1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Budget Workshop
Friday, August 27, 2004
9:00 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
3
C)
~O
r'
~o
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
August 27, 2004
PAGE
Budget Workshop
City/County 3
County Clerk 45
District Clerk 78
Capital Expenditures	94
Jail security system	95
County Clerk - records management	100
Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center	106
Parks	120
Road & Bridge	134
County Clerk - voting machines	138
General Discussion	
Crime Victims Coordinator	144
Elected official/department head raises	155
Pension for retirees	162
Sheriff's Department compensation	167
Grade 12 & 13 employee compensation	202
County fee schedules	218
Holiday schedule	220
County debt and effect on rollback rate	224
Adjourned 233
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 Friday, August 27, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a budget
workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me call to order
the budget workshop of the Commissioners Court scheduled for
this time and date, Friday, August 27th, at 9 a.m. It's a
bit past that now. We've got some updated information from
the Auditor, who's made runs based upon instructions from
the Court. Based upon these numbers, it looks like we got
some work to do. The other thing I would mention is that --
I think it was sometime after 4 o'clock Wednesday afternoon,
a representative of the City of Kerrville brought us some
financial data and information relative to some of the joint
projects, joint programs that we have with the City. And
while I did not make each of the Commissioners a copy of all
of the attached background data, I did provide each of you a
copy of the summary. Certainly, the information has been,
since we received it late Wednesday afternoon, available for
any inspection. In reviewing the -- in reviewing the
information, I'm a little puzzled.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's puzzling,
Judge?
8-27-04 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
JUDGE TINLEY: The E.M.S. sticks out at me in
a rather glaring manner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And they are requesting -- I
believe it's a $196,000 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 169.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- contribution for fiscal
year '05.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's 169.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 163,549 -- no.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, when they add the --
when they add the vehicle replacement expense, it --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 196.
JUDGE TINLEY: They rolled it up to 196,188.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And how much is it
today?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 19,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- last year we spent -- we
budgeted approximately 19,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have you had the
opportunity to review the contract?
JUDGE TINLEY: I certainly have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm -- what -- I
have thought -- and if I've thought wrong, I want to
apologize to the taxpaying public of Kerr County, but I
8-27-04 wk
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
thought that there wasn't -- that the -- that the system was
not subsidized by the County or City; that it was fee-run.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- I think that was
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does our contract say
that we subsidize it?
JUDGE TINLEY: The way I read the contract --
and, certainly, I defer to the County Attorney on this, but
my plain reading of the contract says that we're obligated
to pay the sum of $1,975 per month. It's an annual
contract, automatically renewable for successive one-year
terms, unless it's canceled by either party not less than 60
days prior to the beginning of our fiscal year, which is our
present one. I -- I cannot find anything in the contract
that says we're obligated beyond that for some sort of
actuarially determined subsidy amount or anything else. I
deem our obligation under our contract to be 1,975 per
month, and annualize that, and I think that's what we need
to plug in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I apologize for
getting here late, but I assume you're talking about the
City?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I was in a -- a bit
25 ~ of shock last night when I read the -- the Daily Times. I
8-27-04 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
don't know if y'all read that article.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the article says that
they're giving -- that they have prepared and have presented
a new E.M.S. contract, which I've never seen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I haven't seen it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean -- you know,
and I don't know -- and the quote was from Councilman
Wampler, and it basically -- I mean, I'm assuming the quotes
are right; they are reading quotations. But that was my --
I was rather surprised to see that. So, based on what
Commissioner Baldwin's saying and you're saying, my
understanding was the same as -- that, evidently, they're
changing the contract, or they're -- that's what they're
planning on doing, which I find rather unusual.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The -- just
reinforcing what the Judge says, if they want to negotiate a
new contract, the window's not open. It was open 60 days
prior to October 1, so the next time -- window doesn't open
for 10 more months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The whole premise, in
my mind -- the whole premise that's written in this letter
by the City Manager to us with respect to E.M.S., in my
mind, calls into question whether or not the County can
participate. And I'll explain what I mean. He says, "The
8-27-04 wk
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
E.M.S. program has been a fee-based service for many years.
However, due to rising costs and the ever-growing Medicare
disallowances," parentheses, "that portion Medicare dictates
is noncollectible, the simple collection of fees will no
longer support this program." Okay. What they do with that
-- about that is their business, but to me, that poses a
special question, and I think the County Attorney is
required to answer that question. What this is saying,
then, to the County is, you're going to have to pick up the
tab for runs in the county over and above that amount which
a -- a patient or a transportee has coming to him back to
reimbursable Medicare and/or any other insurances. Now, the
County then has to pick up the tab for the remainder on a --
on a discriminatory basis. You, not you. You, not you.
And I call into question whether or not that's something
that we can do.
If you'd permit just one hypothetical, just
to throw out the illustration even further, if other
subscription services were available in Kerr County, which
they're not, but if they were, and I had a reason to be
transported to San Antonio for a heart transplant or
whatever, and I chose to take that subscription service
versus Kerrville E.M.S., and the bill was $10,000, and
Medicare paid six and my insurance paid one, that's seven;
that leaves an unpaid balance of three. Can I take my bill
8-27-04 wk
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in to the Auditor and say, "Reimburse me"? I don't think
so. And that's exactly what he's asking right here. And I
don't think we can do that. And I want the County Attorney
to tell me whether or not we can do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think there's a
lot of, I mean, issues. I mean, it was a -- you know, I
mean, in my opinion, for some reason the City decided to
totally blindside us on this whole issue. Obviously,
they've known for months that there was a problem with the
E.M.S. system, and the first time I heard about it was when
I read the Kerrville Daily Times, and they were based on
quotes from Councilman Wampler and Mayor Fine. So, you
know, it calls, to me, in question their ability to properly
manage a contract. It calls into question our relationship
with the City at the moment when it comes to any of these
contracts. And I think it's -- you know, the taxpayers of
the city and the county should be outraged that they have a
city government that is -- is running the way it is. I
mean, to go to a partner, which the County is in many
entities, well, basically at the end of the budget process,
and change -- and try to change the contract and the budget
amount is just absurd. And, you know, I think we're in a --
we're in a predicament, and the City, I think, knows that,
that we -- I think I'm very -- feel very strongly obligated
to provide fire service and have E.M.S. service in the
8-27-04 wk
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
county, and I don't think we can do anything in the next
three weeks to change or make major changes there. But I
think this calls into question basically the City managing
anything that they do operate with the County. And we need
to look at E.M.S. fire, library, airport, and everything
else, because that -- I mean, I will not participate with
the City operating like this.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Dispatch.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, dispatch. I think
everything that they're doing, if they're going to operate
like this, I don't want them managing that business, period.
They've acted in poor faith with this county. They have
given us no notice. They gave us a budget, basically -- or
their budget items three months after we requested them.
They unilaterally declined to meet in open meeting with the
County because it was of no value, yet they want to change
all the contracts. You know, I think we're in a little bit
of a bind this year, but I think we have a lot of
negotiating to do in the next 12 months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think we're
in a bind with respect to this issue. That's a 1000 percent
increase they're asking of the County, and I, for one, am
not going to support it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- the quotes I saw in the
newspaper about the new numbers that they are asking for,
8-27-04 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
both the mayor and the mayor pro tem said those are
nonnegotiable.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I read,
too.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's -- I think it's correct;
it's not negotiable. We have a contract in place, so they
shouldn't be in negotiation. We pay what the contract says,
and we insist on their performance. Pretty simple. It's
not a real complicated issue to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the expiration
date of the contract, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now it'll be October 1
of -- or September 30 next year, '05. They cannot be
renegotiated, as Commissioner Nicholson said. That window's
closed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I wouldn't want
to negotiate either, particularly in the press, but if
they're looking for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they're looking
for some kind of a solution, the solution, as far as I'm
concerned, is that the County have a basic contract, which
we do, and they can tell us what the cost per-run is. And
we may consider how we handle on it a per-cost, per-run
basis, not to exceed actual cost per-run.
8-27-09 wk
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz
nailed it. It's -- it's an issue about the cost of
providing E.M.S. services, but it's a lot bigger issue than
that. It's got to do with the relationship between two
partners.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know, I think we
live up to our end of the contract. If they don't, we sue
them for breach, and we move into the next forum, move down
the road.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go a step beyond the
E.M.S. contract. Library. I know Commissioner Williams has
had some questions about this for some time. If I'm not
mistaken, there's -- there's a -- a window within which we
can give notice that we wish to renegotiate the contract
that's been in existence for some period of time, and
there's also a window within which they provide budget data
for us to consider. If I'm not mistaken, and I'm sure
Commissioner Williams can verify this, we did give notice
within the appropriate time period that we did want to
negotiate -- renegotiate the contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Were you provided, as the
liaison with the -- in connection with the library matters,
8-27-04 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
any budgetary -- proposed budget for the library before
July 1st of this year? The proposed budget?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before July 1st --
no, I don't believe I did, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what I received,
I shared with you, and it did not show at that time any
ending fund balances for which the County should be given
its share of the credit. This letter, of course, does
today, but in the past it did not. So I believe, no, I did
not get them before July 1st.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appears to me that we're in a
-- we're in an open phase, then, on the renegotiation of
that contract. So my characterization of that would be
limbo, for whatever that's worth.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- yeah, I
agree with that. Fortunately, in this particular one, the
bottom line number that was presented to us in this letter
pretty well closely corresponds with the reduced funding
levels that we determined we were going to do the other day.
So, it's pretty close to that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We were really smart
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, good
8-27-04 wk
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Amazing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the -- how they get
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: They want a larger amount, but
say they're going to give us -- give us -- give us a
significant portion back to bring it back close to the
number where we were. I'm -- I'm uncertain as to why we go
through this round-robin drill. Maybe there's a good reason
for it, but I -- I haven't -- I haven't understood it yet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you can explain it
to me, I'd be happy to listen.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry, I'm unable to do
14 I that.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The bottom line is,
though, that there's a -- the actual budget of the library,
there's a $26,000 increase.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- that's
where the math gets fuzzy.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My take on it is
that we stick with our funding budget number, and we expect
to get a check for our return back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- you know, I
mean, a lot of it, I can't make any kind of intelligent
8-27-04 wk
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
decision, because I haven't seen the numbers. I know we
have -- the County has received a book -- yesterday? Day
before yesterday?
JUDGE TINLEY: Late Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Late Wednesday, of a lot
of this, of the City's proposals, but I've not had time to
go through it. Which I don't think any reasonable person
can be expected to go through an inch-thick document in a
day, you know. So I don't want to, you know, say the
library -- we're going to stick at 350. Maybe there's a
reason to adjust it up or down. But, you know, again, we
asked for this information in late May, early June, and got
it the end of August, which is the very end of our budget
process. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: I just want to make sure
you're awake.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm awake, and I just
want to commend you gentlemen. You're doing a wonderful
job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin,
you're the E.M.S. coordinator for the Court, are you not?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm not an E.M.S.
8-27-04 wk
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coordinator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean the liaison.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't coordinate
anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: E.M.S. liaison.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no information.
All I know is the Fire Chief stood at the podium right there
and said there is a possibility that there -- we may have to
go back to subsidy in the near future. He said that just a
few days ago. That's the only thing I know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this here was three
days later.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was -- well, two
days later, obviously. You got it on Wednesday?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, he was here on
Monday and made that statement, and that's all I know about
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: A most prophetic individual,
isn't he?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I guess -- where do we
go from here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. It's
just -- I want to say, Judge, that this is a sad -- this
8-27-04 wk
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
saddens me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I don't know where
the problem is. I don't know if we -- if we created it a
couple of years ago or not. I've been here long enough
where I've seen this several times through the years, but
it's never gotten this bad. You know, and I have a -- I
have a feeling that we're going to be unable to go over
there and put our arms around them and let's all hug and
kiss and make up and all that like we've done many, many
times in years past. I'm not sure that that's going to
happen this time. I don't know, but I -- you know, if we
have caused a problem -- if we have caused a problem
somewhere, we need to evaluate that and get it out on the
table and admit that we caused a problem,
forgiveness and all that. But if we have
wrong, and it -- it doesn't -- it doesn't
doesn't hurt us individually, but it damn
taxpayers of this county, and that pisses
this thing's got to end somehow.
and ask for
~'t, something's
hurt us; it
sure affects the
me off. And so
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the thing that, I
mean, surprised me probably more than anything else, there
was an Airport Board meeting yesterday at which we had the
mayor and the City Council member, and we discussed the
8-27-04 wk
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
airport contract, and it was -- and the members from the
City expressed the -- you know, how -- what a good document
it is; how the City and County are working together and how,
for the first time, the airport's under a good contract and
it's fair to everybody, and how it was a sign of a good
relationship between the City and the County. Then I read
the paper last night, and I said -- is that not what the
mayor said yesterday afternoon?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what -- that's
what happened, Commissioner. But I read the paper in the
morning, so I was burning when I got there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I understand. Now I
understand why your comment wasn't quite as --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glowing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- glowing as mine was
towards the City. I mean, I was like, "Boy, Commissioner
Williams is a little irritable this afternoon." But now I
18 understand why.
19
20 article.
21
22
23
24
25
grumpy status.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd already read the
JUDGE TINLEY: Assumed your grumpy status.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, they assumed my
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, bottom line is,
contracts are contracts, and the County Attorney's in the
8-27-09 wk
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
room, and I think he would say a contract's a contract.
MR. MOTLEY: A contract is a contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. And --
many blessings on you. Where are you, young man? There you
are. And these windows of renegotiating the contract and
all that stuff is over, so we need to plug in whatever
number that the contract says and go on with life.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- I
agree. And the only one on this list, you know, that we
have a new contract on is the airport, so we can discuss the
airport.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even though we're in a
dilemma there, because the Airport Board has to approve the
budget before either the City or the County can. We
received it yesterday?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there will be no
action taken by the Airport Board until the Tuesday after
Labor Day, whatever day that is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But this number --
bottom line number here is very close, as we predicted it
would be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To where we were in
8-27-04 wk
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
our last discussion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's --
you know, I agree. The number's not far off. It's a little
bit higher than I thought it was going to be, but there may
be justification to back up for that. I've not heard it
yet, because I've only had 24 hours.
JUDGE TINLEY: If I'm reading it correctly,
they're asking this year for almost $111,000. Is that -- is
that what you're reading?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I read it -- it says
they're asking for $186,000. 111,000 goes for grant matches
and 75,000 goes for airport operations. That's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- and I think
the other part of this that we really need to get, and the
Airport Board needs to request -- well, has requested. This
doesn't show the revenue side, and I'd like to get a good
idea of the revenue projections. At least I don't -- I'm
not sure if it does or doesn't, to be honest. I said 75,000
operating amount. I'm not sure if revenues are included in
that, so it may or may not be a true -- if revenues are
included, that's a pretty big number. It's a pretty big
number either way, but if revenue is not included in, that
means there's an offset on the revenue side.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. And, of
5-27-04 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
24
25
course, also, with all these grants -- grant matches and
TexDOT reimbursement and so forth, Airport Board has to sign
off on each and every one of those in terms of whether or
not that's something we want to engage in in this coming
fiscal year, or whether it's something that's to be deferred
to next year or subsequent years. And so they haven't had
-- the Airport Board hasn't had the opportunity to discuss
each of these projects, which total nearly 130, and which
would call into question our 110,000 -- $110,000 grant match
participation by the County. So, we're still a ways away on
that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How are we going to
deal with that between now and the end of September, when we
have to approve this? Are we going to -- to estimate what
we think the net impact will be and put that in the budget?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All of it, or the
airport?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the operations
piece, yes. And we're -- we're there, really, on the
operations piece.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the airport
thing, I feel pretty good about -- about that, because we've
had two members of our Court, if not -- at least actively
involved playing a leadership role, and so whatever numbers
8-27-04 wk
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°
2C
21
2c
2~
2~
2`
they come up with, I've got confidence in. So, I was -- I
was hoping it would be a little less than that, but it is
what it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think on the timing
issue, I need to defer to the Tax Assessor/Collector.
What -- can you back down from the notice dates and the
hearings and all of that as to when we have to give you
final tax rate numbers so you can do the proper posting and
hearings?
MS. RECTOR: Well, it depends on what your
proposed rate is. If you're going to exceed the 3 percent
for the notice and the hearing --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, assuming -- assume
the tax rate does not go up. No change in the tax rate.
'Cause I --
MS.	RECTOR:	I	don't have	any figures here.
Is that the -- is	it over	the	3 percent,	though? Our
current rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The effective?
MS. RECTOR: No, not the effective. The
3 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you mean?
MS. RECTOR: 3 percent over the effective
rate will throw us into a notice and hearing process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if we have -- we'll
8-27-04 wk
22
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~
have -- I think we're going to have no tax rate increase, so
how do I -- what do you mean, 3 percent?
MS. RECTOR: Tommy's got it. I will tell
you. Okay, 3 percent is .3681 total.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's under what our rate --
MS. RECTOR: That's under what our rate is,
so we'll be okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. RECTOR: We don't have to go through a
notice and hearing process, so your time frame is whatever
you need for it to be, except giving me enough time after
the rates are adopted. But I think everybody's going to be
late this year adopting their tax rates, so that means just
the statements will just go out later.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the -- we have
until -- I mean, worst-case scenario, until the last week of
September? I want a worst-case scenario.
MS. RECTOR: Worst-case scenario, yes, until
the last week in September.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When do you really need
it by?
MS. RECTOR: I would need it by the middle of
September, if at all possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I wanted to
hear. So, you know, I think there's -- on the airport
8-27-04 wk
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
numbers, there's time. You know, I think we plug in the
best estimate we have at this point, which I think would be
what the City has proposed here, and it certainly won't go
up from there. And if it comes down a little bit, great.
If the Airport Board reviews it --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
the operations, or operations and grant match?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both. I think we plug
these numbers in, and we -- I mean, I would -- I would
rather estimate at this point on the high side. If we can
cut a little bit out, we can do that by the middle of
September, but I think we need to get, you know, that number
built in so we have an idea where we are. If we're --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kathy, would you go
get my calculator?
JUDGE TINLEY: The current number we're
showing on the airport at this point is 141. You're
suggesting that we need to -- to, at least for now, plug it
in as approximately 176?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 186.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, 186.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are you getting
JUDGE TINLEY: 110,8 plus 75,2.
8-27-04 wk
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 75,2 over
where we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the operations portion
up there that I didn't include in the 110.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And when I look at the
project, I think there's some -- I mean, I think it's --
well, I think the Airport Board needs to look at it. The
one number that stands out is the aviation terminal
furniture. I'm not sure it's going to be finished in time
to furnish it next budget year, because isn't it behind
schedule a little bit?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, we're
behind schedule, but -- no, it probably will be toward the
end of the budget year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to look
at the type of furniture.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which we may have some
used furniture in the County that can do fine out at the
airport.
JUDGE TINLEY: I come up with 186,041.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 187? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: 186,041.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those two numbers.
8-27-04 wk
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the maximum that I
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, for current planning
purposes, that's probably -- maybe a closer ballpark than
the 141 that I figured on some earlier numbers, obviously.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, 75,232 is
only -- is 40 over about where we are now. Didn't we have
35 or 39 in the current budget? I know we have to crank it
in. I'm just thinking about where we are with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This year, I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Something like that.
So, 75 plus 110. Again, I'm not all that sanguine about the
fact that we're going to want to do all of those grants in
the next coming year. That's a lot -- a lot of stuff to put
on our plate to be accomplished in -- in the next budget
year, and I don't think that can all happen, so the Airport
Board needs to deal with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we also -- well,
Airport Board needs to look at this and then look at the
'05-'06 plan and make sure that -- I mean, I'd rather try to
stay more constant than have fluctuations up and down quite
a bit, if possible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, where will I
find the current airport numbers?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm just looking at 595.
8-27-04 wk
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: It's on Page 59.
MS. UECKER: 59?
MR. TOMLINSON: 59. We have in there
141,022. I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 35,8 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the new number's
186 --
JUDGE TINLEY: 041.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 041.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 150,000 over where we
are this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the E.M.S. -- do you
know what page that's on? I just want to confirm that
number.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's the next page.
JUDGE TINLEY: 60?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Under Line Item 210.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, that should read --
instead of 19,342, as I calculate it, it should read 23,700,
at 1,975 a month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 19,342 goes to what,
Judge?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the health
officer's salary part of that contract?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is what?
8-27-04 wk
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That $1,200.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you may be right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Salary may be part
of the contract.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's a separate
issue there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Health officer
and the medical director are two different people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he distinguishes
them in his letter.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the -- the contract
provides to assist City with respect to Medical Director and
administration costs. County agrees to pay 1,975 a month.
Health officer is -- okay, that's separate. There's no
separate line item for Medical Director, then. So, tying it
to the contract would seem to be the appropriate thing to
do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 23,700 will
be an increase from last year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the number,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: 23,7.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 23,700?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Okay. And the
library, which one is that, Mr. Tomlinson? Do you know off
8-27-04 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
24
25
the top of your head?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. I can find it pretty
quick, though. It is on Page 82.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 82.
MR. TOMLINSON: You have me taking
Commissioner Baldwin's place this morning? (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he decided to bail out
on us here as the chief page caller, so --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can't anybody
replace Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- under the library
-- the former library contract, since we're really in a
limbo stage at the moment, was there a provision for the
revenue side? I mean, what -- what happens to the revenue
of the library? Let me rephrase the question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the revenue to
the library --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From the library.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- essentially
becomes fees and fines.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we don't -- the
contract says we're supposed to get an accounting of that.
Am I correct, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's correct.
8-27-04 wk
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we received that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've never seen it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the City's in breach
of the contract in that regard as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What the letter from
the City Manager talks about is returning to each the City
and the County 96 -- or $94,000 of equity. And that -- that
is fund balances that weren't spent. It essentially gets
into payroll and whatever fees and fines have accumulated
that we're entitled to our share of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there an accounting of
that in the budget book that they sent over, of the 94,000?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, there is. And I -- let
me see if I can answer that question quickly, in somewhat of
a simple manner. If I'm understanding, oh, what this --
what this does is it takes the beginning balance, figures
what the ending balance is, brings it down to a 5 percent
reserve, and the difference between the 5 percent reserve
and the ending fund balance is what is rebated back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's really not
a -- maybe there is in the backup.
JUDGE TINLEY: There is a whole bunch of data
in here. The contract provides that all fines and fees
shall be credited to the City and County, and the same
8-27-04 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
24
25
portion is actual contributions each has paid or is to pay
toward its obligations during the current year and next
succeeding year. So, without having -- without having those
receipt numbers, and they show operating revenues as part
of -- as part of the summary here, and there may be some
backup that shows that. The thing that I'm concerned -- one
of the things that I'm concerned about on that operation
over there, contrary to what has been reported in the media,
we don't own any part of that building. That's not a
jointly owned property over there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: So you have a lot of -- a lot
of expenses that are incurred in connection with the -- the
maintenance and the upkeep of the building and capital
improvements and things of that nature that may not be items
which are properly chargeable to us, since we own no part of
the building. Now, the operational expenses, that's a
different -- that's a different matter. But matters in
connection with that building may not be appropriately
chargeable to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a very
good point. I mean, since the City, at the moment, seems to
be very much -- be very precise on who gets charged for
what, we probably ought to look back at the last few years.
We had some huge capital improvements over there, and look
8-27-04 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
at whether or not we should get a credit on those amounts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The library, the roof.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. Well, a
lot -- some of those things were funded through E.I.C.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The roof and some
other things were funded through E.I.C. to about $180,000,
but we got hit for air-conditioners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember.
I -- I venture to suggest that buried in that detail there
is -- is the ongoing maintenance of the building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maintenance, I don't have
a problem with, but I do have a problem potentially with
capital improvements to the building, whether they're -- you
know, I mean, maintenance is part of the operations, in my
mind, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be construed
that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- but capital
improvements are not operating expenses. That's how I would
look at it. But, you know, I think a lot of these things
need to be looked at very closely now.
8-27-04 wk
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, the
issue in the private sector is what you can get by the tax
man. In the public sector, I'm not sure how they draw that
line. I suspect that if you have a -- have a partner for --
that doesn't own any part of the -- any part of the capital
asset, that there may be some distinction drawn there. But
I know it's a never-ending moving of a line in the private
sector, depending upon what the tax man will allow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think another thing on
the library -- maybe the backup shows this and breaks it
out, but I think that there are parts of that operation that
we don't participate in the operation of, such as the -- the
genealogies. Is that what that --
That's true.
17
18 that.
19
20
21
22
23
24
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The History Center.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't participate in
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not a part of
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, they purchased
that piece of property down there with a -- with a travel
agency and restaurants that, you know, they --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not part of
25 that.
8-27-04 wk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know that. But we need
to make sure that those are 100 percent accounted for
outside of this budget, because -- and I remember we had
this conversation at one of our joint meetings several years
ago. I remember very well with -- the mayor and I were
discussing it, and I made the comment that -- I said we
don't own that, so when they start doing parking lot
repairs, they need to start separating out which parking lot
they're working on, because we have no interest in part of
that area over there, and we have operational interests in
-- in part of it. So, I mean, that was brought up and
discussed and requested that they keep track of it all
separately. Hopefully -- I have not looked at these, so I
don't know if they have or have not, but they need to. And,
of course, that comes back to the question of whether
parking repairs are capital improvements or not. Another
issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would have an easy solution
to that. Owning a capital asset, any -- any major
improvement to the capital asset would -- would fall on the
owner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, that's -- I
mean, it appears the City wants to renegotiate all these
points, so this is one we need to look at as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I guess my
8-27-04 wk
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question to you gentlemen is, do we leave the number for
budgetary purposes for us now in the library at 329,103?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we take it down
to 323,329. That's what he's asking for.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't hear any -- anyone
objecting to that, so 323 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 329.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- 329.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, that's a
little different number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not what's in --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is -- they're
asking for 416,113.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they're just
doing our arithmetic for us and saying you take out your
return to equity, it comes out to 329. I'd propose that we
-- that we leave it at whatever we have it at now. Three --
JUDGE TINLEY: 329,103.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And we get our
$94,001 back on top of that. If we set about to -- to
attempt some -- some cost consciousness on the library
function by reducing our contribution to the budget --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think the -- we
8-27-04 wk
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have not agreed, in my mind, certainly, to an increase in
their budget. So, I mean, I fall somewhere probably between
what Commissioner Nicholson is saying and what we funded to
last year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, last year was
387.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In our discussion
Tuesday, I believe the Court said it wanted to reduce that
by 15 percent. That took it down to 329.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But the City is
saying there's a $94,000 fund balance coming back, so, to
me, there's two issues. One's the budget, and then we get
the 94,001 back, period.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then we talk about
this year's budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is 323,329, and
next year we talk about whether it stays there or goes up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, Commissioner
your 323,329 is just a net number of 416,113 minus the
94,001. They're really asking for a contribution from us --
participation expense of 416,113.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. $26,000 increase
8-27-04 wk
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
over last year's budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I think they're --
the way that sounds to me, they're just applying the fund
balance to -- to the 416, and asking -- actually asking for
the net.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tommy, they say that
the 94,001 will be returned to the County via check no later
than October 15, 2004.
JUDGE TINLEY: My -- my understanding of it
is they're talking about -- 416 is our share for the coming
year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Adjusting the fund balance and
maintaining a 5 percent reserve for this current fiscal
year, we would have a return of 94,000, and that's what
they're going to remit to us by check within 15 days after
the beginning of the fiscal -- this next fiscal year. The
-- the 94 pertains to -- to the current year's operation,
the way I'm reading that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
MR. TOMLINSON: So we need to actually budget
the 94,000 on the revenue side.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 94,000 is revenue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A revenue in the library
8-27-04 wk
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, once you
separate that revenue issue, they're asking for 416,113.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- you're
right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: With our current
budget numbers, three --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 29.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 329, you're right.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you want to discount the
416,113 by 15 percent, that would bring you down to 353,696.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That -- say that again?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's using your scientific
15 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, really, what
needs to be -- I mean, before we can -- I don't want to just
throw a number out here. I think we need to look at --
and -- heck, he's gone. Talk to the County Attorney, and I
guess he's -- he needs a place to start on the capital --
whether we should be spending money on capital improvements.
And if we -- and if -- I think you have a very good point,
that we -- I mean, it's not our building. I don't know that
we legally could do it. I think we're starting to spend
money on something that we don't own, and I think it's been
8-27-04 wk
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
done possibly inadvertently in the past, but I think we can
determine -- they might need to break out -- we need to ask
questions. Are there any capital items in this item?
'Cause we question whether we can -- well, whether we need
to or should or legally can fund those portions. I'd leave
the number where it is right now, where we have it, and --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- come back, along with
the airport.
MR. TOMLINSON: We need to know if there's
some sort of lease agreement between the owner of the
building and the -- and the City and the County. I know
there's -- some leases do provide for leasehold
improvements.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You understand what?
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, there are -- there
are some lease agreements that provide for leasehold
improvements. We -- we have one right now that's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah, out in Ingram.
MR. TOMLINSON: And so, I mean, that may be
what -- there may be a lease.
JUDGE TINLEY: There is no lease on the
library, no. This is -- this deals with a joint operation.
We're not talking about leases.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause the City -- the
8-27-09 wk
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
library was given, as I understand it, to the City.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the City and the
County decided to jointly operate it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And decided -- and that's
through interlocal agreement or contract. But we --
MR. TOMLINSON: I wasn't aware of the deal,
so I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I think that resolves
that issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Recycling Center. Where's
that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you go there, I
have one more question --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we need to get to the
County Attorney, I think. And this goes to the library
potentially, you know, because of that capital issue, and
also to the recycling center. The County -- and the
recycling center, we spent money that we didn't need to
because we didn't catch it prior to last year, which, in my
mind, we are due a credit on. And on the library, if that
is resolved that we are not responsible for capital items, I
8-27-09 wk
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think we are due a credit there. I don't know how far back
you go. I don't know -- my question is really for the
County Attorney. Are we, in fact, due a -- a credit when we
approve funds that were approved in error based on contract?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a reasonable
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yeah, 'cause I know
last year at the recycling center, there was a -- there was
a request for us to participate equally in some -- in some
capital improvements, and the lease clearly says that they
can make capital improvements if we agree to it, but the --
the entirety of the cost was theirs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, far as I know, they made
them. We didn't participate in the cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the prior year, I
believe we made -- we did share some of those costs.
JUDGE TINLEY: Might have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not subject to the
lease. And the lease is a governing body, I would think --
or a governing contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: What page are we on,
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 2 of 2, Contract
Services.
8-27-04 wk
41
1
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: Page 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's talking about
the City's letter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have anything else to
discuss on -- you made the point on the recycling center.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While we're talking
about items to refer to the County Attorney, I want to refer
to him this E.M.S. item and ask the question whether or not,
in his opinion, we -- we have the legal authority to do what
they're asking us to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The --
JUDGE TINLEY: To sub -- in essence,
subsidize --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Individuals.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Medicare-eligible users of
that system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: I mean, that -- I think that's
about the bottom-line question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the
bottom-line question. I know we do -- we do indigent
health, but this doesn't fall in the category of indigent
health, in my -- in my view.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of it may, but
8-27-04 wk
42
1 anyway --
2
3 it might.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It might -- some of
JUDGE TINLEY: There would have to be an
individual qualification, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that's an
issue if -- I mean, I don't -- I think that, you know, we
need to look at the indigent health side of ambulance rates.
I mean, I don't know if they keep track of them or how they
do it. Fire contract, I see no change, which I have no --
I'm happy to see. But the question I have, is that a
separate contract? Is that -- or is that under the E.M.S.
contract?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Separate.
JUDGE TINLEY: That is a separate contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think that that
is something that I would -- this is not a budget issue. I
would like to look at that contract with the City during the
coming year to possibly get some -- we'll just look at the
contract, possibly get some additional services provided to
their primary area, or the primary area of the county that
they're responsible to. And I know that's going to cost
money, and that's fine. I think that it's a -- I don't have
a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we having fun
8-27-04 wk
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yet, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am. I'm having a
ball.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Before we go
further, probably any one of you can answer this question.
I'm looking at the budget summary that was provided since
our last meeting, and down at the bottom I see that the
estimated -- what I think I see is the current planned
expenditures exceed estimated revenues by a million dollars.
JUDGE TINLEY: Slightly over that. That's
correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I just wanted
to make sure I knew how to read this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what you're
seeing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. That's -- and I
think that's a good point. I think the other side of that
is something I brought up the other day; that in this
particular year, we ended up with -- I think it was
1.2 million of unspent expenditures that were budgeted,
which -- you know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. A lot of it
related to personnel, payroll.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the same
thing would take place -- we can look at this year and say
8-27-04 wk
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somewhere between 750 and maybe 1.2 million something, you
know, there's some overbudgeted item amount here again. So,
in those budgets, a deficit going in may not be as big a
deficit coming out.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, in your
experience, at this stage of budget preparation, you're not
alarmed by that deficit?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I'm more concerned
about year-end numbers than I am projected numbers, because
that's where we -- that's the situation -- the true
situation in the county. I think if you look at every year,
how we've been budgeting and how our fund balance is going,
I think you can continue to go in that direction because of
the way we do our budgeting, which is very conservative, and
our revenue estimates tend to be conservative.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would be very concerned
about -- if I saw a $2 million deficit. Tommy probably
would, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess we all would
be.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was concerned with the
$1 million.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Concerned, but not as
concerned as -- because I think that it's probably more a,
8-27-09 wk
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
quote, paper deficit at this point.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're -- we're
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not panic mode, no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We may want to whittle
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Will you raise a
little flag when it's time for me to start panicking?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, because y'all said
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like good news,
kind of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to be
talking about personnel here pretty quick.
MS. PIEPER: Are you really? It just seems
like Kerr County is being compared to several other
counties. Let me give you a copy of this, if you will just
pass them around. And the information that y'all have
received, I think, is from the County Judge's office of
these other counties, so it's like comparing an apple to an
orange. So, therefore, I called these counties and I talked
to the County Clerk, and I got these numbers from the County
8-27-04 wk
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Clerk. Now, our main comparison seems to be Hood County.
They do have 12 employees. However, as your court
administrator pointed out the other day, that when she had
spoke with the County Judge, they have court staff that are
-- that is literally in the -- the judge's office that
handles all the case files.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which county are we
talking about now?
MS. PIEPER: Hood County. Hood.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hood.
MS. PIEPER: That seems to be the one that
I'm basically compared to most of the time. However, my
deputies do all of our case load. And then, if you'll look
at the numbers as well, we just about double them in
everything. And I have it broken down into different
categories, as far as my birth, death, and marriage records,
how many we file per year. And just on the birth and death
certificates issued, it was a little over -- it was 19,970.
And then, of course, Hood County is 14,000. And just from
that category alone, in the last five years we've received
the highest state awards that they have offered for two of
them. Hood County's comment was they've received a couple.
And it's gotten now to where the state inspectors, they
don't just pop in on me now; they actually call me and
say -- make an appointment. They say there's no need to pop
8-27-04 wk
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in, 'cause my records on that is kept up so well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You prepare -- or your
staff prepares 19,900 birth and death certificates?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Per year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. That's per year,
right?
MS. PIEPER: This is based on the year 2003,
because that is the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, it just
-- is that counted like -- if I come in there and get ten at
one time, does that include -- that's 10? That counts as 10
or one?
MS. PIEPER: That is counted as 10.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. PIEPER: Because we still have to do the
same amount of work on the 10 as we would the one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand. I
was just trying to figure out.
MS. PIEPER: Right. The only difference is
you would fill out one application.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'm just -- okay.
I just -- that number makes more sense, then, because I
8-27-04 wk
48
1
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 in the average estate, you're probably going to get,
you know, five to ten requests -- you know, requests for
one. I couldn't imagine how that number got so high when
the deaths and the births --
MS. PIEPER: But a lot of that, during the
summer we've got all the summer sports and stuff. They --
you know, a child has to have a birth certificate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They all have to be
certified now.
MS. PIEPER: Right. School starting back,
each child has to have the birth certificate for school.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. PIEPER: So we're hit hard in the summer
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand it's a real
number. I was just trying to figure out how it got to be so
big, and you explained it.
MS. PIEPER: Right. And then somebody may
have died 10 years ago, and every year they come back for
more death certificates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MS. PIEPER: On Lamar County, on criminal
cases, they don't do any criminal; that is done all in their
district court. And then on Rusk County, they don't have to
worry about any fines or fees, because their probation
8-27-04 wk
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
department does all of that, and so that also lessens the
load on their bookkeeper. Same way with the civil cases for
Lamar County; their district court handles all of that.
Cherokee County, their juvenile cases, the district court
handles those as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I thank you for
this, because I -- what it does, I mean, it explains -- and
Paula did a similar report, and --
JUDGE TINLEY: It's helpful to have this
info.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very helpful to us,
because a lot of the -- I won't say criticism, but the
studies we show, this gives us information that we can tell
our constituents, 'cause they ask us the questions.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we ask you, and you
give us the answer. It helps, because then we can see
there's a big difference as to why your department or
Paula's --
MS. PIEPER: It's hard for you to understand
when I have one criminal case or one mental health case or
whatever it may be, the different steps that we have to go
through from the beginning to the end of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, yeah, I
25 ~ understand that. But, I mean, whatever you do in this
8-27-09 wk
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
county, the same type of work has to be done in the other
county. What's interesting and what's, I think, helpful is
things like how the organization in Kerr County differs from
Hood and Lamar and Rusk as to the County Court at Law, as to
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Commissioners Court
records -- I mean, all that. And things are all done
differently. It helps us to understand how the other
counties are doing it compared to how you're doing it.
MS. PIEPER: See, here in Kerr County, my
office does it all. So whenever I asked for my employee
back, I need that employee back. I'm not just wanting that
employee back. And, you know, whenever I hired Jim
part-time to come in, I think he was kind of floored at the
amount of work we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if -- I mean, as
I -- my recollection of the -- the Court on that employee
back, the -- the question comes on undoing the -- the
step/grade changes last year, I mean, to get the employee
back. I mean, 'cause it's -- I mean, I don't -- I don't
have a problem with going back to the staffing level you
needed, but I have a -- a problem of -- of changing steps
and grades and then -- and then going back. I mean, I think
there needs to be adjustment, and I don't know how we do
8-27-04 wk
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. That's a real difficult thing that we probably didn't
think clearly through when we, you know, did it last year.
MS. PIEPER: I don't know. Even with a new
employee, the ones that did get a step increase because of
the extra work would still be doing it, because they're
going to have to oversee that new employee for at least the
first six months before that deputy would be sworn in or --
what is the terminology?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Deputized.
MS. PIEPER: Deputized, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- I mean,
the -- and this is -- this goes back to just, I think, to
try to -- 'cause we have a number of elected officials here.
The problem that I have is that Rusty came in and wanted his
clerks to get a -- I think he proposed a $3,000 increase.
Well, if we start going into any department and start
changing steps and grades in that department and not look at
all the other departments, we just start creating a mess,
and it undoes everything we do in trying to do our studies.
Whether or not, I mean, everyone liked the last Nash study
or not, it was done, and it's, you know, the way we set up
the step and grades. And when we start going into changing
the departments, which is what was done in your department
to a slight degree last year, it causes --
MS. PIEPER: You know what I think of that
8-27-09 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
Nash study.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I know, but it's
still -- I mean, you have to have some sort of an equitable
basis where someone doing a set of work in your office and a
similar set of work in Linda's office gets paid the same
amount. And, you know, there's never a perfect way to do
that. The last time was the Nash study. Time before that
was some other study before I was on the Court. You know,
and I don't think everyone's ever happy with those studies,
but you have to start somewhere. And I think we have made
-- where there were errors in the Nash study of consequence,
I think this Court has tried to make those adjustments, and
as people change workloads and reorganize their offices,
we've tried to make those adjustments. But this is going
the other direction, which makes it -- this is a harder one
for us, because we started -- I mean, we don't want to -- I
don't want to be in a position of saying we're demoting
somebody, but the -- kind of the deal was that they were
going to do more work, at least as I understand, and the
Judge. Because, as I understand, the deal was you cut back
or didn't replace somebody and spread your workload out;
those people got part of that money. And, you know, it's
just put us in a difficult situation, is all I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we spread the
entire amount of the displaced person last year?
8-27-04 wk
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: No. No, it was only maybe
$4,000. I think the rest of that went to Rusty's new
employees, or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Went to where?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I gave up four.
MS. PIEPER: -- raises or something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty gets it all,
doesn't he?
MS. PIEPER: Seems like it. But what worries
me is, you know, I just gave you the facts and figures that
my office is extremely busy. We don't have court staff.
And what worries me is I think that when I go back and sit
down, that's the last y'all are ever going to think of this,
and I'm going to have to go through a whole 'nother year --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, --
MS. PIEPER: -- having to do all of this --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see one thing I'd
like for you to stop doing and give it to our court
administrator. Reading in your county notes here, "Clerk
keeps up with" -- "County Judge secretary or court
administrator types up the agenda, and clerk keeps up with
getting the signatures, receiving and mailing out executed
copies of contracts." On my part, you can give that up;
give it to the court administrator so she can keep track of
where we are. That's one item less you have to do, as far
8-27-04 wk
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as I'm concerned.
MS. PIEPER: Well, that's good, but you know
what? That's not her duty. As clerk of the court, that's
mine. I mean, and I -- I wouldn't mind help in it. I'll
tell you that I wouldn't mind help in it, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's
discretion -- there appears to be discretion in how a County
Clerk operates. I mean, I know you think it's your duty,
but, obviously, some of these other county clerks don't
think everything is their duty, and if there's a way to
shift it, I think we should shift it. I mean, I think that
there's a -- you know, Kathy has set up a system for keeping
track of the contracts and all that, because that has become
an issue of trying to keep good -- you know, to look for a
contract and really not be able to find it, just so we know
when they expire and what the terms of each of the contracts
are.
MS. PIEPER: Let me tell you the process
on -- what I'm talking about on this. We'll use the Airport
Board for an example.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. PIEPER: The first motion, I believe, was
to approve it, the form of the contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. PIEPER: So then it came back the next
8-27-04 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
Commissioners Court, and it still had to get some kind of
revisions. Well, I was able to do an order for the form,
but then it comes back again as -- in a contract form, and
the contract was approved, so we get your signatures on it.
And I have the contract -- a copy of the contract, because
the original is now sent to the City. Well, I still have to
have a note on that, you know, "Don't scan or don't record
or don't file until I get the contract from the City." So,
I'm still having to keep up with that. I mean, I could call
down to Kathy and say, "I need this contract," but I'm still
having to keep up with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- there's a way for
your office and Kathy to work out some of these, and until
it comes back -- you know, we're just trying to make work
easier.
MS. PIEPER: Kathy and I spoke on this
yesterday. That contract is -- I still have not received it
back. I called David Pearce. "Oh, I thought I brought that
down last week." So, I asked Kathy. We haven't seen it,
neither one of us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you made a good
point. The point is, she knew.
MS. PIEPER: Right. I mean, she and I do
communicate all the time. We have to.
8-27-04 wk
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Coordination. That's
what I'm talking about.
MS. PIEPER: And it's not just on
Commissioners Court. I mean, we -- she and my probate
deputy and my juvenile deputy, they have to communicate all
the time. So, I mean, it's not that she's not doing her
job.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
I'm not being critical. I didn't bring it up to be
critical.
MS. PIEPER: Right, I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the way you've
got this down, are you talking about keeping up and getting
signatures, receiving and mailing out executed copies?
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know for a fact
that I've asked our court administrator on several
documents -- contracts with respect to the sewer project,
and documents fly back and forth left and right on that
project. "Has such-and-such been mailed out?" And we don't
know the answer. If that were here, we'd know the answer.
MS. PIEPER: Once all contracts are executed,
I mail them out. But, you know, there are times when I may
only get a copy of a contract of whatever the subject may
be, and y'all may keep the original. So --
8-27-04 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couldn't it work -- is
there a problem with -- I know we're getting off base a
little bit, but that it's Kathy's responsibility to get the
contract executed, and then once we have an executed copy, I
think the final -- original needs to be in your office, in
my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of where
I'm coming from on this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think until it gets to
that point, I don't see why you have to keep up with it; why
Kathy can't keep up with it. But once it's finalized, I
think it's yours. I think that's where all the permanent
files --
MS. PIEPER: Generally, I'm sitting back
there, and most of the time I have the original, and the
minute y'all approve it, then I give it to the Judge for
signature.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. PIEPER: And then I'm sitting there with
my laptop and I'm typing up the order, and then when I get
back to my office, then I will take that -- the order -- I
mean the contract and send it to wherever it needs to be for
their signature.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying, and I
think what Bill's saying is that if there's a way that we
8-27-04 wk
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
can help your workload by more work being -- on these things
related to the Commissioners Court, if Kathy can do them, we
would like to see that. And that would help your staff. On
the issue of what was done last year versus the new
employee -- or not new employee; actually, filling the open
slot that you had last year, I'd have to defer to the
Treasurer and the personnel policy. How do you handle that?
If we gave a -- and I don't know if we gave a step or a
grade increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let's make sure
that we understand what happened. You agreed to delete an
12 employee.
13
14 position,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: I agreed not to fill the
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's a whole
lot like the same thing I'm saying.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we took part of
that salary and spread it amongst --
MS. PIEPER: From my understanding, I thought
it was a merit increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Spread it -- spread it
amongst the other -- some other employees in there to pick
up that workload. If they pick up the workload of that
person, that line that was going away, then -- then we give
8-27-04 wk
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
them a little bit more money to do that, which is very
common throughout the business world. And now we want to
add that person back there, and leave that compensation
there as well. Is that what you're asking to do?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that
that's fair. I don't know if that's right. Does -- what
about their -- they're compensated for the workload, the
added workload.
MS. PIEPER: But our workload --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you put the person
back in there --
MS. PIEPER: Our workload continues to
increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I tried.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- the issue
comes in 'cause I see Ms. Uecker sitting in the audience
just listening. The same thing was done in her department,
wasn't -- didn't we not fill someone?
MS. UECKER: I give up a position, but there
was no money spread around.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't bring that stuff
up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought that we --
8-27-04 wk
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that was in consideration
of some -- of a new -- some new equipment and a new process
that she was going to be able to utilize, and also, we
altered another process that was going to save some
significant labor. That's my recollection. Isn't that
yours, Ms. Uecker?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Delete my comment,
please.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that when we talked
about the -- the hours, maybe a four-day -- 10-hour,
four-day --
MS. UECKER: Well, yeah. I've got -- I've
got five that are working 10-hour work days, four days a
week, but that doesn't diminish --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was that not part --
MS. UECKER: -- the fact that their salaries
weren't -- I mean, and as far as the compensation on the
equipment, that was so that we didn't have to purchase a
huge, you know, microfilm camera. And, of course, the setup
right now hasn't decreased the load that -- you know, I'm
counting on the fact that it will as we get there.
JUDGE TINLEY: We were anticipating what we
saw coming as additional labor costs to be able to alleviate
that.
MS. UECKER: But the -- but the point we're
8-27-04 wk
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
making here is, you know, if -- if she gave up an employee
and that money was distributed to those that were left, that
that.
MS. UECKER: But it's okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The -- on a pure
comparison study, the one metric that has to be apples and
apples is the one where you divide the total cost of county
government by the number of citizens in the county. And we
do that, and we find that we are relatively expensive county
government. And, in addressing that in this budget process,
what we're saying is predictable. We're relatively
expensive, but every department we have is operating at peak
efficiency, and nobody is accountable for that expensive
government. So I don't -- I don't see any motivation or
desire to look at ways to do things differently and less
expensive, and -- and that was predictable.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for
Ms. Pieper on the information that she has presented to us
here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- one
comment to add to what Dave said -- and I agree with what he
said, but I think the other part of that is, the goal that I
had, and I think he had, was to try to figure out a way
8-27-04 wk
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
to -- you know, to do things more efficiently, and pay
our -- over the long-term, start paying our employees
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because salaries is such
a huge part of our budget. And I think that's the goal.
The goal is to better our employees' salaries. Now, that
means whether it's a technology increase or a reshuffling of
the workload or -- I mean, doesn't make any difference to me
where the efficiency comes. But if we can figure out a way
to trim staff, I'm in favor of spending more on the staff
that's left. That's kind of where, you know, I think we
were trying to go. And it may not be possible. I don't
know.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only comment I would
make on that, Jonathan, and I think -- I think the thing you
have to go back to is the history of the Court as a whole
and the history of your elected officials as a whole. This
Court's always been very, very conservative and has always,
you know, thoroughly scrutinized every elected official's
budget and expenditures, even monthly bills, even down to $5
bills coming before the Court or whatever it is. This Court
has always acted that way. And I think all your elected
officials through the years, knowing that from this Court,
25 ~ have accordingly acted that way. And, yes, we're a more
8-27-04 wk
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
expensive county, but I don't think there's an elected
official in this county that can say you got a slush fund;
you've got more than what you need. I think you -- you see
it -- what you were commenting a while ago about what's
turned in in unused budget at the end of each year compared
to what's budgeted. I think every elected official in this
county scrutinizes their own bills before they come -- and
their own expenditures, and they don't say, "Well, I'm
budgeted this much. Well, it's getting close to the end of
budget; I want to go out and spend it all real quick." You
don't see that here. You see it turned back in, and it goes
back into that. And I think you got a very efficient Court,
you know, elected officials, whatever, that do their own
scrutinizing thoroughly that keeps those costs down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. But what I
think -- that's not at all in disagreement, I think, with
what Commissioner Nicholson brought to the Court last year
as kind of a philosophy, is -- is basically asking every
department to step back and -- yes, you're doing it
efficiently, or as efficiently as you can, but is there a
more efficient way? Can you -- as Linda -- Linda got some
more technology. Are there things that we can do that
enhance productivity? That's what I think the question was.
I mean, I think that every elected official, you know, does
a very good job, but we do just as we've done -- I mean,
8-27-04 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
many of the elected officials in the county have been in
this position a long time.
MS. PIEPER: Let me respond to this. This is
not an ugly comment; I don't mean it to be. My office has
been in existence since 1854, and with every County Clerk
that comes along, we've all tried to be very effective and
efficient and find better ways of doing it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And we're just
saying, let's make it a conscious effort to continue doing
that.
MS. PIEPER: But we're still doing it, you
know. I mean, it's not like we're just sitting there doing
nothing.
MS. UECKER: Just as a -- a comment to what
Commissioner Baldwin was saying, the 10-hour work days have
really increased production. They all love it.
MS. PIEPER: I thought about that. But,
like, on my -- my probate court or my juvenile court,
whenever I have, you know, one person in charge of that
court, I don't think that would be very efficient.
MS. UECKER: That's why I have to choose.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not asking you,
in my mind, to emulate the District Clerk's four-times-ten
formula. If it works for the District Clerk, that's great.
25 ~ If you believe that that can't work for you, that's -- I
8-27-04 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
24
25
understand that, and I'm -- I understand.
MS. PIEPER: One other --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But where I am --
where I do come from in this whole issue is, I think that
I'd be more inclined to consider your request if you were to
tell this Court you're willing to rearrange your part-time
considerations and eliminate -- I'm not talking about where
you have to fill in for a vacation, but what you described
as full-time part-time, to me, doesn't resonate. It really
doesn't resonate. If you have a job there that you have
somebody in on a full-time part-time basis, that job's there
when that person's not there as well, or some portion of it
is. I'd be more willing to see your request granted if you
would figure out a way to eliminate situations like this and
give yourself more productivity and the availability of an
employee all the time which could do the things you want
done, whether it's in that task or some other task.
MS. PIEPER: Yes, I'm willing to do whatever
I have to do, you know. And the person that I would re --
you know, that I'll -- if I could get, would do multiple
tasks, not just one or two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the -- that's
the key to a good -- good, efficient operation.
MS. PIEPER: Because everybody in my office
has to be able to do multiple tasks, you know. If my
8-27-04 wk
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
probate deputy is out, then, you know, I've got to have
several that know how to do that, not just one or two.
Because one may be at a -- you know, in two different
courts. But the only thing I want to add is, our property
transactions continue to increase with the growth of the
county, not only from the county, but the city transactions
as well. Any time somebody even buys a house in the city,
you know, our -- our abstract companies -- we have three of
them. They come in every day with a whole stack of filings.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page is the
County Clerk on?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 3.
JUDGE TINLEY: 3. 3, 4, 5, 6 -- 5. If there
are no other questions for the clerk on the information
which she furnished, why don't we recess for about 15
minutes, and come back and move to the next --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like -- I want to
start on the County Clerk again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, fine.
(Recess taken from 10:23 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we come back to
order? We've been in recess here for a bit. Commissioner
Letz wanted to resume some questions on the County Clerk's
budget.
8-27-04 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have some too, when
you finish.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I had was, I
want to make sure I understand it. The notes that I have on
my Page 5, which is the County Clerk's budget, was to add
the employee back, and that was -- and the only question was
what to do on the other thing. But -- you know, like I said
on the salaries of the other ones that were adjusted last
year, and that hasn't been resolved. But Commissioner
Williams brought up that he, I guess -- this is how I
understood it, anyway -- that you were going to reduce your
part-time to get that other person back.
MS. PIEPER: If I need to, yes, sir, that's
fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I had -- that was
my question, is what's the Court's -- where is everybody at
on their notes, and what do they have on their page? 'Cause
I had the -- my note said, "Add employee back," and I did
not change the part-time request.
MS. PIEPER: That part-time, the 9,500, that
is Betty Burney's salary. She works two days a week, and
she helps us index and scan our records. But if I have to
-- if have I to give that up to -- to get another employee,
I'll be more than happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you say that one
8-27-04 wk
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
more time?
	MS. PIEPER:	If I have to give	up	--
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: More th	an	happy?
	MS. PIEPER:	-- that part-time	sa	lary line
item to get	another person,	I will do that.		
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: I've ad	ded	an employee
back, and I	changed the numb	er to 260,885.		
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: I want	to	ask you a
question.	I want to go back	to this -- what	you	prepared
for us.				
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appreciate that very
much. But down here, Kerr County notes -- excuse me --
MS. PIEPER: Yes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- it talks about
County Court at Law coordinator sets the hearings for civil
and assists in County Court at Law activities.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess my question
is -- I think I know the answer -- does your office handle
civil work for the County Court at Law?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir, we do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a reason why
that -- to help you take some of your workload away, is
there any reason why that couldn't be shifted to the
8-27-04 wk
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
District Clerk's office?
MS. PIEPER: By statutory -- back in 1985,
that's how it was set up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I didn't
hear the answer.
MS. PIEPER: Back in 1985, when County Court
at Law was set up, I get every third civil case.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question is, is
there a reason why the County Court at Law civil work
couldn't be moved to the District Clerk's Office, so that
all the courts are in the District Clerk's Office? And that
would relieve your operation of that responsibility.
MS. PIEPER: Well, statutorily, I'm
responsible for them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not going to
debate that at this point. But you're responsible only for
the CCL court -- County Court at Law? You're not
responsible for civil work that comes out of district?
MS. PIEPER: No, I'm not responsible for
civil work out of district court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The law -- the law
specifically says you have to do that? Or is that just
something that's been in your operation since the creation
of the County Court at Law?
MS. PIEPER: Since the creation of County
8-27-04 wk
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Court at Law.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So my question is,
can that work be shifted to the District Clerk, relieving
you of the necessity to do civil court work, and combining
those under the District Clerk? That's my question. Is
there any -- is there any impediment in the law that says
you can't do that?
MS. UECKER: Well, how that -- the way the
County Court at Law was set up is each -- for County Courts
at Law, each county has a separate piece of legislation.
There's actually a bill that says Kerr County is set up this
12 way.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. UECKER: And they can set them up however
they want to. At the time, ours was established so that
every third case went to -- to the County Clerk, including
family law cases. However, we found that -- and this was
before your time, I think -- that sending every third family
law case down was actually unworkable, because we had some
child support being paid there, some being paid upstairs.
People would come up and say, "I want to find this divorce."
"Well, it's not here; you might check downstairs." So, the
County Judge -- I mean the County Court at Law Judge and
District Judge -- both District Judges signed an order that
said all family law cases will go upstairs, to eliminate
8-27-04 wk
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that problem. Now, there's two ways that you could change
that; to have another order signed by those three judges
saying those civil cases will be moved upstairs, or change
that piece of legislation. Or file a bill to amend that
statute.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Am I hearing
correctly, that the legislation prohibits it as it stands?
Which --
MS. UECKER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's merely a court
order that would -- that would prevent it from being done?
MS. UECKER: Yeah. It's local legislation,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, the
reality is, there is no legal impediment to doing it.
MS. UECKER: I don't think so, no. It's just
the way it was established back when it was set up. And
Judge Barton was here, and I think Judge Brown and Judge
Jordan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question would
be, is that -- I don't know that -- I mean, is there an
efficiency reason to do it? I mean --
MS. PIEPER: No, sir, there's not, because
that's not the real problem. That -- that department is
running fine. And during elections, and -- and the only
8-27-04 wk
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
person that I have that's bilingual is also in that
department. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you know what the
caseload is right now that your department would handle on
those civil cases?
MS. PIEPER: Civil is pretty light for County
Court at Law. I mean, for the court that I handle.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you have an
employee just dedicated for that purpose?
MS. PIEPER: No, I have three people -- I
have four people in that department, and all four of them --
I have an administrator, and then I have three other ones,
and that department handles the criminal, civil, and
juvenile. However, if I have people that are out of the
office that work in other departments, then I can call on
one of them to come and assist in probate or to assist in
vital records or to assist in land records, wherever I may
need them. And then on -- on Tuesdays, we run anywhere from
50 to 65 people through criminal court. It takes every one
of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I guess it's
not an issue that we'll resolve here in this discussion, but
I'm just wondering whether or not some ongoing study about
the efficiencies that might accrue from such a move could be
25 ~ undertaken between the two clerks, and the Court be apprised
8-27-04 wk
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
of what the outcome of that study is. That's what I'm
MS. NEMEC: You found me.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the answer to an issue on
the classification aspect, where there were either four or
five employees that were reclassified last year in this
arrangement, and I'm concerned about the net overall effect.
MS. PIEPER: They were not reclassified,
though. They kept their same titles.
JUDGE TINLEY: They were reclassified for
compensation purposes, and that's -- that's where I see the
potential problem relative to looking at the others in --
within the system. And I think that's what Commissioner
Baldwin's' concern was, if I understood him correctly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: And -- and I see that as some
-- as creating other -- other issues, other potential
problems. And, you know, while we may shift -- take an
amount off of one line item and include it in another line
item, I don't think it solves this -- this step/grade
8-27-04 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
problem that -- that we have now created as a result of last
year. I see it as a problem right now --
MS. PIEPER: Well, it was not --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- if we go back.
MS. PIEPER: Maybe I misunderstood last year,
but I was not really under the impression that if this did
not work out, that the girls would have their salary taken
away. I mean, it was my understanding that if it doesn't
work out with one less employee, come back and we'll fix it.
You know, maybe I misunderstood last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I guess -- but
why would we -- I presume the -- if you said the class --
the classification didn't change; we just increased the --
MS. PIEPER: It was just like a merit
increase, or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not a merit
increase, though, because, I mean, that's not -- that
doesn't -- the policy is very clear what a merit increase
is.
MS. PIEPER: Well, step increase or
something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is step the first number
or the second number?
MS. NEMEC: The step is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Step's first, so the
8-27-04 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
grade -- we increased the grade on these employees? Is that
MS. NEMEC: No, the step -- the step is the
second number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it was a step
MS. NEMEC: The step is Step 1, Step 2, Step
3. The grade is 7, 8, going up. I can address the Court on
what happened last year, if I may.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please do.
MS. NEMEC: What the personnel policy says is
that you cannot give merit increases for extra workload that
is given to an employee, so what was given to those
employees was not a merit increase, although their step did
go up a few steps across-the-board. If this had been a
reclassification, then we would have needed a new job
description and they would have been reclassified, as far as
their pay group, to a larger pay group. The way I
understood it was, because it was on a trial basis, they
were just going to be moved up a couple of steps, not
merits, and see if it worked out. So, they weren't given a
merit and they weren't reclassified. They were just given
extra money for their workload.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, for the assumed
8-27-04 wk
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
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, how many are we
talking about and how many steps in grade? Do you know?
MS. PIEPER: It was just one.
MS. NEMEC: I don't know how many actually
were affected by that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm speaking from
recollection, but my recollection was there were two that
had two step increases each.
MS. PIEPER: I don't remember.
JUDGE TINLEY: And two or three that had a
one-step increase. That's my recollection. I can go back.
MS. NEMEC: I could go back and compare the
position schedule from last year -- for the year before to
this past year and see who was moved up, and we could tell
by that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a
MS. NEMEC: So, really, what was done last
year is not something that we would normally do. We would
have fixed it either with a reclassification, and we didn't.
And I think the reason it wasn't done that way was because
you were going to see how it worked.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that we made
a mistake allowing that to happen that way. I don't think
the employee should suffer.
8-27-04 wk
77
1
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: That's what I'm thinking. And
it was such a minute amount for each person.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not a minute amount.
I don't think they under -- based on what you're telling me,
I don't think the employees understood what was being done,
so I don't know -- and I will give the benefit of doubt to
the employees, that they didn't know. I don't want to
reduce their -- their paycheck, but I -- I think that we --
I mean, I've learned a lesson that -- no more trials. I
mean, you either do it or you don't do it. But it's -- this
is a problem, in my mind. But what I wrote down is, under
Deputy Salary, 260,885. I'm not really sure where I got
that number.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
hearing Jannett say, part-t
need some part-time, so I'd
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
BALDWIN: Me too.
LETZ: Okay. And from what I'm
ime can be reduced. I think you
reduce it to 2,500.
WILLIAMS: 260 what?
LETZ: 260,885 for Deputies'
Salaries.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not sure that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know where that
number came from. We add one employee back.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, we just add an
employee.
8-27-04 wk
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS.	NEMEC:	At what	-- what grade?
MS.	PIEPER:	12-1.	
MS.	NEMEC:	12-1?	
COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	And part-time --
MS.	PIEPER:	Thank	you, gentlemen.
MR.	TOMLINSON: I'l	l just make it to what --
whatever is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever it turns out to
be, okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And you're reducing part-time
to 25?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MS. UECKER: Can I be next?
MS. PIEPER: Well, I got them fired up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thought we did you
already.
MS. UECKER: Well, you did.
JUDGE TINLEY: You went on vacation, didn't
you?
MS. UECKER: You didn't pay me, though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. (Laughter.)
Careful, he who laughs.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I'm sitting here
quiet, not saying a word.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you jumping up and down
8-27-04 wk
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
again, Rusty?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be careful how you're
laughing out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, Linda.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on,
madam District Clerk?
MS. UECKER: I don't have a page at all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, you do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, just from the
radio -- I listen to the radio when I'm driving, and you're
wearing a very aggressive color today.
MS. UECKER: Am I?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just be aware of that.
They're not allowed to use any red pens any more in schools;
it's kind of an aggressive color. So, if I get aggressive,
you know why.
MS. UECKER: It's peach. It's peach. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of
watermelon.
MS. UECKER: It's watermelo
Just to clarify what happened last year at
agreed not to fill that position was I had
person got a -- a one-step increase. That
other ones that did, those were longevity.
last -- the last budget hearing last year,
z or something.
-- well, when I
-- my microfilm
was it. The
Now, when I left
I was under the
8-27-09 wk
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
impression that by this year, we would have a written merit
increase policy in place, and since that hasn't happened, in
my budget I did request some amount to allow for a merit
increase if my performance evaluations merit that. I'm
getting ready to do my annual performance evaluations, and
I've got a form here, if y'all want to kind of look and see
how I do that, which every department head should do annual
performance evaluations. That's what any human resources
will tell you. But before I do that, I need to know whether
or not the Court is going to allow me some amount, whatever
it is, to -- as a merit increase before I go to my staff and
say, you know, I'm going to do this evaluation. Doesn't
matter what the results are, because you're not going to get
rewarded for good performance anyway.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you saying that
if there's no merit salary increase money available, then
it's not necessary to do this --
MS. UECKER: Well, I do them anyway, because
it's a good policy and it gives the employee a good idea of
where they stand, and it gives us an opportunity to sit down
and talk about where the discrepancies or the weaknesses
are. I do that based on a number per each item or each
element on the exam itself. But what I'm seeing is, you
know, I've got a couple that are, you know, really pushing
it as far as -- I mean, they're really doing a great job and
8-27-04 wk
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
keeping up and trying to learn more and trying to help
others. I've got a few that will go to the others and say,
"I want to help you," you know. "I want to learn how to do
that; teach me how to do that. I want to know how to scan.
I want to know how to microfilm." And those are all
elements that will bring high scores on the evaluation. But
if they know that it doesn't mean anything anyway, then why
should I -- you know, I'm going to do my job and that's all.
I'm going to do the minimum.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- I'm not
sure if it's for the -- you or the Court, but I thought we
did a policy for merit increase last year.
MS. UECKER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought there was money
budgeted, and I remember using a budget amendment to use
some of it.
MS. UECKER: You put some money somewhere.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is money, and
I'm looking to find it.
MS. PIEPER: It was a $10,000 line item that
y'all did, and --
MS.	UECKER: There	was	money put in a box
somewhere. I don'	t know how much	it	is.
8-27-04 wk
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know there's money.
MS. UECKER: But there is no policy
established as to how a department head or an elected
official may give that merit increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I beg to
disagree with you somewhat.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is a policy,
but Commissioner Nicholson and I were attempting to rewrite
it, and as we speak, we didn't get it rewritten.
MS. UECKER: Well, that's what I'm saying; it
hasn't happened. So, as a result of that, I'm just asking
for some amount to be added to my personnel if, in fact,
these performance evaluations show that somebody deserves
a -- a merit increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have one more question.
One more question, and this is just -- truly just an
information request, and really, every elected official in
here, I'd like to hear the answer. Is it more important in
your mind to allow for merit increases, or to bring the
bottom end of the pay structure up a little bit? In other
words, those that --
MS. PIEPER: To bring the bottom end up.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Bottom end up.
8-27-04 wk
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: Because on that merit thing, if
you don't have a reason, you're not going to get it,
basically, and that's what I've heard from other elected
officials.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's a -- maybe
we can do both. I don't know, but I know that there's a --
that's a -- a personnel issue overall, county-wide. I think
the question that I have is as to what's more important,
and --
MS. UECKER: I would say, too, that
generally, you know, to benefit everyone, the answer has to
be the bottom end up. But at some point, we have to
consider those employees that go above and beyond to -- you
know, and I'm not -- although -- you know, and Barbara said
it earlier. She said the current personnel policy says that
you can't give a merit increase for added duties. But it's
been done here this year by this Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reclassified, didn't we?
MS. PIEPER: No, it was a merit increase.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's a matter of
semantics at this point. The merit increase is actually a
one-year award; is that not correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It stays with them.
MS. NEMEC: It stays with them. The grade
stays with them.
8-27-04 wk
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stays with them. I'm
not sure when the Court did that, that Ms. Uecker's
referring to.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you truly want it to be a
merit situation, it would seem to me that it should be a
one-year award, unless you're going to reclassify that
employee for a permanent-type increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's a bonus, and
you can't do bonuses.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that. You call
it a merit increase for a period of one year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it stays with the
base. It's attached to the base and stays with the base.
MS. NEMEC: If someone is a 12-2 and an
elected official recommends them for a merit, and they
become a 12-3, no matter what period during this year that
happens, then in the -- when we're figuring for the next
budget year, we're figuring that employee at a 12-3, 'cause
that -- they're moving up the ladder. That's how they start
earning their --
MS. UECKER: That's how they go up Lne --
what's the last one?
MS. NEMEC: Twelve. We --
MS. UECKER: The last -- the step. That's
how you go up that stepladder, is either by merit or
8-27-04 wk
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
longevity.
MS. NEMEC: Longevity.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're telling me is
that, under that system, an employee who has one
extraordinary year doesn't have to continue to attempt to
excel once they achieve that next step.
MS. PIEPER: If they want another merit
increase, they'll have to continue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's -- I don't
have a problem with that, because that's the same as the
private sector. I know -- I mean, when I was at Exxon, if I
had a great year, I got a bigger raise. If I was
evaluated -- and even though I thought I did just as good,
if I was evaluated to have a mediocre year, the next year my
raise was a lot less. I think that's just standard. I
don't know how you can do it any other way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think executive
compensation is treated differently than -- than
rank-and-file compensation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think I was
treated as an executive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we're putting you
in the executive ranks, and you will be treated differently.
Some of us have been there before and have gotten bonuses,
and I think largely it's called a bonus in the private
8-27-04 wk
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
industry. But merit increases, I've always believed, to
the -- to your base of employees, is for work that exceeds
the expectations for the job. And when that has been
accomplished, the merit -- you give them a merit increase,
and it sticks with them. Now, if, the next year, they start
dogging it, then it's up to the supervisor to do something
about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Supervisor can do
something about it.
MS. UECKER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which, of course, is much
easier to do in the private sector, I think we'd all agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more question.
Barbara, what is a one-step increase? How much money is
that?
MS. NEMEC: Two and a half percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two and a half percent.
MS. NEMEC: Right. Now, with the schedule
that we're working on now, if we go to a 3 percent
cost-of-living, that schedule's going to change, so each
step is going to be 3 percent. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, frankly, wouldn't
be adverse to adding a factor to each department.
8-27-04 wk
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: It's just going to be 3 percent
the other way.
MS. UECKER: Several years ago that was done,
and I don't -- I think you were part of the Court. And --
but I don't know if --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: About four years.
MS. UECKER: -- you were part of the Court.
And it worked so well, because -- and I don't need -- I
don't think I even used all of mine, but we were given a
certain percent to divide as we wanted to if we thought --
and I don't think Paula used any of hers.
MS. RECTOR: Yeah, I did.
MS. UECKER: Did you? But, you know, it just
gives the department head the opportunity to reward someone
that says, you know, "Linda, I know you didn't tell me you
to do this, but I went ahead and did it for you, and here's
the result." And, you know, "It's not part of my job, but I
did it anyway. I knew you were going to have to do it."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like it. I just go
back to my original question that I had. I think it was
what's more important, the merit or the bringing everyone up
from the bottom?
MS. UECKER: Well, that's an obvious answer.
It has to be the bottom up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
8-27-04 wk
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just, for example, on
your current deputy clerk salary base, you're at 189 -- say
190,000. 2 percent of that would be $3,800. Whether
it's --
MS. UECKER: See, I would never use that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 1 percent or 1 and
a half. You know, 1 percent would be $1,800. And instead
of our getting involved -- and this is where we fell apart
on the merit issue before, getting involved and the Court
making those decisions. I'll say it again; I don't want any
part of making those decisions. I would just as soon put a
factor in your line item, whatever that is, as a percentage
of your -- of your pool -- deputy pool money, for you to
spread around the way you see fit. And there's no
compelling reason why you have to give it away if it's not
earned.
MS. UECKER: That's right. We just want to
be able to do it if -- if that issue comes up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you can do it
through the step and grade process.
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To the limit of what
your allocation is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get back to that
thought, Commissioner. If you plug it in for the coming
8-27-04 wk
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
year where Ms. Uecker, for example, has, say, 2 and a half
percent of her deputy salary line item for merit increases,
and let's say, for example, for the coming year, that she
determines that all of those funds should be awarded, what
budgetary effect does that have on the following year?
MS. UECKER: None.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It means when you do
the position schedule next year, you're analyzing all the
employees in their current position, and if whomever is at a
14-2, and she determines that she's -- her service is
meritorious enough to take her to a 14-3, then the following
year, when Barbara does the position schedule, that employee
is shown to us as a 14-3.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
MS. UECKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it does.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I guess my concern is
that you're rolling that into a committed cost for future
years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there's nothing
that says that if that employee, in the next year, when the
supervisor reviews their employees, determines that person
doesn't deserve to continue in that role, she could take her
8-27-04 wk
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back to a 14-2.
MS. UECKER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But she's going to
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't think -- I
mean, I think the -- I don't -- I haven't ever seen
somebody -- a Commissioner or anyone go backwards.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reality of life
is, that's true. I agree.
MS. UECKER: Well, and the reality is -- is
any -- probably it's never happened in -- in my office, but
probably if someone deserves, you know, merits going
backwards, they probably merit being out of here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're pretty close
to the door.
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I think you
usually see with giving discretionary funds to supervisors
for merit increases, and then based on -- administering that
based on some subjective document like this, is that if
you've got five employees in a shop, one of them will score
high this year and get the merit money, and Employee B will
score high the next year and get the merit money, so it
turns out to be nothing more than --
MS. UECKER: You're not giving us very much
8-27-04 wk
91
1 I credit.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I disagree. I mean, I
think -- 'cause I think the experience -- the -- I don't
know about all. Most of the elected officials have shown us
that they haven't used all the money when they were given
that discretion, and I don't know -- I think -- I don't know
if we did one or two years, but I don't --
MS. UECKER: There's only one -- one elected
official that I've talked to that has told me that he'd give
it to everybody, and that was the County Attorney. He says,
"I give it to everybody."
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've never asked for
one. We started to last year, and that one person was --
ended up being reclassified. But it's hard to ask for in a
law enforcement position, 'cause you can't -- in the law
enforcement field, except for maybe the clerical -- and that
could possibly take care of why I wanted the clerical
raised; you know, either reclassify them or that the
clerical didn't get it. But an officer, it's hard to tell
who you're going to stop next and get after, so I don't
know. I don't know how you do it fairly.
MS. UECKER: You know, even if you said,
okay, we're going to take 2 and a half of the 190,000, cut
that amount in half --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1 percent.
8-27-09 wk
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. UECKER: Yeah. That would allow us only
to give -- that way you couldn't possibly give everybody a
raise. That would --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only give two or
three of them. Maybe you can give three or whatever.
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm, or one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's 1 percent of
our -- of our, I guess, salary cost, excluding law
enforcement? Is there a -- come on, Barbara.
MR. TOMLINSON: I would say probably $60,000.
Fifty -- 50,000 to 60,000 is 1 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 percent.
MS. UECKER: The only problem I can see with
the -- the 1 percent is those -- like your office that only
has one employee, that would be difficult to give them a
merit increase with just 1 percent, 'cause it wouldn't be a
whole step.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And certain --
and real small departments would have to be under a
different --
MS. UECKER: There's going to have to be
exceptions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. UECKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
8-27-04 wk
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheriff, the jail could
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Law enforcement -- with
clerical and office workers and that, I think you can. With
law enforcement as a whole, I really don't think you can,
'cause everything changes so much day-to-day, that just
'cause this officer ended up, you know, really doing
something outstanding, well, it just happened that that's
when that happened. If another officer is off duty at that
time, you know, he's no -- no worse or no better than the
one that it happened while he was on duty. So, I don't
think that you can in law enforcement. And this is -- I'm
not saying with y'all. I saw it tried to be worked under
former sheriffs, and unfortunately, what I saw back then, it
was more of a pet peeve. You know, whoever got along the
best did the best, were given merit raises, and they got
them every year, and it went up to where it was out of line.
When I took office, we just -- I don't give merit increases;
I come back to the Court for raises.
MS. UECKER: But just me, personally -- and I
don't know how the other elected officials think. Like, I
never consider anybody for a merit increase based on one
individual incident. It's the overall picture. And I think
he was talking about one incident.
8-27-04 wk
94
1
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: It's not
incident-related, it's performance-related.
MS. UECKER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't -- why don't we
shift consideration to capital expenditure items? Those are
some pretty big-ticket items, and I think we need to
determine prioritization on them. I think I furnished
everybody a copy at some point. Whether or not I furnished
it too quick is another issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I just don't
have it with me; I got to go get it. You'll make me a copy?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kathy, would you make
me one too?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll bet she comes
back with five.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thought I had one with
red ink all over it, too, that aggressive color. Here we
go. Here's my aggressive one.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: What's a grumpy color?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Grumpy? Grumpy's -- I
don't know, probably black. Purple. But I -- I'm pretty --
very clearly on the radio, you can no longer use red or
orange, because those are aggressive and it's going to hurt
your self-esteem. Supposed to use -- supposed to grade
8-27-04 wk
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
papers in purple. Can't use green, because it has
environmental considerations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this a --
MS. UECKER: Jon, somebody needs something to
do, don't they?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this a red
regulation or what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just a --
probably -- we probably don't need to get all this on the
record, but it's just -- schools have been discussing this,
and it's become a -- on talk radio, which I listen to when
I'm driving, a long discussion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I heard some of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: About how teachers are
getting away from using red, 'cause it hurts self-esteem
when they grade papers. They're using purple now.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got an expert we can
swear in here if you want to -- if you want to go there.
MS. LAVENDER: I never graded papers with red
pens. I always used different colors.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, while we're waiting,
let me ask you, do we have a handle on the required
implementation of this jail security situation?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Until after this next
8-27-04 wk
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Legislature, no, I don't think we do. It is required at
this time for all federal and state prisons. And the five
million that the federal government budgeted or gave to the
State of Texas to take care of it, when I called them, it
was totally going to state prisons; nothing was going to
jails. The last that we had was out of the last
Legislature, Legislature required us to turn in to the Jail
Commission how many more cameras it would take to, you know,
fully film that and all, and all that is being compiled by
the Jail Commission and has to go to the Legislature when
they start back up. So, we don't know whether they're going
to offer some grant funding for it or not, or what. So, I
have no idea. And the three proposals we got, that's kind
of how we based them on -- you know, you had programmed in
the whole amount, but to be honest, not knowing that, my
main need in there, of course, is getting -- get started to
where we can at least see and use the video equipment we
have now, and using some of the same cameras. But these
were the three bids that we looked at. And the main one
would be the 39, to at least convert part of that over to
digital and start using some of the cameras we have.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got three different
phases on you; we got a 39, we got an 85, and we got a 141.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: 141 is turnkey, everything.
8-27-04 wk
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85 is --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 85 is adding some of the
new cameras in areas that would have to be covered, and
mainly replacing more of our old cameras and equipment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The 39 --
JUDGE TINLEY: Is a bandaid.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- is replacing just the
equipment we have right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And using our old
cameras.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me shift right quick to
the next Sheriff item of yours. The 44, that's basically a
nonnegotiable item, because you're already -- you're already
hooked up to your -- well, no, those are for four new
vehicles and the work truck.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're already hooked up
to the work truck.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the vehicles are under the
continuing program that has been going on for several years?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. We started out
getting six a year. It went down last year, I guess, to
8-27-04 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
four when we worked constables and that, and then it stayed
at four, and I left it at four this year and in this year's
budget. It's going to put us in a bind later. We got a
couple of those white ones, the first set, the 2000's, that
have over 170,000 miles on them now, so I don't know what's
going to happen in the future, but I asked for four this
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me shift, if I
could, right quick to the next three items after those.
Constable 1, 2, and 3. Those can each be reduced by $3,500,
down -- down to $8,000 as a result of -- of getting the
cameras themselves off a grant, and the $5,000 portion of
that has been reduced to 1,500 for the upgrade kit and
supplies and the installation. So, each of those comes down
to eight. Constable Ayala, I'm correct in those figures, am
I not?
MR. AYALA: I think, according to Tommy, our
lease payments are more than I had --
JUDGE TINLEY: You said $6,500 on that.
MR. AYALA: That's what my paperwork says,
but he says it's 7,100.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's 7,200.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe it's 72.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it. Hold on
just a second, if I can find them.
8-27-04 wk
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
JUDGE TINLEY: That may have included some --
some installation and equipment costs on the front end. I
don't know. Let's see what it says on the lease.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Constable?
MR. TOMLINSON: There --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7,153 on the lease
payment.
MR. TOMLINSON: Lease payment. That's what
the actual payment was this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: 7,150?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7,153.
JUDGE TINLEY: Add 1,500, so that would be
8,653. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 8,653?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, on that jail
capital, you had plugged in that 141, but I think the total
is about -- what, 140 --
JUDGE TINLEY: 47.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That also covers the
food carts, so if you go back down to the 39 one, I would
appreciate still leaving in that difference in there so that
we can take care of those other small capital items.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what about the 85? Does
that include just the camera portion?
8-27-04 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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The 85, you would have
to again take out the 141 and then add the 85 in, but take
out the 141.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, 6,500.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you at 85? Are you
with the 85,000 one?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not anywhere. I've just
noted the options we got. I think it's the Court's decision
to decide which one of those we grab hold on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which item are you
on?
JUDGE TINLEY: For the County Jail.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: The surveillance system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: The three different options
that the Sheriff gave us there.
MS. PIEPER: Judge? On the -- that part-time
salary for the records archival, I checked on that. That
can stay in that line item. Actually, that's mostly what
that's for.
JUDGE TINLEY: The part-time salary of
11, 196?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
8-27-04 wk
101
1
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: Yeah, 1,000 -- yes. Also, I
forgot Word Merge, the $3,700, my part of the Word Merge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can that also come out of
that?
MS. PIEPER: I don't know -- no, 'cause we
can't buy software out of that. And that's what that Word
Merge would be, right?
MS. DECKER: You need to do it out of your
software line.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, needs to come out
of the software line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm looking at Records
Management.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- Records
Management?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. PIEPER: Do you have a question on that,
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- where does that
go, Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: $3,700? Software Maintenance
Group.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Software Maintenance?
MS. PIEPER: That should be --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In Records Management?
8-27-04 wk
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
MS. PIEPER: No, sir, that should be
10-403-563.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 563.
JUDGE TINLEY: So that needs to go from 22,8
to -- what is that, 3,700 that was added?
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hate to say this,
but Commissioner Baldwin and I are lost in this discussion.
Where did we leave off? We were on the jail, and all of a
sudden we're back in Records Management. (Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I just got the
expenditure line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to put my
helicopter back in Commissioners Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioners Court.
But I want to change colors; I want it pink so it don't
offend anybody.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On the jail capital --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here we go with jail.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, just quickly, what
I would recommend the Court do, because we don't know --
JUDGE TINLEY: Page 6.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- what the State's
8-27-04 wk
103
1
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 do, is let's plug in -- there is the 141. Drop
that by 102,000, and let's wait and see if the State's going
to help fund these systems. That would replace the
essential stuff. That's the 39,000 that we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're at 55,5 for the
Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So you're dropping
102,000, and let's see what the State's going to do. I
think they need to pick it up if they're going to mandate
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean 45. 45,5, I'm
sorry.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But it takes care of our
immediate problems.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, that was the
smartest thing said today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So you don't want
141,2. You want what?
JUDGE TINLEY: 45,5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 45,5.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that. Keep
cutting.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
8-27-09 wk
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If they want you -- if
they require you to have it, they should pay for it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They should help -- at
least help.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like Page 6, County
Clerk, in order to incorporate Word Merge, 563, Software
Maintenance, add 27, which will bring it to 26,5.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's this part-time
salary of 11,196? What's that all about?
MS. PIEPER: That comes out of that new fund
that was just set up the last legislative session for any
old records from 1990 back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the money's coming
from the State, and it goes into which -- into your Records
Management budget? Is that where it goes?
MS. PIEPER: It's -- I have three Records
Management budgets, one of which y'all kind of have control
over, and then two of them which you don't, but I still have
to inform you of. And, basically, that's what that one is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one is this?
The one we have control over, or --
MS. PIEPER: No, sir, the one you don't have
control over.
8-27-04 wk
105
1
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: Why are we even
talking about it?
MS. PIEPER: Because I still need to let you
be aware of it. And that fee for every document that is
filed, there is $5 that's going into that particular line
item for those particular documents, and we will only be
able to use that until September 2008, I believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the 11,196 comes off
the capital expenditure worksheet, correct?
MS. PIEPER: No, sir, I checked on that --
oh, well, I don`t --
JUDGE TINLEY: Doesn't really make any
difference, because it's a segregated fund that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, the 15 needs to come
off, 'cause she's done that out of this year's budget.
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, then, that
whole 26,196 comes out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the 11,196 is charged to
that Records Management budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but it's not a
capital item.
JUDGE TINLEY: This year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not a capital
8-27-04 wk
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we delete that whole
line; it's somewhere else.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably so, yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: I've already fixed that in
the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything comes out.
JUDGE TINLEY: We sure wish you'd have spoken
sooner. You want to talk about the roof, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can. We can talk
about it. I like roofs.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still see the number
there of 50 to 60.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I couldn't
remember what we decided the other day. I thought the
Maintenance Supervisor was going to find out.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think he's had time to
get that, very frankly. I think he's working on it based
upon --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I have
some information on that. I was talking to one of my
8-27-04 wk
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neighbors about another subject, and he's -- he's a
contractor, and -- steel buildings, and he had heard about
this, and he was telling me that in all -- he confirmed what
your concerns were. The flat roof is not good. There's an
alternative to a gabled roof that's less expensive, and
that's just a roof that -- that's pitched a little bit -- a
standing-seam steel roof that won't leak for -- last
forever. And it's a one-quarter to one-half on 12-pitch;
just a little bit of a pitch so water runs off of them. I
called Glenn to get information from him about the size of
the building. Turns out we need about 15,000 square feet of
roof. Oh, and when I called Glenn, he had come onto that
same idea, and he was going to Fredericksburg to look at a
building that had been retrofitted that way. And then one
other piece of information I have -- oh, in connection with
that, I also learned that probably it'll help solve the
air-conditioning problem, 'cause you couldn't leave those
air-conditioners on this new pitched roof.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This same contractor
tells me that he's doing this at Mooney. You know the
problems they've got with their leaking roofs over there.
This is the solution that he's going to be doing over there.
I don't have -- I don't have good numbers, but it sounds
like it can be done for something in the range of 55,000 to
8-27-04 wk
108
1	60,	000 .
2		
3		
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To me --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's real rough,
I know that if we do it, it comes under a capital -- or
comes under the maintenance schedule. This calls into
question the whole philosophical discussion about the future
of this facility.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not just the roof.
And for the last three years, we have spent a lot of
money -- a lot of money keeping that operation open. Not
just the fact that the roof leaks, but keeping it open, and
expenses and salaries and so forth and so on. Year-to-date
expenses this year for that operation are $174,000. We
haven't booked anything near $174,000. Now, I appreciate we
have an obligation to the stock show, and I want us to
continue that obligation, but I think we have to take a
whole serious look at where we are with this facility. I
can tell you right here and right now, I, for one, would
like to see the Court seriously entertain the formation of a
facilities -- capital facilities corporation, and we get
this thing away from us at arm's length and let somebody
else take a look at how they're going to get that facility
8-27-04 wk
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
up to speed so that it is a good facility, one that the
county can be proud of, and that it takes care of our
agricultural requirements and needs and obligations, and
takes care of our things that go to economic development in
this county. And that's where I am on this. Not spending
$ 60, 000 .
today?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want to do that
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Are we
going to put a roof on it or not?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would like to
comment on that and say that I think the Commissioner's on
the right track conceptually. What I'd like to do is to
give it away to a not-for-profit, whether it's a
corporation --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You want to do that
today?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we going to put a
roof on it or not?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And what I'd like to
do is take that $175,000 a year and use that as seed money
that	that new	organization	could use	to --	to rehabilitate
it,	and taper	-- taper that	money off	over	about three
8-27-04 wk
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
years, so three years from now we would be out of the -- the
facilities management business.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I don't
disagree with what Commissioners 2 and 4 have said, but I'm
kind of with Commissioner Baldwin. Are we doing a roof now?
Because I don't think either of those precluded us having to
fix that building, or tearing it down. Tearing it down, I
don't see is an option.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to do both.
I'd like to put a roof on it and pursue a longer-term
solution.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the problem with
putting the money for a roof is that I really think that the
first thing -- before you can -- I think we need to plan for
the roof. I think the roof comes next year, though. I
think this year you have to look at the office space in
between, because as soon as you take the roof off, you
collapse the two -- everything in between the two buildings.
I would rather us budget everything to tear out that middle
section where all the office space is right now, eliminate
that, which is just a bunch of lean-to mess, and then go
back behind the exhibit hall area there where some storage
area is and put some -- the office space that we have to
have out there. Put office space into that storage area,
25 ~ and then next year, put the roof on. I'm not opposed to
8-27-04 wk
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
putting a roof on this year; I just think we don't have the
money to do both of those things. You can't do the roof --
or maybe you do the roof and the tear-out -- well, you would
have to air-condition the roof at the same time. I mean,
you can't -- it's not just the roof; it's the roof/
air-conditioner tear-out. That's one item to fix that, and
I don't know what the cost is, but it's well over 60,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a cost --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to do
that, period, over the next two years, or one year if we can
afford it. And I think we need to pursue the other options
as well, but I think that -- that building can be
rehabilitated. It may not be the greatest building, but
that building -- you put a new roof on, put new
air-conditioning in it, tear out that stuff in the middle,
it is an exhibit hall. It's not the fanciest thing around,
but it can be used, and it's the most economic short-term
way to fix something out there, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, again, it's a
bandaid approach. It doesn't solve the long-term -- the
long-term problem. I think that gets us back -- we need a
really in-depth philosophical discussion on the whole issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if -- what if
you -- what if our goal -- our vision would change to get
out of this rental thing totally, completely? Just have
8-27-04 wk
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this thing sit there for stock show only.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can't do it today.
We're talking about putting a roof on it. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But I like that idea.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 4-H.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you know, those
youth/ag-related issues that the place was built for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Agriculture-related,
let them use it. Anything else, go find another venue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know about the
thing falling down because you don't use it enough. I don't
know anything about that, but I like that idea. You know,
you don't worry about bookings and rentals and chairs and --
I never did get real excited about that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask you, if
we went to agricultural use only, which would seriously
limit the amount of days in use, would that cut our
operating costs?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It should.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's still going to --
it's still going to cost.
8-27-04 wk
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, but we could
cut people and electricity and supplies and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We cut -- we would find
out what it costs. I mean, at least in my mind, the minimum
amount the County can spend, which would be a subsidy if we
are able to spin this thing off on some other corporation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would go that
route, Commissioner, in a heartbeat, from the get-go right
now, which gives us an opportunity then to study what needs
to be done with the whole facility and form a facilities
corp., turn it over to them, figure out how we're going to
make that happen, and cut our knot right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean, form
a corporation and turn it over to them?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we've done it.
We've done that before.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Out there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did that with the
Juvenile Detention Center. I mean, that's not a foreign
concept. We can do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a foreign --
that is a foreign concept with the Ag Barn, though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- you're
saying that we -- I'm saying that we keep total control of
8-27-09 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
it, keep it for the agricultural youth of the county, and
don't turn it over to any corporation, to Sudie or the City
or anybody else. We hold on to it and run it ourselves.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The City, no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Sudie is --
Sudie is not an arm of the City?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, no, I'm
not -- I'm not getting any of that. I'm talking about --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those are things
we'll really need to talk about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't do both.
You can't keep it and run it for the ag people and turn it
over to somebody else.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not at one fell
swoop, you're right. But in an orderly progression, we
could do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We probably won't,
though, Bill. I mean, I'll put you on notice; it's probably
not going to happen.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Both of those ideas
have merit, and we can -- we could evaluate and pick the
best one. And not -- not this month, probably, but we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not today.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- we can do it
8-27-04 wk
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pretty easily.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, are we going to go
with a one- or a two-year plan on fixing the roof and the
air-conditioners and tearing out the shed?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the office space
and the concession stand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much does a few
buckets of tar cost?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Glenn said he could
repair it for 60 grand. Isn't that what he said the other
day?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's shift gears, if we
might, here. I don't think we're getting anywhere, folks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have we got any -- have we got
any serious dissension to the Sheriff replacing four
vehicles? And work truck's already in there; we got the
lease at the same time, so we're already hitched up to that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm cool with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's okay? Okay. On
the four J.P.'s, those aggregate -- 14,286. Do we have that
much in the technology fund? I think we're going to have
that, aren't we?
8-27-04 wk
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: 14,000? Yes, we will.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cool with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we can do all of those out
of the tech fund. Nondepartmental, unspecified emergency, I
think that's something that's done pretty much as a matter
of form, is it not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's computer -- that's
our -- that computer line item that -- yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Something breaks, we got a way
to fix it. What would -- nobody's got a serious problem
with that, I don't suppose. I think heretofore, that's been
running more than that, so nobody's got a problem with that
one. Okay.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Treasurer, Tax Assessor
computers.	Not down there;	you're up at the top.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Treasurer and Tax Assessor.
Anybody got	a problem with t	hose two computer --
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: No.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	-- systems?
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: No.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Okay.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Plat cabinet?
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Well, that comes out of a
different f	und. She's going to get that. That's not a
problem.		
8-27-04 wk
117
1
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: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's talk about those voting
machines. Where -- where'd she go?
MR. ALFORD: .I'll go get her. Do you want me
to?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's okay. We'll come
back to it. We got plenty. We can jump around on here.
District Clerk needs another computer and two replacement
printers up there, 2,100. Anybody got any serious beef with
that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Road and Bridge
floodplain, Road and Bridge unit system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Floodplain, I think we
need to hold that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I say hold floodplain.
Computer hardware.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
JUDGE TINLEY: My rec~
some -- some suggestion about moving
else, but I don't think that the end
Bridge Administration. I think they
an end point. So --
Road and Bridge unit.
That probably will go.
~llection is there was
one computer somewhere
point was Road and
were a start point, not
8-27-04 wk
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that? I don't
understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there was a suggestion
that we place some hand-me-downs on some computer stuff, but
I don't recall that Road and Bridge Administration was going
to be the recipient of a hand-me-down. Therefore --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- we would need to maybe
consider deferring on their request for a new one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does anybody else have any
recollection that's more specific than mine?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's accurate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, is Road and Bridge
admin -- is that okay?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Information Tech.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Skipped over that next
one.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we're going to come back
to the -- to the hard battles. Information Tech,
county-wide, and software, 10,000? And then I've got a plus
or minus 6,000 for replacing of network equipment. Is that
a contingency, or is that a requirement?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think the 6,000 we
8-27-04 wk
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
absolutely need, and I think we absolutely have to do the
10. I don't remember exactly what -- what the issue is
on -- on the software. I'd have to refresh my memory on
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think it's a
good thing to have.
MR. TOMLINSON: We have it now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: But we -- we don't have
enough licenses.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: To --
JUDGE TINLEY: We have 50 licenses. We have
it installed on more than 120 computers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oops.
JUDGE TINLEY: I misread that, obviously.
That is incorrect.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank heavens.
JUDGE TINLEY: That is incorrect. I misread
that. I'm -- I'm very much confused here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank heavens.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We'll all be there
someday, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it comes with age. It
comes with age.
8-27-04 wk
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you hear us all
right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sometimes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we just move on
and say we need those two items?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are these necessities, do you
feel like?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think they are. Yes, I
think both of them are.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cut to the chase.
JUDGE TINLEY: I tell you, old age has a
terrible effect on you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you do the
parks, let me go get something real quick. Do something
else; I'll be right back.
(Commissioner Williams left the courtroom.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Extension Service is out. Now
we can take up Flat Rock Lake Park.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Delete.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's -- I had 50
and it went up. One got put in front of it from the last
time we discussed this thing.
(Commissioner Williams returned.)
8-27-09 wk
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We deleted the Flat Rock,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They already did it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That figured.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's a lot of numbers that
come into play there that -- as indicated, restrooms, doing
that bridge, and -- and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bridge.
JUDGE TINLEY: The bridge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does dredging include
getting our trash out of the river?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those pipes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, the work
that -- the work that I got a quote on for in the water
work, it has to do with removal of those two huge pipes out
of there, which are county pipes, and it has to do with
eliminating as many hidden obstacles and other obstacles
that fall off and create problems and taking out logs that
come downstream. So, it's the two things together. I'm
looking for a number, and I got it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: While they're getting rid
of pipes, there's also, for interest, another one of those
pipes on Little League's property -- or on county property
8-27-04 wk
122
1
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 Little League leases.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be a
little easier to move. There is -- I know you're right;
that would be a lot easier to move than the two, but the
quote that I got from the gentleman is for -- for all of
that, to take care of all the submerged problems and the
limbs that break off and the removal of all the trees that
come downstream.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait. Limbs? I'm
confused. Limbs that break off? I mean, are we cleaning
out what's in the river, or are we clipping what may go in
the river?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both. Both. Removal
of logs and removal of the pipes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And don't forget the
day that the bass fisherman guy was in here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They have gotten
together and built -- tied brush together and -- for fish
beds or fish -- whatever you call it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Habitat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Habitat for nesting
and so forth and so on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to take
8-27-09 wk
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
that out, too?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. We -- we toured
the facility with him. Toured the lake with him, after the
Judge and I made the initial run when the man came up from
Alvin, Texas to -- to take a look at it, and we would
protect his habitat things. By taking out those logs that
are lying in there submerged, the stumps are submerged and
the logs that are about to fall off the big, dead cypress
trees, and essentially removing of the pipes, I think it
was -- I can't find it, but I think it was $68,000 for that.
Now, you know, it might be a possibility -- and I just raise
it for what it's worth, and I don't know. There's a
possibility that there might be some Texas Parks and
Wildlife money available, and there's also a possibility
that to get that, we might want to work with the City and
file for a grant to do that particular work. I don't know
the answer, but there's a possibility. Regarding -- and
it's listed as dredging, but it is all of the things that I
said. The bridge, Mr. Odom gave us a quote on, and it's
somewhere in the vicinity of 40-some-odd thousand dollars.
After we get the -- after we get the rail cars back from
Hermann Sons, whatever -- whenever they're released, we can
transport them back. I`ve asked a builder to give me some
estimate of cost for a restroom facility. Been thinking
about having one on top on the Riverside Drive level. That
8-27-04 wk
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
may not be the best place to position it. May need to be
positioned in the park, and while we have some funds
available -- how much we got left in that Parks and Wildlife
grant, or that L.C.R.A. grant? 20,000?
MR. TOMLINSON: About 15, I believe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 15,8 or something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reality is, a
restroom -- it's going to cost us somewhere between $40,000
and $50,000 to do it right, so that's why I put 50 in there.
And those are the items.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My suggestion would be to
delete the bridge, because I think the reality is that it --
and put it off till next year's discussion. Best case,
Hermann Sons is going to start construction first of the
year. It's a, best case, six-month likelihood to get it
built. That's the bridge. Then you got to take out the old
bridge and move the cars, so we're talking about -- those
cars aren't going to be available to do anything with until
July or August, and at that point, why not push it into the
following year? Because I don't think we want to do
construction on creeks during the high flood season. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That makes sense. I
think that's a -- that's a reasonable approach to it. So
that would remove -- essentially, that would remove --
8-27-04 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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 40-plus.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, close to
50, right, out of this year. Then we'd still be funding --
Kathy, would you go back in there in that auxiliary stand
where I keep all my budget stuff over there on the left?
I'm missing the thing on the -- on the dredging. I thought
I had it.
MS. MITCHELL: From the Alvin -- from the guy
from Alvin? Is that the guy?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, the guy from
Alvin. So that would leave, then, the restroom and cleaning
up the lake.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the other thing, I
would -- I would suggest, unless we are flush with money
this year, which I don't think is going to happen, that we
go to L.C.R.A., see if they will allow us to apply the
14,000 to the dredging.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The lake cleanup?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The lake cleanup. And
then go out for additional grants for the restroom as a
single package, that we can put maybe 10,000 towards that
and try to get a grant, you know, seed money to try to get a
grant for the balance. Which --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you saying apply
the existing money that we have -- residue that we have from
8-27-04 wk
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the old grant to the -- to the lake cleanup?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And ask them for the
rest of it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think we apply the
-- we apply the -- whatever's left on the L.C.R.A. grant,
put it towards the dredging, and let's clean the stuff up
that needs to be done in the lake. And I suspect they will
be -- they just want to get this thing closed out as much as
we do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we don't have --
there's not enough money to do the restroom. Then we can
budget 10,000 as seed money for the restroom, and maybe we
can go to Parks and Wildlife or local foundations and see if
they will fund the remaining part of that, and use that
as -- or we could, you know, talk with Maintenance and see,
you know, how far we can go if they build it. Not
Maintenance -- well, Maintenance in the jail. See how much
we can get built and, you know, maybe do a grant and --
community service and 10,000 bucks, get it done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm cool with that
plan. I'm cool with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, you're talking about
allocating approximately 15,000 of the existing funds that
8-27-04 wk
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we've got, if they're used -- can be used for that purpose,
and adding another 10 to 15 to it, running it up to about
$30,000 in the Parks budget?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On top of the cost of
dredging the lake or cleaning up the lake.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'd say 10,000 as
seed money for a restroom, and see if we can get that going.
And then we reduce the dredging -- well, the dredging would,
I guess, stay at 68,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 68, I believe it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we may want to look
at paring that down. But on the revenue side of that
68,000, approximately 15 is going to come from L.C.R.A., so
we don't have to budget the full amount, but there's a
revenue that's going offset part of that in the general
budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good plan.
I'm cool with that, because I think we can undertake only so
much in one year. Removing the bridge out till the
following fiscal year, that's okay. That really makes
sense. And if it would give us time to try to find the
money for restrooms, that's fine, and get the -- get the
lake cleanup underway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, I would
recommend that we talk to Upper Guadalupe River Authority
8-27-04 wk
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and Parks and Wildlife, and see if they'll help us knock
down that 68,000, or help participate in that. I mean,
U.G.R.A. is very big on cleaning up the river night now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have talked to
them, Commissioner. I've talked to Greg about it, and he
was with -- he was with us on the second boat trip up and
down the lake, so he knows exactly where we are and what's
out there. He knows about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And he's excited.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He said he would
participate. He didn't say that they would participate in
an equal share, but they would participate. Probably in a
small way, but whatever it is is good, whatever portion it
pays.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, help me with this number,
gentlemen. The -- the dredging is one figure. Then we want
to add to the dredging 10,000? Is that what we're talking
about doing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: As seed money for the -- for
the restroom facilities, and then see if maybe we can get
maintenance and community service-slash-inmates?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, we take
out 46. Leonard indicated that the bridge would be 46,2.
8-27-09 wk
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we work backwards.
What's the dredging figure?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 68,150.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 68.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, if we add 10 to that, it's
78, 150.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 78,150. But I also -- I
really think we need to put -- you know, tell U.G.R.A. and
Parks and Wildlife that we'll put up two-thirds of that.
And if they don't budget it -- that's all we're putting up,
is two-thirds of it, and then if they refuse, you can come
back for a budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we set it
up -- whatever we get, it means that we're not spending on
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. I mean, I
think it needs to be done. That lake is an asset. It's, I
guess, our responsibility. I'm not sure -- some of the big
tubes are certainly our responsibility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we'd find out
real quick if somebody got injured out there in that lake
because of those pipes or stumps or whatever. District
Judge would be telling us that. So, I -- I really
appreciate the consideration to do that, clean it up.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, for the dredging operation
8-27-04 wk
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and seed money for the restrooms, we're going to plug in
78,150? Is that what I'm hearing?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. Does
that include the 15 that's left?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the 15 is -- that's
on -- that doesn't plug -- we don't net it out here. It
just gets applied from the revenue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're talking
about 78 in new expenditures, 68 plus 10.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's 78 in commitment of
revenue, and hopefully we can take 15 approximately that we
have available on the table from --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you.
JUDGE TINLEY: And apply it on this 68.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where we're going. And
so the number we need to plug in is the 78, correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody got any serious
disagreement with that 78,150?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just don't tell anyone we
budgeted that much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just don't tell them we
budgeted that much.
8-27-04 wk
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll keep your
secrets.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're fixing to have a senile
moment as I did a while ago, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Kathy, for
finding my file.
JUDGE TINLEY: Animal Control --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- asked for a computer. No
problem. Environmental Health asked for a computer and
ArcView.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe -- did we buy
new computers, or did we bring old computers over?
MR. TOMLINSON: We bought new ones.
JUDGE TINLEY: When you geared up last fall,
you -- you had new computers?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ARREOLA: That is an extra computer for
the Solid Waste Department. We didn't have one for them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the ArcView?
MR. ARREOLA: It's for O.S.S.F.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
8-27-04 wk
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ARREOLA: It will help in the whole
department, but it's more just O.S.S.F.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We took care of
Extension, didn't we?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, we took care of
that, so we're pared down to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The finish-out
downstairs, I think, is in that 7,500 on the first page.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're down to a roof,
a voting machine, and some bulldozers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Lots of bulldozers. And
Floodplain. Okay. well, we pared it down pretty good
pretty quick.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We deleted Floodplain.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, we deleted Floodplain?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I didn't have it
deleted; I just had it as open.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had it as we're
going to hold on and take a look at it a little bit later.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where it was.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nanny-nanny-boo-boo.
8-27-04 wk
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's still open.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tell you what, guys. Why
don't we come back at around 1:30? How's that sound?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1:30 works.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess till
1:30.
(Recess taken from 11:56 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order at
the budget hearing. We recessed shortly before noon. The
last items we were working on are capital expenditure items.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's do voting machines.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's what I was
thinking about, the voting machines. Except we don't have
the clerk available to us. Do you know anything about these
voting machines, Mr. Tomlinson?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Would you like me to go
down there and see?
MS. MITCHELL: I'll call.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, she'll give her a call.
MR. TOMLINSON: I just saw her about five
minutes ago; I know she's there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do Road and
Bridge.
8-27-04 wk
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
MR. TOMLINSON: I've heard -- I've heard that
-- I think they were talking about that in Bandera
yesterday.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
MR. TOMLINSON: Same topic.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we sat with your
judge in Austin the other day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge. The Road and
Bridge Administrator gave us a list of specific capital
items -- Capital Outlay items that added up to 190,600, and
then the chip spreader and the -- and distributor, he wanted
to pick up on a three-year lease, I think, and that's how we
got those items.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- do you have the
list of exactly what that equipment covers?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure that one's up here
somewhere.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are we doing,
Road and Bridge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looking for Road and
Bridge list.
JUDGE TINLEY: Their wish list. I've got it
here somewhere. There it is. There it is.
8-27-04 wk
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MITCHELL: Jannett was on the phone, but
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You all have been
through the thing many times, I know, about lease versus
purchase, and you've decided that lease is the most
economical way to go on equipment like that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The maintainers, it is.
But on, I mean, skid steers, dump trucks, those things we
tend to buy. But the maintainer and big loaders, I think
lease is -- they're so darn expensive.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
tend to be around 1,500 a month.
machines cost about 200,000. And
because they turn around and sell
hardly depreciate. Do you need a
JUDGE TINLEY: Her
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
And the leases are --
And that machine -- those
the reason they do it is
them for -- you know, they
copy of the front page?
e you go.
You already had yours.
So --
JUDGE TINLEY: All of those that are listed
there, of course, add up to 190,600. And then the -- I
pulled the information on the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shredder?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- chip spreader and
8-27-04 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
in there at 84. And that's how I came up with what I got.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my view on this
would be -- because a few of the things I think I could make
a good decision on. I would rather, though, send it back to
Road and Bridge and tell them they need to cut some stuff
out of this list.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, just ask them to
prioritize.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or prioritize the list,
yeah. Because, I mean, I don't see that we can do this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least not everything.
I mean, not -- it comes up --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to see it
prioritized also. I've got -- I've got an impression, and I
think it's pretty accurate, that machinery lately has
allowed them to do a whole lot more work with the same
amount of people, so to the extent they're doing that, it
might -- some of these things are probably cost-effective.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think some of them are,
but whether they could defer some of this, like the dump
truck, for a year -- the water truck, I think we need. I
believe we can do a new water truck; that was in pretty bad
8-27-04 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
24
25
shape out there. I know we had one relatively new dump
truck. I thought we had two pretty new ones, and "pretty
new" is relative at Road and Bridge. But I just think, as
Commissioner Baldwin said, let's get our priorities, have
them put 1 to whatever on the list, and see what they want.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I think that's
the only way to go, really.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "1" being the least --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Highest priority.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Highest priority,
okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, I think the
chainsaws and that stuff, that 1,192, that doesn't need to
be on the priority list if they need it, and the computer is
3, 300.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've already taken
care of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Already taken care of
that. That's already in line. So, it's just the -- the 570
items.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Yeah, I would
think the 569 items can be built into the basic operating
budget, can't they?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, yes,
probably.
8-27-04 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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you want to
-- want to run this one by right quick?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's that one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the crime victim
issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we get
through with -- make sure we're --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I thought we did.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- through. I'm not sure
we're through. If we are, fine. If not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we were.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get the capital out of
the way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would your
prioritization on 570 by Road and Bridge people include the
wish list of that -- the shredders?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know why you wouldn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd include everything on
there, including the chip spreader.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 570 and everything
below.
JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh. What else do we have
on capital that we need to talk about?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Voting machines.
8-27-04 wk
139
1
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: Voting machines. Well, we --
I'm not sure everybody's on the same page on the Road and
Bridge Floodplain, that computer system. Commissioner Letz
had a line drawn through it. We had a question mark by it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question mark's fine. I
think -- well, question mark's fine till we decide what
we're doing with that department.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My note says "hold."
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the voting
machines is -- you know, it's -- whatever the cost is, I
think it needs to be in the budget. But I think that you
don't authorize expenditure of those funds until we hear
more from --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, when we were in
Austin, we heard a presentation on the voting machine thing,
and one guy from the federal government gets up and says one
thing, and then a state guy gets up and says something
totally opposite.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's what I hear.
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	They're	not -	- I mean,
I left and went straight to	the bar.	Had no	idea -	- and I
don't even drink. (Laughter.) That's how bad it was. I'm
not real, real sure what I heard. But it's -- basically,
8-27-04 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
140
it's what Jon's saying; we need to put the money in the
budget, but don't spend it until they figure out what we're
doing. And which -- which will happen pretty soon. It
doesn't go into effect till January 1, '06.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Oh, there's
the clerk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Almost got it done.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Check your pulse
there for a second. If we're not required by law to do
something different about our voting machines, we wouldn't
do anything different.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. Well, there
maybe something done; I don't know that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think she
needs a new optical scanner, if nothing else; isn't that
correct?
MS. PIEPER: I would like one new optical
scanner, because we've got two. One doesn't work properly.
Never has.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the cost of that
optical scanner?
MS. PIEPER: About $65,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 65? That's not on
the list here, is it?
MS. PIEPER: Excuse me?
8-27-04 wk
141
1
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: Is that on your list?
MS. PIEPER: No, sir, it's not.
JUDGE TINLEY: You say it's never worked
correctly?
MS. PIEPER: We have yearly maintenance done
on it, and it works fine the minute the -- the maintenance
man comes in to work on it, but when it rolls around for the
election, it's -- it doesn't work right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've heard this same
story --
JUDGE TINLEY: Try scheduling maintenance
immediately prior to the election.
MS. PIEPER: We do. Immediately prior --
before the election, we -- we schedule maintenance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can we plug in the schedule
that he comes to do his maintenance the afternoon of the
election?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What is the effect
of it not working properly?
MS. PIEPER: It just slows us down.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does it mean votes
don't get counted?
MS. PIEPER: No, all the votes does get
counted. It just counts them slowly, and at times it gets
to a point to where we literally have to feed one ballot in
8-27-04 wk
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
at a time. It's real picky on the stack of ballots that it
wants, and we have to figure that out. And some -- it's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The cost on the -- the
other voting machines, the two numbers listed on our capital
budget sheet, one is a voting machine, 68,108, and then
anticipated amount through grants, 51,000, so the total cost
of those two numbers added together?
MS. PIEPER: The 68 is the machines
themselves, and the remainder of that is training.
training?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $51,000 worth of
MS. PIEPER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I can clarify.
There are two different machines that are probably available
to do what the feds are going to require. The higher-end
cost machine is about 108,000; the machine that we need
would be about $108,000, according to the information
Ms. Pieper furnished to me. The other machines are
approximately $2,000 less per machine, which would bring
that cost down to the 68. In addition -- correction, it may
be 58. Would that be closer?
MS. PIEPER: I think you're right. I think
23 58.
24
25 right?
8-27-04 wk
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $3,500 times 20,
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 70,000 bucks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 68 is probably right.
JUDGE TINLEY: On top of that, there's
training, and I think we plugged into her training budget --
yes we did. We moved that up to her training, and increased
her training budget for election expense to $11,000. She
tells me that, according to the best information she's got
available, the grant funds to assist you in purchasing
whatever you do purchase is going to run about $51,000.
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now you got as much
information as we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say we budget
deadline's going to be delayed, which is I think probably
the most likely to have happen, is it's going to be pushed
off a year. And -- and maybe get some additional funding as
well.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Seems reasonable to
me.
price.
MS. PIEPER: The machines may come down in
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think we
8-27-04 wk
144
1
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 way the law is right now, as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 70?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds good to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What else do we have in
Capital Outlay that we need to -- that we can legitimately
take a look at today? I don't see anything else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to come back to
the roof, and we need to come back to Road and Bridge,
right?
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess so, yeah. Okay.
down, pass it around.
JUDGE TINLEY: You were close, right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. This is a
new modified budget request from David Motley, attorney at
law. And this is basically the budget, and it's for nine
months. If you look down at the bottom, the -- the total
for the program is 17,418 for nine months. And the County
Attorney seems to think that he can contribute 5,000, so
that would leave the total for the County at 12,418. Now,
that's through -- I don't remember what month, but that's
for nine months, and hopefully the grants will be in at that
time to pick the tab up from that point on, as I understand
8-27-04 wk
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it. That -- they can use a cell phone temporarily. The
216th D.A.'s offered office space, and surely we have a desk
and chairs and things like that in storage here in the
county somewhere.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is kind of just a
phase-in to that Crime Victims Coordinator, what you're
talking about?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, it is. It's
a phase-in. This is his latest request. And I'm going to
say it again; what bothers me about the whole thing, if --
if this -- and, to me, it is important. This is an
important issue, but why isn't it that important to the
D.A.'s? I just don't -- I can't get my brain wrapped around
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I tend to agree with
that. And I'd also like to -- I mean, if the D.A.'s want
it, I'd like to also talk to them about helping fund it. I
don't know if they have funds available through some of
their seizure accounts and things of that nature or not, but
I suspect they may.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think the
198th -- somebody said in here the other day the 216th did
not have any money, but I -- Tommy knows, but he's not going
to tell.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. I
8-27-04 wk
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think we need to do it -- figure out how to do it. I'm a
little fuzzy on the County Attorney's math here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Doesn't add up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's got -- he's
got -- for one year, he's got benefits totaling 66 percent
of the salary. That doesn't compute. And then for
part-time, he's got benefits totaling about 7.6 percent,
which is more realistic. Somewhere between 66 and 7.6 is
the real answer, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, Commissioner,
it's even worse than that. That column doesn't add up to
48,000; it's a lot less than that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me take it back to
that -	- that	is just	FICA on the	nine-month.	That is just
FICA.	There'	s no --	obviously no	retirement	or insurance in
that number.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, but I
really think that I'd like to hear from the D.A.'s; I mean,
the two D.A.'s and the County Attorney to come up with a
plan that they all agree to and they all have their names
on, because it's -- I mean, I'd just hate to have one
department setting up something for another department that
the other department hasn't said they want.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My sense of it is,
8-27-04 wk
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the way it's working now -- and it's not wonderful, but it's
cranking along, and we sort of got a solution looking for a
problem. If you want to spend some money, here's a way that
we can put some icing on the cake and make it work a little
bit better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the one-year
totals, as you point out, are not 48,5; they're 31,5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We were hoping someone at
that end of the table could do that for you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I knew if we waited
long enough, he'd add it up.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure the 10,5 ought to
be there anyway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it shouldn't be
66 percent of salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you're adding an insurance
benefit there and -- and retirement, I still don't think it
would come up to that, would it? Shouldn't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 35 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: In response to your
speculation that it may be a solution for a problem that
doesn't exist, maybe -- I think we're mandated to do it
under the law. But I think, essentially, while we've got
probably in each of the prosecutors' offices a designated
individual named, I think, because of the requirements of
8-27-04 wk
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
just doing the prosecution work and the operation of that
office, it's effectively probably not really getting done.
Or if it is, it's in a pretty minimal, haphazard manner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we reversed the
process and we had one of these victims' rights
coordinators, and we would try to find ways to cut costs and
save money, we'd probably be saying, "Why don't we abolish
this job and spread that work out among other people?"
JUDGE TINLEY: You might be right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't feel real
strong about it. If we need it, we ought to get one.
But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I definitely think that
we need to have all the prosecutors brought into it, because
that's the whole purpose, is to do it in one place and not
three places, like it's supposedly occurring right now.
Right now, each of those offices has a designated crime
victims' coordinator, because the law requires them to do
that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Like I say, I'm not sure any
of them really do an effective job at it. Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think one of the issues
with the D.A.'s may be that they have more than one county
involved in -- in their scope of their work. 'Cause if you
8-27-04 wk
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have -- if you had a coordinator here, you still wouldn't
have one in Mason County or Menard County or Kendall County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think maybe the other
counties are hoping that the -- the D.A.'s will handle it
for the felony cases, maybe outside of their county budget,
and then what little they've got to do out of the County
Attorney's office, they'll do it out of their county budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: Could be. I know that -- I
mean, I know there's not one in Bandera. I think there is
one in Kendall County, but I -- I think they have a hard
time finding enough to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have what?
MR. TOMLINSON: My impression is that they --
that person in Kendall County has a hard time finding a full
day's work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they have a
full-blown program like what we're trying to move toward
here?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, they do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we can enter into
an interlocal agreement with Kendall County, and let them do
ours, or vice-versa; do what we do with a lot of the 216th
and 198th, have one for the districts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's kind of
our thinking, is trying to get it -- this is a start-up
8-27-04 wk
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here, and keep it in the county until we can find the men's
room and the ladies' room and the desk and everything gets
situated properly, and then maybe start moving out into the
district, and those other counties pick up their pro rata
share.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we do -- a pro
rata share is a good key. If we take a look at the County
Attorney's Column 1 there for one year, the real number
realistically is about $26,000, and if we were all to split
that -- the two D.A.'s, the County Attorney, and
Commissioners Court -- we're looking at about $6,500 apiece.
That's realistic if you -- if the other three go along.
MR. TOMLINSON: Only problem with that --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Commissioner
Letz' idea --
MR. TOMLINSON: -- you also have to deal
with -- you also have to deal with county courts and
those --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that makes it
split even more ways.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If the D.A.'s are
not excited about this, then there's no reason to do it. We
need to hear from them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll take that word
back to the County Attorney and go from there.
8-27-04 wk
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another one
dispatched. Man, we're just mowing them down.
MR. TOMLINSON: Judge? I thought -- I
thought of an item at lunch. Doesn't have anything to do
with lunch, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Is this good news or bad news?
MR. TOMLINSON: -- but we -- maybe we need
some money in the budget for health insurance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What, Tommy?
JUDGE TINLEY: Health insurance consultants.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. We talked
about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be under
Professional Services.
JUDGE TINLEY: But that would be this year.
But you're talking about for next year?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Professional
Services.
MR. TOMLINSON: We -- I think we'll expend
something this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: I hope we will.
MR. TOMLINSON: I was thinking about next
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next year -- next year, we --
8-27-04 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- we may have that same need.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When would we be
spending it? October-November?
JUDGE TINLEY: They may be spending some
sooner than that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see.
JUDGE TINLEY: May be spending some in
September.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The committee sent out
what, four letters?
JUDGE TINLEY: So far we've sent out four.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We currently have $10,000
budgeted for Professional Services.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what the current
balance is. I think we're in pretty good shape on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $10,000 for next year.
We -- as of the current-year budget, we probably have around
$6,000, I'm guessing, based on what's in here and what we
probably have spent since then. But I have no idea what the
-- what the range of costs for this health insurance
consultant may be. Do you have any feel for that, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I remember -- if -- the last
8-27-04 wk
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time we did anything similar to this, wasn't -- it wasn't
for health insurance; it was for property casualty and --
and liability, and all they did was they sent out -- they
sent out the RFP's. They did the RFP's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: And then -- ana then tney
came back with -- with recommendations after receiving
those. It was around, I would say, short of $7,000. I
don't -- I don't know how that relates to health insurance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would suspect that it
might be a good idea to increase Professional Services next
year to, like, 15 or 14.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any idea
what the number's going to be, but I suspect that I can have
a pretty close number in here by Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm supposed to get a
number in here by Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we can wait.
JUDGE TINLEY: As of 1st of July, we show
about $8,350 remaining out of 12,5, which is a pretty
healthy balance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, you do your
contract -- two-year contract -- we can't do that. I was
going to say two-year contract, but we can't.
8-27-04 wk
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hey, y'all get back on
the City. That was a lot more fun.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We made enough
headlines for one day.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Things are going
pretty well in Ingram.
JUDGE TINLEY: Everybody out there seemed to
be happy yesterday.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. We had some
food and cold drinks there at the dam complex. Judge was
there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Had some good
country music. I won the jackpot prize again. That's three
out of five times; that's pretty good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it rigged?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of course it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why do you think he goes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three out of five is
pretty good odds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I guess we're about
down to the Sheriff's Department?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's come back in
8-27-04 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
24
25
Monday and do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which Monday?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: After next.
JUDGE TINLEY: Juvember the 43rd?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: October 7th will
work.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, that's what I was
afraid of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On a full stomach.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The capital items are not
in here -- or are they in here?
MR. TOMLINSON: They're in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The full amount?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: Full amount.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good, we pared that
bugger down a little bit.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's some --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We cut some stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's some reduction based
upon where we were. This latest -- the 25 August print,
does that include any elected official compensation
adjustments other than COLA?
8-27-09 wk
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: No, it includes the -- the
fuel and the $1,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It includes what?
MR. TOMLINSON: Fuel adjustment and the
$1, 000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While we're on the
fuel adjustment --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- I know we took
care of that the other day, but our -- our allowance is
about -- what is it, a percent and a half behind the federal
allowance right now?
MS. MITCHELL: Should be 36.5.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I hadn't -- I
don't know what it is, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We haven't talked
about it. We hadn't talked about it.
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the elected officials'
situation, the flat sum, in my mind, is not as equitable as
a percentage amount.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: The flat-dollar amount -- same
8-27-04 wk
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
flat-dollar amount per elected official --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1,000?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- is not as equitable as
doing a percentage across the board, up and down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In other words,
percentage-wise, low -- low-paid folks get a bigger
percentage than high-paid folks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right. So,
what percentage did you have in mind?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have a percentage in
mind. I'm just saying that I think the appropriate way to
do it on an equitable basis would be, if there's going to be
an increase, that it be a percentage amount; that it's more
equitable that way.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: More equitable for
the highest paid ones, less equitable for the lowest paid.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're applying the same
number across the board. Percentage-wise, that can be more
than double on the low one.
MS. NEMEC: I think there was a small study
done a couple of years ago on elected official raises,
whether the Court should grant them a straight flat rate or
the percentage rate, and the discussion was, for example,
the County Attorney's office is at 50-some thousand. And I
think the Court at that time shied away from the percentage,
8-27-04 wk
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because the -- the person that's getting the 50-some
thousand is getting the large increase.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MS. NEMEC: And so I guess you can look at
that two ways, but at that time, that's why they went to the
flat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, in some instances,
like the County Attorney, there's a big state supplement
that goes in there as well. Now, that doesn't mean that you
should or shouldn't give him a higher percentage. I mean, I
guess it's deemed that he should be paid more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, yours and
others is what -- 42-what?
MS. NEMEC: 42,249.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1,000 on that salary
equates to 2.3 percent.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, whether it's a
flat amount -- flat rate or a percent of base, I don't have
a lot of preference, because I don't think we ought to be
giving elected officials anything other than a COLA. I look
back to the 2000-2001 salaries, and then I extrapolate this
year what $1,000 plus $300 plus 3 percent would be, and it
looks like some -- some of the classifications are getting
increases on the order of 20 percent over 3 years. It seems
like a lot.
8-27-04 wk
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: What is that $300 you quoted
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What?
MS. PIEPER: The $300.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 300 -- every elected
official that does not have a County vehicle gets a $300 gas
addition to their salary, because we all -- or pretty much
all use personal vehicles in the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, if you
look at it that way, the way you just looked at it, I think
then you have to give weight to the aggregate cost-of-living
over that same period of time, because that's the reason we
give COLA's, because their salary, at whatever stated level,
has been diminished by the cost-of-living increases. So, I
don't think you can look at it that way and say they got
20 percent. They didn't get 20 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- and I
don't know; I haven't gone back and figured it, but the --
since I've been a Commissioner, overall, I don't think
elected officials -- they haven't kept much, if at all,
above cost-of-living. If you look -- I mean, because the
true cost-of-living -- the employees, we've tried to take a
little bit better care of and have done some, you know,
salary studies and adjustments and things of that nature.
But -- you know, and I think we should look after the
8-27-04 wk
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
employees more than we look after ourselves as elected
officials, but I -- I think if you look back at the
inflation rate over the course of history for the last 10
years, I doubt that any elected officials are gaining much
on inflation rate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, one of the
oldest arguments -- I think Noah's Ark maybe is where it
began -- is that a member of this Court should not give
themselves a salary increase. Well if you don't, how do you
ever do it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't buy that
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, I mean,
just -- there's no -- Tommy can't just give us a raise.
We've got to vote ourselves a raise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, and you can't make
it effective the next year because you don't have any
authority over the next year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take care of it now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That argument is
officially over?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's over. I mean, I'm
happy with $1,000 across the board. That's fine, or -- it
doesn't make that much difference one way or the other.
8-27-04 wk
161
1
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: Do you favor a
percentage, Judge? I raised the issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: I just think it's more
equitable if you're going to do it on a pro rata basis,
obviously. Just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean like lower --
lower salaried folks get a larger percentage? Is that what
you're saying?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you saying?
Tell me what you're saying.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you're saying that -- that
an increase -- an equal increase for everybody, it ought to
be on a pro rata basis, on a percentage basis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whereas -- like, for
example, a -- say we're going to do a 3 percent increase.
Constables would probably get about $900. County Clerk
would get about $1,200.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, a flat percentage.
JUDGE TINLEY: A flat percentage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're
saying. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's basically what
our step and grade is. It's based upon a 2 and a half of
what we're coming from.
8-27-04 wk
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: And it's a percentage --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember the
argument --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- on scale.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember the
argument the Treasurer was -- brought up a while ago. Guys
like David and you and the Sheriff gets these gigantic
raises because they're making so much already.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, of course, old
Clay's right there with him nipping him on the tail.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the old "The
rich get richer and the poor get poorer" theory.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And us get poorer and
poorer.
JUDGE TINLEY: But it's, you know, you guys'
call. Have at it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think $1,000 works.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $1,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we deal
with the pension issue while we're here? We got the
Treasurer here. Pension and the funding for retirees. Can
we deal with that issue?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in here.
8-27-04 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
MS. NEMEC: I believe the Auditor included it
in the figures.
JUDGE TINLEY: 7.90 is in that.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, 7.9 is in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 6.9.
MR. TOMLINSON: 7.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the 50 percent -- that
would be the 50 percent of COLA.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 6.9?
MR. TOMLINSON: Seven point --
JUDGE TINLEY: 7.9.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7.9. That new rate,
including the retirees, is going to be what, 5.6?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, 7.9.
MS. NEMEC: 7.61 without the retirees, and I
believe it comes out to 7.9 with the retirees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There goes one of our
ambulances.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At lunch I saw two in my
precinct, so I guess I need to cough up more money than
everybody else.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
8-27-04 wk
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of the things
I'm worried about is if you get these Commissioners' pay up
so high that some of those City Councilmembers will come
over here and be running for office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't have to worry
about them winning right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is the newspaper
when we need them?
JUDGE TINLEY: Write that down. You can hand
it to her later, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, what is the
dollar impact on this year's budget of doing that retiree
increase thing?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I don't know. I
didn't calculate that. It's -- I just -- actually, it's
less -- it's less -- the gross cost of premium -- or
contribution is less than it was last year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You all have
probably studied this before.
JUDGE TINLEY: $14,500, approximately.
$15,000, based on a $5 million payroll.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think government
entities -- federal, state, local, military -- tend to
8-27-09 wk
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
increase pensions over time. I think private enterprise,
whatever you go out with is probably what you're stuck with
for the rest of -- rest of your life.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm really not aware how
the -- that's the first I've even heard one way or the
other.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I -- I don't have
any problem with using some of our precious dollars to
increase the retirees' benefits.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You don't have a
problem?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have a
problem with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. I'd
like to see it happen.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Pretty good way to
spend money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're saying that
the private sector doesn't do that very often?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They don't have any
obligation to do it, and seldom do it. In fact, these days
most people are -- cash out when they leave. They don't get
pensions; they get -- get cash.
JUDGE TINLEY: Unless the pension benefit
yearly fund has enough dough in it nearly to take care of
8-27-04 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
166
them, and it's -- they have an insured pension.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Many of them have
options, and they always opt for the cash instead of
pension. They put the cash to work. And they know pension
won't -- a lot of them don't trust their employer to be
around 10 years from now. But, anyhow, I think in
government it is common to periodically give retirees a
boost in annuity.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just never could
land on a -- get that real clear in my mind. I look at it
like things like sick leave, having the ability to loan
somebody else or give someone else some of your sick leave.
See, I really can't get my mind around that deal. And --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we do that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A lot of people do. I
don't -- we don't do that.
MS. PIEPER: We don't do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it's been talked
about. It's been talked about.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: City of Kerrville does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, City does it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the pool
concept.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, pool concept.
8-27-04 wk
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's kind of the same thing. I -- I just -- in my mind,
when a person retires, they're no longer employed. You know
what I'm saying? So it just doesn't -- I mean, I'm not
opposed to it. I just don't completely -- can't get my mind
around the 100 percent middle of that one, of giving a COLA
to a person that's already left the employment. I don't
know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, did you have any
questions about what we're doing up here?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm just waiting to get
to the Sheriff's one that you said you had salaries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, can you -- can
someone, or can -- Tommy, can you tell me what is in here
for the Sheriff's Department, what all we added in?
MR. TOMLINSON: It was a $2,000 increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $2,000 for jailers?
MR. TOMLINSON: $1,500 for each Sheriff's
deputy and dispatcher.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The dispatchers is
$2,000. That's along with the jail; that's the same status.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Deputies are $1,500.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much for the
8-27-04 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
168
JUDGE TINLEY: Tell me again. $1,500 per
deputy, $2,000 per dispatcher --
MR. TOMLINSON: And jailers.
JUDGE TINLEY: $3,000 per jailer?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, $2,000 for jailers
and $2,000, dispatchers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're classified the
same in the scale.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And $1,500 for deputies.
That's what's in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much for the
Sheriff?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: 3 percent plus $1,000, same
as all other elected officials.
JUDGE TINLEY: Treated like an elected
official, okay. And -- well, now, wasn't that the primary
difference between the run-up you did between 8 -- 8/23 and
8/25?
MR. TOMLINSON: I just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there are going to be
8-27-04 wk
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
some additional changes.
MR. TOMLINSON: I just recalculated. I think
the first go-round we just had what -- we used the numbers
that -- that we had discussed about -- the retirement, for
one thing, was higher. My run-up calculations were higher
the first time. I had anticipated a larger increase than
what actually you have. It's more noticeable with that --
with that large a dollar amount. And then also, the -- I
don't know what the Sheriff used for health insurance, but I
think the number that I used is slightly larger than what he
used per employee.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know about the
differences in the changes we made between 8/20 and 8/24,
but both of them include the COLA, 7.9 retirement, but the
8/24 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't -- we don't
JUDGE TINLEY: -- had the jail and Sheriff's
Office salaries presented by Sheriff, and I think it
probably also includes $1,000 per -- per elected official,
does it not?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it does.
JUDGE TINLEY: This most recent run-up?
MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: But the increase in
8-27-04 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
expenditures over anticipated revenue more than doubled.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm showing $507,000 on the
first one, and $1,023,000 on the second one. That's more
than doubled. I think I've calculated them correctly.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have the -- I just
have the last one I did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got both.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, our big sheet's
on 18. I guess we've got this one that's undated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The one that says as of
8/23 and the one --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my notation up there.
And then this one, the latest one I showed as of 8/25,
'cause that's when I got it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is your bottom rate
5.641?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, that's the
latest.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the latest.
JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's yesterday's.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh. And that's one that
you indicated it was over a million, at 1,023,191. The --
8-27-04 wk
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I show it to the -- the total
expenditures between the two dates is right at 500,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, about 516, as a
matter of fact.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, more than double.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Double the deficit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. It went from --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or double the
expenditures.
JUDGE TINLEY: Went from 7,000 to 1,023,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it appears that the
majority -- that almost all of that is in the Sheriff's
Department.
JUDGE TINLEY: It would have to be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- there's no
other big changes needed. There's another probably 50,000
elsewhere, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't know what the
$1,000 per elected official increase and roll-up -- and
there may have been some other minor changes made between
8/20 and 8/24. I'm sure there were some.
MR. TOMLINSON: Now, part -- the first one I
have did not include a -- a 3 percent for any of the elected
officials.
8-27-04 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
172
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: So that accounts for --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it says it includes
COLA.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, but I -- I didn't --
the first one, the previous one, I did not include the COLA
for the elected officials.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only for employees.
MR. TOMLINSON: It is included in the second
-- in the last one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That certainly accounts
for some of it. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, I have
no problem with trying to increase jailers' and deputies'
and dispatchers' salaries. The problem I have with it is
that, is it fair or equitable to do it to that department
and not everywhere else too? And I just don't know how I
get my -- to use Buster's phrase, I don't know how I get my
brain all around that as to, you know, where you need the
adjustments the most. I do think there is an issue with the
deputies that -- and I'm not sure how it's accounted for in
some of Dave's research, but the value of the car that they
get helps them quite a bit, in my mind. I mean, it would
take -- and in the average family, you know, you're
8-27-04 wk
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
basically enabling them to -- to have -- instead of two
cars, have one car and then one County vehicle, even though
they don't use it for personal use. I think the reality is
that you can get by with one car in those families, so I
think there's a pretty good value. So, that -- I'm not sure
how much it is. You know, it's somewhere, in my mind, from,
you know, $3,000 to $5,000 a year, because you figure that's
what a car costs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's about -- I can
tell you what my little fleet costs. That's kind of close
to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that needs to
be included. That doesn't mean the deputies shouldn't get
any kind of an increase, but I'm just saying that needs to
go in the mix as well. Jailers and deputies, I believe --
I'm not sure about dispatch, but deputies, I believe we gave
an adjustment last year, did we not, Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. What that was last
year is, if you'll recall, they gave them about half under
Commissioner Nicholson's deal to try and get to parity and
everything, get a little bit closer. To give you a little
bit more information on what you're talking about, the
difference -- the -- if you went with the $1,500 for the
deputies, talking about them right now, that would put the
deputy's pay -- starting pay right at exactly $1,000 less
8-27-04 wk
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than what the Kerrville Police Department starting pay is
for an officer, which is what my big deal is. And that's
why I said I think we would be doing real well at that
point, because of the cars. And in trying to sit there a
while ago and figure, especially with the step and grade
scale and these flat ones that y'all were talking about, if
you were to take -- and what I looked at, to be honest, on
the deputies, and under their current step and grade, which
may make it easier for Barbara, and you took the starting
salary up two steps, which would be from a 19-1 to a 19-2,
the salary increase per deputy then would be right at
1,300-something, would be what the raise would be, which
would put them up closer and leave it about 1,500 -- 1,200
difference due to cars and that. And I think that would
be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Barbara, the deputies
are not on the same scale or program as the rest of us are.
MS. NEMEC: They're on a step and grade
schedule, but they're on a different step and grade schedule
than what clerical are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are the things that
he's talking about, these 1,500's and 1,000's and all that,
it's in that program?
MS. NEMEC: I think the way we would do it is
we would just add the 1,000 to the beginning salary, and it
8-27-04 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
would adjust it all the way across, so we could stay within
the same grade -- step and grade. Is that what you're
talking about, Sheriff, just to add to the base salary?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the way it was
done last year. What I'm suggesting -- and it would not be
quite as much, and, like, we knock the hundred thousand out
of ours on the Capital Outlay. But on the deputy's deal, I
know a 19-1, which is what the deputies are, starting salary
now is 28,151.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
JUDGE TINLEY: 28,151.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we bump that up.
Kerrville police officer's starting salary is 31,325. Okay?
If we were to -- to turn a 19-3 -- from 19-1 to a 19-3, that
would be -- 29,500 would be a starting deputy's salary. It
would be 1,200-something.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just shift the -- shift it
back two steps.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Turn a 19 -- what
currently is a 19-3 to a 19-1, okay? And at that point,
you're at about a $1,349 increase with the deputies, put
them at 29,500 starting salary. Okay? This is before COLA.
This is on the current grade. And then that would still be
a little over 1,200 short of what the -- the City officers
make. And I think you do have to look at responsibilities
8-27-04 wk
176
1
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 two, because the deputy -- you know, four officers
work in 1,100 square miles; it's very, very realistic that
their backup's going to be 30, 40, 50 miles away.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have any other
reasons besides this parity thing? I really don't like the
parity.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just what I was just
starting to say --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- about the
responsibility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amount of miles and --
and response time.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The responsibility, the
dangerousness to those officers, okay, I think is a lot
greater. I think you have a lot of importance, so don't we
kind of add that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But all you've talked
about is parity. And the reason we're doing these
particular numbers is 'cause it puts us within a certain
range of the city -- City of Kerrville, which is -- I
just -- I've told you a hundred times, I hate that. I just
don't think that that is the right way to do it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't mind doing it.
8-27-04 wk
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't think you ought to tie it to that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My job field and my job
field that I have to draw from, okay, to keep officers, not
keep rehiring and retraining and all those, is a whole lot
better if the departments are making similar wages. That is
a very important part on parity and on keeping the officers
of the same caliber. I don't want officers that went to the
Kerrville Police Department first to get hired and weren't
good enough for them and didn't get hired, so where are they
going to go work? The County Sheriff's Department. I think
we've got very professional officers. The other thing is --
is the dangerousness that the officers have. All right? I
have officers leaving my department now -- the last one that
left and went to the Kerrville Police Department went
because he says I don't feel comfortable without backup
within a few blocks from me any more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That has nothing to
do with salary.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It has a lot to do with
the compensation and the job that these officers are
performing for this county. I think they should be
compensated.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's look at it
from a cost control standpoint. I think with a little bit
of effort, we can show that the increases we gave to the
8-27-04 wk
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
jailers last year saved us money; that we got all of it back
and more in turnover reduction. I don't think that problem
has completely gone away. Those are still relatively
low-paying jobs, but I look at -- I do think that the parity
thing is important. But I look at this as a -- as an
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's other things,
Commissioner Williams, that you have to look at, is number
one, the Kerrville Police Department furnishes their
officers with all their equipment, okay? And that's -- you
know, they've gone to the Kimber weapons and that.
Regardless of whether that's what I'd carry or not, that's
an $800 service weapon. It's all the Sam Brownes, all the
leather gear, more uniforms, everything. We never have
furnished our officers with weapons or leather gear or
anything else, and we don't. We don't furnish our
investigators with -- with clothing allowances. Well, they
do. They get about a hundred a month, pretty close. Those
are -- those do add up to a great disparity -- or parity
between the two, and that's what we have to try and battle
and take care of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, I appreciate
fart in this regard. I really do. But I
8-27-04 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
179
right comes at it in terms of parity. I don't support the
parity concept with the City of Kerrville. I'm going to
show you why. Would you give the Sheriff one of these? If
there is any parity or equalization in terms of where the
Sheriff and his deputies ought to be, in my view, it ought
to be with respect to other sheriffs and deputies in other
counties. We're talking about a sheriff's department, law
enforcement county-to-county. I asked you at break time if
you had any bullets in that gun. You said it was loaded,
and I expect you're going to empty it on me before it's all
finished here, but I just don't buy into this city parity
business. I believe we need to be the best of the counties,
wherever they are. Best among ourselves. As I look at this
comparison, which we put together yesterday afternoon,
Bandera, Medina, Kendall, Gillespie, Comal, Hays, Kerr
County, we're not in too bad of shape. In fact, we're in
pretty darn good shape. I threw in two large counties,
Comal and Hays, whose population is considerably larger than
ours, one of them double ours, and our -- our patrol folks
are not too far off. I believe -- I believe we need to make
some improvement. We made improvement last year. But I'd
like for -- I'd like for us to disabuse ourselves of this
notion of parity with the city.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, in reality, I
25 ~ don't think you can if you --
8-27-04 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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not too sure
where you stood on that. Could you say all that again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ask the clerk to read
it back.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Number one, Bandera,
Medina, Comal, Gillespie, the counties you have there, to
give you an idea, last year, Gillespie County felony cases,
if you want to get into that type of stuff, is about
one-tenth of ours. Their arrests are about one-tenth.
Their jail population is about one-tenth.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of course, their
population is less.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is no comparison
at all with those type of counties.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it is --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can compare with the
City of Kerrville. We're all working the same crimes; we're
all working the same area. I think our comparison was a lot
closer, okay?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Calm down, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to break
a blood vessel.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not yet. But I may get
there.
8-27-04 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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because I do not think
you can compare counties with a jail population of 20 to a
county with a jail population of 150 to 192 and say that
that's an equal comparison, okay?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's talk about
jails. All right, hold on.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When you get into these
other counties like Hood, Lamar, and all the rest of those,
the one thing y'all didn't look at in a lot of these things
I saw was, all the small police departments in those
counties that take care of a whole lot of that that -- that
the County doesn't have to worry about. We don't have --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't get the
caseloads. I'm not going to get into caseload with you,
because I don't know any numbers. And it's obvious that the
caseload here is heavier, 'cause our population is double,
or more the size of Gillespie, and -- and it's considerably
greater than Kendall. It's -- Medina is only slightly less
than us, but Hood County is right there with us in terms of
population, and I would suggest to you that the -- that the
count -- the case count is probably just about commensurate
with you. I only threw Hood in there because that's the one
Commissioner Nicholson -- one of the ones Commissioner
25 ~ Nicholson used in his comparison. My -- if you want to be
8-27-04 wk
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
proactive about it, that's fine, but let's keep it --
sheriffs parity with sheriffs, and deputy sheriffs with
deputy sheriffs. Not city police.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, let me
try to convince you otherwise.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who -- who hires the
Juvenile Detention Administrator?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Judge and two
of his colleagues.
JUDGE TINLEY: Juvenile Board.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that job take
more skill and know-how than the Jail Administrator at the
Sheriff's Department?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll defer to the
County Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you've raised children,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I see is that,
essentially, the same -- the same or similar group is hiring
that person at $65,000 a year, and that's $15,000 -- $14,000
more than we pay our top law enforcement administrator. And
I see that job with -- with juveniles and smaller
populations being a job that doesn't require as much
training, skill, and know-how as the -- as the administrator
8-27-04 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
of the Kerr County Jail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, I mean --
jail, I can tell you that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't compare it. I
mean, that's -- I think sheriffs across the state are paid a
lot less than prison heads, probably, and less than police
department chiefs, because they're hired; they're not
elected, and that's just part of the deal. So, I mean, yes,
it's not right. And I agree with you, I think that the
person that's hired out there, compared to salary levels in
the county, is too high. But I didn't have to make that
decision to hire them. And I also think that I hear elected
officials saying that we pay our Road Administrator too
much, but, I mean, the market bears that out. And you --
when you -- you know, the County Attorney is one that gets
a -- and the judges get a lot higher salary, but that's
dictated by the Legislature. I mean, you just can't look
just at the salaries. I mean, Rusty knows that he could
make more money working in the private sector with his
background than he's making here, but he doesn't want to do
that. He wants to be a sheriff, and I commend him for doing
that. I also commend him for trying to -- for fighting for
his staff.
8-27-04 wk
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
I think we need to get -- to me, get more
focus back on -- you know, on the jailer side of it, and
deputy side. The turnover cut-back from our last increase
is something that is pretty measurable, and I think it's
something that we saw -- "we" being the County and
taxpayers -- saw a big benefit by increasing jailers'
salaries last year. We don't have the turnover. And I'm in
favor of, you know, giving them an increase. I'm not sure
if I can get up to $2,000 this year, but I'm in favor of an
increase. Deputies, you know, I don't mind leading other
counties that are somewhat comparable to us in that area. I
think that is a very difficult job, and I think it's a -- I
mean, it's hard to even understand putting your life on the
line every day like they do, but other deputies do it too,
and they do -- some do it in neighboring counties that are
smaller for a lot less money. That doesn't mean we
shouldn't give them some sort of an increase too. It's just
I don't think we need to try to focus on that.
I think I agree with what they're saying.
Parity with the City, it's never going to happen. If we
raise it, they're going to raise it. We go back and forth.
The City does things differently than we do. We know that.
I think, yes, the Sheriff has to be aware of that, of what
they're paying, and he needs to offer something, you know,
to combat that. I think he does. We have cars, you know, a
8-27-04 wk
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
different work environment, you know, things of that nature,
and that's the issue. We just need to try to keep focused
JUDGE TINLEY: What was your turnover --
percentage decrease on turnover this past year? On jailers?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 85 percent less,
probably. It did -- you know, what this Court did last year
did save -- even though jail budget went up, you gave -- it
saved this County -- I couldn't even tell you how much money
in retraining -- or training. Training jailers is a, you
know, 12-week in-house program, 12- to 16-week, and then you
got another 80 hours of Jail Commission required training.
It saved us a lot in uniforms, turnover rate, knowledge,
probably lawsuits, things we can't even really compare --
you know, I can't.
JUDGE TINLEY: What you're saying is it
reduced your turnover rate by 85 percent?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably so, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was a -- a drastic
improvement in our department.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about your deputies?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My deputies, it -- it
reduced that. We haven't -- I've lost about three or four
this year, somewhere around there. I lost two to the City.
8-27-04 wk
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It's not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And hasn't that
declined -- that number declined since you came in office?
You're getting less and less and less --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's declined a whole
lot. We --
JUDGE TINLEY: It was declining before --
before that, and it further declined because of the increase
last year, you think?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Yes, it did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have you got a ballpark,
about, percentage-wise since the increase went into effect
last year?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That one, it's a little
bit harder, 'cause your actual loss is not as great, but
since I took office, probably at least 50, 60 percent less,
you know, than what it was before I took office. Now, y'all
have worked at it, you know, for four years. We -- the main
thing -- one of the big things we did was take care of the
car issue. Deputies wouldn't get in the cars; they were
scared they'd go somewhere else. That helped. I still do
hear about weapons and, you know, Sam Brownes and salaries.
I hear that all the time. I've lost -- the one I lost this
year to the City is a master certified peace officer. You
know, but he could go -- because also their -- their
8-27-04 wk
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
certification difference is a little bit more than ours, so
they get a little bit more for that. They get the leather
gear; they get this, but it's -- we're almost there. And
what I'm asking this Court to do, I think -- I seriously
think that if you did this last step, which is what we're
trying to get, I think you would find that you would have a
lot of people and a lot of officers that would end up being
15-, 20-, 25-year officers with this county, and if you do
that, your solving of crimes is going to jump drastically,
because they're going to know the criminal element. They're
going to have dealt with their parents, the kids, the
grandkids. We know them, know the modus operandi. There's
no way it's a bad investment to treat these officers -- you
know, and if you do the two-step, that's $1,349 on an
officer to get an investment back and a return back that is
unreal. Every time I hire an officer, I always have to
worry. I can do the basic backgrounds; they can come out
the best, but you don't know what's going to happen in all
the high-stress situations and training situations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the increase we
gave jailers last year? Do you remember?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $2,000, wasn't it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was two or three.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three, I think.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was either two or
8-27-09 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
three on the jail last year. It may have been three.
Commissioner Williams, I think it's three.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff -- I'm sorry,
go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What were deputies given
last year?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Deputies, 1,500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your parity analysis,
where you'd like to jump, is predicated on the existing City
of Kerrville salary?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're not trying to
get up to it -- equal to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's not trying to
get equal to it; he's trying to get closer to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the point I'm
going to make is, he's not, 'cause there's going to be a --
there's going to be another increase in their budget too.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question is, how
much?
8-27-04 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
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. But where we
started -- the County started getting so far behind since I
was with the County was those years that, one, deputies
didn't get anything; two, cost-of-livings got excluded out.
It wasn't just in -- in the more recent years that the
County -- the City got good raises for their officers. Now,
you know, they have their chiefs, but what cost Kerr County
in all those prior years is where we really split up. Now,
this Court has been giving cost-of-livings, okay. We just
had never gotten our base back up to where we were close.
Years ago we were right with them, and we had no problems
with manpower or anything else. Of course, both departments
were smaller. But then, when it got to where the County
officers weren't getting anything, the base got so far apart
that even -- and then each year, both departments get
cost-of-living. If you saw last year's, the City got, what,
a 2-point-something cost-of-living. Now y'all are
considering a 3 cost-of-living. I heard the City's
considering a 3. I honestly believe, you know, we're at the
point that can be -- or we can be at the point where you're
going to be going just by cost-of-living differences. And
also, you're going to narrow a whole lot down because the
Court started, in 2000, giving the longevity and the
educational, which had never ever been done, and had always
been done over there. So, that starts keeping us back up
8-27-04 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
there to where we truly have an equal department, and we
will have people retire from the Kerr County Sheriff's
Department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is -- I would
recommend this year 1,500 for the jailers/dispatchers, 1,000
for deputies. And the reason I don't want to go the full
amount is that these are long-term decisions when it comes
to budget, and we have some long-term uncertainty because of
the tax freeze that we have implemented, and we're not real
sure how it's going to be. And I really -- I get pretty
nervous about having too big of a deficit, because I think
we're okay this year to next year, but I'm concerned about
two to three years down --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you
recommending?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,500 for the jailers and
dispatchers, and 1,000 for the deputies, in addition to the
COLA.
JUDGE TINLEY: The COLA goes top-to-bottom
anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15 for jailers and
1,000 for deputies?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And everybody gets COLA?
8-27-04 wk
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: 1,500, jailers and
dispatchers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why is a dispatcher
lumped in with a jailer and not a deputy?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They have -- well, until
we just changed the actual line item on the budget,
dispatcher pay for all the 20 years prior always came out of
the jailers' budget, and they were always classified as the
same. The only thing I did -- and Tommy did when I took
office is, we moved -- in fact, they were in with the jailer
line item back then. We separated them out and moved them
over to the Sheriff's Office budget, okay? Instead of
leaving it in the jail budget, 'cause they don't have
anything to do with jail. But they've always been
classified --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll add on something
to what you've talked about. We haven't dealt with the
Sheriff, but I believe, at the very least -- at the very
least, wherever the chief deputy is, the Sheriff should be
at least $5,000 above. At the very least.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. If I can give you
just a quick little figure, and y'all figure it out, without
the 1,000 -- with the 1,000, okay? And even with -- with
8-27-04 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
the 1,000 for the deputies, which he falls under, and with
the 3 percent COLA for the deputies, which he would fall
under, plus he has a 2.5 longevity starting October 1st, all
right? And the 1,000 for the elected officials, and the
COLA that y'all had figured in, at -- with the 1,000 for me,
he's going to be making a little over $300 a year more than
I am.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not if you follow my
plan.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not if we follow yours,
but that's where you would be at if everything is exactly
like it's going in now. The 1,000 for the elected
officials, 1,000 for the deputies, and the cost-of-living,
he's going to be at about $300 more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think your salary
should be established at $5,000 above the chief deputy, no
matter where the chief deputy ends up.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not agreeing with
that. I agree with the concept. I don't know that I agree
with the amount, because I don't know how you can make that
statement with the chief deputy in this department and not
the chief deputy in every department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not dealing with
25 ~ the chief deputy; I'm dealing with the Sheriff.
8-27-04 wk
193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I know, but you're
basing the Sheriff's salary on the chief deputy's,
basically, and I think that's a -- I don't like that
precedent, because I can see -- you know, she's not here. I
see the County Clerk coming in saying, "My chief deputy
makes this; I want $5,000 more."
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know what the
salary difference is between the chief deputy and the heads
of the other departments. I have a feeling it's very close
to that right now, 5,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: She could probably tell you
here pretty quick.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think, probably --
MS. MITCHELL: No.
MS. NEMEC: There's one that's at 12,000, one
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. NEMEC: -- more. I don't think there's
anyone that's lower than 5,000.
(Discussion off the record.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All your department
heads are way up. It's -- the Nash study messed with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not giving you that
much; 5,000 is plenty.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, y'all help me
8-27-04 wk
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
understand this. You make 51,735.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Clay makes 49,705.
Basically, $2,000 more.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we're going to
give him a $1,500 raise and give you a $1,000 raise.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, you're giving him
1,000 and me 1,000, 'cause you went to the deputies at
1, 000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, 1,000. That's
correct, 1,000 and 1,000.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So the difference
there hasn't changed.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not yet. Keep going.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not yet. And what --
the 3 percent COLA is what -- what bumps him ahead of you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. Then the
2.5 percent longevity that starts October 1st for him, is
what bumps him ahead of me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Longevity, okay.
You're going to have to quit for a couple years, buddy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's only getting his
one-year longevity.
8-27-04 wk
195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: 30 minutes would be long
enough, wouldn't it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. That kind of
money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Then back on board.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. Don't
you feel like that you have to participate in this in any
way? I mean, give up something for the community and your
boss? No, I didn't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have you ever thought about
splitting your longevity with him? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Better off not saying
anything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. You're ahead
of the game, Clay. Just keep quiet.
MR. BARYON: I remember the old days.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My friend Clay
deserves more than what he gets. Okay. So, we -- well, we
need to agree on how many hundreds of thousands the Sheriff
gets, and to keep him --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's do it quick so Kathy can
take a break, okay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said 5,000 -- you
said 5,000 is too much?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll go with 5,000.
8-27-04 wk
196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want 10.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten. And I'll bring
it back down to three.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uh-oh, you're going
south, Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll go with five.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So it's just an
automatic -- what -- you know, if we decided that Clay needs
to have the moon, then the Sheriff's $5,000 more. Is that
what we're saying?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Automatic for this year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can't plan it for
next year. We'll be back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, for more. More
is the way it works.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, 'cause he won't have
another longevity for four years, so you may have it made.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, don't let
me forget the Sam Brownes and the weapons. We'll work on
that next year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Next year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever a Sam Browne
is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the guy that
has that belt that goes across.
8-27-04 wk
197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Holsters.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm at five.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's two fives.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four fives.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The proposal that
apparently is a consensus, 1,000 on deputies, 1,500 jailers
and dispatchers, and Sheriff is 500 over.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 500?
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, 5,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: That may have been a Freudian
slip.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Now, how much
-- how much is that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's up to 60,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is he?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, by the time you
add the COLA. By the time you put the COLA in --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 50-something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, that's not
the 1,000 we talked about before. That's five, period.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't get one plus
five.
8-27-04 wk
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, if you're going to
be five above him, it's going to be one plus five, 'cause
otherwise you'd only be 200 above him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You figured it out.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Already figured that one
out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm telling you, him
and Bill Stacy been around the block.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's going to be six
plus the COLA.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
SHERIFF HIER
COMMISSIONER
above the chief deputy.
COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: Figured it out.
LETZ: We can still reduce it.
BALDWIN: Yeah.
~OLZER: That's the problem.
LETZ: I think it should be four
BALDWIN: My three sounds good,
doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: COLA, 51, 52 -- 57,
58 --
JUDGE TINLEY: Bear in mind, gentlemen, this
is a workshop. We're discussing ideas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Things can still change.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I know that.
8-27-04 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
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 58, 59, somewhere in
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we at the end of this
particular segment? Let's take a break for 15, 20 minutes
here.
(Recess taken from 2:55 p.m. to 3:20 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we go ahead
and come back to order. Commissioner Baldwin will be here
with us momentarily. Are we through with the -- with the
Sheriff's Office issues?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not unless you just want
to hear from me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I am.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For now, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you through with
the Sheriff's Department? Or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Am I through with the
Sheriff's Department?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. You want to
throw a little more fuel on the fire?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hmm-mm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Where do we go next,
gentlemen?
8-27-04 wk
200
1
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 don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't forget -- I don't
think that we ever really completed the County Engineer
issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have not.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're correct, we did not
complete that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have some
Commissioners Court items too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we gotten any closer
to getting an opinion from the County Attorney on that
issue?
JUDGE TINLEY: When I last talked with the
County Attorney, I was advised that he was working on it
just extremely diligently, and it should be forthcoming
pretty quick. And when I -- when I say "pretty quick," I
was speaking within a matter of a week or so when I talked
to him, which was -- I'm not sure whether it was the tail
end of last week or the first part of this week. So, I --
I'm hopeful of having it in order for us to make the
appropriate decision at solving that issue here this
go-around.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- the way I see
it, I think we have a discussion on the County Engineer to
8-27-04 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
have still. We have a discussion on the Ag Barn roof still,
exactly how we're going to proceed with that, and we're
waiting on numbers on one and the County Attorney on the
other.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're waiting on
numbers on the insurance guru.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've got --
JUDGE TINLEY: Not sure we will know those
numbers by this budget, unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Possibly not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Because we're talking about
something that's going to take effect January 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're just talking
about a consultant, aren't you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to wrap up
the volunteer fire department and repeater issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not ready to do
that; we're waiting on KARFA.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First Responder
issue. We still have the airport grant issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or airport funding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I meant E.M.S., not
8-27-04 wk
202
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
First Responder.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: E.M.S. and airport and
other City matters, for that matter.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And if you can do
something with the -- county-wide with the 12's, I know
that's been talked about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then the -- the issue on
trying to raise all the Level 12's to at least a 13. Do we
have 13's? Bound to have 13's if we have a 12.
MS. NEMEC: We have 13's, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many employees
county-wide do we have at Level 12, Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: I would say between 25 and 30.
JUDGE TINLEY: Between 25 and 30?
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's that current
starting rate?
MS. NEMEC: A 12-1.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $18,407 a year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now, are you reading off
the jail schedule, or are you reading off an admin schedule?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Clerical's the same.
MS. NEMEC: Clerical. Clerical.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Clerical's the same.
JUDGE TINLEY: All of these are going to be
8-27-04 wk
203
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
clerical-type employees?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 18,407? What's that come
to hourly?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Eight --
MS. NEMEC: Hourly is 8.85.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 8.85.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It would -- that
would deal with the issue we talked about last year, and
I've got -- still got some -- some sympathy for it, and
that's taking care of people that are paid so little that
they're eligible for public assistance. I don't know if
there's -- but, anyhow, anything we could give them would
get them a little closer to being away from poverty.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's a 13?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A 13 is 19,339 a year,
being 9.30 an hour.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- I mean,
I'd like to know what the budget impact of that change would
be.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just that one? The --
from the 12 to 13? We're talking about -- we're talking
about raising the 12.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All -- yeah. Well,
yeah -- no, clerical. I don't know of any other.
8-27-04 wk
204
1
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: Delete 12.
MR. TOMLINSON: I got a question on that.
You're talking about only the ones that are entry level?
Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- are we going to -- or say
a person is a 12-5. If we raise 12's, are we going to 13-5?
Same -- same step?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think so.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, to give you an
example, if you had a 12-5, that would be 20,318 a year, and
that would go to 21,347, so it would be 9.77 an hour to
10.26 an hour.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What we need is the
number of people impacted and total cost.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 4 said it.
Bottom line.
MR. TOMLINSON: We can't -- is there any
situation where, if that happened, the person that's --
that's a -- like, that moves from a 12-5 to a 13-5 will be
making more than somebody that's already --
MS. NEMEC: It's going to happen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure it will.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As long as he doesn't
8-27-04 wk
205
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
make more than the Sheriff.
MR. TOMLINSON: I can see where you'd wind up
passing somebody that's already -- that's already -- that's
at the entry level that's -- that's at a 14, for example.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like, a 12 -- a 13-5 is
more than a 14-1? Is that --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know; I don't
have the schedule with me, but I'm envisioning that
happening.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it's something
like that. Something like that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You could give your --
MS. NEMEC: It will happen. It's going to be
hard to move a 12 and not move the 13's and the 14's and
just restructure everything. I mean, it's -- you know,
you're going to fall into where some departments, the
employees that are 12's are going to be making more than
people with higher responsibilities.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask this
question. If you had a 12-5 and you moved them to the 13-1,
are they decreasing their salary?
MS. NEMEC: Yes. 12 -- like, a 12-5 right
now is 20,318, and a 13-1 is 19,339.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What if we --
8-27-04 wk
206
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Give your 12's a
two-step -- not a grade, but a two-step increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But then, still, if you
hire a new employee, they go back at a 12-1 then, which is
your -- what if you raised every spot $500, or some just
flat amount? What's that do, Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: What does it do? Raises
everybody $500.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But, Jonathan, if you
turned a 12 -- what is now a 12-3 to a future 12-1 -- you
see what I'm talking about? -- you're raising that starting
salary. That 12-1 right now is 18,407. If, after the new
budget, a 12-1 would be what is now a 12-3, it would be
19,338, and you're just alleviating out Step 1 and 2, and
turning Step 3 into a 1. I think you'd square it all the
way across-the-board.
MS. NEMEC: But you can't do that without
moving everybody else, because what will happen is --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your people already set
at 12-3 would be at 12-5.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, but what will happen to the
13-1? The 13-1, when you do that, is going to be same as
your 12-1. That's why I'm saying you can't move that unless
you move everybody.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all don't forget, we
8-27-04 wk
207
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have a court reporter trying to do all this.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of the problems
is, we got more salary grades than Exxon. Literally.
They're too close together as a result of that, but we're
not going to -- that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next couple years.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, we'll take
care of that three years from now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I guess if y'all are
going to give a certain percentage to the elected officials
for merit increases, you could just kind of suggest they
really look at their 12's and see if they're --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might not be a bad idea
this year to try to -- we're going to be biting off more
than we can afford.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Already have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're right; we
already have. May not be a bad idea to give a pot -- or a
percentage, rather, to each department head/elected official
to use as merit increases, with the idea of raising the
lower end where possible.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just think one of
the major things that we could do -- I mean, really major,
8-27-04 wk
208
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is -- and not this year, but next year, some year, is forget
about all these $1,000 raises and COLA's and all that, and
really and truly wipe out Line 12 and 13, and start
everything on a 14.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, couldn't you --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the only true
study.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But I think the
idea the Sheriff had about giving a -- some sort of a
percentage for merit increases has, you know, merit. It's a
short-term -- it's a bandaid on some of those situations,
hopefully.
MS. NEMEC: What I can do next year is do a
position schedule and move all the 12's and the 13's to a
14, and then distribute that to all the department heads and
elected officials, and then they can kind of look at that
and see where they have to adjust their other employees that
have more responsibilities and the pay is not the same, and
then kind of go from there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the way you do
it, even though it might be more work, is do just what Dave
said; restructure our step and grade and eliminate two
8-27-04 wk
209
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
steps. And just shuffle -- you know, may not be totally
fair, but you end up with a -- you know, or two or three or
whatever, just redoing the whole schedule.
MS. NEMEC: Which is basically what we're
going to do with -- well, we're going to add 1,500 or 1,000
in -- okay. Yeah, that -- that'll work. I mean, we can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's simplified, and that
way you could work out the differences between -- you have
to bump everybody up. Some may, percentage-wise, get a
little bit less compared to someone starting out. Have a
new 14 salary level as the minimum now, and try to eliminate
some of the steps or grades, whichever one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Steps.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Steps.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Steps go across,
grades go up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why do you call -- to me,
that's backwards. Ought to call it grades and steps, then,
instead of steps and grades.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got a new language
down in Comfort now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Besides German?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have the issue
on your list on -- we can probably deal with this one maybe
today, the court reporter's salary.
8-27-04 wk
210
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the court
administrator's salary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And court administrator.
We didn't discuss those two.
JUDGE TINLEY: I had requested -- and I think
it's probably in the -- is it in this current rollup?
MR. TOMLINSON: (Nodded.)
JUDGE TINLEY: It's already included
within -- within your most recent, and that's a $1,000
increase.
MR. TOMLINSON: (Nodded.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure that's
sufficient.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, be my guest. I'm sure
Ms. Banik will dutifully take it down. Roll it out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall giving an
increase there, and I think it's a -- you know, I hate to
use the word "parity." I won't use it. I just think that
the -- you know, for the amount of work done and the amount
of things that we really don't get billed for at times, and
things that, you know, we have requested, Kathy gets it for
us, I wouldn't mind seeing a $2,000 raise.
JUDGE TINLEY: I got no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either.
8-27-04 wk
211
1
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 don't either. And
in this case, Commissioner, you can use "parity," 'cause
it's a court reporter working in the courthouse on county
business.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like "equity"
better. I'm off of parity now; I'm on to equity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, we're going to
equity.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I like that
proposal, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Equity for all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got that, Tommy?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two.
MS. NEMEC: Is that 3 percent plus 2,000?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. Let's take
care of the other one. I think -- I think -- where are we
with -- in terms of the administrative assistant to
Commissioners Court?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Baldwin
had requested that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 28,201. Is that
correct?
MS. NEMEC: 28,009 would be the 19-4, with
8-27-09 wk
212
1
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 longevity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 28 --
MS. NEMEC: 009.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would be current?
MS. NEMEC: That's with her longevity for
next year that she gets. Right -- right now, she's at a
19-3.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, what's a
19-5?
MS. NEMEC: A 19-5 is 28,709. That's without
the 3 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 3 percent. Plus
3 percent COLA?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're proposing a
two-step increase? Two?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, not less than
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I differ a little
bit, and it's nothing at all to do with the quality of the
work. And I think that the -- it's due to what -- I've
spoken with Kathy, but the -- the problem I have is that
it's a -- I would rather wait till next year and get a year
behind. I think it's a bad precedent for this -- for the
Court to set on making a pretty significant salary change
8-27-04 wk
213
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
after employment of about six months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I disagree. I
think -- I think you can take into account the services
rendered and elevation of the office and how much better
things are running here, and reward that accordingly. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we have -- four
evaluations have come back, the Judge and three
commissioners, and the lowest factor is "exceeds
expectations." Most of it's "outstanding." There was a few
"exceeds expectations", but nothing below that, so it's a --
we have all given her very high marks. And I'm going to --
if I ever have the opportunity to vote, I'm going to vote
two steps.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm with two steps.
There's three two-steppers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like it's two
steps.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next issue.
MS. NEMEC: So we're talking about 19-6.
She's at a 19-3 right now. Longevity puts her at a 19-4.
Two steps on top of a 19-4 is a 19-6.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where it is.
MS. NEMEC: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the Sheriff
8-27-04 wk
214
1
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 something to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: He wants to thank us for the
5, 000.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just for clarity.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why don't you go
back to the Sheriff's Office? You are -- you're through.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is just for
clarity, so there's no misunderstanding.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, that was his foot
that he raised up. I thought he stepped on something there,
maybe.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Pretty close.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can give your speech
if you want me to.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably not. In what
Tommy had figured and what's in that, except for cutting it
down to the 1,000 and that, the one other thing that we did
that I presented to the Court was moving the investigators
up to the sergeant level, which is a classification. If
you'll recall, we talked about that. That's already in all
of your figures you have. I just don't want it to get
approved, and officially it hasn't been said, because that
is a reclassification.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your investigators are not the
equivalent of a sergeant? Is that what you're telling me?
8-27-04 wk
215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, they are not. Have
never been. We have -- we're working it, trying to get them
to the equivalent of sergeant. All investigators normally
in departments are sergeants, but they are not -- even
though they have that authority at a crime scene or anything
else, they take charge of it when they're there, it's just
never been classified as that in this department. And that
was taken care of in what Tommy has figured in all our --
our budget stuff, but I just haven't gotten the official
okay that that is what we're looking at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's included
within --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That'll be about it. I
mean, on your list.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm out of money; I don't know
about the rest of you guys. But -- in fact, I've been --
I've been working off that loan you promised to make me for
a pretty good while.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One thing I'd like
to see done, we talked about it a little bit, is that -- the
department heads and elected officials who are involved in
generating revenues through fees, fees that the
Commissioners Court has the authority to set, such as the
Sheriff and constables and others, just -- just quite a few,
I'd like for them to say, "Here's our current fees, and
8-27-04 wk
216
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here's my recommendation. Don't do anything different."
Or, "Increase them," or just -- there may be some -- I don't
know if "significant" is the right word or not, but there's
some revenue generation opportunity that we ought to have a
chance to look at. We don't have to do anything on it.
office -- is that January 1, benchmark on that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is a schedule, and
I have them in here, but January 1 the Court has to set the
fees for the county. Y'all changed some last year, and
that's --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it has to be
sent to the state comptroller by October 1.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I know I have it
in here. There was -- the only difference that I anticipate
at all is there is a -- it's kind of just a miswording that
makes it look like one type of citation could be one fee or
another fee, but I don't intend on changing any, what our
fees are. The big discussion we got into last year was over
eviction fees.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Where it would cost the
landlord 200-something dollars to go down and evict
somebody, and they didn't want to change a lot of those, so
8-27-04 wk
217
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we didn't change the fees. They were in line.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Rusty, what I'm
getting at is, when I go through and scan through there and
look at all 254 counties, we're -- the fees we charge are
down toward the lower half of it. Some -- some counties are
charging twice as much fees here for certain things as we
are. I don't have any information that suggests we ought to
do it, but we might -- might ought to do it, and I'd like to
hear recommendations from you and the constables about
whether or not we ought to raise fees.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll be more than happy
to put it on your next Commissioners Court agenda to discuss
the fees, 'cause it's got to be done before court anyhow.
It's not actually part of the budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And pull up the research
that I can, and see what -- bring you what the other
counties are. There's a book of it, and then just let it be
open for discussion, let the Court tell them where they
choose.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There probably are
areas that you could increase. But I remember that
distinctly, about the eviction being -- that's an unfair
fee.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. Some of that --
8-27-09 wk
218
1
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, it gets real expensive for a landlord to get rid
of someone.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, one of
the issues here is that some of these fees are paid by other
counties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They send us the
piece of paper over here, and before they do, they call and
say, "How much is your fee for this?" And we say ours is
40, and somebody else's is 90, so we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we charge 35.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- we only get 40
bucks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 35 and 40. And
Houston is 55, I think, or 60.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of differences
will be between the 45 charge and the 60 charge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or something that a lot
of them charge 60, and we charge 45.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We may want to take
a look at it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we eliminate the
County Engineer's office, it's my opinion that there are
8-27-04 wk
219
1
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 duties there that do need to be carried on; some of the
plat work, some of the -- those other things. And I would
think that we could take those duties and visit with Truby
and Leonard, and see if they would have any interest in
taking on some extra duties, and compensate them, of course,
accordingly. But I think that we need -- we need to get
them in here to talk with them about it and cut the deal,
and if we can't cut a deal, it's my opinion -- I'm in the
same place I was last year; that if we don't have a good,
rock-solid plan in place very, very soon, then I'm -- I'm
not going to be able to support eliminating the County
Engineer. If we can get a plan in place, and in my mind,
the best plan is to ask Truby and Leonard to take on those
duties --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we know what those
duties are?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, but it would be
pretty easy to -- we could sit right here this afternoon and
come up with those duties, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other thing
that -- and I agree with that, but the -- depending on the
word coming down from the County Attorney, we can always go
back to what was originally set up with the County Engineer
and a $3,000 salary, and have them do very limited plat
work, or -- I mean, engineering-type plat work, and put
8-27-04 wk
220
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everything else off, either -- well, hopefully with Leonard
and Truby. I see that as a way, 'cause we had talked about
hiring a contract engineer occasionally, which makes me
nervous, 'cause contract fees can get out of line. But we
can go back to, you know, having a County Engineer on a
part -- on a true part-time basis for such -- I mean, for
the three or four times a year we need them to do some
analysis or to give some advice from an engineering
standpoint. As I understand or recall, I think -- I don't
know if Dave looked into it or someone else -- when the
original unit system was first set up, the salary of the
County Engineer was $3,000. Somehow, between '87 and now,
it's grown. A lot. So, I think that's another option that
we can look at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Holiday schedule. Anybody got
any specific thoughts on that, to the one that's been
proposed?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think I have
any problem with it. I'd rather have Texas Independence
than Martin Luther King, but that's -- obviously, I'm not
going to get my way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I don't have any
problem with it. The -- you know, noting that there is one
additional day on the schedule than we've had in prior
years, which is fine with me. But I just -- you know, we're
8-27-04 wk
221
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
giving another holiday.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not -- you know,
I'm not going to quarrel, make a big issue of it, but I
don't know why -- 11 holidays is pretty standard in
government and industry. I don't know why we need to go to
12.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's 10 here
on this list.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two of them are two-day
holidays.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you're talking
about days.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, normal days
off.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't care much
about this either, but we're going to get yelled at if we're
not the same as K.I.S.D.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I'm glad she put
that together. There's a Tivy cheerleader. Hey, I know how
it works, man.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You always wanted to be
a Tivy cheerleader?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You bet I did. Never
could find a skirt big enough.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if we're -- I
8-27-04 wk
222
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't have any problem with this way, but if we went back to
11, I would delete January 17th. But I don't have any
strong feelings one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've always noticed -- to
me, we always -- not just us; there's always a whole lot
more holidays in the first half of the year than the second
half of the year. If we can get rid of one, I want to get
rid of one in the first half.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Is this -- is
this decision made in regular Commissioners Court meeting,
or is it part of the budget?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of the budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it? Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, it affects
costs, doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I personally
like -- and I think the employees like having two days at
Thanksgiving and two days at Christmas. I think those are
good holidays, and I would be willing to sacrifice one of
those other days. But, either way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay by me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. When are we going to
gather up next?
8-27-04 wk
223
1
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: A.S.A.P.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tomorrow?
MS. NEMEC: Can I ask a question on the
holidays? Does that include the 23rd as a half-day? 'Cause
I didn't have it on here, but there was a suggestion made
that it be on here, 'cause everybody's going to leave
anyway. So, do we want to officially -- officially do it so
that we don't have a problem? Some are going to get paid,
and some are going to leave and some are going to work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm for that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is this a good time to bring
up the issue of everybody punching in on a time clock?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You haven't told them
about the clocks yet?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have the clocks been
ordered?
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. I think they're
actually in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we go to half a day,
then I have to go in favor of deleting Martin Luther King
Day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I am too. And we
can put off another year putting the parking meters out in
the parking lot.
8-27-04 wk
224
1
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: So we have 11 and a half
official days of holiday.
MS. NEMEC: So, we're deleting Martin Luther
King?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the 23rd, the day of
our Christmas party.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good compromise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Officially shut down
that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, 'cause nothing
goes on anyhow. We might as well shut it down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Tomlinson?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I just want, for a
parting shot, to give you something to think about over the
weekend. This year, you know, we lose about a $400,000
debt.
JUDGE TINLEY: This coming
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is
MR. TOMLINSON: This is our
may have a -- for '05-'06, that could have
on our rollback.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On
dear?
our last year.
last year. That
a negative effect
our what?
8-27-04 wk
225
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Our rollback rate. And
what -- what could happen is that, because we're losing
interest and sinking fund on that debt payment, potentially
the rollback could be lower than our actual rate is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, hope --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But hopefully next year,
when we lose that debt, we lose that tax rate that goes with
that debt. I mean, that's what I want to do.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm talking from experience.
It happened in Bandera.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we could go --
MR. TOMLINSON: This year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could lose the -- is
it half a cent we added for that thing?
MR. TOMLINSON: What happened was that the --
because -- because of losing the debt retirement and the
fact that the -- the values went up, the combination of
those two made the rollback rate go below what -- what the
actual rate was, and so the rate had to go -- the total rate
had to go down. So, my point is -- is that your -- you
potentially could be funding this same budget in '05-'06
with less dollars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That should be fun.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Tommy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hope that's -- I
8-27-04 wk
226
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hope that's a parting shot. (Laughter.)
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I mean, especially when
you -- in view of the fact that we do have this -- the tax
freeze on the 65 and over, so you have -- you're going to
have those two negative impacts the same year.
JUDGE TINLEY: How do we avoid, if we can,
not running the risk of that -- of that rollback --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I hate to say this, but
the law, in calculating the rollback, encourages a county or
any municipality to have debt.
JUDGE TINLEY: To incur debt?
MR. TOMLINSON: To incur debt.
JUDGE TINLEY: Long-term debt.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly right. So --
so, I mean, so the way -- the way to avoid it is to incur
more debt.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Goat barn.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Haul out the Ag Barn.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, that seems contrary
to the way most, you know, business people think, but -- but
that's reality.
JUDGE TINLEY: You've -- of course, you've
got normal bonded indebtedness, G.O. bonds, and then you've
always got C.O.'s. What's the ceiling on those now?
8-27-04 wk
227
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$2 million without voter approval?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I don't think
there is a ceiling.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, there's not a
ceiling.
MR. TOMLINSON: On C.O.'s.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's not a ceiling,
but -- but the limit without voter approval, I think, is now
$2 million, isn't it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've never heard that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Never heard that
before.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think there may be --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think so. Maybe
that's true. I haven't --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think on C.O.'s,
you've got -- if they go above a certain amount, you've got
to seek voter approval. I know that was the proposal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we ask the
County Attorney for an opinion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we'll get it one
day.
MR.	TOMLINSON:	That's	just -	- I mean, in	my
thinking -- in my	analysis, I	-- I see	that	there might	be a
8-27-04 wk
228
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
problem --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next year.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- funding the same level --
making the same level of funding the following year with --
with those problems.
have a little bit larger deficit this year and get some
expenditures possibly out of Road and Bridge and elsewhere
out of the way this year, and tell Road and Bridge you're
not getting anything next year? I mean, is that a -- is
that a smart way to look at it? Or does that make it worse?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it could -- yeah.
Yeah, that could be -- that could help. Because you
would -- you could you afford to lower -- I mean, if you had
to lower your rate, then -- then you could live with it. I
mean, you'd have to have a crystal ball to know what really
is going to happen with -- with tax rates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But it may be --
it may make sense to give the Sheriff six cars instead of
four, and possibly -- I mean, some of these things that are
ongoing every year, knowing that that may give us a little
bit of flexibility next year if we are really in a crunch
because of this.
MR. TOMLINSON: What happened at Bandera was
8-27-04 wk
229
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that the rollback rate actually came in lower than what the
effective rate was, and so -- so they're having to decrease
their tax rate by almost 2 cents.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who did this?
MR. TOMLINSON: Bandera.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, some of us here
on this end of the bench think we can fashion a plan for the
Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center by -- in the next 12
months.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jonathan, I don't know
if a deal just like the lease-type deal would really help,
because you still got those payments the following year.
And, you know --
MR. TOMLINSON: Those are not qualified debt
retirement, anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But accelerating
some purchase of some equipment possibly might work.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Outright purchase could.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: New ag barn will do
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we can get --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't look at Dave.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I still like the
idea of buying a hundred Lotto tickets every month, and if
8-27-04 wk
230
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we hit, we get an ag barn. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mega-Millions will
take care of it for us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, how long do we
have on that radio system? Is that going to be our third
year coming up?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, this will be the
second -- no. No, we -- no, we did. This is the third
year, 'cause we made a payment before we actually ever --
before it was actually finished. So we did -- we did make a
payment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's a five-year or
seven-year?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is the third year. I
think it's seven, because the -- I think it's only, like,
165,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this was at five when
we did that one, right? Originally? Had to be, yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Courthouse was five.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's done this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: And that's going to be our
problem.
8-27-04 wk
231
1
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: And that's the
problem you're alluding to.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you -- it doesn't
help you to incur that -- does it help you to incur that
debt in next year's budget, or do you have to incur it this
year?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, in the -- in the
rollback calculation, you -- the debt -- the interest and
sinking part of the tax rate is exempt. So you get -- in
the calculations, you take -- you remove that rate from --
from the total -- total rate to calculate the rollback.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: So it does encourage debt,
actually. Another thing -- you know, another thing that
might -- that potentially might be negative, too -- I mean,
it's positive in one way, but the -- the equivalent -- the
ad valorem tax equivalent of -- of your sales tax is also
calculated into the rollback, so the -- the larger your
increase in -- in sales tax is, the more impact it has on
rollback. If we were to have a 5 percent increase in sales
tax from -- from '03/'04 to '04/'05, that would make an
impact too. We get the use of the sales tax, but -- but
still it has a -- it has a negative effect on -- on the
rollback rate.
8-27-04 wk
232
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I'm ready to
go home.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I am too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Had a wonderful time.
Good being with y'all today.
JUDGE TINLEY: When are we going to meet
next, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's plan the
next --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say next
Thursday. I mean, I think -- I don't see any reason to meet
till we get some of this information, and hopefully by then,
either Wednesday or Thursday -- Wednesday is bad for you
usually.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, next Wednesday's
good.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's okay next Wednesday.
Thursday is a killer for me all weeks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wednesday's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: You want to try Wednesday
afternoon or Wednesday morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Afternoon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: 1:30 Wednesday afternoon?
MS. MITCHELL: September 1st.
8-27-04 wk
233
1
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: 1 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1:30.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1:30.
JUDGE TINLEY: 1:30 next Wednesday. Let's
put on the agenda whatever we have information to talk
about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unfinished business.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably get someone from
the City on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Should I get to the printer,
get me some great invites worked up, Jon? We'll stand
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court workshop adjourned at 4 p.m.)
8-27-04 wk
234
1
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 22nd day of February,
2005.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ __ _ _____ __________
Kathy anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-27-04 wk