1 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 Tuesday, August 19, 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 "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 ,~ 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2? 29 2_` I N D E X August 19, 2003 PAGE Budget Workshops: County Clerk 3 Tax Assessor/Collector 21 District Clerk 30 Treasurer 58 Constable 1 82 Constable 2 112 Constable 3 117 Constable 9 123 J.P. 4 130 J.P. 3 140 J P 2 143 J.P. 1 147 DP5IDPS Weights 163 District Courts 166 Library 180 Information Technology 189 Adjourned 200 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 10:30 a.m., a budget workshop meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's call to order the budget workshop scheduled for today, Tuesday, August 19th, at 10:30 a.m. It's a couple of minutes after that hour now. The next item up for consideration is the budget of the County Clerk, and I find that on -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 5. JUDGE TINLEY: Page 5, correct. Ms. Pieper, good morning. MS. PIEPER: Good morning. I have made some cuts in this, and then the Judge made some cuts in it, and I will try to work within those cuts. Can you not hear me? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you pull it a little closer, I can. MS. PIEPER: Okay. Do you -- is there any particular line item that you have questions on, or do we want to go down the list, or how do you want to work it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably down the list. MS. PIEPER: Okay. Of course, the -- all the salaries, on the deputy's salary, I have one employee that N 19 U3 wk 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 had resigned, and trying to work within the budget, knowing the County's budget, I am not replacing that deputy. And it's going to put more work on other deputies, so -- but within the last couple of weeks, it's working out okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that recommended for next year as well? Or just through this -- M5. PIE PER: No, for next year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me interject, if I might, and -- and, as Ms. Pieper indicated, that there's going to be a change in her position schedule for this coming year in connection with her budget, and I suspect there may be some other officials that have modifications or changes in their position schedules because of -- of action that they take in connection with their office. And each of these officials, when their budget is -- is considered and -- and if there's a different position schedule that's going to be utilized, it needs to be furnished to the County Treasurer. Probably the best thing to do would be for each elected official or department head to present their position schedule for the coming year to the County Treasurer so that we'll have that complete when we adopt the entire budget, because that's the Court's -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I understand, Ms. Pieper. The current budget was for 246,000. d-19-U3 wk 5 ,~-~ ..~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You requested 258, and the 258 includes one less position? MS. PIEPER: No, sir, that was prior to -- to her -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. MS. PIEPER; -- resigning. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I applaud your efforts to -- to improve productivity. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that would mean the recommended 236,620 is -- MS. PIEPER: Is accurate, yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I guess I want to follow up a little bit on Dave's comment. Is there -- you know, because of this change, you're increasing the responsibility, and hence the position of, you know, a number of your people? MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dividing up the workload, and then basically -- MS. PIEPER: And then I'm taking some of the workload as well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many deputies did you have? MS. PIEPER: 13. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 13. And you're going to 12? fl-19-n3 wk 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. PIEPER: Mm-hmm, with one part-time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm down to Notices, if anybody's ready to go there. I got a quick question. It appears that you have doubled the amount for notices, and I'm assuming that's for the platting procedures and replats and -- and what else? M5. PIEPER; That's it. Just for the subdivisions. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MS. PIEPER: Revisions on them that we have to send out certified letters and notices to the newspaper. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And I think -- that's my comment; I think that's very wise, what you've done. Because even though we talk about building slowing down in Kerr County, I don't see it anywhere. That there just continues to -- wherever I look, there's something going on, so I think it's wise that we gear up for it. Otherwise, again, I applaud -- this is a good-looking - good-looking budget. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. JUDGE TINLEY: I was very pleased with the cooperation that Ms. Pieper gave me in working with me on the preparation of the recommendations that we jointly came up with. We -- there was considerable discussion, and this was, likewise, done with a number of the other elected b-19-0? wk 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 officials and department heads, and I'm really, really pleased with the cooperation and the assistance that I got, especially in view of the fact that this was my first rodeo, as it were, and I found it a much easier and pleasant process, and I thank her and applaud her for it. MS. PIEPER: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a quick question on Software Maintenance, Jannett. You've reduced it significantly, and I guess that's because you anticipate fewer problems? Or you've got new software and -- or whatever? MS. PIEPER: That is for the -- The Software Group out of Plano. And, by going on their figures that they provided me that they were going to charge me, and the way their -- they have refigured -- they used to charge me per image station, and now they just charge us a flat fee, and it doesn't matter how many. Therefore, the rates actually went down. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. Thank you. Looks good. MS. PIEPER: And have I no wish list on this particular budget. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, we going to do the -- the elections budget also? MS. PIEPER: Excuse me? £~-19-' 3 w}: 8 ~~ ,~ 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The elections budget. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, that's her budget also. If we're ready to move on to that. MS. PIEPER: The only question I have is on my Books, Publications, and Dues. It was decreased from $600 to $450, but it's my understanding that we will be taking some of our new books, after the laws change and they get rewritten, out of the Law Library? JUDGE TINLEY: I think we always -- when we have the session laws and the new pocket parts, of course, those are taken out of the Law Library. MS. PIEPER: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: At least one set. Now, I don't know -- there are certain -- probably some specialized volumes that you try and maintain in your office, for obvious reasons, and certainly you need to be able to acquire those. And if -- if your knowledge of what those are -- if the amount allocated there is not going to be enough to acquire those, why, we probably need to -- it would be helpful if we knew about that. MS. PIEPER: I'm not real sure the price of them. A lot of my publications and books and stuff I've been getting off-line, and searching online, so there's not going to be a whole lot of books I need, so I think this may cover it, but I'm not for sure. F' i s- U j w 4' 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, we'll do the best we can. If there's something that you need in order to discharge the duties of your office that's not covered here, why, we'll work and try to find out a way to get it. MS. PIEPER: Okay. Do we want to go to the Election budget? Which is on Page 9, I believe. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett, how long have you had the machines that we're using right now? MS. PIEPER: About seven years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're -- I mean, they're still in good shape? MS. PIEPER: Well, we're still using them. I'll use them until we can no longer use them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just trying to -- from a long-term standpoint, are we looking at a couple more years of life? MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five or more years, maybe a couple more years, so we can probably get through, obviously, the primary and the next general election? MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then -- MS. PIEPER: I get them maintained once a year, and then they -- if there's a problem, you know, something broke, needs to be fixed, then they will note it 8-19-03 w}: 10 ,~-~ ,~'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at this point and fix them. But I get them serviced before each big election. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. PIEPER: But a lot of it depends on the humidity and -- and all that as to how the machines are going to run, and only God can control that. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you started looking at where you may wan*_ to go in the future? MS. PIEPER: I know by 2006, I have to have D.R.E. machines, and one in each polling location. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By what year? MS. PIEPER: 2006. So, I'm working on that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What type of machines? MS. PIEPER: There called D.R.E. It's just a machine that's A.D.A.-compliant, that a blind person or handicapped person or whatever can use. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just something that we just need to -- it's going to be a pretty big-ticket item, I suspect. MS. PIEPER: It will be, but Kerr County can apply for a $52,000 grant that would help us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. MS. PIEPER: And that may get 12 or 13 machines. Of course, we have 21 precincts, so -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just something to be ~-~~-o~ wr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2U 21 22 23 24 25 11 thinking of during this year when we start doing long-range -- some long-range planning on that. MS. PIEPER: 1 think the only line item here that has increased is my 457, on my signs, because I need to buy some new "vote here" signs. That is a requirement by law that we have them. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the ballot expense -- I mean, I see it as basically the same as last year. MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that enough, with the primary and general election? MS. PIEPER: I believe it will be, but we've always got our Election Expense that we can pull from if we need to. And that will also -- before March, I have to get 42 new ballot boxes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. PIEPER: And then that is also going to be included for the emergency service districts, should we have an election on that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And this is an area that I feel pretty strongly, we need to make sure we adequately fund this, 'cause this is the basic -- that's why we're all here. Looks good. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any questions about the Elections budget? Let's go to Records a 19-03 wk 12 .~-~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Management, which is on Page 7, I believe. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks good. MS. PIEPER: On this one, the changes would be the office supplies, which it was decreased to $1,200 from $1,500, and Machine Repair; that was decreased from $500 to $300. That's the only changes on that budget. JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody got any questions on the Records Management? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks good. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. M5. PIEPER: Okay. On my Records Management that we only use that fee for records management -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. MS. PIEPER: On that one, I have requested one file cabinet with a lock for my juvenile cases, and it's by law, we have to have the locks on them, and they have to stay locked when we're not using them. And then two computers, one for my birth terminal and one for my Records Department. And then I need to get some -- replace some I plat envelopes. Some of them are just so old and distorted that our plats are falling out of them. JUDGE TINLEY: Were those the items that we discussed, Ms. Pieper, that aggregate approximately $4,560? MS. PIEPER: Yes. d-19 03 wk 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If the Commissioners will turn to Page 94, that's the separate Records Management account that Ms. Pieper referred to. As she indicated, that particular account is only -- can only be utilized for given purposes, and I believe the items which she mentioned fall under that, do they not, Ms. Pieper? MS. PIEPER: Yes, this does. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which -- what is that, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- look on Page 94. It's 28-635. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, looking on here, I don't see what she's talking about here, either. Where -- where are these? MS. PIEPER: For every document that is filed, there's a $5 charge on it. That money is put into a separate line item and can only be used for records management. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, mm-hmm. MS. PIEPER: And that's what I would like to take. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It comes out of here into here? MS. PIEPER: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. What's the e-i9-u= wk 14 r^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 problem? Have you ever -- have we thought any more about indexing? MS. PIEPER: Indexing? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MS. PIEPER: I'm indexing everything. I don't understand your question. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cross-referencing? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. We have an indexing problem. If -- if you go into your computers and start looking for a particular issue, many times you find it, many times you don't, because it's indexed, in my opinion, in a funny way. MS. PIEPER: Depends on -- a lot on who's indexing it and their way of thinking also. We try to index multiple different ways. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. And I -- I guess that's good, but isn't there -- surely there's got to be a program out there that has strict guidelines of a way that you would index a -- that you could get specific. MS. PIEPER: No. We have 254 counties, and I guarantee you, there's 254 ways that they're done. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we have almost that many down at your class, but it's incredible. Okay, just wondering. I know we had that conversation before. e-i9-o3 wr_ 15 n 1 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. PIEPER: We do have a two-page sheet of what we call "codes," and if -- we try to fit them in one of those without trying to make the index too long. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, I've been fairly successful, but at times it -- you really get bogged down trying to find a simple piece of information. It's just difficult sometimes. Anyway, okay. Whatever. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jannett, I missed the first part of the discussion. What was the reason for not expending any more than you did out of current budget of $44,000, of the Records Management? If I'm looking at that correctly. MS. PIEPER: What do you mean, for not expending more? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's $44,800 budgeted, and you've reduced that down to $4,500 for next year. MS. PIEPER: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm on Page 94. MS. PIEPER: That is a fund that's just sitting there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. PIEPER: So we don't -- we -- whenever I need something for records management, we pull from that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. A-19-03 wk 16 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. PIEPER: And so that sits there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That takes care of it, thank you. MS. PIEPER: I'd like to bring up another proposed fee that we can do to utilize more money. There's new legislation that`s designed to preserve archival records, and which, of course, I have tons of them. And by doing this, it would have an additional $5 charge on the documents filed, and this would only be for an eight-year period. But I would like to utilize that as well, to start doing that, but in order t_o do that, we'll have to have Commissioners Court approval, do a public hearing, and then I have to post the -- the fees in the office. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much additional revenue do you think would it bring you? MS. PIEPER: Just a very quick -- rough figures, it can be -- this fee can be set up to $5, so if we do the whole $5, based on some of last year's figures, it would be $62,780. But I have old records from the 1800's and early 1900's that L cannot scan, I cannot film; I have to literally keep the paper. And some of the books are so old and have turned so brown, and if you touch the pages, they will crumble, and I need to send those off and get those deacidified and preserved, and that's what this money would go for. 8 19 03 w}; 17 r^ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you're going to ask the Court at a future date to approve that? MS. PIEPER: It has to be approved in this budget, and then I would start collecting that fee as of September 1. And then, once that kind of generates a little bit, then we can start using it for that. And then, once I get all the records done, this fee would be deleted by law as of 2008, I believe is the -- yes, September 1, 2008, it will expire. But then, because of my other records management, then I can maintain my records with that fund. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jannett, where is it generated from? Filing a paper? Explain that a little bit. MS. PIEPER: Filing documents, deeds, mortgages. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Filing documents. And how much -- if I go in and file a deed today, how much do you charge me? MS. PIEPER: page, $2 for each additiona COMMISSIONER there'd be a flat $5 on top MS. PIEPER: COMMISSIONER Riqht now, it's $9 for the first L page. BALDWIN: And -- and then of that $9? Yes. BALDWIN: Or whatever the total might be? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a pure user 8-19-03 w4; 18 .^^~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 fee. MS. PIEPER: Yes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like user fees too, but I am a little bit_ hesitant -- you know, I'm not sure if that's too much or not, but it just seems like that -- that's a pretty good hit on a small item like that. MS. PIEPER: If we don't utilize this, then it will take much longer to get the records preserved. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I understand. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it is important that you preserve those old records. MS. PIEPER: Yes. I have some books now that they're extremely bad, and we have them put back, and hopefully the general public doesn't see them. We're literally, basically, hiding the books so that they can't open a page, because they will fall apart. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, how do we do that? How do we -- it wouldn't be a separate agenda item. It just -- we nod our heads today and build that $5 fee into the budget, and then when we approve the budget, we approve that $5 fee? Or -- MS. PIEPER: We have to have a public hearing first. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, there's a public 8-'y-03 wk 19 s^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hearing? DODGE TINLEY: I would think that, probably, the -- the more complete way to approach it would be to have it as a separate agenda item and post it right along with the public hearing on the budget as a separate item. Just run them in tandem, as it were, so that we clearly are identifying this as being a fee that's being considered in connection with the coming year's budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you 100 percent. And you could -- you could do the -- the public hearing right along with the budget public hearing as well. DODGE TINLEY: I think you'd have to do a separate public hearing, but -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I mean side-by-side. JUDGE TINLEY: -- you'd clearly be disclosing that it's to be utilized in connection with this coming year's budget, and as a part of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, is it a possibility that there might be other fee adjustments and -- not necessarily Jannett's, but perhaps for the District Clerk or -- or other places where we would have to do the same thing? DODGE TINLEY: There is an additional -- one you were speaking of was an archival fee. There's another 9-15-03 wk 20 .~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 records management or records preservation fee that -- that would allow the District Clerk to obtain a $5 fee for herself on cases filed, an additional $5 fee to preserve for her own benefit in her records management. MS. PIEPER: That could be. This -- this Senate Bill 1731, it doesn't state District Clerks, so I'm not for sure if that -- you know, if she's got a different one. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there's another bill, and I brought it to the attention of the District Clerk yesterday, I believe it was, for consideration. Whether or not that one requires a public hearing or not, I don't recall, but I brought that to her attention yesterday, and I suspect we may hear about that when we talk to her later on today, I guess. I believe -- is she on the agenda for later on? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: She is. JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect that we'll talk to her about that then. MS. PIEPER: Is there any more questions? JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor has a question. MR. TOMLINSON: Not a question, but just a comment, that the -- the records management fee that you all just discussed actually is available to any -- any office in 3-1a-03 wk zl r-~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the county. That's -- that fee is a -- is a county records management fee, and so any office in the county that has -- has a need for records management can use that fund. MS. PIEPER: That's good, because everybody will need to maintain their records. MR. TOMLINSON: And there is -- there is surplus in that -- ~n that fund. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just amazed that the State doesn't get a little cut out of the deal. They missed that one. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Pieper. MS. PIEPER: You're welcome. JUDGE TINLEY: The next item that we have is the Tax Assessor/Collector. And I believe we're on Page 38, if I'm not mistaken. Good morning. MS. RECTOR: Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: How are you, Ms. Rector? MS. RECTOR: I'm good. JUDGE TINLEY: Are there any particular things about your proposed budget that you've got any strong feelings about one way or the other? MS. RECTOR: I think just in those areas that I saw some slight cuts, those I can live with. I tried to be as exact as I could, and I know some of the line items kind of stand out at everybody this year because of the mass 8-19-U3 w}: 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 mailout of the voter cards and because of the 9-1-1 situation that I'm going to have to do some double mailing on, but I have no choice on those. JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate Ms. Rector. When we went over her budget, she was very careful to point out these extraordinary items and to justify where she was asking for those increases, and she had her math done and she had it done very meticulously, and as fast as I work my pencil, I couldn't keep up with her. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She is a Tivy graduate. MS. RECTOR: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: But I appreciate her cooperation, and -- MS. RECTOR: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: -- and giving me the benefit of the knowledge and information that I needed in order to try and make what I thought were appropriate recommendations in her particular case. Anybody got any questions of Ms. Rector? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have a question. And, really, I don't know -- I forgot to ask Jannett the same thing as to Conference line item. The -- you can get the hours that you're required to with what you've budgeted and meet all requirements? a-i~-u3 wk 23 ~~-^ 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. RECTOR: Hopefully. Hopefully. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And I'm looking at it. It appears -- and I have no problem with doing this, but that we are setting different conference items for position based on actual need, as opposed to the flat, you know, $900, $1,000 a person. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have a problem doing that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think that's the right way to do it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, absolutely. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we each -- different elected officials and department heads have different obligations and different requirements, and some of them definitely need to be there, so I don't -- and different things. MS. RECTOR: One of the things that the legislators did to me this year, among the many, are Chapter 19 funds -- which funded one of our conferences during the summer, and it funded it 100 percent. They are going to be taking all 254 counties' Chapter 19 funds away from them for a year in hopes to purchase a new statewide system, so that conference will no longer be funded by Chapter 19 for this upcoming year. But -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good thing. a i9-oa wx 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 Isn't that a good thing? MS. RECTOR; That they're taking our Chapter 19? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That they're building a new system. MS. RECTOR: We11, yes. But in part of that legislation, we wanted some -- some clarification that that would come back to us the following year and not be something that went away forever. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MS. RECTOR: So, we were not happy until they put that in there. JUDGE TINLEY going to be temporary? MS. RECTOR: Do you think that's truly That's yet to be seen. I guess we'll know in a year. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You have that concern, though, I'm sure. MS. RECTOR: Of course, yes. Because we do use those funds for other things than just this particular conference. For equipment -- we can buy computers, printers that enhance our Voter Registration department. It cannot be used for anything else. It can't be -- you can't buy furniture, desks, that type of thing; that's a County responsibility. But anything that would enhance voter B -19-!'3 wk zs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2D 21 22 23 24 25 registration, we use those funds for. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks good. Clean and -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the amount budgeted for deputies' salaries, is that based on the same number of deputies for this budget as the budget -- MS. RECTOR: Yes, nothing has changed in the salary schedule that I submitted. It looks like that's the exact figure, less the COLA. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: It includes all the longevity and -- MS. RECTOR: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: -- educational increases that -- MS. RECTOR: And some of the adjustments. JUDGE TINLEY: -- we made a commitment for back, what, four years ago now? MS. RECTOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks good. JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER LETZ: A question, but it's probably more really to Tommy, as opposed to Paula. Why is Software Maintenance down across the community, so many departments? MR. TOMLINSON: I think she has -- in the Tax 8-:9-0? wk 26 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 Office, there was an extra payment for some -- for some reason. Just -- MS. RECTOR: I think it was last budget year, Tommy, they missed one of the quarterly payments. And they -- MR. TOMLINSON: I think for actual this year, we've made five payments -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MR. TOMLINSON: -- for some reason. And I -- so, I mean, they're -- according to their information, they did not change. MS. RECTOR: Mine did not change this year; it remained the same. COMMISSIONER LETZ: More a payment issue, when payments are made, as opposed to change. Thank you. MS. RECTOR: Anything else? JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Observations? Comments? Thank you, Ms. Rector. We appreciate your cooperation. MS. RECTOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: While you're here, this is -- you mentioned 9-1-1. MS. F.ECTOR: Go ahead, Jonathan. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This isn't a budget issue, really. It's more as to how -- are you just going to R 19-0? wk. z~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just -- how are you going to do the -- or work with the 9-1-1? How is that going to affect your office and how you're going to handle it? MS. RECTOR: That's going to affect my office tremendously, because everything we do is mailings, whether it's tax statements, voter registration cards, vehicle registration. The problem that I have, and why that part of my budget was so much higher, was because of the time frame that the Post Office put on 9-1-1 -- it was not actually 9-1-1 -- when they were going to implement the new 9-1-1 addresses. Voter registration cards, by law, have to be mailed in December. I was hoping that 9-1-1 and the Post Office could coordinate it enough to where I could scoot myself into January and still get my mailing done without the State coming back to me and saying, "You're not complying; you're not in December like you should be." But they moved it to February. Well, we've got a March primary. We have a cutoff date. We've got the confirmation cards that have to go out. So, there was just not enough time in that. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you have to do basically a double mailing? MS. RECTOR: And that would be out-of-the-county -- I mean out-of-the-city people -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. R-'_9-U3 wk 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 MS. RECTOR: -- we'd be mailing to. And then on the tax statement end of it, next year, hopefully, we'll get all the new 9-1-1 addresses in place, working with the Post Office, and get the taxpayers' addresses all changed, as well as vehicle registration. And it's going to be a mess for a couple years until we get it all in line. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is, I guess, related, because you sit on the Appraisal Soard as well. How connected, through the computer and -- you know, are the different databases in your office and Appraisal District? I'm thinking as we're talking about -- septic comes up a lot, as to being able to track where things are using existing databases as opposed to trying to reinvent the wheel. MS. RECTOR: Well, we run off the same type of system that they do, and I have a tie into their mainframe in my office. So, as they update, then the supplemental corrections come to me, and it's just loaded onto our system and makes all the necessary corrections. Sometimes they're not as frequent as would I like, but in the future, we're hoping to go to a one-unit system where the Appraisal District and the Tax Office both share one system and share all their data back and forth, where we would not have to be doing things by tape and getting onto their computer and looking and tryinq to figure out what an N-19-03 wM: 29 1 .-~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appraiser had done and the notes in there, trying to make out their notes. And that's kind of where we're looking to in the next few years, is to move off of our current system onto a more shared system with the Appraisal District. COMMISSIONER LETZ: As you all do that in your office, 'cause your office probably has -- I mean, from a records and data standpoint, working with a lot of our county residents, the more we can get, you know, one computer system that everyone can talk to, the better, even if it takes some expenditure. If we can get 9-1-1 to be able to talk to your office, be able to talk to the Appraisal District, to be able to talk to other government entities, I see a huge plus to the public. MS. R.ECTOR.: Well, I think with the new system that I'm looking at -- it's a Windows-based -- most things will be done via Internet, so it would -- there'd be a lot more access from outside entities to get to the information that's allowed by law for them to view. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm glad to hear that's the direction that y'all are going. MS. RECTOR: Well, the school district, K.I.S.D „ is already moving over to this system; they're goinq to be training this next week, and I'm going to be sitting in on the training. I've already looked at the package, both the appraisal district package and the 8 19-03 wk 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 collection package, and Software Group is moving to Windows-based, but it's going to be a big expense to the County for me to move over to that. And I think if we coordinate it just right, we're not going to be spending -- I think we'll be spending less money in moving to an entirely different system than to try to move to the Windows-based environment that Software's coming up with. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, good. Thanks for the update. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. MS. RECTOR: Anything else? JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: Moving right along, we have the Dis trict Clerk. MS. UECKER: Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: I believe you can find her budget on Page 23. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 23. JUDGE TINLEY: 23, correct. MS. UECKER: I don't know what your procedure is. Do you want me to go over everything? Or -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me about your deputy clerks' salary. What's going on with all that? MS. UECKER: Okay. What happened, as all of fl-13-^3 wk 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 you know, Simona Garza retired, and at some point after that, she had made a decision that she thought she might want to come back, and I came back and the Court approved her rehire. But after thinking about it more, I kind of -- I think I convinced her that that would not be of great benefit to her. So -- but she is going to remain part-time. So, when Judge Tinley asked me not to fill that position, I said I could -- I would agree to do that; try it for a year and let's see, based on the fact that Simona was going to work part-time for me for at least the next year. So, I've talked to her, and she said as far as she knows, you know, unless something happens, she wants to continue to work part-time. Therefore, I agreed, based on that, that I would not fill that open position, at the request of the Judge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many would -- is -- with what your deputy numbers are now, you're going from 13 positions? Or how many positions do you have right now? MS. UECKER: I've got seven. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seven to six, or eight to seven? MS. DECKER: Eight to seven. Plus a part-time now. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You see some additional part-time as a result of that, though, not filling that position? 8-19- iii wk 32 ,~-~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. UECKER: Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER LETZ: As part of that process, are you going to be increasing responsibility to some of the others and they'll be moving up? MS. UECKER: Yes, I have to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. MS. UECKER: As a matter of fact, I'm seriously considering going to a 10-hour day, 4-day workweek to accommodate some of that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How neat. MS. UECKER: Well, you know, there's a lot you can get done in two hours a day when the office is closed or you don't have to answer the phone. So, it'll be, you know, kind of a test program for a month or so, to see how it works, and as soon as I get the legislative changes done, I'm going to try to implement that and see how that works. The staff has agreed that they'd love to try it. They want to do it. So -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a technique that's been used for quite a long time in industry, and there are lots of advantages to it, to the employee and to the employer. MS. UECKER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Productivity. MS. UECKER: If you can come in at 7:00, 5-19-03 w4: 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 leave at 6:00, and have a day a week off, the biggest problem's going to be determining who gets which day. That's where the cat fight's going to be for me. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your office can stay open still five days a week; you just have a rotating staff? MS. UECKER: Yes, still be open 8:00 to 5:00 for the public, five days a week. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Typically, it reduces overtime, if you have overtime. From the employee's point of view, it reduces commuting time; they're only on the road four days a week instead of five. It's a win-win, usually. MS. UECKER: Yeah, it is. I'm going to try it. I've been talking about it for a couple of years now, but I think I'm to the point where I'm going to do it. And this open position kind of forced my hand on it, so I think it's going to work well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. JUDGE TINLEY: Here again, I want to thank Ms. Uecker for being very forthright and forthcoming with the information about her office and cooperating with me in my trying to work up a set of recommendations for her budget, and I -- I think the end result is -- as you ~ 1 9 U 3 w k 34 1 ,.-. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 /'^ 25 gentlemen can see, is -- is a benefit for all concerned. There's one other item that we discussed that probably has some degree of importance that I suspect she's probably in a position to want to talk to us about today, and that has to do with her records and maybe doing some additional things on the one hand and eliminating some others on the other hand. And, for the Court's consideration, that would be in the area of Capital Outlay. And, as I have told the Court and told Ms. Uecker at the time that we were discussing her budget, that any Capital Outlay items, with the exception of Road and Bridge, were going to be matters that would be presented to the Court on a case-by-case basis. Tell us -- tell us what you've got cooking there, Ms. Uecker. MS. UECKER: I thought I had sent everyone that, and I hope I didn't leave that upstairs. My luck, I probably did. But, basically, what has happened is, my camera that we do all of our microfilming on is -- you know, those are -- to replace, are, like, anywhere between $15,000 and $20,000, plus the maintenance, which is terrible. And I'm at the point now where I need to replace that, so we're looking at another $20,000. So, by -- if we image and pay that one-time license fee, which is $16,000, not $20,000 -- I went back and checked my notes -- which includes the 8-19 u3 wk 1 r... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 35 license and the training and the hardware, the way I (Mr. Tomlinson nodded.) DODGE TINLEY: That's all included in the 16? MS. UECKER: That's all included in the includes 100 percent of that -- the salary going toward the microfilm. It includes a new camera, which, with my experience, they've had about a seven-year life span. Maintenance and supplies, about $3,000 a year. Unexposed film, $200. And the processing, which includes the diazo duplicate and the original for storage, about $1,260. Now, there's two other options that we can take here. Option 1 would be to reduce the salary to about 90 percent by preparing our documents -- and we've decided that this isn't actually maybe the way to go -- by preparing our documents, the originals, after that case is final, after the judgment is final, 30 days after it's signed, sending it by UPS to Precision Micrographics in Austin. They film it, make the duplicate, and have the original documents and our duplicate for use in the office back within no more than four days. It's all done, so at that point we just have to index it, and that saves the actual microfilm. That would cost about H-19-03 wk 1 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 $4,500 a year to do that, based on previous numbers of microfilm. No camera needed. That would reduce the $35,000 to $29,000, almost $30,000. Then we've come up with Option 3, and this is what Judge Tinley and I discussed; that if we opt into the imaging system, which the figure's going to be less here; $16,000 divided by, say, 10 years for maybe the life of a scanner would be $2,000. Actually be less, because that would only be a one-time license fee. Then the TSG maintenance on that imaging system is $800. Isn't that what you told me on your imaging? Okay. Of course, at this point, we could cut that salary to between 50 and 60 percent -- probably 60, because we're not doing as much of the microfilming, which brings that down to $16,000. She could be out doing other things, which she's doing now anyway, which she's kind of behind on -- on the image -- I mean the microfilming. The unprocessed film, you know, the things I would need to consider -- I mean, what I want to continue doing is still microfilming by sending those documents to Precision Micrographics, but they don't have to be addressed. We'd use them for backup only. Microfilm is still the only real, true, permanent record. State Library considers imaging a permanent record, but it's really not, because they have to be rewritten every 10 years. So, for e i9-~~3 wti 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 37 the sake of the County records, I would still continue to microfilm, but what I mean by "addressing," they wouldn't have to be indexed in the general viewing index. They wouldn't have to have -- you know, the outside of the microfilm would just say records from January 1 to this date. And the reason for that is, you know, if we have a fire, all the images are gone, something happens to the backup tapes, we do have this little tape back here that has all of the images on it. I mean -- yeah, the microfilm images. None of it would be addressed, but in that emergency, we'd still have the option of going through there and finding all the cases and readdressing them, and maybe even reimaging. 'Cause you can do that from a 35-millimeter film; you can transfer it to magnetic tape, and from there back to images. So, considering that option, that brings the $35,000 that we're doing now down to $24,000. JUDGE TINLEY: The additional thing that I think is attractive about going to the imaging, in my mind, is the labor savings that you have in handling all these documents when you're doing your own microfilming, or even if you're outsourcing the actual filming, dealing with the indexing and so forth, because the documents you would work from are -- are readily available, and you wouldn't have all this additional labor in primarily the indexing -- MS. UECKER: Yes. 6-1a-~i3 w4: 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 38 JUDGE TINLEY: -- of the microfilm product when you get that bark, as they're doing now. Number one, it would be -- it would be available to the public more quickly, because it would actually be available when it's actually filed. MS. DECKER: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: It would be into the system. And, secondly, over the long haul, you're going to save some -- some labor costs that are going to get involved in what she's doing now, that she would otherwise have. MS. DECKER: And one of the more attractive options, to me, here is that an image created from -- from the scanning is a much better copy, although, you know, microfilm is pretty good. And when you pull up the case on the computer, rather than going into the index to find the cartridge number and the frame number, and then going and pulling the cartridge, putting it in a machine, you just -- as you're -- while you're in that case, you go to images and decide what you want and pull it up; there it is. If you want to make a copy of it, you print it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this is -- I mean, this was in your long-range plan two years ago. MS. DECKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is nothing new, and I think it's something that -- the direction that the Court a ~~ u~ wF_ 39 ,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 was aware that pretty much all departments are going -- MS. UECKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- in this direction. And we needed to do it piecemeal a little bit. MS. UECKER: True, but we hadn't actually put a -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, you have the numbers. MS. UECKER: -- cost comparison to it until now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: In your summary, you lost me a little bit as you were going through. MS. UECKER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I visited with you once about outsourcing most of it to Austin. So, you're looking at doing kind of a combination of getting -- doing it internally, and then sending it up there for the microfilming portion? MS. UECKER: Yeah, just that backup film, rather than doing it ourselves. What that -- what that does is that eliminates the need for a camera completely. Right now, I've got three reader-printers. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. UECKER: I can probably eliminate two of those right now. A 19-OS wk 90 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So we don't start replacing them. The licensing -- is that licensed by the County or by -- MS. UECKER: I think it's by office. COMMISSIONER LETZ: By office? MS. PIEPER: I think so. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They get you coming and going. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Linda, that would require a capital expenditure of what, now? MS. UECKER: The imaging system, which is the $16,000 for one. Now, the way I understand it -- and the Auditor knows more about this, but if I were to require or ask for two scanners, would that require another license? MR. TOMLINSON: No. MS. DECKER: Okay. So -- you know, and I think I -- I talked to the Judge and mentioned to him that we are seeing some increase in filings; vexatious filings, in my opinion, before tort reform takes effect. So, I mean, the larger counties are just bombarded with, you know, these people suing Jesus Christ and George Washington, and we haven't seen quite that yet, but there are some cases that are -- would not be able to be filed under tort reform. The other -- okay, what other questions did you have? 8 1~-OS wk 41 I I r"` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have a total Capital Outlay figure required for that? MS. DECKER: I'm sorry, for the imaging? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. MS. DECKER: Yes. I think I had actually sent it to you at one time, but I can -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's the same -- sounds like the one in your proposal is a little bit different than that, unless I was -- that's not the one I'm maybe thinking of. MS. DECKER: Yes, mm-hmm. This was done after my original budget figures were turned in. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me, if I might, before -- before I forget it, if you'll go to Page 2 of her budget, something got on the wrong line. MS. DECKER: Oh, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: When the budget was being prepared. Line 569, that should be -- in the last two columns, it should read $600 and $600, as I -- MS. DECKER: Yes. That's for the two PC printers. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, those are two small printers. Those are less than $1,000 expenditures. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8-19-03 wY. r^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 42 JUDGE TINLEY: The $2,600 was originally picked up in the -- out of the Capital Outlay item that she was requesting in her budget for another big printer, and that's -- if any explanation is needed how that figure got in there, that's how it got there. But -- MS. UECKER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is it? 26 is out and what's in? Six? JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think she still wants the 26, if I'm not -- plus the -- MS. UECKER: 600. JUDGE TINLEY: We11, plus -- you know, we're talking about the imaging system too, part and parcel of Capital Outlay, but the $2,600 would be under her requested Capital Outlay, in addition to any request for imaging equipment or the system on that. MS. UECKER: And the $2,600, that is for a PaySmart printer, one like the Auditor has in their office. And the reason for that is, anytime we're printing these indexes, you know, as often as need be, we have to do it -- send it to the Tax Office. The way their documents are lined up is not like ours, so we have to get it relined up. And we have to watch it, because sometimes it goes off-line, which -- I mean, they're kind enough to do it for us, but if I start a job at, say, 5 o'clock because they're using it d-19-03 wk 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 for something else, it may be way off-line by the next morning, 'cause it takes several hours. 'Cause one printing is usually a half a box of paper for the indexes, for -- we print separate indexes for criminal, civil, tax, and family. And they have to be done periodically; actually, oftener than what I'm doing now, but it's so inconvenient that -- and, you know, I -- I appreciate Paula's office letting us do that down there, but it does need to be watched so it doesn't go off-line. And this way, we could print it, you know, while we continue to do our work, 'cause there's somebody sitting right next to it. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- both on this printer, if we approve that, and also on the imaging system, would the printer be compatible, so that if Paula had an emergency and hers went down, she could use yours? MS. UECKER: Yes, mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And imaging, the same thing? MS. UECKER: Be systems printers. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But with the imaging also, if there was a problem with yours, you could use Jannett's short-term? MS. UECKER: Yeah. I can send -- I can send the job down to Jannett's printer right now. As a matter of fact, sometimes that happens and something ends up printing 8-19-u3 wk ,~^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 on your printer. You go, "I didn't do that." Of course, it's usually, you know -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- we need to make sure that everything is, you know -- MS. PIEPER: We get stuff from the jail every morning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. MS. UECKER: 'Cause they select the wrong printer or enter the wrong PTR number or whatever. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Specifically, on the Capital Outlay, you're requesting the $2,600 for the big printer? MS. UECKER: Yeah, the PaySmart printer. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And what are you requesting total for the imaging system? I assume you're requesting it? MS. UECKER: Yes. Be the $16,000. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, you're going to try it with one scanner? MS. UECKER: I'm going to try it. I'd like to try it with one scanner. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. UECKER: Hopefully, with reducing her time to, you know, the 60 percent, she can use the other 60 (sic) for doing the scanning. What we would need to -- I 8-14-03 wk i"~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 don't think we'd have to do anything. I think I've already made that adjustment on the maintenance contracts, because I've already -- last year I eliminated two of the maintenance contracts on the printers -- the reader-printers. 'Cause they don't -- you know, they don't need attention that often, and it was cheaper to just have them come and fix it, and then pay for whatever expense that was. But this year, if we eliminate the maintenance contract on the camera, that would cover -- we'd come up about the same as far as the maintenance on the imaging system. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The funds for the imaging system, can they come from Records Management, or are they coming from -- MS. UECKER: They can, yes. There's two Records Management funds for the county right now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. MS. UECKER: One of them is the fee that the County Clerk collects to be used for records management only in her office, and that's been probably, what, 10 years, Jannett? MS. PIEPER: A while. MS. UECKER: A while. Then the other fee that I collect for records preservation -- do you collect that one too, or not? I don't think so. But another e-1G-u3 wk ,~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 records preservation -- records preservation fee that I collect is for use by the whole county, including the Commissioners Court, the Sheriff, whoever. I talked to the Auditor last week, and he tells me that there is $37,000 in that right now. $5,000 of that was approved by this Court last year for me to -- on the real, real old 1800's documents that we're having acid-washed and put in mylar sleeves. I think I brought one and showed it to you. That will be spent before the end of the year. He's coming to get them either this week or next week, and they go to New Jersey, actually. And maybe Mr. Williams could take them up there for us. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a possibility. MS. DECKER: Okay. Well -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll talk. MS. DECKER: And I would request another $5,000 next year. And I told the Judge, I think in about three more years, I'll have all of those documents encased where they can be preserved forever, including an 1863 -- 1860 original Sam Houston signature, so -- which I -- right now, I've got in a picture frame. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if I understand you correctly, the $16,000 comes out of Records Management? MS. DECKER: That would be up to this Court. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. A-19-OS w}: 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L 1 22 23 24 25 MS. UECKER: You know, if it's there. Now, I don't know if the Sheriff or some of the other offices are requesting any of that money or not, but certainly some of it could. Now, the good news is -- is that fund will be increased -- will be actually doubled, because, effective January the 1st, because of Senate Bi11 325, all fees' effectiveness goes to January the 1st rather than September the 30th, so that fee will be doubled as far as the District Clerk's fees are concerned. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much is built -- does it build a year? How much goes into that, about? Just roughly, Tommy. Do you know? MR. TOMLINSON: $8,000 to $10,000 a year, if I recall. MS. UECKER: Because right now, I'm just collecting $5 a case. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it feels -- I'd be in favor of taking the full $16,000 out of that Records Management. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would too. MS. UECKER: And what about the other $5,000? For the -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To continue to do what you're doing? MS. UECKER: Yes. R- 1 5- U w k. ,~^'~ 1 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so too. MS. DECKER: So that would be, just for me, a total of $21,000 out of the fund. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much are you taking, Jannett? MS. PIEPER: Almost $5,000. COMMISSIONER LETZ: $5,000? MS. PIEPER: But, no, mine's out of a different Records Management. JUDGE TINLEY: That's out of a different -- MS. DECKER: She has her own. However, she still can use the other one; that's for all county officials. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's -- I wouldn't have a problem doing both of those. I'd leave basically about $16,000 left in that fund. It will build up again pretty quick. MS. DECKER: There's even -- you know, Jannett would -- would do it, you know, if it was -- I think she would. But she could even say, on her fund, it's okay for the Treasurer to use it if she has plenty, and I know there's some county clerks that have done that. But as long as we have enough money in the one for the general county, that won't be necessary. JUDGE TINLEY: You've got one fee that's tf-19-~i3 w}. 99 ,~'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to be -- that's going to be doubling, is it not? As a result of -- MS. UECKER: Records Preservation fee, I think, is the only one doubling. But we will be charging $5 extra on -- as a filing fee; it goes from $45 to $50, plus there's a sliding scale if there's more than -- what is it, 50 defendants? JUDGE TINLEY: More than 10 plaintiffs, 11 to 20 -- MS. UECKER: Yeah. And that was basically written -- that's House Bill 3167, I believe. That was written for class action suits, breast implants, you know, those type of -- asbestos cases, where in some counties those go up to 5,000 parties with one filing fee. So -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does your adjustment of fees require a public hearing like Jannett's does? MS. UECKER: No. JUDGE TINLEY: The doubling of the Records Management doesn't need it. You just get to keep $5 of it in your bailiwick; isn't that correct? MS. UECKER: Right. I will come back to the Court prior to September -- January the 1st. We do have to -- the Court did have to order -- yeah, sign an order establishing the Records Preservation Fund. Now, the thing for -- I think we need to go back and increase that to the 8-19-n3 w4: 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 full $10, because you don't have to charge the $10. You can. Right now, it's $5. So, we'll come back sometime prior to January 1 and request the -- that the full $10 be established. JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what would it hurt for us to do it at the same time that we're doing the one on Jannett, and be that much ahead of the game, but effective as of January 1, when it really takes effect? MS. UECKER: That's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. UECKER: Her and I can get together, and -- JUDGE TINLEY: We ought to go ahead and put that on the agenda, just like the other one, and get that out of the way. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Save on notice fees, too. MS. PIE PER: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think there's got to be a public notice. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She doesn't require a public hearing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. JUDGE TINLEY: But we've got to approve the imposition of that -- MS. UECKER: Her and I will get together and tl-19-03 wk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 do it at the same time. That's fine. JUDGE TINLEY: What we need to do is be sure that we've got an agenda item to cover that, so that I think on the one for the County Clerk, we're going to need to do that -- probably a good idea to put it on next Monday's agenda. MS. SOVIL: That archival fee, you were talking about? MS. PIEPER: I don't know if that date -- if the Senate Bill changes the date of it. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Setting a public hearing? JODGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah. Because of the public hearing. We're going to have to set that as part of the budget, and we're probably going to be doing that Monday, anyway. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I make sure I have my notes correct, under your Capital Outlay, we have $2,600 coming out of the General Fund, $16,000 for imaging out of the Records Management Fund, and $5,000 for old records management out of the records fund? MS. DECKER: Right, and $600 out of Operating Equipment. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. R-19-03 wk 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. UECKER: 600 -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Remains. COMMISSIONER LETZ: $600 remains under Operating Equipment, okay. JUDGE TINLEY: And, based upon the totals that I've got, that's a $1,500 increase in available funds from what was in the -- in the recommended budget as total. Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good plan. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What other -- I know, Jannett, you're pretty much with the imaging. Paula, do you need to go down that imaging road as well? Or is your -- are you -- MS. RECTOR: We're already scanning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're already doing the same thing? Okay. So, the -- MS. UECKER: Are you using TSG, or -- MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm. MS. UECKER: You are? MS. RECTOR: Yeah. MS. UECKER: Okay. MS. SOVIL: Only one left is Rusty. Remember all his records? MS. UECKER: The Sheriff and I came last year, remember, and requested it. As a matter of fact, I 8 19 ~3 w'c i '~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 think I've requested it two years in a row, and it's been rejected. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Third time's the charm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's because we gave you so much other stuff. MS. UECKER: Yeah, that's it. (Laughter.) That's why I'm having to shuffle money from every little corner I can. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We appreciate it. MS. UECKER: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything -- any other questions? Comments? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question of the Auditor, I think. Tommy, on Line Item 428, that Reimburse Travel, just remind me what that is. If my memory serves me, is that -- she possibly may send an employee to do some banking or something like that, and then they can be reimbursed? MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I noticed in Mrs. Rector's budget, she doesn't have that line. Is there a reason for that? Or -- MS. RECTOR: What is that? MR. TOMLINSON: The one that -- that is in 8-15-'J3 wic 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 the District Clerk's budget. It originally started when one of the District Judges was doing pretrials out at the Law Enforcement Center, and -- MS. UECKER: Well, it's always been there. And I think the reason -- the reason for it always being there is because of the court registry accounts we have in other -- I've got one in Marble Falls, I have two in Fredericksburg, I've got three in San Antonio, one in Rocksprings. And that -- you know, that just requires usually a trip -- a trip to open it and then a trip to close it. Maybe 18 years in between, you know. That, or maybe 10 days. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't use that as an employee of yours who runs downs to the bank to make the deposit, the monies that you've taken in? MS. UECKER: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't use it that way? That's what I thought it was. Why don't I just shut up? That may be a wise thing. MS. UECKER: I ain't saying nothing. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions of Ms. Decker? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Comment. I appreciate Ms. Uecker's work to improve productivity. Good management. I think you got some -- on the right track; got 8 19 03 wk 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some good ideas. MS. UECKER: Well, the 10-hour workday plan, I've got it on paper. I just haven't, you know, got it implemented yet. Of course, then the other thing I'm thinking, okay, why don't I start slow and make it a -- you know, a 9-hour work day and see how that works out? But I may go for the whole thing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just jump into it and go for it. Columbus took a chance. Why not we? MS. UECKER: And one of my favorite sayings is, you'll never -- what is it? "You can't discover new land if you don't leave the shore." COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Christopher Columbus. I heard him say it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your Conference item is sufficient to get what you need and anyone else in your office? MS. UECKER: I think so. It's still less, but we went over that penny by penny, plus the employee training is $1,000, and then mine is $2,000. I think that will be all right, 'cause I'm eliminating the A & M conference for lack of education. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. MS. UECKER: And -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What a bother. 8-19-u3 wk 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. DECKER: And I'm on the Board of Directors of the new Texas Distrir_t Court Alliance, which is a very, very intense day-and-a-half conference. Four of us actually started it from funds that we had left over from some legislative association, and we offered 10 and a half hours of education in a day and a half. So, I mean -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good for you. MS. DECKER: We work through lunch. They bring lunch in, set it in front of us, and we just keep going -- keep eating. If you want a break, you have to go to the bathroom, you just go. If you want a Coke, they're in the back; you just get up and go, bring it back, and we keep working. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But not three days of hotel rooms and all. MS. DECKER: Oh, good lord, no, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golf tournaments and dominoes. MS. DECKER: Two days of motivational speakers and -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that a boring -- MS. DECKER: No door prizes. There's no vendors, no -- we just go and we work. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I love it, absolutely love it. b-19-03 wk 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 MS. UECKER: Okay, what else? And you're -- you're not talking about salaries or anything this morning? Okay, that's all. JUDGE TINLEY: You also -- I don't know whether you were in here earlier, about position schedules for the coming year that conform to your budget. You need to be sure that you give the Treasurer that position schedule so that -- so that we've -- because that's adopted as part of the budget. MS. UECKER: Okay. But I don't do that until after the budget is adopted? MS. PIEPER: Do it before. MS. UECKER: Before? JUDGE TINLEY: Go ahead and give her as much heads up as you can. MS. UECKER: Actually, I think I already have, but I'll get with her office again and make sure. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you very much. We appreciate your -- MS. UECKER: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: -- your being here and your cooperation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks. JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have another one scheduled until 1:30, when I believe we have the Treasurer B 19 03 wk 58 /^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 29 25 scheduled to be with us. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Is that correct? So, we will stand in recess until 1:30. (Recess taken from 11:46 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me call the meeting back to order of this workshop -- budget workshop that was posted. We adjourned before lunch, and set to reconvene at 1:30. It's now a couple minutes after 1:30. Looks like the next item up is the Treasurer. I find -- I find that one on Page 36. Is that correct? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct in my book. JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec? MS. NEMEC: Good morning. JUDGE TINLEY: How are you this afternoon? MS. NEMEC: Doing good. JUDGE TINLEY: What particular items of your proposed budget would be care to discuss? MS. NEMEC: Well, I -- I'm pleased with the recommended figures that I received from you. The only thing that I need to discuss with you is the overtime. I did have $953 this year in overtime that was paid, and that's due to just meeting deadlines and working over 90 hours a week. The way the policy reads is we accumulate e-i9 os wr. 59 ,~'` n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 overtime as comp time, and if the employee can't take it off within three months, then that has to be paid to them. So, that's just to have there in case that happens again. Other than that, I can work with the figures that I was presented with. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Conferences. We went from $1,000 to $2,000. MS. NEMEC: Right. I had requested -- I believe I had requested around $2,000 last year. As it stands right now, I am 10 hours short in receiving my CEU credits, and so I'm going to have to wait and take that money out of next year's budget to complete this year's credits. And so I have a feeling that it's going to put me again short, but it was -- I wasn't aware last year that we were supposed to come back. I think everybody requested a certain amount and it was cut back, and some elected officials were informed to come back and that money would be given back to them, and I was not aware of it, along with another elected official. So, that's why our conference money was low this year. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Nemec, besides yourself, you have one full-time and one part-time? MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks good to me. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? e-ia-o? wx 60 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 Comments? Concerns from anybody on the Court? MS. NEMEC: Okay? JUDGE TINLEY: Short and sweet. MS. NEMEC: If I may, I'd like to discuss a couple of other things that aren't related directly to my budget, which is the retirement. The retirement is going to go up from 7.92 to 7.97 percent. We do have the option of -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What were those numbers again? Excuse me. MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What were those numbers again? MS. NEMEC: 7.92 is our current contribution right now. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 97. MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry, 7.9 -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2. MS. NEMEC: -- 2, and it's going to be going up to 7.97. We do have the option of getting a supplemental death benefit for our employees for an additional .26 percent added to that 7.97, so that's not a decision you need to make right now, but we need to have this into the retirement system by the end of December. So, if we are going to go with that, it needs to be calculated into H-19-03 w4: i 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 everyone's retirement figure. JUDGE TINLEY: When is the effective date of that retirement increase? MS. NEMEC: January 1st, 2004. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So -- MS. NEMEC: So, it would just be nine months. JUDGE TINLEY: So, the figures, as calculated into all of these various budgets for retirement, are based on 7.92? MS. NEMEC: You know, I don't really remember what everybody -- what figure everyone used. We just -- we received this not too long ago, so I don't know if, during the budget process, if everyone was using the 7.92 or the 7.97. I'd have to go back and look at everybody's payroll figures to -- do you know? MS. PIEPER: Judge, mine was based on 7.92. MR. TOMLINSON: 7.92. MS. NEMEC: 7.92. JUDGE TINLEY: 92? Okay. MS. NEMEC: All that's going to change, anyway. I've been updating the payroll schedule; I was hoping to have it ready for you all today, with the current policy in place, and then the new -- or the proposed policy. And I -- I have it on my computer, but it started printing garbage right before I got here. I tried to get ahold of e-io-u3 wk r"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 62 Shaun, but I couldn't qet ahold of him, so I was hoping tomorrow at 2 o'clock, for the general discussion, if I could print -- present the position schedule as the policy is now, and then the proposed policy with the different figures. Another thing I had -- do y'all have any more questions on the retirement figures? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the amount of supplemental death benefit? MS. NEMEC: The amount? The percentage amount that we would have to contribute, or the amount -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, what does the extra .26 provide? MS. NEMEC: It provides -- at the time of an employee's death, it provides their beneficiary the annual income of that employee, a lump-sum annual premium. JUDGE TINLEY: For what period of time? MS. NEMEC: For the period of time -- if they decease, whatever time they decease, whatever that annual -- that annual salary is for that employee. It will pay their beneficiary a lump sum. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the remainder of that particular calendar year? JUDGE TINLEY: No, just -- just a one-time payment equal to the salary. MS. NEMEC: Right. &-19-V3 wk 63 .~-~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: One year's salary is the benefit. MS. NEMEC: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN it. That might be worth COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you say it would provide a one-year -- one year's salary benefit? MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or -- or what remains from the time the person died? Which? MS. NEMEC: No, it will provide them the annual. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One-year annualized salary benefit? MS. NEMEC: Right. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MS. NEMEC: Another thing employees have been asking for for a while is direct deposits. For -- instead of receiving a paycheck on the 15th and the end of the month, there's several employees who have requested if we could go on direct deposit for payroll. I have talked to Security State Bank and talked to our Software Group, and approximately, to get everything set up with the software, it will be approximately $3,000 to do that. From there, I E-15-U3 wk 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 -- I can't tell you how much it would be for any additional, but it would save on checks and envelopes and things like that. So, that's something that y'all might want to think about, to provide that benefit to our employees. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a software cost? Or is it -- MS. NEMEC: Software cost is about $2,500, and Security State Bank is around $300. Those are just -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The charge? MS. NEMEC: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Tell me a little bit about that, if you would. Would that only be applicable to -- to those that, for example, are banking there with -- with this particular bank? MS. NEMEC: No. What would happen is, every employee would have to fill out a form stating which bank they bank with, and our bank depository would forward their funds to their bank, whatever bank they direct them to. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know the economics on that, but I do know that some organizations or entities require direct deposit; they don't have a choice. So, it must be some economics to it, but I don't understand it. JUDGE TINLEY: Most of your government retirement benefits, they require that you do direct b-19-0? wk 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 deposit, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could eliminate the cost of preparing checks if everybody did it. MS. NEMEC: And I just put an order in for checks, but I'm going to call them and tell them to hold off till the Court makes a decision on that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you had a lot of employees inquire about it? MS. NEMEC: Yes, they've been inquiring about it for a few years already. COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we went to it 100 percent, is there a -- do you know what the savings would be for that when we cut out payroll checks altogether, or are they the same check number? MS. NEMEC: No, we wouldn't -- we wouldn't need payroll checks any more. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know what the savings would be if we required or made it mandatory for direct deposit? MS. NEMEC: I really don't. You know, my estimate's going to be around $1,000. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you're getting ready to order checks. How many would you order, and how long would that last? What would it cost? MS. NEMEC: The checks that I would -- I 8 19 03 w:! 66 I ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 think my costs for the checks that I'm ordering right now is around $580 or so, and that will probably last seven months. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Are they payroll checks only, or other -- other checks? MS. NEMEC: No, just payroll checks, along with payroll envelopes and -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like that unless you can cut staff, there's not a real big savings on it. JUDGE TINLEY: What about that issue? MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry, what was that you said? JUDGE TINLEY: Eliminating some of your labor costs in your office. Would it reduce the labor cost in your office? MS. NEMEC: I don't see why it would. The only -- the only thing that it would reduce is stuffing the paychecks in the envelopes as far as staff time is concerned. That's the only reduction there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks like it's a savings of about $1,000, and we have $1,000 in the overtime. Does that make up the overtime? COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- if you do it, the Software fee that's $2,500, about, is that a one-time ~-13-03 wk. 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 charge? MS. NEMEC: Yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This would pay for itself, I mean, worst case, over three years, two to three years. MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: How long is your depository contract good for? MS. NEMEC: I think we have it for another two years. Is that correct, Tommy? Or 2005? MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's two years, two more years. MS. NEMEC: Two or more years. It's probably 2005. JUDGE TINLEY: If there were a different depository selected at the end of this current contract, we'd be looking at another setup cost? MS. NEMEC: Probably -- well, it -- I'm sure that they would add that to our contract figures. That part of it is not very expensive. The bank is only charging us $300. It's the Software Group that the cost really comes in with. DODGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. NEMEC: Not surprising at all. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you're through a-ie-os wx 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with that one, I'd like to talk a little bit about group insurance. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Group insurance this a good time? Is JUDGE TINLEY: There's the insurance manager right there. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Ms. Nemec, help me see if I understand our group insurance. If an employee opts for employee-only coverage, employee coverage only for the employee, then that's at no cost to the employee? MS. NEMEC: Correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: County pays the entire amount. If, on the other hand, the employee opts to cover his dependents, and there's various levels of that, how much does the County pay of that portion, of the coverage? MS. NEMEC: It only pays for the employee portion. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When I see a cost in here, it's for employee-only enrollment? MS. NEMEC: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, just, for example, your department, are there two of you enrolled, and N-19-n3 wF: 69 ..-. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 the cost is about $11,000 a year? MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. Our -- they're -- we only pay for employees who work 40 hours. Part-time employees are not covered by the county insurance. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the reason for the steep increase in insurance coverage costs? MS. NEMEC: Well, last year, what we had in the budget was just an estimated figure. When we -- when we did our budget, we didn't have our renewal rates, so these rates that you're receiving now are to make up for that shortage, plus an increase for this year's rates. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does the -- the $200,000 that were lost on one claim, does that have anything to do with the steep increase? MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry. Does the $200,000 what? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That was lost on one claim, the -- the infamous claim where the Court approved the $400,000 sort of advance payment, and then only got $200,000 of that back, that $200,000 that was lost, has that got anything to do with the steep increase? MS. NEMEC: Well, we haven't received firm renewal rates yet, but any time you go into your reinsurance, I'm sure that that affects our rates. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. R-19-iii w}: 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L 2 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, on that, is there -- are there any pools that Kerr County could join? Even though it may not have a -- help us on the rates right now, down the road it would be by getting into a larger pool? MS. NEMEC: There are. There are some options that we could look at. I know TAC has a pool, and then our third-party administrators have also discussed having pools with the City and the school districts here in Kerr County or surrounding counties. It's just a matter of everybody's renewing their insurances at the same time, and other people wanting to take on our risk or us wanting to take on their risk of claims. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seems to me, with the -- the risk exposure, and I guess the claims we've had since I've been a Commissioner, it seems that they've been high. I've been told numerous times they -- our rate increases are due to, you know, the occurrences that we've had. And based on that, it seems that it would be far beneficial to the County to get into a larger pool so we can spread that risk a little bit more. MS. NEMEC: It can, and then it can hurt us too. You just -- that's something you just never know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, generally -- MS. NEMEC: They may be having the same 8-19-03 w}: 71 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 29 25 experiences that we are, or worse or better. You just never know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I mean, I've talked to several insurance people about that, and almost without exception, they say the larger the pool, the better. MS. NEMEC: Of course, when we do that, they're going to want to know what our experience has been, and after they find out, they may not want us to go on with them. So -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's what I'm saying; there may be a short-term -- you know, may not help, but long-term, I think it would be very beneficial to the County to get into a larger pool, because it doesn't seem, in the last six years I've been looking at it, that our current County pool is working real well. Doesn't mean to say -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, they may not let us in, though. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't we recently approve an RFP for insurance purposes? MS. NEMEC: Yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the status of that? MS. NEMEC: I haven't received any requests. e-la-o3 w,: 72 1 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: The RFP that was approved was for everything besides health care benefits. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't have health care? Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there was one -- there was one on the table. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. JUDGE TINLEY: That same day, but it wasn't approved for the health care benefits. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recall. JUDGE TINLEY: It was not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I think we're getting a little bit beyond your budget anyway, but I think it's something that, you know, I'll probably get with you one-on-one, see if we can figure out how to do an agenda item, see if we can get people to come in and talk with us about risk pools. MS. NEMEC: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Let me follow up, if I might, on some questions that Commissioner Nicholson had. We have three levels of -- of coverage that our employees can select from presently, do we not? MS. NEMEC: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: 1-2-3, A-B-C, whatever. MS. NEMEC: A-B-C. P-lg-n3 w.: 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the first one is the lowest deductible, and then the second one is a little bit higher deductible, and then the third one is a still higher deductible. MS. NEMEC: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Am I correct in that? MS. NEMEC: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: And the allowance that is made to an employee is based upon the cost of coverage for the lowest deductible, and that amount is how much per employee per month? MS. NEMEC: Oh, I don't have that figure with me. I want to say it's 400-something. JUDGE TINLEY: The figure that sticks in my mind is $475 plus change. MS. NEMEC: Could be. JUDGE TINLEY: Does that sound about right? (Ms. Nemec nodded.) JUDGE TINLEY: Then the -- the employee is allowed, if he or she selects a -- a lesser -- a lesser coverage; i.e., a higher deductible under Plan B or C, the cost for that coverage is therefore less, and is not the employee allowed to use that difference to apply on spouse or dependent coverage? MS. NEMEC: They can either apply that on R-1a-03 wk. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~ 25 spouse or dependent coverage, or they can take out additional insurance that is offered through our AFLAC program. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MS. NEMEC: However they want to use that. But they are allowed to use the difference for other insurance coverages. JUDGE TINLEY: So, if they select the lowest deductible, there's no money available, at least from a county participation standpoint, for the benefit of spouses or dependents, but if they select one of the other two deductible programs, why, the amount is -- there is some amount available -- MS. NEMEC: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: -- of county participation for that, because of the difference? MS. NEMEC: Correct. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. How did we arrive at the figure that we are given for this coming year for health insurance costs per employee? MS. NEMEC: I think Tommy got that figure. Did you provide them with that insurance figure? MR. TOMLINSON: No. (Discussion off the record.) MS. NEMEC: If -- if it came from my office, i 8-19-03 wk 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 then we -- then the figure that we gave was just what it's costing the County now. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's 5,484 per employee, isn't it? MS. NEMEC: Yes, I believe so. JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's what's allocated. I calculate a monthly cost of 457. MS. NEMEC: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Appears not to be adequate, if my recollection of the numbers are correct. It's about $20 a month short. MS. NEMEC: I think that would be right, the 457, 958. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. MS. NEMEC: So, then there is -- then, in that figure, if that's the figure everyone is using, then there isn't an estimated increase for this year's rates. That is the -- that is the amount that we are currently paying. JUDGE TINLEY: So we may -- we may have a real surprise awaiting us? MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I question that. Just, for example, looking at your budget, Ms. Nemec, it went up from $9,048 this year to $10,968 next year, so there A- 1 9- ii 3 w k 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 has to be some sort of a forecast of increased costs in there. MS. NEMEC: We11, the reason is because last year, we did not have the figure -- the correct premium figure. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We underestimated last year? MS. NEMEC: Right. Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's right. That's been explained to me before. JUDGE TINLEY: G]ell, I don't like the fact that we may have a good surprise -- not a good surprise, but a big surprise awaiting us. MS. NEMEC: Osually we can count on at least 25 percent increase, if not more. JUDGE TINLEY: Did it not go from -- my recollection was from just under $400, about $398 and change, to about $475 and change? I -- please check those figures for me. MS. NEMEC; I will. JUDGE TINLEY: Would you? Because if -- if we don't even have enough plugged into this coming year's budget to handle what we're actually allocating per employee for this year's budget, that really causes me some concern. MS. NEMEC: I'll be prepared to give you fi-_9-03 :vk 77 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those figures tomorrow during the general discussion. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per month -- currently, per month for an employee is? MS. NEMEC: I believe it's 958. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 458? It would appear, if I understood the Commissioner correctly, taking the group insurance number from Ms. Nemec's full-time employees, that we're adding coverage in right now using the 475 -- or 458, I mean. MS. NEMEC: What is 458 times 12? That -- MR. TOMLINSON: 5,484. MS. NEMEC: 5,484? MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again. MS. NEMEC: 5,484 times two -- plus two. MR. TOMLINSON: Times two, yeah. MS. NEMEC: And then add that twice, and that should come out to the 10,968, I believe. That's what it is, then. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a reason that, if employees opted for a higher deductible under the option, you know, to apply for another level of the policy or get more insurance, why they can't get -- what was the reason we 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't allow them to get a -- basically, an increase in pay using that increased deductible, increase in take-home pay? MS. NEMEC: We11, that would throw off the whole position schedule, for one. And then they -- I'm -- I mean, that's just taxed income. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I mean, but we could do that. I mean, if we allowed employees to pick, for their own personal coverage, the amount that they wanted to have a higher deductible for employees, they could increase their pay? MS. NEMEC: I would think so. Or if they didn't want to enroll on our insurance at all, and they wanted the $400-something per month added to their pay, I guess they could do that. I think that would be strictly a Court decision there. DODGE TINLEY: Do you have any sense of what the employee reception would be if that option were given to them? MS. NEMEC: They'd probably all go for it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I look at it as -- I mean, not as much increased pay as to -- I think if people are paying more of their own -- or paying part of their own medical coverage, office visits, some it out of their own pocket, they will spend less. MS. NEMEC: I think that question came up 9-19-!!.3 iuk 79 n ~ 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 before, and our insurance representative talked the Court out of it, because then your experience is going to be based on fewer employees. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Higher-risk employees will stay, but not low-risk? MR. TOMLINSON: Exactly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not saying we ought to let employees opt out of the program, but I'm saying if you go with a -- you know, give the employees an opportunity to have a higher deductible -- JUDGE TINLEY; Which they have. They have that option now. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they can't get that money back. They can't get cash back. They end up with additional insurance coverage, or not -- MS. NEMEC: They can put that difference into a -- a reimbursement account, and any -- their 20 percent or their deductible during the year, then they're able to use that money to pay for -- for that or for their prescriptions. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think what's becoming clear to me -- two things. One, this is one of the biggest costs we deal with, and two, we don't know enough about it. We need -- we need some help. We need somebody to tell us, these are your options; here's where I see your P-19-L'3 wk. 80 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 holes are in your program. We need some -- we need more advice than we've got sitting right here at this table. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think we need advice. We also need to look at some options, including preferred provider-type options. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I agree with Dave. And, you know, look at all the options. I think this is a huge part of our budget, and we -- we've had very poor control over it in recent years. Not -- just due mainly because of the occurrences we've had, which we've just had some big-ticket items that have come through our insurance. And I think we really need to take a hard look at that, because it has a huge impact on our budget and what we can do in other areas of our budget, because this is one that we need to obviously stay with. JUDGE TINLEY: You're effectively looking at close to one and a half million dollars that's expended on this one item. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: And it bears paying a lot of attention to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can talk about this a little bit more during the discussion on it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for E-15-03 wk 81 T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 L 5 Ms. Nemec? Thank you. MS. NEMEC: And I'll have those position schedules tomorrow for you also. JUDGE TINLEY: And -- and the various elected officials and department heads are turning those in to you now so that you can be working on the ones that have already been presented? MS. NEMEC: I haven't received anything from anyone. I'm just going by what I have now. JUDGE TINLEY: I'll keep encouraging. MS. NEMEC: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Ms. Nemec. MS. NEMEC: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have -- the next item on the agenda is Constables, Precincts 1 through 4. Those budgets can be found on Pages 45 through 48. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, before you get started, may I say something? JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wanted to address the constables and alert them to something that we're doing. Monday is Commissioners Court meeting, and I have put -- as an agenda item, I've put on there to ask each constable to come in and -- that we can review the -- the 270-day law a-ZJ-I~~ Wl: r"^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 that we're all -- that we all live under; that you're required to get so many school hours and tests, and the law says you shall provide the Commissioners Court with your permanent peace officer card or what -- certificate or whatever it might be. And I know you guys are not up for another month or so, but it's -- it's just a reminder. We want to remind you of it to make sure you're getting it going, and I want to do it in an official way on Monday. Just heads up, okay? Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Constable Pickens? MR. PICKENS: Good afternoon, Judge. Good afternoon, Commissioners Court. JUDGE TINLEY: What items are we looking at in your budget that -- that you'd like to discuss with us? MR. PICKENS: With the Court's permission, I'd like to ask that we skip over the line items at this time and discuss the Capital Outlay, and then we'll come back to the line items for further discussion, if approval with the Court. I'd like to ask the Court to discuss, consider, and possibly agree on purchasing or leasing a marked patrol unit for the constable's office. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A what? MR. PICKENS: Marked patrol unit. A police car. And I have several reasons for this request, if it please the Court to listen to them. As constable for y_,a_u3 wx r"^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 Precinct 1, I serve civil and criminal papers along with local and out-of-county warrants for the J.P. -- for the precinct and for the county. There's a major liability factor involved on my personal part when conducting the duties of the County and for the County while in a private vehicle. With a marked patrol unit there, the liability factor is a low minimum. The safety factor involved for having a marked patrol unit is for my safety, as well as for the County. God forbid, if I were to get hurt or injured or killed in the line of duty, who's responsible then? Who is liable? By having a marked patrol unit, the need for health and safety is for myself and for the County, due to the fact that we have to arrest people and transport them to the county jail. I do not feel comfortable, and therefore will not transport a prisoner in my personal vehicle due to the fact that the prisoner would have total access to my duty weapon or to my duty shotgun, along with the fact that the prisoner could and would try to kick at me, whereas with a marked patrol unit, the prisoner could be secured safely for his safety in the back seat with a screened cage dividing between the two of us. By having a marked patrol unit, it would make us more visible to the public, whereas it would also serve as a deterrent to crime. With a marked patrol unit, there ~-i9-o= wx 84 1 ,-. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~ 24 i 25 would at least be three to four more patrol units on the county roads, make DWI arrests, assist other units in a safe manner: Police Department, Sheriff's Office, D.P.S., game wardens. By having a marked patrol unit -- there is a need, because of -- voters want us to have them, 'cause they would make them feel more secure by seeing additional units patrolling the subdivisions, county roads, along with the city streets. By having a marked patrol unit, we can and will help serve the outstanding warrants at the J.P. levels, the County Court at Law warrants, along with the city warrants, which we can request a warrant fee for serving the warrants, which would be revenue for the County General Fund. By having a marked patrol unit, we can get on a gas plan which is offered to the County at a lot cheaper rate. And, as of this current date, I have collected approximately $4,249 in warrants and fines for the county by using my private vehicle and making telephone calls out of my office. And, as constable of Precinct 1, I'm not asking for anything I A ly 03 wk 85 /"~ i""~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lI 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 that's unreasonable, because the surrounding counties all around us are well equipped with marked patrol units for their constables. That's my reasons for that request. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much are they? MR. PICKENS: I've gotten some bids. There's one for each one, then I've labeled mine. The one that I contacted, which is out of Dallas, it's called Texoma Ford, and I talked to the gentleman that's in charge, Donnie Norman, and he -- at this time, he has 2003 models still sitting on the lot. That total turnkey price would be a little over $22,000, with all the equipment listed on here, whereas if we were to buy 2004's, we're probably looking at $2,000 more. Be a savings of $2,000 if we could go with the 2003's. They're still sitting on the lot, never been used. And also, would cost -- Constable Ayala wants to give you some bids as well. MR. AYALA: That's the -- the company where the Sheriff gets his cars. JUDGE TINLEY: Philpott? MR. AYALA: Beg pardon? JUDGE TINLEY: The Philpott estimates, you're speaking of? MR. AYALA: Yes. They're quite a bit higher. JUDGE TINLEY: Is there a difference in equipment? 2-19-03 wk 86 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. AYALA: I don't think so. JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did anybody check out the Houston/Galveston area COG Purchasing Department? Purchasing -- MR. AYALA: No, sir. We did talk to D.P.S. on purchasing used vehicles that they turn loose. They -- they have an inventory that comes and goes. The average price of their used vehicles is about -- around $7,500. They're completely stripped of all the equipment, and around 80,000 miles and up; you know, they're pretty used up. But we did not check with Houston. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the Houston/Galveston area COG. They have a purchasing -- big purchasing deal down there. MR. AYALA: More than happy to do that. MR. FICKENS: As we speak, we also have -- Jennings Anderson Ford is faxing over some bids to us here locally on some. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: New vehicles? MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir. Should be getting here -- if they're not already, they should be here shortly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the way Z see it is, you know, we had been talking a couple years about, you know, the purchase of these new Sheriff's cars, and maybe 8-19-G3 wk 87 i n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 somehow him drop off some of the excess to the constables. We actually had that agreement. But we -- and we went over that last Friday with the Sheriff, and there's still a little bit of b]ood here on the floor from all that, and that program is not going to work. MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir. MR. AYALA: Right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not going to work. And just preliminarily looking at all the numbers that we have in this budget and the amount of money that we're going have come in, I'd personally don't see how we're going to afford brand-new cars. But I'm not saying no at this moment. I just haven't -- we haven't looked -- haven't tallied everything up yet. MR. PICKENS: I understand. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it seems to me that there -- there are some -- you know, we had talked about D.P.S. cars, and somebody mentioned two or three other avenues of getting cars that are used that are not so expensive, that, you know, would be easier on us, and those kinds of -- I just wanted to let you -- my opinion is that you quys need to go out there and get those numbers. That's not -- I don't -- I don't see the five of us loading up in a Suburban and going, finding you a car. You need to come up with those numbers and bring them back to us, if there is d-15-~i3 wk 88 /"~ !^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 such a thing. I don't think that there's going to be enough money to buy new cars for everybody. That's about it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I tend to agree with Commissioner 1. I mean, I'm in favor, and said so before, of getting cars for the constables. With this year's budget, it was even bad before we just heard the health insurance information that y'all just heard. I think, you know, what I see -- and if we can afford this, is to go with used vehicles, whether D.P.S. or somewhere else. And then, you know, try to get into some program down the road when we have some ability to basically have some cars. And 80,000 is not that much; I mean, many of the Sheriff's cars have 150,000 on them. It's not ideal, but I think it gets us at least going down the road towards cars. And I would also -- because this does have a pretty big impact on y'all, specifically, two years ago, we -- "we" being the Commissioners Court -- removed the travel line item from basically all elected officials and put it -- folded it into the sa]ary in the constable position. That's $1,800. And I think that, you know, my feeling is that we need to undo that and list travel as a separate line item, because I think it's being forgotten that we did that already. But I think that that -- if we provide cars, that travel -- that item, in my mind, would come out of y'all's budgets. b-19-U3 wF: 89 /"~ 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. AYALA: That would be fine with me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just wanted to make it clear that -- I don't want people saying, "Oh, you lowered our salaries." That's not -- you know, we're moving this travel item back out. At least I hope we do that. I don't know; we haven't voted on it. But I, you know, have talked with Constable Garza at length about this, and he knows my feelings. You know, I'm willing to do anything we can to get cars for you. I'm like Commissioner Baldwin; I don't see we have the money in this year's budget to buy new cars. The Sheriff says he does haven't cars to roll out. The last option I see that we can possibly do is used cars. And the D.P.S. is probably the -- I mean, the best option that I've heard so far. Maybe there's some better options; maybe some of the large cities may have roll-out cars sooner, something along that. I would like to get back -- you mentioned that the price is about $7,500 for a stripped vehicle. I think the idea is to -- what equipment y'all would need, if any? We need a total price per car. And I -- you know -- MR. AYALA: Commissioner, on top of that, you're going to have to repaint it, and there's other costs associated with that. $7,500, that's just buying a stripped back-and-white. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And that's what I'm saying; we need to know what that -- what that -- you 9-19-C3 wk 90 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 know, a real number is. I would strongly hope that the constables all decide on one color. I don't know the -- I think they need to be. I don't think we need to have four different colors. MR. PICKENS: No, we had talked about them. We just had that if it was agreed on with the Commissioners Court, that -- and if it was granted, that we would have the -- the cars the same color, same design, and be uniform. Just basically, the fact is, like, right now, if we go out serving papers, we have purchased out of our own pocket coming up with the shirts that just, you know, some people can identify, 'cause, I mean, there's some times we have to go to -- be out there till 9:00, 10 o'clock at night. That's the only time we can find these people. You drive up in a personal driveway in an unmarked unit, I mean, they're -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that. I'm -- you know, I've been convinced -- beaten down over the last four or five years that y'all need cars, so I'm -- I'm there. We just need to figure out a reasonable cost that I can support and the County can afford. MR. PICKENS: I understand. And on that same aspect is, if we were to get the -- the units from D.P.S., you're really not guaranteed what kind of car -- which one you're going to get. I mean, you really have to look at 8-19-03 w4: 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 them and be up there the day that they're going to auction them off. But the same aspect, you're looking at the equipment that you're going to have to purchase, whether it be light bar -- or not a light bar, the radar unit. There is a Senate bill that's come out now that it's going to be mandatory that all patrol units in the state of Texas are going to have to be equipped with a video camera. if not, then we're going to have to fill out forms every month on the racial profiling if we make traffic stops. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do that already. MR. PICKENS: I don't. I don't make any traffic stops in my truck. But I'm just saying that that is -- Senate bill is making it mandatory. And that's just -- I saw that coming from years ago. And everything -- and I understand what you're saying, and, you know, if we can't go that route, maybe we can get on a program situation with one of the dealerships. I mean, we were all in agreement on that, that probably you're looking at maybe $15,000 total if we go on a program car situation. MR. AYALA: But that is not a police -- a police car; it's just a regular passenger car. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I would -- we have basically tomorrow and Friday. I would just encourage y'all to come back with a number; I mean, the bare bones y'all can live with, and see if we can go along with n-ly-;3 wY 92 i-^. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L 1 22 23 24 25 it. I mean, there's -- we are in a very tight year, and it's something that I would like to be able to do, but at the same time, there's not a whole lot of money available. And the things we have been able to fund on the Capital Outlay so far this year are coming out of designated funds; it's not coming out of the General Fund. They're funds that are built up for a certain purpose, such as record management, and we can spend money -- you know, there's nothing else we can use that money for. But this has to come out of the General Fund, and that's a very tight fund this year. JUDGE TINLEY: Constable, you indicated that -- something about the D.P.S. auction. Is that how they actually dispose of those vehicles? At an open auction? Where governmental units can actually submit bids right there on the spot? MR. AYALA: No, sir, they price them. They -- they take a unit off the street, strip it, and D.P.S. puts a price on it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. They put -- they fill out a schedule and -- MR. AYALA: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: -- they'll identify the unit and put a specific price on it based upon condition, miles, et cetera? e ;e o3 wk /'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 MR. AYALA: Exactly. Exactly. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. MR. AYALA: These cars -- JUDGE TINLEY: You're not in a wide-open auction? MR. AYALA: The cars are relatively new, one or two years old, but they've been on the street 16 hours a day, seven days a week, so they get the miles put on them really quick. And the reason they're getting rid of them is because they're starting to have problems with them. So, to me, that's not an option, to buy a car with high miles that you're going to start having a lot of maintenance problems with. MR. PICKENS: From my past experience where I came from, we did that, and we wound up paying in the long run. The sheriff I used to work for down south -- and you know him, Mr. Baldwin -- he made that decision one time, and that was it. We never went that route again. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, my position on this has been abundantly clear now for some time. I think it's time that we honored the intent of what we said we would do a few years back, and provide automobiles for constables. How we do that, of course, is another question. I think Commissioner Letz touched on the fact that capital -- our capital expenditure budget this year is a-iq-os w4: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 particularly tight, and while I know the Sheriff's Department has asked for four vehicles, they have not yet been funded. So, I think that's some things we need to think about, whether or not they're funded. Whether we buy four, whether we buy more than four, whether we buy four for the Sheriff or whether we buy four for the constables, which brings up another point. I've heard mixed stories about who and how many. I know that my constable and, I understand, you, and I understand -- I believe the constable for Precinct 3 all would like to have vehicles, but I'm not too certain that I know what the constable for Precinct 9 wants. I've heard from the Commissioner, but what is your -- what do you know? Are we talking three vehicles or are we talking four vehicles? Are we talking two? What are we talking about? MR. PICK.ENS: What I know right now, we're talking three, because I know that constable for Precinct 4 has got one. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's back in the back; he just raised his hand. MR. TERRILL: Precinct 4 constable, we've acquired our vehicles over the time -- we've been in office a lot longer than the other three constables, so over the time, we've acquired it, and already have all the equipment we need right now. e 19 U3 wY. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're basically talking three; is that correct? MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir, three vehicles. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we'll have to talk it out, see how we get there. I think the admonition that the Commissioner gave about finding some alternative type vehicles is not a bad admonition, and I think we need to think in terms of crawling before you walk before you run. Right now, you're not even crawling. MR. PICKENS: That's understandable. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question for Constable Number 4. How did you purchase your vehicle? MR. TERRILL: From my personal funds, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Out of your pocket? MR. TERRILL: When we -- when I became a constable originally, about 13 years ago, the salary was flat out -- you had travel allowance and you -- you used that travel allowance over a period of time on whatever -- to furnish whatever transportation you need. And then, later on, when I became an elected constable and my salary was up there, I went ahead and purchased a -- a car, and that's my travel money. Of course, I know they consolidated all the travel money and everything at one time, into one -- and in one bucket as salary, and we just take it all out of there. That's where mine came from. 9-19-09 wk. 96 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Thank you very much. Now, at the very least, until we get to figure out what to do, what about -- what about getting some decals for your doors that say, "I am a cop"? I mean, that seems like, to me, that was a major part of this; that people don't recognize you as a police officer. If you had a -- I'm just asking a question now. MR. PICKENS: I understand. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't look at me like that. MR. PICKENS: I'm not. I'm not. MR. AYALA: There's still a liability issue, because that's our personal vehicle. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the bottom line is, if we don't buy you brand-new cars, you're not going to play? Is that -- that's what it sounds like to me. MR. AYALA: No. MR. PICKENS: No. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't want to get the D.P.S. cars. You don't want to look at any other used cars 'cause they're all broke down. And the Sheriff's not going to give us any, so it sounds like to me the only thing you're going to settle for is brand-new cars. MR. AYALA: I'll drive whatever you give me, Buster. 5-:9-03 wk 97 ,~'~ .~'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's better. JUDGE ELLIOTT: I've got a Suburban for sale; carry a lot of people. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mount a machine gun on top. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about -- there is one thing that Constable 4 made me think about. Is it possible for the County to, in lieu of buying the car, pay for a portion of a car? Giving them a car allowance that has to be used for purchase of a car? And let them also, you know, pay for part of it if they want the new -- if they want to get with the new -- County pay half and let the constable pay half out of their -- I don't know if that's even a legal option. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't either, Commissioner. MR. AYALA: I'd like to make one -- one notation. There's a deputy constable in Kerr County that works two days a week, and he's furnished a vehicle, a radio, cell phone. Ed North. He's the Code Enforcement Officer. You know, he works for the County and he's furnished all these -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's furnished a vehicle? MR. AYALA: He's furnished a County pickup. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's news to me. fi-19-n~ wk 98 /~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's that old County pickup? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Environmental Health. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's mostly funded through the AACOG, the Environmental Department. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He doesn't serve constable duties. He -- I mean, he has that from his peace officer standpoint, but he's Environmental Health. MR. AYALA: He's a deputy constable. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But his first job is Environmental Health. MR. AYALA: He's part-time, two days a week. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can't hear this conversation. You need to speak up. MR. PICKENS: Speak up. MR. AYALA: I said that we have a deputy constable in Precinct 2 that works part-time that is furnished a County pickup, cell phone, radio -- I'm not sure what-all -- gas card, to do his job. And I just wanted to make notation of that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But he's not -- I mean, he carries that -- he's an Environmental Health. All of that comes through a different department. He's not paid as a constable. He has his constable -- or he was appointed e-i9-o~ wy: 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deputy constable, and if you don't want him appointed as deputy constable under you, we can appoint him somewhere else. He's got the ability to have basically -- COMMISSIONER SALDWIN: He was funded, I think, totally r_hrough grants for a number of years, and just in the last two years or so, I think, is when he's come on board as a full -- the grants run out and he came on as a full-time -- not full-time, but a part-time County -- County employee. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we got those grants for about three years. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any other items y'all want to talk about in your budgets? MR. PICKENS: Under the Local Government Code, it's regulation for certain use of privately-owned vehicles. This is from the A.G.'s office. A commissioners court of a county may adopt rules prohibiting or regulating the use of a privately-owned motor vehicle for the performance of county business or law enforcement duties by sheriff or constable or deputy sheriff or constable. This section does not authorize commissioners court to adopt rules relating to the private use of a privately-owned motor vehicle. I also have an opinion on that from the A.G.'s office, if the Commissioners Court would like to get a copy and give it to the County Attorney to look it over. e-19 03 wk 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 COMMISSIONER SALDWIN: Is that -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's your point? MR. PICKENS: I'm just saying, as far as on the -- that a government unit is -- in the state is liable for property damage if something were to happen to us while using a private vehicle for county business. I understand what you're saying, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's for me, too. If I'm out doing, you know, what -- looking at a road and I have a wreck in my truck, County's liable for what I do there too. I mean, I think every County employee's liable for their -- when they're performing county business, whether it's -- a J.P. is going out on an inquest or something, or I'm going to check a road, or anybody else. I mean, we're all liable -- or the County's liable for all of us in our personal vehicles performing jobs in Kerr County. MR. PICKENS: I understand. I mean, I'm not saying I'm not going to do my job any more. I'm still going I to go beyond the call of duty and do my job. I just think if -- if the funds could be found, if we could purchase three vehicles for all three of us, that we can enhance our duties a lot more and provide a lot more revenue for the County. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we agree. Anything else in the budget? 8-19-~i3 wk 10] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PICKENS: Other than my line items. JUDGE TINLEY: Which line items do you have a concern about? MR. PICKENS: On the fuel, I'd requested $1,000. I see the recommended for $750. I know that it averages -- my fuel averages about $110 a month, to -- my performance as serving the papers. I'd like to ask -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: On this, really, I mean, I think it's almost all of them, or three of them. How do you reconcile the fact that -- you know, and we let it happen, so it's our fault too -- that we have allowed fuel to come back into the budget, when we've -- there's also $1,800 a year travel allowance for fuel and the use of a vehicle? DODGE TINLEY: One constable, there is no fuel charge. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, in 4. But the other three, there are. And I guess it's -- you know, I'm saying we, being the Court, in the past couple of years has gotten back into this, and this is why I want to split travel allowances back out again, because we're paying for fuel, vehicle insurance, vehicle repair. And, at the same time, there's $1,800 in your salary for those purposes. And I'm just -- you know, you think that's right? MR. AYALA: I do. fl-19-0? wk 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PICKENS: I do. MR. AYALA: I put 15,000 miles on my pickup last year. I bought my own tires, my own oil changes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So did I. MR. AYALA: Did you put 15,000 miles on County business? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, easily. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't live out in the sticks. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I ride with somebody else. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where I live, every time I come to Kerrville is 50 miles. (Discussion off the record -- several people speaking at the same time.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just really -- I bring it up more as trying to be consistent with all the constables. I firmly believe that constables should be treated the same, and that -- it just seems that we've kind of gone full-circle, and we're doing travel allowances, and we already have a travel allowance in our salaries. The only -- and the Commissioners budget, for the first time this year, we are putting Commissioners out-of-county travel as a separate line item, which is -- I don't know how much e :a-os wF: 103 r„'~ 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's going to be there. It's pretty much for Commissioners to go to AACOG meetings in San Antonio. You know -- Tommy, do you have a comment? MR. TOMLINSON: If I can give you a little history on why we -- why the travel allowance was added to the salary, under our -- our I.R.S. regulations, that is a salary. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. MR. TOMLINSON: And so -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, I can't hear you. MR. TOMLINSON: I said the travel allowance, under I.R.S. regulations, is a salary, and so that's the reason that it goes to -- because the way we were handling the travel allowance is that we were not requiring any log of -- of mileage. In other words, for a travel allowance not to be a salary, you -- the user has -- has to be able to log the use of his vehicle, and then, as an individual, when he files his tax return, these two match where he doesn't have any -- any revenue. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. MR. TOMLINSON: So, his expenses for the use of his vehicle have to equal the amount he receives. So, that -- that's essentially why we did it, just because we -- we had to pay -- we had to do withholding, FICA; everything d-'9-03 w4: 104 s^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 L ~ we do with the salary had to be done with the travel. So, it just made it a lot cleaner for the -- for the payroll people to do it as one item, so that's why it's there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand why we did it, and I was one of the big proponents to doing it that way, 'cause, to me, it -- you know, it's income, basically, how you use it. JrJDGE TINLEY: But, by the same token, Tommy, the individual can also claim a deduction on his or her personal tax return for -- for business mileage, travel in that employee's private vehicle. MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: By keeping a log of those same miles and filling out a -- I don't know, Form 4528 or whatever it is, and attaching it to their return and claiming that as a deduction. MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's just -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six of one, half a dozen of the other. JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly. So, they're not prohibited from doing that; they can still claim that mileage. MR. TOMLINSON: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: They claim it, and then 8-13-C3 wk ,~.,- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 105 us pay for it too. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Going full-circle, I think what Commissioner Letz said is that two years ago, we rolled that $1,200 into salary because it was considered by the I.R.S. as compensation, and since then, the items that that $1,200 was intended to pay for have crept back into the budgets and expenses. JUDGE TINLEY: I think that point is well-made, with, I believe, the exception of Constable 4. I don't believe there's any of them in Constable 4, is there? COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. But on that area of Constable 4, there's a special arrangement in that Constable 4 chooses to have a deputy, and he pays for that deputy's salary. I mean, it's a choice. As I understand it -- Constable 4's back there hiding -- that, you know, he has decided not to take some of his so he could have the deputy. I mean, I don't know if it was while you were constable or a predecessor, but, you know, it's kind of an understanding that we have for him to be able to fund the deputy, we don't fund anything else. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or not much. JUDGE TINLEY: The current constable's salary is deducted from constable -- the deputy constable's salary is deducted from Constable 4's salary under the current d 19 n3 wk. 106 ,~'~ i"~ 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 arrangement. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's -- JUDGE TINLEY: So I'm not sure that's entirely correct. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I stand corrected. DODGE TINLEY: But you've got -- you've got some of the things that should have been included in the $1,800 travel allowance that are now in various budgets, whether it be vehicle repairs and maintenance, whether it be insurance, whether it be fuel, whether it be equipment repair. All of those things, I think the point you're making, were a part of that $1,800. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the bottom line is, all four constables' budgets on the bottom are within $600 of each other, top to bottom. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At the appropriate time, I want to talk some more about Precinct 4 and having a constable and a deputy constable. Is this the right time to do that? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, I think so. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You ought to wait till Number 4 gets up here. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, I would think. 0-19-03 wk log 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Does Number 4 want to get up here? MR. TERRILL: At any time, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we through with Number 1? Are we through with Number 1? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of looked at them all as -- I mean, their bottom lines are pretty much the same, kind of. JUDGE R.AGSDALE: While you're making a transition between these two speakers, one thing that you might think about is that, in allowing for compensation in the -- in the vehicle line, is that when you put it into salary, then you kind of lose the ability to -- for instance, when we started getting $1,200 a year, gasoline prices were at a dollar and a quarter. Now gasoline prices are $1.50, and there's been no adjustment to -- to do this, so you're cutting into -- basically, we're paying back the County for the privilege of using our vehicle in our work. And that may not be a fair compensation for what they're providing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good point. JUDGE RAGSDALE: And perhaps the thing could -- some of the -- the bite out of using their personal vehicle in their work for an increased production is -- is to compensate them a little bit more for their vehicle. e-i9-n3 wr 108 /"~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But, certainly, to keep in mind that the cost of operating, the cost of acquiring the vehicles, the cost of maintaining them, and the -- and the cost of feeding them have all gone up a lot since y'all have visited this issue the last time. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not to mention the cost of insuring the vehicle, because if he claims it is a work vehicle, his insurance rates are likely to be higher. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, you get a rider for your policy that might would include that. But, still, they're not necessarily -- I don't know that they're being compensated correctly. I don't know if they -- I think they feel like they are not. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That argument goes, I mean, to all -- everyone that used to have a travel allowance line item, pretty much every elected official. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yeah. I mean, it hasn't been touched in -- in, I know of -- I don't think it's been touched in 10 years, and the prices have gone up a lot. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good point. I just think it's a -- I brought it up because I think this is -- it's something we need to address and figure out what's the best way to do it county-wide, and I just brought it up -- you know, brought it up at our first discussion and thought this was a good time with the constables here as 9-~9 03 wk 109 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 well, because they certainly are affected. JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for constable, Precinct 1? MR. PICKENS: One other thing, Judge. You asked last -- not the past Commissioners Court, but the one before that, I had come in and asked for a transfer of funds for a portable radio. JUDGE TINLEY: Radio. MR. PICKENS: And it was advised to me to come back during the workshop and we could discuss that. At this time, I would like to ask the Court to consider still transferring $578 from the salary line item to Miscellaneous so could I purchase this radio. Again, for the liability factor, my safety factor when executing the duties as a constable. Right now I have a portable on, but it's on loan from the 9-1-1 Director. Unfortunately, it was involved in a big fight here about two weeks ago. Trying to call out, I found out later from the Sheriff that Channel 2 in this radio, I can receive them, but they can't hear me. So -- JUDGE TINLEY: That was the wrong time to find that out, wasn't it? MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir, big-time. It was, like, 30 against 4. And I -- when the Sheriff got back into his office, I talked to him about it and showed him the radio. And I can transmit on the old channel, but there's e-i9-o~ w,: llo 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 still not that guarantee that they can hear me as well. And the radio I'm requesting, the portable, is the same type of portable that his officers carry while on the street. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- can you go over that change that you wanted again? MR. PICKENS: From Salary line item that was not used, that was vacant during the election time, and transfer it over to Miscellaneous. And I gave y'all a copy of that bid from Advantage. This radio here, I would have to take it down to San Antone. COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much is that? MR. PICKENS: $578. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Constable Pickens, is this a need that's common among all four of the constables? Are we going to have four requests for this radio? MR. GARZA: I'm going to ask for a radio, a portable. MR. PICKENS: Angel Garza also has one on loan from 9-1-1, because his radio is outdated. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you need one? MR. AYALA: The Mounted Peace Officers bought me one. They felt sorry for me, bought me one, so I'm good on a portable. DODGE TINLEY: And I think Constable 4's got 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 his radio, Don't you? MR. TERRILL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where'd you get yours? Where'd you get yours? MR. TERRILL: I purchased it, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Out of his pocket. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Out of his pocket. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know, that -- okay. MR. PICKENS: But I'm doing what y'all had asked, come back and discuss it at the workshop. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we have two options. We can put it in the budget and you can get it in October, or we can -- it has to -- it has to be an agenda item in Commissioners Court meeting -- Commissioners Court meeting. JUDGE TINLEY: I think he already tried the -- MR. PICKENS: I already tried it. Y'all told me to come back -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we can put it in the budget. I don't have a problem I think it's COMMISSIONER LETZ: putting it in, the two that need it something -- 8-19 03 wk 112 ~1 1 L 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: That's what I would prefer. Just budget the thing and make it clear. MR. PICKENS: That's fine. But -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you're not going to get it until October. MR. PICKENS: I understand. But I appreciate it, and thank you. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we add $600 to both Constable 1 and Constable 3 under Miscellaneous? MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. MR. PICKENS: That's agreed. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that all we got -- MR. PICKENS: That's all I have. JUDGE TINLEY: -- on 1? Okay. Precinct 2 constable. MR. AYALA: I guess we're done talking about the cars, so I'll just go over the line items. I made a mistake when I requested just $37 for stamps, for postage. I'd like to double or triple that. I mean, because the last six or seven months, I've had real good success in sending out demand letters on uncollected traffic fines and warrants, and I need that increased just for that purpose. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Constable 1 has $100. MR. AYALA: That would probably work. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 9-19 03 wk 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2L 23 24 25 MR. AYALA: Also, fuel and oil, I requested $1,000 and it was reduced to $750, and I'd like to stick with $1,000. Gasoline has gone up. I think it's going to continue to go up, and that's why I requested almost double what I asked for last year. Line Item 331, Fuel and Oil. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All three constables are asking for the same amount of money? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. And I put them, all three, in at $750. And the reason I did, when you annualize -- when you annualize your expenditures of -- of 1, 2, and 3, you'll find that they're within that tolerance. Now, it was indicated to me by one constable -- I believe it may have been Constable Ayala -- that sometimes annualizing with his, I believe -- MR. AYALA: I just take it -- JUDGE TINLEY: -- fuel, and on his cell phone, as I recall, he kind of lumps at the end and that's where the big hit occurs. So, it may not be totally fair to do a straight annualization. But, is -- is my recollection essentially correct, constable? MR. AYALA: I take it, like, $40, $50 a month out of my fuel line item every month, and then my -- my phone, I wait till the end of the year, because I -- it just depends on how much long distance I use. Then I'll bring in 8 19-iii wk 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 six or seven months of cell phone invoices and get reimbursed for partial use of my cell phone. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, it's -- it's a phone that primarily runs -- MR. AYALA: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Any other items, Constable Ayala? MR. AYALA: I think that's it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On -- I'm going back and forth between the three, so I apologize. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both 1 and 2 are asking for -- well, they asked for $700 for phone, and you're budgeted $600. Constable 3 asked for $125 and -- JUDGE TINLEY: We approved at that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And 4 asked for $400. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What line item are you on, Commissioner? JUDGE TINLEY: 420. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 420? COMMISSIONER LETZ: 420 across the board. I just think it's -- to me, phone is something that should be pretty standard. I don't know how the Court wants to -- MR. AYALA: There was discussion Friday on d-19-03 w}: 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 putting out a bid for -- I'm not sure whether it's the Sheriff's Office or the County in general, but if we do that, I'd like for y'a11 to include the constables in that bid process, and add three or four phones in that process. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause, I mean, based on my cell phone bills, I mean, it doesn't appear y'all -- well, any of y'all are using it too much, but I don't see how Constable 3 -- he's not up right now. His is -- that's a very small part of whatever he's spending if he has a cell phone, I'm sure. It just seems that we ought to try to equalize them as much as we can, some of these items, unless there's a certain need that certain individuals have beyond those. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Similarly, another inequity, perhaps, is -- if that's the right term -- is some have vehicle insurance and equipment -- vehicle repair or vehicle equipment, and some don't. MR. GARZA: I think I addressed that question, Commissioner, when I took office. We were given so much money to put within our line items, and you pick and choose where you wanted to put it. That's where I decided to put that money, 'cause I had that question. That's the way it's been done for me. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Kind of like a Chinese menu; two from Column A -- 8-1a 03 wk ~" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 116 MR. GARZA: I guess if you want to call it that way. Some other constables might have had it in some other training mode or something, but that's where I chose to put my money. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that your recollection? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's accurate. MR. GARZA: Exactly. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, thanks. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, if you -- just a general question. Do all the constables -- I mean, do you think -- I mean, from my standpoint, it's easier if they're similar or the same for items. If there's a reason that doesn't make sense, I'll certainly listen to that, but my preference would be really to try to let y'all come up with -- the budgets aren't that far different; it's just that, you know, one wants to pay on telephone, one wants to be on insurance. And if we can figure out a standard -- if we can, to me, it would be helpful. I don't know if it's feasible or not. MR. AYALA: Well, I think last year's budget, you know, to run our office was around $1,200, you know, for a year. And that goes anywhere from fuel and oil to stamps to office supplies to whatever, and people just want to put that in different areas to use it the best as they can. e-iq-o~ w~: 117 ~, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I am kind of curious as to the difference in telephone usage between what you're anticipating, constable, and what constable, Precinct 3 anticipates. MR. AYALA: He doesn't have a cell phone. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He doesn't? MR. GARZA: I do, but it's my personal phone, and I have been using, like, the -- some of this money that the -- this $1,800 we talked about that's in our -- you know, in our salary, I basically buy that and use it out of there. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for constable, Precinct 2? Thank you, Constable Ayala. Constable, Precinct 3. MR. GARZA: Good afternoon, gentlemen. JUDGE TINLEY: We've already covered the radio issue, haven't we? MR. GARZA: I graciously thank all the Commissioners and you, Judge. I appreciate that. I -- I was basically going to say that that was my main item that I wanted to speak about. In the four years I've been in office, I have never asked for any capital outlay, and that was the one item I think I really need for safety factor. e-ia-o~ wx 118 ~~ i 1 L 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. MR. GARZA: Only other thing I can see, I'd like to see if I could have maybe another $50 on office supplies. When I took office, I basically used up most of the supplies from the previous constable, and so I've kind of been going here and there, and this is the first year I'm out of envelopes, paper, and what-have-you. And I just feel, if it's possible, I could just get a little bit more in supplies -- office supplies. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like, go to $100? MR. GARZA: I'd appreciate it if we could, you know. Because what I'll do, then, if I don't use it up, then what I would do is I'm going to maybe transfer it over into postage, and that way I can, you know, do what Constable Ayala does and Constable Pickens, send out letters -- demand letters. Usually I get a lot of good return on people bringing back court fines. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. GARZA: And that was mainly my deal, is I -- I've always worked with what the Court gives me. I'm very grateful for what the Court has done for me, and I'm in agreement with Commissioner Letz as far as maybe the bottom line on our line items. If we could kind of go as far as, if our salary's $29,000, you have, say, $1,500 to operate your budget. Everybody gets -- or everybody have the same 8 15 0~ wk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 119 amount of money, you know, to move around in your line items. Or that's a possibility. Or -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I see it a little bit differently. You wanted to put some extra money in your office supplies. MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So later on you can transfer it over -- the excess over to the postage. MR. GARZA: Possibly. Well, I'm just saying -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. Wait. Wait a minute. I'm not trying -- I'm not chunking rocks. Yet. But your postage is $37. MR. GARZA: One roll of stamps. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody else is $100. Why plan on doing budget transfers? Why don't we change his to $100 also? I don't have the change, I'm sorry. Did I -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We did Number 2's. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Changed 2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did 2. I just marked it on 3 thinking he was going to ask the same thing. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In my opinion, we need to add some in his postage now so he doesn't have to plan on H-15-03 wk 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 25 120 making budget amendments. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. JUDGE TINLEY: And that will give him the additional $50 that he wants anyway. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's got to buy envelopes to put the stamps on, so we might talk about that too. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, postage is $100, and what's office supplies? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $100 is what I've written down. MR. GARZA: Or back to $50 would make it. JUDGE TINLEY: Not arguing about that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, his office supplies is -- has been zero. MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ever since he got here. MR. GARZA: Exactly. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all you got for us today, Constable 3? MR. GARZA: Basically, it -- you know, like I A 19 03 wk 1 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 said, just do a bit -- give a little bit more attention on the $1,800. I -- like I said, I've been using that to buy equipment for myself for the performance of my duties, like uniforms or shirts and things like that, so I'll be distinct, as far as when I go to somebody's house or something. First thing, they look at you as you get out of your car, "Well, who is that? Why is he wearing a gun?" That kind of thing. So I have been trying to wear a distinctive uniform. That's how I get it -- the money out of my own budget, which comes out of that travel-type allowance money that we -- you've been talking about. JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't go get yourself into a brouhaha with a radio that can't reach anybody, did you? MR. GARZA: No, sir. No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: That's good. MR. GARZA: No, sir. MR. PICKENS: I didn't ask for that to happen. JUDGE TINLEY: I know you didn't ask for it, constable. COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. MR. GARZA: And, again, I just thank the Court for the giving me this opportunity, and thank you for looking into the vehicles for us. I appreciate that, and 3-19-03 w4: 122 /^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 thank you very much for the radio. I really do need that. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Angel. MR. GARZA: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One other thing here. Precinct 2, fuel and oil has got the $750, and Precinct 3 says gasoline. I'm assuming fuel and gasoline are the same. COMMISSIONER LETZ: He can't put any on oil. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $750. And then he has a line 454 -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that nobody else has. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's an equipment repair item on 2. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 956, same. JUDGE TINLEY: And there's a 454, vehicle repair/maintenance. COMMISSIONER LETZ: On 1. JUDGE TINLEY: On 1. But then you also have an insurance line on 3. So, it -- I think Commissioner Letz thought that we need to just try and reach some consensus on some sort of uniform guidelines to utilize here would be helpful, but right now, we are where we are and we need to go forward. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like -- go ahead. d-19-n3 wi: 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 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just think that that would be -- I agree 100 percent, and I think that would be a good exercise to go through on Friday, clean these things up. You know, as an example, this equipment repair. Back in other people's budgets, that equipment repair would be for maybe not a computer, but a printer, you know, that kind of equipment, not a cop car. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, I like Constable 3's idea of, you know, giving a set amount, letting them move it around some, but I think we need to set the categories they can move it around within. You know, give them a set $1,500 a year, whatever we decide, and let them have the, you know, flexibility to move it where they want within their -- based on their needs -- individual needs. But, anyway -- JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Constable 9. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Before Constable Terrill explains his budget, I'd like to say a couple things. Some of the questions I've asked the constables, it may have appeared that I was being critical of the constables' costs or the compensation. I'm not. I'm sympathetic that you -- all four of you are cost-effective. I believe you need vehicles. I don't -- I'm not critical at all of the cost of our constables' function. Now, before constable Terrill gets into it, I want to resurrect an old 8-'.9-03 wk 124 i 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 conversation that I think some of you have had. I know Commissioner Baldwin has. Precinct 4 is largely a rural precinct. Little bit of Kerrville in it, but not much. And it's, I think, about 600 square miles, somewhere between 55 and 60 percent of the total county area. So, when you're a constable out there, it's a -- it's a long ways to work. It's a long ways from Coronado area to Highway 41 or Mountain Home or -- or Y.O. Ranch. And at one time we had two constables out there, as you know, and those -- those were consolidated into one constable and a deputy. I don't see Constable Terrill's job is any smaller; in fact, I think it's larger than -- at least as large as the others, even with the fact that he's got a deputy. I know that deputy is at work. He does a lot, supports law enforcement. He's the first guy on the scene very -- very often, because he lives out there on 41. I see both of them all over the county. And what I'm proposing is that we pay the -- the constable the same salary as the others, and pay the deputy constable the $4,800 on top of that. So -- MR. TERRILL: Thank you, Commissioner. Your Honor, Commissioners, I've got -- I pretty much got what we want down here on this, and I put it down in kind of three druthers, and I'd like to have the best druther first. JUDGE TINLEY: For the -- for the Court's clarification on this, the current situation is that the y-19-U3 wk. 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 deputy constable receives $2,400 a year. That cost is deducted from Constable Terrill's' salary, so the total cost for manpower is -- is the same. Constable Terrill asks that -- that he -- he wanted his deputy to remain on the job, and I think he's absolutely essential out there, and if -- if we paid him five, ten times what he's making, I still think we got a bargain for what he does out there. But Constable Terrill wanted us to increase his salary to $9,800, and give him two options; one, he continue to bear half of it out of his, as it is right now, or his preferred option of, course, is to get that entire amount picked up by the County. And -- and I put it in on the recommended on the conservative side, saddling him with half of that cost, as he's presently doing. But, certainly, if the Court wants to consider picking up that entire $4,800, why, that's the Court's decision. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. How long has Mr. Hall been a constable -- or a deputy constable? MR. TER.RILL: Since 1976, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Help me with the math. MR. HALL: 27. JUDGE TINLEY: 27 years. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 27 years. MR. TERRILL: Yes, sir. Prior to that, we 8-15-03 w4: 1 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 had some other law enforcement out there; I believe a game warden and such as that, but he's currently listed through TCLEOSE as becoming a certified Texas peace officer in 1976. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I know he's certainly been the law west of Goat Creek. He's known as that. MR. TERRILL: He was honored two years ago for -- for 50 years law enforcement experience. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, you get two for the price of one; his wife is very active as well. MR. TERRILL: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's the one, actually. MR. TERRILL: I might add that both my deputy and I have furnished all of our own equipment. We both own our own vehicles. He has radio communications and cell phone within his vehicle, all emergency equipment, as do I in mine, and I've got police radios and separate-number cell phones in my private car and the one I use in the constable car. And I have a backup radio in case one breaks down. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If he was to arrest someone out there for one reason or another, would he call you to transport or -- MR. TERRILL: He could call myself or the Sheriff's Department or D.P.S. or the game wardens, 'cause 8-19-03 wk 127 n 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 29 L S he -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does he do, though? I mean -- MR. TERRILL: If he has a game violation out there, that's normally what he would wind up in an arrest type position -- situation, and he'll detain the person until the game warden arrives. And the game warden takes the case over from there. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. MR. TERRILL: He's a super, you know, first response person. And I've got a few things that -- to mention about things he's done in this fiscal year, 'cause he's answered 567 calls out there, and that includes 16 responses to Air Life and help set up landing pads and direct traffic and all that. He's responded to six major accidents out there, responded to a number of thefts, trespassing calls, fire calls, et cetera, and he's always -- he's seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and knows that country like no one else. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, my choice is choice number 1. And it's one of those things that we just kind of have to pencil in and make sure we have enough money to do. But that would be my vote if I were a voting person right now. JUDGE TINLEY: I couldn't find any reason to H-1a-03 wk 128 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 disagree with you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any problem with number one. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all right. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other items that you have down here, Constable Terrill? MR. TERRILL: I can't think of any. JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have much else there. MR. TERRILL: That's it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Refresh my memory, constable. Who is your assistant, your deputy? MR. TERRILL: I beg pardon? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is your deputy's name? MR. TERRILL: T.D. Hall. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'd forgotten. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've had occasion, since I came out to Kerr County in 1982, to call on a law enforcement officer twice, and both times it was T.D. Hall. I called him at home one time; it was 2 a.m. It was a spotlighting -- illegal spotlighting, and I guess he must have been constable then, because he didn't call any more help. He put the handcuffs on them, took them to jail. R-19-03 wk. n /'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 MR. TERRILL: That's T.D. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As you know, he has a son that recently retired from T.A.B.C. that now works for the Kerr County Sheriff's Department, and his son that's a D.P.S. I guess will be in here soon, maybe. But, good law enforcement family. MR. TERRILL: Absolutely. Halls -- the "Halls of Justice," I believe they call them. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Halls of Justice. Oh, my gosh. There's headlines -- that's headline talk. MR. TERRILL: I appreciate your -- JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Constable Terrill. MR. TERRILL: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it. MR. TERRILL: Your Honor and Commissioners, appreciate it. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Probably -- why don't we -- I think the court reporter ought to be getting a little warm by this time. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Warmed up. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: Judge? If you guys recess, then I won't be able to address the Court. We were supposed to be here at 2:30 for our part in this, and I really have to get. b-15-U3 w}: 130 /'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's recess. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Whatever. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine with me. She has to have a rest. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can go if you want to, but she heeds to have a rest. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we're going to take a 10-minute recess. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See you, Bill. (Recess taken from 3 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.) JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if we could, please. We will resume the workshop agenda -- budget workshop agenda for this date. It's about 3:15. We took a 10-, 15-minute recess. The next item up is J.P.'s. J.P. 4 indicated that he's got a time commitment that he's under. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Your Honor, J.P. 1 would yield to the distinguished judge from Precinct 4. JUDGE TINLEY: Precinct -- no one on the Court has any objection to hearing Number 4 first? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We might just go in reverse order. 131 /'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that would be -- that would be make it comfortable. JUDGE TINLEY: Just do a countdown; 4, 3, 2, 1. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Gentlemen, if you have -- the only items that I'm going to speak to -- JUDGE TINLEY: We're on Page 31. Let us get on the right page with you, Judge Ragsdale. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Let me know when you're ready. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is everybody on the right page now? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Been there. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I apologize. I was late getting there. Judge Ragsdale? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Okay. Item Number 105 -- JUDGE TINLEY: Yes? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Okay. I have requested a salary increase. Part of this increase is the -- the step increase that was requested -- or suggested by Dr. Nash in his study, but there is a difference. Also, I've asked for a little bit more for the clerk, to bring him at the same level that the other clerks are being paid, $24,152. Do you have a question on that? I would like -- d-:9-U3 w4: 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're not all paid the same? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, let me put -- this raises him up to, say, comparable, if not -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's comparable to 2, but above 1 and 3. But, anyway -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: But the -- for the Court's benefit, the recommended figure does include the longevity increase that -- that -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: From the Nash thing. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. The Nash, I -- I guess, but it's based upon that schedule. And that's included in there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think JUDGE TINLEY: What you're seeking is an additional step plus a COLA? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, the Court's going to make a decision whether or not to grant a COLA. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Regardless -- JUDGE TINLEY: In entirety. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I understand, longevity increase, that's good. The other additional step increase, for some reason, it was not picked up during the B-19-03 wk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 133 Nash study? Or the job description has changed that requires it to be at a higher level? JUDGE RAGSDALE: There is a dynamic increase in business. He is -- he is working extremely hard to try and keep up, and I'm helping him. But, I mean, he is -- he is very worthy of the compensation. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, what I'm -- where I'm trying to go is that we did the Nash study, and I think we're still trying to follow it. If we need to adjust the job description of that individual, that's one thing. And that's really the only way that I see, up to this point, I mean, that we can do an increase, is if the -- what the job is, is beyond what the job description he's currently being paid at specifies. And, you know, as to why there's a discrepancy in the clerks' salaries -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, there are -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I'm not sure. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Pardon me for interrupting. There are some other issues, too, quite frankly. He is eligible for Medicaid, his family. The salary that the -- the County is paying makes him eligible for Medicaid. Children on WIC and Medicaid. That's -- that's embarrassing. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not unique to 8-i5-03 w4: 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this particular individual. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is not unique for this particular county -- individual. We have others in the county whose compensation also places them in those categories. JUDGE RAGSDALE: That's embarrassing also. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We understand. COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think we agree. I think what we're saying is we need to be consistent. We can't just go in and pick out one person, you know, and raise their salary. JUDGE RAGSDALE: I can't address other people's -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE RAGSDALE: -- budget issues. All I can do is address the one that I'm responsible for. And -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's possible that this job was underclassified, Jon. I don't know what the other three precinct clerks do. JUDGE RAGSDALE: They do a lot. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm intimately familiar with what this young man does, and he's more like e-i~-os wti 135 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 2_` an office manager than he is a -- DODGE RAGSDALE: And they all -- perhaps they should all be addressed, but I cannot do but one. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That may be the issue. We may need to look at that classification. COMMISSIONER LETZ: For all of them. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just give them the proper recognition. JUDGE TINLEY: May be a broader question than just this one -- this one particular individual. JUDGE RAGSDALE: And that's -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's probably the case. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Possibly all four -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- offices are all alike. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I would like a classification for the clerk in Precinct 2. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's look at the classification. JUDGE RAGSDALE: And if you do one, I'm hoping that you would go ahead and -- and help each one of them get a salary that is in line with the work that they a-iu os wk 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do, each one of them. I'm very familiar with -- with each one of them, and there are none of them that should back up for their paycheck at all. But, like I said, I can only address one at a time, and that's mine. Now, also -- sorry? JUDGE TINLEY: What other items did you have? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Number 310. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. DODGE RAGSDALE: I asked for $2,095. I'm going to have to ask you for -- just make it $2,600, and I'll tell you why. I made an error in a purchase. I purchased what I thought was -- was the neatest thing that happened since pinto beans; it was a wonderful printer. I got $800 in -- in rebates, which took a $1,200 machine down to about $400. Well, I found out why. You've got to feed this monster, and it is not inexpensive whatsoever. Cartridges are about $60 to $80, but you also have to replace certain drums when you replace the cartridges, which make a feeding session about $300 to $350. They're computer-chipped so that, at a certain amount of copies, they die. JUDGE TINLEY: What number of copies is that? JUDGE RAGSDALE: I -- it's something like 6,500. It's a large amount of copies, but it just dies. When that computer chip breaks, that's the end of the drum, and when you replace the drum, you have to replace these B-lv ~!3 wk 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 2~ other rollers, and it's about $300. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a laser printer? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Yes, sir. Now, the good news is this. The reason I'm asking you for the money -- and I'm not necessarily sure I'd have to spend it. Because, as you know, the technology fund has been approved by the -- J.P. technology fund fee has been approved by the Texas Legislature. There was a lawsuit pending in Travis County, whether or not that -- that was equal protection and all this trash. They -- they made it -- they made it known that they were holding back on deciding this case or allowing it to go on the docket pending the outcome of the Legislature. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Legislature said okay, so they anticipate that the lawsuit will go by the wayside. Once the Commissioners Court authorizes us or instructs us to take and to be able to spend that money, then I won't -- I will anticipate that I'll be able to feed this machine off that technology fund and not office supplies. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I placed it on the agenda, what you're asking about. JUDGE RAGSDALE: For Monday, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next Monday. JUDGE RAGSDALE: So, if that goes through, then I may not have to spend some of these funds that I'm P-19-03 wk 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 budgeting. But, by the same token, I don't know -- you can't say what you're going to do. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You would -- I suspect if it's like most fees, though, you still have to budget for it. It's just that there will be a designated fund where that money will come out of. JUDGE RAGSDALE: We're not -- I think that is an issue that you're going to have to discuss Monday also. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE RAGSDALE: As to what would be the process. Because all four J.P.'s are putting into this one pool. What would be the process of disbursement of it? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. JUDGE RAGSDALE: So, I anticipate we'll actually be able to use that money, and not the general budget money. Okay? So, I just wanted to let you know that. I don't think there are any other issues that I have, unless you have questions concerning what's been requested. JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any questions for Judge Ragsdale, or any comments or -- yes? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I needed to know what we're putting in the 310. $2,600, was it? JUDGE TINLEY: That's what he's asking. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And seemed to me that's what -- about what J.P. 3 has, $2,600. e iy-o~ w~: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 139 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that the same as saying you don't have a problem, then, with looking kindly on his request? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that's not saying that at all. JUDGE TINLEY: I see. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Can I ask the Court -- JUDGE TINLEY: What is it saying? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's saying that I've written down $2,600. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Has the Court addressed our office rent issue? JUDGE TINLEY: Office rent? JUDGE RAGSDALE: Has anybody asked him if he's going to go up? JUDGE TINLEY: You're the only one that has an office rent issue that I'm aware of, and -- JUDGE RAGSDALE: Paula Rector. That is a courthouse annex. It's not -- I mean, you all have put that in my budget with the utilities, but -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't -- do we not have a contract with the guy? Yes, is the answer. And is that a one-year contract or a two-year contract, or three? JUDGE TINLEY: We don't know. e--y-a~ wti: 140 /^'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 zo 21 22 23 29 2` MS. SOVIL: I think it automatically renews. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh? MS. SOVIL: It automatically renews unless he notifies us. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's right. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Okay. Well, that answered my question. Anything else, gentlemen? JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have anything further. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate you being here. Sorry to detain you and delay you. JUDGE RAGSDALE: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we then go back to 3? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go in reverse order here. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The last shall be first, the first shall be last. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. JUDGE TINLEY: Judge O'Dell. (Discussion off the record.) JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry? JUDGE O'DELL: I said mine was going to be short, and Judge Elliott said I was short -- so was I. tl-1y 03 wk 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 L1 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't take that too kindly? JUDGE O'DELL: No. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we'll cut him short. JUDGE O'DELL: Yeah, off at the knees. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. JUDGE O'DELL: Is it -- to my understanding on the clerk's salary that y'all are going to look at that? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. JUDGE O'DELL: For everybody? Okay. Well, then, guess what? I'm fine. JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court got any questions for Judge O'Dell? Anything they want to address to her? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is your $2,600 in 310 based on the same logic as Judge Ragsdale's? JUDGE O'DELL: No, sir. No, sir. You -- you're asking me why I have $2,600? I use that. I used it last year for envelopes, paper, et cetera, et cetera. And I've -- I've used it up. I requested it, and there it is. JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, according to my -- JUDGE O'DELL: I could use it. JUDGE TINLEY: -- calculations, through July, she used more than -- than the amount she's requesting for a-iy-o3 wk 192 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the year. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because of the layout of the precinct -- JUDGE O'DELL: I got a lot of the interstate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 3 and 4, by far, do more of this, just because of the interstate. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have a question. I notice, in both your budget and Precinct 1, that the software maintenance costs are considerably different than the other two. Is there a reason? JUDGE O'DELL: Well, it was to my understanding that it was going up 5 percent. JUDGE ELLIOTT: He's talking about the general issue. That's because we're on the software user group, and they're not. That's all. JUDGE O'DELL: Okay. JUDGE ELLIOTT: We're on the same system through Tommy that interacts with the rest of the courthouse. JUDGE O'DELL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the other J.P.'s are on another system? JUDGE TINLEY: 2 and 9 are on a different -- JUDGE O'DELL: On Apollo. b-19-J3 wk. 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L1 22 23 29 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would explain it. JUDGE O'DELL: I'm sorry. Thank you. JUDGE WRIGHT: Temporarily, I hope. JUDGE O'DELL: Yeah, that was the best thing I ever did. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE O'DELL: Okay, thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Appreciate it. JUDGE O'DELL: Thanks. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Prec inct 2, Judge Wright. Thank you for being here. JUDGE WRIGHT: I won't take up much of your time either. In the last week and a half -- I didn't discuss this with yo u when I came in for my session, but Lin's with been out with her husband, who's critical, and for the last -- JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry to hear that. Commissioner Williams kind of bought me up to date on it. Terribly sorry to hear it. JUDGE WRIGHT: Not good. Anyway, I've been working on -- on my own, and I'm finding out exactly how much they do. And I think my Commissioner's wife found out; she came out and helped me for a while. But I'm asking that &-19-u3 wk 144 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 my part-time salary be increased to $1,000. Quite frankly, I need some help this week. I'm on call, and right now my office is locked up. COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have -- I mean, is this a request because of the -- what's going on right now? I mean, do we need to do -- JUDGE WRIGHT: We've always managed to work it to where, if I was on call, she didn't take any time off, and usually we can handle it, because what she has to do can sit there for two or three days if she takes vacation. But this time, with the long session, there's a lot of her things that I don't even know how to do. And right now, we're kind of -- she's going to come up at night and start doing some work as soon as she gets him out of ICU to help me get caught up. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is more, do we need to do a budget amendment for this year's budget? Or -- JUDGE WRIGHT: We -- yes. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to engineer one for -- JUDGE WRIGHT: We took all of my scraps and put it into two days employment. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bottom of several barrels. A 19 73 wk 145 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 JUDGE WRIGHT: I have someone coming in for two days to help me out. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's my question. JUDGE WRIGHT: Any questions? JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Judge Wright? JUDGE WRIGHT: No. This only -- I'm concerned about the salary also, but I'm assuming that will be addressed. And -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to be sure, based on what I asked Justice 3, that the software maintenance charge -- you've asked for $3,500 more than you had last year. Is that going to get you on the system that you need and want to be on? JUDGE WRIGHT: If you'll look at it, I've got some capital outlay in this budget to get me onto Software Group. I can't -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see it. That's the reason I asked. JUDGE WRIGHT: I love what I'm on, but I can not get any tech support at all. They won't even return a call. JUDGE TINLEY: What Judge Wright is referring to is, under 562, I believe that's the 14,8 to get you over onto -- JUDGE WRIGHT: Software Group. e-ia-es w~; 196 /^• ,~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: To convert to you Software Group. JUDGE WRIGHT: That's precisely why I didn't ask for it last year. They wanted $18,000 to put me over, and I thought that that was ridiculous. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it. I just -- I was looking on the wrong line. JUDGE TINLEY: As I told Lin of your office, I would attempt to make the call to this -- it's not Apollo. Whatever the -- JUDGE WRIGHT: And they never did return your call. JUDGE TINLEY: You've probably been listening in on my phone conversations, 'cause that's exactly -- JUDGE WRIGHT: Well, I could have told you they wouldn't. JUDGE TINLEY: That's what's Lin told me also, and they did not respond to me. And -- JUDGE WRIGHT: Being tacky, I'll preface that with -- the last time I called, I got a receptionist. I said, "Do you do other departments of the county other than J.P.'s? Do you do the District Clerk? Treasurer?" "Oh, we sure do." I said, "Okay. Well, you ask them to give me a call." And I didn't even get a response out of that. I was hoping it would set it up for you, but no response. 8-:9-0? w4: 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Judge Wright. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That brings us now to J.P. 1, Judge Elliott. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Before I get started, Commissioner Baldwin had mentioned that there was some blood on the floor from last Friday. I want to know whose it was before I get started on this budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty's. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay. Of course, the first item would, of course, be the salary adjustment that has been mentioned. A couple years ago, there was a -- a study done by the Commissioners Court on, like, salary adjustments for our elected officials, so that second half that was projected or suggested that they would cover the next year was put into the official's salary with a 2.5 percent -- I understand where you're at on the 2.5 percent. So, as -- Judge Tinley, as you and I talked in my office when we reviewed the budget initially, that survey that was done by the Commissioners Court at the time stated that the Justice of the Peace, in order to be up to the average, needed about a $1,284 adjustment. There was six -- half of that, $642, was given, with the other half to be anticipated in the next year. And that's been a couple years ago and never was given, so that's why that number's in there. e-i9-o3 wx 148 /"~ 1 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 secretary's salary is, again, another issue that the Court was made aware of several months ago, and I would hope it would have the numbers and be ready to address the issue on the annual merit increase of our employees. An annual anniversary date is an anniversary date. It's not 10 months later; it's not eight months later. An anniversary date is one year from the time they started, and it's my position that those employees should get their anniversary date on the month that they turn one year with the County, and so that's why that number was put in there. And I understand you're going to address that issue at another time, but certainly, we've addressed that a few months ago, and I would have hoped that y'all would have been ready to make the right decision to insure that our employees were given an anniversary date/longevity increase when it's due. Part-time salary. This is on Line Item 108. That was requested at $1,900, but when I got my budget back, it was only $700, and I really don't know where that number came from. Who put $700? DODGE TINLEY: I put the number in there, and that is the same number that was given to all J.P.'s -- recommended for all the J.P.'s. Their part-time salary is basically -- JUDGE ELLIOTT: How did you get that number? is-:9 03 wk 199 ~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to cover for vacation time taken by your clerk. JUDGE ELLIOTT: I mean, did you have any calculations you used for that, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: Insofar as calculating off of minimum wage or something like that? JUDGE ELLIOTT: Did you just say -- why wasn't it $500? Why not $800? Where'd you get $700? JUDGE TINLEY: I can certainly make it $500. But I didn't make any particular wage or hour calculation. Most of the -- most of the J.P.'s had asked for $700, $750, as I recall, and so I settled on that number for each of the respective offices. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay. Well, I did do my calculations, and if you have two weeks vacation, a week of training, it comes out to $1,400. That's a very easy calculation to make, 120 hours times $12 an hour for temporary help, and it comes out to $1,400. So, if the -- if the court coordinator cannot be in the office and we don't have enough part-time available for us in the budget, then, obviously, the office would have to be temporarily closed for that period of time. That's the reason that we requested -- I requested $1,400. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, what you're asking for is significantly higher than the combined 8-19-03 wk 150 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 requests of the other J.P.'s. What's the -- is there something different about your office? JUDGE ELLIOTT: I don't know. I don't know how they calculated their numbers. I just know what my numbers are. JUDGE TINLEY: Is -- is your current coordinator e ntitled to two we eks vacation? JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. JUDGE ELLIOTT: So -- so, I respectfully request that the Court adjust that $700 to an amount that would replace her whi le she is on vacation and/or in training. COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a little bit of a -- to me, a county-wide policy issue. Up to now, we have not done that. I mean, we, you know, put some part-time salary in, but we do not -- basically, like, in the District Clerk's Office or our office here, we don't calculate the amount of vacation time allowed and then multiply that by $12 an hour and come up with a part-time figure, assuming they're all -- that we're going to fill all the spots. I mean, our office is closed occasionally. And, the other elected officials, you know, I presume they just don't have certain functions, or they -- JUDGE ELLIOTT: Well, if they have a large H 19-03 wh 151 ,-.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 staff, they can certainly overlap. When you only have one person running the office, then it's either -- we're either temporarily closed, or -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- okay, the Treasurer. I mean, you know, there are comparable offices. They just -- I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm saying that's not the -- that's kind of a policy issue as to how we want to handle that. I think it needs to be consistent. If we're going to start allowing for calculating part-time on that basis, it has a pretty big impact on the budget. Just a comment. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Any other comments on that line item? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I'm just curious as to why your requirements are different from the other three. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Well, the same reason that, for example, office supplies, Commissioner, for your Justice of the Peace is $2,000-something and mine's only $1,751. I mean, we -- different precincts require different things to happen. We perform -- for example, perform more civil cases than the other three J.P.'s. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't get the analogy between envelopes and paper and people. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Well, somebody's got to be 8-19-~3 wk 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 there to take care of it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But my question is, why is it more for your precinct than it would be for the other three? That's my question. JUDGE ELLIOTT: I don't have a clue why the other three don't calculate theirs the same way I do mine. I just know that I'm -- my Court coordinator is going to be out three weeks. And while she's out three weeks, I've got to replace her, and that's where that number comes from. As Judge Ragsdale said, I don't get into the details of the other Justice of the Peace. I can certainly tell you what Precinct 1 needs to do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other items? JUDGE ELLIOTT: The conferences, we had requested 15 and that got reduced to $1,000. I don't understand where that number came from. JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, the same answer that I gave you with respect to part-time. That's a uniform figure that was plugged in, I believe, into all four budgets. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Well, it certainly wasn't -- what's the difference in the -- the Justice of the Peace conference of $1,000 versus a Commissioner's with $1,125? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Depends on what your -19 ~3 wk 153 i I .-~. 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 requirements are. I mean, my view has been, and we've made a comment -- you may not have been in here, 'cause you've not been at all the workshops, but whatever the hour requirements required to get your hours is what we should fund. Commissioners Court felt that we can barely get it done, probably, with $1,125. Some of them required $2,000; some of them, you know, $1,500. It varies, and it's whatever -- you know, the J.P.'s, I mean, they all should be the same, I think, because y'all require the same amount of education, I think. DODGE ELLIOTT: We also send our court coordinators to training school, and that's -- we take that out of the conference budget. Maybe that's where it's misleading, that you're thinking $1,000 is just for the elected official, when in actuality it's -- it's for our court coordinator as well. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that number is -- you know, I think all the J.P.'s have the same requirement here, and they all should be the same, and we need to fund whatever that amount is. And, you know, I have to look to y'all to tell me what the amount is. DODGE ELLIOTT: As far as the -- the amount required, you know, there is no requirement for a Justice of the Peace to go to a death inquest training seminar, but certainly we spent $500 to send a Justice of the Peace to a 8-19-03 wk 154 r--~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 death inquest seminar, and it helped them evaluate better when to order an autopsy or not, and it saved the County $2,000 on one autopsy. More than paid for itself. So, conferences can be very beneficial. Education of your elected officials should be a priority, and that's why I feel that that number needs to be raised to $1,500. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question. Are court coordinators for J.P.'s -- are they required by law to be certified? JUDGE ELLIOTT: They're not required by law, but they -- the Justice Court Training Center certainly has about as many training programs for the court coordinators as they do for judges, because most of the time, that frontline person, the court coordinator, is making the decisions on the phone that -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure, I understand that. JUDGE ELLIOTT: -- jeopardize the office if not made properly. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other items? DODGE ELLIOTT: Well, you know, it's -- what we recommend is what we had -- what we've been currently operating on this budget year, and your recommendations, Judge, decrease our budget 6 percent, and I just don't know that we're going to have 6 percent to play with. The other F-19-u3 wk 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 issue is, Justices of the Peace, as you guys may be aware, have to go out to the State Hospital two times a week for hearings. And there -- you know, we have some type of supplement pay. I did notice in the court -- court line item, 926, for judicial supplement, there was a new line item of $4,000. Is that $4,000 for the Justice of the Peace? JUDGE TINLEY: Are you speaking of the County Court budget? JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yes, sir. JUDGE TINLEY: You know, I'm glad you asked that question, Judge Elliott, because there have been a number of questions that have been raised about that from the other day. And, as a matter of fact, I've had one or more elected officials that have made inquiry of me whether or not that was an item which was a transfer from another line item of funds, or whether it was, in fact, a new line item, and these at least two elected officials that made inquiry of me both indicated that they had received an inquiry soliciting them to inquire about that particular question. Now, whether or not the -- JUDGE ELLIOTT: Whose inquiry, and inquire what? JUDGE TINLEY: Whether or not that -- that elected official that was making the inquiry, who apparently a io o~ wr. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 156 wanted to be nameless -- and I don't know, it could have been any -- any one of the elected officials; they were only identified as an elected official. I don't know whether the reason for making the inquiry was because the person that -- that was really urging the other elected officials to inquire of me didn't have the ability to ascertain from looking at the budget whether or not it was a transfer or new money, as it were. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Right. JUDGE TINLEY: Or whether they didn't have the courtesy to come ask me directly. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: Or both. But it very well could have been. But the clear answer to your question is, that is a brand-new item. It is not a transfer. It is not transfer funds. Now, that particular item was put in the budget in order that this Commissioners Court would be aware of what the obligations and commitments of the County are. In preparing the budget for Kerr County, or any other entity, for that matter, it is my feeling that you have a number of items that have got to be into the equation in order to properly budget. One is, you need to know what all of the obligations and the commitments are for the entity for which a budget is being prepared. And, two, for those that you're not certain about, they're probable, but in all 8 15-03 wr. 157 1 /-w 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reasonable probability, you can anticipate you need to include those so that you can provide for them, and those items need to be clearly identified and disclosed. And once you have those, then you need to identify your available revenues or resources available. With that in-hand, you're then in a position to make a -- a proper schedule of disposition of those items. Now, it would seem to me that, in the event you don't have all of the knowledge you need to have about what the obligations and commitments are, that you're really not in a position to prepare an adequate budget. Wouldn't you agree? Now, therefore, it's essential that you know what all of those are. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay. JUDGE TINLEY: Now, the fact that you fail to recognize the existence of an obligation and you don't identify it, you don't disclose it, that doesn't make that obligation go away or otherwise be diminished in any manner. It would be somewhat like going out and signing a contract to buy a car, and then later on into the contract, deciding that, you know, "I could spend this money better for other purposes," so you're going to ignore that you have that obligation; you're going to commit these funds that you would have otherwise utilized for that purpose, and proceed to expend them for another purpose. Well, you're going to get out around pretty soon, and that obligation is still e-iA ~~3 wr. 158 /'. 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to exist and is not going to be diminished. As a matter of fact, it might get you in some sort of difficulty. I think it was incumbent upon me, as the budget officer, to recognize the obligations and commitments of this county to all of its employees and officials, and to disclose those when I prepared this budget. Certainly, had I not disclosed the longevity increases, the educational increases, or mentioned up front that -- that the elected officials' salaries, as it were, were something that was before the Court, I don't think I would have been properly looking after the interests of this county. Now, by the same token, had I omitted that item, inasmuch as it is an obligation and commitment, would it have been discharging my duty as budget officer? The answer is clearly no. Now -- now, let's get to the real issue. The real issue is, does the fact that I have disclosed that, brought it to the forefront, placed it before this Court as an obligation of this County, does that now make it my issue? No, it doesn't. That obligation was incurred back in 1999, at the same time that the salary and longevity increases were incurred, and it carries the same weight and obligation as those salary increases. So, merely because you don't like the message is no reason to shoot the messenger. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Your Honor -- JUDGE TINLEY: Merely because someone decides R-15-03 wY. 159 ~"~ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to disclose the existence of a preexisting problem, don't use that as a -- as a way to blame the problem on the one that disclosed it. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Your Honor, I didn't say I had a problem with anything, nor do I blame anybody for anything. I asked a simple question. JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- JUDGE ELLIOTT: Is that judicial supplement to -- JUDGE TINLEY: You got your answer. JUDGE ELLIOTT: No, I didn't. What's the -- what is that judicial supplement for? JUDGE TINLEY: That judicial supplement is for -- that this Court put into place for hearing cases away from the courthouse is for the judge hearing temporary commitment hearings and other hearings of like kind. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Who would receive that compensation, Judge? JUDGE TINLEY: The county judge who hears the cases. JUDGE ELLIOTT: So, what you've recommended to the Court is a budget that includes a $9,000 supplemental increase in your income. JUDGE TINLEY: I have recommended to this Court that they be aware of a commitment that this County 160 ,~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has that's been in existence since 1999. These -- these items are paid by court costs that are collected in mental health cases. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Surely, they've been collected -- JUDGE TINLEY: Some of which come from other counties and which are charged to other counties. JUDGE ELLIOTT: And they've been coming in; they've been going into the general revenue fund. JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. That's correct. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Now, you also -- you do receive a supplement for hearings already. DODGE TINLEY: No, sir, I don't. JUDGE ELLIOTT: You don't? JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir, I don't. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Well, state supplement, I guess, is for your other duties. You know, the issue with the $9,000 is, that is a $4,000 supplemental increase that you've recommended for your income, for your salary. JUDGE TINLEY: I have placed it before this Court for consideration. DODGE ELLIOTT: Why didn't you place before the Court consideration to give our employees a 2.5 percent increase? 8 19-03 wk 1 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Because -- JUDGE ELLIOTT: Why is it okay for one and not the other? JUDGE TINLEY: I placed before the Court the commitment that this County made to its employees in 1999, just as I've placed before the Court the commitment that it made in 1999 with respect to the issue that you inquired about. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Well, I just -- I find it ironic -- JUDGE TINLEY: Now, if you have any other issues about your budget, let's talk about them. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Well, I -- JUDGE TINLEY: Otherwise -- JUDGE ELLIOTT: Because -- because J.P.'s do perform judicial duties at the State Hospital, when I saw that that State Hospital had a judicial supplement of $9,000, that certainly got my attention. But I can see that you feel that you -- that you really put this in the budget, which means you recommend it, that you would get a $4,000 supplemental increase in your salary, when you have held everybody else and cut everyone else's budget, mine 6 percent, and not give a cost-of-living adjustment to employees, but yet we can take care of the County Judge and increase his salary $4,000. 8-i~-U3 w4: 162 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 JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Elliott, I have honored the same commitments of this county to the employees as I have done in this case. Any other questions about your budget? JUDGE ELLIOTT: Is there any judicial supplements offered -- increase offered for any of the J.P.'s performing judicial hearings at the State Hospital? That was the original question. JUDGE TINLEY: Is this in your budget? JUDGE ELLIOTT: They're not in our budgets? JUDGE TINLEY: There's none in your budget, no, sir. JUDGE ELLIOTT: There's none in any of the budgets. Okay, that's what I need to know. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I've got a question. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to be the only J.P. that hangs in with this particular computer program? JUDGE ELLIOTT: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All three other J,P.'s now have moved to the -- JUDGE ELLIOTT: No, Commissioner, I'm in the courthouse; I've been on the software ever since I came in a is-u~ wk 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 the office. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, so you're the only one that's always been there. Now the -- the other three are moving over to you? JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, forgive me. JUDGE ELLIOTT: That was under -- when I first came into office, I evaluated all the different programs. I talked with Tommy about the current program. We decided that was the best program to stay with. The other J.P.'s have now jumped on board. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. Thank you. JUDGE ELLIOTT: Thank you. JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Okay. We're down to -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: Done. JUDGE TINLEY: No, we had -- no. No, we had a couple -- couple ideas go in here. D.P.S. Weights and Measures. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That brings us to -- MS. SOVIL: We scheduled the District Courts. JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? MS. SOVIL: We also scheduled the District Courts. 8-19 C3 w~: 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, right after that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which number? JUDGE TINLEY: Page 58, looks like. Anybody here from D.P.S.? (No response.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: What time are they scheduled? 3:30? JUDGE TINLEY: They were actually scheduled at 3:00. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't recall seeing anybody here from D.P.S. this afternoon. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. JUDGE TINLEY: Do you, Rusty? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I haven't seen anybody around here. I can look outside real quick, but I haven't seen anyone. DODGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was going to recommend -- JUDGE TINLEY: 57 and 58. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was wondering about 57, yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We -- well, we had a-_y-a~ .,.k 165 n ,~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this little visit last year about them actually being in the courtroom during budget time, so obviously they choose not to -- I don't have any problem adopting your recommended. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any questions about License and Weights? 58. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait just a second. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm good on both pages, 57 and 58. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess not. God, everybody's sad in here. What's the deal? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it -- just a question for my education. Is supplementing the salary of the secretary -- D.P.S. secretary, is that a common practice in counties? Or is it peculiar to Kerr County? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it is. And I don't know that we supplement. Seems like we pay -- we actually pay her salary. She's a County employee over there. Because -- because -- I mean, I'm not going to make their case for them, but they -- I see it pretty clear that they go out and -- and write all these tickets and do all this traffic stuff, and it's income for the county, and instead of them -- the officer himself going in and doing his work, doing the secretarial work, we have a secretary over there that does it for them. They can stay out there F-15-u3 w:: 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on the road and make money. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Makes sense to me. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty clear to me. COMMISSIONER LETZ: What percent -- you may not know this. What percent of the traffic fines -- does the County get all of it? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. I'm -- I want to say -- and I'm not sure, Commissioner, but I think it's under 50 percent, but I could check and let you know during the -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can ask one of the J.P.'s. I mean, I understand the logic of getting them out on the road, but at the same time, I mean, they don't -- we do all the paperwork. We do all the processing. We do everything already, and we're -- then we're paying the secretary over there. But I'm not objecting to it, just pointing out the true story. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Been there before, haven't we? JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Nothing else on D.P.S.? I had inserted District Court, which is 17, I believe -- yes. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 17? JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. The only item there that -- that was brought to my attention by either 8-19-n3 wk 167 r^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Judge Ab1es or the -- his court coordinator has to do with the first item that you see up there at the top, 101, Elected Official Salary. When I initially saw that on the print, I thought it was an anomaly, because I thought, well, we don't pay the District Judge's salary, and I thought it was just a misprint. I went right on by it, didn't pay any attention to it, because it was not on the print that I had seen earlier that I had worked up my -- my initial preliminary figures with that I turned in to the Auditor. Later on, I was given to understand that the Auditor's office had been contacted without my knowledge with regard to the item that you see there. The explanation for that is that the District Judges have a salary cap relative to the -- to the appellate judges, and the difference between that salary cap and what they're actually earning, they are permitted to receive by virtue of supplements which are received from the counties in which they serve. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does this number take them to the cap? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, that number takes him to the cap. What it does, it permits $90 a month to be paid by each of four counties that he's -- that Judge Ables serves in, and each of them, I assume, is being requested to pay $1,080. So, that -- that's how that number was arrived at. The difference between his cap and what he's presently R-19-03 wk 168 ,~-~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 receiving is permissible supplement. It's our share of it, one-fourth share. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why doesn't it also appear on the 198th? JUDGE TINLEY: Because it wasn't requested, is the only answer I can give you. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good answer. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why, on the 198th, does it not show the elected official salary, or am I just not seeing it? JUDGE TINLEY: It does not appear there. It was not -- that same -- that same request was not made. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the -- oh, I guess because there was no request. JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, exactly. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that you leave it off totally. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm -- you know, I guess my feeling is that we should hear all the reports. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can you tell me what his salary is now? Or is that none of my business or what? JUDGE TINLEY: It is your business, but I can't tell you. 8-19'G3 wk 169 r^ ~^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 26 21 22 23 29 2_ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean -- JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause I don't know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you and I fighting about something? Why can't you tell me? JUDGE TINLEY: Because I don't know. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've been friends a long time. JUDGE TINLEY: Simple answer is, I don't know. MS. SOVIL: Auditor may know. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know either. COMMISSIONER LETZ: $103,000? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did Tommy say? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He doesn' t know. JUDGE TINLEY: It's something in excess of a hundred, isn 't it? MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's in excess of, but I'm not sure how much. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Roughly 103, it seems. MR. TOMLINSON: I know our Count y Court at Law Judge's salary's based on that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 80 percent. MS. SOVIL: No, $1,000 less. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. R-19 03 wk 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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's more than 80 percent. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, one -- if we granted this request here and bump him up to his cap, then County Court at Law automatically bumps up? Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know if -- if that statute includes supplements of the District Judge or not. But I guess Senate Bill 66 is the -- or HB 66 law. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MR. TOMLINSON: So I don't know if -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the D.A. tied to it as well? MR. TOMLINSON: No, the District Attorney's not tied to it, but the County Court at Law Judge in this county is. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. MS. SOVIL: D.A. is tied to it, too. They make the same salaries as the District Judge. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we don't sup -- MS. SOVIL: We don't supplement it, but it is tied to it. JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know. COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only question on this overall budget -- and I should -- to get off the topic, my preference would be to leave it blank. For -- under 8-1'j-C3 w4: 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 Court-Appointed Attorneys, or maybe more appropriate, Special Trials, it appears that we're going to have a capital murder trial this year, and I don't think that I see funds allocated for that. MR. TOMLINSON: I don't want them to be there. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We may not want them to be here, but I'm afraid he's going to be here. MR. TOMLINSON: I have to report court -- court-appointed activities to a task force on indigent defense, and the report is designed so that -- that I'd like -- I'd like to separate the costs by -- by the way the report's designed. So then I'll have to massage numbers throughout the -- the budget to come up with that number that I send to the task force. And the reason we send it is to get reimbursed from the task force. That's the reason we do this. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We11, is -- MR. TOMLINSON: That's why -- that's why we did away with funding that line item. So -- so all the court appointments are in the same account. COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's included in the Court-Appointed Attorney line item? MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you think $100,000 is 8-19-03 w}: 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 25 172 going to cover that trial? MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that we're going to have a huge expense for this trial. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A little status update on that, if I may. There was one psychiatric hearing already done -- or evaluation. There will be several more done in regards to that. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't hear you, Rusty. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There was one psychiatric evaluation just completed the other day. There will be probably several more done before it's all over with. If there is a competency finding -- there is one court-appointed attorney to that defendant right now. There will definitely be another court-appointed attorney to that defendant, and there will most likely be an investigator appointed to that -- to the court-appointed attorneys, and it will be -- unfortunately, for all of us, if there's competency, it's probably going to be one of the most expensive trials this County's seen. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm looking at -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Court fees are going to be horrendous. The first court-appointed attorney is not even from Kerrville; he's from out of town, so every time 8-1?-n3 wk. 173 ~'^~ r 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he's involved, he's traveling. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was looking at the -- trying to figure out a budget number. I know it's going to be hard to pick, but estimated actual for this year is $100,000. We're budgeting the same next year, so I would think we'd almost have to budget $100,000 plus; you know, 50, 75, 100 thousand for that one trial. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't some of those things that the Sheriff's pointing out come under Court-Appointed Services, the line above? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's going to be some psychiatric stuff in that, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Special Investigator? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I guess that could, probably. Now, the big difference is -- is in regular -- and, Judge Tinley, correct me if I'm wrong. And under all that House Bill and the Fair Defense stuff, this county adopted some rules that normal court appointments on the attorneys gets up to $75 an hour, okay, and it's decided by the judge. That's on your normal court appointment defense. On a capital case, that figure almost doubles per hour for those attorneys. JUDGE TINLEY: There's a different schedule. Exactly what the numbers are, Sheriff, I don't know, but N- 1 9- I) 3 w }; 174 r ,~-^ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there is, under the defense plan that we have filed with -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The State somewhere. JODGE TINLEY: I don't know whether it's Office of Court Administration, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, or one of those. We're required to annually initially file a defense plan, both for adult and juvenile cases, and then annual]y we have to update that plan. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. JODGE TINLEY: You guys didn't know I got into all that wonderful stuff, did you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. I'm so impressed. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bottom line, to me, is that the categories that are likely to be affected by that one-time trial, I think, all need to be adjusted up above whatever is recommended, if they're not included in here already. Because, I mean -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree. COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we're going to have it -- the trial's due to start in January. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're going to have our head in the sand if we don't dea] with it. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to be expensive. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will we be eligible 8-19-03 wk 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 for any recovery of -- of those funds under the current statute? JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I don't think so, except as what may be available under Senate Bill 7 reimbursements, and I don't think they finalized those figures yet, have they, Tommy? MR. TOMLINSON: Pardon? JUDGE TINLEY: Senate Bill 7 reimbursements -- grants. Do we have any of those numbers yet? MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- I think that it's around $27,000, $28,000 per county. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, could we put a hundred thousand in the Special Trials line item, and then transfer it to the County Court as we need during the year to cover the trial? I mean, a hundred thousand -- I'm just throwing that out. I have no idea what the cost of the trial is going to be, 'cause it's going to affect everything from -- MR. TOMLINSON: It kind of depends on -- I notice the -- you know, this year, the 198th Court didn't use very much of their Court-Appointed Attorney line item. I mean, relative to the -- you know, past years. So, some of it depends on how the cases are assigned as to how much money they're going to use. H-19-0~ wk. 176 n 1 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: Right. MR. TOMLINSON: I think you kind of have to look at this line item as both courts combined. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I agree. I'm just -- I mean, if you look at our -- the past couple of years, though, we've been running $150,000 or so, I believe -- 87 and 52, $130,000 year-to-date for those. MR. TOMLINSON: Look at the other -- look at the other court. COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's $52,000 -- 52 for 198th and 87 for 216th, and that was just year-to-date, July 31st. So, we're approaching $150,000 in an average year, and I think this is a -- that one trial is going to definitely require money from somewhere. DODGE TINLEY: Only thing I can tell you gentlemen is, when I went over this budget request with the court coordinator -- and Judge Ables was not available that day, but Ms. Henderson was there and Judge Prohl was there, and I went over both of these requests with them jointly. Their request numbers are -- they're there. And -- but I have -- I have the same concern you do, because it's -- I think Murphy's law is going to -- going to really whack us on that one. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, if I may say, the one trial I think is definitely going to cost all of us. b-19-03 wy 177 /`~ r'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And the other thing that has to be kept in the back of our minds, which I don't know, and none of us know, is we still have another capital murder defendant on the loose that could be arrested any day. JUDGE TINLEY: Have a what? SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Another capital murder defendant on the loose that could be arrested at any time. This county's going to face that. Now, if he gets arrested -- if he's still in Mexico, gets arrested over there, they're going to prosecute him; we're free. If he gets arrested on this side of the border, that trial will come up, another capital murder. COMMISSIONER LETZ: That we can't budget for; that's just an unknown. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right, but that could happen. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, it's pretty clear that the one trial will take place this spring -- or winter. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, would we help the situation if we improve that 401, Court-Appointed Services, and take up those two potentials that the Sheriff referenced a while ago, improve it there? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the easiest thing is to put it in Special Trials and then dole it out where H-1y-03 w4: i-~- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 178 you need it during the year. And that way, it's kind of -- that way, if -- we could even put Special Trials -- you know, put "Capital Murder," so we know what it's for. And I just think that, you know, it's wise for us to budget enough, you know, and put another $50,000 in there. That will -- you know, hopefully, we're a little bit -- you know, we'll absorb a lot of it through court-appointed attorneys that are currently budgeted, but we do have some extra funds, 'cause you're going to be -- I mean, clearly, the psychiatric part of it, the court-appointed services, $7,000 isn't going to be enough. Probably need $7,000 for each evaluation, and, unfortunately, we're going to have to pay for it. I just think this is one that we ought to -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with you. I think we need to do that. Who can give us the best advice about how much we should put there? MR. TOMLINSON: District Attorney can. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your D.A. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bruce. Tommy, can you get with Bruce and get what -- what that trial may cost? Just -- I mean, if it's enough in here, I'm happy. We'll -- if the Judge thinks there's enough there -- JUDGE TINLEY: I don't. All I can tell you is that -- MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, he would come in here c-15-03 w4: 179 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 having an idea, the Judge would, because he's -- he knows who he's going to have to call in. And, I mean -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be interesting if we could keep track of this one trial, too, just from a future budget standpoint, as to what a capital murder trial -- that's why I kind of like the idea of putting it in a separate category; then do, you know, budget amendments, put it where it needs to go, so we can kind of track the one capital murder. Which, in my mind -- which maybe doesn't work with your line -- or the way you have to report things. But, to me -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Tommy's going to go talk to the D.A., and then we're going to revisit this issue on Friday? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Sounds good to me. MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not going to promise you I can find the D.A. and talk to him. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He may have court here tomorrow. MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not going to be here Thursday. SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thursday he'll have court here. I can ask him, just for asking, if you want me 8-15-03 wk: 180 ,~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, someone get that information. I mean, I can try, but y'all have a better chance of tracking him down, probably, than me. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that all on the District Court? There was one other item that was indicated that we had omitted from the schedule -- actually, there were two. One was Information Technology. The other one was Library, which I believe Commissioner Williams had -- had suggested. Is there any desire by the Court to take those up now? Or -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they were just left -- they were left off the list on County-Sponsored Activities, Judge. JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I forgot what page that is. JUDGE TINLEY: Library is going to be -- it's 80. Page 80. (Discussion off the record.) COMMISSIONER LETZ: I went through that one. Well, well, well, it's the same number as it was last year, so they haven't increased it. Court just needs to give a nod one way or the other. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's just such a A-13-C3 wk 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 large number. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is a large number. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's kind of reflective, to me, of the -- the Internet usage going up. I made a comment in here to one of you the other day; I did some research on a subject, and within 30 minutes on the Internet, I had more answers and more information than I could probably get in half a day trying to pick up books and look through them. I do see where the library says that their usage is actually up, but I wonder if that's usage for traditional purposes, or if it's the things like coming in and having your income tax forms filled out for you, things like that, which is, you know, a good -- good public service, but I'm not sure it's something the county government should -- excuse me -- necessarily be funding. I don't -- you all have dealt with this issue before. You know it's a big number. Is there any way that it can be -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The problem, Commissioner, is that we don't get that kind of a breakdown. Your concerns are duly noted, and I've addressed this with the Judge, that we don't get an opportunity to see exactly what goes into the librarian's line item budget, you know, per line item, or to adjust a particular one. You referenced -- I wouldn't have a clue as to how he breaks down the Internet usage, or if he even keeps those kind of 8 19-+~3 w:t 182 .^~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 statistics. I really don't know. He does his business with the assistant financial person in the City, and this is the number, and that's the way they've been doing it. I guess the only thing fortunate about this year is it hasn't changed from last year or the year before. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, are you the liaison to the library? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. MS. SOVIL: Did they take out the money that we funded for air-conditioners? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, that's out. It was the elevators. MS. SOVIL: Well -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In either case -- MS. SOVIL: It has increased, then, right? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? MS. SOVIL: It did increase, then, that amount of money. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. MS. SOVIL: Budget didn't increase by that? Those dollars were set aside for this purpose, and never were included in the M and 0 budget. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. He's correct. e-1~-o~ wk 183 !^ 1 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: So, it didn't inflate the budget by that number. JODGE TINLEY: I believe that was the actual question that was asked by you. Halfway through the questioning, he responded by saying no, he didn't charge us twice for the same thing. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He knew it was coming. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. How about -- how about something like -- let's see, what -- this year wo uld be the third year with the same number? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would appear that way. '02 -- 'O1 and '02 was 397, and it's carried over, yeah. '02-' 03, second year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if we -- I mean, it would be difficult, this late in th e game, to decrease it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it would. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just don't see how we could do that. But I could see how we could possibly freeze that number. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's not a bad suggestion. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me just finish my sentence. 6-i9 U3 w4: 184 /^ 1 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: Sorry. JUDGE TINLEY: Freeze. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Freeze that number for a period of time. Now, you've -- you already have -- let's say five years. And you already have two; this would be the third year. Two more years, and we're not -- City, we're not paying you any more than this right here. I mean, that's a -- that's an option. JUDGE TINLEY: For whatever it's worth, Commissioner, the City was put on notice back in -- April? MS. SOVIL: May. JUDGE TINLEY: May. The contract provides that if -- essentially, we should jointly fund, in equal fashion, the library operations, and if anybody wanted to renegotiate the contract or there was something else they didn't like, they -- they could give notice by a given date. We gave notice to the City that we weren't particularly happy with the contract; we wanted to negotiate it. And I don't even remember hearing that word used when we had our joint -- our joint session. It's as though they never got the letter. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe they didn't. But I -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- e ie-^3 w~: 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 WILLIAMS: -- I think they did acknowledge it, Judge, because we referenced the -- the ideas that we've talked about before. There were two things that distinctly disturbed me, and I hope other members of the Court as well. One of them was how we appoint members to that board, and secondly was this situation which we're given a number and we're expected to swallow it without knowing what's in it. And I like your idea to freeze it until -- or at least until they acknowledge the fact that we should be brought into the loop on the budgetary process, when the budget is being developed, and not just given a piece of scrap paper that says, by the way, here's the number. MS. SOVIL: They refused to give us numbers until after they had worked it, 'cause I called and asked for the breakdown. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? MS. SOVIL: The City refused to give me a breakdown of it until they had worked the numbers, and then they would tell us what they would give us. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. And that, of course, is not what the contract says. MS. SOVIL: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm -- I'm interested in the letter. First I've heard of a letter, I a-i~-c~ wx 186 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 think. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me, too. I think -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- I mean, I'm kind of a little concerned about a letter going out saying we're not going to follow a court order when the Court didn't vote on it, I don't think. MS. SOVIL: Yes, they did. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Court voted on sending a letter out, and we're going to -- MS. SOVIL: Renegotiate the contract. It was on the agenda. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm glad we did. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind doing it, but I don't remember doing that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm glad we did it; good thing to do. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't remember -- it was discussed if we had -- if any of us were involved in liaisons to agencies where there was a contract involved and we had any problems with that contract, to tell the Judge what they were, and I did that. JUDGE TINLEY: Right. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As liaison, they haven't satisfied you that their costs are reasonable and justified? d-19-n3 wk 187 s'~ ,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 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except to say it's the same as it was last year. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, that's the good news. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's the good news. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like a copy of the letter that was sent out when I get blindsided on the street about it, you know, 'cause I don't know which one went out. But I think the bigger picture is what Commissioner Nicholson brought up as to where this type of library is -- what its role is in the future. Not in the next -- five years freeze is fine, but I kind of share -- I think that libraries are becoming -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: An anachronism. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, they're used -- clearly, we want people to keep on reading, and books need to be available, and that's good. But, you know, with the Internet and a lot of other things -- you know, maybe we need to keep it the way it is. Maybe we can change it; I don't know. But I think we need to look at it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think you're right. But I think we have -- in Kerr County, particularly, based on the type of library situation we have, we're faced with -- we're going to be faced with the discussion about 8 19 u3 wk 188 ,~ 1 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 to do with that facility and how to improve or enlarge it, and what, if any, effect that's going to have on Kerr County. I know that the City owns the building, so if they want to put another story on it, I guess they can figure out a way to fund it. But if and when they do that, that increases the cost that Kerr County's going to be affected somewhere down the line. So, I think you're right, we've got to figure out what's going to happen in the future. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can build an Ag Barn for that amount. JUDGE TINLEY: As a matter of fact, they're talking about -- there was a balcony area or -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. JUDGE TINLEY: -- or another area that they're talking about improving to enlarge the library. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the back, overlooking the river. It's an open balcony. That's the way it was originally built on the second floor, and on the first floor, it is an overhang. And they're talking about encasing that second floor balcony to give some more bookshelf space. I have no idea what the cost would be. In the meantime, it is what the City told us it is, which, as the Commissioner said, good news is it's not any worse than it was last year. JUDGE TINLEY: Information Technology. d-19-q3 wk. 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page is that? JUDGE TINLEY: Page 8. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is the function that we've got something in progress that might result in outsourcing it? JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. I did not recommend any -- any expenditures for that item as a department, but rather, on the following page, Page 9, Line Item 110, I believe I recoded that to be Information System Maintenance Contract Services, or something to that effect. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Judge, what line on what page? JUDGE TINLEY: 110 on Page 9. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where are you? What -- what's the heading on that page? JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you plugged in the number that -- that somebody might bid $45,000 to do that? JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I did. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's as good a guess as any. JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the RFP that we put out asked them to bid on it on the basis of an hourly rate. COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- N-19-V3 wk. 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 JUDGE TINLEY: How many of those have been picked up, Tommy? Zero? (Mr. Tomlinson nodded.) COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hmm, back to the drawing board. DODGE TINLEY: Well -- MR. TOMLINSON: We only have one picked up for anything. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have one out there for utility -- I mean, like, plumbing and electrical and all that stuff? MR. TOMLINSON: We have one picked up. I put the -- the calculator to this $95,000, and based on -- on what we've paid vendors currently, you know, average price per hour for what we pay a vendor now for computer problems is mainly just from $60 up to $75 an hour. If you -- if a bid comes in in that range, that -- the $45,000 equates to 12 hours a week. I -- am I right, Judge? I think -- JUDGE TINLEY: 14 and a half at $60. MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. I'm basing any contract on the last contract we had with vendors. And three years ago, we had a contract with a local vendor where they -- they've built some computers for us, and at the same time, they -- they guaranteed an hourly rate to maintain those computers. And their bid at that point was $65, and E-19-03 wk 191 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's what we paid them. So, I just have doubts that we can do it for 14 hours. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- MR. TOMLINSON: From the time -- and based on the experience I had with it when I -- when I did it, I know it was more than 14 hours a week. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- you know, we clearly need to change the way we're doing it, or did it this past year. I like the idea of contracting, but that may not be feasible. But I think from talking with Tommy and comments and reports I've seen from Shaun, the biggest problem is Internet abuse by employees, and that takes -- and I'm not sure if that has caused the current system to be ineffective, or if the system would be ineffective even without that problem. So -- I mean, so I'm a little bit uncertain as to really which way I think we need to go, but I do know -- I mean, I think we have pinpointed a huge problem in the county; that's Internet abuse. And I don't know that -- I mean, enough about computers as to how to stop that. We've talked about, you know, let -- well, it's the department head's responsibility to solve that. Well, conceptually, I agree. But, you know, they didn't do it the first year, and I don't know, you know, what's going to make me think they're going to do it this year. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's one c 1°-04 wk 192 ~-^~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 office that's cleaned up their act. MR. TOMLINSON: Actually, there are two. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just know about one. MR. TOMLINSON: That I know of. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one's that? MR. TOMLINSON: I know of one office that made the change; our calls have gone down considerably. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if we can do it voluntarily, that's the best of all, because it's a -- you know, I mean, they're running their offices the way they should. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Every organization's had to deal with this, and -- and it's like any other misconduct. You have a policy that says you can't do that, and say what the consequences are going to be, and reinforce them. I expect every organization of any size has had to terminate employment of people that can't -- can't abide by the policy. It gets worse than what we've seen. A lot of organizations have to deal with downloading the pornography and the worst kind -- COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've had that. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's my understanding that the County Clerk and the District Clerk both have just cut off the Internet access to the employees. F-19-03 w4: 193 ,~ /"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TINLEY: As a matter of directive to the employees of that department? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But not by taking it off each individual computer? MR. TOMLINSON: They haven't taken it off. That's just their mandate, that doesn't happen. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can rest assured up here, if they're told not to do it, they're not going to do it. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I think that -- I mean, that one issue may solve a lot of the problem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it will, Jon. I think it will. It'll -- COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It will help. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: According to his records, that was his big problem. And not only the problems to our system, but the problem of him getting from Point A to Point B and being late to other offices and, you know, everybody was yelling that, "He's not getting here. He's not coming over here," 'cause he was putting out these fires. And I think those fires have been eliminated. So, 8-19-n3 w:~: 194 ,~'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in my mind, I think the system's going to work better. I mean, that's what it appears to me, anyway. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think if we cut it out or limit it or have only designated computers that have it on it or whatever, we would cut out a lot of those calls that he -- that he documented. And I agree, I think that's part and parcel, a major part of the problem. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we're not going to -- MR. TOMLINSON: Just like today, we had -- we had a problem with -- with our virus server. It caused some, I think, 9 or 10 individual computers in the system to indicate that they had insufficient hard drive space. Well, it came about through -- through the network. Well, between -- Brad's been helping him today to try to fix it today. Well, you know, we had 10 or 12 hours of -- man hours in that problem, just -- just that problem, just today, I mean. And so, I mean, that -- and, you know, if you only fund -- if you only fund 14 hours, what are you going to do if -- you know, the rest of the week? That's my concern about -- about the amount of money. COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, the reason it came about was because of numerous complaints throughout the county of the system we have in place right now. And, you know, that I think is what -- let's look at n >^ 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 195 another system, which was outsourcing it. And -- but if we're not getting any interest in the outsourcing, even picking up the RFQ, I think we need to look at this real carefully. And we may not have that option. People don't want to work for us, 'cause -- COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which brings me to the question, why did he request $600 in conference? MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there -- about every three years, The Software Group has a -- has a three-day user's seminar where they invite all their -- all their users to Plano. They go over, you know, new products, maintenance of the systems, those kinds of things. I just thought it would be, you know, valuable for someone in the system to go to that. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. As much money as we've spent with them, they need to send a jet down here to get that person, though. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My personal feeling is, I think if we go -- even if we had RFQ responses or RFP responses, whichever, I think we're going to find that we're not helping ourselves in terms of what our annual expenditure is, so I'd rather see us clean up our act here and keep our staff together to do this stuff. I think we'll be better served throughout our entire county system by doing it ourselves. My question, however, to Tommy is, if B-1a-03 wk 196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L2 23 24 25 we were to consider keeping the Information Technology together the way it is today, that's a pretty sizable increase that you've recommended. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, at the time when I -- when we did this budget, I wrote a memo on -- attached it to that, that the increase was for discussion purposes. And -- and at the time, we were discussing whether or not we wanted to outsource or not, and -- and there was -- there was a question whether or not we had a problem with the system or if we needed additional man hours. So -- so, I added $14,000, I believe -- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 24. MR. TOMLINSON: -- to the budget to either -- to either hire outside people to -- to take up the slack, or hire a part-time person. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tommy, my recollection of that discussion was it was focused more on whether or not we had the right person. MR. TOMLINSON: Well, my -- I did a lot of research on this, and I've -- you know, I visited with a lot of -- you know, several other counties. I've questioned counties like -- you know, one was Bastrop County. They're the same size we are, and they have -- they have two -- three full-time people in their I.T. department. Now, they -- I talked to counties that have, you know, twice the e-15-n3 wk 197 1 n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 r 24 25 budget we do, and -- and, you know, I talked -- you know, I asked questions about, you know, whether they outsource or not, what they paid their -- you know, their personnel, what their lead personnel was paid. A lot of questions about, you know, what -- how other counties were handling this Bandera, for instance -- I mean, I'm well aware of what goes on down there. They have one person also, and they have half as many users as we do. So, I mean, we have, like, 180 PCs, and not including all the peripheral equipment that goes along with it. we probably have that many printers. And so, I mean, it's almost physically impossible to -- for one person to maintain 180 computers. And, I mean, I know that the person in Bandera, one person, is trying to keep up with 120 users. We have -- you know, we have 260 employees. And that person works, you know, four and five overtime hours a week. And so I know that one person can't keep up with their county on a -- on a regular, you know, 90-hour week. And I can -- you know, I can remember the -- the hours that I spent when -- when I didn't have help, and we were actually -- you know, we were hiring outside people. At the time I did the budget, I just felt like that -- you know, that we needed more man hours. Now, if we can clean up our act as far as, you know, Internet use and those kinds a-i9-o3 wr. 198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of problems 'cause of that, then maybe we can get by with one person. JUDGE TINLEY: As a follow-up to Commissioner Nicholson's question, based upon his recollection of do we have the right person, do you know where our Information Specialist is or was today? MR. TOMLINSON: He's right here. He was in my office. We had a long conversation about the problem with the system. JUDGE TINLEY: Of this particular virus problem that we've got going on? MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, he's here. I talked with him. JUDGE TINLEY Anything else on Information Technology? COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean, really more of a -- well, I don't know. Not today. But I will tomorrow. JUDGE TINLEY: You will what tomorrow? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have more to say about it. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Should that, in a future Commissioners Court meeting, be the subject of an 8 19-03 w}: 199 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 executive session? Since we seem to be getting -- JUDGE TINLEY: Bordering over on personnel. COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Talking about performance. MS. SOVIL: Not your employee. JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? MS. SOVIL: Not your employee. COMMISSIONER LETZ: We talk about a personnel matter in executive session. MS. SOVIL: Huh? COMMISSIONER LETZ: Still talk about a personnel matter in executive session. MS. SOVIL: Not without advising the employee so that he has an opportunity to take it into open session if he so chooses. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, but that's not what you said. You said he's not our employee. I mean -- MS. SOVIL: Right. COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we can talk about any employee. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just whose employee is he? MS. SOVIL: Tommy. MR. TOMLINSON: Mine. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, don't yell; I 8-?9-u3 w4: zoo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~5 just asked. Well, there's some tension in here. COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause we don't like working past 4 o'clock. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. Neither do I. Let's go. JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, gentlemen? We'll stand adjourned until in the morning, at 10 a.m. in the morning. COMMISSIONER LETZ: Early. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten? COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Glad you said that. (Discussion off the record.) (Budget Workshops concluded at 9:43 p.m.) b-19-03 wk 201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF TEXAS 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 9th day of January, 2004. JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk Kathy Banrk, Deputy County Clerk Certified Shorthand Reporter 8-19-93 wk