that in the event that -- that I
choose to assume the AACOG function. That was primarily
what that was for.
COMM_I:3SIONER LETZ: So, it's out-of-county
mileage?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it's out-of-county.
8-1~-U3 Budget T~orksho~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	If we	could --
JUDGE TINLEY:	The	-- I'm	afraid that
probably the Commissioners Court -- yeah, it says the same
thing, but that's out-of-county in both cases.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm glad you're
breaking that out. I like it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. TYiat's -- that was
the only question I had.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You had a question,
Judge Elliott?
JUDGE
the overall county -
Judge for the Curren
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
expenses for that --
JUDGE
ELLIOTT: Yes, sir. What -- what was
- I mean, the budget for the County
t budget year?
TINLEY: For the current budget year?
ELLIOTT: Yes, sir, the current.
TINLEY: Appears to be 64,688.
ELI,IOTT: 64, 688?
TINLEY: That would appear to be it.
ELLIOTT: And what is the medical
for this?
TINLEY: Group insurance?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Difference between 5,484 and
4,555.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: 4,555 is the group insurance?
~-15-U3 Budget wo_~b:s~~~~E'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. The difference
between --
JUDGE ELLIOTT: No, no, I'm sorry. What I'm
asking you is, your current budget year, the one we're in at
this time --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: -- totals 64,688.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm looking at.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Included in that is the
health insurance expense of how much money?
JUDGE TINLEY: The allocation here is $4,555.
JUDGF~ ELI,IOTT: Okay. And then, for your
recommended budget for the next budget year, your total is
how much?
JUDGE TINLEY: The total?
JUDGE ELLlOI"1': Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not for health insurance, but
total?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Total.
JUDGE TINLEY: 66,178.
JUDGE ELI~IOTT: 66,178?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: And that includes health
insurance allocation for how much money"?
JUDGE TINLEY: 5,484.
_-15-G3 Budget Wor}:shop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JUDGE ELLIOTT: So, that's only about a
$1,000 increase?
JUDGE TINLEY: Approximately, yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: 929.
JUDGE TINLEY: 900 something, probably.
JUDGE ELI,IOTT: Okay. So, there's about a 1
percent decrease if you backed out the health insurance?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know. I haven't made
that calculation.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay.
trying to understand, if you backed
insurance, what is the difference in
recommending next year as opposed to
I was trying to get at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
I'm just trying to --
out the health
your budget that you're
this year? That's all
You don't have a copy
of it?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, there's certainly
copies available.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions on that
particular item?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A general question
about employee health insurance. Why is it going up so
much?
~-15-03 Budget Gdor}:shoE~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to -- I'm going to
defer to the Auditor. I think the Auditor or Barbara, one
or the other, plugged in the 5,484 number for -- to project
for the coming year. That's --
MS. CUNNINGHAM: 25 percent all over.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not a question that
has to be answered now, but something we got to understand.
MS. NEMEC: The reason for the high -- one of
the reasons for the high increase is that, last year, the
figure that was figured into otzr insurance budget was not
the -- it was an estimated figure, because we don't get
those figures till after the budget is approved. So, I
believe that 5,484 includes that increase, as well as an
estimated increase for this next year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will we get a total
figure from the Auditor or the Treasurer for health care?
Total number? Not particularly departmental, by account.
Increase of health care county-wide, plus --
MR. TOMLINSON: I think I -- you have that
worksheet, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think I do. Let me see if I
can find it here. Total increase in health insurance, I
believe, is 336,000 and change. That sound about right,
Tommy?
8 l~ n3 Budget itio°ksh~~~
1
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Total increase.
JUDGE TINLEY: Total increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the budget item --
the number, total number?
JUDGE TINLEY: For health insurance? I don't
have that. I do not have that total. All I have is -- is
'02/'03, '03/'04, and then the increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the '03/'04
total? Do you have that?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I do not have that. Don't
have either one of them. Not the total from all different
accounts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy might have.
MR. TOMLINSON: That worksheet you have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm? It does not show the
total on either year; it merely --
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, it shows the difference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The difference.
JUDGE TINLEY: All it shows is the
difference.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I didn't total that
line, then.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Judge Tinley?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Did you realize that if you
R-15 03 Budget Works_i~~p
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
backed out the health insurance, which you have,
basically -- I mean, you have some control over if you guys
evaluate our health insurance needs, but if you backed that
expense out, did you realize that your budget increased
$561?
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't make that
calculation.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay. I just didn't know if
you realized that the County Judge budget -- operating
budget increased $561 if you backed out health insurance. I
didn't know if you were aware of that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I did not make that
calculation, no.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions on that
particular item? Okay. Next one is the County Court.
There were some ups, there were some downs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could you take us to
that? What page?
JUDGE TINLEY: Page 11.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Page 11. The one notable
exception on that item, there's an added new line item, 426,
$4,000 entry. That item is there as a result --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excuse me, Judge, I
~-15-03 1/udget Wcr}:strop
1
,~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,.._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--,
25
30
wasn't listening.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would you say that
over again, what item you're referring to?
JUDGE TINLEY: 486 -- excuse me, 426.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a result of an order passed
by this Court in 1999, for which there never was a line item
established. And, as to the others, there are some that --
I don't know, let me see here. Conference dues are
obviously up, and probate seminar was up to the levels of --
of the previous year prior to this budget year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, this judicial
supplement, that is -- ghat is -- that's from County
coffers? That's not a state supplement to this department?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's as a result of --
of a cost that is paid that this Court approved in 1999.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But where do the funds
come from?
JUDGE TINLEY: The funds come from -- from
court costs.
COMMTSSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions?
CUMMISSIUNER NICHOLSON: The first of a lot
of elementary questions.
8 1 03 B aaget Wo r }:shop
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When I see
retirement, that's the amount of money that goes into an
IRA-like account? Matching employee contribution?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's under the Texas
County/District Retirement System, and that number changes,
as does the payroll tax or the FICA, with the amount of the
salary. There may or may not be a difference. Only depends
upon if the salary changes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That is the whole --
that account is the whole amount of money that's available
to employees who retire? There's no -- no other county
funds contributed toward their retirement?
NUDGE TINLEY: I'll pass that to the Auditor.
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't hear the question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This IRA-like
account that employees contribute to and County contributes
to, that's the total amount of funds available to employees
when they retire? There's no other -- there's no insurance
payments? There's nothing else?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okav? Next item, 401,
Commissioners Court. Page 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, my -- two
questions. One is Legal Assistance. That is -- has been
3- 15-~,~ 3 Budget ~7crkshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
zeroed out for some time. It appears here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My recollection is
that there -- in years past, there's been times where the
County Attorney, for one reason or another, didn't handle
our civil work for the Commissioners Court, and therefore we
had to hire an outside lawyer ~r contract witty a lawyer to
get our civil work done. Are we still on that same track,
that the County Attorney is going to handle our civil work?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioner, we've got
486, Professional Services, and I believe in more recent
years, that's where that particular --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As well as --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- expenditure has taken
place.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. As well as
engineers and those studies that we do occasionally?
JUDGE TINLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Professional -- okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, I believe there's a
separate one for auditing, if I'm not mistaken.
MS. SOVIL: Nondepartmental.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's in a different
account. But we've qot a separate one for auditing, our
annual audit.
8- 1 7-03 Bud~~et Wor ks_io~
1
.,,.., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But this is all other
professional services covered in that line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on the
professional services, in the past, we've -- I mean, those
numbers, they've kind of come about by what we thought we
were -- where we needed professional services. Like, last
year, we had some architectural-type stuff, and all the way
to the bond issue. Is there -- is that just a number, just
to have something in there? Or is there a -- is that kind
of -- is it made up of anything to get that 12,5?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I got there by virtue
of -- of input from each of you giving me your -- your
thoughts on what that number ought to be, and as a result of
that composite information from all of you, I came up with a
requested 12,5. And so, basically, I guess you could say I
was relying upon your collective wisdom of -- of coming up
with that number. I do know in prior years it's been
higher. This year, the projected expenditure is something
under $20,000. Right now, it's at $13,850. Whether or not
we spend another dime, who knows? You know, that's
something that -- it's not something you can truly annualize
like you can the utility bill or a lease payment or a
copier, something along that line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I think it
8-15-~~3 3acget 6ti~r •:shop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
makes sense to leave a number in there, because something is
likely to come up during the year. But in every other year,
I think I can -- there was certain things that we knew we
were going to spend it on, whether it was architectural or
design or -- you know, just different kinds of things that
we'd been working on, you know. To me, that number is very
much related to the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. I
think -- I don't think we need 12,5 in there, you know,
without that unknown, which we haven't discussed yet. I
think that number, you know, can really go down to, like,
5,000. I just don't see that we have anything that I see
that we're going to need professional services for; possible
exception is going to be on some of the RFQ's that we have
floating around with insurance. I don't know, we may need
some money there. But, other than that, I just don't see
that we have a lot of professional service needs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, correct me if
I'm wrong. Is that not the line that, if a lawsuit came up,
that we would hire possibly a federal-type lawyer to
represent us? And that brings another question up. It's my
understanding that we are probably going to have a major
murder trial here. Is there any way that we may be affected
by that -- this line item right here be affected by the
murder trial?
JUDGE TINLEY: In my opinion, Commissioner,
8 15 03 Budget wor}:s_iop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
35
not in this particular portion of the budget. This has to
do with what the Commissioners Court --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like lawyers; don't
JUDGE TINLEY: If we -- if we get -- if we
get sued and we've got to hire a lawyer in federal court,
ttrat's not covered. If we don't Crave defense coverage under
an insurance policy, we very well may be looking at that,
yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's -- we
need to keep something in there in case something pops up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, you had --
MR. TOMLINSON: Just one comment about these
professional services. For our public officials' liability
coverage, we have a deductible, and if we -- if we, you
know, have a lawsuit because of something that happens here
at the courthouse or out at the jail, and our -- and our
insurance carrier hires an attorney to represent us for one
cause or the other, we would have to pay the deductible.
So, you know, I would leave at least that amount there just
for that reason alone, because the likelihood of us not
having at least one or two in one year, I think, is fairly
23 remote.
24
,-,
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because in almost all
5-15-G3 Budget Worksh:~~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
of them, we're named in those suits, this Court.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, we are.
COMMISSICNER LETZ: Or the Sheriff.
MR. TOMLINSON: We do have to pay the
deductible, even though it's covered.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we'll just leave
it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Line item 105,
salary of the Court Coordinator. This change that you've
got recommended here is consistent with your budget strategy
of only including longevity or educational increases?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. That's all it
includes, is a longevity increase, as indicated by the
Treasurer.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I am requesting a
larger amount there, and I'll make my case for that in due
course.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Conference line --
let's see.
MS. SOVIL: 45.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 4,500. I think that
we've -- I think we've arrived at a good number, in my
b-15-U3 Budget wog}:shop
1
,,_, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.-. 2 4
25
37
opinion, finally.
JUDGE TINLEY: That also -- that number was
also based upon the collective input of all of you, and I --
I just individually had you furnish me information on both
Commissioners Court and Nondepartmental on areas that you
had particular thoughts and ideas on. And, as a result of
that, I came up with what I saw collectively as what your
request was, and that's how that got where it is.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Excuse me. Was that budget
amount $4,500, which would be basically divided by four
commissioners for conferences?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,125 each. That's
based on the -- I mean, I forgot -- I think I said $1,200 on
my request originally, but it takes two schools to get the
required hours. We can't do it in one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, with respect
to group insurance, under Commissioners Court --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- was this County
Judge -- under County Judge, you plugged in a number for
County Judge for 5,484, which was provided by the Treasurer,
but if I do my math, under Commissioners Court for group
insurance, it comes to 6,855 per --
JUDGE TINLEY: You've got a total of five;
you don't have four. You got a court administrator.
3- _ ~-~l? g 1C~ct Wor}_:I.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
38
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That takes care of
it, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we go back to
Conference line just for a second?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have -- for several
years now, we've spent more than we've budgeted, because the
State requires us to get all these hours. And, like Jon was
saying there, we have to go to two different schools to get
enough hours for a certification. And, even with that, this
last -- this last year, we went to the Fort Worth
conference, and that was -- that's the first time in five
years or so that I have spent one penny. Me, personally,
going to a conference, of County money. And I'm saying that
t~ show that there's a possibility we may not be doing
enough here. I'm not sure. I just wanted to get that on
the table, that I haven't spent any, and we're still going
over budget. Are we sure that $1,100 does it? I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: The increase from the previous
year is $900; we went from 36 to 45.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's because
year-to-date expenditures are almost $3,700. So -- but the
budget, of course, was amended upwards to provide for that.
And I -- but if I'm not mistaken, there's been a further
~5-15-03 3~adget worksh~~
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
39
amendment since July the 31st amending that upward, if I'm
not mistaken. But I don't know. That's -- you gentlemen
would certainly have more knowledge about that than I, you
know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask
Commissioner Letz, I thought -- you went to Fort Worth, but
have you been anywhere else to pick up the rest of your
hours?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I didn't get my hours
this year; there wasn't enough money in the budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's what I'm
talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- you
know, I think that each, you know, Commissioner needs to
kind of look at that, and that.'s their -- each one's, you
know, individual amount. Even though it's one item, I don't
think -- I think we should look at it as, you know, my
budget is $1,125, and the best way I can do it. And that
may mean, you know -- you know, staying with a friend
somewhere or doing a day, or getting people to come here or
doing things, because I -- you know, I've been pretty -- I
think pretty consistent this year, and that I think the
elected officials need to put -- we need to put enough money
here that they think they can get their hours, but I'm not
real inclined to give budget amendments on this item.
H-15 C3 Bndgct Workshop
40
1
,~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
People need to budget. They may not be able to stay at a
Radisson; may have to stay at a Day's Inn. That's just the
way it is. I mean, it's -- I think we need to provide the
money to get the hours, but that's it. So, I mean, I -- I
think it's enough, in my opinion, that I can get my hours
with $1,125.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on this
particular budget? Okay, we'll move on. Court Collections.
COMMI;~SIONER NICHOLSON: What page is that?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Judge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 15.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Judge, on the Commissioners'
budget, is it -- I just want t~ make sure I understood that
what we have in the current year was 238 -- excuse me,
261,932, and the recommended is 260,262.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct budget is
267,795.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Current budget is what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 267,795.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's with the amendments
that have been made.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: But the original budget
amount was 261 --
~-1~-U3 Budget v~or}.shop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: -- 932?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. According to the
information I have furnished by the Auditor, that's correct.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Recess taken from 11:35 a.m. to 11:40 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll resume the -- the
budget workshop after taking a short recess and allowing the
reporter to get her equipment squared away. Before we get
to Mr. Alford with Collections, I -- I want to take a moment
and -- and thank Ms. Sovil for her -- all of her work and
cooperation in helping me through the process. It was -- as
I'd indicated, it was a new game for me, and I was wandering
off into uncharted territory, and her help was invaluable in
kind of leading me by the hand through all of this. And I
wanted to thank her for all of her assistance and let you
gentlemen know -- as Buster would say, if there's something
you don't like about it, I'm going to blame it on her. But,
nc, I -- I'm responsible for what's filed, but I do
appreciate her help, and she was of immeasurable help to me.
The next item we have up is the Courts Collection
Department. Mr. Alford, you got the floor.
MR. ALFORD: I got the floor.
-15-G i Budget Worb:s}~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
42
JUDGE TINLEY: Page 15, gentlemen.
MR. ALFORD: If it's okay with the
Commissioners Court, I would like to skip the salary, the
FICA, retirement, all that, 'cause really, as a department
head, I have no control over that. That's set by the Court.
So, what I'd like to do is start at 309 and go down. That's
kind cf LYie meat of my department, if that's okay with
everybody. It -- when you look from 309 down to 370, I have
an extremely large budget; it's $5,625, so I'm not going to
take up a lot of y'a11's time. The problem I have with this
year, I incurred a $2,800 deduction or cut from my overall
-- what I call operating money. Last year, I had 9,450.
This year, 5,625. Some of the cuts I did from -- my
predecessor had built up some pretty good pads and pillows
that I did not foresee that was necessary any more in ttre
future. The main one was a conference; I had $1,000 in
conference. Y'all allowed me to hire an employee last year.
He went to his conference this year. We are not required to
have any type of continuing education, like y'all are, so I
just cut that $1,000 out.
I feel fortunate to work in Kerr County. We
still get phone calls once a week about, "How do y'all do
it? Can you send us your form?" Apparently, we're still
pretty much on ,top of our game statewide. So, as long as
they're calling us, that. means we're okay; we don't need to
8 -15-G3 Bud~aet W;;r }_s trop
1
,... 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
go back for any more training. Books and publications,
again, my predecessor did a lot of other books and
publications. He had bi-part books. I don't do that, so I
want to reduce that down, like, $50.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says 75.
MR. ALFORD:
COMMISSIONER
MR. ALFORD:
doing -- the organization I
increase. That's a pretty
COMMISSIONER
Right.
LETZ:
That's
belong
Hard --
BALDWI
My o
We'll
fine.
to is
V: It
riginal --
go 50 if you want.
Only reason I'm
$50. There was no
says your request
is 75.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, it was. That was
estimated at the time; that was pre-conference. They've now
had the conference, and no increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's now 50?
MR. ALFORD: It.'s now 50.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ALFORD: Other than that, just when
you're -- when y'all start punching numbers, look and try to
get me some of my money back. Some of it I cut under some
mandates that I was informed of, that I had to come up with
some money somewhere, and so I cut some numbers 1 didn't
really want to have to cut, but I did. So, whenever y'all
look at that, I would like to go back to, like, just roll
8--5-U3 Bud~~et Wo=ksl~~~p
1
^, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
r.... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
back to the last year's numbers from 10 -- or from 309 down.
That's what my original plan was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess I've got
two questions.
MR. ALFORD: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Credit history reports.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, in my mind-set,
we were -- we would be going down the other direction,
'cause there was a lot of backlog when we started all that.
MR. ALFORD: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we would be at
a point now where those numbers would be coming down, but
they're going --
MR. ALFORD: Well, and you're right, but
we've added some new programs this year, during this current
budget, that's going to bump us back up some. I still don't
think we'll reach the $2,800 mark, but I don't know how far
we'll reach, so that's why I was going to leave that -- try
to leave that alone.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ALFORD: And that's why I recently bumped
it down to $1,800. That's probably still a pretty good
guesstimate, because it's -- one program alone is going to
be, like, $1,100 a year that we're starting to use now.
~5-15-C3 Budget ~aor:2shop
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said new program. I
mean, search-type program?
MR. ALFORD: No, sir, it's a telephone --
animated telephone calling. What it is, it's
Internet-based. It allows us to go out and program in the
phone number with ou.r own message. The computer calls it at
night, you know, like all these pticiie calls we hate to get
when we're at home relaxing. It's one of these type deals
to where -- real simple; it says, "John Doe, your payment is
due tomorrow morning. Please contact this department if you
don't make it." Kind of as a reminder.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you put as the
option if you don't make it?
MR. ALFORD: Well, there is one -- we're in
open court, so I don't want to go into all the details.
Another time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll go back to that.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'll leave it to
the Judge; nevermind. If you think we need to have a
machine that does that --
MR. ALFORD: They're using it statewide.
Again, that's something that I've talked to several
different people on. It seems to be working. We've made
some money off it. We've only been using it three months
8-15-~'~3 Budget r~orks}iop
1
.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
^ 24
25
46
now; we've made some money off of it. So far, it's a
minimum of $75 a month. That's your base price. For the
last three months, we have at least made our $75 paid, so we
haven't lost any money on it. Just haven't made a whole lot
off of it yet. I'm hoping in the future, the more we use
it, the more we will --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if there's no
justification --
MR. ALFORD: And -- well, no, my
justification to it is, a lot of the people that do pay have
jobs. The majority of those work 8:00 to 5:00 Monday
through Friday, same hours we do, so this allows us to
contact them after hours.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If my memory serves
me, this -- this line was put in there in order for -- it
was a tool for your department to go back and collect those
old --
MR. ALFORD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- unpaid --
MR. ALFORD: That was some of it. We still
do on new people also, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my question is,
are you still doing some of the old payments?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, but not as much as we did
8- 1 5- G 3 B t, d c e' Gi o r k s h o p
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
two, three years ago. With our computer system that we
have, I don't care how many reports you run, every day seems
like they come up different, and every day we find new
people we didn't find before. Plus we have some we have
never found. We have some that we have found, but have
moved so we're continuously using the program constantly to
update our locating people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
travel line. Current budget's 1,000.
any, but yet in the recommended, it's
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
originally conference, and it was cha
COMMISSIONER WII~LIAMS:
Brad, talk about your
You didn't request
1,200.
That line was
raged to travel.
Okay.
MR. ALFORD: And that's --
JUDGF~ TINLEY: I can probably explain that to
the Commissioner.
MR. ALFORD: If you would, please.
JUDGE TINLEY: There was a -- a bill filed in
the Legislature that would permit court collections
departments and counties to put retainers on prisoners being
released from Texas Department of Corrections that had
outstanding fines or fees due. That bill did not pass. The
-- this item is inserted in there for cases in which, when
the	Sheriff is	notified	that someone's	about to	be released
or	otherwise --	actually	paroled from	the Texas	Department
8- 1~- 0 3 B u d g e t w c= h: :; h o 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
48
of Corrections -- actually, it's the Department of Criminal
Justice, Institutional Division; they've got a kinder and
gentler name to it. It will allow us, if there are fines or
fees due, to go down there and -- and get those people
signed up on a case-byTcase basis. 'Cause, otherwise,
they're merely told when they're released, you know, you be
sure and go by Kerr County and make arrangements to pay that
fine. And, of course, they respond, "Oh, yes, that's the
very first thing we're going to do when we get out of here."
We never see those people, of course. If we can get them in
our collections system, we'll have -- we'll have a hold of
them before they ever get out. That was the original
thought. Whether or not it comes to fruition, it's
something that we just started working on here within the
last week or so, I guess. Isn't it, Brad?
MR. ALEORD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Whether it's something that's
going to prove to be something that we -- we can really
generate some revenuE~ out of, we don't know. Obviously,
we're not going to send them down there to sign up just
somebody that owes 500 or 1,000. A lot of these fines and
fees range up into $5,000, $10,000, and that was the
rationale beriind that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, you mean that
-- that Brad would actually get in a car and drive to
~- 15-'~:~ ~ Bud~1e ~n~orkshop
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
Huntsville and sit out there in the door and catch them as
they're coming out?
No, before. Before. Before
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Behind the second
door, then. He catches them in there somewhere? Golly.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's competition for the
dough out there, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I just -- I
don't -- I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that's of benefit.
Don't they come -- like, when they're released, aren't they
assigned to a -- not a probation officer -- a parole
officer?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wouldn't that be an
easier way to make a connection with them?
MR. ALFORD: We're hoping it will be in the
very near future. What the Judge was talking about is that
we were relying on Parole -- we're fortunate to have two
good parole officers here, and they would -- whenever they
report to their parole, they do say, as the Judge said, "Go
over to the courthouse and contact them, do your deal."
Some will show up, some will not. After we started our
round-table discussion about this, I've contacted Parole,
and we probably -- starting real quick, maybe next week,
h-1~-03 Budget W~ikshop
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
week after, Parole meets twice a week here in Kerrville.
They actually meet in Ingram, I think Ingram State Marshal's
Office. And I think what we're going to try to do, instead
of driving over to Huntsville and meeting these five or six
guys, is go to parole meetings in Ingram, and be sitting in
the same room as the parole offir_er, and still having the
eye-to-eye contact with the parole officer next door. So,
whenever he goes in -- and I'm probably going to try -- we
haven't worked out the logistics; that`s why I'm kind of --
I don't know what to say right now. Theory number one is
let the convict -- excuse me, parolee walk in with his
parole officer. Parole officer says, "It says in your
conditions of parole you do report, you do pay..." dah-dah-
dah-dah-dah. He walks nut of that room right into our room,
so it's fresh on his mind; this parole officer told him hP
had to do it, and then we'll sign them up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the current
procedure?
MR. ALFORD: Right now, it's -- they report
to Parole in Ingram, Parole tells them to come down here to
the courthouse and see us. Some of them do, some of them do
not. And then what we do in return, Parole faxes us their
current parole list every month. We go through it and say
you know, this one made it, this one didn't make it, so
forth and so on, and it's a revolving door. Hopefully, this
N. - 1 5- C ~ B L d g e ~ W o r k s h o p
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i1
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
will kind of help slam the door shut a little bit sooner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the only
difference would be is that you would be there when the
parolee meets with the parole officer?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. And we would have
that eye-to-eye contact.
Kerr County?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is here in
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As opposed to meeting
him at the second gate at Huntsville or wherever.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir. And the Huntsville
doesn't look real good. I talked to one of the wardens of
that unit yesterday, and I would really rather try the
Ingram deal first.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So there wouldn't be
much need for --
MR. ALFORD: And, again, we don't have that
detail worked out yet, but I have an idea. What I'd like to
do, for argument purposes, is to leave the 1,200 to where it
is during some of the budget process, 'cause it's my
understanding that -- that y'all meet for the next couple
weeks over this, and maybe I can report back to the Judge;
say, "Okay, we have this worked out. We don't need the
- 5-~? B u d ~~ e t ~? o r r s h~ p
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
1,200. Let's try this," or something. But, as of today,
I'd like to leave the 1,200 to where it is. I don't want to
cut all my strings at one time, so to speak.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably wise.
I just had this picture in my mind of you sitting down there
at this little desk at Huntsville, and there are hundreds
and maybe thousands of guys that go through that door every
day. It rolls around.
MR. ALFORD: There was 300 from 10 a.m. to
4 p.m.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 300?
MR. ALFORD: 300 a day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Every day?
MR. ALFORD: Seven days a week.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That come walking out?
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
MR. ALFORD:
called and talked to the wa
and everything, it was kind
else, it was educational to
COMMISSIONER
NICHOLSON: That's scary.
BALDWIN: That is scary.
Yeah. That's -- whenever I
rden the other day, what he said
of interesting. If nothing
go down that avenue.
LETZ: Brad, I like the
explanation, but I'd rather take a different approach. I'd
rather reduce to it 300. If you have a reason to go back
up, we can go back up in the next week.
8 15 03 Br.~9g~t Wor bishop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
MR. ALFORD: To the 1,200? The -- that --
well, if I can argue that point, it's $172 and some-odd
cents in travel expense alone to go to Huntsville. It's an
18-hour round trip drive, so you're looking at probably two
meals. Okay, no use arguing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not if you go to Ingram.
MR. ALFORD: I'm not going to argue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Travel allowance in the
county also goes back to what I talked about earlier. You
know, this position was created when travel was included in
salaries, so if we're going to start adding a -- a good
travel item for in-county travel, we need to be consistent.
But this is out-of-county travel.
MR. ALFORD: I don't think this particular
department has travel in it, 'cause it just came --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's what I just
said.
MR. ALFORD: Anyway, that's fine, however
y'al1 want to work it out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, I think we
need to be consistent. If it's out-of-county travel, you
know, 300, or it needs to go in salaries or out of salaries;
just the same all across the board.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like such a
small thing for -- the possibility of leaving this little
8-15-U3 Budget Workshop
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
issue of you coming back and -- and --
MR. ALFORD: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- going to lower it
at a later time, it seems silly to think about, you know,
but that's -- that happens a lot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We won't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just never -- we never
get to that point to where we --
MR. ALFORD: Okay, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- lower it, so I
think, all right, lower it and then come back up if we need
to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other --
MR. ALFORD: Well, one other comment I'd like
to make.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the number
going to be?
MR. ALFORD: 300. The only other thing I'd
like to say is, this department has some type of dealings
with bringing in right at a quarter of a million dollars
last year in the first six months. And I think for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Current budget year?
MR. ALFORD: No, sir, first --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last year?
MR. ALFORD: October lst through April 30th
N- 1 5- U 3 B u d g e t W o r k s ~~ u p
1
2
.--.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
of 2002/2003, so it would be current budget year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ALFORD: It was, like, $263,000. I'm
saying -- not saying we collected that. I'm just saying
somehow we were involved in that type of money coming back
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the idea of the
department. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to eliminate
the department. I just want to reduce the travel item. But
one thing I would like -- and I don't know how you -- we
could do this, but it would be interesting for me to find
out, I guess, what we were collecting kind of before on an
annual basis, not worr_yi.ng about old stuff. We know we had
a lot of backlog that was, you know, still being worked
through, but as to -- I think it's more efficient to have an
individual or a department doing this county-wide, and I
think we're getting a -- probably my gut feeling is a higher
percentage, but I'd like to see the stats.
MR. ALFORD: Tommy and I had talked about it
this morning, and Thea and I have talked about that in the
past, about there's really no solid way to come up with what
it used to be versus what it is now. The only thing we try
to do is, from my department being underneath you, is every
so often, every quarter, I run numbers and make sure that we
are either at the same or have increased, 'cause there's no
8-15-~3 Bud~~et raorxshop
1
,.._ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
reason to decrease, as far as I'm concerned. Although the
economy's bad, our judicial system's still pretty solid, so
that's kind of how we judge that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To follow up on that
and give you a chance to brag about yourself, this function
costs us $80,000 a year. If we eliminated the function,
would our collections go down by more than $80,000 a year?
And the second half of that question is, do other counties
outsource this? Do other counties hire a collection firm to
do it instead of using County people?
MR. ALFORD: Some do, some don't. That was a
very sticky topic two years ago. I believe there's a lot of
lawsuits involving that right now. But, to answer your
question, I truly can not look you in the eyes and say, oh,
yeah, if you eliminate it, you'd lose, you know, thousands
of dollars a year. I'm not going to try to do that. On the
outsourcing part of .it -- Commissioner Baldwin, help me, if
you will. I think they were, like, 30 percent off the top?
Is what they were charging for out -- you know, so
outsourcing --
MS. PIEPER: It's 35 now.
MR. ALFORD: 35 now. So, I think we're
probably, county-wide, still doing a pretty good job.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Of course, the real
question would be, if we paid somebody 35 percent, it sounds
8-15 G 3 Bcdget Wor k_s 1<<~~~
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
like an awful lot of money. Would we have more money than
we do today?
MR. ALFORD: The --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Got to subtract
$80,000 from that 35 percent.
MR. ALFORD: I really don't know how far to
go with this.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It doesn't have to
be answered now. Just --
MS. PIEPER: May I answer that, to a point?
We tried that with -- what was did name of the company?
MS. SOV:IL: Out of Austin.
MS. PIEPER: Yes, and it did not work. It
was more confusing than it was helpful.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why?
MS. PIEPER: Why? Because they weren't
collecting the money. And a lot of times, when we received
money, it would be in the wrong case number, so we'd have to
call them several times trying to figure out the correct
case number, the correct person that the money went with.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think one of the key
issues is -- is that those team of lawyers over there just
weren't aggressive for us. They did not work for us, was
the whole thing. This department is aggressive for us. I
mean, their whole focus is the betterment of Kerr County.
8 15 3 Budget Wor:-,shop
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--
25
And those guys could --
MS. PIEPER: Right. The other ones --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They couldn't care
less.
MS. PIEPER: -- want their money and that's
it.
MR. ALFORD: That was the part I was trying
to tiptoe around. It's my understanding that they get their
35 percent off the top. What comes in the county after
that, you know, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was your last
full year of collections amount?
MR. ALFORD: I don't know. I had that
whenever the new Commissioners come in. I don't remember
what it was now. They
COMMISS.LUNER LE~TZ: This year, you said 263?
MR. ALFORD: 263. Historically, it's right
around half a million dollars, I think, is what it is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not questioning
whether or not you're capable or efficient. I'm just saying
this is one of the few examples of a function in county
government that's a revenue-producing function. We're
investing $80,000 a year. Any way we can leverage that and
collect more, that's a good thing.
MR. ALFORD: And we're opening -- that's
8-15-03 Budget Work.ahop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
where the phone system came in. We're trying -- we're
always looking, you know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The County part on
that, though, is that if you take a half million dollars,
you pay the current outsourcing fee of 35 percent, you've
paid $175,000 to raise $500,000. Our costs are fixed at
$80,000 to raise the saiue half million.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And we would
willingly do that, pay that 35 percent, if that number would
be up to a million dollars a year. This is -- this is a
clear-cut, return-on-investment business decision. So, I'm
just saying if we can get more for the $80,000, or if we
invest a little more, we ought to do that. We ought to do
it.
MR. ALFORD: And that's -- the Judge knows we
have an open-door policy to ideas, you know. And if y'all
come up with something, y'all see something on TV -- we
thought about throwing the old TV parties, you know. Come
down to the courthouse; we'll give you free TV, you know.
We've thought of a 1_ot of different schemes. We didn't go
that far, but anyway, thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MR. ALFORD: I appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is volunteer fire
departments. You'll find that on Page 71, gentlemen. In
fl- 1 5- Q 3 B u d g e t W o= k s h o ~~
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
r
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-
25
60
additicn to having the volunteer fire departments, that page
has the fire contract with the City of Kerrville, and you'll
note there's a recommendation there also. Anybody have any
questions about that"?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My only comment, one
of the volunteer firefighters from Divide called me some
weeks ago -- I can't remember his name, but Commissioner
Baldwin may know who the fire chief is out there. And he
told me they were in the process of resurrecting that
department and wanted to know what the contract was
currently, and indicated to me that they would like to
reinstate that contract. We sent him a copy of the standard
volunteer fire department contract. So, what I'm getting
around to saying is, we may need another $11,000 here. We
need to find out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody refresh my
memory. Where is the Castle Lake Volunteer Fire Department?
JUDGE TINLEY: Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is -- remember the
-- the portion of Kerr County that used to be in your
precinct that's now in my precinct, where Mr. John Mohar
lives? That fire department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Down Bear Creek, down
the tip --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That fire department
8-15-~? Budget G:or:~_sI_op
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--
25
covers that area. I talked to some of the residents down
there, and this fire department, about probably 25 percent
of their geographic boundary -- primary geographic boundary
is in Kerr County. And we -- I just feel that we ought to
include it, to help fund it a ]ittle bit, 'cause they're
certainly doing a service.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are they in Bandera?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Physically located in
Bandera County, right across the county line. Very close to
the county line, actually, the volunteer fire department is.
And it's similar to the situation in Junction; they're
comparable-type situations. Just a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'd indicated in our
last discussion about volunteer fire department contracts
that it would be our intention to increase this allocation.
At what point do we want to consider that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now. I mean, I think we
should increase them up, if at all possible, you know,
$1,000 each, with the exception of the bottom three. I
think that this is, you know, money well spent. Of course,
we're getting a heck of a bargain if we go up $1,000. If
this stayed the same, this will be -- would be the third
year it would be consistent. And I think that it's --
certainly, their costs increase like everybody else. I
would be in favor of raising all of them to $12,000, and I
~-15-03 Budyet Workshop
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
think if Divide does get started, that should be included.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I support that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I was going to
go 15, but 12's -- 12 is fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can go 12,5.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 12,5. Would you go
13?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 13.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like 13.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 13's a good number.
And if we can remember, that's always a place -- if there's
cutting needs to be done, there's a place to go back to the
original contract. Judge, let me ask you a question.
Doesn't have anything to do with the actual numbers, but
it -- those bottom three, what kind of an agreement or
contract will we have with those people?
JUDGE TINLEY: All of those are actually
out-of-county fire departments, and what you'd have is an
interlocal agreement with them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just like Comfort.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They come when they're
called? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: No, they'd actually be given a
fire area, I think, and that's -- that's what they
8-"~5-03 Budget wor}:shop
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anticipate. Just like --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, that's
right. Like Junction.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tierra Linda is out here, and
it's looking at the Northwest Hills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: That area out there. Well,
they've got some good equipment out there at Tierra Linda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They do.
JUDGE TINLEY: They've really got a pretty
first-class department out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Junction would be handling the
northwest corner of the county of 83, that area out in
there, Y.O. and so forth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when Northwest
Hills calls the city or calls 911 with a fire, through our
interlocal agreement, the 911 people are going to know to
tone them out or call them, Tierra Linda? Is that -- I'm a
little bit scared of that part of it right there, unless we
have a real firm understanding of what everybody does and
who's the players and all that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly, you'd have to put
that mechanism into place.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Put it in the
8-1~-Q3 Budget Workshop
64
1
,..,_ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~-,
25
agreement.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know how,
but it's working somehow now. Tierra Linda is routinely
coming into Kerr County to fight fires. I don't know the
details of how they get toned out. And the other thing,
I -- I checked with someone, and -- I think it was the
County Attorney, but somebody told me that the -- using the
same contract form for this instead of the local --
interlocal agreement was the right way to go. We need to
check that out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's the same as
Ccmfort in Kendall County -- and they -- I don't know how it
works either. They qet toned out and they respond. I mean,
they're automatically toned out for any calls in eastern
Kerr County. I'm not real sure of the mechanism, but I
think we need to make sure that these three new ones are --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Plugged in somewhere.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- plugged into that
somewhere. And I suspect they do it by phone exchange. All
-- all of the people that are served by Castle Lake have a
460 or 589 phone exchange, which is Bandera.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I noticed that
this proposed budget does not include the requested $25,000
additional by the City of Kerrville, and I'm okay with that,
provided that we know -- you know, and we know that as a
a-is-n3 Bua~~t worrshop
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
result of our unwillingness to increase the contract for the
second straight year in a row, we -- we will not anticipate
any evolution in services by Kerrville departments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We increased it last year
$25, 000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know that; I know
we did. I'm just saying, as a result of not doing it, we
understand that there's a -- the level of service will
likewise continue as it has been.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you asking me to make that
representation to you, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can not, and will not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would we be able
to ascertain that?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- I'd suggest you
connect with the City Council, the City of Kerrville. I
don't think this Court can justify an increase of $25,000 on
that fire contract, in view of the information that we
obtained over at the joint meeting and in view of the
information which I provided to each of you that was
provided to me by the Fire Chief concerning the
out-of-county activity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not representing
8-1~-03 Budget vvorks'iop
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a case to make the $25,000. I'm just asking the question,
can the County anticipate the same level of service?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, they --
JUDGE TINLEY: I anticipate it. Whether or
not it's delivered or not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They either sign the
contract or they don't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, it's kind of
spelled out in that contract of what -- what they'll do and
what they won't do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess we'll wait
and see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think you've
done the right thing, Judge. Again, I appreciate that. I
-- looking at the numbers that you gave us that you've
received from the Fire Chief, I'm in agreement with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more on the volunteer fire
departments or fire contract?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
I would expect, with this -- what I see
that that issue about reimbursement for
things like that will go away.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
Just an observation.
as good treatment,
breaking tires and
Good.
For now.
8-15 03 Budget Wo=ks'_~oY
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
._._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is Health
Department. I -- I find mine on Page 60.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean, you
find yours on Page 60? Are you operating from a different
document than we have?
JUDGE TINLEY: I sure hope not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I only have one question
or comment, to start with on this, anyway; that's U.G.R.A.
You know, and I think it's -- this is a hard one to address,
and maybe it's going to be better to postpone it until after
our next Commissioners Court meeting. I see -- first of
all, I think we need to figure out what rules we'll at least
qet to a public hearing on, which we haven't been able to do
yet. And then I think -- I think Commissioner Nicholson and
I have met with -- and are familiar with U.G.R.A.'s budget
and their numbers, but I think -- I don't think the Court is
necessarily, but I think that needs to be -- we need to
discuss that as a whole. I think that number needs to
reflect what we think it's going to cost exactly. And, you
know, U.G.R.A. gave us their number. I don't see that we
can arbitrarily cut it without getting them to agree as
to -- or at least for us to recommend back to them, "Y~u
need to cut it here." So, I think that -- you know, I don't
know that we can do anything on that number necessarily
~-15-0 ~ Bt:dr P ~ rr7orkshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,^ G `f
25
68
today, but I think that there needs to be a big asterisk on
that one, and it needs to be the real number that we -- you
know, "we" being U.G.R.A. and this Commissioners Court --
think it's going to take to operate that contract. And it's
-- and it's going to be related to the rules we adopt,
because this is -- that number is driven largely by fees.
And if we do -- you know, what we do with Section 10 will
determine what those fees are. So, it's kind of -- there's
a lot of things that kind of have to go in order for that to
work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the 67,000,
isn't that what you think it's going to take?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why'd you put that
number in there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't. That's the
Judge's number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a request.
Judge put 50. He cut it from 67 to 50.
JUDGE TINLEY: If I were using actual
existing facts, I'd have put 30 down there. Maybe that's
what we need to put down. Maybe that will drive the train.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the -- I think
you're right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If the Court --
5-15-03 Budget `sdork_s}~op
1
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And go up if we need
to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. I think that's
a wise thing to do, is put the 30 irr there and then let's
come back with a -- the real number. Unless it's 67.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The number -- you know, I
mean, it's -- it's easier -- maybe the staff have a lot more
information on how these numbers come about. It's going to
be a big unknown this year, 'cause if we're going to proceed
along the -- the direction that the committee appointed is,
this area that's in U.G.R.A.'s area is going to be kept
track of; the area -- the County's area is going to be kept
track of. The portions will be divided out of the total
program. If it is a 50-50 split on workload, it appears
it's going to be a $64,000 number this year, you know. And
that's probably, you know, the best we have -- the best
number we have right now, is $64,000.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Said another way, if
this Court and the U.G.R.A. Board adopt the recommendations
of the committee, the cost to go to the County would be
somewhere between $60,00 and $70,000, best guess. We -- we
won't know until the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is based on a
8-1~-03 Budd°t ~crYshop
~o
1
2
3
4
J
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50-50 split of current budget, or the reasonable facsimile
of the current budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a lot
guesswork going into that. We don't -- we can't forecast
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but my point is,
real-world facts right now, we're not there. And though
efforts have been made to get there within the last month or
two, it doesn't appear to me that we're any closer to being
there than we were two months ago.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're going to vote on
it pretty soon, and U.G.R.A. is going to vote. I can't
predict whether or not it will pass either place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's been to the
Court three times, you know, trying to get to the next step
of getting to a public hearing. And, at the same time, the
contract numbers, you know, are being worked out. I just
think I'd rather leave -- I think 64 is the best number we
have now. And I think if we put 30 in there, it appears we
have more money than we -- we think we're going to have.
You know, I don't see how it's going to be less than 64,
unless we go in and, you know, make a decision on the Court
that we're going to have less inspectors or do less work.
And, in which case, I don't think U.G.R.A. would go along
ii-15-~3 Budget Wor:tshop
71
1
2
,.-.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,.,_ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with the contract, and we'll be stuck with -- we'll -- or
have our own department; maybe they'll keep their own
department, which we've been trying to avoid.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's a high
probability that it will either be somewhere around $64,000
or we'll have it back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm willing to put 64
down, based on your best estimate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that -- that's
okay. I mean, we can do -- it's going to change. So, that
goes from 30 to 64.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It may go to 100-some if
we take it back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is a real
likelihood, still.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any more on the -- on
the Health Department items?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, First
Responder Coordinator. I'm assuming that salary increase is
due to the recommendation of the City?
JUDGE TINLEY: Those -- those bottom two
numbers there, the one increase and the one decrease are as
a result of the joint workshop that we had with the City.
Those numbers are as per that workshop.
8~5 U3 ~urget Work=fop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
„_, 2 4
25
72
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Well, I'm
still a little hot under the collar about that, increasing
his salary. And, if you remember, the note in their
presentation says that we want to increase this thing
because this guy's going to start teaching First Responder
classes soon. We have been paying someone to teach First
Responder classes for six or seven years, and now -- and now
we're going to give the guy a raise, and we're not -- we're
not sure if he's a teacher or not. So, I'm -- I think at
least pare it back to where it was, or put a notation in
here that if -- if and when he does receive his teaching
certificate, present it to this Commissioners Court and his
salary can go up at that point. But I'm not going to vote
to give the guy any more raise if he -- I mean, if he's not
doing what we've been paying him to do the whole time. That
doesn't make sense to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- I don't have that
information in front of me at this point, Commissioner, but
I do have some recollection that, just recently, that he
received some sort of certification, and it wasn't going to
be required that someone from the outside be brought in, and
that the current coordinator would be able to do this
teaching. I seem to have some recollection of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Soon.
JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection was that he
8-1~-G3 Budg~r Workshop
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,,, 2 4
25
had just gotten it or was just about to get it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, just about to
get it, soon. But we've been hearing that how many years?
A long time. A long time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem with
paring it back or putting it contingent upon -- you know,
maybe we can tie it to teaching classes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would that be?
The current budget number, $9,675?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Or -- or leave
it at the $10,831, and when he -- yeah, pay him the $9,675
until he produces a certificate. That's what I would do if
I was running this joint.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, for budgeting purposes,
as you mentioned a while ago, if we put the $10,831, it's
going to stay that way. So, you want to go back to the
$9,675 and -- I'm just trying to see which way you want to
go here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I know.
MS. SOVIL: You could pay him for the classes
he taught.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that seems to me
to be more complicated, even. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could put in the
$10,831, and then look at the -- we have a contract,
8-15-03 BuayeL Woxks:iop
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
r--~
25
correct? With the City?
MS. SOVIL: Not for First Responders.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we should get a
contract and make the payments contingent, you know, on
performance. That makes it even more complicated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How can we do what I
want to do, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: We don't pay him directly, so
we -- we're invoiced by the City and we reimburse the City,
so we're kind of stuck with -- with what we agree to pay the
City. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, this is -- this
document right here is our agreement that we're going to --
what we're going to pay. How we vote on the County budget
is what we -- unless we have a contract, which we do not.
But this document right here, to me, is the contract. What
we agree to pay the guy is what we're going to pay them, not
what they want. I don't know. I just -- that's just the
way I feel about the thing. And, I mean, we're going to
give a guy a raise that's not even doing what we've been
paying him to do. See, I have a hard time getting my mind
around that. It doesn't work at my house, and should have a
hard time working here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What number?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we just use
-15 G3 Budget workshoF
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
the old number, and when we advise the City we're not going
to give $25,000 for a fire contract increase, we're not
going to give them the increase here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I can give you a pretty
good guarantee to make them come to the table, if you want
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's kind of what we
want.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Zero.
JUDGE TINLEY: Zero.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $9,675 is what I want.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have any serious
objection to that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have one more question
on this page before we move on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Shoot away.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I should know this, but
Health Officer salary. Who is that person?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Solid Waste.
MS. SOVIL: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Health Officer is --
MS. SOVIL: He's the doctor that we have in
case we have an epidemic out at the jail.
8-15-03 Budget ~1or}: s:1o~,
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I knew it was
someone we were paying for not doing anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's been a pretty level
thing for years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who is that human
being?
MS. SOVIL: Who is it, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some doctor.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Dr. Parvin, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say it again?
MS. NEMEC: Dr. Parvin.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true, he hangs
out at the jail.
MS. NEMEC: He's on the payroll; we just mail
his check. I've never seen him. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does he ever do
anything?
MS.	NEMEC:	I have	no idea.
MS.	SOVIL:	But we	have to keep -- we have to
have it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it, gentlemen?
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I note that it's about 12:20.
8-15-C~ J Bli~C.P ~. Wor}~5 t1 :; ~~
1
,.,,, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,~ 2 4
25
77
What's the consensus of the Court about wanting to break for
lunch?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're probably going to be
running late when we come back here, whenever that is, so
it's not going to make any difference whether we do it now
or later.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the scheduling not
changed, so that 1:30 is going to be Maintenance?
JUDGE TINLEY: That is the schedule. Because
of the unavailability of Road and Bridge administrative
personnel, we've swapped the Maintenance into that slot and
put Road and Bridge people into the Maintenance slot, which
is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, we have a
couple people in the audience who are here under
County-Sponsored. Could we at least let them make their
pitch for their particular County-sponsored activity, and
then -- so they don't have to be tying up the rest of the
day?
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume you're speaking of
Sherry and Bill Taylor?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that has to do
with Economic Development, under County-Sponsored.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any objection,
E- 1 5- 0 3 B u d g e s ~r7 o r k s h o p
1
2
,~--,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
gentlemen, to taking that one up right quickly so that they
can do their thing? That will bring us to Page 64. Thank
you for bringing that to my attention, Commissioner
Williams.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, is it the Trapper
contract?
MS. CUNNINGHAM: No, it's that doctor
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whoever he is.
JUDGE TINLEY: As long as you mail the check,
you don't care where it goes; they'll take it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is KPUB buying lunch
today?
MR. TAYLOR: We can do that. Commissioner,
we come before you today to request that you consider
another contract for next year for 2003/2004. There's been
a partnership between the -- public/private partnership
between the entities since -- it goes back to 1991. And, of
course, now KPUB has been involved in this, and the City and
County, and we appreciate what you've done with us in the
past. And we -- we -- bottom line is, we'd like to have the
contract renewed on the same basis of what it has been last
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're speaking of Economic
Development?
8-15-~~ 3 Bc~lce ~ Wor~~shcE~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.- 13
14
l~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-
25
79
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No problems.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have a
problem with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got it plugged in for
that. If -- if they don't get too mad at me, maybe they'll
follow what I'm recommending.
MR. TAYLOR: We appreciate your
consideration.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: Thanks for jumping this up
so we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was easy, right?
MS. CUNNINGHAM: That it? Well, let me just
take a minute, because I might not have the chance to come
before you again, and tell you hcw -- what a nice privilege
it has been to work with all of you, and see you around.
Few more weeks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Countdown time?
MS. CUNNINGHAM: Six weeks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six weeks.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: But there's some personal
days in there, here and there, so... You might want to come
to -- our Chamber banquet's going to be on Tuesday,
September the 16th, and we're going to be over at Inn of the
Hills this year; be a nice celebration, and we'd like to
~-15-~3 Budget Woreshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
	10
	11
	12
	13
~_	
	14
	15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
have you there, too. So, anyway, it's been fun.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Sherry.
We appreciate you being here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks for all you've
done over the years.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, do we just sign
your name to the check when we go to lunch here in a minute?
MR. TAYLOR: Sure, that'd be fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or KPUB.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you for jumping us
ahead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. You're
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm saying, I think
we -- some of the ones left fall under almost the
maintenance part, Parks and Maintenance, which is all kind
of pretty interrelated, so I think we should just -- I don't
think -- and I don't think Maintenance is going to take as
long as Road and Bridge would have, so I think that we could
come back at 1:30, finish what we need to, and be online for
the Sheriff at 2:30.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I was
checking to see, if ''all needed to bump it up or what. I
a-ls-os e~a:~e~ ~a~,rksn~~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
knew there were some changes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll stand in recess,
then, until 1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:28 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call the meeting back
to order -- the workshop, budget workshop that we recessed
at a little before 12:30. It's a few minutes after 1:30
now. We're back in session. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the schedule, it
appears to me that two items were left -- or two departments
that I think need to be discussed. Others were certainly
left off; they may need to be discussed as well, but two
that I think need tc be added at some point are Technology
department -- I can't remember what -- whatever that
department --
JUDGE TINLEY: Information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Information Technology,
and Environmental Health. These are two that I neglected to
put on the list that I sent to you. And there may be some
others that I left off, too. There's some of them that we
don't have much influence on one way or the other. I didn't
see a whole lot of point in --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't we just do
8- ~ 5- 0 ~ 3aaget Wor'=:s hop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
Environmental Health?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm prepared to do
Environmental Health right now, as part of my --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: If y'all want to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wasn't specifically
listed out. It was -- we had --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Still need
technology, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But technology is not
included. Anyway, just a comment. At some point, we may
want to, you know, discuss those as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's first complete
what we had before us. The next item -- I assume we're
through with Nondepartmental -- we move on to Permanent
Improvements. That I find on Page 115. You're not going to
find anything there, but that's where I find that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like it. Zero.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 115?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 115, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have anything they
wish to otter in connection with Permanent Improvements?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got to find 115
first.
8-15-03 Budget Wor}:chop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's right after 114.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The one item that may
need to be put on here, may not, is the Hill Country Youth
Exhibit Center. But that's under -- we have a separate -- I
believe a separate line item for that on discussion. Maybe
it -- no, we don't. It comes under Permanent Improvements.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's on there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two different ways to approach
the Exhibit Center. One is on Permanent Improvements side
and under this item. The other is the Maintenance side that
Mr. Holekamp's in a position -- that's one of his budget
schedules that he's going to address with us shortly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just pointing out,
that's the -- I mean, I agree, there's nothing on here right
now, but that is something that we do need to discuss during
the workshop process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if we do, you
know, come back with our study number 19 and decide that we
need to do something out there, then we're going to blow
through an entire 'nother year without having any money to
do it. If we're going to do something, we got to put it in
here.
8-15-~~3 Budget iaorkst,op
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. That's why I --
I'm -- well, the comment -- I mean, this is -- in the
budget, it's got to go under this item if we do any kind of
construction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we're going to do
repairs, that goes under the -- the other budget. I don't
have a recommendation.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
If we're going to do something, I
COMMISSIONER WILLI,
time I made a motion, it died for
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
listening.
I'm just tossing it out.
mean, the --
CMS: I'm listening. Last
lack of a second, so --
I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're dying for lack
of a motion at this point, even though we can't take
motions. But, anybody have anything that they want to offer
up as a suggestion here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. I know what I
want to do out there, but I'm sorry, I don't have a number
to plug in here. Of course, t.hat's a question. That's the
issue on the table.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we could start with
what you want to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hmm?
8-15-03 Budget Works'_~op
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
85
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we can start with
what we want to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, I'm still
on the building a new barn behind the Exhibit Hall. New hog
barn, wider and longer. Metal building.
JUDGE TINLEY: Higher.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Higher.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paid for by?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to talk
-- I don't know. I mean, you got -- you're talking about
plugging a number in here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean,
somewhat related. I mean, you know, our options are
reserves, which we don't have, a bond issue, or grants.
Well, we can do another bond issue. You know, I don't see
any other way to fund it other than a bond issue,
personally. Or -- or someone coming along and giving us a
couple million dollars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gets us back to where
we were last time. Funding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So far, I hear a barn,
bigger and longer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bigger and better
24 barn.
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all. And maybe
a- 1 5- U 3 B ~. dye r W o r k_ s ti o p
1
2
~_
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
the bond issue's for a bigger and taller barn. I mean, I
think that -- you know, I think that -- you know, I'm
willing to approach it any -- any number of different ways.
And that's -- if I hear a way, okay, let's go with that,
then we'll hang it right now with a bigger barn. And if
we're going to go towards a bond issue, then we proceed on.
If that's the way that we're going to try to raise the
money, then that sends us down one, you know, line of
thinking and process. That means we got to put some money,
get ready for an election and some plans and things like
that. If we're going to do nothing, we don't need money
anywhere.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we do a bond issue, do we
need to plug something i.n here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we need to plug money
into other parts of the budget to be able to do a bond
issue. We'd need to know what we're going to vote on, have
election expenses, which comes to -- what did the last one
cost? About, what, $15,000, $20,000?
JUDGE TINLEY: Twelve.
MS. PIEPER: About 12, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twelve.
JUDGE TINLEY: Twelve something, 12-plus.
~-15-03 Budget Wow}:shop
1
2
...~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twelve-plus. So, I mean,
you know, if you try to do a bond issue in the next year, we
at least need to put $12,000 in that budget. But, I mean, I
think it's a -- you know, we at least need to set a
direction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We tried to do that a
couple-three weeks ago; we didn't get very far.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was for a specific
issue, I mean, going out and hiring an architect.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's find out what
it is we need to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- I think
Buster thinks we need a barn.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we need a
barn.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm at the same
place we were last time we had this discussion, which is not
far from where Buster is. I don't think we need a new
structure. I'd like to take bids to fix the electrical,
take bids to fix the roof and air-conditioning and whatever
else needs fixed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But no barn?
(Commissioner Nicholson shook his head.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My thinking is we're
-- we should put it back in good shape, the same -- same
8-15-C3 Budget wvr'~t~li~p
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
facility that we inherited.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I dislike the idea of
pouring good money after bad.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind -- I mean, I
don't mind fixing up, but I think we need a new barn. I'm
not going to -- I mean, I don't see any point in spending a
bunch of money out there if we're not going to improve the
facility, and you can't improve the facility without
building a new barn behind the Exhibit Hall, in my mind.
However you go on the improvements, you know, to me there's
some basic things -- electrical, air-conditioning, heating,
and roof -- that have to be done to the Exhibit Hall to make
it usable, or just not use that portion. Build a new barn.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Deja vu all over
again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see how we can
possibly get to a point to where we're going to put a dollar
figure in this particular line today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, but I just think we
need to start a direction if we're going to.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can't drag on
forever. Something -- someday we're going to have to decide
what -- what is the future of the Ag Barn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if we're going to do
it in this budget year, make that decision, we've got to
c-1~-43 B,_d ~ Worksli.;~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,..-.
25
89
have money somewhere in the budget to do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if we're talking about a
bond issue, that's a matter we're going to address with the
County Clerk in her Election Expense budget. And if we're
talking about somethinq other than a bond issue, then, of
course, if we're going to expend some funds out of the
budget or off the budget without a bond issue, well, then,
you're right, this is where it needs to be done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I -- it appears to
me we're not going to do anything for the next 12 months, so
let's move on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item is Parks. I
find Parks under -- looks like 98.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 98.
JUDGE TINLEY: You'll find something very
similar there to what we just looked at, as a matter of
fact.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whoa.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not doing Parks
this year?
MR. HOLEKAMP: That's not my Parks, is it?
Mine's on Page 44, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's not your Parks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yours is maintenance.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That's a whole different
8-15-U3 Budget Wor}:shop
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Parks.
JUDGE TINLEY: These are capital
improvement-type situations at parks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we at 98 or 99?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 98.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't request
$15,000 for Lions Park to begin with. The request was
$1,500. See, we just saved $13,500 right there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's part of a new
barn.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
number?
So, $1,500 is the
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I put in.
I didn't put $15,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: That must be a typo.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Must be. One too
many ciphers.
MR. TOMLINSON: I pressed the zero too many
times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the -- none of them
are in my precinct, so -- I mean, directly. Ingram Lake,
that money is in there -- isn't that port-a-potty money? Or
is that a different --
MS. SOVIL: That comes out of -- not there.
8-1~-03 Budget WuLks'~o~-~
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What did we spend?
MS. SOVIL: Port-a-potty money comes out of
-- it comes out of Commissioners Court budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did we spend?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Port-a-pot~ys aren't
there either. In fact, they're at the dam.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is this?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the name, though,
is the Dam Park. I think that's what this park is called.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's down a mile and
it's the boat --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where the boat ramp
is, right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It just looks to me
like it's about an acre.
JUDGE TINLEY: Talking about there by
Chili's?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, this is on past
the dam.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ingram.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. Out at Ingram,
okay.
~-15-u3 Bud.3et o'1cr~:shop
92
1
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: All I see there is a
-- in terms of facilities is a boat ramp and barbecue pit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINI,EY: I think part of that's
privately owned in that area.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Right next door to
it, yeah. But looks like we've got an acre, maybe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, and everything
that's done in there is Road and -- I would think Road and
Bridge-type work.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've had the
prisoners out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Driving surface, that
kind of thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, two of the
three items -- line items are in my precinct. And I did put
the $40,000 in for Flat Rock Lake Park, because we do need
restroom facilities, and the amount of dollars that are
still available from the L.C.R.A. grant are insufficient to
do that. I got approval the other day from L.C.R.A. to
expend the remaining dollars, which are about $15,000 and
change, of the current grant. So, at the very least, I
suspect we need to amend the budget to allow us to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $15,000?
-1 ~-03 Budget Wor ks'iop
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fifteen and change.
I can get you the exact number, but it's 15 and change which
remains. But that still leaves us with a need to do a
restroom. We have insufficient L.C.R.A. funds to do that,
and it's still a necessary item. More than likely, the
$15,000 we'll restore iri here and use it from L.C.R.A. would
go probably for some picnic tables or things of that nature
scattered around the park. In terms of Lions Park, that's
down from where it was to 15, and I have been systematically
putting in picnic tables over there, and probably have an
opportunity -- I'm doing one right now, which is in the
current budget year, and that could probably go by the
boards for next year; take that out totally. But I think we
need to think seriously about Flat Rock Lake Park. We also
have to think seriously in the future about how we're going
to bridge the main section of Flat Rock Lake Park. We have
a footbridge -- there's a footbridge which was washed out by
the flood a year ago. And how much money did we get from
FEMA for that, Glenn?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Approximately $6,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About $6,000. I'm
not sure $6,000 will replace it. Where is that $6,000? Is
it anywhere in here?
MR. HOLEKAMP: It's in -- it's in the Major
Repairs in the 666 budget, the Ag Barn budget.
~-15-03 Bud]et ~crkshop
94
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 WILLIAMS: In the Ag Barn
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. Because we -- when they
did it, we put it and the building repairs that we had out
there -- all the FEMA went into that one budget.
COMMISSTONER WILLIAMS: Well, the rest of
that $6,600 going for a new barn -- Ag Barn. I think we
ought to put it where it belongs, in Parks.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, when they -- when they
deposited it, I think the Auditor's office had decided to do
it that way when those funds came in, because they came in
in one check.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, we can
break that down, can't we, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was unaware that we still
had $15,000 left out of the L.C.R.A. grant; that is still
alive and viable and usable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm excited to know that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's only alive and
viable and usable as a result of Commissioner Letz telling
me that there was a question about it, and I called L.C.R.A.
and got approval for us to spend that down to take it out.
So, I can get you the exact number; I got it there on my
~5--5-03 Budget Wor:~~shop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,,-.
25
95
desk, but it's alive and viable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: L.C.R.A.'s worked with
us, and we had proposed to spend that money on restrooms
this year. They were aware of it. They extended it through
this year, and I told Commissioner Williams -- I said, you
know, "Verify that it's still available to us," and the
answer is yes. So, certainly, I think $15,000 goes back
into that grant, the money that we'll use.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From the 160 that
was --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 180 -- or 200, actually.
JUDGE TINLEY: If it's going to be in excess
of 15, but less than 16, maybe we want to put in 16 instead
of 15 so that we won't have a question about whether we can
spend it all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think we need
to put that number in, and I'll get the exact number if you
like, Judge. $6,600, whatever that is, that came from FEMA
for that footbridge, and we need to decide if we're going to
augment that and replace that footbridge or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are there -- with the
FEMA $6,600, it's just a check. Can you do what you want
with it, or do you have to use it for that purpose?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No -- excuse me. As I
understood, it was an adjustment. It was 75 percent of
R-_ 5-03 3'~r_~get Worksr ov
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
what -- that was existing type of construction. No, you
don't have to use it for that, but that's what it -- you
know, they reimburse you. I had some prices done on
replacing, and I knew I couldn't afford it. Because, see,
at that time, it was built by Road and Bridge. Road and
Bridge put two pipes in there and put a light slab on there,
but no contractor would try to duplicate that -- private
contractors.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Speaking of those
pipes, don't we need to get those out of the river?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that we know
how.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's beside
the -- probably beside the point. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The pipes that we put
out in the middle of the Guadalupe River.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a big one out
there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like the -- we
need to get those things out of there, so there goes your
$6,000 right there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $15,075.84. This
appears to be the rernaining balance. The last expenditure
was October of '02 for $4,000.
~?-15-03 B~ ~qet Vdorksho~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
JUDGE TINLEY: $15,075.84?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 15,1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $15,075 will do it.
Keep the 84 cents change.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we going to do anything
with the 66 in relation to Flat Rock, or are we just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that from
a -- to me, it would make sense to earmark it back for that
park. That's where the damage occurred. Clearly, we can't
replace the structure for that amount of money, or a better
structure that would work better. So, I would think that
you would put that --
JUDGE TINLEY: 21,7 total?
MR. HOLEKAMP: What's going to happen to the
flat car at Hermann Sons when the bridge is built there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not sure. That may
be an option.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That'd be a very viable
option.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And Leonard and I have
talked about that. We've actually -- and Commissioner
Williams and Leonard and I met out there at one point and
looked at the -- at where you could put it, what would have
to be done to --
~5-15-03 Budget Wcrkuhop
1
2
^_
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
MR. HOLEKAMP: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- use that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got 21,675. Is
that right?
JUDGE TINLEY: 21,7. I just rounded up the
15 to 15,1; the 66 t~ 21,7. Anything else on Parks,
gentlemen? Let's move on to City/County. That's going to
be on Page 59.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 59?
JUDGE TINLEY: Five-nine. Those are not the
same figures that we saw at the City/County budget workshop.
The request figures are the same figures that we saw. The
reduced figure on the Airport Operations is the County's
one-half of the grant, the $16,667, plus the -- the other
permanent improvement type. Excluded from that is any part
of the Airport Manager's salary. My rationale behind doing
that was based upon a discussion that we had with a
representative of the City on that. The consensus was
reached that operational expenses for that airport should be
taken out of the revenues from operation, and I think the
Airport Manager's salary is clearly an operational expense,
so I excluded that. They've got those funds in-hand. I
don't know why they don't want to spend them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Those funds" --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my rationale.
F-15-03 BLdget .^dork.shop
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.--
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Those funds" meaning
which funds, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, apparently they have the
funds that have been generated from operations out there
that have been accumulating in the past. I -- based upon
what they've indicated they're, quote, funding the
operations out there -- well, but they're also getting these
funds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: And at the last meeting that
we had on -- on what the expenses were, the operational
expenses, what the revenues from operation were that were
being generated, it was pretty close to a wash, as I recall.
The numbers I recall were about 116, 117 revenues; 122, 123
expenses. And, included in that, if the numbers they
furnished to us were correct, were the expenses and -- and
the related benefits for the Airport Manager, the salary and
benefits. So, I think they'll take it out of there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the 35 -- is that
what it is?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would be for what?
Our piece of grant money?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Seems like there was
a -- there was a 25 -- there was $25,000 on a water line
~-1~-03 Bu~yet Wor}csaop
100
1
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 they were extending. There was another grant that we
were going to have to match with a 10 percent that was
another $16,667. You'll recall my question to Mr. Pearce
about which that was. No, that was this year. This other
one includes this other year. And there was one other item
that was a -- a permanent improvement-type item or
grant-type item, but it has nothing to do with the actual
operational expense. But I left those and excluded out the
Airport Manager's salary and benefits, and took our portion
of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dave, were you at the
Airport Board meeting Wednesday night?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I had to go to a
KARFA meeting. I was going to ask you the same thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I was en route
to Austin. I had a fill-in from Dave Pearce about that. I
don't think that there's anything that came out of that
meeting that would have any effect on that. I think the
Judge recalls correctly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with the Judge.
I mean, the airport -- the intent is to make it break even,
or hopefully have it break even, at least on an operations
standpoint. I think the Airport Manager's salary is aii
operations item, and I think the City and the County -- or
certainly the County Should either support the -- you know,
~-15-U~ BLdce`._ U7nrk_sh~p
101
1 ~ the grant.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 ~I
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
The goal is to make it self-sufficient, and ultimately the
goal is not only self-sufficiency, but to provide enough
money for grants as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But we're not quite
there yet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. One step at a
time. On the recycling facility, I recall there's two
items.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One was an over -- I
guess an improvement to the actual building, and then -- the
area over the shed roof or, you know, covering area. And
the other was a -- an additional --
JUDGE TINLEY: Portable building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- portable building.
What did -- do you recall the cost of each of those?
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Half of that
requested, wasn't it?
JUDGE TINLEY: What they requested was -- it
says here contribution offset expenses incurred at Community
Recycling Center. That's not a correct statement. Both of
~ - 15- C 3 Budget Wor.~sP~op
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those were capital-type improvements.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, in fact, there was
mention about a $4,500 expenditure for this current budget
year, that they intended to ask for it also as a capital
improvement that they had not yet asked for. We have an
existing lease contract on that property. We own the
property; the City leases it. And the lease clearly
provides that any improvements or additions and maintenance
be borne by the lessee of that property, which is the City.
My recollection when -- when I raised that question was,
well, maybe we -- we need to rewrite the contract. I don't
think we need to rewrite the contract. I like it like it
is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a good
contract to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem
with, I mean, leaving it the way it is. If we need to
rewrite the contract, rewrite the contract. But I think
that there's a lot of benefit to the environment by having
that facility there, and they are expanding and taking more
things that are hazardous, that care damage surface and
groundwater. And there is clearly, in my mind, a -- a
shortage of ways to dispose of things. And I can say that
because of my familiarity with Kerrville Little League and
8-"~5-03 3acget Worksro~
103
1
2
~-.
3
4
5
b
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the dumpsters over there. I'd say 80 percent of the things
put in there -- and frequently they're hazardous items --
have nothing to do with Little League. People -- you know,
they see a gate open, they run in there and dump things off.
I think that the -- the batteries, some of the things
they've added, the paint, the battery, the chemical things
that they're allowed to take off, I think that is a very
good program and want to continue it. And, you know, I
don't have a problem with leaving it out right now, but I
think that is a facility that we -- I certainly support, you
know, making some expenditures on to enhance it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happened to our
request to extend services to east and west of the county?
Did they ever responded to that? And, if so, is there a
cost attached to that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I've not heard any response.
I have no question -- no quarrel with Commissioner Letz'
statement that it's a good service. And when they expanded
that service, the contract was amended to give them some
additional consideration for doing that. This is strictly a
matter that's controlled by the lease agreement, and it's
very, very clear. And, very frankly, I would -- I would
have some -- some concern about signing -- approving any
grant of moneys to them for those purposes for which they're
requesting them with the existing lease agreement, as well
5-15-03 Budget Works_iop
104
1
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 not we're even authorized by law to do that under the
circumstances without amending that contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I just said that.
I said I'm in favor of doing nothing at this point, but --
and also in favor of redoing the lease agreement, which
would obligate us to make some expenditures on improvements.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the only -- my
~iily problem -- and I agree with everything that y'all have
said. My only problem with it is, doing these things like
this, is that the City is going to come along and not like
what we're saying, this and the fire contract and all these
kinds of things. And now we're -- now we're into a time
frame thing of getting our budget done. You know, how much
negotiating are we willing t~ do? How much meet in the
middle are we willing to do? Are we going to be -- is this
absolutely firm that we're going to stand under that
contract and we're not willing to change the contract? And
that -- I'm concerned about us having -- having our budget
out in time, and still maintain a relationship with the City
of Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. That's why I
said, you know, I'm in favor of redoing the lease agreement,
getting that out on the table, 'cause the City is -- I agree
with the Judge; we can't do it until the lease gets redone,
or we shouldn't do it until the lease gets redone.
S- l ~-0 3 Bud het Vdor }_ ~no~'~
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'' 3
L
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The thing is, the
things that they're asking for, this new thing -- this cover
and outbuilding, I don't know -- I mean, I can't see, in my
mind, that that enhances the program in any way. I don't
see that they're going to be able to take in more product
per day and those kind of things. It doesn't have anything
to do with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if --
It's more comfort for
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was under the
impression that the outbuilding was for computers, to store
computers in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what it was?
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they currently don't
have the facility to take in more -- more old, used
computers, so they end up getting tossed in the shed area.
I think you're partly right; it's comfort. I think as a
result, they're looking at redrawing the map as far as
getting two loops coming in, so you can get more people
through it in a certain amount of time, which is more an
efficiency issue, to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were -- if you
were of a mind to put some level of funding in here,
C-15-Gj Bcdge~ ~aorksho~~
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
participation, what would that be?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd probably fund one or
the other of those items.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought maybe this
number represented half of it. I don't know. Half the --
what they were asking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Commissioner
Baldwin's point is well-taken, that -- I mean, we are
clearly making some changes to what the City has requested,
what they presented, and I think we need to set up a forum
to get that information back to the City; either ask -- ask
the County Judge to go to the mayor, or one of the
Commissioners meet with some of the Councilmen or something.
Because, I mean, I -- you know, the intent is -- from my
standpoint, anyway, is that I'm not trying to, you know,
antagonize the City. I -- just like on the fire contract, I
don't think they gave any justification to do it. The
airport, I think we're doing what the intent is. And on
this one, the contract doesn't allow us to do what they're
asking. It's not that we're, in my mind, saying no to
everything. We're saying that- some things need to be done,
or they need to -- you know, this item, they need to put
together a new contract. If they want to draft a new
contract, we'll look at the new contract. And the -- the
fire department, we just agree to disagree. They can try to
8-15-03 Budget Workshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
explain or give us more documentation than what they have
provided so far, because it doesn't warrant the increase
they asked for. So, I appoint the Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it -- you guys may not
want me on this deal. As a lawyer, I find it repugnant to
make an arm's-length deal with a party, and then later on
down the line -- in a five-year deal, three years down the
line, the other side decides that they want to try and make
a better deal or should have made a better deal or want to
make a better deal, and so we just start over. You talk
about we're not giving them what they request. We've got
some elected officials out here that have made budget
requests of this Court, and we're not going to give them
what they're asking for either, and I think that's our first
priority, gentlemen. You may not want me to go talking to
those people.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know how to
do this, but at least three of you have got quite a bit of
experience dealing with the City. A couple --
JUDGE TINLEY: Obviously, I don't have
enough.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I don't like
this to run over us. The way you've explained the contract
sounds a lot like that. On the other hand, I want to
8-15-03 Budget Works:,op
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?3
24
25
negotiate in good faith, and I don't want to have a breach
in our relationship with them, because it's good for both
sides to participate in these kinds of things. Then there's
one other thing that I'll say about this, is we don't have
time to pursue this much further, either. This is an
example for me of the kind of things that ought to be
user-pay. I don't know -- I don't know if we're charging,
or how much we're charging. Long-term, it ought to be a
user-pay kind of thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where does that leave
us?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it leaves us as
we're under a contract that says that the City pays for
everything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good enough.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can't do anything,
so I think we ought to move on to the next item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not being
antagonistic, in my view.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't answer the
question of, are we going to just -- are we going to send a
letter to the City and say we're not going to approve the --
what are -- I mean, somehow we need to communicate the
changes we're making after our meeting of the --
~-15-~? Fidget [ti'or•:st:oF
109
1
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.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that needs to
be done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree with
that. I do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let Thea handle it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, you and the
mayor makes sense to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, you know, I
just -- I think the -- the reasons are very clear. There
wasn't documentation on the fire department. We're under a
contract here at this time. And the airport, we're ding
what the plan for the airport is. Let operations pay for
that side of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: You may want to draft that
letter for me, Jonathan. Sounds like you have the kinder
and gentler approach. Anything more on this one, gentlemen?
County-sponsored. Looks like 64. We had a small piece of
that one with Economic Development.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Question for my
edification. What's water development?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Water development is
under the Regional Water Plan, the way different regions
fund that different ways. Region J chose to not be reliant
R-]5-~~3 Budget Wcrk~hop
110
1
,^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,,._ 2 4
25
on one entity, such as the U.G.R.A. or something like that,
and we went to all of the, basically, counties and asked for
the -- and also the cities and asked for a contribution. We
haven't asked for a contribution, I think, in three or four
years, and to cover administrative r_osts. And the City of
Kerrville does the same amount, City of Del Rio, Val Verde
County. Those are the primary. The others contribute some,
but that's the -- each of those four give $5,000, or have in
the past.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions about these
items?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Would you
explain the Dietert Claim and public transportation issue,
please?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You can obviously see
what they were in the previous year. The Dietert Claim was
providing or participating in the transportation services.
When they went out of the transportation business, AACOG
then, as I'm sure you'll recall -- I seem to remember you
had some concerns about paying for the same thing twice.
You send the money to Washington, it comes back, then they
want you to pay it again. But what I did was -- is, out of
the Dietert Claim moneys, I took the portion of, quote, our
assessment, unquote, allocated that to transportation, and
left the balance of it there for Dietert Claim. Net effect
~-15-~3 3~dget Wor}:stop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
is, we save $5,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Then the $7,100
that we're going to continue sending to Dietert Claim,
what -- what is that for? Just for their normal, everyday
services?
JUDGE TINLEY: Assistance to seniors in Kerr
County area. We have an item ~f $15,000 in years past.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are y'all smoking
back there?
MS. NEMEC: It wasn't anything you said.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was the word
"seniors" that got her. Let me shed a little light on the
question you raised, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause I asked
Mr. Danos, Mr. Notzon's assistant, who handles
transportation issues for Mr. Notzon, regarding the base
$3,000 fee that you mentioned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And his response to
me was, it was not a duplication of -- of funds for
administration, but in fact it was funds necessary to get
from all the counties to -- to meet the required match
needed to draw down operational funds from federal and state
funding agencies. That's the response he gave me.
ti-~~-0~ Budget wo-kstiua
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 BALDWIN: Grant match?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Grant match.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Five line
items here that I --
MS. SOVIL: Judge?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a question about the
Appraisal District contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MR. TOMLINSON: Appraisal District contract
line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll get to you in just
MR. TCMLINSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Nicholson
had a --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Five items on here
that total $20,500 that I'm going to refer to as social
services kinds of things. Big Brother/Big Sister, K'Star,
Crisis Council, CASA, and Historical Commission. I know
you -- this Court's had these discussions in the past. My
question is, is it proper -- proper function of the
government to underwrite the costs of those kinds of things,
and if so, how did you decide that these are the five that
-~~-03 Budget Wor__shop
113
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we want to fund from the array of other opportunities that
we have? Jonathan?
JUDGE TINLEY: Immediately backed up, didn't
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll give you a -- the
limited historical perspective I have. It was -- those were
programs that basically the -- other than Historical
Commission, that the County Judge has used in his position
as County Judge with juveniles. That's -- that was the
rationale. If they were used in that capacity, they were
eligible for funding. And I -- I just kind of went along
with it. I had the same question, though, many times.
JUDGE TINLEY: If I'm not mistaken, there was
an issue raised about this several years ago, as to the
legality of it, and I believe the County Attorney obtained
an opinion, and the opinion -- I don't have it in front of
me. I have seen it at one time, or at least a summary of
it, and my understanding of it was, if there's a contract
involved and if it performs a service for the public good,
something generally along those lines, that you can do it.
Now, as to why these were selected, they were selected
because they were the ones that have been there. I don't
know anything about the utilization in connection with
juveniles, even though I -- there are some of them I
recognize as being -- being involved in some of the juvenile
8-15-03 Budget Wcrkahop
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
cases that I do handle.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That doesn't quite
rise to my view of what -- what county government ought to
be paying for. I'm sure they do good work, and there's lots
of agencies that do good work. If it were left up to me,
I'd probably defund them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've always had the
same question, but I don't want to use the word "require,"
but it's in -- it's a cousin to require. We're required to
do some things for the Historical Commission. I'm not sure
what all that is. I know we provide an office for them in
this courthouse downstairs, and I think most courthouses do.
And -- but I don't know about the word "require" there, but
it's kin to that. My thoughts have been, for a number of
years, is that we've -- we have -- we also pay for a
membership -- help me a little bit, Bill; it's your
program -- in this grant-writing program, but I think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: R.C.& D.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: R.C.& D.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's just a hundred
bucks.
COMMTSSIONER BALDWIN: That doesn't matter;
that's not the point. We pay a membership into a
grant-writing program that the County and all its agencies
have access to, and my point has always been, these agencies
H 15 03 Budget Wo=kshop
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that you're talking about here need to go to that R.C.& D.
and do some grants and get off -- get out of this. I've
always felt that way. So, we're sitting here funding these
people, and we fund R.C.& D.; whether it's $100 a year or $1
a year doesn't matter, and just keep spending money. We
don't get anywhere on people getting off the government --
can't say that word. But --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a very
helpful explanation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I tend to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- I mean,
it's always been a question of mine. And I think what we
could do -- and if the Court's inclined, we could reduce
funding for all of them, with the plan of going to zero over
two, three years.
MS. SOVIL: May I -- may I say something?
Part of -- part of their requirement when they apply for
grants is to show county support, and that money was part of
that -- I mean, you know, they need some -- something to
show that they are supported by the County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a good
point. That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's got to be an
illegal point, though.
0-15-03 Budget Worksti~~
116
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But I also think the
case for the historical value might not be a bad idea before
we whack them out, to let them appear and justify the type
of services that they provide, particularly for our young
people. The Judge knows better than I or all of us how some
of those services benefit people -- young people that appear
before him, or should or could benefit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's no
question that they're all of benefit. The question goes
back as to, why these? There are an equal number or far
greater number that provide just as good of a service that
we don't fund.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't argue that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just because someone
got on the list in the beginning, why should we continue to
support them? That's kind of what has evolved over time.
They all do a great job with what they do, but there's lots
of other organizations that do the same.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to suggest
we cut them ail back to $1,000 a year and ask to serve
notice that we want them to find other sources of revenue.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Historical Commission, I
think, is a feature of state statute.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is.
JUDGE TINLEY: So we've got some official tie
8-1~-03 Budget Works:~op
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to that. Beyond that, the others, to my understanding, are
nonprofit social service agencies, and I don't -- you know,
I'm not plugged into any of them. Judge?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Excuse me, Judge. There's
issues like Hill Country Crisis Council, for example;
probably given about $5,000. Well, they're used by our
court system all the time. The Distri_c:t Courts, County
Court at Law, the County Attorney's office for emergency
protective orders. There's a lot of services that they get,
probably more so than $5,000, because they don't charge the
County back for the services because of this grant of
$5,000. So, there's an example of an agency that gives a
lot of service, and it -- if $5,000 was not funded, they
could actually charge the County for the services and would
end up with more money. As an example --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good point.
That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any others like that?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Not that I'm -- I'm just
familiar with that aspect of the court system.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Kid's Advocacy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kid's Advocacy?
MS. SOVIL: That's statutory.
JUDGE TINLEY: K.id's Advocacy is statutory?
(Ms. Sovil nodded.)
8-1~-~~3 Budget Works~»p
118
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2.2
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Creature of state statute.
MS. SOVIL: It's set up by statute.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. SOVIL: And we have a contract with them
that -- according to statute.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Vance, your reference
was Crisis Council?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, they're
going back in very fast. Jump up on the table.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: CASA, everybody knows
what CASA is all about.
MS. NEMEC: CASA is also one of those.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: They have a zero budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, you had something about
the KCAD contract?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I'm recalling when I --
from the contract -- their budget --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- that the $91,094 is for
just the Kerr County tax -- tax, and domes riot include the
lateral road or any road districts. So I think -- I
remember adding all those up, and it came to $97,648. We've
U- 1 G- ~.~ 3 B U S `~ C t W G T }~_ J .1 C~ ~J
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
fallen into that -- we've had that problem before.
JUDGE TINLEY: You have it again, apparently.
I fell into the trap again.
MR. TOMLINSON: And we -- at the end of the
year, we didn't have any money, so we just -- you know, just
overlook those road districts.
JUDGE TINLEY: That needs to be 97 what?
MR. TOMLINSON: $y7,648.
JUDGE TINLEY: 648.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the requested
number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jonathan, what was
the water development? What did you say that was?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Region J. to rover
amount.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on
County-Sponsored Activity? I don't know that we've got a
resolution on County-sponsored activities, and, obviously,
we can't make a firm resolution at this point, but I'm not
sure we've got a -- a direction or consensus that we've
reached.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, if my memory serves me
correct, when they came in and presented their budget, they
8 -15- C 3 Budget ~rlor:shop
1
~- 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
kind of added an increase in salaries, and I think at that
point, y'all had turned it down.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's on KCAD?
MS. PIEPER: So this -- if that is the
requested amount, that's -- then that's in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: You talking about KCAD?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no. Actually, if --
apparently, I was only looking at the County portion. And I
know we turned down their budget because of some things,
which was a hollow -- hollow thing that we did. But
apparently there's some others that we've got to pick up the
tab for that were not included in the figure that I used.
MS. PIEPER: Oh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think you're
right, we turned it down, but they passed it anyway.
MS. PIEPER: Okay. Just wanted to keep you
straight.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Real quick, you had -- I
believe y'all received a letter from Triad.
JUDGE T INT_,EY : Yes .
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Requesting $500. And
the reason behind that is, they admit over years past, the
entire $500 Crime Prevention line item that was given to the
P_ -15- ~ ~ Budvet ~nior ~ s hoF
1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
Sheriff's Office, the Sheriff's Office at that time turned
that over to Triad and gave it to them. And I have told
Triad, I don't feel that I can legally give them money out
of my budget for their services.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you're right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why you've got
the letter from them. And I just know they're going to
bring that up at some point. They're -- 'cause I get bugged
about it, and they're wondering why we won't give it to
them.
in here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I fess up, I got it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it didn't appear
JUDGE TINLEY: Nope, sure didn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think on the
County-sponsored, if they're statutory, clearly, we need to
have them there. And if it's a -- you know, I guess
something that we -- the County uses the services a great
deal, there's a reason for this. Some of them are clearly
good organizations, like Biq Brother/Big Sister. That's
fairly new. As I recall, Commissioner, that came out about
three years ago, four years ago, something like that, and
they're just getting started. And I don't -- you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask this
`d-15-~~3 Bu~l~e~ ~r7orksl,op
1
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
question, Judge. Do you ever send any juveniles to Big
Brothers and Big Sisters for any kind of services?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, they don't participate
directly into the -- in the juvenile justice system. I
don't think that's -- T don't think they -- they feed into
the -- the problems at that point in time. The ones that --
that I would normally utilize are -- are CASA, insofar as
making investigations; K'Star provides temporary residency
for some of our people involved in -- some of our children
involved in the system. Those -- these are the -- those are
the two that I primarily have involvement with. The Crisis
Council that Judge Elliott was talking about has more to do
with the family violence-type situations. In those cases,
those cases are in the County Court at Law and the District
Courts, and also I'm sure Justice of the Peace get involved
in those cases, because they very often are the initial
contact when those kind of problems arise, and I'm sure a
lot of them get sent over there. But there's no question
that the Crisis Council has a lot of interplay with our
overall court system. I don't think there's any question
about that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with both of
you. It's a big-time -- big-time organization that
basically operates off of donations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the only one that
-15-~3 Buaget [^Ior~;shoF
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
doesn't really have, I mean, ties to county government is
Big Brothers/Big Sisters. All the rest of them are --
they're -- there's dotted line county government on them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about Family and
Literacy?
JUDGE TINLEY: There's nothing allocated to
that one this year; they're out of the equation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's zeroed.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Child Advocacy is
another one.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's statutorily-based; I
was not aware of that. I appreciate Ms. Sovil's pointing
that out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you're going with
the 407, or not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That would be
Sheriff Hierholzer's salary?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Anything else on any of
these, gentlemen? Okay. Let's move on to -- we're only
running an hour behind. That's not too bad.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not bad.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maintenance. Which one do you
8- 1 5-~; 3 Bu~~get ~r~ ui ,~ s h~~~
1
,._ 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
want to do?
MR. HOLEKAMP: G~hichever one -- 510,
probably. Page-wise, Page 40.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
questions? I'm okay with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Major Repairs.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have any idea what
might break? I mean, you know, just because we always keep
something in major repairs?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No. Specifically, on major
repairs, I have two of the larger units on the old penthouse
that were not changed back in 2000. Trying to remember that
far back. It's obvious that we're going to probably have to
do something; we've got some issues with them. And I had
put some money in for them, and that's going to account for
about $7,500 of it. The other is not earmarked at this
time. If y'all choose to take it out, that's fine. I like
to keep some in there in case something catastrophic might
happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, I
have no problem with leaving it in there, and I think that,
you know, at this time next year, or maybe June next year,
3- i `_ -03 3uaget Lvor}:~r ou
125
1
.~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if we haven't spent it, I think it would probably be a good
time to start replacing the windows one by one wherever we
can, basically in our offices. We're the ones -- I think we
cut ourselves out during that original redo, and I know one
of them in my office is about to fall in, and just glass on
the floor every morning. There's a hole, but I didn't --
don't worry about it. But, you know, all the windows at
this end of the -- you know, the Commissioners. Are those
the only ones, Tommy? Did we do the ones -- we did that
renovation in your office.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, ours are done.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Just -- it's these here, this
floor.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got some right over
here, too.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think late in the
year each year, we ought to try to knock out one or two of
those if we can.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I would love to. I'd love to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about the back
door?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Replacement? That's scheduled
in this year's budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions on the --
~-15- C; 3 Budge ~ VJOrkshcp
1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
on the 510 worksheet? Okay. Let's move to 511, is it?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, Jail Maintenance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right, Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Page?
JUDGE TINLEY: 41. 41, I'm sorry.
MR. HOLEKAMP: The increase in this one here
was strictly part -- the part-time money. I -- we've been
using part-time over there, but it has been taken out of
another budget. I just reallocated to where it really
belongs. And that's to avoid overtime. Overtime, calling
out people in the middle of the night and stuff, gets very
expensive, so I -- I've chosen to use part-time people,
because that's straight time. That's the reason for the
increase.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions for
Mr. Holekamp on this one?
MR. HOLEKAMP: You'll notice that my total
salary thing did not change, because I just reproportioned
it from other areas, part-time in my other budgets. So,
it's not really an increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jail repairs?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir? That's pretty much
a constant, where we have been for the last few years, and
I'm hoping we can hold that line. With the jail getting
older, it gets more difficult each year, but I -- there
£~-15-03 BL dcxet 'rlorkshcp
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
again, we're doing more and more repairs ourselves instead
of having to job out, other than air-conditioning work and
that sort of thing. But we've been able to hold the line
pretty well on that. Hopefully we can maintain it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that one?
Move to Page 44, Parks Maintenance.
MR. HOLEKAMP: The reason this one is
additional money this time was this -- I changed one
employee that was a little higher salary person to that
department, and moved him -- it's just a shuffle of people.
That was the reason. And then -- well, of course,
insurance. But there's no other increases in that budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's one other change that
y'all need to make on 569. There was a misprint there. On
the $2,000 recommended, it's $1,200.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Glenn, where'd
you move this other person from?
MR. HOLEKAMP: They went from Jail
Maintenance to Parks, and the parks guy went to the Ag Barn.
The Ag Barr. guy went to jail. He's not in jail; I mean,
he's a maintenance guy. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Between those three
moves, the bottom line of tYiat salary changed?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No. The three budgets just --
-15-03 Budder s~orkshop
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
it just changed a little bit, but it did not change the
total amount of all the budgets.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
explain it.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm sorry. It's hard to
JUDGE TINLEY: Except for -- except for the
longevity and the --
longevity.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct, and
JUDGE TINLEY: -- merit, other increases?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, that is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else on 513?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell me again what
you did on 569. Did it go to $2,000, or is it $1,200?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's $1,200.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Then the next one is 61,
Environmental Health.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right, Page 61. That takes
care of environmental health for you, Jonathan. A ll the
blanks are zero.
MR. HOLEKAMP: There was one moved over. Did
you catch one on the uniform thing?
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MR. HOLEKAMP: The uniform one was an error.
R-15-03 Budget Workshop
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
Remember, you caught it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Yes, 315 shows $800.
That should be down on Line 316. See in the far right
column?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That just dropped it down.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's just in the wrong line
item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I'm curious.
Vehicle Insurance, how -- it's about $560. How did we get
it to $250?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I believe because what they
did is, this last time, they only deducted $210 for his
insurance, so we're just reflecting what was deducted this
last year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Inspector's salary's
going down by 50 percent. Is that going to reduce his time?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: No?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir. He is a fixed,
part-time employee. He can make "X" number of dollars a
month, period, and this is exactly that amount --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- that he can make.
~ i5-03 isuoget Workstop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I wanted it to reflect that
instead of having the -- the other salary in there. Now, I
may be in a problem with at some point he leaves here and
then we have to replace him with a part-time. Then we would
have to address that particular one, but not at this time.
I wanted to try to give y'all a budget that pretty much
reflects exactly what's we're doing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on 640? Can
we go to 666?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Page 67.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right, mm-hmm.
MR. HOLEKAMP: And as you go down on this one
here, I will make a comment. On Major Repairs, I zeroed it,
and the reason I did is it's going to take a substantial
amount of money to -- to do some permanent improvements.
The upgrades on the electrical in the indoor arena, we're
bidding that as we speak. It will be done in this year's
budget, so the electrical part of that is going to be
addressed; that's going to be out of the way. The indoor
arena, the indoor exhibit center, it would be very difficult
at this point to -- with my budget, to address the major
repairs that are going to be required to seal up a building.
And I'm talking about roof; the roof thing is a big-ticket
item. Big. And my budget, I -- I really -- I was kind of
3-' 5-U3 ~'adget work~l:on
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
given some direction by the Court to -- they really didn't
want to -- you know, big budgets. They wanted us to try to
hold the line, so I chose not to put the new roof in that --
in that particular line as a major repair. I think it needs
to be permanent improvement or something of that nature. I
think it's more than a repair.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's "big"?
MR. HOLEKAMP: $100,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: See?
MR. HOLEKAMP: And then air-conditioner units
going right along with it, and that's big. So -- but I
think that has to be in a package. I don't think it's a
major repair, and that's what I'm reflecting here. I think
it needs to be something else besides major repair, so
that's why it's not in here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Holekamp
on the Exhibition Center?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Security guard,
50 percent of what it is?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. What that -- what that's
reflecting is I took that part-time money that went over to
the -- to the jail. That was half of it. We shuffle people
around, Commissioner, and what happens is that some ~f the
same employees that -- security guard salaries is 108;
that's the same people. Is that correct?
8 15 03 Budget Workshop
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same as?
MR. HOLEKAMP: What's the part-time number?
MS. NEMEC: 108.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Because back in the old days,
they had security guard. It's really part-time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That should be changed to
part-time?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, yeah. It's just been
written that way, but the same people are used at different
places, so we put salaries as to what I think the amount to
be used at that particular facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glenn, what about your
security fence ideas?
MR. HOLEKAMP: The railing thing that we
discussed? We're getting bids, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it in here, though?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, no, no. No, that will be
in this year's budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Present?
MR. HOLEKAMP: That is not in here, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While I'm thinking
about it, would you have somebody check the lights on the
flagpole? I don't think the flags are lighted at night.
MR. HOLEKAMP: We're having some breaker
~-15-03 Budget Wor}cshop
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
problems with that particular one, and I think there's water
getting into the electric eye. And, yes, sir, I will. We
do have to address that. Someone else brought that to our
attention.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It appears to me that
Mr. Holekamp's functions has been reduced $60,000, $70,000.
I didn't make a running number, but it's --
MR. HOLEKAMP: $48,619.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All of them?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 48? Is that the best
you could do, Glenn?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. I -- mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONEK BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I will -- if I can have a
closing comment, Commissioner Nicholson this morning hit on
a very -- very good note about this salary thing on the
lower-end people. I would like to see this Court, if they
see fit, at the end of this budget process, to be able to
help some of these people that are on the bottom end of this
ladder. They need it, and i would -- I would really like
for y'all to keep it in mind. As far as I'm concerned, I'm
not standing up here banging a drum for myself, but we have
8- 15-03 Budget Bdcr}:shop
134
1
2
3
4
5
H
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some people in here that have two or three kids at home, and
I imagine they could be on programs if they wished to be. I
don't -- I'm not sure they are, primarily because of pride.
But, you know, pride doesn't put beans on the table. So, I
would appreciate any help that y'all are able to give. And
I -- I tried to do it within my budget, to -- to maybe
lighten up a little bit sc that maybe y'all are able to do
something. It'd be appreciated. Thank y'all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Glenn.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: G7ou1d this be an appropriate
time for to us take a short break before we get tied back up
again, and give the court reporter a little break here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Come back in about
noon tomorrow?
JUDGE TINLEY: That would be one time we
could consider. Why don't we stand in recess for about 10
minutes?
(Recess taken from 2:47 p.m. to 3:02 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's call the meeting
back to order after the recess. It's approximately 3 p.m.
Commissioner Letz had a commitment because of some family
difficulties, I believe. I'm not sure whether it's his
8 - 15-~J 3 Budget Work.sr.o~
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
family or his wife's family had a death, and he had some
commitments to attend to as a result of that, so he's --
he's not with us. It was necessary that he leave. Next
item is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's debatable whether
he was with us this morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the Sheriff's Department.
Looks like the first one is under the jail, I believe, 512.
Is that correct, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 512 is the Sheriff's
Office. 560 -- you're right, I'm sorry. 512 is the jail.
JUDGE TINLEY: Page 42.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 42. It takes up 10
pages?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would like to -- on
this one, I'd like to start all the way down at what you
have as Line Item 220 on there, Judge, Employee Medical
Exams.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You didn't change this
from what I had requested, and I had requested $4,000, which
we both stayed about the same, that I see. I'm a little bit
concerned right now whether or not that's going to be
sufficient. We have had a larger turnover right in the jail
than what I like to have, and every time we hire somebody,
8-1~-03 Budget ti6o=]ceh~~p
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
..-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we have to pay for the psychological, physical, drug screen,
even an entrance exam that we now give, and it goes into
that. And it averages out to -- let's see, 220 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That changeover is not
100 percent because we don't pay enough money. I mean,
isn't there some of those guys that like to live in Arizona
as opposed to here or something?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, later in the
budget --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give us a fair shake
here, Rusty. Come on.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About 80 percent of it's
due to money, at least.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 80 percent due to
money?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At least 80 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is going to be a
downhill visit here, I can see.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good -- good
news, Commissioner. It's only money. The other problems
are more difficult to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And the reason I'm
concerned and that, if you look at 731, year-to-date
expenses in there, we're already at $3,664 that we have
spent. And I just -- with the way things are going at this
i~- _ ~-iJ ~ _; ~rgat [tinrr_st:~~p
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
time, I don't know that I can keep the turnover rate lower
this year than what it -- this coming year than what it was.
I would like to see at least another $500 added back into
there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 45?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $4,500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty, pull that mic
a little closer, please. With all the noise here --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm sorry. Pulling that
up to at least about $4,500, instead of $4,000.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you making a
presentation, or are you open to questions?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Whatever you want to do,
sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the jailers'
salaries, Judge, did you use the same formula here as you
did with other salaries? Longevity/educational increases
only?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, I did.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would like to, if I
may -- okay, the -- the presentation here, as you saw in the
cover sheet of my entire budget notebook everybody got, my
main concentration this entire budget year is going to be
employee salaries and dealing with our employees. So, if we
could ir_tentionally skip down over that -- we went through
3-'_ ~-03 Bsdget H;ork~t_u:~
138
1
,,..., 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 medical exams, so I'd go through just operational; I
don't think we have that many differences in that, to where
at the end of this, I could do a presentation on the
employee salaries to leave with y'all at the conclusion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You had a
significant increase in prisoner meals.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A significant decrease.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Decrease.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In prisoner meals. This
is going to be very close. In 2000, our -- our inmate meals
was $226,000 or $227,000. After '99/2000, we have reduced
it each year, because I think all of y'all know who my chief
cook is, and she does an excellent job back there. And
also, I started requiring that -- we had redone our menu. I
still wanted it dietitian-approved, but I wanted it redone
due to the fact I did not want to use heat-and-serve meals.
I wanted to just go back to cooking our own meals from
scratch, which we had been able to reduce our costs of those
meals drastically. Now, I asked for $210,000 -- or
$260,000; dropped it from 210 this last year to 200 this
year. But in the visit I had with the Judge, I did tell the
Judge that our average meal cost at this time, 'cause I just
had Ms. Krauss refigure it all, was 89 cents.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Compared to what last
year?
8-1~-03 Budget Warks:lop
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'' 3
L
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't even go back
and compare. It's dropped. You know, the only thing is,
Judge, that I did go back after I got your proposed budget,
'cause it was going to cut that real close. I went back and
had Ms. Krauss figure in what is our miscellaneous items;
the utensils, the tinfoil, you know, aluminum foil, things
like that, costing, and then the employees' meals in there
that are the employees that are on duty and can't leave;
your jailers and your dispatchers. We do feed them out of
that, and it brings that cost up to 94 cents per meal. Now,
at 94 cents per meal, in 2 -- from October of 2001 to
October of 2002, we averaged 147 inmates. Then you figure
in about 18 officers' meals in that. What it comes out to
is $167,000 for meals. The Judge has programmed in
$170,000, which would cover that, but we're cutting ourself
very thin on -- is produce going to go up? Is our average
population going to stay at the 147 or 149? I just don't
know. I think $3,000 leeway is going to cut that awful
close.
JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection, Sheriff, was
that -- was that you'd indicated 83 cents a meal, and I
apologize if I misunderstood you, but that's the figure I
was working off of, was 83 cents a meal.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I may have -- I thought
I had said 89, but either way, we had to go back in and add
R-1~-03 Budy~t wo~kst.o~
140
1
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 utensils and that to cover it; that wasn't in that
figure at all, and neither were the jailers and the
dispatchers that have to eat there and can't leave.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I tried to make
allowance for some -- for some dispatchers, some other
people that I -- I was figuring about -- about what you did
here, about 165, I think, which is about what you did,
because I figured 150 and about 15, so that would be about
right, 165.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $56,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: That comes out to $149,960.
$150,000, what I calculate.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At the 94?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, no.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. See, if you --
JUDGE TINLEY: That was at the 83 that I
calculated, based upon 165 meals per day, three times a day,
365 days a year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your -- your 170 would
work; it's just cutting it very thin, and I'll let the Court
decide what they want to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I ~:ome up with a lot
less than that.
JUDGE TINLEY: You did?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I came up with
8-1`~-^3 Budget [~.'or:~srop
141
1 I $56, 000.
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: He's feeding three a day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Yep, 169.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only thing I would ask
is, do we want to leave ourselves just the $3,000 leeway?
COMMISSIONER BAT~DWIN: Probably not.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know what the
cost of produce and other supplies may go up to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to see your
jail full.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you pretty sure
you can hold the prisoner meal to 94 cents during the course
of the next 12 months?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm saying.
Depending on cost of produce and the cost of other things,
I -- I don't know. I mean, we have -- if you look at it
down to 170, even from what we were, we -- since 2000, we've
cut $56,000 off of our meal cost in that jail, which I think
the jail staff has done a remarkable job of doing that and
being able to do that. I think we're at the bottom line
now. I don't think that any jail in the state can pretty
well feed inmates at 94 cents a meal, counting your utensils
and counting your... If our population goes up, if Bandera
decides they're going to start housing more, or just, you
know, around here it starts going up, there is an average of
~-i ~- 3 Budged ~Aor}shop
1
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
147 inmates or 149. And, if you'll remember, we didn't do
it this year, but last year we hit 208 in there at a time.
JUDGE TINLEY: I also annualized your costs
to-date with a -- with a half a month float in it using the
year-to-date, and I gave you that half a month in order to
allow for bills that hadn't come in, that didn't make it in
that month. Annualizing on year-to-date costs, I come up
with just under 152, which is pretty close to the Auditor's
157 estimated. So -- so all of these figures appear to be
operating about in the -- I had intended to give you some --
some room to work, and that's the reason I went from 150 to
155 in that area, thinking that would be about what it ran
this year. That gave you a 10 percent -- 10 percent float
there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And it may be my fault,
since I didn't give you the costs for the tinfoil and
utensils and just that type of stuff in with that. It gave
the per-meal a little bit shorter than what reality's going
to be.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would agree with you, we're
-- we're knocking pretty close.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're real close in that
170. I just don't know if that's enough either way, with
produce costs and things like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't leave you a
8-~5-03 3aaget Workshop
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--
25
lot of room for inflation.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Nope,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I s
see you fill the jail up.
JUDGE TINLEY: With out-of
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any
need to get them off of cur streets. Are
housing part of theirs somewhere else?
it doesn't.
ure would like to
-county prisoners?
prisoners. We
-- Bandera's
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not that I know of,
unless they got ones that I refused. They got a few that I
will not house, but there are some of those that I can still
pick and choose at a 192-bed facility, and being able to
appropriately classify inmates and separate them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 170 --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We would really be full
at 153 inmates, okay? And when we're averaging, 2001/2002,
147 to 149, I think we're getting real close to that. So,
we're pretty close to full, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aren't we going to
agree that a loaf of bread is going to increase in price,
milk's going to go up? I mean, isn't that going to happen?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, you have to
count on that happening. You can't count on it maintaining
flat.
_ - ~~-~_~ 3 Bsoyet wGi k51_~~
1
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why, in the years
past, you know, we've cut it, but I've always given us a lot
larger leeway, because I just didn't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've allowed for what I
calculated to be approximately 10 percent. That's the way I
calculated it, based on figures I understood from him, and
also the annualized cyst of the year-to-date expenditures.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just a guess at having a
figure, if our costs actually come in at about what we're
figuring right now, per that price, $167,000, I think we
ought to at least have 190 in there. I just don't know what
it's going to do. I don't know what jail population will do.
I don't know what produce costs are going to be. I don't
know what any of the other food costs are going to be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're down from
your 200 to 190,000 now, and he's still at 160.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 170.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll go along with 170. Well,
the Court's going to ultimately have to make that decision,
and -- but I'll -- I'll agree that the 170 is -- it's
keeping pretty tight right now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's very tight, which I
don't have a problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I intended to do.
-15-03 Budget Jdorkshop
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
•--
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Just as forthright as I know how to be.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have a problem
with it, 'cause what I figure the -- if it stays the same,
our costs are going to be 167, so 170 will work if our costs
stay the same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the population
stays reasonably the same.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, these kind of
issues, it's -- I mean, I don't like this -- the theory of
padding a budget, but these kind of -- something like this,
if we counted on population staying the same and the cost of
a loaf of bread staying the same, and budgeted in that -- in
that theory, I think that's a mistake. I really and truly
do. 'Cause it's better -- it's better to pad the thing a
little bit than it is to come short. Why don't we go to
180?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that number.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like that number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's -- I have no
21
22 problem.
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's your answer,
Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Going back up just a
8-15-^,3 Budget Workshop
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..,-,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
little bit to 315, which is Jail Uniforms, there's the cost
of our jail uniforms. And what I have figured in that,
$8,000 was even cutting it very slim, because if we still
have that same turnover rate, you have to buy new uniforms
for those. Of course, we always try ar.d reuse the ones we
collect back, but we can't hire people by the size that we
have in the closet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It just doesn't work
that way very well.
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have a physical
fitness program out there?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're trying to do that
too, but I don't have the funds in the budget to get it
going.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But thank you, Judge;
you walked into that one. $8,000 was cutting it very, very
slim. Actually, if you figure the cost and with the number
of turnover we had this year in the jail, it would be
$9,000, and so I would -- I would request we at least leave
that at the $8,000 mark and not go down to six.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think I gave you eight.
COMMISSIUNER BALDWIN: Mine says eight.
Yeah, it's --
8-15 03 Budget Worb:s:~op
147
1
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: Eight.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I gave you eight.
You're looking at --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm sorry, I looked at
the wrong one. $9,000-something is what we come up with if
we have the same turnover rate. You cut it from my 10 to 8,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: N1m-hmm. I annualized your
cost, and it leaves $1,600 for your physical fitness program
at eight.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I am short eight jail
staff at this time, and have been for several months. And
if you add eight new employees at three shirts, three pants
and that with them, the -- it's not going to work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you looking
for, nine?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. I looked at the
wrong line. I was looking at our office supplies that he
cut from eight to six.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds to me like we're
playing poker.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Pretty close.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did we do all these figures
just to negotiate from, or did we each try and hit the
numbers that we thought --
8-15-03 Bu~~gct Workshop
148
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm trying to -- no, I'm
trying to work with this Court and see if we can. I -- the
one thing the Court hates to see is exactly what's happening
at this time of year right now, which is budget amendments
coming in, and if I -- if I don't get what. I've asked for,
Judge, I'm afraid we're going to have budget amendments.
But understanding tYie economy and what you're trying to do,
okay, I'm trying to give enough in there to where we can
work together.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's going to be interesting
to see how much goes back into the general fund after this
year, but I suppose we'll have to wait and see what that is.
What's the Court's pleasure?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Give him nine. I'd
hate to see his jailers run around without any clothes on.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would too. Line Item
334.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what we did?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. Jail Uniforms, 315.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 315. The next one I
have a question about is 334, Prisoner Supplies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Prisoner Supplies covers
our mattresses, sheets, pillowcases, things like that.
-15-~3 Budre~ Workshop
149
1
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 only so much we're really allowed to buy out of the
proceeds from commissary, like mattresses and sheets and
pillowcases. Our inmate uniforms are one, so we do that; we
keep it down by buying inmate uniforms out of the deal. But
with -- with that, I just don't feel -- and what we had come
up with in there, in 334, is we replaced a lot of things
last year, so I had already cut that line item. And I'm
just -- if you cut it more than what I cut it, I don't think
we're going to make it. I've always tried to watch ours and
look at our percentages, which is what the Judge did, and I
also try and figure up what we had already spent for the
year before and how many we had replaced the year before and
those items that we may not have to replace this year.
Inmate, you know, mattresses are fairy expensive. And,
unfortunately, inmates like to tear them up, because they
like to tear the seams out of them to use it for hiding
contraband and that. We have even had employees sew those
seams back shut, trying to save those mattresses, but after
just a little bit, you have to get rid of them, because I
can't allow them hiding places there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this line that --
didn't you buy some -- like, a couple of food carts or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- heating carts or
something like that?
~- :5-0 3 nscget ti~IOr?;sF.op
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
150
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Last -- no, I think that
came -- that may have come out of another line item. I'll
have to look at that, Buster. Maybe it was.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's not the incident I'm
thinking about. That predated you, Sheriff, and I don't
think we want to go there.
MS. SOVIL: No, food cart.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The food cart? I
didn't --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But your
year-to-date --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That was out of my
salary. I know what you're talking about. I did not buy
those --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But your year-to-date
doesn't indicate you're going to expend that money.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your year-to-date
through July 31st doesn't indicate you spending that money.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right, 'cause we
had replaced those others the year before, so this
year-to-date, we may not have that much. Next year, I may.
I'm going two years on the same type mattresses, except for
a few we were able to get.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could be here
8-1~-!i3 Bu iget Works`~op
151
1
,.-, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
weeks. Somebody say something.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the prior year was only
-- was under $3,500, according to the one I'm looking at
here now. Seems like you got by pretty good there. But
what's the Court's pleasure? No pleasure at this point, it
would seem. Utilities, that's an item that we've managed to
come down on. I understand that you've managed to adjust
the thermostats out there and make significant headway.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We did. But if you look
at my requested, we have -- we have tried, but my requested
went up to 140. If Commissioner Williams, with his
calculator there -- we had some bills this last year that
were $11,800. If you take that $11,800 times 12 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 141,6.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I had requested 140,
and the recommended from the Judge is 120.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let me tell you how I
got there. I got there by annualizing that, the 88,063, and
giving you a half month float in there, even though I
shouldn't give you that on the utility bill, 'cause those
are paid once a year, but I'd be willing to give you
something there on the adjustment for seasonal adjustment,
but that runs out to 111,237.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 88 would be what?
Nine months, right?
8-15-~3 nscget Gdork_sho~
152
1
~-., 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: Ten months, through 7/31.
That leaves us August and September. But I did a division
factor of 9.5, rather than 10, even though it's probably 10
on a utility.
SHERTFF HIERHOLZER: Our utility bills are
paid monthly, not once a year.
JUDGE TINLEY:
SHERIFF HIERHO
a while ago. And the June --
take that bill. Some of them
went 10,8, but all the way up
JUDGE TINLEY:
Yes.
LZER: You had said once a year
March bill was $11,800, and I
went anywhere from 11 -- some
to 11,8.
And you say it was your June
bill that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Either the March or
June.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
AUDIENCE: That was how much?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 11 thousand, 8.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's included in the 88, so
we've got the high one in there for annualizing.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I did. I
took the high bill and annualized it. If all of them run
that, it's going to be 141. I put it back down to 140.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's not the way I
annualize. I don't take the highest month out of 12 and --
8-15-~~3 Budget `uVCrb:shop
153
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.._
25
I like to take the average and multiply it by 12, and I
think that's what I'm doing.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I realize that's what
you're doing, Judge, but I don't -- I have -- there's too
many variables in it for me, and I don't like coming to this
Court for budget amendments when I'm operating outside my
budget. And I think you can see iii our budget, we don't
splurge on things if we have money left over; it definitely
goes back to the general fund. But I try and cover our
expenses.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else got any questions
about 420 -- I mean 440?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have a
problem with your number. I think maybe you may even be a
little high, because he's going to approach, in two months,
the current budget of 110.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I took our high
bill, and that's what I was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. Your
current budget's 110. You're at 88; you're $22,000 away
with two months to go. Have you qot a demand meter out
there?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Glenn -- Glenn gets all
that. I couldn't tell you. Maintenance takes care of all
our stuff. I couldn't tell you what kind of meter was
E1-15-03 Budge- Worksh;p
154
1
--~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..-,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hooked up out there when that building was built.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They did away with
demand, didn't they? The demand -- they did away with
demand --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure how that
operates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think they did.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's not too much
variables in utilities. Increase or decrease the
temperature. It looks to me like it's not -- there's no way
it's going to be $140,000. It looks like it's going to be
$120,000 or less.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's -- that's
fine. We just have two different ways of figuring, and I
just don't want to run short. So, if you want to leave that
$120,000, I certainly hope that will be sufficient.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any other items
there we need to talk about?
COMMISSIONER NICHCLSON: Prisoner Transfer,
there's a wide variance in between the actual and the
requested and the recommended.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 335.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Prisoner Transfer.
COMMISSIONER NICHCLSON: 335.
~-15-;; 3 Bacget 6tiorkstlo~
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
`' 0
L
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: On the previous page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, on your
Prisoner Transfer -- this is just for my own edification
here. As an example, when your folks went out to California
to get what's-his-name, and didn't -- Mr. Seard, didn't they
go out and interview -- was there a couple of trips involved
in it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- is all of
that traveling in Prisoner Transfer?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. The second trip was
on the Department of Public Safety's ticket.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's right.
Would it have been?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Besides meals. No, not
necessarily. The first trip was under the investigative
expense; that's why we went over, because that was still
part of the investigation into this. What Prisoner Transfer
covers is any -- and it's close along the same lines. You
just have -- anybody that's arrested outside this
jurisdiction that we have to go get or we have to hire
Transcor to go get, whether it be in New York or wherever,
those costs come out of Prisoner Transfer. Not bringing in
inmates from the jail to the courthouse for court; that's
just our operations, okay? It's just going to pick up
R-1 ~-f~3 Bud7et Uderkshop
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..-~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
inmates. We had tried to cut that down a lot over the last
few years by not using companies such as Transcor to do it.
We are using our own officers to do it. Carroll Schultz is
the main one that goes. He -- month before last, he put on
right at 10,000 miles on a car in one month, okay? But what
controls that so much is how many people get arrested in
other jurisdictions or in other areas that are wanted out of
here. It doesn't matter if it's a city warrant or a city
case, okay? If a warrant's issued, we're still the ones
that have to go get him. I don't think -- and this 7/31,
you had year-to-date expenses of $11,000. I don't think
that was quite right. Nancy, what were we -- it was, like,
as of just last week, 'cause I think that 7/31 is actually
the month before, the bills that were paid the month before,
not the bills during --
MS. ROBISON: Those are June bills.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, they're June
bills.
MS. ROBISON: And Carroll Schultz is --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He just got back two
days ago from Arkansas, so you're going to see that go up
drastically. One year we cut it very close to that. We've
held it at $30,000 for several years. You know, I think if
you cut that that much, we're in trouble.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you transport any
8 - 15- ~ ~ Budget 64or };e r o~
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'' 1
L
22
23
24
25
out-of-county prisoners back and forth to their county?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you go into
Huntsville and get people for bench warrants?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, and that comes out
of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's not that much.
Now, if we -- say we have somebody in custody in Del Rio,
and the Judge has issued a bench warrant. Then we have to
go to Del Rio and pick that subject up, and we have to take
him back to Del Rio after the case is done, because that's
on a bench warrant. Normally, we try to wait until Del
Rio's charges are taken care of and then go get them and
bring them here, and we don't have to take them back, and
that's normally what you try and do. We're currently
sitting at close to 2,000 outstanding arrest warrants, have
been for several years now. You never know how many of
those are going to get picked up or when or where they're
going to get picked up.
JUDGE TINLEY: When you have -- when you have
an expenditure for prisoner transport, I assume it's billed
fairly quickly after that transport occurs, is it not?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. What it would
normally be is -- is we may have an officer having hotel
8 15-~3 Budget l^7ornstop
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bills, gas bills, or anything else, and when we get those
bills in, it's coded to that. Then -- and our gas cards,
that may be the following month or whatever. Transcor, it
may be a month or so before we get those bills, but normally
a month.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, was there an
original question to all this?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $30,000 to $16,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my calculations -- and,
here again, I'm -- I'm giving a float of a half a month, and
with a float of half a month, I calculate 14,3 when you
annualize on it that basis.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The last year alone, it
was 22, 3.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And it's not going to go
down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would 25 sound?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You know, we'll try and
work with it. I won't say that we won't have budget
amendments at the end of this year. I don't know.
Hopefully we won't.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. For now, it's
8-15-03 Bc~lge~ wr~rkshop
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25. It may not last through the end of next week, but --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a start.
JUDGE TINLEY: Moves us on to the next item,
though, doesn't it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where we're going.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only one I think is
a little bit low is Radio Repairs. We have replaced the
radios inside the jail. Now -- now, part of the deal with
the radio towers and the radio system, it did not cover
radios. We were able -- if y'all will remember, we adjusted
some of that and did buy radios for the jail in that, and so
that has replaced all the radios in the jail. Radios in the
jail cost right at $500 apiece. With only $500 in Radio
Repair, if I had one broke, one goes down, all I can replace
for the entire year is one radio.
JUDGE TINLEY: What am I to think if I'm
looking at $202 for the first 10 months of the year?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because the purchase of
all the radios that we replaced came out of that bond. If I
wouldn't have replaced all those radios in the jail, which
was 35 ~f them, okay, your cost of radio repairs this year
alone in the jail out of that line item would have probably
8-15-G3 Budget wo_k.shop
150
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-.
25
been close to $10,000 that we didn't have. And so, in
visiting with Tommy and that, we -- we figured that that
could be added into that. We purchased those radios from
Dailey Wells, from the same company as the bond -- or as the
certificates, I guess is what it was, and replaced all those
radios in the jail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, haven't we made
some amendments recently on this?
MR. TOMLINSON: Not to-date, I don't think
so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we've done some
amendments on radio repairs recently, 'cause you -- I've
made you do this presentation every time you walk in here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the Sheriff's Office
budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay, excuse
me.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not the jail budget.
They are new radios, but if I have one go down, it's going
to cost $500 to replace one. And every radio has two
batteries with them, and batteries run about -- I think it's
$35 for those rechargeable batteries, apiece.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that the
Sheriff is probably right, and on this particular issue,
~3 ~ 5- 0 3 3 u d g e t Lti o~ k s h o p
i
,.-. 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
we've been down this road so many times, and I'm willing to
go back up to $1,000, if that's enough.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's probably not, but
I'll leave it at that. I'm hoping -- and that's what I ask
for and it's what I hope we can get by with, but I just
don't think -- I think it's stretching it too thin to ask
that we manly replace one radio.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you, if
it's that expensive to repair them. You know, I know some
law enforcement -- you know, like the D.P.S. guys, they keep
-- keep a couple of radios on the shelf for spare parts and
those kind of things, but you don't do that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I'm trying, okay?
In that all the ones we replaced are old ones we had, we are
trying to see what it's going to cost to fix up some of
those to keep. They're at Advantage Communication right
now. They're going over them to give us an estimate so that
we can possibly have spares, but I don't know that they're
even worth fixing up to keep, because a lot of them, the
cases on them are broke, the batteries are bad. You know, I
don't know that -- that they're even worth trying to repair.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next year at this
time, they'll have some on the shelf.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, along with those
extra cars.
8 - 15-0 3 Bt; dce ~ ~r]ur ;~ stiu~;
--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~.
25
162
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We'll be able to
cannibalize a lot of parts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're only dealing
with human lives here, so how important is that?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I wrote down $1,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I did too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only other change
that I -- or the other concern I had in that budget is 487,
being Training.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any problem
understanding why I reached the conclusion I did?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have no problem
understanding why. You reached it because of our training
this year. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And your training the prior
year, too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I do -- we have
tried -- my training coordinator, main one, is here. We try
and do a lot more of our training in-house. We did not send
any of the jail staff this year to the Jail Association
convention in South Padre, which we normally try to send our
Jail Administrator and those two. We did not send anybody
this year to outside our agency training on jail issues. We
tried to do most of our training in-house. And one of the
8-15-G3 Bt_dre~ [^7or;k_shup
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
big reasons we are dcing it in-house right now is because we
have updated, changed our policy and procedures manual. I
have changed our field training officer manual for the jail,
so we're trying to get people better trained on our in-house
stuff, you know, before I start sending them out on the
liabilities and that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, I've got no problem
with the Training budget, if you'll use it for its intended
purpose, because I think that's the best investment you can
make in these officers, is training.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if you'll give me the
assurance that you'll use it for that, I will gladly
recommend to this Court that they put it back to what you
requested at $8,000.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will definitely,
Judge, give you the assurance that it will be used only for
training. If I find schools that are -- that are suitable
for the jail personnel, it will all be used for training.
But I'm not going to just send them to schools that have
nothing to do with jail to use up that budget. That's why
we give you some back each year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Beneficial training.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's what we all want.
8- '_ _- 0? 3 'a r. g e t W o r k s h o p
1
.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
164
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do the COG's offer
jail training?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's very few actual
jail courses. I brought it up at one of the Sheriff's
Association meetings; there's very few courses. A lot on
liabilities and that, but on day-to-day stuff, it's hard to
get, except for the initial 80-hour training course that a
jailer has to have anytime you hire a new one. And a lot of
those we're teaching in-house, and then we'll send them to
Austin to take the exam or we'll pay somebody to come down
here to give the exam.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does the COG offer
jail training?
AUDIENCE: Very little.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did y'all cut a deal?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff gave me the assurance
he'll use it for beneficial training for his officers, and
if he'll use it for that, then obviously whatever he doesn't
use for the right purpose is going to come back. Anyway,
I've got no problem with training; that's the best
investment we can make for those officers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Without question.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Goes back to six,
~-15-03 Budget Works_~op
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
165
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, eight.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Eight, he requested. Okay, I
guess -- is that -- where does that take us?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That takes us out of the
jail budget on all the operational stuff. Then you go to
the Sheriff's Office operating.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's going to get
us to Page --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 49?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- 49, correct.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one -- there's very
few in here, Judge, that I asked -- or some that I actually
have problems with, the first one being 316, again being
uniforms for officers. The problem I have with that, if
your -- if we replace all uniforms, three shirts, three
pants -- and that's stretching it for an officer to wear
only those for a year -- you're right, we're at that $7,424
we're just fixing to order onto, so you're saying about
$8,000 on replacing that. If I have any turnover -- that
also includes the dispatchers uniforms, okay? So that would
cause it to go up a little bit mere. The other thing is, we
are nct furnishing hats for employees. We are not -- for
the deputies. I require them. They're required in our
3-_~-~~3 3udyet Wozkstop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1~
i6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
166
dress code, but we do not pay for them, okay? I'm not
asking you to pay for them; these are just some of the
expenses. You know, when I was a deputy, it was either you
got a hat or you got a coat; you didn't get both. That's
the way the budget was done that year.
We furnished some coats two years ago, and I
think you can ask most of the officers what they thought of
the coats. I bought them 'cause -- they were bought at
K-Mart. I didn't like them, but they were still good coats,
but they are over two years old now also. For those who've
been working on patrol, I have not furnished coats in two
years. If we furnish coats, a good coat is $100 apiece, and
you can add that times another 50 -- well, 41 officers.
You're going to get into that. And then we also furnish the
badges now. I don't -- the officers don't go out and order
their -- or have their own badges, but most of that's
reused. We do have to replace one or two a year, but not
bad, and they're at $100 apiece.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are they having
to buy besides their pistol?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All their leather gear,
their hats, their weapons, any practice ammo that is not
used at Thunder Ranch, anything like that, they have to
furnish.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's quite an
8-1 ~-0 3 Buc]~~et Woi }:s`,op
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
167
investment.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. And our adjacent
department furnishes it all for their officers. We do not.
And there's a lot of studies on firearms and not being able
to allow ycur officers to carry good ones. We don't look
good under liability, but this is the way this county was,
and I don't think we're at the point yet where we can afford
to furnish 41 officers with $500 -- well, between $600 and
$700 weapons. So, I think we ought to at least be
furnishing uniforms.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the Court's pleasure?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $12,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you say?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $12,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: As requested, $12,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Provided you don't
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They didn't like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What K-Mart?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only other one I
think is going to be close, Judge, is -- or one of the other
ones would be 330, being the Operating Expense. Last year,
as of July, we had spent $6,149, and you have it down to
8-15-u3 Budd°t "vdcr}:;iiir~~,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
168
$6,000. Now, this year, true, we have kept it down. We're
going more and more computers, trying to cut out some. We
redid our magistration forms and all that, trying to cut out
some paper and costs, but it still gets expensive. And
we'll try it at $6,000. I don't know if that's enough in
Operating Supplies to run our department.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, he agreed to it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't agree to it.
I'm just saying I don't -- we'll try it. If that's what
y'all are going to give me, I don't have the choice.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does that bring us to
the personnel items portion of your budget?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, sir, not yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh. That's what I understood.
I must Have missed something.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Telephone. I'm sure, on
420, I know exactly what you did there on some of your line
item stuff, and we had this conversation. Telephone does
cover all our officers' cell phones and that. That does
vary. And the Judge and I even talked about maybe the
County tryinq to qo out for an RFP and get one group cell
phone plan for everybody in the county. I think that would
be very advantageous so we can tie that down. Again, I took
one phone bill, and looking at one phone bill that we had
for one month, and that was with some overage on minutes
E-15-Q~ BLdyet worksh~~p
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
that officers ended up doing, I come up with about
$37,000-something, so I rounded it off to 38. The Judge
took the average of all the phone bills, I guess, that we've
JUDGE TINLEY: With a float.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With a little bit of
fluff, and came up with 34. I'm just concerned that --
JUDGE TINLEY: I, frankly, think your cell
phone cost is probably -- because of the competitive nature
of it, I think your cell phone cost is going to -- you're
going to see it starting to decline --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I hope you're right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in coming years. I think
you got enough players in the game that the competition is
going to get stronger, and -- and we can see those costs
come down.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I hope you're right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm working off, basically,
what you've done year-to-date. And annualizing that with
that 9.5-month instead of 10-month fluff, it runs right at
just a hair under 34. So, that -- I think costs are going
to go down. I don't -- I don't want to see that Kendall
County situation here, and I know you don't either. And I
want to give you some incentive to prevent a Kendall County
situation.
b-15-U3 Buda°t s~orF:shcp
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We already do that. If
I have -- in our cell phone bills, Nancy -- or the secretary
and I go through them, and if there are personal phone calls
that we find, the officer does pay for those phone calls on
cell phones and everything. And because of that, most
officers have two cell phones; one's their personal one and
one's the department one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many cell phones
do you have for use in your department, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I couldn't tell you
offhand.
MS. ROBISON: 20.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: About 20.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 20? I think it's a
good idea to find out how many we have in use all through
the county system, and see what we can do in terms of
consolidating a bid.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think it should be
done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the Judge's
number will hold, though.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Tommy, do you
have any thougrts about the cell phone consolidation?
MR. TOMLINSON: Talking to me?
JUDGE TINLEY: Wake up.
8-1 ~-~~'~ 3 Eu~get Wci k 51~op
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.-,.
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--.
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did he say?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hello, Tommy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You need to change
your medication, buddy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's on Number 11
right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about
trying to consolidate all the cell phones into one company
and one issue. What -- do you have any thoughts about that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, yeah. I -- I mean, I
think it's something we ought to think about. We --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How long do you think
we should think about it?
MR. TOMLINSON: We've done that with the
Sheriff himself. At one point, we did have -- we had
numerous vendors that we purchased cell phones from.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We redid ours.
MR. TOMLINSON: Sheriff's Office redid
theirs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
MR. TOMLINSON: I don'
that many cell phones that are county
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I
Nancy said, about 20. Did you find -
others.
Yeah. Is there --
t -- I don't know of
cell phones out there.
know we have -- what
- I know there's
2-1~-i~ 3 Budget Works:~op
172
1
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. SOVIL: According to departments, there's
22 I can swear to out there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So you're talking 40
cell phones, probably.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I know the constables
got them, don't they? All you guys use them, don't you?
MR. AYALA: Personal.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's an idea we ought
to think about.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We11, I mean, how long
do you think about it?
JUDGE TINLEY: We c;an't authorize an RFP as
we sit here today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what it is, an
RFP?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Put it out for bids.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The last two items I
have a question on in the Sheriff's Office budget is 464,
which is Crime Prevention. I agree, it's pretty well been
$500 every year. Last year we didn't spend much at all.
This year we have it so far, but as y'all -- most of y'a11
are aware, that for several years -- that's what I was
~-15-C~ Budget Wor:~:srop
1
-- 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
talking about earlier, that that was donated; Triad wasn't
used at all. I know, Buster and Jonathan, y'all have been
with us at some of cur crime prevention kind of classes or
talks that we have been putting on, and seen the materials
that Michael's been handing out, and I think crime
prevention is a very important tool. And I think just
working with the public and giving the public as much
information as we can is extremely important. We have
locksmith -- lock kits that we go by and do. We also now do
home inspections, because I finally this year have people
certified to be able to do those home inspections to allow
the homeowners to get a reduction in their insurance rate.
But it does take time and costs to get those things done, so
I did ask for an increase in that of $1,000 instead of $500.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think of the crime
prevention very much like the training. I think it's a
wonderful investment. I think the return you get is a whole
lot better than a lot of other places, and if you'll use it
for that purpose, you know, I'll -- I'll gladly give it to
you. I was looking at -- at your year-to-date. You'd used,
what, 15 percent of it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of what you'd requested.
So --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because we --
8-15-~3 Budget vuorks:~op
174
1
,..-. 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: -- if you'll use it for that,
I think it's a good investment.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Michael, when did you
get through with the home inspection course I sent you to?
(Discussion off the record.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was in the spring, so
that wasn't so long. So, we just started to kick off all
that. Buster knows.
JUDGE TINLEY: I got no problem increasing
that back up to $1,000.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What number was that?
JUDGE TINLEY: 464.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's not giving Triad
anything. I never have, and I won't, 'cause I don't think
that's legal for me to give them anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: I agree with you. I don't
think you're -- you're in the business of deciding who the
taxpayers of Kerr County ought tc donate the funds to.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think Triad is a very,
very worthwhile program. What it does is help educate the
elderly on the scams and things like that. And Mike was on
their board. We attend monthly meetings, we give talks to
them and everything. I think it's a very worthwhile
~-"i5-';~ Budget rgor.sl~.op
175
1
-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
program. I just was not comfortable -- and I know
Mr. Beltram, who runs it, is upset with me, 'cause that's
the way the City does fund theirs, is out of their line item
for crime prevention, and he cannot understand that I don't
feel like I have the authority to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very wise, Rusty.
While we're in the neighborhood, could we go back to 462 and
get an explanation there, what all that's about?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Lease payments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the second and
third payments on our cars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The existing cars?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. The first time we
purchase cars, it comes out of Capital Outlay. After that,
Tommy moves it up to the lease payments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okav. So, 570 is --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is what?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is where we would get
the cars.
JUDGE TINI~EY: Mm-hmm. Is that the last item
that you were referring to that you --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I got one -- 487,
Training Schools. Again, we're at the training. One of the
8 -15-0 3 Bu~gct L~ork :pop
1
-- 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
biggest things in this, Judge, is that our training budget
covers the cost of ammo for the firearms training. It
covers the cost of the Thunder Ranch fees. It covers the
cost of the meal we have to serve when we're out at Thunder
Ranch, okay, for all the officers, and it does that twice a
year on just Thunder Ranch. That cost by itself is going to
be in the neighborhood of $12,000 to $15,000. I had asked
for $25,000 last year. We were at 24, but if you go $12,000
to 15,000 for just the cost of the firearms alone, and you
cut that down to $18,000, then I have anywhere from $3,000
to $5,000 to train 41 officers, plus we also train
dispatchers, sending them through the schools, and even some
of our clerks. Because, like, the personnel clerk, I send
them through the F.L.S.A. stuff, updates and that and
different things, and I don't think $3,000 to $5,000 is
going to anywhere cover that. I'd like to keep it at the 25
that I asked for.
JUDGE TINLEY: When was the last time you
were at Thunder Ranch doing your training?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We've only done one, and
that was April.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of this year?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Arid we will be
doing the other one -- I think they have it scheduled for
September.
8-15-03 Budget wczksh~~
177
1
-- 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the figure that
we've got here through July included your April stint at
Thunder Ranch?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But it does not include
the second one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: September?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: September.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the most --
that's the largest expense out of that training.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. TCLEOSE requires you --
what, once a year?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, on firearms
training. This is a deal that was worked several years ago
between the City, City of Fredericksburg, us, sometimes
Boerne, I believe. And, personally, TCLEOSE requirements --
the basic requirement is one time a year to qualify and
shoot 60 rounds. You can go out in the gravel pit, which is
what our department did for all the years that I worked for
it before becoming Sheriff, and you can shoot 60 rounds at a
cardboard target, and you're qualified. Okay? That is in
no way sufficient to train an officer in the use of
firearms. Thunder Ranch, they do actual scenarios. They
R-_.-03 3udget Lvo_kshv
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
use simulated-type guns, where they actually go in and clear
buildings, they do all type of searches, different things.
They shoot a minimum of about 300 rounds per officer during
their qualification out there. And I think, due to
liability -- and just so you know, I had one officer this
last year that is no longer employed with me that could nit
qualify at Thunder Ranch. We've upped our qualifications.
My qualification is very stringent, it's very firm, and if
an officer can't qualify at Thunder Ranch -- they could
qualify if they shot 60 rounds in a gravel pit, but they're
not going to qualify with the training that Thunder Ranch
requires and what we require at Thunder Ranch unless they
shoot their guns and they actually work at it, and I think
that is extremely important.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the current policy that
you have in place, personnel policy --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- requires twice annual?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that's a decision
you made for your department, obviously to have a better
department?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. The very first --
when we first went to Thunder Ranch with the City, very
first year we did it, it was three times a year. And then,
8- 15- C 3 Budc e ~ ~~?oi ]is hoF~
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
between the City and -- City of Fredericksburg, City of
Kerrville, and myself, everybody decided three times a year,
300 rounds each time per officer, was getting to where we
wouldn't do it. Now, when the City went through their
lawsuit several years ago for having to shoot a young man
and kill him, one of the things that the lawsuit -- and our
same attorney that defends us in our lawsuits is the one
that defended the City, and they were using Thunder Ranch at
that time, and they were using it three times a year. And
although the City won that lawsuit, the one deal -- and the
jury in that federal lawsuit said they needed to do more
training. But there is a cost factor in there where you
have to finally draw the line. I could have them out there
every day trying to shoot, but, you know, I mean, it's
expensive; there's no doubt.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a contract with
Thunder Ranch for --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- annual use it of it? It
would seem to me -- I don't know. It would seem to me, if
you got a requirement for annual, certainly, that would be a
one-time-a-year user. If you're going to be a multiple user
in a single year, you ought to be able to cut a contract
with them to get some sort of break by using it twice a
year. I don't know.
~-1~-03 Bua,~e L Wor};strop
180
1
^ 2
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r-.
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we do get --
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that's how
things work in the world.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We do get a large break.
Most people that go out there one time, their range fees are
$3,000. For our department to go out there one time, our
range fee is $1,500, so we've already getting a large break
in what we originally set down years ago and talked with
them about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does it cost to
take your men out there to Thunder Ranch for a session,
total?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd have to figure in
the overtime. Because, yeah, that's -- if you're talking
total cost, the overtime isn't coming out of here, but we --
all our guys have tc go out there on their off-duty time.
We have to -- personnel tone them out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess what I'm
driving at, Sheriff, you spent $14,266 through July 31st,
and ycu've been to Thunder Ranch once. You're going to go
back again.
SHERTFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that the number?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I've got $6,000 of
~3 -- 5- 0 3 B u d g e t W o r b. s w o p
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ammo on order right now to be able to -- to furnish for the
September one. Then you're going to have another $1,500
range fee on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: 75.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you do not have
officers that. qualify that first time, we give them two more
attempts at it, so that's another -- well, we pay for the
first attempt and second attempt, actually, on the 300
rounds per officer that don't qualify, for the ammo. And
then, after that, they're paying for the ammo on their own.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're looking --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Got a meal in there,
too.
NUDGE TINLEY: 75 -- well, okay, figure
another thousand. About $8,500.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: About 22,7.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And then that's only if
I don't send any other officers through any other training.
And I've already got some going, even leaving this weekend,
to some other training and that, which will add up with
hotel rooms and things like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Only response I can give you,
how I got to the 18 is I annualized it, put some fluff on
it.
8-?5-03 Budgct 6tio~kshop
1
-^ 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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I understand how you got
to the 18, but what I need to be able to make that line item
suffice and train my officers is the 25 I requested.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 24 won't do it?
That's where you are now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 24 won't do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: 24 is going to be cutting it
pretty close. You're putting down. 24?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I haven't put
anything down. I just wrote a line through the old number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to write
down 25.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't disagree with your
policy on more than she minimum. I think it's -- it's good,
sound -- good, sound planning. And I think, in the long
run, it will serve you. You'll probably make up that money
somewhere else, be it in liability suits or prevention of
injury to your officers when they're out; if they get in a
situation, they're better able to handle it. I don't
disagree with the policy. I think it's a good policy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, you said that was it.
Now we're to the personnel, right?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
8-15-~~ audue_ Workshop
183
1
-- 2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We got Capital Outlay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am shocked.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Capital Out]_ay is cars.
You don't have anything in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you recall --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You didn't deny them;
you just left it blank 'cause you said you're going to let
the Court decide that. I agree, but I need cars. I gave in
my budget the -- the alternatives on cars. We gave you two
different proposals that I was asked to look at it. One was
for the six cars, as we have gotten every year since we
started this program, and one was for four cars. I totally
disagree with cutting from six to four, but what I -- I
programmed in that Capital Outlay line item was four cars.
We've put way too many miles every year on cars to -- and
you have our exact figures. In fact, it's one of the
largest sections in there, so I won't go over it in detail,
but it will show you what all our maintenance costs have
been, what our mileage has been on all the cars, and exactly
where we stand on them, what year model cars we have and
what the current mileage was orl those cars at the time this
budget was prepared for you.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's your inventory.
C-1~~-~ Budget ;^~oL>:51.~~;
184
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: Mm-hmm. I finally got
it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we go to four cars a
year, our department has 40 -- 42. I'll have to look at it.
That's 10 years to replace our cars, to rotate all the way
through the department. That would mean if we really want
to look at trying to get constables cars that are used ones
from the Sheriff's Department, it could mean 10 years before
they get them, because we're going to have to rotate them
through our department.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With the purchase of
four?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With the purchase of
four.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, what it we
purchase six? How many cars does that free up for our
constables?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This next year?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Immediately.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Immediately? It will
free up four.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have four
constables. We have something working.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I promise they won't
want to drive the four they're going to get.
R-1~-03 Bud~aeL Worksop
185
1
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: Well, okay. I'm not
even going to sit here and argue with you, 'cause it's not
worthy of the argument, but it's just -- what in the world
did they do before we started buying six brand-new cars?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had cars, when they
pulled out of the parking lot, the wheels fell off.
Literally, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't agree with
that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had serious problems
with cars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand -- I
agree that you had serious problems, but we have come a
long, long way Yiere .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When we initiated
this program, Sheriff -- and I take credit for initiating
the program; the Court bought it four years ago.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The idea was then,
and still is, that we would -- we would matriculate down
four cars ultimately for our constables.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, since the program
began until r.ow, you have 24 cars that are either one, two,
3-1~-03 BuuyeL Workshop
186
1
^~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,,.~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
three, or four years old.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I recall prior to
that, it was either they bought a used car or maybe you
bought one, or maybe you bought none, so I know where you
are or where you were when we initiated the program. But I
think the time is now for constables to get cars.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can give them cars.
If we get our four, I can give them cars, Judge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four that will run.
Four that are not beat up beyond repair.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's wheels and
motors and windows and everything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More than apple
crates for seats.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, they don't have
to have windows. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner
Williams, that plan about providing cars to the constables,
did that envision giving the cars to them?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It envisioned the
County continuing to own them, yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, Commissioner, I
have one right now, Car Number 17; it's a 1994 Chevy that,
as of April of this year, had 229,977 miles on it. That
3-~ ~- Q 3 3 ~ac~et 6~iv m k s trop
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1b
17
18
19
`' 0
L
'' 1
L
22
23
24
25
would be one of the four we're replacing. That would be one
of the four I'd be having to give up to give to the
Commissioners -- I mean to the constables. I have no
problem giving them that car.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question would be,
what have you given them? My question again, Sheriff, is
what have you given them?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't given them
anything. Because the ones we replaced with those 24 that
we have gotten -- if you will recall, Philpott Motors, they
know Kerr County right now, because they had to have them
all towed, the ones that we replaced, back to Philpott
Motors, 'cause they could not drive them. They tried to,
and they made it about halfway to San Antonio and had to
call one of their big trucks tv come pick up cars. We
haven't gotten to the point that I can give the constables
reliable vehicles. We haven't replaced enough of our old
Junkers, okay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Another 10 years?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't support that
theory either, wait another 10 years.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, if we get four
cars a year, I have 41 cars, something like that, in the
department. That's how long it takes to rotate them
through. Now, there is a factor in there that once in a
8-15-03 Budget v1orkshop
188
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
while we seize a car that we can use. Okay? We have
tried -- we had a couple of the old, old C.I.D. cars where
we traded them to Ken Stoepel and got another one -- you
know, one C.I.D. car out of that, with a little bit going to
the Ford Tauruses, and we've been able to help replace some
of those.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here's another --
here's another approach, Sheriff. What if the Court skipped
this year for giving the Sheriff's Department four new cars
and gave them to the constables, and resumed your six car
program next year? Where would that put you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That would put me with
patrol guys -- some of those guys, the warrant guy that's
driving 10,000 miles a month, starting out having to use a
car with over 200,000 miles on it. Treat will not make it
through a year. It you don't give me any cars this year,
we're going to have to be coming back during the middle of
the budget year asking for cars, 'cause I will not be able
to make this year without cars.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said you had 41
cars, and it' going to take 10 years, because it takes that
long to rotate through?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So next year, you're
going to come back and say I've got 47 cars; it' going to
9 ~ 5 03 Badget [Mork=1 0;~
189
1
.--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
take 15 years to rotate through. I'm not --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, no, that's not our
car number -- without adding other positions and things like
that, the number of cars we need's not going up, Buster.
Number of cars we have next year should be 41 cars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of the 41, how many
are on the road at any one given time of the day, on deputy
patrol?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On deputy patrol? Six.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Five or six.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are the other 35
doing?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Warrants, civil,
criminal investigations, jail, mine, the chief deputy's.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But of those -- of
that 35, they're not racking up the miles like the patrol
cars are.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, they aren't. On --
in that tab, fifth page behind the -- under 10-560 that you
have in your notebook, your -- your budget book I gave --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's this other
great big book I've got.
SHERIFF HiERHOLZER: The other great big
book.
3-15-C3 Budget Wor:~:shop
190
1
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: That I've been
seriously trying to avoid.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It tells you everything
about our cars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which tab?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, under the 10-560
tab.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 10-560 tab.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And go to the -- one,
two, three, four, fifth -- sixth tab behind that one. You
should have the little white tabs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, which one?
Which tab?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 10-560
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it. How many?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sixth tab.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One, two, three,
four, five, six. Bingo.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It should -- if you open
that, that should start out with our car, okay? Now, if you
will go to -- one, two, three -- probably about the fourth
page, Commissioner, you should come up with this type of
page. Yours is a little bit different, 'cause I moved mine
around. This is the page I'm wanting you to see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My book's different
8-15-03 Bu 1~2t `vdcrksho~?
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ci
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than his book.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That page tells you what
we have and what the mileage and the year model of those
cars were, what the wear model. and what cars we have right
r_ow, what the mileaa,~ on thosE cars were as of April when we
were starting to prepare our budget. And. which ones are on
patrol, which ones a.re the C.I.D., administration, and jail.
COMM1SSlUNER WILLIAMS: The point being?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your -- your question
was abcut if we don't, where are we and what kind of
mileage? All I can do is to point out to you so that you
can see exactly what we have, what the mileage and year
model of those cars were back ~n April, okay? And hew --
which ones are on p-,~ ~.roa and. wr~ich ones are not .
JUDGE: TINLEY: Hcw many different units do
you use for patrol?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 24.
JUDGE TINLEY: 24 patrol units?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And you said at any one
time, there's six on the road?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir.
JUDGF~: T CNL~EY: What do you have, three shifts
and a reserve?
SHERIi,F HIERHOLZER: Four shifts. Six times
R-1~-0 Bu~~aet worb:.;'~~~~~
lag
1
2
3
c
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
1?
l~
lr
2~
2"
2~
2
2
2
JUDGE TINLEY: Six-hour shifts?
MS. SOVIL: Three shifts and a reserve.
JUDGE TINLEY: 6tiel-~, the reserve is the
weekend, et cetera.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I don't even look
at weekends. That's just -- we work seven days a week, 24
:Hours a day. It's f~,ur_ shifts, six on -- if everybody's on
duty, it puts six c,~ ~ s can the r oa:A. 'That's 24 cars. Each
officer is assigned a car. Now, there has beer: a study done
several tirr.es abcut going to what the City is doing, which
is parking cars, okay? Officers drive their own cars --
personal vehir_.1es in tc wsrk and then usP the patro] car at
that time.
JUDGE ~I'1NLEY: An assigned patrol vehicle?
SHERIFI HIERHOL~ZER: An assigned vehicle.
That -- that's what t:he City o1 Kerrville does. Maintenance
costs will skyrocket- wt:E-~n yo~_i de that, and I think i t' s beer:
shown that maintenar.~~e ~•osts wc;uld skyrocket, because you're
running those cars 1t), 20 hours a day at times, okay?
Ten-hour shifts over_Lap, and -- I'm sorry, not 1G-hour;
', 12-hour shifts, 6:00 tc 6:00, and you could be running them
3 24 hours, depending cn how you set up your deal. You have
~ different drivers for those cars. Our officers carry a lot
~ of gear with them, okay, that they would have to constantly
d-15-~ g,~r~get Wog}:~ ,~~~,
1
2
3
4
5
5
8
9
10
11
12
~3
^~ 4
15
,16
17
18
19
20
21
GL
23
24
25
193
move in and out, which -- which is a cost. But or.e of the
biggest things that was there, and this Court talked about
last year -- we left i'_ at. that, because we know sooner or
later, once the dep,_~r~mE~nt get: big enough, we're going to
have to ao to something like that, because you can't keep
buying more and more -- 100 cars each year or something.
But where we get into the employees' salaries and we get into
benefits that Kerr Ccunty offers and things like that, they
decided at least cne of the other benefits was that the
County officers have a car. The second benefit to the
department, greatly, is we have officers that live all over
the county, and the,i have cars at all those locations.
~'locds, anythinq qo i~~~ c:~n in tr~.at end of the county, it' s --
we're not like the City of Kerrville, where our backup
officers -- somebody else is within a couple of blocks from
them. My guys, the nearest officer or partner working may
be 40 miles from him, but we may have somebody that lives
within a mile.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the
Sheriff's arguments are scund on th~s, and I've giver. it
some thought. One of those deputies lives out on 1340, and
that's 25 or 30 milF~,~ [rom the Sheriff's Departmer:t. When
he pulls out of his ~r_i~.rF-way, lie's a working police officer,
sc I think that has ~~ 1ot of value in terms of productivity.
Value to the citizen:, and I a]_so think it's a valuable perk
~-i _-~)? 3~7dget_ wo1`r5'tOp
.--_ 2
3
4
5
6
8
a
10
11
12
13
~14
15
l6
i7
1 s3
19
20
21
22
2J
24
25
194
that makes uo a iittLe bit for the fact that we don't pay as
much as other law enforcement agencies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hold on to the perk
theory here for a little while.
COMMISSIOI~IER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. I was
relucta_~t to use that argument; I knew there'd' be a price.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have to
find a scl.;~icn here, :3E~c~rit.f_.
JJDGE TINLEY: What about some sort of middle
ground, Sheriff, where you've trot these officers, some that
live out in the environs of the county, and -- and I agree,
this is going to change as efficers come and qo, but -- ar.d
granted, the number of miles are -- are still going to
Continue tc ac_c~.imulate, maybe on a fewer number of vehicles,
but I agree that the more coverage we have out in the far
reaches of the ccunt ~,~ c~~ ~t:h these officers living there is a
benefit. Butt sur:~ wc~t]_d be nice if we cculd reduce some
of th~s one-officer--~o-:i-vehicle situation. What sort of
middle ground do you reach? I don't know what's practical
ar.d what's feasible. But, like you say, you know, you're
going to have to do it someday as things continue to grow;
yo~~i're going tc have a -- you're going to have a ccmpeund
with all these vchi:~~~es ir. it, and your people are going to
have to come in and, quote, draw their vehicle and then go
to work. But I like the idea of -- of having the benefit of

195
1
~.
3
4
5
6
8
a
10
i2
13
1 ~l
1
16
17
1~
1~
LC
L_
G~
2:
G'
e,..~
2
some of them scat-erf~d out and around, but I'd sure like to
reduce the number of v~:~ru.c:les ~.~e got, too.
SHER1:?E HERHOL7,ER: I don't thin', --
BUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what the answer
is.
SHERIn= HIERHOLZER.: I don't think you can
fairly give certain officers vehicles and other officers not
vehicles cr -- or things like that. You could possibly try
and rotate them; you know, you get it for this month, you
get it for next month, like that. But where -- the whole
bottom line there, ~~~rdge, is we're taking the public's view
of what they're see i~~, =ir~:d including the crocks, okay, of
our patrol guys out there, of our cars. That's one of our
big crime ~reventlons that's not in our crime prevent;~on
line item, is seeing those cars cut there. It's hard enough
to get the public to see them rs~ith only five to six officers
working at a time, but then when you take away the cars, as
Commissioner Nicholson. said, that when -- as soon as they
pull out of their driveway, they are on duty and they're
working and they're ~n that car on that end of the county.
If you take that aw~~~a, too, thF.n I think we're shooting
', ourselves in the foc:'.. ]. -- I agree, someday it's going to
3 come to the point where we're going to have to work up some
~ kind cf rotation. 7: don't feel ~.ae're there yet.
~ I think that law enforcement effectiveness in
d-~ 5-0 3 5~~,~iget Wog ks ~,~>F'
196
1
.._.. 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
1 r,
11
12
13
,.-,
14
15
^~ 6
1?
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this county, as large as it is, unless we really increase
the staff, and then you're going to increase cars no matter
what you do, okay, is going to hurt severely once you do
that. Ar.d I'm of the opinion we need as many cars on the
road at all the timE~r ghat we car. keep them there as
possible. I -- I`m ~ ot~~lly i_n favor of furnishing cars to
the constables. Onc~~~ wF, c{et these old yellow ones that we
have and all this rot-ated down, I think that's a very viable
plan. But I have to -- our department went for so many
years that we were getting two, three cars, that we got so
far behind, and you saw what that did. We literally had
cars pull out of the harking lot, turn onto Clearwater
Paseo, and lose wheels, and I think that's way too
dangerous. 'T'his Court, especially with Commissioner
Williams and them s±-~r-~i.ng ~i_, started trying to take care
of that after -- ri~~lct -~f ter 1 took office, right about the
time I'd taken officE~. We've been ab~e to replace 24 of
those cars. I still have six yellow ones out there, those
old ones, and it sti.Ll shows right now, in April, we had
230,000 miles on seine cars.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, you
have some firm indir_.ati.on that your constables want one of
these cars?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMM];~SIONER NICHOLSCN: I'm pretty certain

197
1
- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
.-.
14
15
16
1?
18
i9
~0
21
22
~3
24
,.-
25
that Precinct 4 Ccmn~ ~ s: over will r.ot want one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That could be the
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not Commissioner.
Commissioner surely doesn't want one of them. Constables.
COMMISSIONER ~~'ILLIAMS: That could be the
case, and that would be three, as cpposed to four. Sheriff,
I want you to be clear; I'm not trying to diminish your
fleet. You worked too hard t;o replace your fleet.
SHERIi~F iIERHOLLER: And I appreciate it.
COMMI:~:,IC~NER WILLIAMS: And I don't disagree
with you in terms of your deputies taking the car home. If
you call it a perk, it's a perk. I don't care what you call
it. The visibility of the car has value out there, wherever
it is. I understand Ludt, and I agree wholeheartedly. But
what I dcn'~ understand is why, ir. this particular
situation, if you were to get fear new cars this year, as
you've requested, down from six, why you couldn't add those
four to your fleet where they're needed, and rotate some of
the higher-mileage ~~les clown to other positions where the
lztilization is not as great, ar~d spring four cars. ~,or
example, under Criminal Investigation, you got a 35,000-mile
car. Under Warrants, Civil, you got a couple; you get one
43,000. Jail, you got one at 4,000. S.R.O., you got one
at 45,000. I can go on. My point is, I think you could

1a8
1
G
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
lq
15
lb
1~
1R
~a
20
21
22
23
24
25
rotate some of the higher-mileage cars into some of these
positions and shift some of those cars to constables.
That's the point I just --
SHERLI,F HI:ER.HOLZER: Well, I'd -- like I
said, I have no pro} L~~_n c;i vinca cars and getting cars to the
constables, okay? F~~.zt in my Making care of the Sheriff's
Department and the j~~il, I'm sorry tc say this, but ~~~hy
would I rotate out of my department a better car than. I'm
going to keep?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would leave that
decision tc ycu, sc long as the three or four that trickle
down are worth the money to trickle them. down, and they're
operable.
SHERLrF HIERHOL2ER: The three or four that
would trickle down ~ ~ ~ i.}~e t-.hrF~e or four that we would be
thrcagh with, that I would be replacing with the four that I
get, and those four <lre going to be my high-mileage cars
that maintenance costs are starting to go up, and that we
don't want in that department any more at this time, because
we raver.'t replaced cur entire fleet on this six-car program
yet. [r]e're trying to jump the gun a little bit too quick on
getting these cars through there. But once -- you know, and
sc t'ut's causing me' to cEive down to Joel or any of the
other constables car: with ~:~~0, 000 miles on them.
COMP~.L:~S.IC~NER WILLIAMS: With all due respect,

199
1
2
3
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~6
17
18
19
2~
21
22
23
24
25
Sheriff, you -- foll~~wing that rationale through, you will
never find a time -- a place and time where you have
sufficient cars that are not high-m~leage that you're
willing tc part with, if you follow that rationale all the
way through. That's a_11 I'm gcinq to say on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I'm going
to say on it, too. ~7udge, I've written in --
JUDGr; C:CNLEY: That's the end of the
discussion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Since we've been
beating it, I guess :~o.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wrote $46,535.
JUDGE TINLEY: You may be the only one that
did that; I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I may be wrong.
I'm sure -- that's four cars, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's four cars. I
haven' t put i t in tr_~F, re .
COMMI:~SC~~P~IER E3P,LDWLN: I've got an eraser.
SHERI',~ HIERHOL7ER.: So, you're leaving in
there four cars, not six?
COMMISSIONER BAT~DWIN: I am. I'm only one,
though. `T'hese other three have not spoken.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're talking about
personnel here. The last comment I would make, Commissioner
~3-1~-u~ 5,:~1~,~er W~~t}:.~ :~-,F~
X00
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
.~
l~
15
16
1?
,~8
1y
~0
L
21
22
`' 3
L
2~
25
Williams, is any cf our cars are going to be on the road.
And not -- not to knack Joel; most of your constables have
other jobs or. top of i1=. Any cf our fleet is going to be on
the read longer cr n~,: cf~ c>f: ten. t har,_ the constable cars .
That's what I'd like to say.
CCMM:L::~SIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
f~IR. AYALA: Constable job is my number-one
priority.
JUDGE TINLEY: 'm sorry, I can't hear you.
MR. AYALA: My constable job is my number-one
priority. Anything C do on the side is minimal.
JUDGE TItJLEY: I'm sorry, I still can't hear
you. You got to un~l:>_:~i-and, this thinq's blowing away at
me.
SHERIi~F HIERHOLZER: He's saying his
constable job is his number-one priority. Anything else he
does on the side is minimal. Correct?
MR. F.YALA: Correct.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER.: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSCN: Sheriff, you weren't
here this morning wher_ the Judge explained what he had
plugged in for salaries. Perh~~ps you know this. What he's
p~~ugged in was a CO1,-~ ~~~.c revise not included, but longevity
and education increases are included, and if we went through
the budgets of other departments this morning, we didn't --
P-i ~-0 Eu~~Ig2Y_ YJOr}.shop
201
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
12
13
.--~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
didn't attempt to make any decisions about pay levels.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree, and I respect
that. But there's some problems with his figures that I
have, and I'd like to bring up just a --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just want to let
you know, you're not going to get an answer on the pay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't expect an
answer, thank you, but I would like to do a presentation
that I think is very important.
COMMI:~SIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't -- you can
do that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Going back on the
original budget and the cover sheet that I have, the letter
I wrote to each of y'a11 -- and one of the reasons I've been
trying to work out cur operational as much as I can, and I
agree with y'a11, is I had stated in there that I felt it
was time we concentrated on our employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On what?
SHERI I''F EiI ERHOL,ZER: On our employees . I
feel that was the -- my main goal at this time as Sheriff,
that I need to start taking care of the employees, and need
to start attempting to stand up for them and treat them
right. I think Commissioner Nicholson hit the nail on the
head when he was talking about the low poverty level or the
low Medicare/Medicaid level. And I -- there's one thing --
8 - 15 ~~~ 3 Bucl.~eY W~rk~ ti .p
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
202
and I know Commissioner Baldwin does not like to see
comparisons. I think he does like to see graphs, 'cause he
didn't like my handwriting last time, but these are some
things that -- this is the job pool I have to pick from, is
the City of Kerrville. The City of Kerrville is the
competitor I have in trying to keep employees. Looking
through theirs right now, there are 16 City of Kerrville
employees that at one time were Kerr County employees, good
Kerr County employees. I don't like seeing that. So, if
you would bear with me, I'd like to do this presentation and
let you see some facr_s and figures that we came up with.
This is officer's st~~rting salary, as it is right now. Kerr
County jail cfficer;, Kerr County dispatchers are at
$20,313. Starting cf~puty salaz°y is $26,001. Starting
Kerrville police offiicer's salary is $30,700. This is the
dispatch supervisor salary. The reason I throw this one in
is the City's dispatch supervisor has not even been their
dispatch supervisor for a year yet; he was my dispatch
supervisor. My dispatch supervisor salary is $23,557. The
City's _s 37,104.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excuse me.
SHERIFF HIERHOL7ER: My --
CCMMI:3SIONER WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Why would
your dispatch person be less than a deputy?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a good questicn.
8-1 ~-n 3 Bu _lget Workstir,p
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
la
20
21
22
23
24
.-..
25
203
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the answer?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have one.
Salaries aren't fair. That's the dispatch supervisor;
that's the only answer I have. That's the salary that was
set. City of Boerne was so nice, they sent us an e-mail the
other day, August the 10th, 2003, advertising for a
dispatcher. My regu]_ar dispatcher salary is $20,313, same
as the jailer. This; i:: my supE~rvisor's salary. The
starting salary for this positi.cn -- this is City of
Boerne -- as of October 1, 2001, is $24,877. My dispatchers
can go to work for the City of Boerne, live in Kerr County,
and make five -- 4,800 -- $4,500 more. That's just their
dispatchers. I can't keep good employees. This is what I'm
getting at, Buster, when I say I feel we've done good, but I
just can only do so much without losing people. Salary line
item totals. I threw this in because this is the Kerrville
Police Department's salary ]ine item total.
COMM) :SIC>NER WIhLIAMS : How many --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This covers -- I'll get
to that. There's 62 employees with the Kerrville Police
Department, okay? And their lire item total is $2,304,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For 62?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For 62.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be patrol

1
2
3
4
J
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1'
18
19
20
21
2G
23
24
25
204
SHERIi~F HIERHOLZER: Patrol --
COMM[:,SIONER WILLIAMS: The whole department?
SHERIFF HIERHOL7ER: Right, their
secretaries, dispatchers, and office --
COMMI;~SIONER WILLIAMS: Entire department.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, including the
Chief. That $2,3C4,000 is more than my entire Sheriff's
Department budget, including your six cars that we fight
over and everything else. That's more than my entire
Sheriff's Department budget. Nct jail, Sheriff's
Department.
COMM-C:3SI;=~NE;R WILLIAMS: Were not fighting,
Sheriff; we're debating.
SHERII,F HIERHOLZEP,: Debating, thank you.
Mine is $1,449,530. This is overtime. City's budget for
overtime for their officers right now is $100,000 a year.
Our overtime budget for several years has been $25,000. The
Judge's proposal in this budget cuts that to $16,000. My
jail has been $15,000; the Judge's proposal cuts it to 13.
I do try and limit o~,~r overtime as much as we can, but one
of the ways it's limited i_s, my officers don't put in for
half the overtime t'r,F~y do, which is a shame.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's also unlawful.
SHERI:~'F HIERHOLZER: But that's what they do,
because they know I'm tight with overtime. They know we're
~-_ ~-0 3 ~u~1~3et Wor}:s`~~~p
1
,-_ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
I5
~6
17
18
19
20
2~
22
23
24
25
205
only sitting at $25,000. And they do that out of dedicaticn
to Kerr County. That may sound a little bit iffy, but
that's the honest truth. This is our current -- and let me
explain this, and the next slide will explain it more. And
whatI requested in my budget this year for salaries, which
would include the longevity, cost-of-living, and education
being given to the :~IficE•rs -- this is what I'm reading down
here at bottom. That really doesn't come out very clear.
It's with ,longevity, education, COLA on the anniversary
dates. If he's been here a year as cf today, it's going to
reflect it in the next pay pericd, okay? In doing that with
my Sheriff's Department deputies, that's what I need in our
budget, a hundred -- 1,167,433 -- er 473. That's what I
requested.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That does not address
the dispar_ty betwe~~il a c eputy and a police officer, does
it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. That's just to give
our people what they earned in that. With just longevity,
Barbara had come up with 1,119,774. With longevity and
COLA, but without figuring in the education, 'cause, of
course, you wouldn't know exactly when our people are going
to get the education -- the certificates, Barbara came up
with 1,147,717. The Judge's figure here of 1,087,504, 1
don't know where it ~,arne from, Judge. It will not cover my

206
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
~3
a
10
12
~~3
14
15
1r
1i
l~
1.
2(
2
?;
2
2
2
education by i~self. It will r_ot cover longevity by itself,
and it does not have a COLA in it. It will -- it will come
in between, but it won't. cover any one item, even by itself.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, does -- did you
say the blue line includes two new employees?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Includes what?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two new employees.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You didn't say that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMM i '~S.IONE,R BALDWIN: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The blue line covers my
current employees in the Sheriff's Department budget, not
the ja~l. I'm sorry, it includes -- it is just the
deputies' salary. Okay? And it includes a cost-of-living,
the educational, ar.d the longevity, with those raises being
given on anniversary dates cf longev~ty and on anniversary
dates when. they get their educational certificate. Okay?
This is what I tried to explain with our longevity, and our
~ cost-of-livina/longE~~,~i;.y. A.nd the policy that's currently
in effect, chat -- y~;u di.dn't like my line I drew that day
? in Commissioners Court when we were trying to figure --
3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-}rmm.
~ SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wha'~ this amounts to,
~ Buster -- oo~s -- is if "X" employee is here prior to the
b -15-~ ~ Buds; e* Works h~>p
1
-- 2
3
4
5
5
8
O
J
10
11
~~2
13
14
15
16
,~
L
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L
~5
20i
Nash study, as of Nash, he became a 19-1. This is deputies.
He is not -- because of that policy, the way it's written,
he is not entitled to a longevity raise until October of
this year to become <~ i9-2. He didn't get the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After the Nash study?
SHERI:,F' HIERHOLZER: After he came to work
prior to the Nash.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Prior to Nash.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZ~R: Okay. So he could have
been here since 1995, doesn't matter, or 1985. He went to
that with Nash, okay? So, because he went to that with Nash
and that was a raise with Nash study, then he's not entitled
to	a one-year	anniversary raise,	so wh	at he	gets	is -	- he
has	to wait t	ill the fourth year,	and	goes	to a	19-2.	If
"Y" starts November :~f <'000, which was after the Nash study
and after that October date, and he started in November of
2000, he's a 19-1 in October of 2000 -- well, it'd actually
be November, because that's when he started. A year later,
October of 2002, (sic) he's going to a 19-2. "'he person
that's been here up to even 10 years before him is making
less for a year because of that~ongevity, because of the
way this policy is wri~ten, 'cause he's not -- this guy's
entitled to one step increase after he's been here a year,
because he came after the Nash study.
COMMI:~SIi~NER WILLIAMS: When did you discover
's-~ 5- U B°~r;elet PVC r }::~h,~~,
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
`' 0
L
21
22
23
24
25
208
this disparity?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is what I tried to
raise several months ago, and I think Barbara was asked ar_d
was asked if we could come up with a new proposal, and I
had that. Everybody raised it, and everybody questioned it.
Ar.d my line drawing on the little paper chart I had over
here wasn't very well, and I didn't do very good and nobody
could understand it, so we're trying again.
JUDGE TITILEY: Sheriff, let me see if I can
get something corre~1.ed. I apc~lcgize for interrupting you.
You've got three off=icers, James, Rodriguez, and Lavrakas,
teat are COPS officers, correct?
SHERIL'F HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Trat are on your rester.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, because the COPS
grants expire.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right, mm-hmm. I arrived at
that $1,087,504 by t~~king the position schedule, which
included these threE~ off~.cers, ar.d for which there's a
separate budget, bac}ping those three salaries out of there
from your request of 1,167. That's how I qot there.
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: Aren't we obligated,
by having accepted those dollars, to fund that?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a separate budget --
there's a separate budget for those three officers. `That's
R-l~-~~ 3 Bu~1~@t Worb_~~ hip
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 £~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
209
why I backed them out of this one.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, we didn't include
those in this one. We have them in that separate budget.
COMMI,~S:IONER NICHOLSON: Judge, does that
mean that that chart .C e~aw earlier is apples and oranges?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That you've got --
you've got three fewer officers in your numbers than the
Sheriff does? No, it doesn't?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. We had those -- we
had these officers in that S.R.O. budget. They aren't in
here in this -- in this.
COMMI:3SIONER NICHOLSON: But I thought I
heard you say that r~~d =line micrht be erroneous. That red
pine's good?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I calculated that red
line based upon the L,167,473 which he requested, and I
reduced that by the salary line items for the three COPS
officers which were on the position schedule which he
furnished to me. And when you add them back in, it doesn't
add up. So, you know --
COMMISSIOrdER NICHOLSON: So, this is not an
apples-and-apples comparison.
COMML:~S IUTIER BP,LDW.IN: Well, the blue --
JUDGE TINLEY: Not as far as I'm concerned,
8-15-~,3 r adget wo- }:s_,op
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
210
it`s not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWTN: The blue line doesn't
have them in there either.
SHERIFF H_IERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWTN: So, according to the
Sheriff, teat is apples and apples.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOL,ZER: I gave you individual
sheets on each offi~._:~~r_ if they were added up with our deal.
What you got -- remember, if you got something else from --
JUDGE TINLEY: r:o, the individual sheets that
you're talking about was what you calculated the
longevity/education policy ought to be, in your view and
opinion, where Par_h ~ffic_er had his own anniversary date,
and you could have two in one year and those kind of things
that we discussed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's exactly what
this number is, okay, _is that. And that's what the next
slide that -- when y:~u went cu' to pick up that, T'm not
saying what we were E~xpl.aining.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me understand -- let me
have you understand where ~ was coming from. You made all
these various sheets where you calculated separate
>S-1 5-7?. 3~adget Works`.~op
1
-^ 2
4
J
E
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-..
2~
21i
anniversary dates, and if there was an educational increase
in the same year that there was a longevity increase, ycu
allowed it ar.d calct.iLat,ed it bath in the same year, which is
contrary to what the existing policy of this Court is, I
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's
JUDGE TINLEY: -- without any question.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, that's exactly
right. And you even asked me i_f I would go back and
recalculate it without the COLA in it, and also as with the
existing policy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly.
SHER] 1, F' F[IE;RI-HOLIER.: And I told you no, I
wouldn't du that. And I told you I wouldn't do that because
I felt very strongly that -- and what I was showing in this
next slide, that it's a very unfair policy; it puts people
that have worked here longer making less than somebody
that's worked here a shorter period of time. And when we
get down into it ir. just a minute a little bit more -- I
didn't get to explain that next slide, so I feel that my
duties and my job as Sheriff, okay, is to present to you
what I feel and what I =,t.rongly believe the employees of our
department need. It_.'s your duty to prepare the budget, and
I understand that. But I wasn't going to go back and
reprepare it, kind o.E like putting the stamp of approval on

212
1
2
3
4
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
_ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
doing scm.e~:~~ing to the employees that I didn't believe we
should be doing. Sc, I agree. We're totally in agreement.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's fine. You're free to
disagree with the policy, but the policy was in place and it
was in existence, and trays what it was at the time and is
as of this day, and Eor purposes of preparing this budget.
SHERI}''F HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
JUDGf? TINLEY: And, based upon that, it was
incumbent upon me to prepare a budget. The position
schedule I was furnished with that number of 1,167 had those
three officers on there; I backed them out at their then
current position, and I came up with 1,087,000. It may be
because you failed to furnish me the information I
requested, and if so, if you can't figure out where it came
from, don't make it my problem.
SHERLi,c HIERHOLZER.: I'm not trying to make
it your problem, Ju(i~:re, okay? Thais county has a County
Treasurer that keeps track and does all the paychecks, and I
advised you that if you wanted it figured that other way, I
was not going to intentionally, in any way, shape, or form,
screw my employees. And if you wanted to get those figures
from the County Treasurer, then you could get them from the
County Treasurer. Vde had a very calm, very decent
conversation, and I explained to you why I was presenting
this. And if I go on, I'll explain it a little bit more.
~t-_,.-~l3 Bur,~get Work _~:~-~~~
213
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
~3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
But I think this Cot;nty and this Court has worked with me
very well over the `r''=ar_s and. -- and I've truly enjoyed
that, and I hope nothing that we're saying today -- I saw
a deal on the Church of Christ marquee out there this
morning when I went by there that says, "Public temper
tantrum is indecent exposure." And ~ agree with their
~ittle marquee, okay?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, so we can
move alcng, let me attest to this. I think what you're
saying is that you prepared a budget that proposes to change
what you perceive is an inequitable policy.
SHER.I 1~'F HI:ERHOLIER: Yes . And we had tri e~]
to -- before the budget preparation, to get this Court --
'cause it was even on the agenda, and we tried to get that
policy changed, and they said let's look at it at budget
time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're both right.
The Judge prepared a budget the same way he did every other
department.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
COMMI,~STONr,R NICHOLSON: You prepared a
budget that changes ~~ policy.
SHERir'F HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I understand that.
g 1 _~ !) 3 B u d .~ e t W= r k s h _~ p
214
1
G
3
4
5
6
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Let's move along.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Treasurer has her
hand up.
MS. NEMEC: I don't know if this will help
clarify or move this along any faster, but we did talk about
this, the policy cha~lge on the_ongevity, and I did send out
memos to tie Sheriff ar_d Road and Bridge, maybe another
department, revising a proposal on a revisicn -- on the
longevity, which I gave all of the Court a copy of. And we
changed up a few things that might have needed to be
changed, and Monday y'all will have from me a report with
the current longevity policy that is in place, the figures
for that for each department, plus I will also give you, for
each department, a breakdown of the new proposed revision of
the longevity policy that's in place. So you'll have,
Monday, figures to ]~>ok a~. cane policy versus what the other
one would be. That might help this out a Little bit.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And in regards to that
policy, we had gone through "X" and "Y." Employee "Z"
starts in July of 2001. October 2001, he's a 19-1. October
2002, he should qet a one-step to a 19-2, because he's been
here his year. He should -- he also got his intermediate
certificate during that time. Tree current policy will not
let him have two raises i.n one year, so he doesn't get one
of these; it's got t~~ h.oJd over till the next year. So, he
-is-~~~ ~a~a~:~~ a~rnn_~E:
215
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
]4
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
L
'' 3
24
25
gets the one, but n~~w hE_~'s wait:ing -- instead of one year to
get his educational, he's having to wait two years, all
right? So, in 2003, he goes to a 19-3 with that one
certificate, but in August of 2003, he got his second
certificate, so he's going to have to wait till 20C4, but
because cf the way the policy is, he cannot receive a raise
three years in a row, so he can't have that other
certificate in 2004; he's got to wait till 2005.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a hypothetical
or a real?
SHERIFF HIERF~OLZER: It's a real
illustration. I took real employees that this is happening
to. Another one -- and I'll name these -- Albert Labors. He
started with my department August 16th of 2000. He has a
master's certificate. Being that he started at a 19-5, he
stays a 19-5 -- 2001/2002, he stays 19-5. He should be a
19-6 here with a longevity that -- even with the way I'm
understanding the Judge proposed it, he's not going to get
that, so he stays at a 19-5. All year, he's not getting a
raise, except for try«~ ~~ost-of_-~,iv:ing the Court's given in
previous years. Tommy Hall --
JUDGE TINLEY: That would not be true.
MS. SOVIL: Yes, it is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, it is. Tommy Hall
starts 9/16 of '02 here. Tommy's going to get his one year
s?-1~-C3 Budget Wo, l_sl.~~u
216
-- 2
3
4
5
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~,~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here, okay? But he won't get it `cause of the longevity
ncw. But, see, he's already making what this guy should
have been ahead of him, and he's not, so they'll both be at
a 19-5 again in the proposed budget. Now, on just the
street level, the of.F.i~~~-~:~ that. doesn't have much of any
certificates, Jeff Bowman started Jar_uary the 26th, 1998.
October of 2000, he went to the 19-1 with the Nash study.
For some reason, he didn't get his -- well, he wasn't going
to get his one-year; he should get it here. But he's also
got a certificate, so he's not going to get that, okay? And
he's going to end up being a 19-2, and since 1998, except
for a cost-of-living raise, this man's got one 2.5 percent
raise by this County. There's not any fairness or equity in
this policy, and tha'.'s what I was trying to explain. And
that's wry I could .,~,r consciously, with a good conscience,
figure my employees' salaries on that policy.
COMMISSIONER BALDUIIN: Rusty, I agree with
you 100 percent. It's an unfair -- if you recall, there's
some of us sitting at the table -- well --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's a lot of good
intentions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There was some of us
sitting at this tabit~ that basically run Mr. Nash out of the
county. And -- but we certain~_y did not foresee anything
like this.
8 15-73 3idget Gi~a~kstiot>
21?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
1 O
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
l~
1y
~~
L
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. I don't think
it was foreseen. I don't think any of us did, okay?
MS. NEMEC: May I say something? I had
already figured all that in. That was given to every
department, a list of their employees with the current
policy figures, so all that has already been done. We have
those nur~~,bers. Of course, every payroll, they're updated
with leave and all tha~, but those numbers we've been
working with the whale time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have those numbers
based on policy changes?
MS. NEMEC: No, based on the policy that is
in place now. And I'm in the process, and Monday I'll be
done with it; I'll have numbers based on -- if the Court
chooses to change the policy on the discrepancies that the
Sher-~ff's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where I was
going.
MS . NI:,MEC:: Yes .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: I will have those.
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly, if the Court -- if
the Court charges the policy, that's not a problem. But for
budgeting purposes, what I had to work with, and what I
necessarily must have worked with was what the existing
6-1 5-0 3 Bu~.-lget W~~r ks tt';F~
218
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
lq
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
policy was. I can't predict what --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TCNLEY: -- decision is going to be
made by the Ccurt.
SHERIt?F HIERHOLZER: I put in that slide, and
I'll dive it to you ~n a few minutes, the one Barbara's
talking about that she sent over, okay. Those were part of
the figures that were in that slide. And I'll show you
those, and they were sent tc everybody Barbara had. Okay.
And it sti~~~ will not, Judge, come to that 1 million 87
thousand. It was either the 1 million 116, or 147. That's
why I couldn't come up with where you came up with that.
JUDG~~: T.CNLEY: 1 took the 1 million 167, I
backed out the three COPS officers. I know exactly -- I've
get score notes here that reflect exactly what I did.
S`r'.ERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
JLDGE TINLEY: Exactly how I got there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I -- I just --
JUDGE TINLEY: I know where I got this.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- want to straighten
everything out for employees. And then, whether it was
1,087,000 or my 1,1h'7,000, this Court will get it worked out
for our employees' s<zke. Okay. One thing I'd like to get
into now is, there seems to be a very large misconception of
people -- with people, and our jail staff are paid $20,313 a
8-~5-03 Budnet ~ck~nop
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~~3
I4
15
16
1 ~'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
219
year. And there seems to be --
COMMISSIONER BAfDWIN: Are we going to the
jail budget?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Huh?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we going to the
jai Midget?
SHERII,F HIERHOLZER: No, we're still in
salaries. That's wri~;~ I said I didn't talk salaries, both in
Sheriff's Office or jail. People don't realize -- not
because they don't want to, but I just don't think they
realize what jail employees do and what is required of a
jail employee, so I'd like to take just this few minutes to
show some things. First off, all of cur employees are
required tc know this manual. This is the Sheriff's Office
training manual. This is our jail employees' FTO, field
training manual. T~_is is what they have to know right after
they go to work. Now, I know, and I have been very well
aware they -- some c- t}1em can go to Jack-in-the-Box or a
lot of other businesses and make what they're making right
now with us, and never have to gc and learn through books
like that. But, on a daily set of duties that our jail has
to dc, these are written-out duties that jail staff have to
complete and do each. day.
This is very importar_t. It saves us, the
County, on some sericus liability. And I don't mind saying
8-15-03 Bc~3.e- Cn~or~,,I,,~~,
1
..-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22C
and I'm very prcud tc say that, at this time, this County
does not have a sincrLe lawsuit pending against our jail, and
they have not had a tiew lawsuit filed since I took office.
Because we changed our policy manual; we changed our
training programs. G1e have professionals working in that
jail, and professionals deserve more than $20,000 a year.
This is their duties what they're required to do, and I
won't read them. I hope you catch some highlights, but if I
just sit here ar_d we start going through them all, reading
them, we'll be here ur.ti.l midnight, and I know -- I don't
know if y'all want to do that with me. But these are
written duties. ThE_~~;% have them with them; they have to make
sure they all get checked off ar_d they go through them, all.
I know that both courts, district court --
District Clerk's office, Jannett, Lhey have a lot of
paperwork and all that they have to do, because they each
have their owr. courts, and a lot of it derives from the
jail. The jail gets paperwork from eight different courts;
four J.P.'s, two district courts, the county courts, and
municipal court. They have to deal with all of that, and it
has to be done exact.l_y right ar~d exactly the right time.
You hold an inmate cite day too long, then you have got a
lawsuit fcr false imprisonment. You let him out too early
and he gets in a wreck or something, we got a lawsuit 'cause
we didn't hold him, as long as we were supposed to. It just
~ - 15-~.i: E3 t: c]ce ~ ~aor ~s hc~P
1
-- 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
221
goes on.
(Discussion off the record.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Those of you who saw the
one on cleaning, those of you that have been out to the jail
and toured the jail, I think you will admit with me, I
honestly feel we have one of the cleanest, if not the
cleanest jail in the state of Texas. Some of these are
duplicated because they are still done by another jailer in
another part of the jail. These are station duties; they
have to be done in each one. Welfare checks, 15 to 30
minutes, all inmates who are on suicide watch, which is
normally just about everybody we have in the jail. M.H.M.R.
came out there and did a study; 80-some-odd percent of our
inmates have dealings and have files with M.H.M.R. These
are the type of people we're dealing with. It's no longer
Barney Fife or whatever, Andy Griffin and what's-his-name
that comes in and locks himself in jail 'cause he's drunk,
and comes out the next day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Getting personal now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that 80 percent?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Of our inmates. We
don't have round-tree-click nurses. We have two nurses; they
work shifts, but you have to give medication around the
cock. May have to be given after bedtime or meal times and
everything else. Has to be followed. Recreation at least
8-15-'!3 B~dge~ Workshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,^-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
222
three times a week for every inmate. It all has to be
documented. When you have inmates like the one that killed
the two -- or accused, since we haven't had a trial yet, of
killing the two at Comfort, he has to be out there by
himself, so he's sep~~rated out. from the other 140 or
recreation yard. One thing I will say, Judge, you had
talked about the American -- or the Literacy Council and
some of your extra funding, some of the joint deals, that
they dor_'t really do much. They do help us with GED courses
at --
JUDGE TINLEY: Families and Literacy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir. They do help
us. And drain maintenance may not seem important, but when
you're talking inmates i.n a ce]_l, it's very important. We
spend a lot of money unclogginq drains. Somebody tries --
they try and put stuff down all the time. We try and keep
the drains open. Shakedowns are all the time on every shift
to try to keep the contraband down. Intake takes a very
long time in cur jail. L^~e may have to strip-search. You
have to gc through all this. They have him rub his hands
through his hair, everything else in the world, checking
him, check every garment seam in the garments. Anything you
have going, it gets checked, anything like that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Only job description
8-~y~-03 3_ic~~et workshop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
223
I've ever seen that looked anything like this was house
parent at the Hill Country Youth Ranch.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Jail Standards,
Chapter 275, states that pay for corrections officers should
be equivalent of that of other appointed deputies of similar
grade, status, and/or tenure whose daily duties require
frequent, close, and risky contact with violators of the
law. That's in Jail Standards. Now, it's not a
requirement. It's not a law. But when we're paying our
jailers $20,000 and City of Kerrville's paying a patrol
officer -- what did I say, $30,000? We're starting our
deputies out at $26,000. I don't think we're anywhere near
that, because T've always had a philosophy, I got a lot more
respect in a lot of ways for a jailer than I do for a
deputy, for one main reason. A deputy can go out there and
arrest somebody -- City officers, I will say, are notorious
for this, but they'll get them all stirred up, get them
madder tha:~ a wet hen, they drive them to that jail, kick
them out the door, and the jailer's got to deal with them 24
hours a day, seven days a week from then on.
As you know, we just indicted one for assault
on our nurse. We're going to probably indict him again for
assault on me. We have got area Brotherhood gang members in
there that we are currently working on an organized crime
case -- on a serious organized crime case where -- one of
b'-15-03 Budget V7orks!io~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~~4
15
16
1?
18
1°
20
21
22
23
24
25
224
the duties you don't even see ir. any of those duties is
reviewing and scanning and monitoring all the outgoing phone
calls from inmates, ~~n;~ our jail staff do that. Secretaries
in the jail did tha1_., and they caught some phone calls going
out where a hit was going to be made on another inmate when
they were taken to church. And we have it on tape, and it's
directly on tape; it says they had it all figured out how
they were going to do it. They're talking about the weapons
they were going to use that they're making and improvising
with, and if the jailer got in the way, take him too. We
don't have the jail we used to have.
The budget -- prcpcsed budget does not say
one thing about the .Long-range plan that was accepted. I'm
not saying -- I'm not saying approved cr guaranteed tc
follow or anything, but it was accepted by this Court last
year. It said that's what we need for patrol, and it cuts
it down and says the total number of officers or staff we
should have in the Sheriff's Office. And a footnote -- and
y'al1 have a copy of that; I gave it tc you in with your
long-range -- or in with the budget request, how those
figures were -- were arrived at, their recommendations, and
that was just 80 per~~ent of it.. For patrol was -- in 2003,
which was the 2002/'003 budget. year, last year, was to give
two patrol officers, one civil officer. And that, again, is
for 2003 and '4, and then four patrol officers for 2004 and
8-i~-~~3 3~~oget [tiorks:~op
--. 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
,_„ 1 3
14
15
16
1?
18
19
2C
21
22
23
24
25
225
'5. That's what we got last year. Now, this is Sheriff`s
Office, not jail yet.
This is what staff they came up with that the
~ai1 should have, fulfilling all those duties, and how much
staff we needed, the multiplier by time off that all people
need and everything else to run it 24 hours a day. This is
a different department than any other department in this
county, 'cause it's 24 t-ours a day. This is what they
recommended we have: your jailers, one transport, one
booking, one clerk, one control room officer. Same thing
again. And then again the following -- the last year. Last
year, this Court did give us five additional jail positions,
and that was five out of the eight that it recommended. We
have tried -- as we talked about in the food bill and
everything else, we have cut it, and now we're going to
$180,000. It was, three years ago, $226,000, so I think
that's 546,000 we've c~zt. off that, and that's 'cause
employees and them are trying everything they can do. We
don't just blow our budget. We work at it the best we can
and we try and keep it down. In doinq so, the only way we
cou~d find to do that, of ccurse, y'a11 well know, 'cause I
come to you a lot with grants. "Let us apply for this, let
us apply for that." That's how we've upgraded a lot of our
operating and a lot of our equipment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is this a quiz?
~i-15-,~? Eud~~et Work: hod,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
l~
18
"~9
20
21
22
23
24
25
226
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. $748,173.16 is
what we've received ~n grants since January of 2000. That
does not include things such as a computer that we weren't
aiven money to go buy. I have that locator computer that I
came to y'a11 with, which helps put out the Amber Alerts and
that. We didn't know what the actual dollar amount -- I
didn't ever. include those in here. This is cash amount.
That's what was gotten for cur department before 2000,
January of 2000. I think our --
JUDGE TINLEY: What period of time does that
cover, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLIER: As far as I know, all
the way back, Judge. And I took office and said that's one
of the things we're going to do, and thank goodness, I got a
chief deputy that has a gift fcr gab on paper, and he's been
able to get us some darned good grants.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He said it, deputy.
We didn't say that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This bothers me, and I
know it probably bothers y'all. And I know you're going to
tell me that Commissioners Court duties are a whole lot more
than what the City Counci]_'s duties are. Correct, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I'm going to say a
lot more than that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
8-15-~3 Bun~et Wor}:sh~~
1
L
3
4
5
n
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
"1 n
17
18
~9
20
21
22
23
24
25
227
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is this? Is this
a salary?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a City
Councilman's salary compared to a County Commissioner's
salary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what is this
supposed to mean?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: City Councilmen are
elected, do the same thing you do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does this have to
do with your budget, though? I'm not following.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It has to do with
overall, but we'll get to a slide that shows an overall
budget, okay? Y'all may argue and you may -- I don't know;
you very well may do a whole lot more work -- I'm not trying
to get this personal -- than a City Councilman does. You
know, that may justify it, because of the duties and
committees and all that you have to be on.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have to stay
up --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I feel I do a whole lot
more work than the Chief of Police does, 'cause he doesn't
have a jail. But look at it on this side; it's just the
cpposite.
8-15-!)3 Bud~at i~]orkst~~op
1
2
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
228
COMMI:~SIONER BALDWIN: So what do you
recommend that we do to fix that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I mean, Buster, if it's
me personally while I'm in office, I'm not concerned, okay?
I'm not going to ask you to fix that. The positicn and the
responsibility that position has, and the position the
Sheriff has, it's not fair to a Sheriff. Up until --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go back to the other.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Ten years ago, the chief
deputy, as you remember -- and y'all fixed it that year,
Commissioner William: -- chief. deputy in the Sheriff's
Department was making more than the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gc back to the other
slide. I want to make one point for you.
SHERIFF HIL~RF~OLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With respect to that
particular chart, what you failed to take into account there
is that those five City Council people have a staff that
probably eats up $2 million worth of tax dollars every year
to do their job for them and make it easy for them to make
decisions. This Commissioners Court doesn't have a staff
that eats up $2 million worth of tax dollars. Now you can
go on to the next slide.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I won't argue that,
Commissioner, but I will say that this Commissioners Court
~-15-,,3 IIudg~t Cdorkshon
1
-- 2
3
4
5
e
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..._
25
229
has what -- the main thing, years ago, you used to see your
commissioner out there working on the roads. Now we have a
Road and Bridge, we have an engineer, we have all those type
people. All right? City staff has hired -- that would
really put more resp~~nsibility nn that City Councilman,
because they are -- they've got a City Manager, ar.d those
staff are hired, all right? Tc me, the City -- the County
Commissioners, most of the elected -- or most of the
department heads in this county are elected of=iciais. We
bear the responsibility. I do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next slide.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 2002/2003, Kerr County's
total budget was $16.3 million. We rounded off these
figures just to make it easier to understand. 2003/2004
requested budget, fr~,rn all the department heads combined,
was $400,000 less than. last year; it's $15.9 million. The
Judge's recommendation is 500 -- takes another $593,000 off
of that, bringing it to $15.3 million. Of that $593,000
additional cuts, $223,385 or 40 percent of it would come
from the Sheriff's Office and jail. Kerr County Jain
proposed budget, after you take out group insurance, would
be cut 4 percent. Kerr County Sheriff's Department proposed
budget, after you take out group insurance, would be cut
6 percent. Kerr Co~~~nty Commissioners Court budget --
proposed budget, after you take out insurance, is cut
~-15-03 Budget worksl~o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
_y
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
230
1 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what you're
proposing? Or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, these are just
points Lc pcnder. And, Thea, I don't mean anything
personally by this next one, but the way I look at our
salary line item, Kerr County Sheriff's Office deputies
starting salary $26,100. Nc pr.oposed increase. Kerr County
Commissioners Court secretary's current salary, $28,900 with
a $700 proposed increase.
MS. SOVIL: Rusty, I have a question. How
many years have I been here, and what is that proposed
increase for? Longevity.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm saying what's in the
budget.
MS. SOVIL: That's a longevity increase.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I told you I
didn't --
MS. SOVIL: How many years have I been here?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: = told you I didn't mean
anything personal.
MS. SOVIL: How many years have you been
here?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm going to be honest;
I'm going to be very honest. I don't think $26,000, less
-15-;- 3 nadget Ctio~ks:~op
1
2
4
5
231
than we pay some of our secretaries, is what we shculd be
paying officers that are putting their lives on the line
every time they put on a uniform and come to work. And I do
thank you for at least listening to me and not runnir_g me
out of here.
6
7
8
9
10
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Sheriff.
JUDGE TINLEY: That concludes the
presentations, and --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I'd like
11 to --
12
13 tcday.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
~3
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: -- items that we had for
COMMI:~S.IONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to make one
comment on the Sheriff's Department presentation -- Lwo.
One, I am very sympathetic with your concerns about what we
pay people. The second comment is that I read for the first
time the study of the staffing levels at the Sheriff's
Department you provided to me. That's the first time I'd
seen it, and I found it to be of no use. It's long on
rhetoric and short on facts. G1hen I got through reading it,
T coul_dn't tell if yos were understaffed or overstaffed.
So, that -- that's n~~t a very good argument. That's the
only two comments I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other -- any of you
-15- 3 Sucre` [^]o r:-cs}'~~p
1
2
3
4
5
6
-~
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
232
gentlemen have ccmments to make before we shut it down here
today?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Save them till later,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand adjourned, then,
for this session of the workshop.
(Budget workshop adjourned at 5:13 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 19th day of September,
2003.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy a ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
~-1~-03 Budget workshop